The Widening War: Whistleblower Outs Planners' Closed-Door Meetings

Download PDTminutehighlights

The link above is a digest of closed-door meetings of the Highway 1 Calera Parkway Widening Project Development Team (PDT) from March 2007 to May 2012. The PDT consists of staffers from Caltrans, San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA), and the City of Pacifica, along with several private consultants. The selected paragraphs at the link above appear in whole with no editing. Some 26 meeting minutes were collected and forwarded to me by SMCTA after my PRA requests for this information. Not all of the meetings are represented, but they are presented in chronological order. The meetings represented had discussions of interest for several reasons, mostly because the entries provided insight into how the PDT has handled or arranged studies to justify a six-lane widening project that was deemed merely a signaled-intersection issue very early in the PDT’s ongoing process.

Todd Bray

Comments

[todd bray]

I've sent two requests to Caltrans asking for clarification on how it intends to circulate the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). It's unclear from the PDT minutes just how Caltrans staff intends to do that. It reads like Caltrans will first certify the FEIR, then circulate it. But from reading the CEQA home page, that doesn't sound like the way things are done. It sounds like the FEIR first gets passed around for a public review period before the FEIR will be certified by Caltrans staff. Anyone know how these things usually proceed?

[Karen Rosenstein]

Hey, Chris, we are going to have to agree to disagree then, because the next several sentences you spoke were in regards to how hard it is for the garbage trucks to get to certain parts of Pacifica in the morning, and I sincerely doubt that most of us would have that as a high priority.

You also have not answered my question as to why you are willing to support this project when it does not accomplish your goal of decreasing traffic. As Todd has pointed out, this proposed project is growth-inducing despite presentations by Caltrans et al.

[keri santos]

Todd, deal with it. Politicians lie all the time. Please don't be so naive! Why didn't you come forward and say anything about the city sewer system spilling 7.5 million gallons of raw sewage into the ocean? Pot kettle black.

[todd bray]

"Todd, do you know there is just about no construction money for any projects like the ones you mention?"

Funding projects is not the issue. The issue is that Caltrans, SMCTA, and Pacifica staffers discuss making allowances for these projects in their traffic analysis, yet deny that the widening project is growth-inducing OR associated with any development.

What these minutes show is cognitive understanding by the PDT that it is purposely misrepresenting the real numbers and purposely misleading the public and regulatory agencies to make the problem look far worse than it actually is.

It's called lying.

[big lender]

Todd, do you know there is just about no construction money for any projects like the ones you mention?

Umm, the nine-story condo project was a long time ago.

Come to us with real facts!

[todd bray]

Apologies, Chris, didn't mean to make you feel like a theory. Anyone who knows you knows you are anything but a theory. :)

There are a few long-standing development ideas that have been knocking around the planning department for years, waiting for the widening project before they officially submit an application. The acreage north of the church is one. Another is a nine-story condominium proposal on the "rock," that outcrop of stone framed by Highway 1, Fassler, and the Sea Bowl bowling alley parking lot. The nine-story condo complex will have around 200 or so units, if built.

Again, the bottom line here is the purposeful misinformation or purposely left-out information in the DEIR for the widening project. Coupled with the circumstance that Caltrans will ratify its own evaluation, the comic factor is pretty high.

At some point, if SMCTA or Caltrans submits a plan for a Coastal Development Permit (they will need two, one from Pacifica and one from the CCC), a new CEQA process will begin. Then all the shenanigans of Caltrans, SMCTA, and Pacifica PDT members will come under much more scrutiny.

[Chris Porter]

Hi, Karen: When I make a presentation, I neither cry nor whine. My son is 21 years old and goes to college at the University of Arizona in Tucson, so I am not driving him to school. You have mistaken me for someone else. BTW, I was long gone when Courtney spoke.

Todd, I do not have any idea what you are talking about regarding highway access to a developer, so your newest theory is off.

[Steve Sinai]

How's Pennsylvania, Keri? Have you proven JoPa's innocence?

Todd and I are best buds. Our insults are terms of endearment.

[John Maybury]

Keri, thanks for the suggestion, but that would be like trying to herd cats. Steve and Todd both know the boundaries, and I have my delete button, so let's all just try to keep it real.

[keri santos]

John,

Maybe you can put these two spoiled children Bray and Sinai on a timeout in the corner.

Bray thinks he uncovered something huge in his so-called "secret meetings."

Sinai is just rambling along for the ride.

[John Maybury, Editor and Publisher]

Don't make me laugh! You ought to see the stuff on my cutting-room floor. Besides, I think Todd and Steve are big kidders. No harm, no foul. But hey, it's a free country, so read any blog you like. Riptide is proud to be the least immoderate moderated blog in town.

[Francis Lee]

"congrats on actually reading something"

This is what passes for intellectual discourse here? I thought with a moderator some of the personal attacks would be avoided, but I might as well read FixPacifica.

[todd bray]

Steve, just so we understand each other, the issue is simply misinformation provided in the DEIR. If the PDT thinks access is to be provided for that property, it should have entered that in the DEIR instead of claiming that the project is not growth-inducing. That a Caltrans employee is saying access to a property must be granted out of the public eye is a separate issue.

[todd bray]

Steve, congrats on actually reading something.

[Steve Sinai]

Todd, according to one of your previously provided documents, Caltrans has to provide access to the property near the Lutheran Church whether the highway is widened or not. There's nothing sneaky or devious going on.

"Amir Sanatkar, Caltrans, said that Caltrans is obligated to provide a new access point onto Hwy 1 for a property east of Hwy 1 near the Lutheran Church per a previous, existing agreement. The owner is planning to improve that property and when the project is ready, the access will have to be provided."

[todd bray]

Karen, there is a 40-plus-acre parcel next to the Lutheran Church into which Caltrans and SMCTA PDT members have promised the owner a highway access point after the widening is complete.

Perhaps this little-known secret is behind the Chamber of Commerce and Chris P.'s endorsements? More trash customers, no doubt, is Chris' motivation.

Currently, the parcel does not have an easement to the highway and cannot be developed as a result. That Caltrans and SMCTA staff have promised the property owner access to Highway 1 post-project also shows the project is growth-inducing, contrary to the DEIR claim that the project is not growth-inducing.

What these minutes highlight is a mass deception by all parties of the PDT on a continual basis from day one.

[Jay Bird]

Comments against the illegal segmentation/widening of Highway 1 at Pacifica are downplayed/disregarded at SMCTA board meetings.

[Steve Sinai]

"SMCTA PDT members have been saying since 2007 that SMCTA is committed to this project and that it is a high priority for SMCTA."

They must have paid attention to all those people in 2006 who said traffic on Highway 1 was atrocious.

[Karen Rosenstein]

Chris, I find your comment very interesting and ironic. I walked into the Community Center meeting as you started to express your concerns. You were crying and whining about how hard it was to get your kids to school if they were late because of the traffic, with Courtney standing next to you for moral support. And that is the reason you said you wanted this widening. I'll take vocal, concerned citizens on an issue, over people crying about how hard life is for them, any day, wouldn't you?

Yes, people are very concerned about this proposed misuse of taxpayer dollars. These notes mention what many of us have already stated: The REAL PROBLEM is the intersections and not the roadway in between. Why aren't you complaining about the real problem not being fixed and the misuse of yours and my taxpayer dollars? Why are you and the rest of the Chamber of Commerce so insistent on building a roadway that will further divide our community, create more noise in the surrounding neighborhoods, and create more safety issues for our kids and other transit users?

Take a look at the proposed "alternatives." Do you see anything about buses? Do you notice that the proposed road is even wider, making it harder for kids in the morning to cross Highway 1 on their way to school? A wider road will require longer pedestrian crossing time, thus delaying the cars' movement on the highway? Or worse, make parents unhappy at how much more vulnerable their kids will be crossing the highway and thus encouraging even more parents to drive their kids to school.

Numerous studies have shown that by removing just 10 percent of the cars from the road would increase the flow of traffic. If you were really wanting to eliminate the traffic congestion, as you claim, then you would be pushing for ways to get cars off the road permanently -- more transit, kids safely able to ride their bikes to school, car-pooling, school buses, improved traffic light coordination and home businesses. Instead, you are pushing for something that will add traffic capacity to our town, which is clearly stated in these notes.

Yes, I am someone who works at home and does her best to avoid the congested period in the morning that occurs about nine months out of the year. This is one less car in front of you, and yet you malign me, and others who work from home, or are retired, for not being in your way? Uh, huh??

These are just some of the many reasons why I do not support this proposed project.

[todd bray]

Contrary to statements at SMCTA board meetings and our own council meetings, SMCTA PDT members have been saying since 2007 that SMCTA is committed to this project and that it is a high priority for SMCTA. At every meeting of the SMCTA board I've been to that has approved money for studies and the DEIR, the board always made the caveat that they were not voting to endorse the project. Several board members acknowledged that they were throwing good money after bad because of the regulatory issues, among other things, that this project faces. But it was clearly stated at every vote that SMCTA was not endorsing this project.

So how do we bring these statements by SMCTA staff to the board's attention?

[keri santos]

Bray, didn't Pacifica have a city councilman on the SMCTA?

You seem to be long on trying to stir up drama and short on bringing anything with "meat on the bone."

Whatever happened to that big guy (like 6'4") who would come to council and find out all the mistakes and things being swept under the rug.

I think he was from the East Coast because he had a slight accent? NJ maybe?

He may have been a PI because he was really good at finding out stuff at city hall.

Anyone?

[Lionel Emde]

"Hi, Lionel and Todd: I do recall many members of the community who were there to support the highway widening, namely many members of the business community, and I also recall many very vocal and rude people who are never involved in the morning commute screaming, and yes, I did say screaming, against the widening."

Chris, how nice to hear from you. I assume you're talking about the second meeting at the Community Center at which there was indeed some dramatic screaming coming from one community member. But you're also right about the supporters of the Caltrans idea being members of the business community. In fact, they were largely Chamber of Commerce board members. And that's fine, but it hardly represents community opinion.

I saw no groundswell of public support for the Caltrans plan at either the first or second meeting.

[keri santos]

Seriously, Todd, is your purpose just to try to muddy the waters?

You never answer the simple questions.

[todd bray]

Chris P, we'll see what we will see.

[Chris Fogel]

"The time for 'say no just because you don't like the process and have no interaction with the pending development' is over."

The time for Caltrans' "say yes to a preconceived project just because they don't like the public process and have no interaction with the community" is over.