San Mateo County Times/Aaron Kinney, 8/7/15, "Pacifica: Pedro Point Headlands to get $1.5 million restoration."
"PACIFICA ... a roughly $1.5 million makeover, a key step in ... a continuous network of trails from Pacifica State Beach to Devil's Slide and the rural San Mateo County coast.
| Saving the hills for native species, and hiking and bicycle trails. |
 |
| Previously there were motorcycle trails, that didn't go well. |
Once the work is complete, the owners of the headlands, the city of Pacifica and the California Coastal Conservancy intend to transfer the land to the county to be operated as a park. .... Construction is expected to begin in 2016 and last two years. Meanwhile, the city of Pacifica and other stakeholders are planning to build a path that zigzags from Pacifica State Beach up to the headlands, closing a critical gap in the California Coastal Trail." Read article.
Reference, the restoration grant - State of CA/Off-Highway motor vehicular recreation grant request/Dinah Verbe, 4/7/14. .... " I support the Pacifica Land Trust's preliminary application to restore the OHV damage on the Pedro Point Headlands in Pacifica (Project Type G13-04-62-R01)."
Reference, Pacifica Land Trust Environmental Conservation - Website, Facebook, Land Trust Alliance, Bay Nature (artists for change), Pedro Point Headlands (State of CA Coastal Conservancy).
Related news background articles - Pacifica Tribune, 8/14/12, "Pacifica Land Trust and California Native Plant Society holds native plant hike to Pedro Point Headlands." ...."In 1992, the Pacifica Land Trust acquired title to the Pedro Point Headlands, and has been engaged in the slow process of arresting and binding the wounds of the deep gullies from years of motorcycle use and erosion. Since late 2009 the stewardship efforts have removed ten's of thousands of invasive species, widened trails, planted several slide areas and greatly improved the native habitat there as a result of a Coastal Conservancy-funded stewardship project."
Pacifica Patch/Christa Bigue/Staff, 5/7/13, "Pedro Point Headlands Have Come a Long Way, an article in Bay Nature magazine..." "A recent article in Bay Nature magazine features this tremendous undertaking by taking a look at the transformation of the landscape and Pedro Point’s varied and interesting history from when the Headlands served as the stomping grounds of a motorcycle club in the 1960s to when the Pacifica Land Trust took over the land in 1995. The article also credits the Devil’s Slide tunnel project for potentially bringing spillover funds for parking and improved trail access and recognizes the habitat restoration at Pedro Point as coming largely thanks to a dedicated, grassroots group: the Pedro Point Headlands stewardship project, which was formed in 2009. This project is sponsored by the Pacifica Land Trust (in coordination with the Pedro Point Community Association) and is funded by a grant to the Land Trust from the California Coastal Conservancy."
Related tourism articles. " Yelp, Pedro Point Headlands. Hidden SF/Mike S., 10/14/15, "San Pedro Point Headlands, Pacifica, CA". Related conservation ideology. Pacifica Land Trust/Conservation in a changing climate, "Restoration and managed retreat of Pacifica State Beach". ...."restore wetlands and work toward a managed retreat strategy for Pacifica State Beach."
Note Pedro Point Headlands photographs. Land restoration work from Pacifica Patch/Christa Bigue/Staff, 5/7/13. Wide trails by Mike S./Hidden SF from related articles above.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
24 comments:
PMA (Pacifica Motorcycle Association) wasn't just around in the 1960's it ran through the 1980's.
Only $4 million more to scratch together and we can build this stupid trail. Good thing we don't need that money for silly things like staying solvent!
Pacifica Land Trust restorative environmental work may be, or is, commendable. But ever wonder (or you know) why our City gets no significant development and little progress? Follow the connective eco-NIMBY "spin", also linked as follows, (meantime, this City's General Fund is #20 poorest and last of 20 cities):
1. Pacifica Land Trust (allied with State of CA Coastal Conservancy)
2. Pacifica's Environmental Family (Pacifica Beach Coalition, Shorebird Alliance, Vallemar Conservators, Pacificans for a Scenic Coast (highway 1 modernization lawsuit), alligned with Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives (PH1A) (highway 1 modernization lawsuit)
3. Surfrider Foundation San Mateo County
4. Sierra Club
5. Bay Nature (including "artists for change")
6. Committee for Green Foothills
7. Greenbelt Alliance
8. San Mateo County League for Coastside Protection (LCP)
9. Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy "Parks Forever"
10. City of Pacifica Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee
11. Other local organizations or committees that occur periodically, such as: Friends of Pacifica, Friends of the Hills, Pacificans for Sustainable Development, Concerned Manor Citizens, Concerned "whoever", or Friends of "whatever".
(Note: some of these organizations may no longer exists, participation in anti-growth and anti-progress in this City may vary, there may be other organizations.) Support needed economic development and progress in this City, don't ever vote for NIMBIES!
PS: 125, again, the California Coastal Trail (Mexico to Canada) monies are substantially coming from County, State and National funding, not from our City General Fund.
But you make an interesting point, we probably have way too many "stupid" trails in this City through some lands which should not have been sold and transferred to "eco organizations or Government Agencies" outside City jurisdiction. Plus, all these trails require maintenance, and do little financially to generate needed revenue for our City General Fund.
So, once the work on this particular section of the headlands trail is "done" we'll join the California Coastal Conservancy in giving the land to the county for operation as a park. This is swell and in keeping with the Pacifica tradition of giving land away. Admittedly, it's an unlikely location for any development. Nice to see the same local visionaries involved in the project. We enjoy their vision of Pacifica every day, don't we? I suspect once the City of Pacifica is "done" we'll belong to the county, too. 2018, 2020? Oh, I like the sound of 2020. As if vision in our mock-city went from impaired, if not down right delusional, to 20-20.
What I see here Kathy is a list of organizations that many (likely a majority) in Pacifica belong too or have supported for years. Organizations that stand for one of Pacifica's strongest values -- preserving the natural beauty and scenic vistas that have been so carefully protected up and down the San Mateo County coast. Not NIMBY organizations. Organizations and a vast array of people that have determined that what they want in their backyards: NATURE, awe-inspiring nature that we have that so few other areas have even a tenth of. Thanks goodness for the people that have been willing to stand up and speak out, devote their time and money towards ensuring it is there for generations to come. It's a long-lasting legacy that will remain long after outlet malls crumble. And, apparently something that DOES bring money to Pacifica, as shown by the amount of funding that has come forward.
HA! Anonymous 4:09pm.
YES. We DO enjoy their vision of Pacifica every day. Would recommend you give it a try. Get outside and enjoy it too. A walk on the Pedro Point Headlands could change your grumpy perspective and provide you with a much larger sense of the world and what truly is precious and of value.
We enjoy their vision of Pacifica every day, don't we? I suspect once the City of Pacifica is "done" we'll belong to the county, too. 2018, 2020? Oh, I like the sound of 2020. As if vision in our mock-city went from impaired, if not down right delusional, to 20-20.
Official word from the County. We don't want Pacifica and their ongoing and never ending debt problems.
431 HA! LMAO. "Precious and of value"? Many things are precious and of value. I'd place being self-sufficient and not a burden at the top of my list. Being that, working towards it, bringing others along with you, makes the beauty of our natural world even more enjoyable and sustainable. It's a good way. Pacifica is not self-sufficient and it places ever-increasing burdens on its residents while short-changing them. This town is real pretty and permanently broke. Those two didn't have to go together. Why do they? Thank your local visionaries with their lop-sided view of how to run a city. Yeah, Pedro Point Headlands is spectacular and we're just real lucky SMC will take care of it for us.
526 Not up to them. Residents need and want basic services. How much are Pacificans willing to do without? In CA when an inept city can no longer afford to provide basic services, the county must. Maybe a vote along the way to tidy things up. We're talking pretty dire situations, but quite possible given Pacifica's balance sheet and proven inability to govern itself. Being unable to account for nearly 5 million dollars in public funds is certainly proof. Failing infrastructure, is yet another. Sewer-fund intrigues. Near chaos over highway improvements, concerns about policing, and so forth and so on. Failing or failed city.
425 Grants. Great idea. I'd like a grant to fix and maintain the failing sewer plant because no matter how much sewer tax we pay, it doesn't get done. I don't expect council to stop looting the fund and raising the rates. They wouldn't know how to stop. I'd just like a grant specifically set aside for repairs and maintenance. Give it to a priest, a rabbi and a pig to hold. So crap doesn't flow through the streets and into the ocean. You know, to keep things pretty. Part of the legacy, right? Get those visionaries on it!
Kathy, this is the trail you support and the groups you are aligning with.
TRAITOR!
How are cities funded? "Primarily, cities get their funds through taxation and licensing, though there are other sources of income that cities rely on. Taxation might involve sales taxes, property taxes, corporate and business taxes, and the like. Licensing can cover any controllable resource, from fishing and hunting licenses to liquor and food licenses for restaurants and bars. Many larger cities also rely on federal or state funding for large construction projects, school systems, hospitals, and other public goods, or depend on money gathered from citations and fines for various public infractions (parking and traffic, code violations, etc.)"
Pacifica is not an anomaly. All cities rely on federal and / or state grants. Placing increasing "burden on citizens"... who do you ultimately think is responsible to pay for services? Be it business or individuals, people pay for cities to function. Is the "near chaos" (term used above, not my belief) caused by those that see only their vision of poor development as the way forward and that want services without paying for them?
648, okay you call me "traitor", I call you stupid.
Restorative land work needs to occur in the Pedro Point Headlands, and in conjunction with the California Coastal Trail, (planning in process approved by City Council, try "search this blog", California Coastal Trail).
As mentioned on the 8/5/14, County Supervisors support historic California Coastal Trails, article (8/8/15, 12:55AM comment), advantages:
1. Highway 1 safety (bicycle and hikers will travel the trail, not the highway).
2. The trail connects to the Devil's Slide park.
3. This is the California trail (Mexico to Canada).
4. The substantial cost will be supported and paid by County, State and Federal grants (not the City budget).
We also need smart planning to develop every thing we can in this City, efficiently for the best interests of all the people who live here. The studied and funded Highway 1 (1.3 miles through Rockaway and Vallemar intersections) Caltrans project needs to move forward.
A City with 50-60% open space is a city with a structural economic problem. That's this City. We need to do what we can to fix that.
But then, I suspect you who call me "traitor", may be part of the problem, not part of the solution, right?
750 Thanks for explaining how things work. You didn't have to. You seem to make some assumptions, but I have neither a vision of "poor development as the way forward" nor do I expect free services. I would say to you, however, that when a city has for decades stubbornly pursued its own economic and structural downfall while arrogantly asking residents to fund the folly at ever increasing levels, something is very wrong. That doesn't mean we don't want our share of grants, large and small, to which we all have contributed tax dollars. The repeated failure of local tax measures shows a dissatisfaction with the status quo (a bit of hypocrisy in that) and a distrust of whomever is in office. That doesn't mean we don't love the views. A lot of us just wish somewhere along the way there had been intelligence, or, maybe it would have taken wisdom, to seek a true balance in Pacifica. Unlike you, I do think Pacifica is an anomaly because it has followed an ideology to an extreme, beyond all reason and without simple common sense. What's the lifespan of this anomaly?
648 It's not like that land would ever be used to produce a dime for Pacifica. Knock yourselves out. Build your trail.
In the news this weekend, the NOBY's beloved EPA gods did a big boo-boo in Colorado. GARGANTUAN toxic spill in the river.
Our faux-enviros claim CALTRANS is incompetent but as usual refuse to look in the mirror.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
729 Thank you! CalTrans AND the EPA are both incompetent. Next!
959, you said, "unlike you, I do think Pacifica is an anomaly because it has followed an ideology to an extreme..." Not unlike me, I agree (through observation and some knowledge of the 30+ year NIMBY cabal process).
As for the California Coastal trail, which may do little to affect the big hole in our City economy, as 1010 said, "It's not like that land would ever be used to produce a dime for Pacifica. Knock yourselves out. Build your trail." Perfect!
"It's not like that land would ever be used to produce a dime for Pacifica."
I take it you're not an accountant? The thing is, instead of possibly producing revenue, it's COSTING US five and a half million dollars. Did you forget that part of the equation?
Except, 1142, that it ISN'T COSTING US $5.5. million!!
It won't produce any appreciable revenue, but I think that even accountants would agree that risking $15K (the cost of the option) to get $5.5M in value (the amount that will come from others to complete it, or it doesn't go forward) is a pretty good deal! You must have forgotten (or didn't get?) that part of the equation.
I guess I imagined the $300,000+ that has already been drawn from PACIFICA'S budget for the purchase of the property. And since PACIFICA is the lead agency on the project (not the county), I guess the work Planning and Public Works is being done for free and isn't costing us a dime. Also, the Maintenance Faries will take care of ongoing trail upkeep. Cut your losses. You're not very good at this municipal stuff.
1142 I take it you're not keeping up. Producing revenue would be great, no duh, but understood in the conversation is the Pacifica Truth that the city would never allow development of that city-owned parcel for anything other than a trail. Or, maybe a library? The idea of revenue producing development up there isn't just far-fetched, it's laughable. The accountants and I want to thank you for the giggle.
114 Seems to me part of the plan was for the city to be reimbursed by grants for the costs incurred. From the article we find that after completion this trail property will be transferred to the county. They'll be doing the maintenance. Now, we can sneer at all that and say, oh sure, waste of taxpayer money and valuable land, but at some point we have to recognize that government partners take on big unprofitable projects for the public good. We're in this simply because of geography. Be reasonable--in the fullest sense of the word. We live on the CA coast. Do you really think public trails aren't going to be built? And built in just this fashion?
114, the Colt property, which resides in the City, will also become City property; and the City initiated this project action, therefore the City is the lead agency. That should change in the land transfer to the County.
For this project, the city will be reimbursed for most fees paid through grants, County, State, Federal government. And as 1257 said, the risk is $15K, the cost of the Colt property option. (This seems to be the general public understanding.)
Of course, whether some work for this project is/was paid by our Measure A monies and/or road maintenance monies might deserve further clarification.
1142, your parrot brain keeps repeating "it's COSTING US five and a half million dollars". Who is the "us", you're referring to?
Post a Comment