Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pacifica's Economic Plan
Submission and comment policy
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Historic Sharp Park Golf Course
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(601)
-
▼
March
(42)
- Terra Nova Booster Club "Tiger Scramble" Golf Tour...
- Fix corporate taxes to increase competitiveness
- Pacifica Chamber of Commerce Reaffirms Support for...
- Pacifica Five-0 confined to Pacifica
- Be prepared for when the Big One hits
- Immediate earthquake preparedness
- Protest? What Protest?
- Do You Hate Taxes?
- San Mateo County Supervisor District 1 Candidate's...
- Save Sharp Park Fundraiser - April 28, 6 PM, Sharp...
- Feds: Parks scientists erred in oyster farm study
- SF Chronicle story on Sharp Park
- Sewer Rate Hike Protest Form
- Coffee w/ Len Stone City Councilman
- Sharp Park Lawsuit: Ken Venturi Urges San Francisc...
- Sharp Park Internment and more from Pacifica Histo...
- Environmental Lawsuits - More Profitable Work Than...
- Internet Explorer 9
- Don't Fergit - Pacifica Democrats and Coastside De...
- The event that almost wasn't, thankfully - Tornado...
- Sheriff's proposal is cheapest option for Half Moo...
- Replacement Ballots
- Regional water board settlement, sewage fines and ...
- The future of Sharp Park
- Beach Boulevard Property (Old Waste Water Treatmen...
- It's not trails that Pacifica is known for
- Pacifica resident wins settlement against trash ha...
- You are Invited To The Pacifica Democrats and Coas...
- Will Pacifica environmentalists support quarry dev...
- Any Fresh & Easy reviews?
- Pacifica gets a tourist!!
- In S.F., plan to limit dogs in parklands decried
- Don't Fergit - GGNRA is holding an open house, pu...
- OCEANA HIGH SCHOOL FUND RAISER THIS SATURDAY
- The Company Behind the Fire Suppression Assessment
- SF Examiner's Ken Garcia comments on Sharp Park
- Sierra Club clarifies its position on Sharp Park
- Vote for Strong Schools
- Wow, you deleted my post!? That is very interestin...
- Here it goes again. Someone looked at one of those...
- Statement of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, c...
- Public Meeting -- March 9th -- Cabrillo School - G...
-
▼
March
(42)
Visitors:
51 comments:
This looks like what most of us know should happen at the Beach Blvd/Palmetto Av OWWTP property: Ocean front Hotel, shops/mixed-use on Palmetto. Parking in that area and the neighborhood must be a consideration. Could turn-out to be a fun place to live and visit (and profitable) if its developed properly.
At the March 31st, 2010 joint study session regarding the OWWTP, I recall Mayor Digre requesting that an aquarium component be considered for the new evaluation, and several Planning Commissioners also agreed with this request. The new 40 page evaluation by the consultants does not consider this opportunity.
What happened?
Alleluia.!!!! I hope they really stick up with something like this. This is the best I have ever heard.
This is a good plan to help out businesses on Palmetto area and to attract tourist and foot traffic to stay and spend money in Pacifica.
I could tell you something that during the weekend people are always asking for a place to eat and have fun. And this plan looks what this place should look now.
Global warming makes this infeasible. Anything built there will end up underwater.
Let's turn it into an underwater park and give it to the GGNRA. It's a win-win!
Right on Gaia! In fact no money should be spent on anything west of Hwy 1 since it will all be underwater and that includes the frog park. So those work crews I see at Mori's Point that our tax money is being wasted on should be halted immediately. Also, the CBD and WEI can withtdraw their lawsuits and quit billing the taxpayers for their un-needed services. The GGNRA has no experience with underwater parks but maybe Jacque Cousteau's heirs could assist in that effort.
I have worked across the street from the plant for the last 26 years. In 1999 Barry Swenson was already in the processing stage of his development when a late payment to the City of Pacifica halted his project. This is exactly what has again been proposed for the area and could be a huge boost for the economic development of this City as well as providing jobs (building, planning, sales, ect.) for this area. I am sure any type of development would include a parking structure to eliminate the need for excessive street parking. With the financial needs of this City this is a win/win. The old PODC idea was one that needed large outside funding and at the time did not generate alot of independent donations.It is also known that these types of facilities have high upkeep costs.
Good luck Barry Swenson. You'd think this run down broke city would welcome him with open arms and real cooperation. What are the odds?
Anon-1:28, unfortunately I think the city senior staff are but without sharing the Swaim report of 2006/7 or the Coastal Commission staff report from July 14, 2008 where it found Calera Creek to be an Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and so is misleading the company down the preverbal path. Swenson deserves better than to be mislead by senior staff.
Yeah, here we go again. While we're sure to get sidetracked in the never-ending growth vs. no-growth thing, we forget that it really isn't going to be up to silly little Pacifica when it comes to any development of the quarry. Aren't there 5 or 6 different regulatory agencies with oversight? Believe I heard that at a council meeting. I want to see some kind of mixed development there but the odds are against it. And the timeline is years and years and years. Hope Swenson has deep pockets and lots of friends
beyond City Hall who can actually help make it happen.
How many times does Council need to spend our tax dollars on consultants who essentially have the same suggestions that no one ever listens to?
Swenson is a high quality developer who will waste thousands of dollars (for the second time)if this lopsided Council and their planning commission is still in charge.
If you want this property developed get rid of Digre, DeJarnatte and Vreeland. Otherwise they and their sycophants will block, stall, appeal and kill this revenue generating project just like they've always done.
Our Government is bankrupt but these guys keep looking for welfare checks.
They are in charge. Put there by the voters just last November. And they know they will not be the real obstacle for Swenson so I wouldn't expect much opposition from them. Just the usual posturing and posing to keep the supporters happy. Hope Swenson has done his homework and doesn't rely on ANYTHING these smalltime politicians and their advisors say.
"How many times does Council need to spend our tax dollars on consultants who essentially have the same suggestions that no one ever listens to?"
I was part a library focus group at Sharp Park Library on Saturday, and while it was very interesting, people were openly wondering whether we were taking part in another study that would never be acted on.
Very likely because of the habitat and all the regulatory agencies. But if a developer wants to try then he should do his homework and get his own facts. Caveat emptor applies.
"I was part a library focus group at Sharp Park Library on Saturday"
What was the meeting on Saturday about?
Mitch, here are a few blurbs from the agenda we had -
Context: As part of our process for the Library Needs Assessment Services for Pacifica, we are reaching out to a cross section of the community to help us better understand the community's service needs and priorities. This Focus Group meeting is meant to be an open and collaborative discussion with individuals who are interested in the future of the library.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to engage in a detailed discussion about community needs, service priorities, and future ideas for library services.
Intended Results: The intended results of this meeting are to understand the overall process and how and where you are inputting into it; develop an understanding of the current and future service needs of the community from this group's perspective, and; develop an understanding of the service priorities for the delivery of library services.
We got asked things like how often we used the library; what did we use it for; if we visited libraries other than the Pacifica libraries, and why; what the library did well and didn't do well; what should be changed; what the role of the library should be in the community; our vision of the library in 10 years, and so on.
Attendees were Helen James, Jerry Crow, Nancy Hall, Steve Wright, me, Hanna Olsen, Joey Koblitz, and Kjersti Chippindale.
It wasn't totally clear how we were selected. I do use the library fairly often, have been in and out of the Friends of the Library, and filled out the online library survey a month or two ago.
The people running the meeting said the process involved several study sessions where anyone and everyone was invited, and a few smaller focus groups.
It was genuinely interesting, and the high school kids were a lot more tuned in to what's going on in the community than I would have expected.
We were also asked to remind people to fill out the Library Needs Assessment Survey, so here it is - Pacifica Library Survey
They may be smalltime politicians but they're real good at "duck and cover" while blocking development.
Mike, you jester you. Name one development that's been before the council in a decade that not only got approval even on appeal but also got planning commission restrictions overturned at the request of the applicant.
I dare you... no I DOUBLE dare you to name one.
What? Can you rephrase that question?
no on Peebles Quarry plan
Todd, we all live in Pacifica, and those of us who somewhat pay attention know the planning development "chop and delay" score.
The Planning process is inefficient, expensive, and draconian. The planning commission (appointed by city council majority) is loaded with anti-development commissioners, and influenced by ad hoc anti-development friends.
For $100 the process at city council can be challenged, and usually is. And, the hunt is on for some environmental or design limitation from day one.
No, we get it. What you and Tom (prior) have suggested is merely a technicality, and does not reflect the fact that these projects eventually approved do not get built. Example, more recently, the 2 hillside green residential projects, end of Bleach Blvd residential, Rockaway/H-l commercial, maybe the 5 unit Palmetto Avenue mixed-use. Apparently the goal to not develop anything significant is working quite well. Some of us do not want to pay the additional taxes to make up for a substandard, "no growth" dysfunctional city.
BTW, within 10 years-- North Pacifica LLC was passed by city council, then the city contract language was apparently change after-the-fact to "joint and several liability" involving all residential units, which killed that development-- and caused a 7 year lawsuit. "Win, win" as Charlie Sheen and Gaia (3/13, 7:10pm) say, the city ultimately lost $1.5+ million in expenses on that one, (DeJarantt called it "our savings account").
Thanks for the info Steve.
In 2007, the Pacifica Library Foundation Findings identified using a portion of the old WWTP as a future library site. Have you seen the new Redwood Shores Library / Environmental Interpretive Center?
The current development proposal for the old WWTP site calls for selling off the southern section of the land for housing. Meaning the land will not be used as a visitor serving aspect. Whereas, you could sell off both City owned library sites (Sanchez site 3 acres)for housing with the money going directly to the city, and then use this housing section of the WWTP for the Library and Pacifica Ocean Discovery Center. Both visitor serving and community serving. A Boutique Hotel and Restaurant would be more valuable next to an attraction rather than next to condos. What concerns our objections would you have with this concept?
Mitch, "highest and best use" considerations aside, why would you want an Ocean Discovery Center in your neighborhood rather than a small hotel and village shops?
Also, wonder if the GGNRA would be willing to put an Ocean Discovery Center and Environmental Interpretive Center, along with a parking lot, on their Mori Point property. That seems like a better location to me.
And, FYI our group members of the first library services meeting were clear they wanted to retain 2 libraries (in similar locations to the existing libraries). The existing library information system got really high marks; and, the excellent, helpful staff are well loved and appreciated by our community.
Kathy,
If you read what I wrote above, the concept includes and retains all aspects and square footage of the hotel & restaurant, and all the other vistor serving commercial and retail components indentified in the 2011 Development Evaluation.
The Library and POD Center would only occupy the southern portion of the property set aside to be sold off for housing. Condos will not draw visitors to Palmetto (Main Street).
Are you against attracting visitors to Pacifica and or Sharp Park?
The site location is all about the 24 inch intake /outflow pipe that runs from the WWTP property and out the end of the pier. Enartec Engineering was amazed that we had this 1.5+ million dollar pipe infastructure in place, and expressed that the city should utilize this rare and valuable asset. Without raw seawater jellyfish and other complex sea creatures would not be able to live in exhibit tanks.
Considering the Endangered Species issue at the golf course and current lawsuit and other land use restrictions related to the GGNRA, there is no possibility of locating it on Mori Point.
Speaking with Mr. Ball earlier, he made it clear that there was no solid conclusion as to where the library should be located or definitive decision regarding keeping both libraries. Because of the current "Needs Assessment" he could not make a statement regarding the issue, however, he did encourage me to pursue expressing my ideas.
Mitch, I always liked the idea of the Ocean Discovery Center, as long as it didn't cost the city money. It's unique enough to attract people, and passes as the type of enterprise that might help give Pacifica an identity.
I wouldn't want it in lieu of a hotel, shops and restaurants, but it could certainly complement them. I frankly wasn't too crazy about the housing I saw at Site 2 of the study for exactly the reason you mentioned - condos and townhouses won't attract visitors. Pacifica needs to diversify its economy to be less dependent on housing, and I believe something that attracts visitors should be given priority at that particular location.
The idea of the library having a special oceanography collection because of its location was actually suggested during Saturday's focus group.
Does it look like people are revving up to give the OCD another shot?
To succeed the WESPAC Palmetto streetscape plan needs something to bring more visitors to the area, and to that end The Ocean Discovery center would undoubtedly attract more visitors than a few condos. This would even help the envisioned hotel/restaurant at the WWTP.
The big question is whether it could be funded, but there is no reason the rest of the WWTP couldn't move forward while the funding is sought. In the recent plans for the WWTP, the part Mitch is talking about would be separated from the hotel by an alley.
It could be the home of Barney the Barnacle.
It would have to compete with the world class Steinhart at the glorious Academy of Sciences and the also world class Monterey Bay Aquarium, and I think there is also an aquarium at Fisherman's wharf or Pier 39 area. Is there enough interest for all these--particularly when there is so much more to see in SF and Monterey so that visitors to those cities get more bang for their buck. Also these are very costly to run and maintain even if it is very small scale. Could it be done well here? I know it sounds great but just wondering if it's the best revenue-producing use of the property.
"Are you against attracting visitors to Pacifica and or Sharp Park?"
No. There needs to be adequate parking, and hopefully a pleasant and improved environment for the neighborhood as well, still keeping within "highest and best use" within zoning.
Steve brings up a good point: who pays for the ODC to be built, housed and maintained should one be built?
I agree with Anonymous at 12:58 am, between Monterey, Steinhart and the Pier 39 aquariums, and the Bay Area Discovery Museum we have enough! I think we need to re-constitute Playland.
Todd,
Surely you jest.
Are you really fooled by the Council/No Growth dance?
"just wondering if it's the best revenue-producing use of the property."
An evaluation of this concept (what was supposed be included in the current evaluation) would have provided an answer to your question
The small project that I am proposing (with adequate parking) would attract more visitors than condos would. Meaning more foot traffic on Palmetto to visit coffee shops, stores and restaurants.
The Designer of the Monterey Aquarium, and the Director of Steinhart Aquarium visited the site and told the city that a unique oceanfront visitor experience could be created that would compliment the other aquariums. In a letter from the director to the City " you have an excellent opportunity, particularly given the location, to do something wonderful for Pacifica and its citizens"
What I am proposing would be run like the Sanchez Art Center and Little Brown Church Historical Museum and no cost to the City.
Grant money, donations, and memberships would cover the cost to build and operate the facility. Very much like many of the museums you see out there.
It would also be something Pacifica students could be involved in.
Come on now Mike, pro growth or no growth dance, name one development that's been before the council in a decade that not only got approval even on appeal but also got planning commission restrictions overturned at the request of the applicant.
You're joking, right?
Please ask Rick Lee, Tait Cowan, Chris Cook and others (who's names I can't recall at this moment) how much precious money and time was wasted due to Council/No Growth choreography.
More importantly, look what happened when the dance finally ended.
Bank accounts drained.
Lost window of opportunity.
No project.
High five.
Todd, I think you're asking others to name a project that DIDN'T get approval.
As I've said a million times, council and the planning commission don't have to say no. They just have to refuse to say yes. They drag these things out forever, until the applicants run out of money or patience. Along with what Mike mentioned, the Houmams got jerked around by council. They stuck it out. The guy who was trying to reopen Horizons went before council and complained that it had been over three years from the time he submitted his request for approval. He eventually went bankrupt.
It's these kinds of delays that make it impossible to build in town, and I do believe it's a game played by the council and the planning commission.
You ain't seen nothin' yet. The planning commission is now fully loaded and ready to continue on its council majority-given mission of obstruction, delay, and harassment of just about every project that comes before it. Why in the world is anyone surprised by this? And further to the aquarium idea. It might have had a chance in the old economy 5 or 10 years ago but trying to do it with handouts and volunteers is unrealistic. One thing we don't need is something we can't finish or finish badly or allow to deteriorate because of no money for maintenance or a lack of professional staff. Aquariums are not cheap and they are highly regulated. Not a DIY kind of project. Condos won't bring visitors but a smallish, interesting hotel and a few well chosen shops just might if partnered with professional marketing. Not being negative here just practical.
Thank you Steve. DIDN'T!!! And they all did get approved.
Lots of local folks have draw site plans out of genuine interest like Dan Murphy, Mike bell, and even me. They all had similar components with different arrangements reflecting the individuals tastes that utilized the whole site. But this new report thing has a hideous looking proposed site plan that looks like it was a colored construction paper project done by lab monkeys. It seems like the input from the public was just ignored or worse just tossed out. It came as much as a surprise as the suggested site plans for the quarry drawn up by that freaking weird consultant company. Come to think of it those three quarry alternatives looked like colored construction paper projects pasted together by lab monkeys too. Hum, ...
"It seems like the input from the public was just ignored or worse just tossed out."
Todd, don't you think 30 years of input from the "public" is enough?
"It came as much as a surprise as the suggested site plans for the quarry drawn up by that freaking weird consultant company."
"Lab monkeys", Todd? Maybe try: project based upon statistical, scientifically understood data.
This city has a revenue problem. Time to solve that problem.
Council/No Growth has clearly demonstrated that they are experts at purchasing studies, extorting development money, squandering redevelopment opportunity, building trails and raising taxes.
We need revenue to keep our city viable.
Council/No Growth needs to get out of the way and sell or 99 year lease the OWWTP site to a quality developer and let the healing begin.
"Grant money, donations, and memberships would cover the cost to build and operate the facility. Very much like many of the museums you see out there."
Mitch, this same idea was brought up in 1999 and the PODC could not raise any money then. Why would you think with the much tighter financial picture they would be able to raise anything now?
Let's work towards a realistic picture of something that would bring in money and not cost us money in upkeep. I still look out my office window and think if a $100,000 check to the City wasn't a few days late, something magnificient and revenue generating would be looking back at me and this fire suppression assessment would not even need to be discussed.
I sleep much better at night knowing that the genius Sinai is on this commission.
Let's be clear.
The "late" $100,000 check was a ruse by Council/No Growth to dump Swenson because they weren't playing ball and giving Vreeland his Ocean Front City Hall.
Ego or NIMBY trumps best interest of Pacifica everytime.
Oh, come on... it will take another 5 or 10 years before anything happens in Pacifica. Why move forward when we can just drag our feet by having one more committee do the same work of the previous 5 or whatever. The revitalization has been discussed for the last 30 years, why rush into anything?
Thanks for your comments Steve
"Does it look like people are revving up to give the OCD another shot?"
Almost nobody knows that this is going on, and it was news to the City's Planning Dept., they didn't even know about the meeting tonight.
Even though the Evaluation has been posted here for a week, I am suprised that no one has brought up the section called "Forcasting in the Fog" and the "lumpy " reference, or the section called "Pyschographic Groups".
Not to worry, people. Nothing is going to happen because this is Pacifica. This is Pacifica because nothing is going to happen.
We couldn't develop a rash.
Thanks for the heads-up about the evaluation of the Beach Blvd site. Read it with great interest. Those terms they use "lumpy, psycho groups, forecasting in the fog". Sure sounds like the Council Big 3 to me. Spot on eval. Genius, absolutely genius.
Do you really think a single late check killed the deal? Where is this information coming from?
I think anon@1:52 got it right. We couldn't develop a rash. And that's the way it will be as long as the story is about politics and not economics.
Late check, tar balls, $7 million reserve.....what's the difference?
Hey Mike, Don't forget the Bio-Diesel plant
It makes no difference. And between the "new economy" and the solidly entrenched no growthers any meaningful economic development for Pacifica is farther away than it has ever been. Have you watched a city council meeting? How about a planning commission horror show? Are we near the end of this foolishness? Only if they run out of money. Do your part to make sure that happens. Start by Voting No on the Fire Tax.
Post a Comment