I’ve been perusing the Tribune and Riptide, and pretty much every nook and cranny, for the position of the foremost experts of all things Pacifica on the current Sharp Park Golf Course pie throwing contest (it seems remiss to call it a debate since the pro-golf course side has a very reasonable and well articulated position based on facts, while Brent Plater and the CBGBs are more prone to baseless assertions, wild conjecture, and crafty videos on youtube). Where has been the public comment from Pacificans for Sustainable Development? This issue is, after all, significant to Pacifica in regards to its environment, its economy, and the welfare of the people.
What’s that? They haven’t taken a position? How odd. Doesn’t surprise me. I haven’t been able to follow too much of their positions on anything for very long.
First of all, they seem to have a hard time understanding the term “sustainable development.” PSD formed as a Political Action Committee to oppose Measure E (the Trammel Crow proposal for the Quarry), failed to file a California Fair Political Practices Commission report for 2 years, then one magic yellow sticky note in their file later, reformed to oppose Measure L. Even their organization wasn’t very sustainable.
But what is “sustainable development”? According to the 1987 Report of the U.N. sanctioned Brundtland Commission (from which the term was first derived), sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Read my full analysis HERE)
Pacificans for Sutainable Development seem to have the rallying cry: “What do we want? NOTHING! When do we want it? FOREVER!”
I don’t blame them for being confused. Take the Quarry (which PSD apparently believes it has a right to do, for the good of all Pacifica) . . . though Trammel Crow and Don Peebles followed 2 entirely different processes for development approval of the Quarry, and envisioned 2 entirely different projects, PSD still managed to copy and paste their objections from Measure E to Measure L.
They seemed against projects like The Prospects and Harmony@1 (2 projects that literally defined eco-friendly and sustainable development), until they were reminded what the name of their group was and suddenly fell half-heartedly in favor of these projects. Until they undermined them again and again.
When there was talk of updating the General Plan, they took two totally different positions in the form of a letter to the editor in the Tribune, and a letter to then mayor Pete “$7 Million Reserves” Dejarnatt.
In regards to the need of a General Plan update, they said:
PSD – “A General Plan designation should not be changed lightly, and not without a broader understanding of its city-wide impacts . . . what good is a designation that holds only until someone wants to build? We feel that a move in this direction is an erosion of carefully though-out and publicly supported plans . . . “ – LTE, Pacifica Tribune, 5/16/07
PSD – “We are encouraged that you have taken the task of strategic planning for our city forward, and will soon be setting your sights on the next step –the crucial and overdue updating of Pacifica’s General Plan . . . Anyone who is involved with land use issues in Pacifica is aware of the urgent need for a General Plan update.” – Letter to the Mayor of Pacifica, 4/4/2007
Should current development plans conform to the General Plan, or a revision of the General Plan?
PSD – “A truly sustainable development must not only embrace green building practices, but must conform more closely to existing General Plan and HPD requirements. We urge the Planning Commission and The City Council to up hold the General Plan designation . . . “ - LTE, Pacifica Tribune, 5/16/07
PSD – “Pacificans for Sustainable Development urges the City Council to move forward with appropriate General Plan/Site Specific Plan revisions to avoid confusion, conflict, and misinterpretation.” - Letter to the Mayor of Pacifica, 4/4/2007
Is there a danger to making these kinds of revisions?
PSD – “These areas could be at risk for denser building in the future if these designations are weakened and a new precedent is established.” - LTE, Pacifica Tribune, 5/16/07
PSD - “We urge the City Council to proceed in a revision process that has been in play for several years now, to ensure our Site Specific Plans are the most well-crafted, inclusive, and up-to-date planning guidelines we can provide.” - Letter to the Mayor of Pacifica, 4/4/2007
Well like my good friend Two-Face would say, flip a coin, son. Seems like PSD has used every trick in the book to make sure Pacifica has no more coins.
posted by Jeffrey W Simons aka The Joker
5 comments:
Excellant article.
John Curtis, the self-annointed head of PSD, did publicly go on record as being against a "historic landmark" designation for Sharp Park Golf Course. This was during the public comments portion of the Pacifica Planning Commission session regarding this matter. Such a designation would make it much more difficult for SF to turn the entire golf course into another frog pond. So yes, PSD has spoken.
Pacificans for Sustainable Development (PSD) must have again been amused with their "fooled you again" handiwork when in 2002 they came-up with this name to defeat the Measure E attempt to develop the quarry and bring in services, jobs, another fire station, and tax revenue to this city.
"Two face, flip the coin, every-trick-in-the- book?" I don't know why they just don't go by their other face name "nothing for Pacifica".
what was so strange about the comments by John Curtis is that through Coastal Commission appeals and other obstructionist maneuvers, he has been able to game the system to prevent several significant developments in Pacifica. Yet, he opposes a regulatory roadblock to preserve a true historical treasure in Pacifica.
You want sustainable development? Design your golf course strategy around the new Hybrid golf ball. Update your thinking process and eliminate all this conjecture.
Post a Comment