| Soon to be 4 Slurpee locations in Pacifica. |
Fix Pacifica article City Council Agenda, 7/25/15. City Council Interactive Agenda 7/27/15.
Public Hearing
Item 9. 7-Eleven redevelopment, 700 Hickey Boulevard.
Consideration
Item 10. General Plan 2007-14, Housing Element Annual Progress Report.
Note: Slurpee photograph from a 7-Eleven advertisement, Sun Sentinel newspaper website/Deals Shopping.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
92 comments:
If you're in Fairmont, Linda Mar, or Pedro Point, don't miss tonight's City Council Meeting to hear the FINAL appeal of the 7-Eleven at 700 Hickey Blvd... many expect the 505 Linda Mar 7-Eleven at Dave & Lou's will have the same end result as this appeal.
DETAILS:
July 27, 2015 at 7:00PM
2212 Beach Blvd, 2nd Flr, Pacifica, CA 944044
What Pacifica Council Chambers building across from Municipal Pier looks like:
http://www.pacifica.city/images/pacifica_city_council_chambers_bldg.jpg
You can print your parking pass out in advance and put it on your dash when you arrive:
http://www.pacifica.city/images/pacifica_parking_permit_printout_072715.jpg
REASONS TO OPPOSE:
1 Increased Youth Access to Alcohol
2 Increased Crime & Noise 24 Hours
3 Undue Concentration of Liquor Licenses
4 Increased Air Pollution
5 Increased Visual and Light Pollution (signage, blocked views)
6 Increased Congestion and Traffic
7 Increased Transients
8 Increased Trash
9 Increased Pests & Vermin
10 Decreased Neighborhood Character
11 Decreased Quality of Live
12 Decreased Property Values
13 Decreased Views
14 Decreased Parking (delivery trucks double parked & idling 24 hours)
15 Increased Odors (Trash, Urine, Fuel)
16 Increased Demand for Police Services
17 Increased Burden on City Resources
18 Decreased Quiet Enjoyment of Residences
Thanks to Pacifica for hearing us and thanks to Kathy Meeh for hosting us on her blog!
http://www.Pacifica.city
Pacifica City:
After a decision is made on 7-11, are you going to tackle the other 99 problems the city has?
Only in Pacifica does the street sweeper come around the day before Garbage day!
Street Sweeper on Monday
Garbage pick up on Tuesday
Pacifica.city what do you think about the proposed giant poop pit in Linda Mar? Get past the 7-11 hearing and let us know, please. And best of luck!
Karen Ervin thinks she is sheriff Joe in Arizona!
I will read you the rules and regulations!
Another lady going full on One Flew over the cuckoo s next.
One guy talking about kids buying sugary foods.
The hippies nimbys and noobees are behind this. This guy is bitching about traffic.
Is this Manny the hippie or Jeff Spigoli?
This tiger big stick guy lives in Linda Mar. He works for Linda Mar Safeway.
Salute to Mike O'Neill for his gutsy opposition to the 7-11 liquor store/gas station on Hickey. Opposition based in part on his experience on the PSD school board wherein he attended expulsion hearings for elementary school kids with alcohol problems. He commented that Pacifica kids in 5th and 6th grades had already found their drink or drug of choice. What a rosy future those kids have. He also made the pragmatic observation that we can only control what we can control. Glad he's willing to act on that for this community. Joined Keener and Digre in taking a stand for the community. Don't back down. And, do the same for Linda Mar.
1218, or Councilmember Mike O'Neill went to the dark side, allied with Councilmembers Keener and Digre.
Item 9, the Appeal of Fairmont 7-Eleven, was continued for additional research and legal guidance until the next meeting, 9/14/15.
There is no proof that any 7-Eleven convenience store in this City has anything to do with what is perceived as 5th and 6th grader alcohol expertise.
And, O'Neill's other comment, "we can only control what we can control"-- is that like, how about another City lawsuit, this one for denying the owner of that commercial property the right to build in accordance with local zoning, codes and regulations?
Councilmember MaryAnn Nihart was clear about discussing possible modifications to the Planning Commission's project approval. (Funny thing, if I heard this correctly, Nihart's quick survey at the Fairmont shopping plaza prior the meeting: 10 our of 10 people said they wanted some kind of convenience store in that general location).
At the meeting, Richard Campbell (PC Chair) pointed-out areas previously not covered at the Planning Commission 7-Eleven project approval meeting. Mayor Karen Ervin was aware of the potential legal risk in denying the project, (plus the implications of leaving an empty vacant gas station in that location).
Support, modification, denial, upholding some part of the Appeal will be studied, and discussed again at the next City Council meeting 9/14/15. We'll see.
Of course, the project could be approved, but made not viable, (which sounds like another legal challenge).
Chances are, if the kids,are using drugs and alcohol in 5th and,6th grade their parents probably handed down the alcoholic and druggie geans to them already. Those kids have it in the house, and the parents probably are too wasted to know or care. Kids I knew would pinch a little weed out of the parents stash.
7-11 paid over 2 million dollars for this site. Do you think they will easily back down? No they will sue Pacifica into bankruptcy.
Rumor has it, a couple of the city council members like the hootch.
Rich Campbell looks like s cheesy lounge singer.
Thank you Kathy,
Two different attendees who did not speak came up to me during a five minute break told me they read about the Fairmont 7-Eleven at FixPacifica, and we definitely appreciate your forum.
There were about twenty five public speakers who all spoke out unanimously against 7-Eleven, who replaced applicant Katy Schardt immediately before the meeting with Steven Oliver, 7 Eleven Senior Director of New Store Development they flew out from Texas yesterday afternoon.
Special thanks to the tens of Fairmont and Linda Mar residents who worked with us on this issue, and the appellant herself - don't let the walker fool you, that woman is a warrior!
Thanks to Councilmembers Digre, Keener, and Mike O'Neill (alphabetically-ordered) who were absolutely critical to our success as well as Planning Commissioner Mike Brown, who was the very first vote in our favor along this whole process.
And a personal thanks you to you Kathy.
Like I said before, I worry far less about people that disagree with me on one topic than those that don't care about Pacifica at all, and I have never doubted that your intentions are pure.
----------------------
----------------------
@Anon855, that gentleman is a private citizen and unaffiliated with our efforts. He is however a frequent City Council attendee who gets there early enough to sit in the front row.
To be clear, the decision was continued until September 14 to build supports from the General Plan to support a denial (approval of the appeal) of 7-Eleven's permits.
It's an incomplete victory for us, but we absolutely could not have done it without Councilmembers Digre, Keener & O'Neill and the standing room only crowd that supported our mission.
Thanks again, www.Pacifica.city
Pacifica City
Was that you who walked up and finished for the appellant?
Guy with grayish hair?
Another stone yanked from the foundation of the Constitution. Chipping away at private property rights. Call it what it is, legislation via mob rule.
@Anon 7:58am
"Grayish hair"??!!
Now you're just being hurtful, lol!
Indeed, that was me, black short sleeved shirt.
There has never been any mystery to my identity, but I am loathe to take sole individual credit for the work of what was almost twenty people, most of all Appellant Betty Duran, who busted her a$$ on this for two months.
Those who attended the standing room only City Council meeting last night learned that we aren't Hippies, Republicans or Democrats, the Greenies, Realtors, Lefties, Surfriders, Realtors, Nimbies, Noobies, Originals, Rich or Poor, Asians, Whites, Blacks or Hispanics:
We are every single one of those groups... we want Pacifica to be great and a great place to raise our kids.
Dan
You said Realtors twice, you must not like them..hahaha The Pacifica realtors are too busy watching listings being listed by out of Pacifica realtors to get involved. They don't understand that San Bruno and SSF are run by the realtors.
If people turned out like this on the other stupid assed things city council did, maybe we would have a better city council!!
Nothing personal about the Grayish hair comment. Your just the new guy around here, and we always pick on the new guy!! ha
Maybe you will be the guy to finally get the hippie opposition organized!!
The real reason for all of the acquiescence last night is that this is going to repeat itself in Linda Mar. Wouldn't want the world's leading expert on all things green to get upset with you now would you? Making her mad twice in as many months could cause a civil war. Attorneys versus the common stupid man.
I don't want to see a bunch of convenience store everywhere either but this is what happens when a group of know it all faux-enviro bullies are allowed to dictate and destroy all development in a town. You end up with schlock (7-11's, storage facilities, trailer parks, etc.) because no quality developer or entrepreneur in their right mind would want to deal with these idiots. We've simply got to break the hold that these eco-snobs have on Pacifica so we can take our city back and make it a healthy and beautiful place for all to live in.
Nihart claimed that she polled 10 people and all 10 were in favor of the 7-11 and other people were afraid to speak up. Is she on crack? Really? I wonder how that poll went, something like this:
(Nihart) Hi, are you in favor of a business in this lot generating taxes for schools, or do prefer it generate no income?
(Innocent citizen) Well, I prefer something that generates taxes for schools.
(Nihart) Would you like to come to the Council meeting and express that opinion?
(Innocent citizen)I can't, I have to tend to my ailing mother in the evenings, I'm afraid.
(Nihart) OK, thanks for endorsing something I haven't really explained.
(Innocent citizen)I never even heard about this.
(Nihart) Well we only have to tell people who own property within 300 feet, are you a renter?
(Innocent citizen)Yes I am.
(Nihart) Sorry I wasted my time. Bye.
"..because no quality developer or entrepreneur in their right mind would want to deal with these idiots..."
So when the "idiots" cooperate to bring a "classy" development like Harmony1 you ignore the effort and blame them for it's pending failure, leaving the crumbs of crappy development like the 7-11s. You're the problem - no one in their right mind wants to work with blowhards like you that think they represent the broader consensus. Keep raging on and scare away everyone. Pacifica is pit-bull central, a cesspool of lowlifes and cretins fighting against those who want to attract a better class of people who value a clean, safe, and green community for families. Yes the fight against 7/11 or a toilet tank at Linda Mar will be HUGE - get ready. Pedro Point people better fight hard for their property values and sanity.
This is a culture clash between those who want a better community and those who want real estate profits at any cost. The battle lines are drawn, pick your side.
Where was all the 7-11 support last night? I mean other than Nihart. Lots of billable hours from the city attorney before this is finished. Make it bullet-proof, counselor.
Council Three, thank you, and watch your backs.
856 I doubt your nemesis, the faux-enviro bullies, supported trailer parks and storage facilities. You must have been lonely fighting that schlock. Seems like we could have used their activist asses back then to oppose those things. Of course then they would have been criticized for disrespecting property rights. What a dilemma!
You're going to have to let go of your angry tribalism and work towards common solutions if you want to get anything done in Pacifica from now on. Rage all you want against the NIMBIES and Bulldozer Bozos all from the safety of your computer. It accomplishes nothing.
The fringe edges are no longer where the action is. The majority of Pacificans straddle the middle and reject the us vs them mindest. The Third Way has gotten a foothold in Pacifica and is where things will be getting done. Get on board or get left behind.
Yeah, on the altar of property rights and make a buck, let's fill the town with 7-11s. How about the threat of litigation? Give in and why in no time at all we can have that inner-city look right here in our neighborhoods where we live and raise our families. This one really isn't the usual Pacifica battle. Wake up Pacifica, indeed!
948 cleaning-up your comments. Councilmember MaryAnn Nihart commented she had polled 10 people who all said they would like a convenience store available in the Fairmont location.
And your extended comment, "other people were afraid to speak up" may be contextually in error, or didn't happen. Nihart said "these are the people who don't show up at City Council".
Nihart also said she presented her pre-City Council Council, Fairmont Plaza citizen inquiry on a neutral basis.
I believe that, and I believe her. Your comment seems not be credible, which is another reason to question your version of "reality check" related to the anti-7 Eleven cause.
1002, you said 7-Eleven is a crappy development? A Chevron gas station was there prior; now Chevron is an abandoned structure at that site. An abandoned gas station is owned by 7-Eleven is a much better solution, right?
Green community? Are you equating a green community with a poor community, which doesn't have enough revenue to achieve optimal green goals? I think you are, and that is this community: #20 lowest City General Fund revenue out of 20 San Mateo County cities. We pay a big price for poor, not for green; and not for City infrastructure. BTW, how green is your house?
1024, the "third way" in this City is Pac-man, get eaten by NIMBIES. That doesn't work, we've tried that game here for 30 years. Got other ideas?
1048, seriously. 7-Elevens are just convenience stores. People find them convenient, that's why they exist.
Another stone yanked from the foundation of the Constitution. Chipping away at private property rights.
Ah yes, another constitutional scholar in our midst. We are honored by your presence.
I too am disturbed that the property owner is not allowed to install a nuclear power plant on his lawfully purchased land. It's no ones business what they do on their own land. Bah, I may be biased because I was denied a permit to operate a slaughterhouse out of my garage in Manor.
Buncha commies out to steal my precious bodily fluids!
RRRRRAAAAARRRRRRGGGAAAAAAHHHH!
*splits pants*
9:48's Nihart impersonation gets the Post of the Month award.
Awesome stuff and spot on.
Hope to see more of your work in the future. I'm a big fan of yours for what it's worth. Of Nihart? Not so much.
You end up with schlock (7-11's, storage facilities, trailer parks, etc.) because no quality developer or entrepreneur in their right mind would want to deal with these idiots.
You mean our crowning jewel of a downtown. The 5* downtown Palmetto that Karen Ervin promissed us all!
According to Yelp Goodfellas pizza and the deli in park mall both mysteriously closed. Rumor has it, it was a rent dispute!
1139, transition of an already commercially zone property, Chevron gas station to 7-Eleven convenience store/gas pumps prompted your comment?
1139, transition of an already commercially zone property, Chevron gas station to 7-Eleven convenience store/gas pumps prompted your comment?
No. The dumbass who thinks that the Constitution allows for anyone to do anything they want prompted my comment.
Oh, by the way, there's no dispute about the property zoning of the site. It wasn't even talked about. So FMV a big duh to you.
According to Yelp Goodfellas pizza and the deli in park mall both mysteriously closed. Rumor has it, it was a rent dispute
__________________________
Rumor has it you have your head firmly lodged up your ass and didn't know that Goodfellas underwent a remodel and is back open!
All people are saying is we have enough 7-11s and we don't want a community full of them. What do you think when you pull up to a 7-11?
Convenient and fast? Yes.
Get my junk food fix and no one will know? Yes.
After dark...hope I don't walk in on an armed robbery? Yes.
This is the low rent district? If it isn't now, it will be.
Nice area to buy a home and 7-11 is an amenity I want? No.
Who planned this tacky town? Well, we should of, but in this case we deferred to 7-11.
1234 That's why he walks funny. I love Goodfellas! Any intel on the deli?
Pacifica.city 7/27, 607 AM, your comments are posted by the grace of Steve Sinai, not me.
Much of your list of complaints exists in consideration of all related businesses in Fairmont Plaza, or any shopping center area.
1223 zoning issues were discussed at City Council last night, and your comment was also about zoning. So, it seems your vulgar "split pants" comment is all about you.
Rumours 1234, thanks. Good to hear the Goodfellas pizza and deli, Park Mall update.
Last night was a great victory!!! It should us who the weak link in council is. We are back in power!
Oh you clever scamp 313. So sly. Using your signature m.o. again, but does it actually work?
313, continued to city council meeting 9-14-15. Hopefully not a "great lawsuit".
Kathy
7-11 paid $2,350,000 for the property. Do you think they are going down without a fight?
7-11 threatened to sue the tar out of San Mateo. They were going to sue for $8.6 million and San Mateo Backed down. Cecilia Quick was the bimbo who told them, it's ok go ahead and do it.
Staff seemed clear that their charge was to come back with findings for denial of the project. If Mike sticks to his position, the project is going down.
@343: Not sure if you realize that the San Mateo 7-11 store in question did shut down well over a year ago. Yes, there was talk of a lawsuit from 7-11 officials for what was perceived could be as much as $8.6 million in lost revenue. The issue involved a misinterpretation by the interim City Attorney at the time( I believe that was Ms Quick)as to the zoning of the property. It had had a conditional use permit for many many years (Staganelli's). However, there was language contained in the conditional use permit that the property would revert back to its former residential zoning if a business ceased operation for a period of more than 180 days. The property was vacant for longer than six months by the time 7-11 applied for its permit, thus the alleged zoning violation.
If a suit was filed; if a compromise was reached, it was very low key as not much in the local papers. If there had been a large lawsuit filed, it would surely have been newsworthy. Perhaps a reader with more legal expertise than I might be able to find out more information.
One thing that the San Mateo store had going for it in its brief existence was that it was very low key. One small sign in the window, no parking lot, and no garish red , white, and green colors or vivid advertisements. At that location, the operators really tried to be good neighbors and appease their adversaries, but in the end, to no avail.
As the property is zoned residential, the day will come where a 6 or 8 unit condo building will be shoehorned onto that small lot. This will mirror the size of the next door complex that was built a few years ago.
7:16
I know the Staganelli's very well. I know the whole history of the property. Had Cecilia not been a lazy lump who just opened the rolodex and called her friends at outside law firms she would have read the use conditions.
*** THANKS STEVE SINAI! ***
(apologies, erroneously assumed the most frequent non-anonymous commenter was blog owner, but we looked back and saw several msgs from you. Hope we answered them to your satisfaction, and thanks again! We appreciate the chance to tell our story here and also the FixPacifica members that attended the City Council meeting Monday and spoke unanimously in favor of Bety Duran's Appeal.)
@Third Way - I think you struck the nail on the head. Thanks, www.Pacifica.city
"The fringe edges are no longer where the action is. The majority of Pacificans straddle the middle and reject the us vs them mindest. The Third Way has gotten a foothold in Pacifica and is where things will be getting done. Get on board or get left behind." - Third way
Amen to that 9:49. I am solidly in the middle. I love the environment (which is why I moved here), but I also like to buy pretty things and I like living in a town with a future; thus, I would love to see our beach town become home to well-planned developments in which high-end hotels; small-scale office buildings with appropriate coastal character; and unique boutique-type stores reside alongside a mix of independent and chain restaurants, and chain stores that provide much-needed shopping options but do not drag the image of this city further into the toilet. So, yes to a chain like Target located somewhere in Pacifica where a Target would make sense, but NO to a Grocery Outlet in Pedro Point, Pacifica's highest rent-district and a uniquely coastal environment with limited available space.
Re the Quarry, if there was actually a real plan to develop it into something elegant and useful that reflects its ocean-front status, I would vote for that plan (Peebles did not offer a plan, only a wish list, from which pieces could be severed). But I would never vote blindly for something that just opens the quarry for development, because too many voices in this town seem to believe that, as long as a property is zoned for XYZ, anyone who wants to lay claim to that property can build whatever he/she wants, without regard to the character of the city or the effect it would have on the neighborhood. That is one reason 7-Eleven feels bold enough to try to take over this town claim (something it wouldn't dream of doing anywhere else in San Mateo county) and Grocery Outlet is moving into Pedro Point. I actually think both 7-Eleven and GO have a place in Pacifica, but the stores need to be smartly placed in areas in which they belong, and the stores themselves need to reflect the character of the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Unfortunately, as long as the people who run this town lack clear vision and leadership, and the people who champion property rights above all else continue to insist that any business should be able to do whatever it wants, I have no choice but to vote with those who are much more conservative with respect to growth than am I. Siding with them is the only way to protect against the continued encroachment of ugly and bad planning. So yeah -- bring on a powerful middle group and count me in! Until it exists though, I proudly wear my NIMBY t-shirt and vote accordingly. because it is the only way to ensure that Pacifica does not become even more Daly City than Daly City itself.
949, Steve is Fix Pacifica Blogmaster. Hard to know how many times unidentified people comment-- or if anyone else is Pacifica.city, or if "we" is you.
Your group of 20+ visible residents at City Council 7/29/15 were well organized against the proposed Fairmont 7-Eleven convenience store.
Is that citizen action an example of "the third way" you say you support?
How long have you lived in Pacifica?
The economic/development struggles in this City are very old issues.
A kind of "third way" consensus (including manipulation and threat) produced the Harmony@1 development, and 50%-60% permanent empty space in this City.
155, to build even one house in the quarry, a City ballot measure is needed (that regulation occurred when Peter Loeb was City Mayor). Peebles Corporation (2006) presented their mixed-use concept (enforceable had then NIMBY City Council majority signed-off which they did not). A former opportunity to develop the quarry occurred in 2003, and a similar manipulation occurred.
The default for not allowing-in good, substantial development where it should occur (Mori Point, the Quarry, Beach Blvd/Palmetto etc.) is an invitation for default inefficient, "ugly and bad planning", and an economically insufficient city (both of which we have plenty of).
And when such proposed projects, and others, could not be built, why shouldn't developers pass on this "pain in the neck", NIMBY City? They should, and they have.
Why worry about the more densely populated but efficient Daly City, when Daly City General Plan revenue is #1 (highest) and ours is #20 (lowest) out of 20 cities in San Mateo County?
You probably shop in Daly City, and use their multiple services-- all of which continues to improve their economy.
And since our population must drive for almost "everything" (work, services, shopping), at least we can (and should) support the Caltrans highway widening plan to fix our traffic bottle neck. Right?
There have been many creative and forward thinking development proposals presented to Pacifica over the last three decades. The blind allegiance to the false mantra that all development is bad has led to a city that looks and works like crap.
Quality developers and investors know that there is a loony fringe in this town that fights everything which will only lead to headaches and monetary loss.
That is their strategy and unfortunately it works.
Meanwhile we all suffer because of this wrong-headed selfishness.
What a pity.
This beautiful coastal environment is cluttered with failed businesses, rotten roads, crumbling infrastructure, inadequate public services, rising crime and no way to create revenue for maintenance or improvements. All this in spite of the fact that we are immediate neighbors with some of the strongest economies on the planet.
It's not surprising that gas stations, liquor stores and storage units is what we end up with. This is so wrong and so unnecessary.
Kathy -- Actually, I drive to San Mateo, SF, Walnut Creek, and Palo Alto to do most of my shopping. I sometimes go to Daly City for World Market and Trader Joes, but nothing more. There is a Target in Daly City, but I wouldn't go there to save my life because driving in that parking lot is like playing a game of whack-a-mole. Same thing with respect to Costco (although Costco is actually in SSF). It is much safer and less aggravating to drive to San Mateo for Target and Costco (and to visit Word Market while I am there). Bottom line, if I wanted to live in Daly City, I would live in Daly City. I don't want to live in anything that comes close to Daly City -- even if it means I live in a city that has less money than Daly City, but is much more beautiful.
To be candid, it is you and your followers who scare me into throwing my vote to (the people you call) NIMBYS, even though I think some of them are waaaayyyyyy too anti-growth. For example, when I read your support for the 7-Eleven tower (which is simply not necessary and (as Keener acknowledged at the last meeting) only serves as signage for 7-Eleven, I realized that --while you and I actually do agree on a number of things -- I could never join your voting block because you all seem to blindly adhere to the notion that business owners should be able to do whatever they want, even when there is an acceptable middle ground (such as a 7-Eleven with no tower and other common-sense limitations). I really, really, want the middle ground, so I can buy pretty things and useful things here in Pacifica. But, unless I can be assured it is possible to find that middle ground, I am voting with the NIMBYS, because the alternative is a town full of over-sized 7-Elevens and the like.
I read the Peebles plan -- it sounded good in theory but it was not binding. Worse, the proposal contained a clause that allowed parts to be severed from in while still leaving others intact. The end result was a lot of non-binding fancy talk with the potential for dangerous consequences.
Again, I do not think all development is bad. In fact, I welcome well-planned development with all my heart. But I have not seen any plans for a sustainable Pacifica (2003 was before my time, so I don't know anything about that proposal; Quarry 2006 was NOT a well-thought out, enforceable plan). The downtown sounds great in theory, but a library?? Really?? That's just a waste of scarce resources. And we are so far away from implementing the steps necessary to create a viable downtown, it isn't even worth wasting the time it takes to dream about it.
So, while I wait with high-hopes for that middle ground voting block, I am -- for now -- a proud, card-carrying NIMBY because that is the lesser of two evils.
A vote for anti-growth is a vote for anti-growth. And when you vote for anti-growth City Council candidates that's what you get: NIMBIES making decisions against the best balanced economic interest of this City, and the people who live here.
As you say, you shop elsewhere.
The "middle ground" is 50-60% land gone to permanent open space. With the land that remains, stepping-up to support City survival is required. You may not care about that either.
As for 7-Eleven trivia, my comment was related to the not yet proposed Linda Mar at Highway 1 project, functionality assumed. (My personal interest in 7-Eleven convenience stores is neutral.)
Repeat and rephrase: the quarry (2006), Don Peebles said the City had only to sign a project description he sent to City Council, and that would have been a binding contract. City Councilmembers at that time, except for Cal Hinton, were hostile to the Peebles quarry development, (NIMBY City Councilmembers then included four (4), Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Lancelle, Digre).
The 2006 quarry project included a clear concept, preliminary research, public meetings, promised City benefits, and the architect was world class. Additionally, the project would have brought in redevelopment tax monies.
Progress is needed. In that context, what you consider "not evil" is probably "evil" (your use of words).
"My personal interest in 7-Eleven convenience stores is neutral" -Kathy Meeh
@KathyMeeh- Unless you are carrying water for a specific actor(s) in City government, that's not a credible statement.
------------------------------------------------------
"How long have you lived in Pacifica?" - Kathy Meeh
@KathyMeeh- Why, do you believe those that weren't born in Pacifica, those that weren't born in the US or renters should be barred from or City employment or speaking at City Council meetings?
Last of the personal questions, but the answer is:
Longer than Associate Planner Christian Murdock, Planning Director Tina Wehrmeister, and City Manager Lorie Tinfow combined...
------------------------------------------------------
"Hard to know how many times unidentified people comment-- or if anyone else is Pacifica.city" - Kathy Meeh
@KathyMeeh, no it's very simple to insert a php statement into your blog that pulls IP addresses or writes session objects.
I have posted and will continue to post on your blog only under the name Pacifica.city or www.Pacifica.city if that is your question.
Kathy, do you ever post anonymously to this blog?
------------------------------------------------------
"Your group of 20+ visible residents at City Council 7/29/15 were well organized against the proposed Fairmont 7-Eleven convenience store. Is that citizen action an example of "the third way" you say you support?" -Kathy Meeh
@KathyMeeh, There were 25 public speakers AND A STANDING ROOM ONLY CROWD at Monday's City Council meeting. Public comment UNANIMOUSLY condemned 7-Eleven's invasion of Pacifica.
Those who ignore the collective will of the Fairmont district do so at their own peril. They've been taxed and ignored by the City of Pacifica for a long, long time.
Thanks, Kathy! If Don said it, it must be so.
1234, That's correct: Don Peebles's development reputation, his effort and desire to build a quality project in the Pacifica quarry (which would have been beneficial to this City and Community), back-up with his legal advisement.
1232, the reason I removed your comment is because it posted with a page of empty space. Please try again.
535 Here's the deal. You either forfeit your right to object to a proposed development or business in the city in which you live and pay various taxes, or, you're a nimby. An even more primitive version exists in which you can't forfeit the afore-mentioned right because you didn't have it to begin with. Palmetto is primitive.
134, your 1232 comment has been re-posted.
The most direct definition of NIMBY is from Urban Dictionary: "Not In My Back Yard; someone who opposes anything built right by where they live. (NIMBYs cause a lot of things to not get done.)"
If the 7-Eleven property owner does not replace the Chevron gas station/tiny convenience store with a convenience store/tiny gas pump station, you're left with a still vacant, deteriorating, empty shell of a gas station. That's the partial neighborhood rights you're championing? Assessed result: if you win, you lose.
7-Eleven is the property owner.
7-Eleven, either decided to take a calculated business risk or simply failed to perform due diligence before purchasing the property.
In a year it will be a Chevron or a BP again. Planning Code Enforcement Office Lawrence Ngai determined on June 4th, 2015 that no actual demolition of the Chevron property had been performed.
Can't help notice my provided answers to your personal questions from last night are conspicuously absent.
Pacifica.city 247, 7-Eleven already has an advance buyer for the property, or they will take the delayed tax write-off, or they will sue the City?
Let's see how it goes at City Council 9/14/15 after legal research-- then there will be no reason to speculate.
As for the "conspicuously absent" reply you made to me on one comment last night-- abusive, gibberish, nonsensical comments may be spammed, and that one was. Try again.
ding ding ding
In this corner we have pacifica.city
in that corner we have Kathy Meeh
Pacifica.city 247, 7-Eleven already has an advance buyer for the property, or they will take the delayed tax write-off, or they will sue the City?
Kathy, do you mean 7-11 is going to flip the property to someone else?
Really, which part of me answering your questions did you find abusive?
When you repeatedly ask me a lot of personal questions and I answer every single one of them- but you choose not to post those answer(s), it misleads your readers.
Because you do not know what PHP is does not make it gibberish.
When you repeatedly and falsely insinuate that I have left comments on your website anonymously or under a name other than "Pacifica.city" or "www.Pacifica.city", you defame me and discredit your other visitors that made those comments.
Because I describe your statement that "My personal interest in 7-Eleven convenience stores is neutral" as not being credible does not constitute abuse.
Those who discount the collective will of the Fairmont district do so at their own peril.
They've been taxed and ignored for a long, long time.
Kathy 239 I'm championing the rights of community residents to decide what is built/added to their community, or, in some cases, removed from their community. When those rights collide with the plans of developers or businesses or a political agenda, I'm on the side of the affected or concerned members of the community because I know they're not in it for the money. Beautiful, livable towns and cities don't happen by accident. They require careful tending best done by those who live there. Not everything built or planned enriches a community. Far too often it enriches only those who build it, sell it, or service it. I live in Linda Mar. As far as a 7-Eleven in Linda Mar...7-Elevens are thug magnets. We don't need one at the corner of Highway One and Linda Mar Blvd. selling booze to motorists--some of whom will start their happy hour in the parking lot before hitting the road or some poor innocent. Another gas station w/out booze at that spot? Sure. It's a coveted location. 7-Eleven can sell it.
357, No my comment was in response to Pacifica.city 247 who said, "In a year it will be a Chevron or a BP again. ..." Really? Or, the property could rot in place for several years, possibly while 7-Eleven sues the City for denial of commercial property rights, or some such thing.
After all, Pacifica.city has previously said that 7-Eleven has a track record of suing Municipalities.
So, with that consideration, Pacifica.city recognizes the potential for a fallout lawsuit against the City. And, from there one might wonder why Pacifica.city would subject this City to potential lawsuit.
500, Pacifica.city, wearing many hats, now "on the side of the people" Anonymous, the report by City police at the 7/27 City Council contradicts your claim that 7-Elevens in this City are "thug magnets". That inconvenient fact may not matter to you.
Kathy@526 No, I'm not Pacifica.city, thanks. My limited personal experience with 7-Elevens tells me they're thug magnets, bum magnets, bad neighbors---all of which may thus far escape PPD notice, but are nonetheless not what I want in my neighborhood and certainly not on a very visible, easily accessible highway corner.
549, okay you're Anonymous, nice to hear Pacifica.city (PC) has friends, I guess.
How might we equate your "limited personal experience with 7-Elevens" somewhere, vs. our Pacifica Police Department (PPD) record keeping, statistics and experience which indicate 7-Elevens in this City are "good neighbors"?
7-Eleven businesses must be good enough that they survive locally; and, Corporate wants to add two (2) new locations. Think about it.
Your refusal to post my responses stifles debate.
Do you mean this crime table provided by Pacifica Police Department?
Every 7-Eleven in town has almost three times the crime of similar businesses.
In the business compared, each 7-Eleven had more crime than all the others combined.
www.pacifica.city/images/711_crime_table.jpg
For the record, I have never made a comment on your site without Pacifica.city in the name form.
Your allegations that every anonymous post is me are not accurate.
Oh no Pacifica.city, not those crime statistics!
Pacifica.city 800, "EVERY anonymous post is you"? very funny. And the 759 crime link allows a choice of pacifica.city on my computer.
But here it is, pacifica.city website, second article after the forced Betty Duran handshake with US Representative Jackie Speier.
At the 7/27 City Council meeting, the Police Chief was careful to to advise "calls for service" were not the same as crime reports (and that crime associated with 7-11 locations in this City are low)-- but you knew that.
What I care about is bonafide information, without spin from your cause. Based upon our series of conversations, and your 7/27, 6:07 AM spin list-- it seems that will never be possible from you.
I unspammed Pacifica.city's comments. There didn't seem to be anything wrong with them.
Lucky you Pacifica.city (Dan Stegink), your abusive 7/29/15, 9:24 pm comments have been posted. You ask for it, you got it.
1. Repeat: "My personal interest in 7-Eleven convenience stores is neutral". Correct. I began responding to your irresponsible comments on the 7-Eleven is serious about Dave & Lou's site" article 7/9/15. That's when you also chose to attack Christian Murdock, AICP, Assistant City Planner on the 7-Eleven projects.
2. This time you've turned my partial comment into an offensive, absurd, false representation of what I said:
What you repeated: "How long have you lived in Pacifica?". To that you added: @KathyMeeh- Why, do you believe those that weren't born in Pacifica, those that weren't born in the US or renters should be barred from or City employment or speaking at City Council meetings?"
Whereas, what I said was: "How long have you lived in Pacifica? The economic/development struggles in this City are very old issues. A kind of "third way" consensus (including manipulation and threat) produced the Harmony@1 development, and 50%-60% permanent empty space in this City." (7/29/15, 2:46 PM). ("Third Way" comment 7/28/15, 10:48 AM).
Needless to say, there is a pattern of attacks, false representation and twisted commentary related to your energetic anti-7-Eleven campaign.
Lucky you Pacifica.city (Dan Stegink)
Is he related to Laurie Soca or Jay Bird?
While I don't agree with everything Pacifica.city says, I don't find anything they're saying abusive or attacking.
Lucky you, Pacifica.city. The wrath of Fix Pacifica is upon you--churlish and childish as it may sometimes be. Walk tall.
Team Sinai.
When a moderator perceives a different point of view to be an attack upon themselves and deletes comments simply because they offer another perspective on things, maybe it's time for that moderator to take a break and hand off things to someone else.
WWSSD?
(what would steve sinai do?)
Well done, Steve. you know you have to unspam a lot of stuff KM presses the spam button on. Maybe it's time to revoke KM spamming button? After all, it's not like she spams personal attacks, vitriolic ranting or intentional flummery. KM seems to focus her button spamming machine on those that actively challenge her arguments exclusively. Can Fixpacifica survive without a KM spam button? I think so.
Laurie Soca is one of the hippies. No Laurie Soca in Pacifica.
Steve 12:36, bold lies, twisted (out of context) lies, and character assassination surely counts as abusive comments. As stated, that's why I got involved with these anti-7-Eleven comments in the first place.
Personally offensive, in that previously spammed comment, this time Pacifica.city/Dan Stegink (7/29/15, 2:46 PM) manufactured the following FALSE characterization and bald-faced lie:
"@KathyMeeh- Why, do you believe those that weren't born in Pacifica, those that weren't born in the US or renters should be barred from or City employment or speaking at City Council meetings?"
Nope, we will not be agreeing to protect a liar with a pattern of lying, and a history of character attack.
Oh Todd 151, how many times I've protected you from overt insult, by hitting that little spam button. But, maybe it's a great idea from you to let those insults rip, (careful what you wish for).
And 128, just "another perspective" of lies works for you? We do seem to have decades of that going for us already in Pacifica.
209 Laurie Soca is very real and very much in Pacifica. She chooses to use a nom de guerre when she posts on Riptide. John allows that as long as he knows the real identity. I can certainly understand Laurie's choice. How about you anon 209?
Kathy Meeh's got burn-out. That doesn't mean she should be kicked to the curb or her voice co-opted by an opportunist. Who's up for a GofundMe account for our dear Ms. Meeh? FMV a trip to Tahiti would brighten her POV. Whadda ya say, Fixies?
Kathy
Defending Todd, is like sticking your hand into a stump grinder and expecting to still have a cat. He is devout of morals and or credibility.
304, I'll agree to the "GofundMe account", and "being kicked to the curb".
Against all odds, the City administrative team will provide City "optimism".
2:56
And remember that we've all got to keep pretending not to know who Big Banker is cuz if his daddy in law finds out he'll be in BIG trouble!
C'mon Kathy, doesn't 307 put a smile on your cat? And he says Todd is devout in morals and credibility. Amen!
Lord, the world was a much duller place before auto-correct.
*** THANKS STEVE SINAI! ***
Ms. Meeh, perhaps we could agree to and act in a respectful manner towards each other in the future?
Would you be in agreement to that?
Thanks, www.Pacifica.city
403, oh sure until the next time. The respect I did give you was to spam your wild comment-- and, if Steve overrides and posts such comments, good luck.
With accurate, accountable comments, you are the respect you create. No agreements, we'll see.
www.pacificacity
do you realize there is no way to contact you from your website?
pacifica.city: now you know the kind of person with whom you are dealing
I was wondering how long it would take for Pacifica.city to get the Fix Pacifica treatment. Took about a month.
328 Yup, lots of pretending in our make-believe little town.
[...Again, our comments aren't being posted...]
The concept that publicly naming us is some sort of Kryptonite that will shame us into silence is foreign to us.
We're very proud of the work we've done supporting the People of Fairmont and Linda Mar and proud of The People who helped us!
Pacifica.city 450, good point, you may very well be "some sort of Kryptonite" (your word). Here's the blog rule, upper left: "People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed."
About your rip against the City in your Pacifica Riptide article, 7/31/15: ...."Historically and according to California law, non-owning residents (renters) have always been ignored, but not a single one of the nearly 6,000 residents (renters and owners) in the 6027 census tract were "noticed" by the Planning Department of the original Fairmont 7-Eleven permit hearings on May 18."
Our planning commission did follow California State law, of course.
Yet, in spin form, you suggest California law requires mailed "notice" to 6,000 residents north of town. No! (But maybe some of people saw the "public notice" in the Pacifica Tribune.)
Post a Comment