« SAN MATEO COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY | Main | DEADLY HOLIDAY: MULTIPLE DROWNINGS @ COASTSIDE BEACHES »

July 06, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Linty Mar:

Regarding snark, res ipsa loquitor.

Ceteris paribus, I much prefer intelligent banter.

This is about as snarky as I allow for myself.

If you do not know what it means, it is Latin, look it up.

John Kontrabecki doesn’t put much stock in something created by the United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics – "Average weekday household vehicle trips by U.S. Census Tract (per day) as estimated in Local Area Transportation Characteristics by Household dataset" – because he doesn’t know how they gathered the data.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics website describes the data sources and includes links to the data and the methodology. "The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) developed a model that allows for Census tract estimation using the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data along with American Community Survey (ACS) data from the Census Bureau."
Methodology for 2017 Local Area Transportation Characteristics for Households
Appendix A - Regression Models Used for Estimating Household Travel
Appendix B - Validation Results
Appendix C - Distribution of Estimated Household Travel
Appendix D - Data Dictionary
Appendix E - Regression Models Used for Estimating Household Travel by Number of Vehicles Available and Household Size

RE: snarky comments on Riptide. "This is not a forum for snarky comments." I guess John Maybury has retired. I've built my entire Riptide persona on snark. Oh the humanity!
Sad Linty

(Editor's Note: Au contraire! To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of my retirement have been greatly exaggerated. And as to Riptide editorial policy, we have never banned snark; it is our lifeblood. But we do try to be fair and balanced — like a Fox.)

Peter Loeb:

Thank you for sharing where the data you referenced previously came from. I did not know the Bureau of Transportation Statistics published this. I also do not know how they gathered the data used to derive this graphic. I do know how our traffic engineer created his data. He used traffic counting devices at key locations to do an actual physical data count. This is data that was physically collected and serves as the basis for his study.

I would place more stock in data collected locally than something created by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in an unknown manner.

Peter George:

In your last posting, you make a good point about the new road alignment pressuring the houses. I have been speaking with the people who live on that side of the street and they have pointed this out to me. We need to take another look at street alignment and push the street in the other direction where there are far fewer homes.

As for a parking study, I do not see the need. If we get the street properly aligned, we will not be taking away parking spaces. Parking on one side of the street will remain the same as before. We will not be using the parking ourselves so we will not be adding to the parking demand. In fact, by building a parking lot in the middle of our new neighborhood in front of the community center near the start of the mountain biking trails at the top of the hill, we expect to pull people who park to ride the trails off Higgins Way and Adobe Drive. This will relieve parking demand on these streets.

We do not have an estimated evacuation time for the new neighborhood in case of a wildfire. It would depend very much on where the fire occurred and how aggressive the fire was. Our answer to the wildfire risk is to use best forestry practices to minimize the risk by clearing out kindling on the forest floor, removing dead trees, cutting fire breaks along the perimeter of the property, initiating a progressive program to plant native trees to replace the Eucalyptus over time, having a city standard road that emergency vehicles can use to get to the top of the hill to fight the fire, and constructing homes with sprinkling systems. The loop road itself and the new hiking and biking trails will create fire breaks within the property. When you add it up, this list of measures will dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of wildfire.

Another quick but important point, John. Your plans to widen Higgins (e.g., your "SHEET 48.pdf" and many others) clearly leave too little room for the folks on the north side of Higgins to park in front of their garages as they do now (even a casual observation reveals that many of the residents currently park this way). So you are demonstrably taking away that parking and thus adding yet more stressors to the parking on Higgins. I am truly baffled as to why you think a parking study is unnecessary. Everything I see here points to a parking nightmare along Higgins (and by extension Adobe) as soon as the "Woods" development starts.

Why not do a study and prove me wrong? The development can clearly afford it and you clearly believe that the results will speak in your favor. Baffled, I am, as to why we are still arguing about this when a simple cheap (by your standards) report could lay it to rest? Please publish it here once it's done, thanks.

Also, what is the estimated evacuation time for 125 car-dependent households + existing residents down Higgins in case of a wildfire? Sadly, I did not see an all-too-necessary report on that either. Please provide link. Many thanks.

"[The traffic engineer] does not know where you got your trip general ideas, but they are not grounded in traffic engineering best practices." The trip generation estimate comes from the United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The map linked at this Bureau site shows the average weekday household vehicle trips by U.S. Census Tract per day, as estimated in Local Area Transportation Characteristics by Household dataset. For the Pacifica area, the map shows an estimate of 5-6 weekday household vehicle trips per day.
https://www.bts.gov/surveys/national-household-travel-survey/average-weekday-household-vehicle-trips-us-census-tract-day

Julie:

Shame on you for your snarky comments. If you have something worth saying, then say it. This is not a forum for snarky comments. Those go on Facebook. This forum is for intelligent, respectful public dialogue.

Skeptical:

You quoted the relevant statement:

"The LOS calculations are based on the actual volumes entering the intersections and not on the volumes that could enter the intersections if adequate capacity was in place."

His analysis is based on actual collected traffic data and not on projections. The reference to Highway 1 future expansion is not used by him in his analysis. It is unfortunate that he mentions this, but it is not relevant to his analysis or conclusions.

Skeptical: I don’t think he thought anyone would take the time to look.

Thank you and Peter for doing it.

John, you wrote:

"I want to say that he has been a traffic engineer for many years and has a solid reputation in the field. He has also worked in San Mateo County for a long time and knows the history of Highway 1. He worked on the Highway 1 widening project with Wilsey Ham some 19 years ago and is very familiar with its history and the issues associated with it. His traffic study DOES NOT consider the widening of Highway 1 between Fassler/Rockaway and Reina del Mar as the basis for his opinions. His remarks about Highway 1 were made in passing and do not serve as the foundation for his conclusions."

First, if your engineer is very familiar with Highway 1 and the efforts to try to widen it, he would have known that the city called off these plans several years ago. This was not done in secret -- it was all publicized and it is well documented. Any truly seasoned engineer would know this.

Second, the report's observation re the effect of highway widening was not made "in passing" -- highway widening is specifically cited as the basis for concluding that the extensive queuing that already occurs on Fassler and northbound Highway 1 during the morning commute will be relieved once Highway 1 is widened, therefore the additional cars that will be on the road if "Higgens 1" is approved will not be an issue.

Once again, the report states as follows:

"Levels of Service have been calculated for the existing conditions scenario using the analysis methods contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The results of the LOS calculations are summarized in Table B on page 8. The calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The LOS calculations do not necessarily reflect the extensive queuing that occurs on westbound Fassler Avenue and northbound Route 1 during the morning peak traffic period. The LOS calculations are based on the actual volumes entering the intersections and not on the volumes that could enter the intersections if adequate capacity was in place. The City of Pacifica and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority are planning on widening Route 1 between Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue and Reina Del Mar Avenue from four lanes to six lanes. The
project is still in the planning stages of development. Once completed, that project will significantly reduce the queuing that presently occurs on Route 1 in the northbound direction
during the morning peak traffic period."

General arguments like yours cause people to remain skeptical, which is why we have asked you to cite specific reports/page numbers to support your assertions. If we (members of the public who come to this cold) can do it, why can't/won't you?

Finally, the lone traffic report looks at just one portion of one project -- it does not consider the cumulative effect of all the projects you have been going on in the same area. Where is THAT study?

How many parking spots in front of the community center for bikers, John? I could not tell from the maps despite a good deal of squinting (page number and PDF name, please). Also, please consult a bit more deeply with your mountain biking consultant. Any mountain biker will tell you that they wish to park at the bottom of a slope (where the downhill ends) not at the *top* of a slope. No biker I have ever met wants to *end* their ride with a steep climb back *up* to their car. So, parking or not at the top of the hill, I'd expect the mountain bikers to still want to park on Higgins. Simple common sense.

Peter Loeb, Wm. Boyce, Peter George, Skeptical, and Julie:

I have connected with the Traffic Engineer to get his thoughts on your postings questioning his work product.

But before I share this, I want to say that he has been a traffic engineer for many years and has a solid reputation in the field. He has also worked in San Mateo County for a long time and knows the history of Highway 1. He worked on the Highway 1 widening project with Wilsey Ham some 19 years ago and is very familiar with its history and the issues associated with it. His traffic study DOES NOT consider the widening of Highway 1 between Fassler/Rockaway and Reina del Mar as the basis for his opinions. His remarks about Highway 1 were made in passing and do not serve as the foundation for his conclusions.

He does not know where you got your trip general ideas, but they are not grounded in traffic engineering best practices. All of his trip generation data is based on ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition, and is detailed in Appendix C of the report.
The baseline traffic counts used in the report were taken in the field in 2019 before the pandemic. And, according to Caltrans, no traffic counts taken after April 2020 should be used in a Traffic Impact Analysis study today.

He documented every active or pending project in the City of Pacifica development database at the time he wrote the report. This spreadsheet is included in Appendix C of the report. This included our Hillside Meadows project since it was an active application at the time the report was prepared.

Finally, as far as a parking analysis is concerned, the widening of Higgins Way is described in the report. He based his analysis on the representation we made to him that work will be done for this development to widen the road to city standards. There was no need for a parking survey as the parking on one side that currently exists would be a part of the roadway widening and would not be removed or changed.

I have indicated in previous postings that we are going to build a community center in the project with parking. We anticipate that some of the bikers using Higgins Way to park while riding on the property will park in our parking lot. This will relieve some of the pressure on parking currently experienced.

Wm. Boyce:

The forest at Linda Mar Woods has been neglected for decades and the conditions exist for a wildfire as you say. We are in an extended drought and the forest floor is covered in kindling. But the way to address the risk is not to do nothing. It is to initiate forestry management best practices. Many people in the Bay Area think Eucalyptus forests are harmless and must be protected. But our friends in Australia know better from centuries of wildfire experience in Eucalyptus forests. And our government officials know this as well. The Pacifica municipal code exempts Eucalyptus from the definition of Heritage Trees and the Planning Department permits their removal. Part of the long-term solution is systematic culling of Eucalyptus and replanting with trees that are native to California.

GOOD POINT: INSURANCE COSTS ARE REAL -- and given the horrific fires and the ongoing drought in the Pacific Northwest, wouldn't this proposed project be better off in the Midwest or eastern US?

"The insurance industry is already running for the hills (no pun intended) when it comes to California. That part of Pacifica is Tier 3, extreme fire danger on the CPUC FireMap."

Higgins Way (correct me if I'm wrong) is the only access to the proposed development. It's going to be interesting (if that's the word) in the event of a fire. Lots of forested land, brush, plenty dried out from the worst drought in 400 years; a recipe for disaster. It's unlikely that a house will catch fire internally, what with sprinklers no doubt required, but that's not where it's going to come from. How about lack of fire insurance? The insurance industry is already running for the hills (no pun intended) when it comes to California. That part of Pacifica is Tier 3, extreme fire danger on the CPUC FireMap.
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/firemap/

Peter Loeb, Wm. Boyce, Peter George, and Skeptical:

There is a lot to unpack here to respond to your comments. I am going to speak with our traffic engineer and get his thoughts as he is the expert. I take your comments seriously and need to do my research to respond appropriately. You will hear back from me in a few days.

One bit I can share is we have considered parking on Higgins would continue, albeit on a widened street allowing for proper vehicle passage. We planned for the mountain bikers to begin their ride at the top of the hill in the parking lot located in front of the community center in the middle of the neighborhood.

Re: traffic counts. The conservative figure that traffic engineers use to calculate the number of vehicle trips per day per household is a multiplier of 5. So, 125 units x 5 = 625 additional vehicle trips per day for the Higgins Way project at buildout. Add 18 units for the Hillside Meadows project x 5 = 90. Add 54 units of the Pacifica Highlands project x 5 = 270. Higgins Phase 1 and 2 + Hillside Meadows + Pacifica Highlands = 985 additional vehicle trips per day. Other traffic analyses may use a larger multiplier, but a conservative estimate is around a thousand new vehicle trips per day added by all these projects if they were to happen.

I had to laugh when I saw this in the traffic report: "San Mateo County Transportation Authority are planning on widening Route 1 between Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue and Reina Del Mar Avenue from four lanes to six lanes. The project is still in the planning stages of development. Once completed, that project will significantly reduce the queuing that presently occurs on Route 1 in the northbound direction during the morning peak traffic period." This is false. That project is not on the books. Caltrans shelved highway widening after it was sued in federal court and lost. The City Council sent a letter formally asking Caltrans to withdraw the project. If the traffic report is depending on highway widening in its analysis, its conclusions are wrong.

Wow, I know Higgins Way from past experience and that is one substandard street if I've ever seen one. I feel for the people who live there; once this large development is approved by our wholly owned, real estate industry subsidiary City Council, the Higgins Way folks will be scarewed.

Here is the traffic report link (actually all the reports, look for the one with the appropriate name). If this is the wrong link, John, then fine, correct me. But you can't say "Peter George is posting incorrect information" without posting a link to the correct information. That would be a really fast way to lose credibility. I know it does not work like that in court, and it does not work like that here either.

https://cityofpacifica.egnyte.com/fl/OsNWsZ01tl#folder-link/Digital%20Plans/3%20-%2020210630

Some highlights (Appendix C): Meadows + Woods = up to 100 extra car trips an hour. And that is only phase one of Woods. So in round figures, let's say up to 150 trips an hour at peak once Woods Phase 2 is built out, too. One vehicle every 24 seconds. John, maybe you live in a San Francisco home with such a large setup back that you would not notice an *extra* car going past every 24 seconds? But please don't patronize the people of the southern side of Linda Mar saying that you "expect" one *extra* car (on top of current conditions) every 24 seconds "is not an issue". It is. You lose all respect by trying to brush this away. Even without Phase 2, it is an extra car every 36 seconds at peak. These are your reported numbers, John, not mine. So don't try to distance yourself from them -- and if I'm wrong, then post links to the correct data, not a blanket unsubstantiated dismissal.

An *extra* vehicle every 36 seconds at peak just with Phase One. And this is without any ongoing construction traffic (which could last up to ten years, per John).

And please don't use the tired "These are two/three separate projects" divide-and-conquer approach, John: Yes, of course they are. But the traffic impact is not "separate things" for current residents -- it is one thing. At least own that.

Another note for anyone reading the report: Take all the Highway 1 numbers and conclusions with a grain of salt since this report does not include the proposed 50+ new homes at Rockaway. Might be other proposals missing, too. The proposed church at Cape Breton is not mentioned, for instance. John will say these other proposals were not available at the time the "Woods" traffic report was written -- which is fair and true. But it means that the report cannot be fully trusted on the Highway 1 numbers for this reason.

Also, John, where are you proposing the residents, trail goers, and school goers of Higgins park if you are proposing limiting parking along Higgins? Is it true that the widening of Higgins would take significant land (maybe 10 feet?) away that folks currently use that land for parking in front of their homes on the north side of Higgins? Nowhere in the 338 pages (yes, 338 pages, dear reader) did I see a parking analysis along Higgins. Did I miss it? If so, what's the page number, John? If it is not there, then as a good neighbor you could not propose to take parking away on a heavily used residential street without studying it first, right? Please post a link to your report, because I'm pretty sure it is not on the city website.

John -- Interesting that you would accuse someone else of creating straw man arguments at the same time you point to a statistic re unvaccinated people to defend your refusal to provide specific citations to the evidence you claim supports your arguments. Noted.

[Sidebar -- I can pretty much guarantee you that the people who will be fighting your developments in court are vaccinated (because they are intelligent and well informed).]

As for your claim that plan-related documents are well organized, thus we should spend our time trying to find the evidence you claim supports YOUR arguments -- for fun, I spent a few minutes looking for the traffic study that reflects the assertions you have made here. The only document that sounds like it pertains to traffic is titled "Higgens 1 traffic report." I am not sure what Higgens 1 is, but it is described as an "80 lot, single family detached residential subdivision off of Higgins Way in the Linda Mar area of Pacifica." Eighty single-family homes is not the 150 + units under discussion, so this appears to be a partial study at best.

Then there is this quote from the study (which is dated May 2020):

"Levels of Service have been calculated for the existing conditions scenario using the analysis methods contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. The results of the LOS calculations are summarized in Table B on page 8. The calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B. The LOS calculations do not necessarily reflect the extensive queuing that occurs on westbound Fassler Avenue and northbound Route 1 during the morning peak traffic period. The LOS calculations are based on the actual volumes entering the intersections and not on the volumes that could enter the intersections if adequate capacity was in place. The City of Pacifica and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority are planning on widening Route 1 between Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue and Reina Del Mar Avenue from four lanes to six lanes. The
project is still in the planning stages of development. Once completed, that project will significantly reduce the queuing that presently occurs on Route 1 in the northbound direction
during the morning peak traffic period.

This text (from the traffic study) sounds like assumptions about traffic were made based upon a plan to widen Highway 1. Can you please tell us more about what you think this plan is? The one the traffic study based its assumptions on in May 2020? Inquiring minds want to know how well informed this traffic study actually is.

Skeptical:

The reason why we have public document disclosure for real estate development projects in California is to provide members of the public the opportunity to inform themselves on the projects under consideration for approval by the local government. Accessing this information is easy. It is organized in a very logical way. If a person is having a problem navigating the city website, they can call the Planning Department, which will assist them.

If a person is not willing to click through to the documents or call the Planning Department for assistance, then maybe they are not really interested in educating themselves about the factual details of the project. Some people have uninformed opinions and do not want to invest the time and effort to learn the facts. It is the primary reason why 30% of the country has yet to get vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus.

I intend to make the education process easy for everyone. For those people who have visited our website at www.lindamarwoods.com and left their email addresses, I intend to invite them to online videoconferences that I call town hall meetings. In these meetings, I will be listening to their comments and answering their questions about the development plans I have submitted. The participants will have all the time they need to learn about the project. I will be starting the town hall meetings soon.

Julie:

In response to your post, the San Francisco Chronicle reported this morning:

"Two-thirds of companies in the region expect fewer people in the office once the pandemic ends. The shift could lead to a permanent drop of 1.1 million commuters a day, according to the Bay Area Council."

Our vision for Linda Mar Woods is economic integration. There will be a variety of houses for people with different incomes. Yes, some people living there will continue to commute to work. But most will probably work from home two days per week. This represents a 40% drop in commuters per week.

What is the relationship between vandalism and a public discussion about a proposed residential real estate development?

Are you saying I made this up? Go to the entrance at the end of Higgins and you can see for yourself.

On one hand, we should not worry about traffic because your buyers will be working from home; on the other hand, you will be catering to schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, and other first responders, who, by definition, cannot work from home. Noted.

Also, there are plenty of ways you could guide people to the documents you claim support the statements you are making here, including putting those documents on your website, then linking to the pages/studies/etc. here. The fact that you respond to valid questions by telling people to go hunt for the evidence you claim supports your position -- without providing anything more than the vaguest citation to a mass of documents on a city website -- speaks volumes. You are a lawyer, correct? Is that how you would respond to a judge? Again, noted.

The more you talk, the less credible you sound.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Red Rocks, Colorado and Utah

  • IMG_0955
    By John Maybury riding Amtrak

Southeast France

  • 30-Sainte Agnes
    Photos by John Elk

Viva Mexico

  • Mexico 01 Mexico City Cathedral
    Photos by John Elk

Snow Train

  • IMG_0830
    Photos by John Maybury, onboard Amtrak's California Zephyr

Uzbekistan

  • 7-Samakand
    Photos by John Elk

Dordogne

  • 12-Chateau de Commarque sunset
    Photos by John Elk

Brittany

  • 5-Cado
    Photos by John Elk

Canyons, Cliffs & Clouds

  • IMG_0714
    Photos by John Maybury

Italy

  • 44-Ravello
    Photos by John Elk

Australian Rainforest

  • 2016_0529reunionfamily0032_opt
    Photos by Joel Maybury

Pacifica Shorebirds

  • 20110819_7165.2
    Photos by Paul Donahue

Colombia

  • 20-San Agustin painted statue
    Photos by John Elk

Botswana

  • 27-Okavango elephant
    Photos by John Elk

Namibia

  • 16-Etosha rhinoceros
    Photos by John Elk

Scary Pumpkins

  • Unknown-16
    Photos by Ray Villafane

Big Sur

  • P1030837
    Photos by Dave Yuhas

Joshua Tree Natl. Park

  • Img_0815
    Photos by John Maybury

Gray Lodge

  • IMG_0985
    Photos by John Maybury

Yachats, Oregon

  • IMG_1044
    Photos by John Maybury

Bagpipes on the Beach

  • Img_0258
    Photos by John Maybury

Tucson Botanical Gardens

  • Img_0794
    Photos by John Maybury

Pima Air/Space Museum

  • Img_0758
    Photos by John Maybury

Desert Springtime

  • Img_0839
    Photos by John Maybury