Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or, view on local channel 26, also live internet feed, pct26.com. The meeting begins at 7pm, or shortly there following. City council updates and archives are available on the City website.
City Council Agenda, 9/24/12. New - Items listed below may include embedded pdf documents, illustration and photographs of interest. The link itself is no longer a pdf file with listed pages.
A. Closed session, 6:15 pm. Listed but no further information.
 |
| Item 11, Sanchez Art Center fire inspection fees* |
Consent Calendar (pass through)
1. Approval of cash disbursements, 9/5/12 for fiscal year 2012-13, 9/11/12 for fiscal year 2011-12.
2. Approval of Minutes (meeting of 9/10/12).
Special Presentation
a. SamTrans service plan
b. POPS - Anna Boothe
Public Hearings
3. Recology of the Coast rate adjustment public hearing notice. a. Rate increase request 1.42%, HFH Consultants recommends 1.89%. b. Proposed changes effective calendar year 1/13.
4. City facilities energy lease agreement and related loan documents. Continue to 10/8/12.
5. Resolution adopting energy service improvements contract. Continue to 10/8/12.
Consideration
6. Grand Jury "Does San Mateo Need 13 separate police dispatch centers?" Findings and questionnaire response from the City of Pacifica. Mainly the city does not agree with their findings.
7. Comments on the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for bacteria in San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach. Direction to staff, information incomplete.
8. Palmetto Avenue utility undergrounding and street scape project. Information update.
9. Animal control and licensing fees and changes, fiscal year 2012-13. Contract resolution of city fees. a. Exhibit of increased agency fees for individual services.
10. Update on Western Snowy plover protection at Pacifica State Beach recommendations. Staff is working with USFW's Coastal Program to secure signage funding $23,875, city portion $9,000.
11. Sanchez Art Center fire inspection fees. 27 individual units are being considered, including Pacifica performances, SF Fire credit union, and Steven Johnson Photography. See printout, and several exhibits.
Adjourn
* Note: Photograph of Sanchez Art Center by Stephen Johnson.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
22 comments:
Why does the city have to pay $9000 to put up signs about the Snowy Plover? Isn't that a State or Federal responsibility?
And...The "San Francisco Fire Credit Union" rents space at Sanchez Art Center? They want a break too?
Still no mention of the PD outsourcing study illegally being kept from us?
Anon 1:02
Cause the friends of the snowy plover asked council to put the signs up!
Don't you know how it works in Pacifica?
@102 It's a state beach but Pacifica decades ago signed a beach management agreement with the state which means this city is supposed to manage and maintain the beach in a lawful manner. That includes protecting the endangered species like our little friends the plovers. We haven't been doing that and we're going to get fined/sued/etc. Remember the lawsuit for putting sewage into the ocean? Plovers have friends, too. BTW, if the Coastal Commish does allow us to charge for parking it will not create general fund revenue for Pacifica, rather it is to provide protection for the plovers such as more signs, rangers, enforcement, etc. All funds collected must go towards the beach!! Will we break even? Has Pacifica ever? A better choice is to not renew the agreement(it's up soon) and let the state take care of the problem and all the expenses involved. The beach will still be there and we'll save several hundred thousands of dollars each year. Then, do the same thing with the pier. No one will wrap them up and haul them away just because Pacifica no longer pays the bills.
Oh wow I've been hoping I'd be able to pay Recology more and there it is, right on the agenda. Thank you City Council. You never miss an opportunity and you have such a delicate touch! A little bite here, a little bite there. And, I love, more than life itself, your heartfelt apologies. Thank you!
anon 141 Kinda, sorta true but not the whole story. It's worth noting that the friends of the snowy plover include the federal and state agencies that protect them and can assess huge fines, close the beach, etc. if we don't at least show due diligence with signs that have been discussed by various city depts and commissions for at least 10 years. The plovers also have friends in the non-profit world who are litigious. The plovers local friends have been mewling about protections and restrictions at LMB for at least a decade and the city has ignored them. Not real smart, but not surprising.
Yeah don't renew the contract and let the State run LMB. It's not worth the time and money.
848, We can rule that out because it makes too much sense. The state runs cleaner beaches, too. Most people are oblivious about whose beach it is. It's just a beach to them. How much does it cost us to run the beach and the pier so badly and for the free enjoyment of all? Just guessing, but probably upwards of $400,000. In true Pacifica fashion let's wait for massive fines and/or lawsuits before we get smart.
whatever visitors money this town gets from having a beach we'd still get if the state ran it and paid for the upkeep and all the rest of it
Every other state beach in the state charges a day use fee. Except for Linda Mar Beach. We know this was a gift from Vreeland to his surfer buddies but these deadbeats can pay a day use fee.
Why do you think so many of these stoned surfers use Linda Mar. Cause it's free.
Its pretty much a beginners surf beach but the deadbeats use it cause its freeeeeeeeeeee.
How much does it cost us to run the beach and the pier so badly and for the free enjoyment of all?
During his "State of the City" address, Mayor DeJarnatt stated that the City spends $80-$170K annually on upkeep and maintenance of the beaches.
He also mentioned that it appears that the Coastal Commission has had a change of heart and will allow the City to begin charging for parking at Linda Mar.
Further details may be found within the current Featured Story at our website.
Pacifica Index
How can you tell when Mayor Pete is not telling the truth.
When words come out of his mouth.
Harsh 1249. Since the Mayor and his lifetime city council pension are leaving us voluntarily, can't we part as friends? Let's just say Mayor DeJarnatt probably doesn't have all the information to answer that particular question accurately. If pressed on their lowball number, the city can always fall back on their favorite excuse "but you didn't ask the right question." Total costs for running Linda Mar Beach and the pier would stun. And we do a shabby job.
Oh cool, paid parking at Linda mar. That'll solve our money problems. NOT! Coastal Commission says we can't make a profit and all money we make has to go for beach maintenance and upgrades. Their rules are obnoxious and costly to follow. And we're stuck taking care of the plovers and anything else that's protected. We won't even break even. Let the state do it.
Yeah Dejarnett also compared per capita sales tax of Pacific and with Colma trying to show other cities pay more sales tax per person. Is he kidding? COLMA? with there 1800 population, car dealerships, Target, Sizzler etc etc etc. Of course they pay way more sales tax.
Come on sneaky Pete, you can do better than that.
Agenda item 11 promises to be entertaining. Will we get 3 minute whines from each of the tenants or will they gather together and combine their voices in a piercing howl?
The Colma Target is one of the highest grossing Target Stores on the West Coast and last I heard it was in the top 5 nationwide.
Not even the Target up the street at Serramonte and the Target in Tanforan dented sales.
Car Dealerships are the biggest sales tax generators a city can have.
But the noobies love having dirty, broke, bankrupt Pacifica.
well, duh.
Everyone on this blog likes to poop on Pete, but I almost dropped my coffee reading this week's Trib because I actually agreed with him for once on the Prop 37 nonsense.
The city's finances are swirling around the bowl, and these people are discussing genetically engineered food? Whether you agree or not (and I don't know anyone who is against such labeling), it's a complete waste of time for a municipal government.
It wasn't poop. It was tar balls.
Pooping on Pete is pooping me out.
However it pisses me off when I think of all the poop Pete has pooped on Pacifica.
The harm he and his buddies have done to Pacifica makes we want to poop.
Bathroom humor. And so it goes in Pacifica.
Nyuk nyuk you're full of it.
Post a Comment