Friday, August 22, 2014

Hwy 1 before and after widening renditions


We're hearing a lot about how huge and ugly the proposed highway widening is going to be. Many dramatic claims of cementing over the coast and giant retaining walls. 
People are claiming this will be bigger than an eight lane freeway going through town.

What if we could see what it looks like? If you look at the EIR they actually have renditions showing before and after views of the modernization. To me and people I've talked to the after pictures look much better than the old beat up highway. It doesn't look that big and it definitely looks safer with designated onramps etc. I don't see many retaining walls either. Decide for yourself.







Submitted by Bob Hutchinson

185 comments:

todd bray said...

These photo's illustrate just how misleading the FEIR is, and purposely so. The top two photo's are not of the Fassler/SR1 intersection but are several hundred feet north of the intersection showing the onramp to SR1 from Hickey. In fact the FEIR does not illustrate the northbound Fasslar SR1 intersection at all, because it can't. there is a Shell Station in the way. These flagrant misleading inadequacies', among hundreds more, are the reason litigation is brought against would be government agencies that think they are above the law.

todd bray said...

OOPS, Correction: The onramp is from Harvey way, not Hickey.

Anonymous said...

You can tell when a truth bomb has been dropped on Fix Pacifica because the damage control team starts going berserk.

4 articles about the widening in 2 days? Impressive, fellas. Ain't gonna shrink the size of that 144 foot monstrosity down though.

144 feet wide?! An 8 lane freeway is only 132 feet wide!

Kathy Meeh said...

701, FYI, related information articles in draft are often posted together when available. That's how that works, as in the Highway 1 widening example you cite: 1) the "Let's get it done" background article, 2) the current eco-court case (mentioned in #1), 3) the researched reference documents, 4) the photographs of changes (before/after).

Hence, your comments reflect your twisted NIMBY anti-everything progress "truth" (translation: false reasoning which has systematically blighted this city).

The highway widening includes adding two lanes (6 lanes vs. the current 4 lanes), within the 1.3 miles. Modernizing highway 1 will improve traffic flow through the known Calera Creek (Rockaway/Vallemar) traffic bottle neck.

Fear not, highway and city improvement is not the end of the world. Its 14 years into the 21st century. Moving forward.

Anonymous said...

Todd did you want to see your house in the pic? Sorry it's been moved to Columbia, Ca. You should love it there, nothing ever changes.

Anonymous said...

The "after" pictures around me and make butterflies in my stomach! Widen it Baby!

Anonymous said...

Are there any illustrations showing impact to parking/access to Pacifica Pet Hospital and Vallemar Station/Gorilla Barbecue? Also the Shell station and Loveys?

Anonymous said...

No illustrations of impacts on the east side businesses. The owners of the Pet Hospital submitted a comment on the DEIR saying that the widening would put them out of business because it would take all of their front parking.

Anonymous said...

It's been years and likely not the current plan, but at one time it was determined that KFC and the current Lovey's would need to come down as would a portion( if not all) of the Shell station.

Perhaps a revised plan has reduced or eliminated that previous need.

Hutch said...

That is not correct 1151, The EIR lists properties that will be affected. Chapter 1, section 1.4.3 pgs 19-22. Most are vacant land. There are also diagrams showing exactly where the road will go.

Yes Loveys and the abandoned KFC will be removed. I believe Vallemar Station or Gorilla BBQ parking will not be affected. It's too bad about the pet hospital but I believe they are being offered money to relocate.



Anonymous said...

Why do you have to lie and make stuff up, Hutch? Businesses aren't getting squat and you know it!

Caltrans is taking land away from the private homes on Harvey way, bulldozing 2 businesses and one family's house.

They're even taking land away from the lutheran church but hey whatev, F them, we can't be inconvenienced by an extra minute on the highway right hutcho?

Stop with the lies.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous 206, "why do you lie and make stuff up", then accuse others (Hutch) of lying? Bad 206! The State is REQUIRED to compensate land owners, and businesses (with income proof) on land affected.

Businesses may also relocate. But then do NIMBIES really care about business (and improvement) in Pacifica? Short answer: NO.

And you sure don't care that the rest of us are stalled in traffic, causing all that air pollution. So there goes the "doing what's right for our air quality" ecology cover-- right NIMBY?

Anonymous said...

@ 206 What 2 businesses are being bulldozed? Are you counting the empty KFC building? And what home?

Way to spin things. Kettle black?

Anonymous said...

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.
HEARING CONTINUED TO 08/29/14 AT 02:00 IN DEPARTMENT 2.
ENTERED BY TERRI M ON 08/22/14.

Anonymous said...

Can we just get this thing done already??

Anonymous said...

Judge Weiner is a jurist who loves details and complexities and expects the i's to be dotted and the t's crossed by all parties. Certainly no way to predict this particular outcome, but she did have an interesting ruling a few years ago. She tossed a downtown redev plan in RWC because Joe Carcione (attorney son of the old greengrocer) filed suit objecting to the shadows new and taller bldgs would cast on his downtown law offices. The judge made RWC pay Carcione's legal fees which were over $300K. They all went back to the drawing board. Maybe she's got a soft spot for Caltrans?

Anonymous said...

Caltrans is going down on this one. They didn't have their act together this afternoon and it showed. The judge is not happy with them.

Anonymous said...

7:08

Where you in the courtroom?

Anonymous said...

Stickler. You tell her you have 99% of Pacificans and she'll want their names.

Anonymous said...

Who's that tidbit from? Peter Loeb? Yeah we can bank on his opinion. Yeah we can trust whatever you say. Hell I trust you over firemen, engineers and the whole lot.

Hutch said...

You guys should give the judge your petition she'll love that accurate authentic powerful document.

If this group handles this case like they've handled everything else we have nothing to worry about.

Anonymous said...

That paid ad claiming 99% support was entertaining and memorable. Tongue-in-cheek, right? Right? The petition? What petition? Hippies are always doing petitions.

Professor Irwin Corey said...

"The owners of the Pet Hospital submitted a comment on the DEIR saying that the widening would put them out of business because it would take all of their front parking."
Untrue. Plans call for the 2 spots next to the highway to be used for the pedestrian walkway. Caltrans and the city has met with the owners of the pet hospital. They will work to mitigate the parking issues. There's 1800 sq ft of commercial space going in at the remodeled Holiday Inn. Would be a great place for Lovey's or any business. Right on the corner.
We need to remember that the design phase has not been done for this project yet. If the landscaped median was eliminated the design changes.

Anonymous said...

Thank you professor.Very interesting. So as usual the PCH1 fanatics are spinning facts. Where did you get that info?

Anonymous said...

933 City? There's a city involved in this? Who knew?

Anonymous said...

A letter from one owner of the Pacifica Pet Hospital says "Taking away 900 square feet of our property will cut 20 feet into our property, significantly impacting our parking situation and making it impossible for us to stay in business" (FEIR, Vol. 2, p. 114).

A letter from the other owner of the Pet Hospital says, "At least one alternative would require acquisition of right of way and easements for utilities. That removes parking spaces from the front of my hospital. Parking for the business is EXTREMELY tight as it is. The loss of even 1 or 2 parking spaces would have a significant impact on my business. That, in effect, also has a negative impact on the City of Pacifica due to a potential loss of jobs and the taxable income of a $2 million/year local business" (pp.115-116).

Caltrans agrees with these comments, "[T]he proposed Landscaped Median Build Alternative would include acquisition of 900 square feet of the parcel where the Pacifica Pet Hospital is located," pp. 114, 116.

Anonymous said...

More lies and spin from pro-freeway folks.

Whenever someone claims to have seen "plans," demand to see those plans. Parking issues will be mitigated? Show us where it says this.

Where are all these plans? That's right, there are none.

Stop with the lies.

Anonymous said...

Really 1140? Lies you say? All those signatures were real. And there were no problems with ambulances. And firemen don't know about traffic safety and delays.

So what? We are supposed to stop a critical state public works project that will reduce traffic backups for 10,000+ locals and tourists per day because one or two Pacifica small businesses will have to relocate?

I really don't get the nimby thought process.

Anonymous said...

Oh they have proof, but no, they won't show it to you. You'll have to trust them when they say buldozing a roadway wider than a freeway is a-ok with everyone involved

In the Evening said...

Just a funny little FYI....it's the Facebook Friend Race:

Sue Digre - Anti widening, No Facebook Site
Matt Dougherty -Highway Position unknown... ? No Facebook Site
John Keener - Anti Widening - 32
Mike O'Neill - Pro-widening - 75
Eric Ruchames - Anti Widening - 17
Victor Spano - Pro-widening - 176

Like your favorite candidate on Facebook!!

Anonymous said...

The two stupendously bigger and better traffic bottlenecks from this project will provide a stellar business op for squeegy guys and flower peddlers at each end of that magical 1.3 mile. Other than that, follow the money right out of Pacifica.

Jerry Just Wondering said...

Who says Ruchames in anti-widening. Haven't heard that.
Source?

Inspector Gadget said...

Has anyone of the nobie clan ever noticed that every single one of those businesses that will be affected are in the Cal Trans right of way and have known that from day one?
Just to state the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Are we really going to blame any business disruption on the landscaped median? Better we should have something thinner and less obtrusive--how about a line drawn in chalk? Involve the community. Have some kindergartners wearing little Caltrans hardhats draw them. Or lasers! If you see a red dot on your windshield, you've crossed the center line. There ya go! Cutting edge for us!

Kathy Meeh said...

208, good information. Small oops, don't forget Therese Dyer - No website but pro progress and pro-widening.

The Caltrans highway widening has been fully studied, and "every NIMBY in town" has posted comments in the FEIR Report. Caltrans has responded to each of these public comments with factual references studied within the researched report.

So that's what we're dealing with. The FEIR Reports have just been posted as an article for all to view.

Anonymous said...

I'd pay to see Therese Dyer serve with Marianne Nihart. Smack down!

Anonymous said...

Jerry Just Wondering. I think its a consensus among many that Eric supports alternative to widening. He has attended Highway One Alternatives meetings, along with John Keener, they are the only candidates to attend. He apparently finds a constituency there, otherwise, why would he go? We all know that Mike stopped by to say hello to the protestors, but, But perhaps it would be more fair to say about Ruchames that he is "unknown on highway". But his actions in attending, with Keener, speak louder than words. His attendance at the H1 Alternatives meeting lent much credibility to those advocating H1 Alternatives, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

222 Good point. Personally I think the post alleging he's anti-widening is from a regular still pissed by Ruchames' support of the new library and Measure V. Haven't seen or heard Ruchames say he's against the widening. For campaign purposes, aren't we calling it "improvement" and avoiding the W-word? That's what Spano did on his flyer. All that time around city hall in DC sure wasn't wasted on him. Hard to dislodge incumbents. Spano and Ruchames have some name recognition and it may be their race for that 3rd seat. I think Ruchames has the edge on friends on council and their networks. Time will tell.

Hutch said...

I met with Eric Ruchames, nice guy but I did not get an answer to my question as to what side he was on as far as widening.

258, How far did council connections and networking get Measure V? They are not all powerful when it comes to getting candidates elected.

I think Victor has much more name recognition than any other candidate. His resume is very impressive and relevant to our city needs (economic development).

Anonymous said...

Victor promises everything to everyone including a new dog park, a new bike park, new fire stations and a new Skyline highway. Unicorns and rainbows, wheeeeeeeeee!

Love to know how he expects to pay for it all, but he "forgot" to explain this in his campaign materials.

Anonymous said...

Ask any of the commuters stuck in traffic on the newly widened highway thru Santa Cruz how well that project has worked out for them.

Anonymous said...

I'm tired of candidates who promise the moon to get elected and then pass the buck, blame the past, get fat heads, etc. Give me someone who knows it doesn't grow on trees, hasn't spent too much time around politics and politicians, isn't going to panic, and, most importantly, has the mature judgement and nerve to move their reasonable agenda forward. Yeah a reasonable agenda will be just fine. That's progress. Mr. Ruchames is a reasonable, seasoned but not cynical, honest candidate. I can see him working well with this council and working for all Pacificans.

Anonymous said...

646 Ask Half Moon Bay residents how they LOVE the newly widened 92/1 exchange.

Anonymous said...

Read Spano's comments to Jane Northrop's questions and I like a lot that he isn't married to the library idea on Beach Blvd. His comment that he brought the city a development proposal for developing the property without a library and it went nowhere is intriguing. Did the clown-in-charge pass up a viable proposal for economic development because it didn't include their monument aka library? I'd like to know more about that. What was the process? Who decided? Was it before or after the brain trust discovered their little 4 million dollar oopsie? And I mean discovered, not announced. They're not the same thing. As far as Highway One, perhaps Spano is trying to be all things to all people, but it's very odd to have others trumpet you on here and elsewhere as pro-widening when you can't say it loud and clear yourself. Odd and a little off-putting when compared to the open and unmistakable declarations of those against widening. Too much time around those DC politicians or pointers on opaqueness from some of ours? That's not so admirable, but Spano gets full credit on the library issue if that's the way it went down.

Anonymous said...

725 Love may be a tad excessive, but the new 92 thing is an improvement. That widened section in Santa Cruz not so much, as in not at all.

Anonymous said...

Ask Half Moon Bay residents how far back traffic backs up on 1 in the mornings. You'll get answers that vary from "Pillar Point" to Tthe Airport." Yeah, the widening sure helped!

Anonymous said...

Ruchames has too many strikes to be viable.

Leader for the 30M library

Leader for measure v

Leader of police union

Pals around with anti Highway leaders

Compared to Victor Spano, Ruchames has zero experience working in economic development which is what our city needs most right now.

Anonymous said...

No, not sold on Spano. Just doesn't come across as a heavy hitter. Maybe we're so starved for progress that we are a little too impressed by the words "economic development coordinator" on a bureaucrat's resume. And, any impartial and knowledgeable comparison of the contributions to this city made by Spano and Ruchames goes to Ruchames. Not even close.

Anonymous said...

11:38....did you look at his linkedin ?

We get to vote for three.
So you are thinking we should vote for O'neill and Ruchames and Digre?
Oneill Ruchames and Keener
Oneill Ruchames and Dougherty?
Oneill Ruchames and Dyer?
Please elaborate....

Anonymous said...

IDK. With 7 candidates splitting the vote, the incumbents are really pretty safe. If not, and one of them gets edged out, we could end up with one incumbent and both Ruchames and Spano because I think they'll do better than the rest. Therese gets one of my votes because she gives some of our current council hives.

Tom Clifford said...

My votes will go to those candidates who show independent thought. I have watched council after council take staff & consultant reports as if they were handed down from on high. I have question senior staff about specific items in their reports only to be told over and over again that whatever I am asking about is how other Cities do it.

Pacifica's unique problems are being address by a rubber stamp Council from a cut and paste staff.

We need Council Members who not only can, but will think for themselves.
Millions of dollars have either gone missing or been misdirected because Council has been more interested in rearranging the deck chairs than on steering the boat.
Goals of financial security have been left to languish,until we now find the City without the resources to make any meaningful difference.

Council, on staffs recommendation takes $2.7 million from the sewer fund to balance the budget. Where is most of that money going? To pay interest on pension bonds that are close to twenty years old but never seem to get paid off, because Council after Council has refinance them.

I want a Council that I fear we'll never get.

Anonymous said...

I think council uses staff as an alibi and vice versa. It's what they do. What has happened with public funds in Pacifica is an outrage and the residents and taxpayers are the victims. Not the conniving members of council and not their lackeys. But I guess we really can't throw the babies out with the bathwater. I agree with Clifford. We need people who can think for themselves and serve with a sense of duty and a backbone. Start with that.

Hutch said...

To be fair Tom, the missing 4 million most likely happened during Sue Digre's watch not any of other current council. I will say that half the time Sue doesn't look or sound like she knows what's going on. She has to constantly ask what procedure is even though she is a senior member. I agree we need council persons that will THINK for themselves, or at least think independently of special interest groups that tug on their aprons. Or just THINK would be nice.

Anonymous said...

They keep saying the new highway is twice as wide but I don't see it. Measure the intersection at Vallemar, it looks the same width.

Chris Fogel said...

They keep saying the new highway is twice as wide but I don't see it. Measure the intersection at Vallemar, it looks the same width.

Caltrans states that it's actually two-and-a-half times as wide.

In the Final Environmental Impact Report, Caltrans only provides a measurement of the width of the project at a single spot -- a point midway between the two intersections. They provide no other measurements of roadway width anywhere along the project length.

At the spot which is currently 64 feet wide, Caltrans proposes to widen the roadway to a width of 144 feet.

These are numbers provided by Caltrans in Figure 1.5 of the referenced report.

For reference: the average 8-lane insterstate freeway is 132 feet wide, including all medians and shoulders (source: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq92.htm)

Anonymous said...

The FEIR shows the current width of the highway as 64 feet and the widened highway as 144 feet. That's more than twice as wide. The overlay diagram shows that the Vallemar intersection will be about 9 lanes wide, about twice as wide as the current intersection.

Anonymous said...

the chamber finally gets the council they always hoped for and what happens, they immediately try to pass another mega tax, play shell games with sewer money, and four mil of our $ "falls off the back of the truck."

splendid, just splendid

you broke it, you bought it!!!

Anonymous said...

Oh my gawd, you're not going to use actual numbers are ya? That's going to handicap some of the WiderWiderWider reps on here. But you know what, they'll come up with something.

todd bray said...

Dear sweet innocent Chris F., these poor unfortunate creatures care little for facts and less for homework. Like mushrooms they prefer to live in a dark place atop a world of pooh.

Chris Fogel said...

Foot, meet mouth. Got my numbers wrong. The new highway will be 2.25 times wider at that spot, not 2.5 times wider.

I'll show myself out.

Hutch said...

Chris, You choose a spot that's at the narrowest point now. Of course it gets widened the most. How about at Vallemar and Fassler intersections? They stay about the same width.

Anonymous said...

"How about at Vallemar and Fassler intersections? They stay about the same width." Not true. See Anon 3:50, "The overlay diagram shows that the Vallemar intersection will be about 9 lanes wide, about twice as wide as the current intersection." Same is true for the Fassler intersection.

Chris Fogel said...

The spot I "chose" happens to be the only place along the entire project that Caltrans provides us the width of. It's impossible for me to choose any other spot because Caltrans doesn't provide any but the one. What would you have me do?

It's pure speculation to claim anything about the width of the intersections as you do -- Caltrans doesn't provide any roadway measurements for them and nothing in the FEIR supports your statement.

The lack of basic data about the roadway at critical points (such as the intersections) is one of the many reasons the FEIR is considered incomplete and is being challenged.

Hutch said...

620 That is absolutely not true that Vallemar and Fassler intersections would be anywhere near twice as wide. They maybe about 1.3 times as wide. YOU look at the overlay. I posted the 2 intersections on our Facebook Group
www.facebook.com/groups/FixHighwayOne

Chris Fogel said...

Hutch, where are the intersection widths disclosed?

Anonymous said...

Look at the Caltrans overlay Chris. It's pretty self explanatory. The point in question was the overlay showing 2X as wide. It does not come close.

Chris Fogel said...

No, they are far from self-explanatory. They are "no-explanatory."

Okay, let me ask another way: How wide, IN FEET, are any of the current intersections.

And how wide, IN FEET, are the intersections in Caltrans' proposal?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

If you look at the overlay and zoom in the view, the intersections look to be about 1.5 times as wide as the existing intersections.

Anonymous said...

The intersections have additional right and left turn lanes but don't have the 40 feet of width for the 16-foot-wide median plus two 10-foot-wide inside shoulders plus two 2-foot-wide concrete barriers.

Anonymous said...

The new highway will be 144 feet wide AT ITS NARROWEST POINT.

Hutch said...

I didn't give any widths Chris. I'm using Caltrans own overlay. Problem with that?

Anonymous said...

Chris Fogel said..."How wide, IN FEET, are any of the current intersections. And how wide, IN FEET, are the intersections in Caltrans' proposal?" This is an example of the reasons for the current lawsuit - the lack of information that would allow the public to understand exactly what is being proposed. Instead we have to guess about it. One person says the intersections aren't much wider than the current ones and another says they're almost twice as wide. There's no information in the FEIR that allows us to definitively answer the question.

Anonymous said...

825 You'd think that an engineered project would have precise dimensions readily available for such discussions. You'd be wrong. Instead of precision, we have statements declared as fact based on like, about, seems like, nearly, almost and my fav, 2X an unknown.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The new highway will be 144 feet wide AT ITS NARROWEST POINT.

And the intersections are about 100' wide. So what?

Hutch said...

Chris, I was only replying to the poster(s) saying the new intersections are twice as wide as the old ones. That can be determined without knowing the measurement in feet.

Chris Fogel said...

Hutch, it's a "problem" for all of us that we're reduced to making guesses about the most basic of facts about the project -- it's size -- because Caltrans didn't include these important details in its own Final Environmental Impact Report.

We shouldn't have to bust out magnifying glasses and rulers in order to guess at this stuff. It's an unacceptable ommission.

Anonymous said...

Fogel If you really cared about truth you would think you'd be more concerned about the obvious untruth about Vallemar and Fassler intersections being twice as wide. I guess I answered my own question.

Anonymous said...

Chris did you go out and measure that section of 280 you posted on Riptide? How did you know how wide it is? Did Caltrans supply you the information? Or did you judge the width on Google maps?

Chris Fogel said...

We're cross-posting, Hutch, due to the posting delay. No problem.

Anonymous said...


Unless Caltrans is planning that the new lanes will be about 50% narrower than the current lanes south of Vallemar, then the photos are very obviously misleading.

Magnify the page and take 30 seconds with a ruler and prove it to yourself with photos 31 and 33.

The photos simply don't match what the proposed new width will be. No wonder they look so inoffensive.

Anonymous said...

Oh God, now they are claiming the photographs are faked. These peeps are constantly grasping at straw. They make up stuff like the two times intersections or that no ambulances have been stuck and then when they are proven wrong they ignore the facts.

Hutch said...

Both the overlay (which is accurate) and the overhead photo rendition clearly show that the intersection at Vallemar is only slightly wider (about 2 lanes). If it were 2 times as wide it would go well into the burm which it does not.

So all the talk of pedestrians having to cross a giant freeway is just more talk.

Anonymous said...

Where are the detailed drawings with the real dimensions along the route and within the intersections? The before and after? In Judge Weiner's courtroom many defendants have learned the devil is in the details and their disclosure.

Anonymous said...

Deflect and OMG all you want, throw a hissy. We still don't have detailed engineering drawings with dimensions for this little 55 million dollar cowpath and that is a rather amazing omission. They gotta be someplace.

todd bray said...

Hutch, the overlay is not accurate nor is it a final design. If you look at the overlay it has a clear disclaimer NOT TO SCALE. Nothing about the overlay is surveyed, planned or designed. It's simply a rendition, like an artists conceptual drawing. That's all it is. NOT TO SCALE means NOT TO SCALE. The overlay photo is as told to me by the three engineers responsible, just a "quicky way" it approximate how the widening might appear from the sky because, in their words, they could do it to scale because they didn't have the math.

However there is a little cross section view, the one Chris F. refers to that does provide measurements for the expansion and a red dotted line that represents the current roadway and the hill side that will be removed on the eastern side of the roadway.

Hutch said...

This all started because the anti highway nimby's have been falsely claiming that the intersections are going to be twice as wide as they are now.

No matter how you measure there is no evidence to show that the intersections are going to be twice as wide. There is plenty to show they are only 2-3 lanes wider, (24'-36'.) Not exactly a devastating amount.

But go on keep on spinnin'

Anonymous said...

I love what they did with photo 19. It's actually quite clever to make the mini-van fill the entire lane in the foreground to make the lane look narrow, and use a Taurus in the distance of the 'before' photo to make them look wide. According to their own scale a truck would be 1.5 lanes wide. I love the way CalTrans manipulates tax payers into keeping them employed.

Anonymous said...

They didn't have the math? They couldn't draw it to scale because they didn't have the math? Somebody someplace must have measured something. This is Caltrans. Please!

Anonymous said...

Photo 25 is a doozy too. The NB fast lane is the width of a bicycle lane.

Anonymous said...

Comparing photo 31 to photo 33 is hilarious. If you zoom right in you can see what they've done. Look at tree branches for indexing. They've actually managed to make it look narrower in parts than it is now! Also an excellent choice to use a blurry, overexposed and pixellated base photo taken slightly askew at distance (Shelldance I presume). It makes it hard to see what's going on. This is some very clever PhotoShop work. I've seen better, but whoever did this combines sneakiness with ability. Well done!

Anonymous said...

The Caltrans project: 144 wide at the highway's narrowest point.

Anonymous said...

Stare at photo 31 long enough and you'll see Batman.

Hutch said...

You really think Caltrans is that good with Photoshop?

The intersections still are not twice as wide no matter how long you stare at the pictures.

Anonymous said...

Oh I get it, PH1A & PSC get's to pick and choose which Caltrans data or images they use. Anything that doesn't fit their goal is garbage.

Anonymous said...

800 Your epiphany is incomplete. They're not the only ones doing that.

Anonymous said...

It's very clever to have us believe that the best photography equipment CalTrans have is a 2 megapixel camera sans exposure compensation from 2002. Also that they can tweak and squeek a picture to their heart's content yet are somehow unable to fix exposure! It's not that I'm saying its not good work - it clearly is. But I think anyone who knows how this works and how easy it is to manipulate people with pictures knows that this illustrator isn't ready for the big time of Kardashian remodeling. Close though - it really is convincing until you look in.

Anonymous said...

As stated before. Fogel has alighned his self with Keener. Keener is also out campaigning with Dan Underhill.

From Riptide:

Please stand with me and support John Keener for Pacifica City Council.

I think I'm fairly open to different viewpoints, but it is difficult for me to consider construction of a highway wider than I-280 an appropriate response to morning and evening congestion. More important, I find it extremely troubling that city leaders have refused to hold public hearings or conduct study sessions on the proposed project, especially prior to the 2013 issuance of Caltrans’ Final Environmental Impact Report, when the City of Pacifica could have had a say in the project’s final design.

Our City Council has held numerous study sessions and focus groups on subjects ranging from developing a communications plan to reviewing fees, but has refused to hold any hearings on this massive project--not a single one--despite citizens publicly petitioning the council to please do so.

Now it’s too late. The FEIR has been released and because of its inaction, council has boxed itself into a corner and has eliminated any course of action save a yes/no vote on the project. Any investigation of lower-impact alternatives are now no longer available to us.

We deserve better representation than this; after all, one of the primary reasons Pacifica even became a city was to give voice to a community that found itself otherwise powerless against ill-conceived plans from outside agencies.

Are you uncomfortable with the size of the proposed highway? Are you frustrated with a council that doesn't want to talk about it? If so, please stand with me and vote for John Keener.

Posted by: Chris Fogel | August 26, 2014 at 07:25 PM

- See more at: http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2014/08/city-council-candidate-john-keener-no-highway-widening.html#sthash.B0v7ZHoW.dpuf

Hutch said...

Does Chris understand that this is a State project on a major California artery? This is not only for Pacificans to decide. He wants hearings? That's your buddy's (Loeb, Bohner, Kaufman) fault that they couldn't happen because of their lawsuits. Chris you say you're open to other points of view but I don't see it. I do see you towing the NIMBY party line.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, Hutch. In fact, this IS for Pacifica to decide. The project can be stopped by a simple majority vote of the city council, or just by the council's inaction. It can also be stopped by a Pacifica referendum or initiative.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous 850, Highway 1 is a State road, and we all benefit from the traffic flow improvement (widening) through our city. The planning for this project is already 10 years in process, beginning with public meetings, and traffic studies.

The current NIMBY lawsuit has one interest only: to kill the 10 year traffic improvement effort altogether. See Pacirfica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 8/25/14. "The lawsuit requests the court issue a peremptory writ of mandate setting aside Caltrans' certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and project approvals and seeks to suspend any activities for the project."

You'd rather have nothing than an updated highway with improved safety for all who pass through this city. Outrageous!!!

BTW, Caltrans says the highway width will be 120 feet, or with the planted median strip (not considered part of the highway) 132 feet. So, the imagined wider than highway 280 claim your Gang of No makes is another lame NIMBY joke. (The alternative to the wide planted highway median strip could be narrow median but you already know that.)

Trust Caltrans vs. NIMBIES? No contest. Caltrans provides and maintains good roads throughout California. NIMBIES, contest "everything" civilized, deliver lawsuits usually costing this city, region, country. State, USA tax payer money which could be put to better use. And continued and endless campaigning against city progress is a giant social and financial headache to this city.

Anonymous said...

One little judge on one little bench. Bets, ladies and gentlemen, make it interesting, place your bets.

Chris Fogel said...

I certainly understand the scope of the project and that's one of the more frustrating aspects about it, because I don't understand why the City has not been engaged with the public, given this size and impact.The City has held study sessions on subjects like a dog management plan and has put a "smoke-free movie campaign" on its agenda, but a project to widen Hwy 1 between Vallemar to Rockaway from 64 to 144 feet or more doesn't merit any discussion? That's not right.

Lack of Council engagement with the community it represents has caused many problems for our city over and over and over again. The highway is just one of the larger, more obvious examples of this, but there are many others. The UUT tax that came out of the blue? The proposal to purchase the Linda Mar Park-n-Ride from Caltrans that was approved (again, without any discussion), not for any economic development, but solely to house a sewage tank? There are dozens of examples.

I've given a lot of thought about who I want to support for City Council. It's not a decision I've taken lightly. Yes, I'm personally opposed to the size and scope of the Caltrans proposal but I'm even more opposed to the disengagement of City Council on this and many other matters. I think there's common ground here.

This isn't just a vote on the highway. This continued detachment and distance of Council from community concerns has to end if this City is to ever move forward and is why I've chosen to support John Keener.

Kathy Meeh said...

950, Caltrans prevails, NIMBIES sent to Montara lake along with a box of red-legged frogs.

Anonymous said...

Montara or Montana?

Anonymous said...

No Meeh, you can't bet a box of frogs. Too long in Pacifica and you start thinking frogs are money. And put away those nimbies, too. Bets, bets, place your bets.

Anonymous said...

Prediction: Caltrans gets the smack down and is sent to the drawing board. The Yessies spend their subsequent evenings crying into their cement pillows, blaming their failures on nimbys, UFOs, and Benghazi.

Anonymous said...

Caltrans FEIR shows the width of the entire landscaped median highway as 144 feet.

Anonymous said...

1013 Mongolia

Anonymous said...

11:38

How about:

Montenegro

Anonymous said...

todd bray said...

AuThese photo's illustrate just how misleading the FEIR is, and purposely so. The top two photo's are not of the Fassler/SR1 intersection but are several hundred feet north of the intersection showing the onramp to SR1 from Hickey. In fact the FEIR does not illustrate the northbound Fasslar SR1 intersection at all, because it can't. there is a Shell Station in the way. These flagrant misleading inadequacies', among hundreds more, are the reason litigation is brought against would be government agencies that think they are above the law.
August 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM

Todd

Does filing bogus appeals to the coastal commission make you above the law?

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, autumn in the Balkans with Count Chokula. God speed little nimbies.

Anonymous said...

Filing an appeal is within the law. Whether or not the Caltrans FEIR is within the law will be decided by a judge.

Anonymous said...

"If you magnify the PDF of my lunatic fantasy and place it over a topographic map of Area 51, the intersections are actually smaller after the widening."

Anonymous said...

Ok cement heads, this is your and CalTrans' day in court. Pave paradise and put up a (wider) parking lot!

Anonymous said...

Worst case the judge will ask Caltrans to clarify some things on the EIR. They are not going to tell them to redo the whole thing. The nimby's know this that's why they are hoping to elect Keener and or persuade council not to request funding.

Anonymous said...

Is Ruchames pro-widening? Or in the careful political terms that position seems to require, pro-improvement?

Anonymous said...

1244 Looking at only your analysis of the court case and even if somehow you're correct, that's a bad outcome.

Anonymous said...

Ruchames isn't pro anything. That's the problem... he doesn't stand for anything. How can you vote for someone who won't take a position a single issue??!!

Anonymous said...

247 He is a very nice person. Possibly he's also a thoughtful leader, preferring to weigh the merits of an issue in real time rather than, as he puts it, "make simplistic campaign promises". Then again, perhaps he's been coached on how to get elected by someone now on council. You know, say nothing, take no position and hope to hell the voters don't look at the issues you've supported. Hey, if it worked for them (and it did), it could work for him.

Anonymous said...

Harsh 247. Put a tax measure, new

library, or city pension in front of

Ruchames, and he'll perk right up.

Over the Hills and Far Away said...

Re: Ruchames

"If You Don't Stand up for Something, You'll Fall for Anything".

Quote from the film, "Sucker Punch"

Anonymous said...

Saying you won't make simplistic campaign promises is one of the most simplistic campaign promises one can make. Sorry, that is utter drivel.

Anonymous said...

418 There's nothing simplistic about
ducking the important issues. It's about political calculation and coaching. And agendas.

Anonymous said...

It's all on the guy's website. No promises, no positions, but he'll be collaborative.

Anonymous said...

I know that 6 months ago, building the new library was the issue he was most invested in.

Anonymous said...

I doubt we'll be able to unseat Sue. And at least with her we know what we have. Don't get me wrong she needs to go but she is basically a harmless confused person. I predict it will be Spano and ONeill with Therese a close third.

Anonymous said...

Too many candidates in the race and that favors the incumbents. 3rd spot? Unfortunately, Ruchames is plugged into a lot of support. Careful guy. He'd have never run if he didn't think he had the support to win. He's also a council fav, tho that's not worth what it used to be.
Still, that will help him. Who else has that in this race?

Anonymous said...

Therese is good for 2500 votes. Not enough to win, but enough to be a spoiler. Who will she pick off?

Anonymous said...

Therese will take from Ruchames and Keener.

Ruchames doesn't have a chance in hell. He is in favor of what most voters are strongly against i.e. new 30 mill library, more taxes, higher union wages. He also is wishy washy on highway widening

Anonymous said...

Therese is a gadfly wacko who won't crack 1,000 votes. Ruchames doesn't hold an opinion on anything and is under the mistaken impression that this is a principled stance. Spano promises everything under the sun and wants to be all things to all people but can't pay for any of it. Digre has disappeared off the face of the earth.

O'Neill and Keener will place first and second. The rest will fight among the scraps for a distant third.

Kathy Meeh said...

Seriously 956, what's to say your comment isn't anonymous wacko?

Whereas, if elected, Therese Dyre will be watchful of city money, vote to widen the highway, vote to bring in more economic development (after all she was a strong supporter of Measure L to develop the quarry). Therese considers herself to be more a "watchdog". She supports clean government, and she votes to support progress.

So that's what you consider to be wacko? Some of us do not share your sentiments.

Anonymous said...

Read Therese's latest rant in the Tribune. If you read that and want to vote for her... LOL

Anonymous said...

Incumbents and Keener because this is Pacifica.

Clark Bent said...

Keener is having a lavish party on the point in a few weeks. It promises to be the party of the season. It is being thrown by the Nimby-Enviro Royalty-Illuminati and Luminaries. I predict Mary Ann, Karen, Eric and Mike will attend because deep down, everyone has an "Inner Nimby" inside them and wants free beer and munchies. Stop Highway Widening!

Kathy Meeh said...

1050 I have no problem with inquiries Therese Dyer makes. She's inquiring and thinking.

The "rant" you refer to from the Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor, 8/27/14, includes: 1) a sewer tax protest for low income residents, 2) the uneven sewer lateral rebate for some residents (not all), 3) questioning whether its legal to borrow money to pay city bills from the sewer enterprise construction fund (and whether doing that subjects the city to a potential lawsuit).

Therese actively inquires, thinks, and will vote the right way: for clean government, for progress with reasonable development, and for highway widening. Her views are direct and clear. No flaky "on both sides of an issue" hiding for her.

Regardless of your personal view, Therese Dyer has stature, and her efforts have merit, and gravitas.

Anonymous said...

When you get to 82 years and you still want to give 'em hell, you've earned the right and a little respect. Don't like her? Don't vote for her.

Anonymous said...

1155 The nimbys give the best parties.

Anonymous said...

Nihart and Ervin are closet nimbys, secret handshake and all.

Anonymous said...


So that's what you consider to be wacko? Some of us do not share your sentiments.

August 29, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Anyone who doesn't buy into we must keep Pacifica dirty, dusty and broken is considered a wacko, yessiee or rogue realtor by the "gang of no"

Hutch said...

Therese has done more in a month than Keener has done in the 7 short years he's been hiding in Pacifica.

John Keener not only will be listed last on the ballot, I predict he will finish dead last just like nimby Rich Campbell did. Keener's entire platform is that he's against widening. To most Pacificans this is not their main concern. Most Pacificans care more about increased taxes, creating a financially stable city and economic development.

Victor Spano & Therese Dyer both worked hard to defeat measure v. John Keener did nothing to help but his good buddies Peter Loeb, Hal Bohner and Cynthia Kaufman were working hard to pass measure v.

You decide.

Anonymous said...

A vote for Keener is a vote for "sneaky' Pete Dejarnatt, Jim Vreeland, Julie Lancelle, Sue Digree, Peter Loeb, Fred Howard, etc etc etc

Anonymous said...

For a group of people who are convinced that Keener will place dead last, you sure spend a lot of time posting about him!

Scared much?

Anonymous said...

Just putting nails in the coffin 1134, nails in the coffin. I know you'd rather we didn't speak of him but HE is our target. He is the worst possible person that could be elected and we WILL tell voters about him. Once people know who Keener really is it will be a quick memorial.

Anonymous said...

1217 You've accidentally mentioned the one thing that, IMO, Keener has to overcome, ie, who is he? He's the new kid and people just don't know much about him. Smart and personable. If he can get his message out, and that's really all about the organization behind him, he'll find voters who respond. Maybe not enough to win this time with vote splitting, but he can build on that. I hear he's got a lot of help. So does Ruchames and he's very well known. Spano certainly talks a very good game, but talk's cheap.

Anonymous said...

@1217 I think Team Keener is hoping you will tell voters about him. They're counting on you.

Anonymous said...

12:17

Keener is a bright guy, in his studied field. What we need is someone with municpal experience.

We have seen how the mad scientist experiment has gone!

Anonymous said...

159 Someone with municipal experience? Oh goody, another bureaucrat. Spano or even Ruchames with his decades as a police dept/city insider will fit right into a council now run by people who are bureaucrats by nature, if not by profession. Now, who do we vote for to get some vision for all these bureaucrats to carry out? That's what bureaucrats do.

Anonymous said...

Lest we needlessly sink into revisionist history, here's the actual results from the 11/6/12 general election for the 2-year seat. O'Neill trounced everyone.

O'Neill 5302 35.0% of the vote

Spano 4060 26.8% " " "
Campbell 4037 26.6% " " "

Mondfrans 1765 11.6% " " "

Spano and Campbell were very close. I know Spano knows how close he and Campbell were because
he recently mentioned it on here.

Anonymous said...

This tim is going to be different 413 we'll have 3 seats all even steven.

Don't forget these guys:

Karen Ervin 10,290 votes 38.9%

Mary Ann Nihart 9,354 votes 35.4%

Last time the vote was split between ONeill, Spano, Campbell & Monfrans.

This time we have 2 seats split between 2 incumbents and one seat split between 4 challengers.

It will be interesting.

Anonymous said...

827 I have no idea what your point is. The original comment was to correct mis-info from Hutch re the results of the 11/2012 race for the two year term. That race was between four people for one seat, won by Mike O'Neill with Spano and Campbell separated by 23 votes and Mondfrans a distant, dead last. The other race you cite was separate with just three candidates for two seats--Vellone was the third candidate. BTW, this time it's 3 seats, 2 incumbents and 5 challengers. Probably boils down to one seat sought by five challengers, but who knows?

Anonymous said...

In the last election the top vote getter for the 4 year seat was Karen Ervin, and for the 2 year seat it was Mike O'Neill. What do they have in common? They were both on the school board, a much better spring board for the council than, say, the planning commission, which very few pay attention to. If that model holds then Eric Ruchames is the challenger to beat.

Therese Dyer Fan said...

I'm excited because Therese Dyers is running, she will tear into Sue Digre and Mike O'Neill during debates and take no prisoners.

Just an FYI, because I was curious. Therese Dyer last ran in 1998. That was 16 years ago. Here were the results:

Council Member; City of Pacifica

Jim Vreeland .......... 6,312 votes 21.1%
Maxine Gonsalves .......... 6,114 votes 20.5%
Barbara A. Carr .......... 5,238 votes 17.5%
Ken Miles .......... 4,897 votes 16.4%
John Neal .......... 3,299 votes 11.0%
Therese M. Dyer .......... 2,194 votes 7.3%
Jenny Apodaca .......... 1,759 votes 5.9%

Anonymous said...

Unlike ONeill in 2012 Ruchames has to overcome his ties to measure v, the police union and the anti widenening nimby's. He's also a huge proponent of the unpopular 30M library. 4 strikes.

Anonymous said...

933 Is this not her purpose in this election? O'Neill and Digre have seen her show. New viewers can draw their own conclusions. Of course, her lasting impact and gift to Pacifica will be to split the vote. This is not a presidential election year so the percentage of voter participation will be in the 60s instead of in the 80s. Historically, that means about 15,000 ballots cast instead of 18 or 19000. Note, that's the number of ballots cast, not votes. She and the seventh candidate, Dougherty, are kingmakers. Clueless kingmakers. They make our continuing tele novela de Pacifica so entertaining.

Anonymous said...

1025 He will overcome. With a little help from all his friends in the community and on council, he will overcome. It's all so friendly. He's going to fit in sooo nicely.

Anonymous said...

My daughter knows and thinks Matthew Dougherty is "cute". Just what we need, a Teen Heartthrob!

Anonymous said...

Where do you get that Ruchames has ties to the anti-widening? He has steadfastly refused to take any position on the widening. Very weak candidate.

Anonymous said...

135 Works for me! I hear there's a connection to Pacifica's favorite bakery, too. Trays of cookies would increase attendance at council meetings. None for council. Nada.

Anonymous said...

144 Ruchames has been coached to keep his mouth shut on this issue. What's the problem? It's in the best traditions of this council, ie, don't alienate the nimby voters because we all need them to get elected. Once elected, heyheyhey, they've got a shopping list and the keys to the sewer fund, the ability to raise sewer funds to cover any shortfall, fact spinners on call, and who knows what else. Highway vote? They pray to term-out before that happens. Even Stone wouldn't hang around for it.

Anonymous said...

144 Word has it that Ruchames has attended more than one PH1A meeting.. He's pro tax, pro city employee and pro taj mahal library.

Anonymous said...

Yessies think Ruchames is a Nobee and Nobees think Ruchames is a Yessie. Recipe for a lost election.

Anonymous said...

@300 LMAO anonymous! You're describing the fate of fence-sitters. Bang away on your crusade, but fence-sitters are what we usually elect in Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

258 Yeah! No Ruchames! The glare coming off the guy's dome and glasses on TV could blind ya. Eric, either you promise to wear a rug and get contacts or we're through! Kaput, baby!

Anonymous said...

144 Ruchames has been coached to keep his mouth shut on this issue

Coached by who?

Anonymous said...

404 Probably someone who wasn't anonymous like us. It'll be interesting to see if he decides to commit before the election. After some fact-finding. He's committed himself to other controversial issues in the past. Neutrality, even
if it's genuine, could cost him votes. Is he popular enough to stay neutral? Quien sabe?

Anonymous said...

2:58 "Word has it?" Whose word? Yours? Word has it that pigs can fly. Ruchames has never attended a PH1A meeting.

Anonymous said...

501 Relax yourself. We all know that 'word has it' means I'm gonna lie. It's only Aug 31, nine weeks to go, but this is not our first rodeo.

disincorporator said...

5:01, I saw him with my own eyes, introducing himself @ the
Community Forum on Alternatives to Highway 1 Widening, June 25th.

Anonymous said...

555 That was Barry Zito. He's buying
at Harmony@One. Read it on Riptide.

Anonymous said...

disincorporator, you were there too. Does that mean you're anti-widening?

Anonymous said...

711 secret agent man, they play his song everywhere he goes

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
555 That was Barry Zito. He's buying
at Harmony@One. Read it on Riptide.
August 31, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Barry Zito also bought the castle house by Sharp Park Beach, He also bought the big house up on the Hill in East Sharp Park. Don Johnson, also bought the house up at Pedro Point.

Anonymous said...

Yeah yeah Barry Zito owns Pacifica. But would he attend a PH1A meeting?

Anonymous said...

45 minutes to get from Manor to Pedro Point shopping center today. 2 separate ambulances had to take the northbound lanes to get to the main parking lot on PCH. Yes it's a great beach day and a long weekend, but the traffic was backed up to the Manor on ramp at 12pm. We've never ever ever seen that before.

Can't wait for that construction to start, it's gonna be awesome. 'And anyway, it'll be the nimbie's fault, right?

Anonymous said...

246 I don't know if you realize it but traffic gets worse every year. I don't recall exactl;y but the estimates for highway one backups by 2020 if we don't widen are pretty grim.

Anonymous said...

Putin's going to fix Pacifica's traffic problems.

Anonymous said...

Traffic 2020 will be grim if we don't widen? LMAO. It'll be grim regardless.

Anonymous said...

the estimates for backups if we do widen are the same

Anonymous said...

@246 Back off. Hutch has exclusive rights to any 'ambulance in traffic' story.

Anonymous said...

Ambulance? More like WAH-mbulance.

Anonymous said...

4:03 yeah I realize it gets a little worse every year. Just a little though, maybe a car length or two (to trust CalTrans' projections though, is to trust someone taking money from you whenever you believe them).
But what I saw today was like nothing I've ever seen. Not even close.

But like all good Californian traffic jams there wasn't a single horn toot, so I'm not complaining, just more of a heads up that once construction begins people should maybe expect to get up 30 minutes earlier.

Anonymous said...

@246 Back off. Hutch has exclusive rights to any 'ambulance in traffic' story.

September 1, 2014 at 5:08 PM

And Bray has exclusive rights to denounce any "ambluance in traffic" story.

Anonymous said...

On Keeners website he says:

"about 60 percent signed the petition to City Council asking it to hold hearings on alternatives to widening."


On the same page he says "Linda Mar Favors Alternatives to Highway 1 Widening By 4-1"

Since when is asking for hearings the same as being against it?


Is this the kind of honesty we wiill get?

Anonymous said...

A vote for Keener is:

A vote for the same old same old.

A vote for Sue is:

a vote for the same old same old.

A vote for O'Neal is:

A vote for the same old same old.

Hutch said...

408 you had me until Mike.

Mike ONeill has been our hardest working councilperson IMO. He's always accessible. Answers emails and calls. And he alone has gone out of his way to hold public meetings on his own time to explain different projects around town.