Sunday, August 7, 2011

Pedro Point Community Association Response to General Plan Update


In the midst of the most severe economic downturn in modern history, the Pedro Point Improvement Association proposes, not an economic engine as described in the General Plan summary, of course not, they propose a PARK!. What's wrong with walking 50 yards further to Linda Mar Beach? Or how about the boondoggle of a trail that is planned to be cut across Pedro Point? Not enough open space on Pedro Point? Are you kidding me!
Watch for other NIMBY's to latch onto this "neighborhood park" holy grail.

Jim Wagner


PPCA Response to General Plan Update

We need neighborhood input on PPCA's response to City on
General Plan Update and plan for Calson property



Cover Letter 
PPCA Recommendation

Cover Letter (link above) provides some background.  See also the proposed PPCA recommendation to the City.

PPCA is now seeking comments on this proposed recommendation from you, the residents of Pedro Point.
(See cover letter for best way to respond.)
              
As discussed at a meeting of the PPCA at the Firehouse on July 26, the City of Pacifica is taking comments (until Aug. 12) on its proposed changes to the General Plan. The proposed plan designates the Calson property—the field behind the Firehouse—as potentially a medium and high density residential area with a park.

Questions? Contact Breck Hitz  breck@breckhitz.com

24 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

Some people get so ideologically locked into a way of thinking that they refuse to consider the consequences of their actions. That applies to both NIMBYs at the local level, and tea-baggers at the national level.

todd bray said...

The original meeting at IBL was a joke. I'm surprized we are still paying for this GP update from this company. The changes reflect nothing more than an out of towners generic higher use development ideas. NIMBY"S and TEA BAGGERS be damned Steve, these folks are not working toward the ideas of residents but rather some person wishes of one or two public officials. The whole thing is an expensive train wreck.

Melvin Belli said...

This is nothing more than a "take" and will get the city sued faster than......well, you know what I mean. Multiply this by all the infill lots that Nimby's will want to grab as "parks" and we'll be the greenest, most open space, bankrupt city in California.

Scotty said...

I agree with Steve. The Fox News watching tea-baggers are ruining this country and Pacifica.

Steve Sinai said...

This whole General Plan update is a waste of time and money. Like every other plan developed by this city, we'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it. Then it'll end up, ignored, gathering dust on some shelf.

Anonymous said...

Another example of wasteful spending by council. How much for this last update? $150K? I recall that one of the reasons they all voted for it was to avoid lawsuits because Pacifica didn't have a current GP. Could this town possibly get more ridiculous? You betcha!!

todd bray said...

Steve I agree with you. A much more effective approach would have been to do a handful of specific plans for areas like WSP and W. Rockaway. Several people called for this as an alternative to the $900,000 plus GP update.

This GP thing is turning out to be corrupted or at least has the appearance of being driven by one or two public officials. The IBL meeting was notable for the general lack of understanding of the community at large and it's looking like the learning curve of the preparators and public official(s) is non existent. The higher use designations above do not reference the realities of state and federal restrictions. I can not believe we are paying these people.

Anonymous said...

I just love the tone of the Pacifica debate.

Steve Sinai said...

Todd, I didn't get the sense the process was corrupt or that the outcome was inevitable. I went to two of the GP meetings. They felt like overly rushed, superficial brainstorming sessions, which was worrisome considering they're supposed to be determining the future direction of the city.

todd bray said...

Again Steve I agree with you and offer that the process is superficial and rushed because the outcome has been decided.

Anonymous said...

Instead of saying here how bout coming to council and voicing your opinion to the city council.

Not that they remotely listen to anyone but "the friends of council"

Sinai, do you mean the John Curtis Pacifica General Plan update meeting??

Jim Alex said...

Let the Pedro Point gang pay fair market value for this piece of property and do what they want.

The city is broke, busted, insolvent, bankrupt.

No money, for this or anything else.

Anonymous said...

I heard the session felt disorganized it is true, but the report does exactly what the consultants were supposed to do: gather the opinions of the people. There is no "plan" to comment on. The plan is to be decided. Just because your ideas are not the only ideas, does not mean things are corrupt. There are pages and pages of public input in the report. But if you want to know why we are stuck in the mud, just look at the naysayers on all sides gearing up. Todd, when did you turn into such a negative problem? Your comments continue to be slanderous and irresponsible. Nothing productive ever. Look in the mirror and you shall see an example of why we have such failures in this town. No compromise, just attack, attack, attack.

Kathy Meeh said...

"..general lack of understanding of the community at large.." and "..rushed, superficial brainstorming sessions.."

My impression of the 1 (last) GP community meeting I attended was that the professionals did present good city solutions. And similar to other such community survey, government meetings did measure a reflection of public attitude.

The Pacifica "community at large" leadership has ignored professional advisement too often, and hence has driven this city into a financial, social, infrastructure and planning ditch. At least the GP area proposal is showing us where development should and can occur, as well as to some extent the financial and community impact.

It was disturbing to see the "no growth" city council majority appointed Planning Commission (last meeting) give their "cannot do" opinions about GP professional research and recommendations.

ian butler said...

I did feel that I was forced to come up with a complete opinion in a short period of time. Afterwards I felt some regret about my choices. A smaller focus group with a more lengthy process would have been more effective.

Scotty said...

Any other comments that appear under my name here are actually the product of an obsessive/compulsive in need of intense therapy and strong medication.

Even though that person had a moment of clarity when claiming that "The Fox News watching tea-baggers are ruining this country", there aren't enough Tea Party simpletons in Pacifica to screw things up. Locally, the problem is the NIMBYs, but they're just opposite sides of the same coin.

todd bray said...

I disagree Ian that a smaller group would have been more effective. Several people including council and planning commission members have all asked repeatedly for a do over of that IBL meeting. City manager Steve Rhodes refused to entertain the idea, the new planning director George White had promised one to at least one council member I know of but that obviously will not happen. Like long division gone wrong so has this update process.

I still can't believe we are paying the same consultant for this.

mike bell said...

A new Pedro Point Park paid for by the public which will increase Vreeland's property value is a surprise????
Look at the feather-nesting he has done for himself so far at taxpayer expense:
*complete re-engineer and upgrade of Grand Avenue leading to his home
*fast track approval of Pedro Point shopping center on the way to his home
* illegal upgrades to his home without permits resulting in complete destruction of Mike Angel for performing his duties as a building inspector
*illegal hiking trail cuts in the property surrounding his home
*no parking fees for his buddies on the beach he views from his home
He has no shame.

Jim Wagner said...

I think Todd may be on to something. Perhaps this process has been tainted by the pace being pushed. Two, both different and intertwined, exercises may be beneficial. First, break up this town into specific study areas germaine to their location and personality. Second, be adamant that anything discussed in the different areas also be economically beneficial to the city as a whole otherwise back to the drawing board. I understand that all changes may not generate an economical benefit, however, if a change affects the the future bottom line of the city, we need to offset with something else. We need to realize that Pacifica is one big dysfunctional family. Each family member has their own needs and wants but the good of the family as a whole needs to be paramount in any decision. We can't afford to ignore the economic impacts or what we do with our city.

But is it too late for a redo?

Scotty said...

Just one final thought regarding the obsessive/compulsive tea-bagger whose juvenile prank of impersonating me on this blog is not only obnoxious but is growing extremely tired as well. As a lifelong progressive democrat I have always taken pride in my moderate political positions on various local and national issues. The fact that you have chosen to attack me ever since I acknowledged that I voted for Pete DeJarnatt in his last two elections speaks more about you than me. Since the other candidates were self-proclaimed wing-nuts, I had no other choice but to cast my vote for Pete. So stop this pathetic attempt of yours to blame the state of Pacifica's economy on me and go back to your bong or whatever else it is that you do with all of that free time on your hands. And Steve, is there any way you can silence this fraud?

Steve Sinai said...

I'm sorry Scotty. Unless people post under their real names, I'm not inclined to spend time protecting them.

I had the blog blocking the internet addresses of the person in question for awhile, but there are ways around it, e.g., posting from the local library rather than from home. It was only a matter of time before he figured it out.

Thomas H. Clifford said...

On Monday August 15 at 7:00 P.M. the Planning Commission will Receive a Presentation and have a discussion on the Land use Alternative and key Policy issues Report for the General Plan Update.

Please come and help us decided the future path of Pacifica. The public will have three min. each to speak if they so desire.

Scotty said...

That wasn't me, Steve. In the hopes that it will help the sad person with obvious mental issues to move on with his life and start doing something productive, I'm going to top posting.

Just like in our national politics, someone has to play the adult eventually, and I don't don't think the Tea Party children will stop stomping their feet and holding their breath long enough to do so.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Clifford,
Thank you for sharing that there is still opportunity to comment about the report (not a plan yet, a report and recommendations) that has been prepared.

While I agree that the January meeting at IBL was rather unorganized, I was able to navigate through the process as I had read the materials before (all available on the city website) and didn't need to digest it all at the meeting. There was also a several week period after the meeting where comments could be submitted after. The appendix to the recently released report shares several letters submitted by interested Pacificans, as well as all of the comments from the flipcharts and sheets.

Studying the materials in advance and being prepared to comment at the public forums is how to have voices be heard. Blogs are great, particularly if there is substance in the discussion that helps inform and / or share ideas... but it is all irrelevant if not also shared with the city / consultants during the comment sessions that become part of the documented record.