Monday, July 20, 2015

Reminder Planning Commission meeting, today Monday, July 20, 2015

Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on local television or live feed Pacificcoast.TV, (formerly  If you miss civic meetings, view on PCT 26 You Tube!  The planning commission meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following.  Planning Commission updates, archives are available on the City website/Planning Commission.   

Item 2.  Home owners hear the ocean.
With 2nd story deck, the ocean is visible.
Fix Pacifica Planning Commission Agenda article, 2/20.15.     Planning Commission Agenda, 7/20/15, pdf pages 61.

Presentation - Anne Stedler, Ecconomic Development Work Plan.

Item 1a.  Linda Mar Beach parking lot outdoor events.  

Item 1b.  Sharp Park, area of Pacifica Pier, 2212 Beach Blvd outdoor events.

Item 2.    125 W. Avalon Drive, second story addition.  Google maps: Interactive, (from Zillow); graphic (from Redfin).
Note photograph from Google on Redfin Real Estate website.

Posted by Kathy Meeh


same ole same ole said...


20 people on here griping and typing away does nothing to change the 30+ year status quo in Pacifica.

5 people at city council or planning might be a start. Then a couple more, couple more.

Thus the reason why the noobees nimbys and hippies are so well organized.

The Pedro Point band of nimbys are the scariest yet. Better educated, more money and more knowledge and use of attorney's to get their way. They are younger and have more fight in them than our aging hippie nimby noobee population.

Kathy Meeh said...

631, bottom line, it's the City's obligation to save itself. And when it does not, it's an affront against the people, and "does nothing to change the 30+ year status quo in Pacifica."

City Council is in a position to represent the best interest of this City, not just those citizens who support, placate, or threaten them.
Unfortunately this City lacks a balanced economy because of the influence of prior NIMBY City Council majorities, and their allied mobs. Hence, Pacifica loses.

If you live here, YOU know you are welcome to speak at civic meetings, and encourage others to do the same.
Some Pacificans, including some members of City Council, read this Fix Pacifica blog. From 5 pm yesterday, there were 638 page views; the daily average is 685 based upon 20,551, a 30 day monthly average. And that is more or less the "same ol', same ol'" for now, (page views tend to pick up with hot issues).

For 30+ years, dedicated NIMBIES have damaged the civic potential of this city. FMV, that doesn't make the modern version more or less scary.

Tipped over dump truck said...

In other more recent Monday previously unreported Pacifica News:

Dump truck tipped over at the bottom of Fassler. Tow trucks trying to upright the dump truck!

Anonymous said...

30 years, and Pacifica, by any measure, continues in the same direction with the same values, priorities, issues. New faces come and go and it's still 30 years and counting. There's a message in that and it isn't about mob rule.


I most certainly is about mob rule.
It is a well organized, activist mob that wants nothing for anybody other than themselves. They count on the low information and uninvolved majority would be voters to do what they always do, stay home and watch TV.
We get what we deserve but it doesn't make the mess that is our city any better.

Anonymous said...

It is about 20 main players in the gang of no. About 40-50 goons. They are well organized.

Anonymous said...

Mob rule? It's the democratic process practiced in this country for over 200 years. The majority rules. The minority whines. Get your shit together, find electable candidates, common issues, raise some Pacifica money, lose the cringe-factor. That's the only way you'll ever be more than a noisy minority. History says you're a long shot, but get in the game!

Anonymous said...

120 That was a pretty healthy voter turnout in Pacifica for that last election. Must have been under mob control to vote the way they did. You must free them!

Anonymous said...

No meeting on channel 26. Some herbal doctor on.

Larry said...

Voter turnout last election was pathetic, 4:14. What are you smoking?


Absolutely it's the Democratic process.
The NOBIES vote as a solid block and get their goons on council.
They deserve their win.
We deserve their destruction of our city.
Wake up Pacifica.
Turn off your TV's.
Get involved.

Tom Clifford said...

8:17 you must have tuned in late. The meeting ended around 7:30 The Off the grid items were pulled.

Anonymous said...

Larry, I don't smoke. For a non-presidential election in Pacifica, it exceeded expectations. Credit given to the highway issue.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Tom. Your the only person paying attention!

Anonymous said...


According to the poster guy for the gang of no.

When it works in their favor, it's how democracy works.

When it works against them, your not democratic

Anonymous said...

820 Yes, please vote.

Anonymous said...

109 No fair! waawaawaa.

Kathy Meeh said...

106, City Council Election 11/4/14, too many candidates running for office who would improve this City, that's all. And don't forget the NIMBY campaign was dirty and twisted.

820, it does seem that NIMBIES are intent on City destruction, the influence of which has often occurred through deceptive influence; and, good will conciliation from reasonable people.
After 30+ years of City economic deterioration (caused by NIMBIES), a few years ago some NIMBIES even tried to encourage a campaign turning this City over to the County, (total failure). Had enough yet, people who live in this City? You should have.

Anonymous said...


Talk about deliluting the vote and spitting the party. Have you seen how many gop canidates are running for president?

Anonymous said...


Ask Peter Loeb is he thinks he is doing what's best for the city.

He 100% does!

w said...

Thinking you are right doesn't make it so.
That's why we elect leaders and appoint judges to try and parse it out for constitutionality and the greatest good for the many.
NOBIES truly have their heads in the sand or somewhere else if they can't see that their ideas about what is right for Pacifica isn't completely bankrupt.

Kathy Meeh said...

353, the problem is the NIMBY ideological theory doesn't work in the real world. And pushing that propagandized make-believe nonsense while ridding our city of land, progress and a productive economy has damaged our City, our population, and our future.

BTW in comments viewed on Riptide, Peter Loeb refers to this City as rural (country, rather than a town), whereas reality check: our city is clearly urban (2,500-50,000).
And apparently no one in the extensive Gang of No has corrected him. Why? I don't think they or their regional allies let reality get in the way of their ideology.

Now we are dealing with the NIMBY lawsuit brought by Loeb and others against fixing the researched and funded traffic bottleneck through this City. It's the NIMBY usual: illusion, delusion; but no plan, and no money to fulfill the so called "alternative(s)" plan(s) which doesn't exist and is not funded. What else is news, except the lawsuits are also costing us all tax money at City, County and Federal level.


[i]And apparently no one in the extensive Gang of No has corrected him. Why?[/i]

gosh, it's almost like peter loeb is his own person, capable of making his own posts on some blog without having to get some imaginary group's okay.

just kidding. actually, peter received several nimby dispensations in advance, so he's all good as long as he doesn't stray too far. we who practice the dark arts try to keep him on a short leash.

Kathy Meeh said...

631, well with friends and allies of above average IQ's and reasonable ethics (rather than just a bunch of numbskull liars confirming "it must be true, because we think it")-- you'd think at least one of them would correct such goofy error.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, so what does that inform other people with above average IQ's and reasonable ethics about the Gang of No? Without the 10,000 other examples, it informs some of us that Peter Loeb's concept of the environment he lives in is unrealistic. And such misunderstanding or misrepresentation may be a symptomatic example of the entire clan of which he is a member.

Anonymous said...

Clan Loeb? Get out the Macallen's and we'll drink to their health one and all.

mad reppin' the 044 said...

MY GOD! A dude used the word 'rural' on some dumb blog instead of 'urban.'

Thank you for bringing this obscenity to our attention. Meet me on the pier and we'll celebrate this inconceivable gaffe by pouring some concrete into the ocean!

*splits pants*

The Patrician Prole said...

I'll have you know that despite 70% of this town being undeveloped open space, bounded by an endless ocean stretching towards infinity, I assure you that it is an urban environment. Yes. Very, very urban. Possibly the absolute distillation of such, as this link to an online dictionary shall demonstrate.

Anonymous said...

Search on Riptide does not bring up anything. Be interesting to see the actual quote so we could see the context. Otherwise it's just some numbskull liar saying it must be true because I said it.

Kathy Meeh said...

931, 905, 753, 631, I think your distraction may have again proven my point about your defenseless NIMBY ideology.

Subject: Peter Loeb comments on Riptide. Even though your search was ineffective and clueless, Peter's several times reference and context that this City is "rural" is just that. An easier search for you: ask him.
I'm sure Peter Loeb is as proud of his comments as you are your comments. The difference is Peter has a name, and it's doubtful he would engage in such petty chatter as you have.

The City must move beyond NIMBISM to improve, sustain, and hopefully prosper. Do you have positive suggestions which make sense, will you support genuine economic development, do you see a future for this City; or, is your purpose here just a meaningless distraction?

Anonymous said...

Pacifica is urban? News to me.

Anonymous said...

The complaint on this blog is that more than half the land in Pacifica is in "unproductive" open space. That's certainly not urban. You could say it's suburban with a majority in open space. Pacifica used to be rural with agriculture especially in the Linda Mar valley. It might be fair to say Pacifica is suburban/rural. With no quote and no context for use of "rural" we have no way of knowing how it was meant or that it was ever said.


Lancelle routinely referred to Pacifica as "rural". She even added "bucolic hamlet" from time to time. It's a talking point with a purpose that all good little brainwashed NOBIES propagate. It clears the conscience of this gang of faux-enviros to smash Pacifica down to it's economic knees without regard to the 38,000 people who live in this CITY.
There's nothing wrong with bucolic hamlets or rural areas but let's get real 38,000 people comprise a city that requires functionality far exceeding our current condition.

Kathy Meeh said...

914, 732 a government definition of urban and rural are provided here, the same as they were provided on my 7/21, 4:59 pm comment. Then there is Google.

Long term structural problem: this City needs sustainable economic balance, which it does not have. What economic and infrastructure progress in this City will you support?

Anonymous said...

From Kathy's link:

There are two major definitions of “rural” that the Federal government uses, along with many variants that are also available.

U. S. Census Bureau definition:
The first definition was developed by the Census Bureau exit icon which identifies two types of urban areas:
Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people.

The Census does not actually define “rural.” “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Whatever is not urban is considered rural.

The Census recognizes that "densely settled communities outside the boundaries of large incorporated municipalities were just as ''urban'' as the densely settled population inside those boundaries." Their definition does not follow city or county boundaries and so it is difficult sometimes to determine whether a particular area is considered urban or rural. Under this definition, about 21% of the US population in 2000 was considered rural but over 95% of the land area was classified as rural. In the 2010 Census 59.5 million people, 19.3% of the population, was rural while over 95% of the land area is still classified as rural.

Kathy Meeh said...

1121, "Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people." The other definition on that 7/21, 4:59 pm comment was from rural: country. Then, consider Google as a potentially educating source for yourself.

Wake up Pacifica 1030 made an excellent comment related to cutting through NIMBY ideological brainwashing to reach commonly understood realities. You might read that comment at least 20 times, then 3rd request to you, let us know what economic and infrastructure progress you will support in this City.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks Pacifica is urban is a "commonly understood reality" is in some alternate reality from normal people.

Pacifica is not Carmel said...

Pacifica is the only beach town, that does not take advantage of being a beach town!

Pacifica had the chance to be just like Carmel, but chose to more like Marysville or Modesto!

Anonymous said...

Faux-enviros, NOBIES and NIMBIES are not normal people.

Rod Serling said...

12:32-- This is a site populated by individuals who endlessly complain about all the trails in town while at the same time trumpet the benefits of building a $5.5 million trail to take people out of town. I never knew there was so much local support for those poor Canadians looking for a way to walk to Mexico, but here we are. We don't have the $5.5 million to build the trail (in fact, we've got -$4.75 million), but that is no obstacle. Fix Pacificans are givers. Rainbows and unicorns at this URL, I tells ya.

Anyhoo, that should put everything about this site into perspective; it's not a reality that neither you or I know.

Anonymous said...

Rod Serling didn't you die of lung cancer due to tobacco addiction?

Kathy Meeh said...

151, guess you missed the part where the cost option to purchase Colt's property and develop the California Coastal trail through Pacifica (from Mexico to the Canadian border) will be paid through grants and government, including San Mateo County, not our City General Fund. Repeat: Not our City General Fund.
The City Council Agenda meeting occurred several months ago, (late 2014 or early 2015 my recall), Good luck, look for it.

What's really weird is that NIMBIES have supported every other trail in this City, but when it comes to this part of the State trail through this City, some NIMBIES say NO. This trail will provide hiking and bicycle safety to and from Devil's slide park. That's a plus.

Same question 4th request, let us know what economic and infrastructure progress you will support in this City?

$5.5 million trail to nowhere said...

Kathy, and I guess you missed the part where 100% of the funding spent on the project so far ($350,000 to date plus staff time) has come from...where? You got it -- the general fund. No other sources of funding have been obtained yet. So nice fail with your facts.

Please tell us how this trail will generate $5.5 million in city revenue to pay for itself and ongoing maintenance. How many years do you expect it will take until we see a net profit because of this trail and how will this revenue be generated -- through the purchase of new sneakers at Payless? That's a lot of sneakers, baby!

Please share your wisdom with us. You seem to have all the answers.

Anonymous said...

1:19 Do you think of Pacifica as urban?

Kathy Meeh said...

257, no, you said $5.5 million was coming from the City General Fund, so that information from you was incorrect, remember?
And, the Colt property contract is an option for the City to purchase, while meantime the City obtains and secures grants and government funding.
The $350,000 General Fund you now mention from "air data", may also be reimbursable from outside City sources. (Since this is your claim, maybe verify your information with the City, good luck).

Did you support quarry economic redevelopment in 2003 and 2006? Either of those projects would have brought important and needed development revenue into this city. Not developing next door Mori Point prior was also a loss for this city, but it was the result of another ol' NIMBY trick: delay, block, bankrupt the developer. Nothing new, the City loses.

Anonymous said...


The city has to kick in some money. I don't remember how much it was a long time ago.

I am thinking $50,000 to $80,000.

Kathy Meeh said...

119, do you think a CITY in metropolitan San Francisco Bay area us rural. Against fact, State regulation and logic, do you really believe that?
Or is your responsive cult belief verbiage just from a page of NIMBY doctrine?

5th request. Let us know what economic and infrastructure progress you will support in this City.

Kathy Meeh said...

359, that sounds about right. About the cost of two of the many cheap studies on the City bookshelves. And if they could get any reimbursement elsewhere (from other government sources), no doubt they did.

Anonymous said...


I find it amazing payroll checks are still clearing.

The city should consider themselves lucky they still have money in the postage meter.

They are spending like mad, and I doubt seriously they can afford our next coming recession or a very strong el nino winter.

Anonymous said...

I think a city of 40,000 population that is mostly residential with very little commercial development and in which the majority of land is open space is definitely not urban. Suburban, yes. Pacifica has more in common with Half Moon Bay than it does San Francisco. Is Half Moon Bay urban because it's a city in metropolitan San Francisco Bay area?

Kathy Meeh said...

514, seriously it doesn't matter what you think, or if you think, unless you can prove cities located in metropolitan regional areas are not urban.
Keep in mind we're talking about cities, not towns; not country, or unincorporated areas with populations of less than 2,500.
I know, it's a NIMBY dream to "live in our neighborhoods" with all the disadvantages of not being a City. We heard a lot about that attempted promotion a few years ago.

it's true because I said so said...

"If you use the word 'rural' to describe any city in the Bay Area, you're an indoctrinated cult member!"

*splits pants*

L-O-L. What a dumb hill to choose to die on. No wonder this supporter's crew is slowly getting voted out. They had their chance, but it turns out the group's just a little too crazy to be seated at the adult table.

Anonymous said...

It's not so much the ignorance on public display here, it's the doubling down on that ignorance that's baffling.

Pacifica is an urban city? My god. Give it a rest, lady. You're completely wrong and it's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The more committed we are to a certain opinion, the less likely we are to relinquish it, even if confronted with massive contradictory evidence. The theory of cognitive dissonance, originally developed by psychologist Leon Festinger, deals precisely with those feelings of discomfort that people experience when presented with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. Multiple studies show that to relive cognitive dissonance, in many cases, in stead of acknowledging an error in judgment, people tend for reformulate their views in a new way that justifies their old opinions.
--Mario Livio

Kathy Meeh said...

614, once again you offer no poof to counter your cult "ignorance"-- or your psychological journey distraction into "inconsistent belief" (your words).
The rural vs. urban conversation began with NIMBY or NIMBIES defending comments made by Peter Loeb on Riptide: his claim that this City is rural. You or some of you, defended him by saying he would never say that.

I said call him. You or some of you may have done that, or not. Then the NIMBY switcheroo began.
Now, without proof, you claim this city is "rural". Yet, the quick links I provided were from the US Government, plus a definition of "rural" (meaning country).
That said, you have provided no proof against "urban" evidence to support your second opinion that this City is "rural" The "alternative" you have provided is attitude. Plenty of attitude, zero credibility. Hence, the City is as described: urban.

559, the numbers prove the 11/14 City Council election had one too many progress candidates, And even though some of you ran a misinformation and nasty election, there was no mandate to NOT fix outstanding City economic and infrastructure problems.
(BTW, your repeated juvenile "split pants" comment says more about you than it does anyone else.)

Anonymous said...

The position of some people here that Pacifica is appropriately described as "urban" illustrates the gulf between the few on this blog and the many who live and vote here. Ask some random people at Safeway or the beach or anywhere else in town if they think of Pacifica as urban. I doubt you will find many people besides Fix Pacifica extremists who agree with that description.

Kathy Meeh said...

751, it's time for you NIMBIES to stop lying to yourselves, to your friends, to those who you can indoctrinate, and to the City.
At the same time, you call moderate people who understand the need this city has for survival, and to thrive through a balanced City economy and reasonable progress "extremists". What a lame joke from you!

So where is the proof that this City is "rural", rather than part of a larger regional "urban" environment. Google and government definition exists, go for it.
And 6th request. Let us know what economic and infrastructure progress you will support in this City.

Steve Sinai said...

How about "semi-rural?" That's the way my neighborhood was described when I bought my house in the 90's.

Anonymous said...

Semi rural is Half Moon Bay which has working farms. Pacifica is almost built up. Only a couple buildable parcels left.

Maybe you Should speak to people who have lived here since Pacifica had 90 people.

Pacificas only cash crops are pot and meth.

Anonymous said...

My neighborhood was also described as semi-rural in the 80s. We actually had two cows wander up the street one afternoon in the late 90s from a field on Peralta. These days, from my house I can see horses in that field, planted fields, greenhouses, the ocean, no industry, tree-covered hillsides, a couple of school sites, and lots of homes. Deer, skunks, raccoons are often seen. No Russia. Not too far away is a 1950s-style smallish, partially empty, shopping center and a large county park. Pacifica is a suburb of San Francisco. A mixed use community within commuting distance of a job center. Suburbs can be outlying neighborhoods of the urban center, a separately incorporated city, or, an unincorporated area. Within a suburb, especially one made up of distinctly separate neighborhoods like Pacifica, urban and rural characteristics can and do co-exist.

Anonymous said...

Thank you 12:08 for your rational discussion of the subject. No invective, no name-calling, just talking about Pacifica as a suburban community with both urban and rural qualities.

Kathy Meeh said...

1249, are you the same Anonymous who clogged-up the spam folder last night?
Definition name-calling. Keep in mind, stating facts and describing a history of what "is" is not name calling, whereas purposefully abusive distraction, deflection and unfair labeling may be name calling.

NIMBIES want the veneer scraped off their house of cards, come on down.

Anonymous said...

You're welcome 1249.

Anonymous said...

38,000 people make a CITY. A city requires Fire Departments, Police Departments, City Government Offices, Sewage Treatment plants, road repair, clean water, a reliable energy system, constant maintenance and MONEY to run it all.
NOBIES are slowly but surely killing Pacifica in order to maintain their own selfish "I got mine" lifestyles which they expect taxpayers to under-write.
They are faux-enviros, know nothing about running a city and believe they are the smartest people in the room.
Keep fighting back Council (majority). It's the bottom of the ninth with a full count and we are in danger of losing our city.

Anonymous said...

These are the type of comments you can point to in the upcoming 2016 council race in order to illustrate the attitudes of the pro growth supports.

Then those supporters will squawk about a dirty campaign which is precious since these are their own comments they are proudly and publicly making on this blog. Why is it a dirty trick to send potential voters to this site to see your comments? Don't you stand behind your words?

I beg the denizens of Fix Pacifica to lend their endorsements again next year. That went so well last time.

Anonymous said...

129 No one disputes Pacifica is a city. A suburban city with character that can alternate between rural, semi-rural, and suburban. Rather doubt that anyone disputes this city needs services since we all depend on them. That this city has no hope of being able to pay for them or the staff to provide them becomes clearer every day as every opportunity is wasted and our debt burden grows. My god, we've even been bamboozled into accepting almost 5 million dollars as "unaccounted". By all means, let's keep the focus on pissing matches, vitriol and food trucks because an honest, dispassionate look at the scraps on our table is unbearable. We'll go out with a whimper and a slur, incapable of self-governance.

Anonymous said...

343 Kind of like the Democrats praying that Donald Trump runs. Oh, yessss!

Kathy Meeh said...

343, 429, 419, pro growth, and pro growth attitudes are good and needed to rebuild this deficient City (caused by the Gang of No).
And Gang of No, do you even care if there is a City. If so, where have you been for 30+ years?

I stand by my comment. And your name is?
PS: My observation, NIMBIES ran a dirty, misinformation 11/14 campaign. (No surprise, that's how you roll).

Anonymous said...

Get real! Next election will have enough dirt and misinformation for all--and that's just the Presidential race. Pacifica will set a new record for toxic, something both sides do so well. The dirty secret? In Pacifica, it no longer matters who wins.

Kathy Meeh said...

619, no, "toxic" tricks, are the several decades honed expertise of NIMBIES, in this City and allied NIMBY organizations in this region.

And related to toxic tricks, you say "... something both side do so well"? No, that's an "everybody is doing it" variant from the NIMBY propaganda handbook intended to neutralize NIMBY toxicity. Been there.

From the same handbook, you say "it no longer matters who wins". No, it matters who wins City Council elections. City Council majority carries the votes, sometimes these are important votes that affect the destiny of this City: 3-2 carries votes; 4-1 does not. (The variant of "it really doesn't matter" is false, potentially designed to neutralize opposition to warm and fuzzy NIMBIES who have a proven anti-progress track record.)