We have asked the city to include revenue projections for the adopted General Plan/zoning covering the last 20 or so parcels in town. After eight years of structural deficit spending, the city acknowledges that it's broke. Hence, severe staff lay-offs and service cuts. In the next 6 months another $1 million has to be cut out of the budget. In all likelihood the So when the Pacifica Planning Commission makes land-use decisions -- a park, hotel, housing, mixed use -- on a parcel, you would think the commissioners would want to know what type of revenue each land use generates.Police Department will be contracted to the San Mateo County Sheriff.
Just a peek at the sustainability issue because if we don't help our local economy in this General Plan we are faced with either status quo on lower services, more staff cuts or more Council demands for new taxes. The document approved by the Planning Commission last Monday night and sent to Council makes zero mention of revenue. This General Plan update could actually lose Pacifica revenue.
Second, ocean level rise has become quite the trendy topic. Ocean rise will affect Pacifica, but no one knows how much. Some areas of town may get wet in the next 50 years, maybe. But the planning wheels grind on anyway. Here's your homeowners' alert: remodel or expansion restrictions are being developed for the following areas of Pacifica. If you want to remodel or expand your building, you will have to pay for a study to convince city staff your structure will survive ocean rise.
Two huge concerns come to mind with this scheme. Property owners have not been notified that this costly program is being considered and the costs involved may stop hundreds of homeowners from remodeling. Finally, Pacifica economic engines are put at risk -- probably 35 percent of the town's retail space and what was supposed to be our new main street (Palmetto and the old sewer treatment plant) is now under a cloud. This huge new surprise cost has to be more publicly debated.
Another new trendy fanciful term has been concocted: planned shoreline retreat. This is a fancy term for no more boulders or riprap on the beach areas to protect houses, business, Highway 1 or the golf course. Let nature take its course. You would think our elected officials would come up with erosion protections that do not destroy millions in property value and threaten to cut Highway 1 in Linda Mar. Nope. Shortly the official policy of this town will be do nothing regarding shoreline erosion. Council will require someone to pay to keep the Highway 1 open. But adios to everyone else.
Our last observation about Monday's planning meeting deals with political correctness running amuck. It would be funny if it wasn't so hypocritical. Everywhere you turn, Pacifica seems to be a nursery for the Red-legged frog (RLF), an endangered species. The General Plan contains new areas for "RLF critical habitation expansion under consideration" covering several thousand acres in the hills of Sweeney ridge covering a big part of eastern Pacifica, Sharp Park Road south to Pedro Valley Park. A curious map omission was uncovered. Vallemar is surrounded on three sides by "critical habitat expansion under consideration" but not Vallemar proper. And this even includes Calera Creek which is habitat in the quarry 300 yards to the west but not mapped as habitat with the middle of Vallemar. Inexplicably, RLFs north of Vallemar take a 2-mile hike around Vallemar to travel south, but never, ever, take the short cut by walking 600 yards due south through Vallemar. A lot of hiking for the frogs but no RLF protections in Vallemar means Vallemar residents avoid restrictions. This concludes our first evaluation of the various nuances and back stories of the Pacifica general plan update as it moves to Council. What do you say: sausage or lemonade?"
Posted by Kathy Meeh
44 comments:
You guys need a new hobby.
The General Plan revision under consideration by the Planning Commission last Monday night coincides with the general release of the critically acclaimed Parker Brothers variant of the smash board game hit, “Monopoly – Pacifica Style”. In this Pacifica specific version, the game board consists of forty spaces containing twenty-eight properties (twenty-two undevelopable, protected habitats/wetlands, four hiking trails and two bike lanes), three Chance spaces and three Community Chest spaces (mostly taking the form of various parcel assessments and desperation taxes), a Grant space, a non specific Charity space, and the four corner squares: GO, (In) Jail/Just Visiting, Free Parking (which only applies at Vreeland State Beach), and Go to Jail (which puts you behind bars at the newly expanded San Mateo County Sheriff’s Correctional Facility). In the Pacifica version, the Monopoly Money has been replaced by IOUs in $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, and $500 denominations. Dogbert gives “Monopoly – Pacifica Style” a paws up.
So what does this mean with regards to the value of any real estate west of Hwy 1?
Sorry to see not a single person, including the city's know-it-all, not commenting on this post. Just wondering if my question struck a nerve and something the folks who hold this city hostage don't want to talk about.
Sharon - I don't think anybody can answer your question. Or if they try, it's just a wild guess.
Sharon (1013), I believe the essential answer is found in the well crafted "Monopoly - Pacifica Style" (8/27/11, 8:15pm) Dogbert comment. "Paws up", which includes City "managed retreat" from capture of the Pacific ocean.
Everyone who lives in West Sharp Park should be outraged, as should every other person in this city, property owner or not. Once again, it appears that city council majority decision making solutions are the default: "we can do nothing", worst possible, de facto "no solution". Therefore, the best outcome to fix West Sharp Park and to improve this city, including your property values, is to elect a pro-economy city council and reverse as much 9 year accumulated city damage as possible.
City council (through majority) makes the decisions for this city, allegedly representing our best interest as a city and for the benefit of our citizens. Have they done that? Not even close.
Thanks for your comment Kathy, my immediate response to this post and article in the Tribune has been one of deep concern. I own property west of the Hwy 1 and for the first time ever my husband and I are thinking about selling out. We can see the handwriting on the wall. We feel the proposed General Plan policies noted in this post will most definitely affect our property values and ability to sell if they are adopted. This city council really needs to think this one thru. Lower property values = lower propery taxes. Even less money for the city. Coastal communities around the world, protect their citizens with seawalls and berms, we see it all the time and it is ocnsidered a part of the cost of running a city in a coastal location.
Sharon, safe to say, with regards to the value of any real estate west of Hiway 1...Underwater.
"...any real estate west of Hiway 1...Underwater."
If the issue were a cartoon, "underwater" might be amusing. The city is playing Russian Roulette with peoples lives, and property. I'm sure the courts will see it that way.
"Managed retreat" if allowed to continue as a city strategy, eventually will take the highway. Oops, no City. The city needs to raise enough money to do what's possible to secure our coastline. That is not happening, and with knowledge 9 year city council majority has done little to affect securing the Pacific ocean from taking this city. It is now clear that City council, along with their NIMBY "climate action committee" friends, have planned no positive future for this city. The evidence is both financial and physical.
Some of you who are otherwise progressive citizens and have devoted your lives and wealth to volunteerism, think about this. It would now be better for this city if you would devote your energy to getting rid of 9 year NIMBY city council members, and electing a majority city council pledged to turn-around the impending city financial and physical disaster.
This is the UN Agenda 21. Read up on it and then you will understand why. Wake Up.
Kathy, maybe one day we can fish off your back deck!!!
Kathy wrote, "Everyone who lives in West Sharp Park should be outraged, as should every other person in this city, property owner or not. Once again, it appears that city council majority decision making solutions are the default: "we can do nothing", worst possible, de facto "no solution". Therefore, the best outcome to fix West Sharp Park and to improve this city, including your property values, is to elect a pro-economy city council and reverse as much 9 year accumulated city damage as possible."
Kathy, council can't stop nature. The accepted shore line lose to erosion is 2.5 feet a year. Your suggestion that a pro-economy council can change that or somehow stop the ocean grinding away at the edge of the continent is delusional.
I understand your frustration and passion but you are going into TEA PARTY KOO KOO LAND by implying you or a council you can support will or could stop time.
Agree with you Todd. Positively Pavlovian.
Todd (1206) sea walls exist. "Managed retreat" is commonly though of as the tool of last resort. The city needs money (as in a balanced economy with jobs and services), but 9 year city council has not delivered. And, BTW with some of your libertarian ideas, the Tea Party might like you better.
Al Gore (1200), you should have been President. Sorry that didn't happen. But, fishing off my back deck would mean that hill would be gone. That might not be so much fun after all.
Unless this much-anticipated dream council can print money they won't be able to do a damn thing about coastal erosion just like the current bunch. The feds, the states and the insurance companies will decide how much money,and it's our money, will be thrown at the problem. Huge problem with no easy, one-size fits all solution. Do a little research before buying into inflammatory propaganda. Longterm solution? Rezoning. Send your kids and grandkids to lawschool so they can cash in on the bonanza.
The business of the city is to protect it's citizen and enhance the quality of life, not destroy it.
I doubt that we're going to be abandoned but there are limits to everything.
Seawalls=are built to hold back the force of the Ocean or waterways
Retaining Wall=build to hold back a hillside
Sharp Park Sea Wall=retaining wall=failure
Anon, (9/2/11, (6:24PM) not enough research for you? For a quick,"soft engineering" choice try BBC Educational land erosion choices.
"2) Managed retreat. Areas of the coast are allowed to erode and flood naturally.
a) Areas of the coast are allowed to erode and flood naturally. Usually this will be areas considered to be of low value - eg. places not being used for housing or farmland.
b) The advantages are that it encourages the development of beaches (a natural defence) and salt marshes (important for the environment) and cost is low.
c) Managed retreat is a cheap option, but people will need to be compensated for loss of buildings and farmland."
In Pacifica, Pacifica land erosion is an old, solvable problem, with money. With knowledge, to secure this city and its population, city council 9 year didn't go that direction.
Ksthy, "9 year" isn't an adjective that you can just plunk at random points in sentences.
You're welcome.
"Pacifica land erosion is an old, solvable problem, with money." This is so not true and it's incredible that people still think this way. Blufftop retreat is a fact of life. Seawalls only put off the inevitable, they create increased erosion at the ends of the seawalls, and they destroy beaches. Add sea level rise to the equation and there is no amount of money that will "solve" the problem. The best you can do is slow it down, but a cost-benefit analysis will not justify the enormous amounts of money required to do this up and down our coastline.
Random Anon (1022), guess you just moved into town. Let me define "city council 9 year" for you: Vreeland, Digre, and DeJarnatt. NIMBYS all.
Anon (1104), with regard to coastal erosion you said "the best you can do is slow it down". Okay, in Europe and elsewhere that seems to have worked-out for a couple of centuries. But, in Pacifica, let's do some economic development and try for 50 years until better technology is developed, then try again. Otherwise, the alternative is to do nothing, drown in lawsuits, and "kiss this city goodbye". Really the logic and reasonable choice is not that complicated.
To understand the enormity of the problem do your own research. Rise above local politics just long enough to get the facts. And actually understand them. Find out who has responsibility and authority for what. Coastal erosion is not new. What are the timeframes and what does it actually mean for you? Engineered solutions of any kind for coastal erosion require continuous mega-bucks for implementation, litigation, and forever maintenance. To suggest that Pacifica, under any regime, would have that kind of money, is silly. Can't expect much from the state and feds either because their experts know these piecemeal engineered solutions dotting the coast just haven't worked. They might spend to protect a vital roadway but elsewhere the cost to undertake the massive coastal armoring and maintenance needed to just slow down the process fails any cost to benefit analysis. Get the facts. You can blame council for plenty but pin coastal erosion on Mother Nature and that damn cost to benefit analysis stuff that's become a fact of life in 21st century America.
"Europe" is a large range of vastly different environments. Applicability to Pacifica's coastline requires specifics.
From the link you provided, "hard engineering"--seawalls, groynes (wooden barriers), rock armor--are expensive to build and maintain and are unattractive. The "soft engineering" options are replacement of beach or cliff materials which is also costly to maintain, and planned retreat which is the lowest cost option. The site you took that information from also says, "Benefits in one area might have a negative effect on another" (which is the point about increased erosion at the ends of seawalls), and with "increased threat of sea level rise due to climate change, other places will need to consider the sustainability of coastal defence strategies for the future."
Logic and reasonable choice supports the least damaging, most sustainable, and lowest cost alternative. It also supports the understanding that you can't beat Mother Nature.
"To understand the enormity of the problem do your own research."
Maybe you can travel as far north as San Francisco to view a sea wall, or as far south as Santa Cruz. Sea walls and other solutions (such as in Half Moon Bay) that "keep back the ocean" exist. Further, ocean hazards to coastal land and cities exist throughout the world. Doing "nothing" except falling back as neighborhoods are taken by the ocean is no solution. Contrary to your drift, "mother nature" is not the issue, city council being smarter than a small colony of "dodo birds" over their 9 year tenure is.
Kathy, I was referring to basic grammar. Please ask your second grade English teacher about "city council 9 year".
The Dutch have kept the sea at bay for centuries. I guess their NIMBYs weren't as organized.
Please do the research. The info is readily available. As with everything, be sure to consider each source to separate propaganda from fact.
"I was referring to basic grammar."
Anon (605), "basic grammar" second grade level is that the best you can do?
Here's a few sea wall pictures for you to look at: look here.
Nobody is saying that seawalls don't exist. The problem is that seawalls DO exist. Because they do, we now know a great deal about how they function. For instance, we know that seawalls increase erosion at those points where the seawall ends. Witness what the rock armor in front of Nick's has done to south Rockaway beach. We also know that they are extremely costly to build and to maintain.
"We had to destroy the beach in order to save it."
"The problem is that seawalls DO exist."
Anon (1208) and so does science, and better solutions than doing "nothing". Without the "retaining wall" rock, Nicks and their parking lot would be eroded, "swimming with the fishes".
Blame 9 year city council? Sure, they have had professional advisement, and produced no coastal erosion "save Pacifica city plan". They have worked against significant economic development to pay the cost and maintenance for such a strategy.
What does science say about seawalls?
The technology and science have evolved even if some in Pacifica will not. Do your own research.
"When waves hit a seawall, the waves are reflected back out to sea, taking beach sand with them and eventually causing the beach to disappear. Moreover, seawalls can cause increased erosion at the ends of the seawall on an adjacent beach that is not walled. Alternatives to seawalls exist, such as beach nourishment and managed retreat. Making coastal land use decisions that ensure a seawall will not be needed in the future to protect structures, however, is the most prudent coastal management solution. This can be accomplished by establishing setback lines and conducting managed retreat of structures that are threatened by shoreline erosion before the situation worsens, or structures that have the potential for being threatened in the future."
http://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Global/140.pdf
"In addition to their unsightly visual appearance, two specific weaknesses of seawalls exist. Firstly, wave reflection induced by the wall may result in scour and subsequent lowering of the sand level of the fronting beach. Secondly, seawalls may accelerate erosion of the adjacent, unprotected coastal properties because they affect the littoral drift process. Fundamentally, a cost-benefit approach is an effective way to determine whether a seawall is appropriate or not and if the negative effects are worth the protection of threatened property."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawall
Ocean Beach has a seawall.
The hunk of over priced junk at Sharp Park is a retaining wall.
A jetty at Pillar Point Harbor was built to keep erosion from wiping out the section of Highway 1 that runs right along the beach.
These types of seawalls serve a purpose as long as you deflect the waves to an area where erosion doesn't cause much property damage.
It's going to be all about the cost to benefit analysis.
Anonymous (1203), the quote you site is from page 1 of what appears to be a graduate student thesis (11/30/2000),UC Santa Barbara school of Environmental Science and Management. Page 1 also notes: "Alternatives to seawalls exist, such as beach nourishment and managed retreat." The apparent student author has some practical engineering background and believes these approaches are the best beach science.
To some extent beach nourishment and management retreat strategies MAY have been used in conjunction with the Linda Mar Beach flood management improvement 8 years ago (2 houses were removed on the beach). But for West Sharp Park, which properties are you willing to sacrifice by inviting-in the Pacifica Ocean? Or is the sacrifice the entirety of West Sharp Park and highway 1? Thus the city. The city council appointed Climate Change Committee is insistent upon adding climate change and flooding language to the highway 1 DEIR/ER. Is that in conjunction with a "managed retreat" strategy?
Anon (1210) you also like Wikipedia/Seawall for a reference, well okay: "The many types of seawall in use today reflects both the varying physical forces they are designed to withstand, and location specific aspects, such as: local climate, coastal position, wave regime, and value of landform. Seawalls are classified as a hard engineering shore based structure used to provide protection and to lessen coastal erosion. However, a range of environmental problems and issues may arise from the construction of a seawall, including disrupting sediment movement and transport patterns, which are discussed in more detail below (Kraus & McDougal, 1996).[5] Combined with a high construction cost, this has led to an increasing use of other soft engineering coastal management options such as beach replenishment." Hence, if I understand that correctly there are multiple options, some used in conjunction with others."
Bottom line. Abandoning the city piecemeal is not acceptable to people who live here. And, it sure is not acceptable to people who have a vested interest through property ownership. Raise the money, fix the problem.
I like all of of what Steve added with his Pillar Point Harbor comment (418): "deflect the waves to an area where erosion does not cause much property damage". What Half Moon Bay/San Mateo County did sounds like "smart science", and they were able to build a harbor to pay for it.
"Managed Retreat" an apt metaphor for Vreeland, Digre and deJarnatt.
Actually, at Pilar Point, building the breakwater for the harbor caused the erosion problem that is threatening to take out Highway 1. A good example of the unintended consequences of beach armoring.
From the HMB review:
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the outer breakwater to create the harbor in the early 1960s, and the structure changed the area's wave patterns and consequently accelerated coastal erosion at Surfer's Beach. The eroded beach undermines the Highway 1 embankment, impedes recreational uses at the beach and threatens the Western Snowy Plover - a small shorebird listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act."
http://www.hmbreview.com/news/article_9f540314-44f6-11e0-a3bb-001cc4c03286.html
Ian, I was just repeating what a geology professor told me. I have to admit, looking at the google map made me wonder what he was talking about.
Good article Ian (9/5, 10:39pm). Half Moon Bay/San Mateo County has a great harbor. But, Surfer's beach 50 years later seems to need substantial maintenance, (sand, rock or whatever).
Everything in and around, related to ocean action seems to need careful oversight, and potential ongoing maintenance. Pacifica examples that get that maintenance include Bleach Blvd and our pier.* There used to be a lot of sand along Surfer's Beach and our portion of the Pacific Ocean. Wonder if adding sand in these areas that have lost sand would have been helpful? Just asking...
* Observation: the maintenance has frequently come with the concerns and urging of private citizens, including Mike Bell (Beach Blvd), and Anna Booth and POPS Club (the pier).
Post a Comment