New Lawsuit Filed on Highway 1 Widening

PSC Complaint
On September 6, a group calling itself Pacificans for a Scenic Coast (PSC) filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court against Caltrans, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and the City of Pacifica. The suit alleges numerous violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the agencies in the Environmental Impact Report approval process for proposed widening of Highway 1 between Rockaway Beach and Vallemar. Pacifica attorney Celeste Langille filed suit for the group, which is publicly represented by Peter Loeb, plaintiff in a separate lawsuit on the highway widening. Also mentioned in the complaint as part of the group are local activists Bill Collins and Mitch Reid. Below is PSC's official press release.

William Boyce, Riptide Correspondent

==============================

Pacificans for a Scenic Coast (PSC) has filed suit against Caltrans under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The suit challenges the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Highway 1 widening project.

The suit contends that the project was not adequately described at the time of the EIR, that the project is out of scale with Pacifica’s scenic nature, that the EIR contains contradictory information on impacts on threatened species, and that the EIR does not adequately address adverse impacts of the project.The suit says in part:

“Caltrans has approved a project that will more than double the width of the existing roadway, and encase the highway in 9-foot-high to 22-foot-high retaining walls. Pedestrians and bicyclists crossing from west to east or east to west would be challenged in crossing such a wide roadway, which as proposed is completely out of scale for a community the size of Pacifica. There were only two alternatives considered by Caltrans, big and Bigger. Bigger was Caltrans’ preferred alternative.”

Caltrans’ EIR concluded there would not be a single significant impact from the project.

"To reach this conclusion, the EIR relied on contradictory information and, more importantly, analysis which ignored its own stated thresholds of significance, and the standards established by CEQA law. For example, while the construction phase of the project is expected to last for at least two years, Caltrans avoided proper analysis of these impacts by labeling them simply as ‘temporary,’ or construction related. Likewise Caltrans ignored its own visual thresholds for significance by not considering the public’s overwhelming objections to the numerous aesthetic impacts of the proposed project.”

The suit contends that the project description is contradictory and inadequate.

“CEQA requires that the EIR includes an ‘accurate’ project description. At minimum it must include a detailed map with the ‘precise’ location and boundaries of the proposed project.”

“Instead the EIR vaguely described the project as widening ‘primarily on the west side of the roadway,’ varying somewhere from ’20 feet to 50 feet wide,’ and referencing pictures which are purely conceptual and ‘not to be used as official record.’ In conjunction, the width of the highway at the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing points was not adequately described.”

“The project does not contain an adequate project description by inconsistently stating that south of Fassler Avenue the project will consist of three lanes in each direction, but also stating that only two lanes will extend south of Fassler Avenue."

"Further the EIR includes photos of the highway after the project construction which omit one of the required project retaining walls. The list of the numerous retaining walls involved in the project, which number in thousands of feet of length, was not provided until the final EIR. By failing to accurately describe the project as detailed above, the EIR prevented adequate analysis of project impacts and mitigations, thus preventing informed decision making.”

“The EIR is internally contradictory regarding California red-legged frogs on the east side of the highway, stating both that they are not known east of Highway 1, yet that the frogs cross east of Highway 1 and that Calera Creek provides habitat east of Highway 1 which may support dispersing of California red-legged frogs...The EIR failed to adequately analyze and consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives” which was a “failure to proceed as required by law."

About Pacificans for a Scenic Coast
Pacificans for a Scenic Coast (PSC) is a new organization working to protect, preserve, and restore scenic coastal environs within the City of Pacifica.

PSC Contact: Cynthia Kaufman

Email: kaufman.cynthia13@gmail.com

Phone: 650-557-9797

Comments

[Jay Bird]

The EIR certified by Caltrans is inadequate and contradictory -- not compliant with common best standards of practice.

Maybe the City of Pacifica, which is a sponsor of the project, will now take a look at the alternatives, together and in aggregate: timing the lights, changing the way schools use the roads -- and adding some public transit that will address the commute. The public has already said we don't want a massive freeway segment added to the rural, scenic highway we have in our little beach town. Who knows -- maybe they'll even make some comments for public consumption!

Some of the alternatives are here:
http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2012/03/public-comments-impact-highway-1-widening-by-bill-collins-the-proposed-widening-of-highway-1-generated-so-much-contro.html

[Bobby Hutchinson]

LL: This 2009 USC tsunami map clearly shows the quarry is in absolutely no danger from a big wave. Nick's, on the other hand...

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanMateo/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_MontaraMountain_Quad_SanMateo.pdf

[Lionel Emde]

Bravo to the locals who banded together to use the courts for our redress of grievances. The City Council has been MIA on this issue and cowardly in its avoidance. Politicians who avoid stating clear positions on issues such as this, which is probably the number one issue in the long haul, should be shown the door by the voters. At least Len Stone, whom I profoundly disagree with on several issues, told me straight out that he favored this project.

If this walled freeway segment is built, it will finish the job of destroying our town, begun by Caltrans in the 1960s with the great trench of Pacifica.

[The Local Libertarian]

@Dan Underhill: Let me break it down for you:

The slower a vehicle is, the longer it takes to cross that stretch of scenic Pacifica.
The longer a vehicle takes, the more fuel is expended for that much more time.
When more fuel is expended, more pollutants and particulate matter go in the air.
Multiply that by all the vehicles that are slowed down due to poor planning between Linda Mar and Vallemar.

Either you wanna stop using gas-fueled engines OR don't use them as much. Since we know we can't stop using the gas engines, we'll have to figure out a way to use them less. Ergo, efficiency of use. Or less idling and faster movement for a given amount of fuel.

Also, this traffic bottleneck has a bubble effect of slowing down everyday work. If 15 minutes are lost to traffic one way or 30 minutes twice a day, at $10/hour average wage (low estimate), that is $5 per person spending their time in traffic. Multiply that by so many numbers of people, and you can guesstimate an approximate yearly loss of productivity in addition to really unnecessary decreased quality of life and general frustration and unhappiness.

This particular stretch of expansion between Rockaway and Vallemar is half-baked and a money sink.

But the real motivation from the supporters is their hope that this will somehow unlock access to Rockaway Quarry, which will then attract some rich out-of-towner to come develop it. And therefore the opposition from the other group.

I've said my piece on why building in the Quarry is a really bad idea. Most of it is within the tsunami inundation zone and therefore a dangerous location to develop.

That said, those traffic lights at Linda Mar/Pedro Point, Crespi, Fassler/Rockaway, and Vallemar need to go away and be replaced with appropriate exit/entry ramps.

[Bobby Hutchinson]

These same people claimed there was too much traffic when they were fighting the Quarry Project. But now they say there isn't much traffic.

[Dan Underhill]

I heard that there are never any bottlenecks on the Bonneville Salt Flats.

[Bobby Hutchinson]

I sat in traffic for 30 minutes Saturday on this stretch of Highway 1. So this group that claims this is all caused by schools is full of it.

[The Local Libertarian]

This is another money sink.

Widening the freeway isn't going to help if there are traffic lights at Rockaway/Fassler and Vallemar.

This approach is what is called increasing the "buffer." The logic is that three lanes will absorb more traffic and relieve the back traffic pressure -- temporarily. It's a half measure at best.

But if they are willing to remove the lights at Vallemar and Rockaway, and build an exit/entry ramp, then it will work. Until then -- same old, same old.

[Steve Sinai]

Caltrans has to deal with these whiny nuisance suits on many of its projects. I'm sure it's learned how to deal with them.

[JJ Evans]

Caltrans doesn't have thresholds of significance. Where exactly in the EIR are these thresholds supposedly stated?

[worried Pacifican]

Thank you, PSC.