 |
| Where are all those highway 1 retaining walls? |
"Pacificans for a Scenic Coast uses CEQA law to challenge Caltrans Highway 1 Widening EIR."
When: Friday, August 22 at 2 p.m.
Where: San Mateo County Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA." Read article.
Reference - Pacifica Index list of litigation, see Pacificans for a Scenic Coast vs. California Department of Transportation to follow the entire case.
Related newspaper article - Pacifica Tribune Staff, 9/10/13. "CEQA lawsuit filed by Pacificans for a Scenic Coast challenges Caltrans Pacifica Highway 1 widening EIR," "Pacificans
for a Scenic Coast (PSC), through its attorney, former Pacifica
Planning Commissioner Celeste Langille, filed suit against Caltrans, the
San Mateo Transportation Authority and the city of Pacifica under the
California Environmental Quality Act. The suit challenges the adequacy
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Highway 1 widening
project. The suit contends the project was not adequately
described at the time of the EIR, that the project is out of scale with
Pacifica's scenic nature, that the EIR contains contradictory
information on impacts on threatened species, and that the EIR does not
adequately address adverse impacts of the project." Read article.
Note photograph: Caltrans Highway 1 widening at Rockaway Blvd from PH1A anti-highway widening group.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
Where:
San Mateo County Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, Redwood City - See
more at:
http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2014/08/pscs-highway-1-lawsuit-vs-caltrans-goes-to-court-august-22.html#sthash.Jy8gwPoS.dpuf
7 comments:
Let's hope, for the sake of the working citizens of Pacifica and our surrounding neighbors North, East and down the Coast, that these NIMBY liars don't prevail in their frivolous lawsuit.
Why did the chicken cross Hwy 1?
It didn't, it died of starvation before it made it across.
Why was Caltrans able to come up with its highway plan so quickly?
It used a rejected SFO runway design.
Why did SFO reject the design?
It was too large.
Did you hear that Pacifica will be holding a marathon?
Yeah, runners will run from one side of the new highway to the other.
What is 99% of 144 feet?
Fifty-five million united states dollars.
How dare these lying liars lie to us with their lying facts!
Let's hope, for the sake of keyboard activists everywhere, they allow us to keep our heads in the sand.
My fingers are crossed for a fortunate outcome tomorrow. I'm so very thankful for the people involved in getting this ill fated an completely dishonest FEIR to a hearing that will involve the equivalent of adult supervision for the first time in this proposals money burning history. Best of luck tomorrow. Fingers crossed.
Todd
I hope it gets thrown out of court like the first bogus lawsuit.
Then we can all laugh in your face and Loeb and Bohner also.
Then we can try to get the city to go after Loeb and Bohner for wasting taxpayer and city money.
I just got a report that nothing much happened in court today. Mostly procedural stuff.
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER PACIFICANS FOR A SCENIC COAST GAFFNEY, BRIAN First Paper Fee Paid
LANGILLE, CELESTE C.
2 RESPONDENT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION VAN HOFTEN, DEREK S Answer 05/02/2014
3 RESPONDENT SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY MANOLIUS, KIMON Answer 05/02/2014
4 RESPONDENT CITY OF PACIFICA KENYON, MICHELLE MARCHETTA Answer 05/02/2014
Case CIV523973 - Actions/Minutes
Viewed
Date
Action Text
Disposition
Image
08/22/2014 2:00 PM DEPT. 2 HEARING COURT TRIAL.
Minutes
HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: THERESA MARAGOULAS COURT REPORTER: JENELL MULLANE
ATTORNEY BRIAN GAFFNEY APPEARING WITH/FOR PLAINTIFF(S).
ATTORNEY CELESTE LANGILLE APPEARING WITH/FOR PLAINTIFF(S).
ATTORNEY(S): DEREK VAN HOFTEN APPEARING FOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS.
ATTORNEY(S): STACY LAU APPEARING FOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS.
ATTORNEY(S): KEVIN SIEGEL APPEARING FOR CITY OF PACIFICA
ATTORNEY(S): ADAM HOFMANN APPEARING FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
MATTER ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.
Post a Comment