Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Whisky Tango Foxtrot!! The CUSD, HMB, And No CDP

Early in May, I went to my very first School Board meeting. At that meeting, I saw the Superintendent, Tony Roehrick, blow off what can generously be described as disinformation provided by his staff, to the School Board. When my turn came to speak, I pointed out that what his staff had said was not true. I then showed him and the board proof that been provided by the City Clerk of Half Moon Bay.

Mr. Roehrick then did something that I am getting sort of numb to. He lied to me. He lied to me in front of his staff and the Board of Directors. I was pretty sure he was lying to me when he was in fact lying to me. Later that evening, I obtained proof of that too.

I curious as to why the Superintendent of the the CUSD would do such a thing. So I did what I do and filed a PRA request.

Three weeks later, I got a response. 202 pages of emails and a letter from the Attorney for the CUSD that asserted everything I asked for was protected by Attorney Client Privilege.

I had nothing better to do so I started reading through 202 pages. Among other tidbits, I found this disturbing exchange between Ed Watkins, CUSD Project Manager and Superintendent Tony Roehrick that occurred on the morning of July 10th, 2013.

Watkins to Roehrick:

Had a meeting this morning with Steve Sutherland of SSA and Diane and Stephanie of the track fund raising group. One key question came up; since this work is primarily repair and replacement; additional elements aside how do you feel no processing with DSA or the City of Half Moon Bay for a CDP. This would obliviously remove the issue of concern for ADA compliance for the visitor side of the field if we were to try this. Dave Lussiers feels this could work.

Roehrick to Watkins:

If Dave can sign off, then we should proceed.

Watkins to Roehrick:

Yes he will sign off.

Roehrick to Watkins:

Perfect, then lets proceed this way.

Folks, I did not expect to find this. Apparently the CUSD wants what it wants but does not want to file for a CDP. One of the reasons, (there are some other reasons), they don't want to file is they don't want to have to deal with making the visitor stands ADA compliant.

I stopped reading. There is a bunch more but I could not believe what I had just read. The Project Manager for the CUSD and the Superintendent were conspiring to find a way to avoid having to comply with the ADA.

But it gets worse folks. Remember the disinformation and the lie? Well because Roehrick had been confronted with the disinformation, the CUSD, on May 21st, 2014, filed for a Negative Declaration or some such with the City of Half Moon Bay. They were asking the City for permission to skip the CDP process.

Two days later the City complied.

Now the conspiracy theory.

The HMB wants to use CUSD parking lots for its dream library. The CUSD wants to grease the skids for its project. Meanwhile, Nerhan wants to develop property that will require the cooperation of HMB and the CUSD. HMB and the CUSD are allowed to post Pro E and Pro B signs on Nerhan's property.

On the list of those who were asked to help define the future of Half Moon Bay you will find: Two Nerhans, Two City Council Members. Edward Watkins, and Tony Roehrick.

Its all just too much.I'll explain the lies, share the proof, and propose a theory as to why the CUSD is trying to fly under the radar, later. I am going to bed.


Comments

Sounds like an episode for Rusty Foghorn and darling accomplice Francine.


Just so you have your facts clear:

The subject is repair and replacement of the track around the Football field at the High School. No CDP is likely required for a replacement, which the staff report indicates. It can be given a Cat Ex - categorical exemption because it is not being significantly changed.

Here is the code so you do not have to Google it.

Web Link

The stands were replaced about 5 years ago. They want to avoid additional ADA requirements on relatively new stands. Seems reasonable since the stands already have a ramp. Perhaps the ADA requirements are burdensome and serve no practical purpose - do you know? No, probably not. This also avoids extra work with the State of California which would be unnecessary and add more costs.

So you want them to have to spend more money? That would be what you would have them do. That serves your purpose here but not when the City is spending too much money. So spending too much to study a bridge is bad, but you want them to spend more to re-turf the football field and fix the track? The hypocrisy is comical. The conspiracy angle would be if you were not so off base.

So when you lied about not posting to Talkabout anymore, did that give you license to call everyone, including people here who are not office holders, liars?


"The subject is repair and replacement of the track around the Football field at the High School." Wasn't it all (new field and track around it) just completely redone? I seem to recall that project, the replacement of the field and surrounding track, was done in the last five years.

How long is a project like that suppose to last? It was an extensive project and, if memory serves, had something to do with drainage.

But, I am (like everyone else) getting older and maybe my memory isn't what it used to be.


Funny you should ask that George. It was about 7 or 8 years ago I believe. Just prior to the Superintendent trying to fly the whole thing under the the radar, the board was discussing the replacement of textbooks.

A few teachers from each department made a presentation. The textbooks our schools are using are between 9 and 12 years, or so they said. And indeed, the examples they displayed were quite ragged. The best line of the evening was when a teacher read a quote from one of the battered textbooks.

"This book smells bad!", had been inscribed on the cover by a student.


So when you lied about not posting to Talkabout anymore, did that give you license to call everyone, including people here who are not office holders, liars?

It is true folks. I once promised I would never ever post on the T and A network, again. I broke that promise 30 days later. I will never live the shame down. Please take that into account when you judge the veracity of what I say, prior to reading the pdf or viewing the video that proves what I said.

As for the question posed by August West:

No, it doesn't. It would be wrong to call everybody a liar though of course, everybody has lied. Besides, if I did that, I would be constantly being sued for defamation. Have you not noticed August that of all the people I have accused of lying to us, not one has disputed my contention or sue me? Not a single one.

Why do you suppose that is August? Maybe because I always back up my accusations with video, data, and documentation? Well get ready Mr. West because I have yet to describe the blatant misstatements of fact by Tony Roehrick, show the compelling proof that I have obtained which proves the statements are not true,


"It was about 7 or 8 years ago I believe."

A little longer. 2005. Turf usually only lasts around 10 years. Plus, it was paid for by private money, so the replacement is entirely new money. And part of it private. (*Even then, I did not support the $81 million bond - it is entirely unaccountable)

The track needs help:

Web Link

So, you post about some sort of conspiracy, but leave out part of your "story." Oh, that makes sense. Waiting with bated breath. You always seem to have "facts" which tell your "story" but you never quite seem to have the "goods." (*Except for Savaree...) Typical.


Had a meeting this morning with Steve Sutherland of SSA and Diane and Stephanie of the track fund raising group. One key question came up; since this work is primarily repair and replacement; additional elements aside how do you feel no processing with DSA or the City of Half Moon Bay for a CDP. This would obliviously remove the issue of concern for ADA compliance for the visitor side of the field if we were to try this. Dave Lussiers feels this could work.

Why are you defending the blowing off of ADA compliance August West? People in wheelchairs can't access the visitors stands without crossing the field of play. The CUSD could fix that but they for whatever reason do not want to apply for a CDP.

If they applied for a CDP, they would have to address concerns regarding ADA compliance. Why is this acceptable? What are they afraid of? Why are they willing to game the ADA so as to avoid filing a simple CDP?

I have found a reason that might explain why the School Board, Ed Watkins, Tony Roehrick, and the sports boosters at the CUDS do not under any circumstances want any part of a CDP that might involve scrutiny by the Coastal Commission.

Which leads to a question for Francis. Hey Francis, do you think a school district would be required to have a CDP for the installation of Light Standards that can be seen from the high tide line?

So, you post about some sort of conspiracy...

It was a conspiracy August West. Roehrick, Watkins, Sutherland, and two track boosters didn't want to apply for a CDP. They figured out that if they tried to make access to the visitor's stands accessible for Americans who are disabled, they would HAVE to get a CDP. They don't want to get a CDP so they tossed out the idea of making access to the visitors stands ADA compliant.

They sent several emails back and forth, had a meeting amongst themselves, consulted with some guy by the name of David Lussier, all in an effort to find a way to avoid having to apply for a CDP.


Rusty Foghorn and Francine are missed. Regarding textbooks, the math series shouldn't need replacement. The formulas are the same.

There should be some use of the online math and science curricula presented by the Khan Academy. The textbooks are too heavy and way too expensive. Math books repeat the same material each time they are published. Also, why not use the internet more often and student workbooks?


"People in wheelchairs can't access the visitors stands without crossing the field of play."

No, they would go on the track, as they have before.

"They figured out that if they tried to make access to the visitor's stands accessible for Americans who are disabled, they would HAVE to get a CDP."

The visitor stands already have access for disabled. You have obviously never seen them.


No, they would go on the track, as they have before.

What happens at track events?

This would obliviously remove the issue of concern for ADA compliance for the visitor side of the field if we were to try this. Dave Lussiers feels this could work.

What exactly was the issue of ADA compliance August West?

Frankly, I care as much about gimpy people making it to the visitor stands during track events as does the Board and Management at the CUSD. If they can save a few bucks by ignoring their concerns for ADA compliance, more power to them. I am sure they are proud of how clever their little scheme was.

But messing with the CDP process is something else for you see I think it is important to my continued enjoyment with living here. So yeah, I have never seen the visitor stands and yeah, I think those rules meant to make the world accessible for gimpy people are a pain in the ass. I don't gimp so why should I care anyways? I think it is admirable that Watkins and Roehrick are clever and committed to the cause enough find ways of avoiding complying with the ADA. Hell, they should apply that kind of out of the box thinking to how they approach workplace rules and such. If they could find a way to blow off the teachers unions as casually as the blow off the needs of gimpy Americans.....wow, that would be impressive.

As long as they follow the CDP rules, Roehrick and team CUSD can skimp on things like ADA compliance all they want.

Right?


"What happens at track events?"

They wait? Or perhaps teleport?

"What exactly was the issue of ADA compliance August West?"

Since you do not know, how is there a conspiracy?

"...find ways of avoiding complying with the ADA. "

But you do not actually know that it does not comply. Only that they did not have to undergo a full review that a CDP would require. There is a difference, and you have not made any case here.

But you are the guy that hates the Highway 1 trails, which I think are a godsend for families and disabled people going north and south on Hwy 1. So now trails that take the disabled off the highway might matter to you?


There is a difference, and you have not made any case here.

Still working on my case but what I think about it is hardly relevant. For some reason, the CUSD doesn't want anybody thinking about it. Thus they decided that the the way to avoid having to make their case was to not deal with their concerns over ADA compliance.

Now here is the funny part August West. In the end. None of it mattered.

Now pay attention August West. The conversation between Roehrick, Watkins, and the track boosters occurred on July 10th of 2013.

Almost a year after they concocted a brilliant plan to avoid needing a CDP, they asked the City's opinion on a CDP for a project they hope to do this summer!

The CUSD asked the HMB Planning Department on May 20th, 2014, if they needed to get a CDP. Two days later the HMB planning department decided that no CDP was required.

Think about that. They are trying to pull off a 900,000 dollar project before school starts next Fall. The contracts are signed. The turf has been ordered. Crews have been scheduled.

At the May 8th board meeting, the info packet for the event included a report from CUSD staff. In that report, staff asserts that they had a conversation with HMB officials. Staff went on to assert that the HMB city officials had stated that no CDP was required.

BOTH assertions are contradicted by info provide by the HMB City Clerk per a PRA request. According to Ms. Smith, nobody had discussed anything with anybody in Planning or anybody else at City Hall.

Why do you think they would say that, August West, when it wasn't true? Why were they giving the CUSD SB false information?

When my turn came to speak, I pointed out that what CUSD staff was asserting things did not match up what HMB staff was asserting. Mr. Roehrick then for what ever reason told me something that at the time I was sure could not be true. I sent an email to the person who Mr. Roehrick had made what I assumed to be false claims about. That person confirmed that what Mr. Roehrick said was not true.

Like you have said August West, this project appears to be no big deal. They have a drainage problem and want to reroute the flow of some water. They want to replace the turf and make the track compliant with some sort of standard so they can have home meets.

No big deal, right? So why the subterfuge? And why the wait until the week before school lets out to check with the city on the requirement for CDP for a project they hope to finish by September 1st?

Maybe we'll find out.


"According to Ms. Smith, nobody had discussed anything with anybody in Planning or anybody else at City Hall." If that comment had a 'to the best of my knowledge' in there somewhere, I'd be a lot more comfortable.

The HMB City Clerk is a remarkable person and handles a wide range of functions for the City and always with professionalism and a smile; the most prominent of which would be satisfying public requests (document management) and dealing with elections - both of which are important for the City and its residents and businesses.

She is good...she is very good, but I don't know that she is so good that she can say what conversations have transpired between City personnel (including contracted services, which is the bulk of those working for the City) and others. That's a toughie to swallow and I am a fan of this City Clerk.

See where I'm headed? Maybe she has seen no documentation that would verify discussions; that I could easily swallow...and she would know.


Someone here claimed to have knowledge of an impending run for the Half Moon Bay City Council by someone currently high in the CUSD.

Is there any more info regarding that?

Sounds like a perfect dovetail, don't it?


ps,

where does the water come from?

Where does it currently go?

Isn't any of that drainage considered prime riparian habitat suitable for sf gartersnakes or red legged frogs?

Isn't the drainage that goes anywhere toward the beach highly sensitive?

Isn't that why Benjamin is hated?

Isn't that why they mess with the water course through beechwood?

Isn't that why they put the fence up?

Isn't that why kids need to walk on the highway now?

Or risk crossing hwy1 to walk courtesy of the 100 year legacy plan on a soon to be underutilized NPT?

Why do they want to bypass any scrutiny bmthotb?

You guess why.


Thanks George for adding some additional reality to this absurd thread.

"where does the water come from?"

The sky

"Where does it currently go?"

Back to the sky, eventually

"Isn't any of that drainage considered prime riparian habitat suitable for sf gartersnakes or red legged frogs?"

Prime riparian habitat? No, not likely. Potential riparian habitat? Possibly

"Isn't the drainage that goes anywhere toward the beach highly sensitive?"

Nope

"Isn't that why Benjamin is hated?"

Hated? Not by me. Respected? No, not that either. Why did Jimmy Benjamin approve Jim Grady's house application when Jim had an open ditch right next to it? That open ditch was a few hundred yards from the beach. And drainage problems that existed in the neighborhood had not been addressed? And a sewer easement that was moved by the City Council? And a net/gross lot restriction that was changed just for his house. Lots of questions remain there. But hey, no conspiracy there.

"Isn't that why they mess with the water course through beechwood?"

Nope

"Isn't that why they put the fence up?"

Wrong again

"Isn't that why kids need to walk on the highway now?"

Or ride in a car or ride a bike or bus?

"Or risk crossing hwy1 to walk courtesy of the 100 year legacy plan on a soon to be underutilized NPT?"

California culture is the car

"Why do they want to bypass any scrutiny bmthotb?"

You have no knowledge of the CDP process involved, so you have no idea what level of scrutiny exists in the first place.


"Why do they want to bypass any scrutiny bmthotb?"

Because nobody can locate the CDP or any other paperwork for the installation of the Light Standards for the sports fields is my best guess.

I asked for the info from both HMB and the CUSD via PRA requests over three weeks ago. The city has provided......nothing. The CUSD has provided nothing that is relevant to that request. Not an invoice for the work done. Not an application for a Negative Declaration. Not a CDP. Nothing.

Instead their lawyer declared Attorney Client Privilege and asserted that the public's interest in seeing them is outweighed by the district's interests in not letting the public see them. They did however send me hundreds of emails about some barn that is being built in which they make snide comments about the neighbors.


There seems to be some confusion on this matter. I could be wrong (wouldn't be the 1st time by a long shot), but maybe there is more to this project than meets the eye.

From an Agency standpoint, this almost seems like a non-issue...making a mountain out of a mole hill; But is that all of it?

Here's the Categorical Exemption provided by the City to the CUSD: Web Link

On the surface, it appears benign, but upon further scrutiny, I can understand the concerns. Under "Description of Nature, Purpose, etc" please note the vague reference "modifications to underground drainage". What modifications, exactly?

The reason I ask is that that field has always had drainage issues. There was work done in 2000 to the field, then again in 2005, then again in 2008, and now this.

One has to wonder why that field has drainage issues, and it most certainly does. So what is the extent of drainage work to be done and why does it continue to be a problem?

I'm guessing here, but it appears that we may have a water problem there, possibly from prior actions taken. Further, that property, as we all know, abuts Beachwood and we know what happened there.

There are some that seem to believe that there is a wetland in that region and the drainage issues might confirm that (I don't know and am not qualified to make that determination).

Of course it is only logical that those concerned along those lines are wondering. Further, with the possibility of a potentially substantial project going in just below that location, one can start to see the concerns here.

Things are always better with complete transparency and we don't know that we have that so far.

Furthermore, with the obvious lack of trust our Agencies have engendered (just look at the election results), it is not a stretch to wonder, to ask, to question, because it's not like we haven't seen shenanigans before.

Seems it can be a bummer when the public gets involved.


Nice Mr. West,

You cut to the chase. How wrong I am, was, and will be.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Wrong.

There is no drainage issue. No one cares where the water came from or is going.

There is no historical record of what really happened up there,

and grazing cows on previously fertile if brittle landscape made the price of beef plummet to meet demand and consumer sensibilities.

So unless everyone is turning vegetarian and submits to a 2500 calorie per day diet, in addition to latest tech efficiency planning in addition to not expecting something from nothing,what I know about riparian corridors, drainage ponds, abandoned wrecking yard sites, and inflexible rules regarding kids and trails and buses

means exactly what you have charged it as meaning Mr. West.

Not worth the time it takes me to write it...


^^^^^"Why do they want to bypass any scrutiny bmthotb?"^^^^^

["Because (deleted) the CDP or any other paperwork for the installation of the Light Standards for the sports fields is my best guess"]

And why is it covered by atty/client priveledge?

Is there a dispute?

And this is on your first school district meeting out of the gate.

There's a lurking Goliath bmthotb.

Don't be surprised if you find the root of the problem a dead end.

Your imagination, or you're thinking about it wrong, or you're plain ignorant, or you see ghosts where there are none.

Or any number of things to take the stark reality and soften it.


Above (just above) I posted a link to the "Categorical Exemption provided by the City to the CUSD" and the link shows - it just doesn't open...

So here it is again, in a different format, and it does open: Web Link

Sorry for the inconvenience. Had I known the first way didn't work, I'd have done this earlier.

Hope this helps.


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium