Tuesday, March 19, 2013

City Council meeting, Monday, March 25, 2013


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. 

Widen 1.3 miles, no more bottleneck
City Council Agenda, 3/25/13.  Items listed may include embedded pdf documents, illustration and photographs of interest. Information below is from the city agenda documents.  

A. Closed session, (5:30 pm)
 1. Government code 54956.8.  Conference with real property negotiator. Discussion concerns price and terms of payment.  Agency negotiator:  Stephen Rhodes. Property:  APN 022-300-160, APN 022-330-160, 239 Bonita Avenue.  Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Northrop.




2. Government code 54957.6.  Conference with labor negotiator: Agency negotiator: Ann Ritzma. Employee organizations: Pacifica Fire Fighters Local 2400; Teamsters Local 856 Battalion Chiefs; Department Directors Local 350; WasteWater Treatment Plant Employees Local 856; Miscellaneous Local 856; Managers Local 350.

B.   Open session, (7:00 pm) 

Consent Calendar 
Item 7, discussion before the final EIR, huh?
1.    Approval of cash disbursements. 3/1/13 to 3/13/13, fiscal year 2012/13. 
2.    Minutes of  the 3/11/13 meeting.
3.    California State Department of  Education contract amendments for child care, includes a $40,279 increase to the General Fund, fiscal year 2012/13.
4.     Fassler Avenue pavement striping rehabilitation project, contract awarded to Chrisp Company, $11,650 previously budgeted. 
5.     Authorize staff to advertise for sealed bids for the 2010 Cal EMA, 500 Esplanade storm drain outfall project. Funding:  CalEMA 75%; local match 25%, plus 10% to city for administration, net 15%. Estimated cost $1,600,000, City match $240,000.
6.     Authorize additional analyses for possible site "A" RMC Water and Environment Equalization Basin near Linda Mar Pump Station (temporary storage to reduce sewer overflows), Change order 9, $38,324. This is part of the City Collection System Master Plan (10/11),

Consideration
7.     Direction whether to place the Calera Parkway Project on the Agenda (Councilmember Digre's request).  
8.     Work plans for City Council goals, fiscal year 2013/14.  

Posted by Kathy Meeh 

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here read this. Tell me what you think.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343242/obamas-plans-suburbs-and-how-stop-them-stanley-kurtz

Anonymous said...

so Digre wants to talk about Rt. 1 widening before the EIR is finished and released. Presumably the gang who walked the planning commission into the Brown Act violation will be pleading their case.
Nothing like a meeting to discuss a major issue without the facts since the EIR has not be finished.
But I guess you don't need facts if all you want to hear or say is NO.

Kathy Meeh said...

" Tell me what you think." Anonymous 7:03 AM

I think your comment article link is a distraction, not factual, and not relevant to the issues that concern this city council meeting. And, even with a good education, I think Stanley Kurtz is another right-wing wacko. See Wikipedia, second paragraph.

Then, the outstanding question is do you have any comments (thoughts), questions or meaningful article links related to this city council agenda?

Anonymous said...

Hey Kathy, the easter egg hunt on the white house lawn could get cancelled due to the budget problems.

First time in a century.

Anonymous said...

don't cancel the egg hunt! the pacifica city clowncil can take care of that. send them to DC and they'll lay a few eggs on that lawn. they do it here all the time.

Anonymous said...

One item on the "closed session" agenda involves real estate negotiations of parcel # (AP) 022-330-160.According to the tax collector website, this parcel is described as " 260.475 acres M/L (more or less) SLY (Southerly) of Vallemar. The owner's name is Private" as are all the tax collector names. but the mailing address is 170 Santa Maria, Pacifica, CA. So assumingly, this is a large parcel that is owned by the City of Pacifica. Anyone out there have any idea what is going on with this or where it is? I can only think that it might be "Cattle Hill," but a good portion of that property (behind the church) I always thought was privately owned. Maybe it's the ridge. Also, as the April 10 property tax deadline is near for many of us, we can take comfort that the YEARLY property tax for this 260 acre parcel is a mere $8.62 with NO additional supplemental charges; not even a sewer standby charge or school tax.

Anonymous said...

Kathy, is it only true if it comes from a democrats mouth? Is name calling what you were taught when reality starts slapping you in your face? I thought so.

Chris Fogel said...

Here is the map for APN 022-330-160.

I'm still a bit confused about where exactly this is though.

Anonymous said...

"right-wing wacko" can be a term of endearment. depends on the wacko.

Anonymous said...

@ ann 703, IMO all this democrat this and republican that banter here is a big waste of time. This is a place to fix Pacifica. Non of our council members declare their party because partisan politics has no place at the city level.

If you want to complain about Obama or Newt then go on CNN.com or Craigslist Rants and Raves.

I don't see anything wrong with some discussions talking about Sacramento or DC politics that affect us. But the bickering about evil doings in the White House don't belong.

I suggest all comments like anon 703 made be blocked so we can keep the discussion on Pacifica or things that affect or could affect us directly.

Anonymous said...

hey Big Brother, don't like it, don't read it. most of us can handle that.

Anonymous said...

uh, where's that map of the parcel?
or is it just my own technical difficulty?

Kathy Meeh said...

"... reality starts slapping you in your face?" Ouch Anonymous 11:27 AM

I'm against twisted, misleading partial factoids presented as a realistic, global view, aka: facts. Simply that.

A city council serves in a non-partisan capacity as stated by Anonymous grouch, 12:35 PM. If the city council is functional, it may also be solution based. With the current city council (and the next), hopefully enough members will set-aside their personal self promotional and political interests to move this city forward to a thriving, balanced economy with an improved city infrastructure. (They already know what needs to be done, and what a positive legacy for them).

FMV, major structural city economic and infrastructure improvement should be the #1 city goal. Whereas, the City Agenda, Item 8 link indicates the #1 city council goal is "Economic development, including business attraction and local support." Too weak to suit my "reality wish" (not reality). On the other hand, this is the first year our city council has set goals. That in itself is potentially an important improvement. As philosophical Rev. Jessie Jackson (Democrat) says "keep hope alive".

Anonymous said...

Anyone catch Len on Wavelength?

http://vimeo.com/61941760

Interesting interview.

Anonymous said...

Kathy

Why is Fox news "wingnuts" and Rachel Madow isn't?

Chris Fogel said...

uh, where's that map of the parcel?
or is it just my own technical difficulty?


The link works for me. Sorry.

Try this one HERE

Anonymous said...

Thanks Chris Fogel. Wow! Could the city be selling some property? Don't know exactly where it is but might we make more than whatever our share of the current tax bill of $8.62 comes to? Oh I hope so. Any optimism should be tempered by the fact that this has received no publicity as far as I know. We're really not in the mood for any more land give aways! Desperately need more info.

Kathy Meeh said...

Thanks for the Agenda, Item 1 parcel link Chris Fogel (4:19 PM, 11:58 AM), I've popped it on the article.

And Anonymous 3:58 PM, thanks for the link to the Wavelength/Ian Butler interviewing Mayor Len Stone video. Len Stone seems to be a pretty thoughtful, intelligent leader.

Finally Anonymous, 4:16 PM. Your comment wins a well deserved loser award. MSNBC/Maddow "fact checked" vs. Fox "Bretbart checked"? Gee the difference is almost impossible to figure-out.

Anonymous said...

Because Fox news IS wingnuts and Rachel Maddow isn't.
Mega dittos to the sheeple.

bubble boy said...

The only thing relevant to Pacifica is what goes on in Pacifica. Please stop confusing us with all of that useless banter about the rest of the world.

JohnnyT said...

Looking at the plat map it looks like it is the land behind the church on hwy 1. I never knew the city owned it, but hasn't it been for sale before? The land behind the church was staked out for houses or some development. There is remmanents of it all around.

Anonymous said...

Bubbles...Pacifica is irrelevant. News and discourse about larger issues, some of which trickle down, are all that keep this silly town from being hurled off the spinning planet. Get a grip!

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Johnny T, that rings a bell. Seen the remnants. Any rumors re new interest or sale? No one's crowing at city hall, but let's hope it's a sale and not some freebie or a paperwork adjustment. The current $8.62 paid in property taxes, which Fogel unearthed, doesn't go far. Makes one wonder how many city assets lie dormant and unadvertised while the tin cup is in perpetual circulation.

Anonymous said...

Is that parcel really 260 acres? Bigger than the quarry? Does anyone know anything about this?

Anonymous said...

It's steep hillside and has no access.

todd bray said...

The minutes from the widening development team promise that property access after the widening, promised it back in 2008. That promised access never made it into the DEIR, among other things. The widening DEIR flatly denied the project would be growth inducing but a quick review of the PDT minutes reveal a different truth. To give that property access is a growth inducing impact. The question is why lie about in the DEIR?

BTW this blog posted a digest of the PDT minutes which are available from the SMCTA.

Anonymous said...

Really? That's confusing. Maybe we're not all talking about the same property.

Anonymous said...

The church on coast highway offered the owners of the parcel next to them an easement for $200,000.

From what I hear that project never had the funds to move forward.

Anonymous said...

The plot thickens. Why is this a closed session item?

Anonymous said...

It is closed cause its classified.

Don't ask too many questions. Or else!

Anonymous said...

closed session in pacifica usually means they want privacy while they screw the public

Anonymous said...

Regarding the potential for development of the property behind the church on Hwy 1, it's not hard for me to picture something along the lines of Connemara, another project that lay dormant for many years before coming to fruition. If an easement from the church property is not feasible, consider possible access through the rear of the old lumber yard. Bulldozers can definitely make molehills out of mountains. Would a couple of dozen well designed, well constructed homes as with the Connemara development really be detrimental to our community? I would think not.

todd bray said...

Agreed Anon @ 2:24. Lots of rezoning needed but the lumber yard is an obvious place to start for that whole area. I know of at least one group who were looking at that whole arrangement a couple of years ago. That doesn't change the promise made by Caltrans regarding access that was left out of the widening DEIR though.

Anonymous said...

@224 Is it too much to hope for? Years away, but still now's the time to begin. Fingers crossed.

Anonymous said...

Bray, a business purchased and is using the lumber yard.

Speak with fact and not made up bray bs

Anonymous said...

Agenda update on that property item. The address is 239 Bonita and the owner is Northrop.

Kathy Meeh said...

239 Bonita Avenue, a private residence, really?

Anonymous said...

apparently so. probably some kind of access thingie.

Anonymous said...

The APN # for 239 Bonita is completely different than APN# 022-330-160. That APN# is still tied to a 260 acre parcel apparently owned by the City of Pacifica which appears to be adjacent to the Bonita site. Maybe the owner wants a bigger back yard??

Anonymous said...

Somebody wants something. The Bonita address and owner name are on the closed session 3/25 meeting agenda.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the city added the names of the negotiating parties and the address as an afterthought to the agenda. If you want to avoid speculation, better late than never with the facts.