Pacifica Tribune/Letters to the Editor, 3/17/15. "Moving on Highway 1" by Jim Wagner
 |
| Traffic safety. Widen our Highway 1 bottleneck, and let the traffic pass through! |
Every legal claim made by the widening opponents has been rejected by the Judge. That means the environmental documents were done correctly, all leading to supporting the widening project. We know the Hwy 1 congestion delays everyone in south Pacifica, including ambulances. We also know the north end suffers because emergency vehicles cannot easily access the north end during commute hours.
Additionally, funding is already lined up through the one-half cent sales tax add-on we pay to the Transportation Authority. It's about time we got the tax money we all pay for to fix our local coastal road! Any further legal delay from project opponents will really be sour grapes. Let's get this bottleneck fixed!"
----------
Note CalTrans photographic simulation from Pacifica Patch/Hutch (Open Post), 8/22/14, "Fix Highway One." "Key View #19, Landscaped Median, looking northbound past the Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue intersection." The entire highway 1 widening Fassler through Vallemar is 1.3 miles. For Fix Pacifica reprint articles, "search this blog": Highway 1.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
37 comments:
PSC & PH1A Take Legal Action Against Caltrans
By Peter Loeb
On March 5, 2015, Pacificans for a Scenic Coast (PSC) and Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives (PH1A) sent letters of intent to sue Caltrans for violations of the federal Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act for the Highway 1 widening project. These notices are about a federal lawsuit, not the state lawsuit that is awaiting final judgment.
The notices were prompted by a notice Caltrans published in the Federal Register in December 2014 that said that if there was going to be a federal suit on the highway widening project, the suit would have to be filed by May 8, 2015 or we would be forever barred from filing a federal lawsuit. This forced our hand. We had to look at whether there were grounds for a federal lawsuit, and then filing if there were grounds. If we didn’t, the door would be permanently closed to this option.
We determined that there were grounds. Then it turns out that to file a federal lawsuit, there has to be a 60-day notice of intent to sue or the federal suit can’t go forward. To keep our option open, we were required to send notices so they were received by March 8. We had to put a placeholder down or we would forever lose the opportunity to file a federal suit if one was warranted.
If Caltrans had not published its notice in the Federal Register, we may never have considered a federal suit. The Federal Register notice made us look at whether there was a reason that Caltrans would want to bar us from filing a federal suit. Our research showed that there are some very good reasons why it wouldn’t want us to do that — Caltrans has violated federal laws.
The 60-day notice of intent to sue for violations of the Endangered Species Act was sent to Caltrans, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, GGNRA, and Army Corps of Engineers.
The 60-day notice of intent to sue for violations of the Clean Water Act was sent to Caltrans, San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and the City of Pacifica because the city is legally a “necessary and indispensable party” to any decision in that lawsuit.
The two notices of intent to sue (click links below for PDFs) explain what the violations of federal law are:
CWA Notice
ESA Notice
Well, Loeb has broken his silence. Are we happy now? I'd like to think Judge Weiner's recent decision would kill a federal lawsuit, but I doubt it. Just put this fucking thing on the ballot, run your campaigns and let the voters decide. City Hall, you can do this.
City Hall is scared witless of Loeb and his goons. Thus he won stopping 2 developments at the Quarry and is doing his best to stop Highway 1.
Thank you, Peter et al. Thank so much.
You'd think City Hall would love to get their asses out of the flames and put this item on the ballot. Settling things by a vote is the American way, isn't it? Loeb knew this and used it to let the voters stop those two developments. That's right, the voters stopped them and Loeb gave them the opportunity to do so. A dangerous kind of guy. If it goes on the ballot just think of the campaign events...just because tri-tip and beer didn't work for Peebles is no reason not to try it again...
We've heard so often from the widening boosters that they represent the majority - they should work hard to demand a referendum to prove they are right. Bet they come up with excuse after excuse why the public should NOT have their say.
Toddler,
Why don't you do something useful like bringing ideas forward that will create revenue in Pacifica.
Are you capable of that?
351 you mean like put up or shut up? You'd think they'd welcome the chance to prove they represent a majority of Pacificans on this vital issue. But a public vote is scary stuff because instead of having to influence 3 of 5 politicians, you'd have to rely on the good sense of thousands of Pacifica voters. And you know what thousands of Pacifica voters can do.
446 Going through my check list. Didn't take you long to come up with that one, check!
This is an interesting if not unexpected development.
446 He is. He wants to protect the businesses along the highway and in Rockaway. I know they're nothing compared to all that growth you envision via a wider highway, but, let's be fair to Todd. He wouldn't kick our existing Rockaway Business District to the curb.
Hmmm, SF tried to set up toll booths on 101. Senator Jerry Hill thought that foolish. But I guess I would vote to deliberately delay an ambulance on our Hwy 1. That's the ticket! Maintain our congestion, commute delay, ambulances stuck in traffic and blow off tax money we already pay.... You betcha...
I'll apologize in advance for my naivety, but isn't the Hwy corridor actually the property of the State and Caltrans just its agent. If that is the case, I don't see how a nay vote by City Council or a nay by popular vote would stop this project. It seems to me that Caltrans has every right to improve their property in the manner it deems appropriate as long as they do not violate any existing laws.
a freeway in pacifica is so bogus, right on peter
Anonymous 6:35
Pacifica must ask for the measure A money or there is no project.
635 The only problem with your naivete is that it might make you susceptible to the load of horseshit dumped by 553.
Stay well back and educate yourself on the issue, and remember, if it sounds too good to be true...it probably is...and someone probably thinks they'll make money off it. Yeah, in all things, follow the money.
Pacifica is a sponsor of the project. Caltrans needs a permit from Pacifica to build the project, and also a permit from the California Coastal Commission. Pacifica must request allocation of $4 million from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for final design of the project (Measure A tax money). Caltrans said that if Pacifica says no to the project, they won't build it.
Thank you 7:18 and 9:30 for the clear reply.
Just say no.
NIMBY invasion. 713 Surfer, a 1.3 mile highway widening is not a freeway. But, interesting idea: maybe a wider highway might better have been build 30 years ago all the way to Los Angeles. Seems like coastal roads all need widening at this point.
Appreciate the procedure clarification from Tom Clifford, 718. City Council will vote.
821, the money may be made by the anti-highway widening attorneys, at the sacrifice of the needed highway widening in this city. And 635 and 553 support progress and highway safety, not your kind of people.
"The money may be made by the anti-highway widening attorneys"
They are working pro-bono (AKA free).
"Follow the money"..........
no truer words ever spoken.
Follow it right into the pockets of the faux-enviros who's profession is sucking off the taxpayers to cover their scurrilous lawsuits.
These parasites will get theirs someday.
Wake up Pacifica. You're being had.
Scurrilous lawsuit? Yo, Mr. President, put the Supremes on standby because 834 finds this suit spurious and meritless. Where's Seal Team Six today? Bibi left the country, right? This is big.
Follow the money and listen to who supports this project and you'll find realtors, developers, service providers, building trades, insurance brokers--basically anyone who could possibly make a dime off of growth. It's a growth-inducing project that fits in with the bureaucrats regional plans for the coast. Sure doesn't fit in with Pacifica. What? You thought it was about safety? You so silly.
1034, so far the lawsuits against the highway improvement (widening) in this city has failed in court 2x. So far, it appears that 8:34 is correct, and who knows what you're talking about.
832, any technical eco-lawsuit wins against government, potentially makes the anti-highway improvement (widening) lawsuit not "pro-bono (aka: free)". And seriously, do you think eco-attorneys (a cottage industry it seems), including those connected with the Center for Biological Diversity, do anything for "free"? The CBD link is included for you to view all their current lawsuits. Remember the lawsuits against Sharp Park Golf Course? If not Google them, "connect the dots" (and all that).
If you like snarled traffic that goes on for miles and love the smell of carcinogens coming out of the tailpipes all around you move to Half Moon Bay.
Lovely little ocean town absolutely unlivable because of choking traffic.
Really... MOVE to Half Moon Bay, please.
1219 its about people stuck in a potentially dangerous and time consuming traffic bottle neck daily. Its structural: traffic ingress and egress from multiple directions.
The traffic bottleneck through Pacifica is not a new city and regional issue. And this traffic bottleneck issue is not getting better over time. Time to fix it. As Jim Wagner said in his LTE (article above), the Measure A money available to us is our tax money, which may be used now (not later) for this purpose.
What appears to be "silly" is your comment-- and NIMBY insistence of no problem, coupled with no solution (other than dreams). Dream on.
Oh the eco-lawsuits, disruption of frogs food for snakes habitat, and the waterways-- all which may be mitigated. So far, those lawsuits are "silly" too.
"...any technical eco-lawsuit wins against government, potentially makes the anti-highway improvement (widening) lawsuit not "pro-bono (aka: free)"."
Wrong. The lawsuit was only to stop the project, with no monetary damages asked for. CBD is another matter, but we're not talking about them.
752, all three (3) are named plaintiffs together in the two (2) federal lawsuits, so contrary to your comment, we are talking about them. See links on the Pacifica Riptide article.
You're saying Pacificans for a Scenic Coast and Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives attorneys would forgo (in effect gift) any potential financial award for technical violations to the Center for Biological Diversity? That is committed, but seems unlikely.
There is nothing in the lawsuit asking for any "financial award for technical violations". You can't just make stuff up.
Who pays attorney fees?
1123, well duh. Any win, however small, will be an opportunity for a big eco-attorney payday. As you may know, lawsuits are generally made-up of several mini-actions within the larger lawsuit, so that's the reference.
Question: its there a government provision that failed eco-lawsuits are also paid?
LMAO. Attorneys who represent enviro causes or clients, who might even make a specialty of it, shouldn't be paid in whatever manner is standard. Really? It's Holy Work, is it? I guess living in Pacifica with all its economic frustration can really warp your otherwise relatively sane and reasonable, dare we say Liberal, perspective.
I believe we've seen that losers in these types of cases can receive monetary awards by the judge. Based on the attorney proving the case had value to the public. That can be done in most of these enviro cases and costs, time and labor, etc. are awarded. Plater has received multiple paydays in just this way and he's not unique in that. The same happens with public policy lawsuits, public safety, blahblah. All part of our system of laws and checks and balances.
So shouldn't Loeb and his "legal beagle" publish that they will not in any way be compensated for their time and resources regardless of outcome?
Why? Because you don't approve or agree? Remember, Pancho, it's the City of Pacifica that took the vow of poverty decades past, not individual residents or their lawyers.
Now I read where the obstructionist jerks from Center for Biological Diversity are joining the other obstructionists. I want this long-needed improvement completed ASAP! For God's sake.
Post a Comment