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, 6/10/13. Items listed may include embedded pdf documents, illustration and photographs of interest. The information below is restated or summarized from the city agenda documents. Additional links or comments may be added.
| Closed Session, 6:30 p.m. | ||||||||||
| 1). CA government code 54956.8. Conference with real property negotiator, price and terms of payment. Agency negotiator: Stephen Rhodes. Property APN 023-073-050 and 080. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Dave Colt. | ||||||||||
| 2). CA government code 54957.6. Conference with labor negotiator: Agency negotiator: Ann Ritzma. Employee organizations: Pacifica Firefighters Local 2400; Local 856 Battalion Chiefs; Department Directors Local 350; Wastewater Treatment Plant Employees Local 856; Miscellaneous Local 856; Managers Local 350; Police Officers Assn.; Police Supervisors Assn.; Police Management Local 350. | ||||||||||
Consent Calendar, 7:00 p.m.
1. Approval of cash disbursement - 4/30/13-5/20/13 - FY 2012/2013.
1. Approval of cash disbursement - 4/30/13-5/20/13 - FY 2012/2013.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 28, 2013 Meeting
3. Continuing 4/12/10 cliff erosion, revetment, storm drain local emergency,380 and 400 Esplanade Avenue.
4. 5/22/13 City response to Superior Court Judge Richard C. Livermore's 3/20/13 letter regarding Grand Jury 2012-13 report findings and recommendations, "Can we talk? Law enforcement and our multilingual county."
5. North County Fire Authority, FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant Funding, $239,816 for upgrade of exhaust system and rescue air bags. Pacifica's portion $14,688.73.
6. Palmetto Streetscape Project resolution to complete One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program recommendation, funding amount 1 million dollars. City matching is 11:47%, budgeted in the Capital Improvement Fund 22.
7. City department director contract memorandum of understanding (MOU), reductions in administrative leave, floating holidays, cafeteria plan, vacation sell back, vantage care, 3% reduction (Local 350 proposal 3.03%), 1/1/13 through 12/31/13.
| Oh boy, this is going to be a long meeting |
9. Award Pacifica State Beach Parking lot slurry seal and striping to American Asphalt, $57,085, (approved budget $62,794), Fund 22.
10. Resolution to vacate portions of Olympian Way and Pompeiian Way, public hearing 7/22/13.
Special presentations
Proclamation: Ann Ritzma. Proclamation: Rod Clark Poet Laureate. Proclamation: Amateur Radio Week.
Public hearings
11. Resolution of City user fees update, continued from public hearing from 5/29/13. Changes to Administrative Policy #2, Summary Report.
12. City Budgets, FY 2013-14. General Fund Operations, $26,812, 272, Capital Projects, $11,485,499, Other funds $15,123,319, Total $53,421,090. Enterprise WWTP Fund Operations, $17,216,162, Total $17,216,162.
13. Resolution creating an "Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee" (OPSAC). From 5/13/13 discussion: name change, acknowledge Open Space Report as a basic reference, increase members from 7 to 9, add a Council liaison.
14. Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) Annual Report, FY 2013-14. $1.00 hotel room per day, should generate approximately $65,000. The managing agency for BID is the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce. Hotel BID Report 6 4 13.
15. General Fund reserve policy, Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB 54). The City goal is 10% of City Annual Financial Report General Fund expenditures. Reserve Policy, revised 5/6/13.
16. Resolution establishing the State of CA, City spending limits without tax refund. Proposition 4 (11/1979, GANN Limit) with Proposition 111 adjusted formulas (6/1990). Note on the Summary "...the City is well under the maximum appropriation limit."
17. Pacifica Fireworks Task Force Committee recommendations, resolution 1170, Summary Report.
18. Designate a city council voting delegate and alternative to attend the League of California Cities annual conference in Sacramento, from 9/18-20, 2013.
19. Appointment 7 of 16 candidates to the City Planning Commission. List of Planning Commission Applicants.
Adjourn. Note: photograph from Big Visible Inspiring Organization Agility coaching blog, posted by George Schlitz,7/9/11.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
Special presentations
Proclamation: Ann Ritzma. Proclamation: Rod Clark Poet Laureate. Proclamation: Amateur Radio Week.
Public hearings
11. Resolution of City user fees update, continued from public hearing from 5/29/13. Changes to Administrative Policy #2, Summary Report.
12. City Budgets, FY 2013-14. General Fund Operations, $26,812, 272, Capital Projects, $11,485,499, Other funds $15,123,319, Total $53,421,090. Enterprise WWTP Fund Operations, $17,216,162, Total $17,216,162.
13. Resolution creating an "Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee" (OPSAC). From 5/13/13 discussion: name change, acknowledge Open Space Report as a basic reference, increase members from 7 to 9, add a Council liaison.
14. Pacifica Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) Annual Report, FY 2013-14. $1.00 hotel room per day, should generate approximately $65,000. The managing agency for BID is the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce. Hotel BID Report 6 4 13.
15. General Fund reserve policy, Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB 54). The City goal is 10% of City Annual Financial Report General Fund expenditures. Reserve Policy, revised 5/6/13.
16. Resolution establishing the State of CA, City spending limits without tax refund. Proposition 4 (11/1979, GANN Limit) with Proposition 111 adjusted formulas (6/1990). Note on the Summary "...the City is well under the maximum appropriation limit."
17. Pacifica Fireworks Task Force Committee recommendations, resolution 1170, Summary Report.
18. Designate a city council voting delegate and alternative to attend the League of California Cities annual conference in Sacramento, from 9/18-20, 2013.
19. Appointment 7 of 16 candidates to the City Planning Commission. List of Planning Commission Applicants.
Adjourn. Note: photograph from Big Visible Inspiring Organization Agility coaching blog, posted by George Schlitz,7/9/11.
86 comments:
Good there's no recommendation of banning fireworks all together like the hippies wanted.
Campbell should not be re-appointed to the planning commission. Voters said in 2012 they don't want an enviro lawyer making decisions.
You'd be surprised at how many people would like all fireworks banned in Pacifica. Aging population with less tolerance for it and lots of pet owners are just part of the group. It was put on the ballot twice but many years ago. If we really want to know what the people want, it should be put on the ballot in the near future. Give council a rest from all those groups lobbying for and against. It's a city-wide issue. Put it to the voters.
@440 "Voters said..." Here's the actual results for the two year seat:
O'Neill 5302 or 34.96%
Spano 4060 or 26.77%
Campbell 4037 or 26.62%
Mondfrans 1765 or 11.64%
O'Neill was the clear winner with a superior track record and excellent name recognition but isn't it interesting that Campbell and Spano polled almost the same numbers despite their perceived different positions on economic development. What's that about? How about we add Spano to the PC for balance and 'discovery' and give his name recognition a big boost for the 2014 election? Council can do some pro-growth succession planning with this appointment.
Haha and the 4000+ who voted for either Campbell or Spano had 2 more votes to cast for the 4 year seat, choosing among Ervin, Nithart and Vellone. Don't whip out the NIMBY gun, these are the facts.
I'm not a hippie, and I want to ban fireworks. I know numerous other non-hippies who agree. Shooting fireworks over our brown hills in the middle of summer is plain stupid.
I leave town for the 4th. Water down everything from the roof to the shrubs and away we go. The 4th of July bombardment in my neighborhood is out of control and has been for years and all this council can do is blather about the trash left on the beach. Better there than in the combustible neighborhoods! It'll take a maiming or death or major fire to stop this. Nothing says nice town like groups of belligerent drunks all over town playing with matches and explosives.
742 Plain stupid? Isn't that how most outsiders, interested or not, refer to Pacifica? You know the term Pathetica originated in Redwood City quite a few years ago.
Another vote for banning fireworks.
Ban them, now.
Me too! Put it on a ballot. Why should this town sacrifice its peace and quiet and safety to pump money into TNT, the multi-billion dollar fireworks vendor? For the non-profits? What a joke. They don't get much out of the deal.
Stop the annual artillery bombardment and the clean-up and repair costs that go with, and the city can probably write them a check and still break even.
It will take a few years of much increased enforcement but most of the criminal activity will stop. Most of it.
I'm in favor of keeping the safe and sane fireworks legal. They do not "Shoot over our brown hills" they stay on the ground and they generate a lot of money for local charities. They are not the ones making the loud booms scaring your animals. It's the illegal ones that go flying in the air and sound like dynamite. If you stop the legal safe ones the illegal more dangerous ones will only increase.
Families come together to celebrate our counties bith as our forefathers wanted. It is a fun family tradition that most families with kids in Pacifica participate in. It is well worth keeping.
That said I would bann the fireworks on the beaches and near the hills
Wow, a cause that unites both sides. Council should work on this, and we can push it through like Congress did when limiting the gun show loophole, as favored by 90% of Americans.
Oh, wait.... I forget that we're no better at getting s*!]¥t done than the pathetic dems and repubs.
Anon 925, Pacifica non profits get well over $100,000 from fireworks sales. I wouldn't call that "not much"
And cleanup and policing cost less than $10,000 which is paid for by the city tax on the fireworks.
If you think the people who want to ban fireworks are hippies, you are badly out of touch with local folks.
Hutch, the the reason that the PD is unable discern from the Chinatown fireworks that turn us into Baghdad by the Bay are the "safe and sane" ones. We need to ban them all, and then the PD can just arrest any drunken idiot shooting off anything.
Your logic is flawed because communities like us and San Bruno are the only ones with the ridiculous amounts of illegal fireworks. We also are the only ones that allow the illy "safe and sane" ones. You think that's just a coincidence?
Sometimes I think Hutch, is one of the only sane people who post here.
Has anyone noticed the new street lights. No light.
Let the new crime spree begin!
I think most people with children would vote to keep them. People with dogs who they think are kids wouldn't. Sorry people trump dogs and cats. It's one day give your animal a sedative or take them out of town. In other places thunder storms scare the crap out of animals and they do just fine.
I'm very happy they decided not to ban fireworks. The majority of Pacifica residents want them as shown by over 100 thousand in sales each year.
Closed Session, 6:30 p.m.
1). CA government code 54956.8. Conference with real property negotiator, price and terms of payment. Agency negotiator: Stephen Rhodes. Property APN 023-073-050 and 080. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Dave Colt.
Negatiate in closed session to spend the taxpayers money. Way to go Pacifica!
"The majority of Pacifica residents want them as shown by over 100 thousand in sales each year." Spock says that is illogical. The dollar amount of sales has no relation to what the majority of Pacifica residents want. How much of sales are to residents of other cities? How much of sales are to small numbers of buyers? Etc.
Anon 10:30. Every city is required by law to discuss real property negotiations in closed session.
Actually there are over $300,000 in Safe & Sane fireworks sales in Pacifica every year. Mostly Pacifica residents.
11:28 BS
show me the rule on that one
@1030 oh don't sweat the small stuff. did you catch the last consent agenda? that massive crap storage tank for Linda Mar was on there. no real discussion, no public input. the consent agenda...think of it as council's way to fly under the radar.
last thing most people heard about it was that several locations were being considered. well, not any more. council dumped that sucker in linda mar where the caltrans bldg is. they need to buy the property from caltrans first but no problem. parts of it will be above ground. yeah, right across from the shopping center, within 10yards of homes. wait til the on-shore winds take that aroma up the valley. peeyew.
nicely played council. you all seem to have a real gift for bypassing the public when things are the slightest bit controversial. and at the same time you've saved a prime parcel, suitable for future development, from ever being developed. much like putting a WWTP, with all the heavy regulations that surround such facilities, in the quarry. ahh pacifica, where we'd rather crap on prime real estate than develop it. let's counct the triumphs...poor planning of the palmetto corridor with its eyesores and junk from end to end, stunk up the quarry, and now a prime corner in linda mar. all the other stuff is of little longterm consequence, these are the decisions that guarantee Pacifica's continued poverty.
if this doesn't make you mad, just remember that your tax dollars, paid as sewer taxes, for many years were transferred from that fund to the city's general fund and used as mad money by previous councils. legal til about 2006/7. about $750,000 per year for many years. instead of maintaining and repairing the sewer system and perhaps avoiding the spills, litigation, fines, judgements, and this latest appalling practically secret decision by a council that is oblivious to cause and effect.
or, are they?
Put the fireworks issue to a vote. By allowing safe and sane stuff we send a message that we tolerate fireworks and we unwittingly provide a cover for the illegal stuff. I've sold fireworks in various booths here and many of the customers are from out of town. They're here visiting friends and family or just here to use the beach. Many buy multiple boxes for their families to use. Many buy the legal stuff for the kids while the adults are using the illegal stuff. It's no secret. Seems like a lot of disruption if all that the non-profits get is $100,000 divied up 14 ways. Even this broke-ass city should be able to cover that or a portion of it. Hell, they can pretend they're paying another consultant. And I really doubt that all the actual expenses are paid for by the tax on fireworks. Nothing can compensate people for the week-long disturbance. Nothing. It's time for Pacifica to join the thinking civilized world. Put the fireworks issue to a vote.
No vote needed and it's not recommended by the committee so the council is not going to recommended a vote either. Most people want to keep the safe and sane fireworks. No reason to waste money on an election for a few negative nellies. I look at my block and almost every single family is out there setting off the S&S fireworks or watching them. Every block I'v ever been on in Pacifica is like that.
@435 Well that's certainly one opinion. I think a lot more people shared it about 20 years ago. This town and the 4th of July celebration have changed for many Pacificans and not for the better. Putting the issue on the ballot during a regularly scheduled election wouldn't cost much and that's the best way to find out what the voters really want done. What a concept! Relying on local politicians and their appointees is a farce meant to kick the can to the next bunch of politicians and appointees. Let the voters decide. Seems to me there's even some way to put something on the ballot without the politicians blessing. In any case, watch how strong council's resolve is if there's a serious injury, death or fire caused by fireworks. You and your safe and sane stuff could be trampled in their stampede to protect the public. The issue won't go away. We'll get there by and by.
The whiners complaining about the poo tank are the definition of NIMBys, and are no better than that hippie photographer who complains about the dog park from his city-subsidized studio.
811 let me guess, you live down wind of the super-pooper in Vallemar, or you're a council sycophant, or, gee, I guess you could be both. Or, did you have to take a little heat about the dog park? Boo hoo.
Only in Pacifica would the sneaky placement of an enormous, smelly tank of crap on prime commercial real estate near homes, actually find a defender. It's all you, baby.
Hey, brain dead rodent, you can call us Nimbys for bitching about the crapper in LM, but don't be comparing us to the photographer. Which one would you want as a neighbor?
Are you on council? See what I mean? People have feelings. Words can hurt.
The hippie guy who runs the for profit photo mat in the non profit Sanchez Art Center is up for a big surprise at the next city council meeting.
I'm just glad they moved the sewer plant out of Sharp Park and my backyard. Thanks Mary Ann and Robine!
What? The long-awaited bike park will be built behind the Sanchez? If he didn't like his neighbors before, he's going to absolutely hate this bunch. Just kidding, I think, although in Pacifica you can never be sure.
@1129 You're so naughty. But very polite to thank the gals who led the fight. Relocating the WWTP is the act that brought extra layers of regulatory agencies to the quarry and helped make development really tough. Not impossible, but perhaps too tough and expensive for all but the biggest developers. And, we know how this town feels about big developers changing the landscape and small town feel.
Gee, and all they meant to do was improve their Sharp Park neighborhood by getting rid of the WWTP. Dare we say the word, NIMBY? I guess this is an example of one of those unintended consequence things. Well, not entirely unintended because the enviros jumped on that bandwagon like fleas on a hound. Gosh, thanks for that trip down memory lane. I love history.
@744 a surprise? I love surprises. Can't wait. I know it's just wishful thinking but I'd really like to see that photog not included in the city's apparent policy (see the Willdan report)of one fire inspection fee ($78) for the whole bldg. He's a for-profit business and should pay individually just like all the other Pacifica for-profit businesses. The going rate for them is much higher than $78. Any other for-profits in the Sanchez building or in any other city-owned property should also pay on an individual basis.
Go ahead and surprise us all, City Council!
Putting the sewer plant in the very back of Sharp Park by the old archery range made too much sense. The only place that would smell it was, Skyline College Parking lots.
You just know they are going to screw up the poop pit at Linda Mar as bad as the last two sewer plants.
So true 215, so true. Hey, it is a huge pool of shite. Not much can be done to disguise that stench. Untreated stuff and it's entirely possible it'll smell worse than the super-pooper in Vallemar. Wafting up the valley and into the canyons on lovely sea breezes. Jeez, it's going to be awful. No wonder this brave council snuck it through on a consent agenda.
How about putting a skating rink up top? The city can run the concession. I guess it was inevitable, one way or another this entire city will stink. Vallemar, Linda Mar, the OWWTP still stinks, and that outdoor toilet of a pier ain't no rose. The Pacifica Master Plan.
Scientists say when confronted with a really bad smell, just breath normally, and in a couple minutes you won't even notice the stench. Remember that info when you leave Pacifica and are around people with noses that still work.
There seems to be some confusion here. The photography business is not in the Sanchez Art Center. It's in the same building as the SAC but it's not part of the SAC non-profit organization. The photo studio will pay its own separate fire inspection fee. The same building complex also houses the Pacifica branch of the SF Fire Credit Union and Pacifica Performances/Mildred Owen Concert Hall. They are all separate entities.
Good to know 404. Thank you for pointing us in the right direction. The photog studio is in the building but since he's not part of the SAC organization he is not covered by the single charge fire inspection fee of $78 paid by the SAC organization for all of its member artists with studios in that building. He'll pay his own fire inspection fee--which we hope is on par with the fees paid by other for-profit Pacifica businesses. Ditto for the other businesses who are in the bldg. but not part of the SAC.
In the Willdan report attached to the agenda item on fees, there is a list of some businesses and fees. It would be great if we could access an annual city document listing fees charged and fees collected for all businesses and non-profits in the city. I'm not aware this exists anywhere. Preferential treatment may or may not have ended, but the rumors linger on. Put the facts out to clear the air. On the city website?
Shocking news:
Another lawsuit against the City of Pacifica.
http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/civil/casereport.asp?casenumber=521978&casetype=CIV&courtcode=A
Well, here is the case complaint: Michael R. Romano, Joanne Romano vs. City of Pacifica, County of San Mateo, CIV 521978. This appears to be a deed controversy over a 1 foot strip of land, likely attached to the Romano Vallemar property. Interesting, but seemingly "big deal".
There will always be lawsuits. That's why cities have city attorneys. But before getting your panties in a twist, wouldn't it be relevant to know what this one is about? You could ask Mr. Romano.
610, agreed, doesn't look like much to get excited about. But so could you ask Mr. Romano. Let us know.
@anon @ 2:02 p.m. June 5:
I'm a bit surprised that some pundit hasn't already suggested that a new City Council building be built on top of the proposed sewer overflow pond at Linda Mar. Something about the Council "having shite for brains."
To all the whiners complaining about the potential "poop pit":
Take a field trip about 7-8 miles north of Pacifica. There's a city with about 100000x of our population that deals with their poop pits just fine with about .0000001x of our open space. Please try and make it through one issue without crying like a bunch of 7-year-olds.
Really 1010? One issue? Well, it's the same old issue and it isn't just the poop. It's the prime real estate being ruined forever by a city that has yet to master cause and effect. Council after council has polished crying poor to an art, but still can't make the connection between their bad land use and planning decisions, really bad decisions, and Pacifica's unrelenting poverty. Marketable, developable land is a finite and scarce commodity in this town. This will be a disastrous use for that parcel. This proposed storage basin for raw, untreated sewage may not always smell (yeah, right), but when it does the odor will be worse than in Vallemar.
Do you actually believe in the decision or is it that you cannot bear the thought of this council making such a serious mistake? This is a bad decision no matter who is making it. Suggest you flip over to Riptide and catch Chris Fogel's commentary on this one issue. It might also be on his Index. And when you make comparisons, it's always a good idea to compare apples to apples, etc. It would make your comparison meaningful.
Where do you suggest we store it, NIMBY?
You're like one of those hippies that woke up one morning and decided they had all the ideas for solving the highway one traffic problems (but with zero expertise).
June 7 @7:32 a.m.
"where do you suggest we store it?"
Just my uneducated guess, but how about in a non-residential area? Seems that somebody had the right idea building the sewer plant next to the quarry, although the stench was probably not expected. But now knowing that there are those type problems, why replicate it and complicate it by placing it at Linda Mar. Why not next to the existing sewer plant or by the old archery r), or as someone suggested). Or maybe in your neighborhood ? Or perhaps making sure that wherever it is built, it is built correctly so that there is no stench? Endless possibilities here.
@1141 Please, remember where you are before going all logical and reasonable on us. This is Pacifica. And, as someone else noted a while back, only in Pacifica would the idea of parking a giant pool of human excrement next to a shopping center on prime commercial real estate and just a few feet from homes find a defender. It could be a council lapdog, could be somebody who wants Linda Mar to be as foul as their neighborhood, hell, it could be one of council. If you think Vallemar stinks--and it does-- wait til you get a whiff of this raw, untreated stuff. Do you think maybe council knows this is a disaster in the making and that's the reason for the rush and the very low profile? Ya think? Another really bad land use decision-is their any other kind in Pacifica? Another nail in the coffin.
As has been mentioned numerous times, this is done next to many more homes and businesses all over San Francisco. I'll take the advice of the experts over a bunch of anonymous bozos.
What do you people think is going on? Is this another one of your tinfoil hat conspiracies? Who exactly is the city's sewer department out to get?
June 8 @ 8:53 a.m. it's not a case of who the sewer department is out to get or is it a conspiracy theory. Isn't it a fact that the current sewer plant has had problem after problem with continual odors and unauthorized discharges which has resulted in several rather hefty fines; yet the problems persist. Whatever San Francisco or other municipalities have done to build/maintain their systems clearly wasn't/isn't being done in Pacifica. So if I and others are dubious about our city sewer department, it is with good reason and a fair amount of concern. Knowing the problems of the past, why would anyone want to green light this project without first examining every aspect (including location)before the first shovel of dirt is turned over?
Item 19, planning commissioners. City council voted 1st round (3 or more votes) for the following seven Planning Commissioners, who were thereby appointed.
1. Mike Brown
2. Richard Campbell
3. Jeffrey Cooper
4. Chuck Evans
5. Josh Gordon
6. John Nibbelin
7. Sue Vaterlaus
Thank you for your past service Tom Clifford. Most Planning Commissioners not appointed by this city council's voting process were also part of a really fine list of applicants. Remember those not appointed included: 1) Mike Bell, 2) Mary Brown, 3) Tom Clifford, 4) Allan Federman, 5) William Keaney, 6) Celeste Langille, 7) Connie Menefee, 8) Victor Spano, 9) Lisa Villasenor.
Of further interest, two environmental attorneys were returned to the the Planning Commission. And again there will be six men, and only one woman on the Planning Commission. In advance, some city council members mentioned they would be voting for balance, did they?
I believe the new appointee, Jeff Cooper, CEO of CPM Environmental also has a JD so another lawyer. CPM does a lot of big-scale asbestos remediation work, project management, etc.
John Nibbelin is Deputy County Counsel for SMC. Don't know how green he is.
Sue Vaterlaus is a longtime Pacifica realtor, not noticeably green. Used to be quite fiery anti-council in the old days. Has mellowed and has served ably on FCSTF, Econ Dev and other cmmttees.
Guess this council majority felt no big shake-up was needed to achieve balance.
@208 aw don't sweat the small stuff. clearly 853 anonbozo is a council lapdog. probably lives near the old WWTP which hardly stinks anymore and thinks moving it to the quarry was great even tho' it brought multiple regulatory agencies along to complicate any development. just goes to show we all can be nimbys when faced with a bad situation.
Somebody break the news to Hutch about his buddy Rich Campbell. Please, Hutch, no analysis. Let's leave it at stuff happens.
WTF?
Tom
This is what happens when you post on the blogs.
Sue, was very anti council until Suzan Getchell reeled her in and made her behave.
@anon 11:40 and 2:08
I just don't trust the expertise of a bunch of anonymous NIMBYs on some chat board as being the ones qualified for "examining every aspect".
Anonymous You maybe right but I do not regret making sure that the public has accurate information about what is happen in our fair city.
@813 baaaaa, baaaaa, how very ovine of you
Tom, it may have been a factor.
You vill say nothing, kommissioner!
I guess re-appointing all 7 would have been a little too obvious. Even closet hippies know when to stop.
@anon at 8:13 a.m.
Obviously, bloggers on this site wouldn't be able to provide the expertise needed to ensure that the sewer overflow pond is correctly constructed. What I, and I believe others, are asking is that proper "expert" oversight be given to this project so that Pacifica doesn't wind up with another problem. I'm not certain who was involved in the previous sewer plant construction (other than Scott Holmes), but something wasn't done correctly or we wouldn't have the stench or the monetary fines. So whether any of us have expertise in this area or not, shouldn't all of us who reside in Pacifica be concerned enough to demand a decent project. In all my years, I've frequently traveled up and down the coast from Eureka to San Diego. I've never run across the foul odors that confront me almost daily as I pass Vallemar. There's got to be a rationale explanation why Pacifica has the stench that no other municipality seems to have.
Tod Schlesinger rocks!
@918 Exactly! Just a guess, based on 25 years in this town, but the stink really starts in City Hall.
We seem much too eager to ruin prime commercial real estate and a neighborhood of homes. And, in virtual secrecy. This decision should not have been placed on the consent agenda. That's the first clue that council wants no discussion, no debate. Guess they'd rather deal with lawsuits after the fact than delays and thoughtful consideration before.
Sound like a pro-growth decision to you? No, but it does sound like Pacifica.
Tod, called out that phoney Steve Johnson and his art studio in the non profit art center.
Kudos, for Tod!
I'm not a hippie, and I want to ban fireworks.
I'm not a hippie, and io want to ban hippies!
That meeting sucked big, but thought I heard one little kernel of maybe good news. Wasn't Rhodes cued by Stone to mention that as part of the Econ Dev Plan money would be available to hire an economic development coordinator? Coordinators are generally paper shuffling support staff, but maybe this is a start? Who would they support? It could be good news, right? Or, are we just filling and re-titling a vacant admin position? What we need is a rain-making director of economic development. Someday.
Just when I thought maybe Council was about to grow a set of balls they cave to the NIMBY's.
Re-appointing most of Vreeland's planning commission was another concession to the idiots that destroyed Pacifica in the first place.
Pray for a rebound of real estate values so we can sell, collect our money and leave this loony bin.
Even though I sometimes didn't agree with Tom, I greatly appreciate his participation on the various blogs.
The council kept Rich Campbell and Josh Gordon (both lawyers) on the planning commission, along with 2 of the other current commissioners, but removed Tom Clifford (contractor) and Celeste Langille (lawyer). The 3 new appointments are Jeff Cooper who in addition to being a hazardous materials abatement contractor also happens to be a lawyer, John Nibbelin, a lawyer, and Sue Vaterlaus, a realtor.
If any of you catch this 3 1/2 hour+ city council meeting in televised replay, in the last 20 minutes be sure to view the Planning Commission comments, particularly those of Victor Carmichael and Noel Blinco. Carmichael advises Council to remember the long term plan to save Pacifica from development, and Blinco makes the case for an environmental (NIMBY) Planning Commission.
Funny thing, I don't remember voting for a long term plan (maybe 35 years) to obstruct balanced development in Pacifica, do you?
Haha Kathy, apparently we are still voting for it. Only now it's called consensus and compromise and giving everyone a seat at the table. All well and good unless it cripples a town of 40,000 people. What a disappointment this council is.
Did anyone, other than a couple posters on here, really expect an elected council to turn its back on an idealogy that has been fundamental to Pacifica for decades? They're in a position to know and it looks like they don't buy "the enviros ruined the town" excuse. I'm amazed they didn't just re-appoint the whole commission. This council, at least a majority of it, seems absolutely sincere in its rhetoric about representing the whole town. It's not going to be easy to make sure they do that.
The much-awaited City Economic Development Plan document should be must reading for all of us concerned about the city's future. And those of us trying to make sense of council's actions and initiatives. The plan is out and I think will be presented at the Econ Dev Committee meeting. Tonight? It'll probably show up on Fogel's Index. Very comprehensive in about 60 pages. No new insights but it lays out the realities of our situation in common-sense, absorbable language. Strengths, weaknesses, best bets, longshots and why.
1:04
That's what I been saying all along. This council same as the past councils.
I had no idea that the Economic Development Plan had been released. At last night's council meeting they were speaking about it as if it hadn't been released yet.
I did put up the Matrix consulting group's Pacifica Police Department Efficiency Study -- it was released this afternoon.
@221 I don't see them as the same as the Vreeland-era council. The majority of this group isn't carrying any single ideology banner. They're neither tree-huggers nor corporate shills. IMHO they see themselves as delivery people. Using professional-level management skills acquired in their day jobs to solve this city's massive financial and operational problems in order to deliver a product, ie, services to the residents. To do that job, they want like-minded problem-solvers around them. I get it and I wish them well. We need to move forward. There will be future elections and new faces.
For this group IMHO more effort is needed to be open and above board in all things concerning the people. When they allow themselves to appear secretive without explanation, or choose speed and convenience instead of due process, they undermine the public trust and it cannot be regained.
I believe it's out and about and an Economic Plan does appear as a discussion item on the meeting agenda for tonight @ 6 at the PPD.
I'm watching Turkey meltdown or I might call city hall?
Yes, it seems the draft Econ Dev Plan is ready for discussion at tonight's meeting. Too bad it's not a televised meeting.
I picked up the Economic Development Plan about an hour ago. An interesting read but not many surprises. I'll go back and mine for nuggets later. I have heard that the Pacifica Police Department Efficiency Study is about 500 pages long. If true that doesn't sound very efficient[the reporting that is]
The Vreeland/Cheney Council had no compunction about stacking all the decks for the NIMBY's.
This Council reminds me of Obama, still trying to appease the fascists who have no intention of ever compromising.
What fools.
The Econ Dev Plan is an easy read. 61 pages. It makes sense and holds no surprises. I never finished War and Peace so I don't think I'll even start with the 500 page Police Dept report. Talk about bullet-proof.
@638 Ok, I'm clear on the fools, and Cheney, but which ones are the fascists? Please, whatever you do, don't say they're the ones in the brown shirts. Ok?
Read that Econ Development Plan with our new Planning Commission in mind. They'll play an uncredited critical role in it. It might work. Fingers crossed.
oh geez, it wasn't a bad dream
Post a Comment