Fix Pacifica: Pacifica School District Public Hearing

Monday, May 23, 2011

Pacifica School District Public Hearing

Submitted by Mike O'Neill

49 comments:

todd bray said...: What is the reasoning here? It was said before that the sale of public property . schools, can only fund remodeling and new construction... or has that changed?

Or is the sale to another public agency?; May 24, 2011 at 7:13 AM
Mike O'Neill said...: Todd:
I believe, The Naylor Act which you are referring to does not cover all public property only the sale of school property. This is a notice so that the public can give input to the Board of Trustees about whether they should declare the property surplus. If the Board declares the property surplus at that time we will follow the procedure of notifying the different agencies involved. The Board is following the necessary process because when the tunnel is finished Kiewit will be moving out and the District will be losing approx %150,000 in rent for their offices.; May 24, 2011 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Oddstad School was remodled a few years before it was closed!; May 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM
Mike O'Neill said...: Anonymous 7:11

Oddstad was closed in 2004. I think you are mistaken. Prior to that I do not recall any work being done at Oddstad except for a new roof. The roof was funded with a state grant and we were still using it as a school. The only work done at Oddstad were tenant improvements at their expense for offices.; May 24, 2011 at 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Seismic Upgrading. I live across the street and used to walk the dog over and talk to the guys doing the work.; May 25, 2011 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Who the hell would buy these properties? Property is slated to drop another 10-15%. They would certainly get a great deal , then build what? Something god awful and more crowding in our neighborhoods. Why cant we continue to rent out? I think that is the better option. Find entreprenuers, start-ups, small private schools, ministry's-who could pay rent and be a good neighbor.; May 25, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe somebody will buy and then build some nice apartments. plenty of interest in those but not much for buying homes anymore. That won't change anytime soon. We need to realize that in pacifica.; May 25, 2011 at 3:11 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Anon (311pm), April new home sales are up something like 7.3%, not in Pacifica of course. Have to build them first.

You seem depressed. Good news bothers you?; May 25, 2011 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: I say no to selling and building apartments or homes. Keep the schools and rent out space to small business. NO MORE HOMES. ESPECIALLY APARTMENTS!; May 25, 2011 at 11:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Kathy I love good news and seek it all the time but with my eyes wide open and skepticism fully engaged. Actual good news would be superfab, and as you know, according to the May 24, 2011 combined US Census and Dept of Housing and Urban Dev. report there is some good housing market stuff happening nationally (all 4 regions reporting, East, South, Midwest and West). Nationally is where we see the 7.3% increase in new home sales for April 2011 compared to March 2011. Comparing April 2011 to March 2011 here in the West is not so good with an actual decrease of 2.8%. Not horrible but hardly good enough to open the bubbly. Compare this April to last April and the numbers become truly sucky, nationally down 23.1% and here in the West down by 19.4%. However, be of good cheer (cautiously) because the national inventory of new homes for sale is down to 6.5 months and that is the lowest since January 2009. Obviously that's because building has slowed/stopped but shrinking any part of that bloated housing inventory is critical to an authentic and sustainable housing recovery. Now if we could only stem the tide of foreclosures and REOs-paticularly in the West- so that the total housing inventory falls below 6 months we'd really have something to celebrate...a switch from what was in the Old Economy termed a buyer's market of more than 6 months inventory back to a seller's market. And then, be still my heart, appreciation might once again begin to happen. My net worth can't wait. Til then, well the numbers tell the story and that rental market really is getting hotter. Hope we don't miss out on that here in Pacifica even tho we've got some NIMBYs out there. Now, that would be depressing.; May 26, 2011 at 2:57 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: Anon (257) excellent, well stated, informational comment. We continue to deal with the waive fall-out of the severe recession, even though there is some national progress and general recovery following loss of 1/3rd of the world's wealth.

NIMBY Anon 5/25, (1127). True "you got yours."; May 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Mike O'Neill said...: The purpose of these meetings is for the public to give input to the 7/11 Committee to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees can either accept or reject the recommendation of the Committee.
The end result if the property is declared surplus will be determined another time regarding development.; May 26, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Question perhaps for Mr. O'Neill. Absent the very rare big tenant like Kiewit, I wonder if past rents covered maintenance expenses for the Oddstad site? Is the Pitto acreage used by anyone for anything? Would the Kiewit space have to be remade into smaller and easier to rent smaller spaces? Cost? Is their space available for more tenants at the Linda Mar School? If declared surplus, how would these properties typically be marketed? Elder housing, apts, or ?
Lots of questions and any info appreciated.; May 26, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Mike O'Neill said...: Anonymous 618
Unfortunately until Kiewit came we were unsuccessful in finding any major tenant. We had the property listed with a commercial broker for several years and when shown to many different potential tenants every time we were told too far from anything else. Prior to Kiewitt the expenses were paid by the District General Fund the same fund that pays teachers and other operating expenses. Kiewit is only paying for there space now PSD is paying for the remaining space.
Pitto ranch is an approx 6000 Sq Ft lot that is now vacant with no structure but but a fence on it.
What remodeling would need to be done for the Kiewit space would be determined by the needs of any tenant at their expense. I do not feel the Board would spend money we do not have to remodel an empty school building when other currently occupied spaces need critical maintenance. One of the benefits if it is declared surplus is that we can actually enter into a long term lease. Under the present status we can only go 1 to 2 years with a 30 day notice to vacate if needed for education purposes. I know of no business that would make tenant improvements with a 30 Days notice to vacate. I believe there is a couple of classrooms available at Linda Mar but again it would be with the above rental provisions.
In regards to marketing there are statutory requirements under the Naylor Act that would be followed. The site would first be offered to a list of government agencies, similar to what happened with the Sanchez School on Linda Mar Blvd which is now the Sanchez Arts Center. After those requirements are met and assuming that nothing happens there would be RFP's, Request For Proposals, issued and the District would then evaluate the Proposals received. If you go to www.pacificasd.org and click to the right of Wendy's picture under 7/11 you can see the power point that is presented at the meetings. There is a change that just came through from Sacto and it will be revised from last night for the Tuesday meeting.; May 27, 2011 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanks, Mr. O'Neill, for answering my questions so thoroughly. Kiewit was a right place/right time thing and unlikely to happen again out here. If labeling both sites as surplus makes them more marketable then I hope that's what happens. Otherwise, they are an expensive antique.; May 29, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Mike O'Neill said...: Postponement of Meetings of the 7/11 Advisory Committee Meeting

The Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 31st by the 7/11 Advisory Committee, Pacifica School District is postponed. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to obtain community feedback in order to make a recommendation to the Pacifica School District Board of Trustees with regards to the possibility of declaring the following properties surplus:
Oddstad School –APR 023‐672‐600 ‐‐ 930 Oddstad Blvd.
Pitto Ranch Lot –APN 023‐255‐120 (property located between 1459 and 1465 Perez Drive)
The Pacifica School District will do a formal posting of the rescheduled Public Hearing and exceed the posting requirements by advertising in the following media: The Pacifica Tribune, Pacifica Riptide, Fix Pacifica, and Pacifica Patch.; May 30, 2011 at 9:24 AM
Enough is Enough said...: Dear Mr. O'Neill,
I understand you are postponing the meeting because the cat got out of the bag that you are discussing low income housing at the Oddstad site. Would you like to clarify that for the rest of us?; May 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: that was no cat. that was a skunk. mention apartments or low income housing and the neighbors start moaning. better to have an empty, useless, decaying, expensive building than something this community actually needs. it's a great neighborhood dog park!; May 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Enough is Enough said...: Pacifica NEEDS low income housing? What did you drink this morning?; May 31, 2011 at 7:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Pacifica doesn't need low income housing?; May 31, 2011 at 7:50 AM
Mike O'Neill said...: Enough is Enough, whatever that means, regarding your statements about Oddstad and low income housing. You are incorrect in that we have been in touch with any entities that represent low income housing. We have had interest expressed by Affordable Family Housing groups. In either case as stated on my previous post there are rules and regs that must be followed in the disposition of school district property.
I mentioned earlier that we would need to send notice to certain entities and I believe that Affordable Housing groups are a part of that list.
We have had conversations simply because they were willing to talk and share information with us about how they work.

If the property is declared surplus by the board and RFP's are issued my decision will be based on what will District get to our bottom line and compatibility with the neighborhood and Pacifica.; May 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Enough is Enough said...: What happened to your idea of a multi-use sports complex? It would cost millions to build, then who would manage it? The idea of "Affordable Family Housing groups" is not even a conversation worth entertaining. We don't need any more housing in Pacifica, especially "Affordable Family Housing." We need more REVENUE. Affordable Housing revenues end up costing a city more over time, they create nightmare neighborhoods and increases in crime. If you don't believe me, please take a stroll through the Bayview/Hunter's Point neighborhoods. The City of SF thought it was a good source of revenue at the time too.; May 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM
Anonymous said...: "We don't need any more housing in Pacifica".

Agreed.; May 31, 2011 at 1:46 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: "You got yours" anonymous people, the city is committed to a regional requirement to build 311 houses. Where do you want to build these?

Pacifica is hardly Bay View/Hunters Point. Anyhow with all the renovation going on there, where are all those poor people going to live? Why not Pacifica, and we have 50% GGNRA land (not our land), why not there?; May 31, 2011 at 5:08 PM
todd bray said...: This is what the PSD does, PSD sells public land to developers. It has paid for major restorations to all the other PSD schools in town through this process. The last time it was done for the Cypress Walk development there was a reported thirteen million dollar surplus.

So I guess the question is why sell off these property? Is the surplus gone? And/or have the rules of selling off public land to private developers changed to allow PSD to use the proceeds for things other than building improvements and new construction? And is it ethical for board members who are Realtors to promote this practice of selling public land to private developers as it has the appearance of a financial conflict of interest?

Also there is no law, agreement or binding contract that dictates Pacifica needs to build any housing at all ever. The ABAG fantasies and county special groups can not dictate to Pacifica.; May 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: "we have 50% GGNRA land (not our land), why not there?"

Yes, let's build houses on national park land.; May 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Todd, again approximately 311 housing units are our fair share minimum for the region, and I believe the city also agreed, and signed a resolution to do that. Are you suggesting this city welch on its agreement as part of the ABAG approximate 101 regional cities while the population continues to increase?

Do you think just because Mike O'Neill is a Realtor (without a direct vested interest in a real estate based consideration), he should withdraw his knowledge and expertise and recuse himself?; May 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Those properties are in established residential neighborhoods and aren't suited for any other kind of "development". There aren't any big tenants looking to set-up back there. Kiewit was one of a kind. And all those other little home grown tenants aren't enough to pay the facility maintenance bills. The market for single family housing is dead but the market for apartments is thriving. Given Pacifica's track record and our NIMBYS we'll probably see that school bldg become a huge eyesore rather than anything useful.; May 31, 2011 at 10:02 PM
todd bray said...: It is not welching Kathy. Talk to an ABAG official. They are the first to tell you their numbers are suggestions that are non binding. And yes I do think Mike should recuse himself as there is an appearance of financial conflict. That a developer is already identified should make everyones skin crawl due to the back woods politics of it all.; May 31, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Steve Sinai said...: Todd, why do you think Mike would financially benefit from this?; May 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Todd, replay 311 housing units, our minimum. At this time we will not agree on this. I have read enough of these ABAG pledges from San Mateo city council meetings to know that ABAG requirements are not just suggestions, and were not poised as such.

Our City website/planning/redevelopment includes an "implementation plan (by 2015)" which includes 309 housing units, described in the quarry (senior, low cost, affordable housing). In retrospect, the developer planned village (Measure L) would have been a better, unified, classy, financially viable solution for that area.; May 31, 2011 at 11:30 PM
todd bray said...: Kathy, no sweat, we will never agree on this topic.; June 1, 2011 at 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Todd, how would housing or apartments on the Oddstad School site effect you??; June 1, 2011 at 7:40 AM
Enough is Enough said...: How does more housing affect Pacifica? hmmm, think about that for a minute.; June 1, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Does ABAG require that there be 311 new jobs here to help support those new houses?; June 1, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: Todd, I am no fan of building a whole lot more housing, but the bay area population is growing. Our conflict is not only on the ABAG requirement, but probably city growth, and possibly city improvement.

On another article several weeks back, Markus said something like 16-18% of our population only works in Pacifica, the other 84-82% drive over the hill (or possibly don't work). And, much of our commerce is also transacted over the hill. Nothing balanced about this city, hence coffers run dry and we scrape over sustainable issues.

Economic result: other cities get our tax dollars, and gas stations in are in top tax revenue producers for Pacifica. Why not increase commerce here? Increase the number of jobs and services; reduce the money spent on gasoline; increase city tax revenue. More balance, less feuding.; June 1, 2011 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Kathy, Do you know the date we entered into the ABAG agreement that commits us to 311 units? And, what is the total number of low income housing already in Pacifica? Inquiring minds want to know...

What we really need is a Walmart LOL That ought to get the locals talking!; June 1, 2011 at 1:32 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Sorry, Anon (132), don't know exactly. It is old information out there. There was the 1999-2006 county assessment page 31 spreadsheet of 666 housing units, half of which the city may have complied with.

2/14/11, there was some kind of a city council meeting resolution in process, item 5 lower page 9. The text indicates some kind of State law county update, think I must not have viewed that meeting.

The 5 year implementation plan 2010-14 includes housing Section B, text page 3 (affordable, low cost, senior). There are 309 units proposed (I counted them last year.

Somehow I have the impression the City intends to comply with the MINIMUM requirement, rather than succeed from ABAG, the sub-region County, and the State.; June 1, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: The 2010-2014 plan is directly related to the quarry which as we all know, will never get developed because some eco-terrorist will sue on behalf of a frog, or a bird, or a snake. Pacifica is listed on the ABAG site at 275 total with percentages listed in each subcategory. So this is 275 NEW units? Todd, do we know the consequences for being non-compliant? I know we don't get our golden carrot (subsidies.) That's not money we want for our schools or our city.; June 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Todd, you silence is once again deafening.; June 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Anon (647), good work on the ABAG 275. "Hope springs eternal", so I still believe the quarry will be developed, sooner rather than later would be better for the economy of this city.

Anon (940) maybe Todd doesn't just watch this blog to reply quickly. Eventually when he checks the internet and has time he will reply. The article and comments will still be here, unless Blogger has another idea (glitch).; June 1, 2011 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Somewhat off topic but does anyone know how the old WWTP site is being marketed? Has it been listed? Perhaps a realtor out there has some info? We hear lots of talk about the city being ready to sell but has anything actually been done to make that happen? Wait long enough and the whole thing will just fall into the ocean.; June 1, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: and BTW I do realize that this is not a seller's market for any type of real estate but bargain hunters are out there and beach front property always has unique value. Beggars can't be choosers and the value will not be going up anytime soon.; June 1, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: "That a developer is already identified should make everyones skin crawl due to the back woods politics of it all."

Where are you getting this from Todd? Quit making $tuff up for you own entertainment.; June 2, 2011 at 12:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon@1257, Whether the news is true or a figment of someone's imagination, a proposal to build low-income or affordable housing in Park Pacifica would succeed in uniting a really odd mix of voices in a chorus of that old Pacifica standby "we want development but that's not the right kind of development". Build it.; June 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM
todd bray said...: From PSD board member O'Neill above... "We have had interest expressed by Affordable Family Housing groups."

Nothing made up by me.; June 2, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: The choir is warming up right now.; June 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Enough is Enough said...: Yes Todd, he contradicted himself in less than a paragraph.; June 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: low reading comprehension scores offset by amazing ability to jump to conclusions in Pacifica; June 2, 2011 at 1:36 PM