Friday, June 7, 2013

Bohner/Loeb vs. Route 1

Opposing any safety improvement on Rt. 1, the Gang of no strikes again. Never try to cooperate, even for the good of the entire community .

They will not wait for the facts to come out in the final environmental impact report regarding the Rt. 1 safety widening..

They think their opinion is superior to the safety issues and commute delays suffered by over 18,000 Pacificans and south county drivers.

Sounds pretty arrogant to me...

Submitted by Jim Wagner


 Hal Bohner


115 Angelita Avenue • Pacifica, CA 94044

phone 650-359-4257

Sent by email June 4, 2013

Mayor Len Stone

Mayor Pro Tem Mary Ann Nihart

Councilmember Sue Digre

Councilmember Karen Ervin

Councilmember Mike O'Neill O'

Re: The proposed Calera Parkway project

Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members:

I represent Peter Loeb who is a citizen of Pacifica, and I am writing to you concerning the proposed project to widen Highway 1 in Pacifica which is known as the Calera Parkway project. The proposed project is the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment titled "Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment for State Route 1 / Calera Parkway / Highway 1 Widening Project San Mateo County, California 04-SM-1 / PM 41.7/43.0 / EA 04-254600."

We request that the City of Pacifica immediately cease all actions concerning the project. The basis of our request is that the project is inconsistent with the Pacifica General Plan and the Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

The City has already taken actions in support of and as part of the project, and it is apparent that the City is planning to take further such actions. Examples of such actions are: the City is a sponsor of the project and the City Engineer, representing the City, has been meeting with the Project Development Team. Moreover, the City proposes to build the project, along with other government agencies. Furthermore, on June 25, 2012 the City Council adopted two resolutions intended to support and advance the project, one authorizing staff to nominate the project to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the other identifying the City's preferred alternative.

The law requires that actions of a city not be inconsistent with the city's General Plan. The California Supreme Court has made this clear, stating, "[T]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553. And a California Appellate court has stated, "The general plan functions as a "'constitution for all future developments,' " and land use decisions must be consistent with the general plan and its elements." Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 2

Cal. App. 4th 777. Furthermore, the Calera Parkway project would be located in the Coastal Zone and therefore the project must be consistent with the Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan. However, the Calera Parkway project is not consistent with the Pacifica General Plan or the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

There are many inconsistencies between the Calera Parkway project on the one hand and the Pacifica General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan on the other. Some examples are the following:

The General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan state that improvements to Highway 1 in the vicinity of the quarry site and Rockaway Beach not increase the capacity of the highway (e.g. General Plan -1980 p. 79, Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan p. C-48 and p. C-112). However, the Caltrans project is specifically designed and intended to increase capacity (e.g. Draft EIR p. 69, p. 191).

As another example, the General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan provide for a frontage road to be built to the west of Highway 1 connecting Francisco-Bradford Way in Fairway Park to Old County Road in West Rockaway (e.g. General Plan -1980, map immediately following p. 74 and Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan p. C-48). However, the Calera Parkway project does not include a frontage road and the project is clearly intended to preclude the need for a frontage road.

As a further example, the quarry site is designated in the General Plan and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan as a Special Area and therefore the area must be developed as a unit (e.g. General Plan -1980, p. 75 and map immediately following p. 74). Before there is development in a Special Area a comprehensive plan for developing the site must be approved (Pacifica Municipal Code 9-4.4504). However, the Calera Parkway project is the only project presently planned for the quarry site, and much of the quarry site is undeveloped open space. It is clear that the Calera Parkway widening project will develop a portion of the quarry site and will necessarily determine future access to the quarry property. The project will do this in a number of ways, such as by determining and limiting possible entrances, exits, new or additional intersections, and the design and capacity of the Vallemar and Rockaway intersections, all of which will constrain future roadways through the quarry site and circulation patterns within the quarry site. Thus the Calera Parkway project will have significant impacts on any future development of the quarry property.

Please provide us your assurance that the City will immediately cease all actions concerning the Calera Parkway project because it is inconsistent with the Pacifica General Plan and the Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan.


Hal Bohner

Copy: Peter Loeb


Steve Sinai said...

I really hope nobody believes the NIMBY crap about how they want to improve traffic flow on Highway 1, but just don't want it widened.

They want to keep traffic jammed because it discourages development.

Kathy Meeh said...

More NIMBY legal threats against city progress, the people of this city, and our regional traffic flow.

Anyone tired of being pelleted with 30+ years of "NIMBY crap" yet? Yep, "NIMBY crap", that's what it is, Steve expressed that one perfectly. Isn't it beyond time for more people who want a better city (what's left of it) to speak-up, and stop coddling this ideological intimidation?

In any event, CalTrans and the city are likely correct, based upon several years of Calera Parkway project land use planning research. Any adjustments needed, if they exist, are surely possible, just part of the process.

Putting this highway widening improvement in perspective, CalTrans is planning to widen 1.3 miles of highway 1 to improve traffic flow in and through Pacifica. The last major highway improvement (highway widening in Pacifica) occurred in 1965 (48 years ago). See the related Patch article (Camden Swita) on Highway 1 LTE, 5/4/13, (Mike Calderaro) also posted today.

Anonymous said...

And city council will buckle and give in to them.

Wait watch and learn.

Anonymous said...

you have to love Loeb And Bohner, absolutely no shame in either guy. They say this project cannot proceed because there is no development in the quarry, and it will affect future development in the quarry.

Yet these 2 have been the major block on development in the quarry. Just blows the mind.

Matlock said...

It's some desperate logic to think the city's general plan, which nobody pays attention to, legally overrides a state highway project.

Anonymous said...

Loeb, is the resident genius over on rupture.

What he says is gospel, and we should all bow down.

Hutch said...

Does anybody else read his name as Boner? Ok I got that out of my system.

I'm not going to spew another word on that.

Peter Loeb, the man who claims he wants to help Pacifica is at it again. Please don't help us again Mr Loeb. You have helped us much too much already.

I hope to God this council does not give Lex Luther and the Joker any weight at all.

Anonymous said...

Council will give in to these two bozos.

Anonymous said...

No frontal loeb says: "the City proposes to build the project, along with other government agencies."

Pacifica is not building this project. They have nothing to do with building it.

I hope Peter didn't pay this guy too much money.

Steve Sinai said...

"Council will give in to these two bozos."

I bet it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

This guy(Bohner) reminds me of Harvey Levin, on TMZ.

When he says. I'm a Lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Funny how a demand letter that City Council meet it statutory obligations has caused such a gnashing of the teeth by the build-it-out DUMBOS (demand unlimited mindless build out syndrome). Clearly it has struck a nerve. No political future for those on Council who make this mistake.

Anonymous said...

It's telling that Loeb had to get another NIMBY for this farce. No doubt it's pro bono because no would waste money paying a "real" attorney on this wild goose chase.

Anonymous said...

How is this approach arrogant? Asking the City to address this issue based on the General Use and Local Coastal Land Use plans that are guiding documents for development in Pacifica seems logical and appropriate. Requests have been made through channels for months to have City Council engage in conversation with the community and publicly state the position of the city. Broad community support beyond those that folks here enjoy branding the "gang of no" have shared concern about this project that would construct a wider chasm dividing Pacifica with pavement and offer no real value (other than maybe 5-10 minutes of a faster commute time during the 45 minutes a weekday that there is traffic).

Let's look at alternatives to safety if that is the concern that keeps coming up most (though there has not been a single reported issue of traffic causing any emergency response time delays).

Timing of signals at a minimum needs to be seriously considered before any construction. The proposed frontage road could also be a better way, connecting areas of Pacifica with an alternate travel path for those that don't have the need to speed through. Additionally it could provide connection between the revitalized Palmetto / Beach Boulevard area and the Rockaway Beach visitor area. Win Win Win.

Thank goodness for Pacificans like Peter, Hal, and Highway 1 Alternatives for speaking out and not giving up.

Tom Clifford said...

Weather you like Hal Bohner or not he is a very real attorney with a good track record.

Kathy Meeh said...

"Weather you like Hal Bohner or not he is a very real attorney with a good track record." Tom Clifford, 1:16 PM.

And that may make Hal Bohner an actual threat to highway widening improvement in this city. CalTrans and the City will deal with it.

"We should do nothing" Anonymous 12:00 PM, you could view the 1.3 mile highway 1 bottle neck correction as a safety and time advantage for everyone who travels highway 1 through our city. Oh, and the air will be cleaner, you probably like cleaner air.

Anonymous said...

Kathy, unsure of the quote "We should do nothing" that is noted in regard to the comment from anonymous 12pm. Don't see that quote anywhere in the comment.

The comment mentions timing lights and possibly less obtrusive projects than widening the highway. Driving Highway 1 many times a week, and rarely experiencing a traffic delay, hard to say this will save so many people so much time. How about everyone allowing a little extra time to get to where they need to go, pulling over to the side if / when there are emergency vehicles needing to get by, and enjoying what we have in this wonderful city by the sea? Cost? lots less than highway widening. Benefit? less stress and enjoyment of the scenery, priceless! Clean air... yes, love it, and we have some of the best air quality in the area here in Pacifica. Regardless, even better than speeding through Pacifica is carpooling or driving an energy efficient vehicle. Really, there ARE other solutions than highway widening.

Anonymous said...

bohner and loeb are engaged in time honored delay and muddy the waters tactics. The letter is merely lawyer talk. The real action will be when the final EIR is issued and answers are generated to all the comments. Then Bohner can sue.
The truth of the matter is all Bohner's questions have been addressed in the in the draft eir. It's a lot of reading but the bottom line is Rt. 1 is a regional arterial, the only way out of town for south Pacifica and used by at least 18,000 Pacifica residents including, yes, Bohner and Loeb....

go to page 45 of document (if you have an Adobe toolbar at bottom of doc with a counter, its doc page 100 after all initial tables and summaries) . CalTrans and trans authority already looked into this.
See Section
Regional Transportation Plan
The project is listed in, and therefore consistent with, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Transportation 2035, which is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It is also included in the adopted 2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the San Francisco Bay Area.
City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan
The project is consistent with the City of Pacifica Local Coastal Land Use Plan, which states that highway improvements should also increase the safety of existing intersections along SR 1, including access to the quarry (opposite Reina Del Mar Avenue) and Rockaway Beach Avenue. It also states that SR 1 should be considered a multi-modal travel corridor and pedestrian, bicycle, bus transit, and emergency vehicle access should be included in any planned improvements.
Chapter 2
Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences & Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
State Route 1/Calera Parkway Draft EIR/EA
Widening Project in Pacifica 46 August 2011
Rockaway Beach Redevelopment Plan
The project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for the Rockaway Beach Project Area, which calls for construction of right-of-way, intersection, and traffic control improvements to enhance vehicular and pedestrian circulation on Highway (SR) 1.
Pacifica Bicycle Plan
The project is consistent with the Pacifica Bicycle Plan, because the existing two-way bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to the west edge of the highway north of Reina Del Mar Avenue would be reconstructed along the west edge of the widened highway and upgraded to a Class 1 bike path. Bicycle/pedestrian access between Reina Del Mar Avenue and Rockaway Beach Avenue is served by an alternate Class I trail that leaves the highway at the main quarry road and extends in a curving route south to Pacifica State Beach. The existing two-way bicycle/pedestrian path west of the existing highway south of Rockaway Beach would not be altered by the highway widening.
Pacifica General Plan
The project is also consistent with the general plan of the City of Pacifica, which identifies SR 1 as a major transportation facility. The
Pacifica General Plan contains a number of policies that are relevant to the proposed project: Circulation Element Policy #4: Provide access which is safe and consistent with the level of development.
The project is consistent with this policy since it proposes access and safety improvements to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes.

Markus said...

Let's waste another 30+ years to discuss this project, to make certain nothing ever gets done!

Anonymous said...

you really gotta give it to bohner and loeb. They never never let up. And they refuse to do what's good for the entire town while wrapping themselves up in the most self righteous attitudes possible. Then they always fall back on their small group of supporters to try to wear everyone else out with repeated lengthy meetings on work days. I really wonder if they ever agree to anything?
So, some parents at Vallemar school have told me Bohner went to the district superintendent to argue that the district buy buses which they can't afford and back off school start times which the parents can't accommodate. He was told no on both issues. [ Reminds me of that guy Campbell who ran for Council--drop the kids off at the police station and have them either walk back thru the brush behind the station to school, or walk around down the highway to Reina Del Mar to school in the rain...]
But anyway, Bohner and his Gang of No still talk as if both are viable solutions...Gotta love them!

Numbers Nerd said...

Wonder if anyone has attempted to calculate the economic loss the delays and traffic jams exact? Even 15 minutes a day of sitting in traffic coming and going is an hour and a quarter a weeks. Over a weeks worth of waste productivity in a year. What's a week work?

Lionel Emde said...

"They think their opinion is superior to the safety issues and commute delays suffered by over 18,000 Pacificans and south county drivers."

Oh Jim, what crap. You don't have any evidence of "safety issues" any more than the three retired firefighters did in their letter to the Tribune. They talked about something about which they couldn't cite one good example.

Solve the problem about several thousand school-time commuters taking their children to school, and you solve most of a problem that is being used by Caltrans to justify a six-lane freeway segment.

Steve Sinai said...

Southbound Highway 1 jams up during evening commute hours, long after school has let out.

Anonymous said...

What?!? Someone who has previously wasted city resources on silly and frivolous lawsuits backs this silly and frivolous lawsuit?!? What a shocker.

I don't know how these people who waste our city's precious resources sleep at night -- particularly when those same resources could be helping people at places like the resource center. It's utterly shameful.

Hutch said...

Yep traffic jams every afternoon and today (Saturday) too.

That old rant about school time traffic causing all the problems doesn't hold much water.

Fire and PD have said this is an issue. It's common sense. If a highway is backed up it's going to delay emergency response. You don't need a study to know that minutes count in a life threatening situation.

These enviro-nuts must be ignored an marginalized as they did to us for 30 years. I've had enough of them ruining this city.

Lionel Emde said...

"What?!? Someone who has previously wasted city resources on silly and frivolous lawsuits backs this silly and frivolous lawsuit?!? What a shocker.

I don't know how these people who waste our city's precious resources sleep at night -- particularly when those same resources could be helping people at places like the resource center. It's utterly shameful."

So what exactly do you do for the general civic good- other than stare into your smart phone and tell us all that we should accept a freeway?

Anonymous said...

This is going to get ugly. It'll play out like the bypass that became a tunnel. What did that take? 25 years?? Don't spend all that money from all that development just yet.

Anonymous said...

Gosh. Now they're calling each other arrogant. Harsh. The crafty old eco-warriors vs. Pacificans for Ka-Ching. When it comes to arrogance and their presumption of some admirable higher purpose the sides are pretty evenly matched. When it comes to large scale public projects and the large scale money that goes with, he who lies best, wins.

Anonymous said...

Lionel, they mentioned your lawsuit and trotted out the poor, short-changed Resource Center. All they needed for the Trifecta was to announce the hippies are dead.

Anonymous said...

So I heard one of the council members is calling people saying to take down posts on the blogs.

3 guesses to who it is.

Anonymous said...

I would hope a councilperson is not breaking the law by telling people what to put in blogs.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of expression free from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press

Anonymous said...

"what exactly do you do for the general civic good"

What I DON'T do is waste very scarce city resources and distract from the myriad of actual problems facing the city with frivolous lawsuits.

Steve Sinai said...

"So I heard one of the council members is calling people saying to take down posts on the blogs."

Are you hearing these things from a six-foot, invisible rabbit? Better go see a psychiatrist.

I have yet to receive a phone call from a council member.

Anonymous said...


dont you have anything better to do than make up rumors and plant them on the blog?

Steve Sinai said...

7:12 - jobless in Pacifica, and jobless in Texas.

todd bray said...

Steve, when Mary Ann was first elected she called me quite often to rant about something I had post on one or all of our local blogs and or a Letter to the Editor. So it does happen even if it hasn't happened to you personally. Unfortunately for me I used to adore Mary Ann, but since she's been in office I've had to shelve those feelings as she has become that little fella from the Twilight Zone that would banish people who displease her to "the corn fields."

I miss the real Mary Ann.

Anonymous said...

You been played, for a vote!

Anonymous said...

Bray, TMI. Adored?? You ran into a real control freak with a new arena to expand in. They can get a lot done if they don't freak!

todd bray said...

Rantanon @ 3:54, I never vote for her. The lead up to her first election Mary Ann showed my a person, sadly, I couldn't support.