Fix Pacifica: Still no decision on fate of Sharp Park

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Still no decision on fate of Sharp Park

KGO TV news report:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/sports/pro/golf&id=7128800

Hear Brent Plater and Jeff Miller respond to the SFRPD commissioned report

updated by: rocky 11-20-2009

52 comments:

Jeffrey W Simons said...: Plater and Miller really come across as a couple of crybabies after this meeting.; November 20, 2009 at 7:04 AM
Kathleen Rogan said...: I just don't get it, where do these rad environs think the money for their snake park is gonna come from? SF, Pacifica and other cities are going bankrupt! Like Detroit, all parks have gone to the weeds and prostitutes. One of the reasons I stopped going to the quarry so much is because of the squatters. In the pompos grass, people were and are living. Open space breeds ferel cats and drug activity. I really do believe the rad environs don't care about the environment. I believe the rad environs want power and control and more government money allocated to them for their ass nine agenda's, wasting money on their stupid ideas.

One idea was rescuing birds and setting them free, only for them to get captured and eaten by their natural predators in mid flight. That cost us taxpayers millions. But hey, they got a job out of it. Oh and, what ever happened to that bio-diesel plant. I haven't heard a word about that lately.; November 20, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: Kathleen,

Brent Plater stated on the KQED forum that THOUSANDS of people in Pacifica support the frog and snake park and want the golf course removed. There is no lie he is unwilling to tell for his agenda.

It is really about "preservation" of the coastline, not for public benefit, not for public view, not for human enjoyment, but because the environment is their religion and it makes them feel powerful. In a way, look how successful they have been in browbeating Mirkarimi to bend to their will. It will cost millions of dollars, thousands of wasted hours by good and decent people, and they will never concede defeat.; November 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: as for the biodiesel plant, I don't think the city has even resolved the financial issues with Whole Energy. But I heard through channels they are still trying to bring this project back to life. STAY VIGILANT and don't them sucker the public into accepting a dangerous refinery next to a coastal highway and residential areas, attached to a sewer plant that doesn't even work right.; November 20, 2009 at 9:38 AM
mw said...: One of the most interesting elements of the meeting was when the consultant (forget here name) who investigated and reported on the "mitigation bank" scheme promoted by Plater and CBD cohorts to fund their wet(land) dream.

She was explicit that to use the land for a "mitigation bank" all human recreational activity would have to be excluded from the site. She then delicately and carefully pointed out that this at least raised the question of whether that use would violate the original gift deed, and the heirs to the family that gave the land to San Francisco for public recreational use, would have cause to reclaim the land.

I'm going to rip that clip when SFGTV gets around to publishing it.

The Plater/CBD house of cards is tumbling down.; November 20, 2009 at 10:10 AM
mw said...: that was supposed to be "forgot her name"; November 20, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Kathleen Rogan said...: I remember a long time ago when scott holmes was having meetings with p-twn residents who's backyards ran into creeks, he said something like this to us, 'your lucky we are not a communist country where we would just take your land from you'. He was so mean and rude to all of us. I was astounded and scared. The next creek meeting local trib guy , oh what was his name, anyway he showed up and holmes was so nice. I looked around the room and saw that the trib was there and I was like , "oh, ok. That's why he is being so nice" .

@mw, that guy Ross is a green party guy and loves this kind of stuff. I would bet that he and plater hang out at the same snake park.; November 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: that couldn't be the same scott holmes who dug a trail across private property and county property without permits at pedro point for jim vreeland's pet project, was it?; November 20, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Winter Roads said...: Scott holmes was a great Pacifican. He was so great that he even has pacifica streets named after him. Nobody names a street after someone unless they are great. Scott has two streets named after him, so he must be doubly-great. Scott makes me happy. Haters make me sad.

It would make me happy and all giggly to have digre drive and Dejarnett drive and lancelle lane and vreeland creek.

Stop drinking the Hatorade, you haters!!; November 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM
mw said...: fyi... fun and games in the Chron comments this morning.; November 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Rocky Golub said...: (Part 1 of 2)
Couldn't be the same Scott Holmes who advised ex City Manager Carmany that the City should take the responsibility of repairing the sewer lateral on former Mayor Barbara Carr's client's rental and then later changed his story 180 degrees after discussions with anti-Carmany members of the City Council and City Attorney Quick? This is all documented via sworn statement by former City Councilmember, the late Maxine Gonzalves. Carmany's subsequent firing was based exclusively on Holmes' false account of events. (Part 2, a snippet of the chronology utilized in our taxpayer's lawsuit to block Carmany's firing under a false pretext, will follow); November 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Rocky Golub said...: (Part 2 of 2 - chronology snippet)

"Next we have the declaration of Maxine Gonsalves, mayor pro tem at the time of this incident. She indicates that she had a conversation with Scott Holmes regarding his advice to David Carmany on this matter. He told Maxine that he advised David this was a murky issue as to responsibility, and suggested the City just go ahead and connect the lateral to the main. His testimony as elicited by the City Attorney is quite different. However, it is interesting to note, Public Works never issued a billing for services to the property owner. If Scott Holmes truly felt that it was the property owner’s responsibility, why not bill?

This leads to the last obvious defect in the City Attorney’s logic. The ordinance clearly provides for the City to bill the property owner for services rendered should they arrive at the site and determine that the sewer work for them to do is clearly the responsibility of the property owner. The City NEVER billed the property owner. There is absolutely NO testimony that David Carmany made any stipulation that the property owner should not be billed. The unbiased observer would conclude that David Carmany instructed City crews to alleviate a health hazard, as was appropriate. Absent testimony to the contrary, one must conclude Public Works decided not to bill the property owner for the services rendered, based upon what they found at the job site. Why should the billing decision made by Puiblic Works reflect upon the integrity of the City Manager?"; November 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Kathleen Rogan said...: Who's hatin! Just statin-what happened. I don't hate holmes. I have to say, I am disappointed in the bio-plant, I've been saving my grease. But to be fair, I don't blame holmes,it was just that investors were not buying into it and that is what sunk the industry. No money honey. Cap n Trade will force it on us, so rest assured, it may just make a come back. I have since changed my feelings bout the location of the plant, due to J.S. reporting on it. But, facts remain, he said that and it scared me and why would he say something like that? Does he feel that would be best for the environment? Is my point. So take that to your street.org group and sit on it.; November 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Scott also has toilet paper named after him...; November 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: well Kathleen the plant was full steam ahead until Whole Energy illegally dug an unsafe trench without permits and got shut down by Cal/OSHA. They missed the deadline for their CARB (California Air Resources Board) grant so they skipped town rather than assume further liabilities for the construction and operation of the plant. It was NOT the economy, it was the hubris of people who felt they could shirk the Coastal Commission, Cal/OSHA, USFWS, and the citizens of Pacifica and they got bit for it.

If it is any consolation, one government employee involved with the who ordeal told me it was a good thing we stepped forward to expose Whole Energy and the project for the sham it was, or else the city may have suffered millions in liabilities if they had continued with the construction of the plant.; November 20, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: Here is Plater's spin on the SF Chronicle article:

People -- this was a TOTAL VICTORY for the effort to Restore Sharp Park. The commission wasn't railroaded into a fast decision, they are going to open up the process to peer review and let science take us to the ultimate decision, and no amount of spinning or blather by the golfaholics will change the outcome. The best part - the representatives of all the major environmental groups and major stakeholders are now in favor of restoration or will follow the science. Try as they might, all their nonsense is finally off the table and the path to restoration is now clear.

my question is . . . science? Plater, Butler, Davidson, et al don't know a damn thing about science or the scientific method. They know how to fudge data, and pout like babies when a scientific report comes back without their pre-ordained conclusion.; November 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Kathleen Rogan said...: I am startin to really believe Pacifica lost a good man, Jeff Simon (sad). Maybe we need to take that Holmes street sign down. Who the heck voted for that?

Ya know, a while back, I can't remember his name, but there was a man who I thought had great ideas. I went to his website and offered my help, to work on his campaign. I never heard back from him or anybody and he lost. Oh well.; November 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Steve Sinai said...: The biodiesel plant did not die because they tried to dig an illegal trench.

Rather, it died because the market for biodiesel dried up. Since the business environment changed to the point where it didn't look like it could make a profit on the plant, Whole Energy lost its funding and its interest in the project. You could tell they'd pretty much given up on the project long before they tried to dig the trench, since they had spent months ignoring any inquires about the status of the project from both the city and the plant's supporters.

I believe the only reason the trench was dug was as a "Hail, Mary pass" so Whole Energy and the city could go to the state and say "see, we've started constructing the plant, so give us our grant money."; November 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Kathleen Rogan said...: Yeah, we've seen their science workin for the people in Michigan. Bunch of parks the state can't afford to take care of and all those michigan state employees have moved on to other states to destroy and steal the peoples money. Now, those "natural preservation" parks are in ruins, with rusty leaking pipes, place for garbage dumps, drug dealing and prostitutes. Fun, Fun, Fun!!!!; November 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Steve Sinai said...: It was probably Scott Holmes' idea to name a couple streets after himself. I remember almost laughing, as in "ha-ha, you gotta' be shi**in" me" when I first saw the street signs with his names on them.; November 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Kathleen Rogan said...: Where's the street?; November 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Steve Sinai said...: There are two streets - something like Holmes Way and Scott Drive (I can't remember exactly) at the entrance to the new Waste Water Treatment Plant. You'll see them from that little parking lot across Highway 1 from Ash's Vallemar Station and the Alliance gas station.; November 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Shitalot Holmes said...: Yeah, but his toilet paper sure saved my life the other day after I over indulged at Taco Bell!; November 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Parnelli Holmes said...: I tried entering Scott Holmes Dr. into my car's GPS and it directed me to the City Dump.; November 20, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: The biodiesel plant did not die because they tried to dig an illegal trench.

Rather, it died because the market for biodiesel dried up. Since the business environment changed to the point where it didn't look like it could make a profit on the plant, Whole Energy lost its funding and its interest in the project.

The Cal/OSHA investigation shut down the project after the illegal trench was dug. Whole Energy was trying to beat a deadline to secure the CARB funding, and tried to do an end run around the permit process. Do you really believe the project would have stopped anyway had Whole Energy and the city managed NOT to get caught digging the trench?

By your argument, the project was doomed to fail, in which case I wonder why you even supported it in the first place. Many of us brought to light the bio fuels market was getting saturated, and that enough waste vegetable oil would be hard to secure to make that plant a "Waste Vegetable Oil Recycling Facility." Oakland and San Francisco were both building larger plants, and Whole Energy had a letter from a soybean oil supplier as part of its application.

The bottom line (and here's where we see the similarities with the golf course) is that the proponents of the biodiesel plant played fast and loose with the "facts" to support what was essentially a science project that would have had a completely negligible effect on the environment or reducing our carbon footprint per AB32 (which Jim Vreeland frequently cited as justification for moving the project forward).

The reasons and excuses and "science" changed from day to day, while those of us who approached the project from a reasoned and methodical stand were vilified, mocked, and ignored. Many of the same players are lined up behind the frog and snake park that were behind the biodiesel plant.

And their faulty logic, junk science, and willingness to lie to get what they want has not changed.; November 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Steve Sinai said...: People were saying the biodiesel project was dead months before the trench incident. There had been no tangible progress, Whole Energy stopped pursuing the required permits, and even Steve Rhodes was telling the Tribune he was having a hard time trying to find out what was going on from Whole Energy. To me, that's a classic indication they'd lost interest in the project.

I didn't think the project was doomed to fail. As often happens, business conditions change and projects are dropped. Fresh & Easy is an example.

With Whole Energy, a project that looked profitable at one point stopped looking profitable when energy prices fell, and financing dried up when the stock market fell. The deal with the soybean oil supplier was done earlier in the project when it still looked like the biodiesel plant made economic sense.

My view all along has been consistent - the city needs revenues, and I supported the biodiesel plant because it would have provided about $60,000 a year. I've always felt that most opposition to the plant was driven by the fact that it was viewed as a Nancy Hall/City Council production, and there are people in town who will reflexively oppose any idea, good or bad, that comes from either of those two.

If Don Peebles would have proposed the same project, 80% of the people who opposed the Nancy Hall/CC project would have switched sides; and 80% of the people who initially supported the Nancy Hall/CC project would have opposed it.

The main similarity between the golf course and the biodiesel plant that I see is the need to exaggerate what will happen if the "enemy's" project is implemented. The CBD and its supporters warn of inevitable extinction to the frogs and snakes unless the golf course is shut down. The opponents of the biodiesel plant warned of impending doom in the form of explosions wiping out an elementary school and nerve gas being released across the city. Both are pure bs.; November 20, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: If Don Peebles would have proposed the same project, 80% of the people who opposed the Nancy Hall/CC project would have switched sides; and 80% of the people who initially supported the Nancy Hall/CC project would have opposed it.

complete load of bunk, Steve. Peebles was supportive of the idea of a biodiesel fuel station, but not a refinery. I would have absolutely opposed a fuel refinery in that location even if Joe Paterno had proposed it.

The opponents of the biodiesel plant warned of impending doom in the form of explosions wiping out an elementary school and nerve gas being released across the city. Both are pure bs.

You're wrong again, Steve. People were concerned that a company would be shipping in and processing methanol (a very dangerous and lethal nerve agent) without proper containment or an emergency evacuation plan for the residents and school in Vallemar. Highway 1, especially at that intersection, is probably one of the worst case scenarios for a potential spill.

Now, if you meant the PROPONENTS of the biodiesel plant were completely full of crap that the gas station or PGE fuel tank posed a bigger threat to Vallemar than their little science project, then we agree.

You really need to get your facts straight before you demonize people who really knew what they were talking about and wanted some oversight and due diligence.; November 20, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: My view all along has been consistent - the city needs revenues, and I supported the biodiesel plant because it would have provided about $60,000 a year.

wrong again Steve, read the lease agreement. Whole Energy would have paid the city through the Sewer Enterprise, and had the option to pay in electricity to the sewer plant from a diesel generator, cash, or the biodiesel fuel equivalent. That $60,000 would have been plugged into the Sewer Enterprise. Its not revenue.

Hey the solar panels save how much on electricity at the sewer plant? Did your sewer bill go down or up since they were installed?; November 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: With Whole Energy, a project that looked profitable at one point stopped looking profitable when energy prices fell, and financing dried up when the stock market fell. The deal with the soybean oil supplier was done earlier in the project when it still looked like the biodiesel plant made economic sense.

geez Steve are you going to post ANYTHING that is correct? Nancy Hall, Martin Wahl, Atul Deshmane, and Jim Vreeland all stated publicly before the Coastal Commission hearing that they had already SECURED private financing for the plant. When pressed about their investors, they all cited concerns that if they disclosed their investors, the opponents of the plant would harass the investors.

In real world business speak, they either never had the money and lied, or they had the money and it evaporated into Whole Energy's pockets once the trench went FUBAR.; November 20, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: I've always felt that most opposition to the plant was driven by the fact that it was viewed as a Nancy Hall/City Council production, and there are people in town who will reflexively oppose any idea, good or bad, that comes from either of those two.

Name one revenue positive enterprise this group has ever brought to the City of Pacifica. ONE. Name one project that hasn't been mired in corruption or fiscal mismanagement. ONE.; November 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Unknown said...: Steve, you are so wrong. Those of us who opposed the bio-diesel plant believed it was a project doomed to fail because the company they chose had never built a bio-diesel facility hooked up to a below standard sewage treatment plant. Those who loved this project loved it because it would have put the kibosh on any development in the Quarry…ever. I still have hope something will happen there for the good of the City.; November 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Steve Sinai said...: Jeffy, there's no way either of us can prove what you'd have done if Peebles proposed the biodiesel plant, but I think you'd have been all for it if Peebles proposed it, and you'd be complaining to those who opposed it that they always opposed anything that brought revenues into the city.

$60,000 to the city, in the form of cash, electricity, biodiesel, Pacifica bucks, whatever... it's still ultimately contribtes $60,000/yr to the city's bottom line.

When the economy tanks, lots of projects get cancelled because the expected financing is withdrawn. While not nice, it's absolutely normal and to be expected. It looks like that's what happened to Whole Energy. I have a hard time believing Whole Energy or the city would have started a project if they didn't think they could complete it.; November 20, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Steve Sinai said...: Lois, I don't know that I "loved" the project, but I was in favor of it, and never felt it would do anything to stop development in the Quarry. If anything, I figured the development of the biodiesel plant would have helped nudge open the gates to further development in the Quarry.; November 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Whole Energy Fuels (WEF)never built even one stand-alone biodiesel plant much less a never- been-done integration with a WWTP. WEF had little money, little reputation, a sketchy track record. They were probably the "least likely to succeed, and were kicked from Bellingham, WA because after two years of promises they did not comply with the city ordinance to build a pump station to distribute their biodiesel product.

In Pacifica property owners got stuck with the additional bill for the concrete foundation, $135,000 advance seed money, city fines, WEF default fees and fines, 4 years staff time, etc.,etc., etc. Big thank you to councilmember Vreeland (our biodiesel plant) and Nancy Hall (just a citizen) for that one.

Of course adding the unknown element of integration and chemicals to a WWTP that doesn't work well by a company that doesn't know how is potentially problematic to the neighborhood, including the nearby quarry and elementary school.

Although not confirmed I heard this city turned-away Chevron which has money, research resources, expertise, deep pockets, proper insurance protection for the community, and a track record. Once again 7 year city council didn't do their due diligence, the vetting process was questionable, the company chosen to do the job was without merit.; November 20, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Unknown said...: It was a stupid project...regardless of who had suggested it. I would swear on a Bible that none of us would have been in favor of it if Peebles had suggested it. We are not stupid.; November 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Rocky said...: Steve:
Using the slump in the economy as an excuse for non performance is lame. Everyone with reasonable business sense knows that the economy is cyclical - i.e., upturns and downturns. Every sound business plan must predict obstacles and include contingency factors to overcome those obstacles, one of which would be a cyclical economic downturn. If project abandonment was the only contingency plan for an economic downturn, then Whole Food's investors should have been advised they were investing in a kindergarten project. Unfortunately, this kiddie project seems to have cost the taxpayers of Pacifica tens of thousands of dollars.

You also stated:
"The main similarity between the golf course and the biodiesel plant that I see is the need to exaggerate what will happen if the "enemy's" project is implemented. The CBD and its supporters warn of inevitable extinction to the frogs and snakes unless the golf course is shut down..."

I don't think this is a legitimate comparison. The grease refinery was a brand new project - never existed before. On the other hand, the golf course was already in existence (77 years) and the removal of it to develop a build-it-and-they-will-come frog & snake habitat was likewise the brand new project. It is appropriate to critique new projects and be skeptical of changes to the status quo. Especially when they involve public land. The grease refinery was to be built on public land and the public has every right to weigh in. Peeble's property, i.e., the Quarry, is his. The only reason we have any say in his business is because of his desired variance from the zoning designation.; November 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Steve Sinai said...: Rocky, I never said Whole Energy was a well-run business. They weren't. But are you trying to tell me that companies are expected to go forward with their projects even when the economy runs into problems, business conditions change, and credit dries up? I don't think that's realistic, and even companies that are regarded as well run stop projects in those conditions.

While everyone knows that there's a business cycle, people aren't good at predicting those cycles.

My comparison between the golf course and biodiesel plant had to do with exaggerated claims of doom used by by the opponents of the golf course and the opponents of the biodiesel plant. I don't disagree with your explanation of the differences between the two, but your explanation didn't have anything to do with the point I was trying to make.

OK, I'm out until tomorrow.; November 20, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: Steve,

you have yet to demonstrate exactly which claims by the opponents of the biodiesel plant were "exaggerated". Please review a MSDS for methanol to understand where the concern was, far from exaggerated.

Claiming a golf course will kill frogs and snakes is far more hyperbolic than being concerned about tanker trucks of methanol barreling down HWY 1 without an emergency evacuation plan in place, and doubly concerned that a containment wall was removed from the design of the plant "to save $900,000" according to Martin Wahl.

You're being obtuse, either deliberately or because you're bored, but there's no way in hell I'm going to let you slide by comparing what the opponents of the biodiesel plant said and what CBD and their supporters are saying. Its invalid to the point of being offensive, and your point makes you look pretty naive.

Maybe you need to stop hanging around Butler because you sound as dumb as he does when you post things that are clearly inaccurate.; November 20, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: $60,000 to the city, in the form of cash, electricity, biodiesel, Pacifica bucks, whatever... it's still ultimately contribtes $60,000/yr to the city's bottom line.

Then you clearly don't understand how the Sewer Enterprise works. Under ideal circumstances, considering about 14,500 homes and properties in Pacifica, $60,000/yr could have, at best, saved each property owner about $4 a year in their sewer bill.

Woo. Frikkin. Hoo.; November 20, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Its worse than that. In total the city must have lost near $500,000 (4 years in planning) for property owners for this mistake.

The concept was interesting assuming this project had been solid and valid. It wasn't, the goal for WEF and whoever else was involved was making the project go online, and collecting the $640,000 State grant-- that's why WEF tried to dig the utilities lines last minute and flubbed that as well.; November 20, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Who ever threw-in Winter Roads above, thanks that's pretty funny stuff.

Rocky, or anyone else who knows...why was the sewer lateral cost in question, or was it street pipe which was owned by the city not the property owner which failed? Also, didn't the city once repair or replace sewer laterals if they were within something like 2 feet of the property line?; November 20, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Steve Sinai said...: How did we end up discussing methanol under "Still no decision on fate of Sharp Park?"

This may come off as "stream of consciousness" because I'm about to fall asleep, but here goes-

Methanol&Safety:
While I wouldn't want to drink or swim in methanol, I wouldn't want to drink or swim in gasoline either. There are lots of unsafe chemicals around. Should I get rid of my Liquid Plumber because I'd die if I drank a bottle? I've used methanol (wood alcohol) as paint thinner, and you can buy 55 gallon drums of methanol on EBay. ($189 plus shipping.) If it was that dangerous, you wouldn't be able to buy large quantities so easily.

Around here, I'd be more worried about drowning in the ocean, falling off a cliff, or getting hit by a car.

Also, when it came to the safety of the plant, the police and fire departments signed off, and the Coastal Commission didn't seem too concerned, either. I don't know of any official agency with expertise in the matter who was worried about the plant's safety. So I do think the safety concerns related to methanol were hugely exaggerated. Talking about how the kids at Vallemar Elementary were in danger was baseless, and purely meant to scare people. Talking about "nerve gas" was simply absurd.

In the EIR, it was estimated that when the plant was in full production, there would be 10 round trips a month of trucks entering the biodiesel plant carrying methanol. I don't consider that excessive. And the fact that Jeffy used terminology like "barreling down HWY 1 without an emergency evacuation plan in place" shows me that scary hyperbole is a big part of the anti-biodiesel argument. I just finished CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) training. From what I gathered, in the event of some kind of disaster, we don't have specific emergency evacuation plans for anything.

Lease:
I took a look at the lease agreement between Pacifica and Whole Energy at the city website, and there is no mention of the term "Sewer Enterprise." In fact, the words "Sewer" or "Enterprise" don't exist in the lease agreement at all. I also don't remember the term coming up in any previous discussions of the lease agreement, so I'm not sure why it suddenly came up. The lease spells out that Whole Energy will pay the landlord (City of Pacifica) in the form of biodiesel, electricity generation, and/or cash. $60,000 being paid to the city for a business venture is pretty good compared to other businesses in town.

Nobody ever said the biodiesel plant was a financial silver bullet or would have Pacifica rolling in dough. The argument that it's only $4 a year per household sounds like the same kind of argument the hippies use when they try to block a business. How much tax revenue is the Houmam project going to generate? I'm sure it's a lot less than $4 per year per household, but that wasn't a reason to oppose it.

As for people claiming they would be against the biodiesel plant no matter what - just look at who was for it and against it. The people opposed were the same ones who were in favor of Measure L, except for an occasional weirdo like me. The people in favor of the plant were the same ones opposed to Measure L, except for the occasional weirdo like Todd Bray or Bruce Hotchkiss. That tells me people's positions were based on what group they identified with, and not based on the relative merits or faults of the project.; November 21, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: "Methanol has a high toxicity in humans. If ingested, as little as 10 mL can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve and 30 mL is potentially fatal, although the usual fatal dose is typically 100–125 mL (4 fl oz)."

No really, no cause for alarm because you can purchase it on eBay (though all the auctions I saw were for 30mL bottles with explicit safety instructions.)

Also, when it came to the safety of the plant, the police and fire departments signed off, and the Coastal Commission didn't seem too concerned, either. I don't know of any official agency with expertise in the matter who was worried about the plant's safety. So I do think the safety concerns related to methanol were hugely exaggerated. Talking about how the kids at Vallemar Elementary were in danger was baseless, and purely meant to scare people. Talking about "nerve gas" was simply absurd.

Again, you're showing your ignorance of the process. The police and fire DID NOT sign off on anything because they never saw construction plans for the plant. That was really their point, all they had was a sketch and a flowchart to show how the plant would operate in theory. There was no way for them to intelligently address the issue without the specifics, and Whole Energy was very lax in providing the specifics. The Coastal Commission said the liability laid with the City of Pacifica. Its not that they showed NO concern, but they put the responsibility of that concern squarely on the shoulders of our City Council.

In the EIR, it was estimated that when the plant was in full production, there would be 10 round trips a month of trucks entering the biodiesel plant carrying methanol. I don't consider that excessive. And the fact that Jeffy used terminology like "barreling down HWY 1 without an emergency evacuation plan in place" shows me that scary hyperbole is a big part of the anti-biodiesel argument. I just finished CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) training. From what I gathered, in the event of some kind of disaster, we don't have specific emergency evacuation plans for anything.

oh ok so trucks DRIVE carefully down HWY 1 always observing the speed limit. They never "barrel". Give me a break! You made my point that we HAVE no emergency evacuation plan, and we were going to put a toxic refinery next to a coastal highway without one. Make sense.

I took a look at the lease agreement between Pacifica and Whole Energy at the city website, and there is no mention of the term "Sewer Enterprise."

Steve, do you even understand what the Sewer Enterprise is? Since the biodiesel plant would have been part of the sewer plant, the monies for it all transact in a separate fund from the General Fund. There is no more direct benefit to the citizens of Pacifica than the solar panels. We don't realize any economic benefit through the Sewer Enterprise because it is not money that goes to the General Fund. More to the point, Whole Energy could have very easily given the city $60,000 worth of fuel and skipped town, and then where would the city be? Again, you're reaching at a point that doesn't exist in the real world.

I'm not sure what your point is about the Houmam's, but its another display of the ridiculous leaps of logic you're making. The biodiesel plant was being built with public money, with a promise of a return on an investment to the public. The Houmams were investing PRIVATE CAPITAL. There's no loss to the city if they fail, in fact the city would still get their development fees. Promoting the rebuilding of Palmetto with mixed use, commerce friendly developments is critical to the rebuilding of Pacifica's economy. The biodiesel plant would have generated NADA for Pacifica. Electricity for the sewer plant, yes. Money for you're average Pacifican, NO.

I'm just disappointed by your remarkable display of ignorance in discussing this issue. I really suggest you go back and understand what was said by whom in regards to the biodiesel plant and stop inhaling methanol fumes.; November 21, 2009 at 5:45 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: Again Steve, you fall into the same logical rabbit hole that we see from Brent Plater, Ian Butler, Carlos Davidson, CBD, et al . . .

"I think it, therefore it must be true"

Deal with facts, not suppositions, not intuitions, not things you think because it makes your world make sense.

Wrap your head around the fact that according to the proponents of the biodiesel plant, there is no difference between a biodiesel refinery and a storage shed and then get back to me.; November 21, 2009 at 5:48 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: funny thing . . . there seems to have been TWO recent incidents where trucks working on city projects "barreled" down a hill and destroyed private property, putting people's lives in jeopardy. But nope, never would have happened with Whole Energy in charge. I'm just exaggerating, apparently.; November 21, 2009 at 6:33 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: I agree with Steve, for later reference if would be helpful to open opening a new discussion for unrelated topics.

10 truck loads of biodiesel production per month sent to Richmond doesn't sound like much, but brings-up another issue: WEF didn't plan to use double insulated cylinder trucks for transport (they said until they reached a certain production level), which is less safe for the public in event of an accident, and against CA code I believe.

Setting-up a partnership with WEF was an unnecessary risk, underfunded, under-insured, lacking expertise, connected to our WWTP-- potentially an accident waiting to happen. Finding background information on WEF wasn't difficult, including their Bellingham, WA operation and default, so why was our city doing business with them?

And, remember according to Nancy Hall (representing WEF before this project started going sideways) WEF had investors (all undisclosed of course). I hope the undisclosed investors didn't lose their money, but I suspect the primary investors were 1)property owners of Pacifica who pay their WWTP bill, 2) the $135,000 City advance to WEF we'll never see again, 3) the $620,000 State grant for the project which didn't happen because the plant didn't go on line ("our money" according to Councilmember Vreeland who promoted the project). The fancy generator, maintenance, integration and upkeep would all be paid by property owners as included in our sewer bill.

Of course the cost of the mistake and aftermath of partnering with WEF will also be paid by us. Don't remember the city doing an EIR for this "pet" project. Approximate total cost amortization viewed at -$60,000, $0 interest = 8.33 years = priceless.

Steve points-out that we need to be careful that issues don't deteriorate into them and us, the Hatfields vs. McCoys; on the other hand, the city was doing business with an inept company on this one, again. This is our city, our money, our safety-- our vested interest as Jeff points-out. This kind of city judgment error and mistake should not happen, even in the 7 year city council quest to backwater Pacifica.; November 21, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Scotty said...: I didn't think the biodiesel plant made enough of a difference either way to get riled up about, but I completely agree with Steve's assessment on one thing... The most disturbing part of this entire discussion is how willing almost all of the participants on both sides of the issue are to take a position diametrically opposed to their position on Measure L -- apparently, just for the purpose of opposing their "enemies". It's lazy, petty, and very discouraging.; November 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Unknown said...: Whatever Scotty just said did not make sense to me. Would someone explain?; November 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Steve Sinai said...: Jeffy, why do you get so upset and take it so personally when people disagree with you? You get too emotionally wrapped up in these things. and you should know by now that name-calling isn't going to end the discussion.

I just don't think the plant was dangerous, and neither did any of the agencies charged with reviewing the plans. The flaw in the logic of saying local safety agencies didn't have the necessary information to determine whether the plant was safe or not, as Jeffy claims, is that opponents of the plant are in the same boat. They don't have enough information to insist that the plant was dangerous, either.

As usual, I agree with Scotty. The biodiesel plant wasn't that big of a deal either way, so it was nothing to get that riled up about. I view it as another lost opportunity, which is par for the course in this town.

If anyone needs a 55 gallon drum of methanol, go to ebay and do a search on "methanol 55 gallon". If you can't find something so easy to find on ebay after you've been told it exists, it say something about the care and effort that goes into your other arguments.; November 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: If anyone needs a 55 gallon drum of methanol, go to ebay and do a search on "methanol 55 gallon". If you can't find something so easy to find on ebay after you've been told it exists, it say something about the care and effort that goes into your other arguments.

eBay's search function is currently disabled. But you knew that, right?; November 21, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...: I just don't think the plant was dangerous, and neither did any of the agencies charged with reviewing the plans. The flaw in the logic of saying local safety agencies didn't have the necessary information to determine whether the plant was safe or not, as Jeffy claims, is that opponents of the plant are in the same boat. They don't have enough information to insist that the plant was dangerous, either.

this is the kind of shoddy reasoning that puts people at risk. Let's examine what we DID know about the biodiesel plant:

- near a residential area
- near a school cut off from evacuation in a valley
- no full EIR was performed, only an addendum. The leap of logic you had to accept that the addendum was acceptable was that a biodiesel refinery was equivalent to a storage shed
- no double-walled tankers
- firewall removed from initial design to save cost of $900,000 (per Martin Wahl)
- Whole Energy had never built a facility like this before
- Whole Energy had a distribution facility shut down in Washington for failure to comply with fuel dispensing codes at their facility
- project was shut down by Cal/OSHA and Whole Energy and City of Pacifica fined for digging an illegal and unsafe trench

I think that's more than enough information to make a reasonable person see that public safety was not a priority for the builders and supporters of this project.; November 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Oh yes, the $900,000 WEF firewall removal from the already "thrifty" WWTP conversion integration plan was another WEF/Marty Wahl "nice touch", along with him pass-off a small business liability policy as adequate insurance protection for the people of Pacifica, namely property owners who pay the WWTP bill and would be liable for WEF mistakes or accident. Jeff, I think your acronym for that was KABOOM, do you happen to remember the words which describe this irregularity?; November 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM