Thursday, August 5, 2010

08/09_2010 City Council Meeting Agenda

08/09_2010 City Council Meeting Agenda

Submitted by Jim Alex


Kathy Meeh said...

Jim Alex these Agenda posting are appreciated and a good addition. I just made a prior comment on Debate Challenge TOT Tax.

Quarry redevelopment zone, what does the current city council now have in mind with Public-Private Partnerships and limiting there rights of a private property owner/developer? Once again Public-Private Partnership sounds like the city taking "free ride", or worse developer default resulting in more "open space" which doesn't pay the city overhead.

Kathy Meeh said...

Pages 41-43 through the Economic Development Committee, that sounds good. City to Agency connection, to develop a downtown village. Hum that sounds familiar, but wonder how this city council can screw-it-up again?

The Summary Report sounds benign, must be some series of catches and glitches somewhere. Oh well its only a paper document, no monetary values or actual plan, and I forgot this is election year.

Let us not forget the existing city council had an opportunity to support developing the quarry twice. They didn't.

todd bray said...

I understand staff want to generate revenues for salaries and pensions but this goes too far and is in my opinion grossly unfair to us the residents of Pacifica.

The passage below puts us the citizens of Pacifica on the hook for doing the property owners/developers dirty work with agencies such as the Coastal Commission and United States Fish and Wildlife Service....

"WHEREAS, numerous environmental, land use, political and other constraints exist which restrict the Property’s potential. The EDC believes that the City (through the RBRD) is the most appropriate legal entity to plan and entitle said Property. Doing so will undoubtedly require collaboration with a host of governmental, resource and other agencies as well as the local community."

I do not think the city of Pacifica is the most appropriate legal entity to entitle the property beyond its responsibilities as a local government agency. This resolution, contrary to the staff report by city manager Rhodes sticks us with the burden of walking a project through the entitlement processes of the Coastal Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife and Army Corps of Engineers to name but a few.