Wednesday, August 5, 2015

County Supervisors support historic California Coastal Trails

The Daily Journal/Bill Silverfarb, 8/5/15.  "County seeks to designate Portola Trail as a nationally historic site:  Effort underway to complete California Coastal Trail through San Mateo County."

Image result for trails in Pacifica, A picture
More trails, less City land.
"The Portola Expedition in the 18th century led to the colonization of the Bay Area and San Mateo County officials are now taking the lead in designating the path they traveled from Mexico to Sweeney Ridge in Pacifica as a National Historic Trail.

The 250th anniversary of the Portola Expedition from Spain is in 2019 and county Parks Director Marlene Finley is hoping other counties in the state will join in the effort.

The expedition traveled about 50 miles along coastal Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties, where six camps were set up by the Spanish travelers. The trail through San Mateo County would go through three National Parks — Milagra Ridge, Mori Point and Sweeney Ridge.

There is growing interest in formally designating the Portola Trail as a National Historic Trail managed by the National Parks similar to the Appalachian, Pacific Crest and Juan Bautista de Anza trails, according to a report Finley wrote for the Board of Supervisors."   Read article.

Note photograph by Madonovan, one of several, from Flickr rhivemind, page 2, "Battery Milagra Trail", Pacifica, 12/29/13. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Craig W.Roark said...

The Sweeney Ridge Mountain Trail (where Easter Sunrise Festivals are held) is a great little trail with great views of the Bay Area at the Portola Discovery Site. It is missed out by many out of town people which is a shame. Accessibility along with local knowledge of trails has something to do with it. Those whom do go on the Sweeney Ridge Trail are in for a treat. Bring your camera for sure.

Anonymous said...

Would anyone happen to have the map of the trail?

Anonymous said...

Build trails and they shall come. Pacifica's way out of insolvency.

Anonymous said...

639 Isn't it apparent that our scenic assets and location are more important to a lot of people in and out of Pacifica than our grip on being a city. It's a death-grip these days and it will get more precarious. Meanwhile, we argue over assorted bullshit as if any of it matters. As if our city council, present or future, has the answers. As if anything other than card rooms and brothels could keep us afloat. The joke is on us. It's all real pretty and real broke. This town needs to be run by the county. We appoint guardians and conservators to people in impossible situations and unable to manage. It's the same damn thing. It's inevitable.

Kathy Meeh said...

639, 310, build a destination that produces City revenue, and they will come. For example, that's a reason to develop the quarry (other business locations will benefit as well). Trails and 60% empty space cost civic revenue. This is not a complicated issue to understand.

The variety of anti-economic, anti-progress deflection arguments into low level, irresponsible alternatives and not being accountable to the citizens of this City is beyond stupid. But you know that ideological NIMBY 310, right?

Anonymous said...

You're wrong, Kathy. I respect a true believer, but you are wrong. Limitied genuine opportunities exist for personal or corporate financial gain in Pacifica, but they provide little revenue for Pacifica. The endless battle in Pacifica is about those opportunities and how they're packaged for approval. Understanding what the fight is really about, what is at stake and who benefits does not mean you're anti-growth. I don't care what gets built or where, but don't tell me Pacifica is more than a minor and incidental financial beneficiary of the projects talked about on here. Can't unring the bell on this town or run a Bay Area city off the available scraps we fight over. Pragmatism.

Anonymous said...

The county may be a whole lot more receptive to development than this backwards, squabbling city. If it makes money, the county likes it. If it meets the needs of residents, the county likes it. They'd do a much better job of meeting housing needs, including affordable housing. SMC has more resources for law enforcement. The county position on transportation could be more practical. Best of all, the county can count. Change is hard, the mere mention of disincorporation starts a panic, but change is often for the better and opposition often much ado about absolutely nothing.

Um, what? said...


Then why are you a supporter of the city's $5.5 million trail to nowhere?

Kathy Meeh said...

503, highway safety (bicycle and hiking); it connects to Devil's Slide park; it's the California trail (Mexico to Canada (so you see it does go somewhere); the substantial cost will be supported by grants (not the City budget).

Kathy Meeh said...

447, no you are anti-growth, and your comment does not work. Businesses produces tax revenue, housing produces tax revenue. Selling city land produces City revenue 1x only (plenty of that has already happened), trails produce maintenance.

When there is an opportunity to build strategic economic areas in this city, support that.
What makes no sense is the "we can do nothing" promotion by those who have put a NIMBY wrecking ball to the economic structure of this City.
Now do what you can to fix it-- and don't irresponsibly turn the broken pieces of City economics (you have caused) over to the County. Clear enough?

Anonymous said...


You don't make any sense. You complain about Pacifica's trails in a post above while at the same time being a cheerleader for the construction of yet another trail.

Are some trails okay to complain about, but others deserve our support? Which are the "good ones?"


Anonymous said...

What's clear, Kathy, is that the revenue you mention, if it ever happens, would be too little, too late. Fiscal benefit to the city would be minor and incidental. I'd love to see some housing and lots of commercial built, do you understand that? But given the limited land available, our relative isolation, demographics, and the type of development most common out here, it will not change the downward trajectory of this city. Case in point, the planned 55 million dollar Harmony, which, if ever completed, will produce no more than $75,000 in total annual property tax revenue for Pacifica. Someone is making money there and that's great because they're taking the risk, but Pacifica's share is minor and incidental. By all means, let's build more because someone has a good idea, someone wants to make money, because we need to and it's nicer for the community than weeds and dog crap. But let's not fool ourselves...what is possible and likely on what's left won't make us self-sufficient. At some point, probably in a few years, we will have to face that, set ideologies aside, and act in the best interests of Pacificans.

Anonymous said...

Why do you keep deleting my questions, Kathy? Is it because it points out the hypocrisy of your stance?

I'll ask again: How can you complain about Pacifica having too many trails and at the same time support the construction of yet another trail?

Kathy Meeh said...

630, what? Quarry and infill developments would be "too little too late.. minor and incidental." Really? Let's see those specific development proposals on paper.

This City exists in "relative isolation", what? This City exists in a regional metropolitan area. It is a gateway City up and down the coast. It also has has driving access from over the hill. Could this City still become a destination? Sure, with smart planning, if NIMBY ideological failure is set aside.

Harmony@1? A project designed and allowed by NIMBY planning to "save the hills"-- hardly a model for future housing or alternative to replace commercial/retail space in this city.
Then, ultimately, if the City still cannot achieve self-sufficiency, bring on a special City tax, rather than raid our special city funds (which did occur in a variety of ways over at least a 12-15 year period). The "alternative" disincorporation default to County you suggest is NOT desirable period.
As you very well know, in this City NIMBY ideology is the failing principal, so we will not be setting aside that fact. (Spin away, "let's not fool ourselves" NIMBY.)

Kathy Meeh said...

624, you're confused? The following is the dialogue. And, I'm sure you know a whole lot more about trails than I do.

At 503, you asked why I support the "$5.5 million trail to nowhere".
At 533, I responded: "highway safety (bicycle and hiking); it connects to Devil's Slide park; it's the California trail (Mexico to Canada, so you see it does go somewhere); the substantial cost will be supported by grants (not the City budget)."
The end.

The 352 comment to 639, 310, was "build a destination that produces City revenue, and they will come. For example, that's a reason to develop the quarry (other business locations will benefit as well). Trails and 60% empty space cost civic revenue. This is not a complicated issue to understand."

durr said...

tHe word you're flailing around for is principle, not principal, which would normally be no big thing, but you took the time to look the word up, link to it, and STILL used it incorrectly. So it's pretty ironic that you don't even click your own links I guess?

Kathy Meeh said...

843, that's all you've got. I was thinking directive, not concept.
But, speaking of petty, what about your first word, "tHe".

Your follow-up includes nothing of value (as expected).

Once again, in English this time said...

"I was thinking directive, not concept."

Can someone help me out with this? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

so, to recap what we've learned...

trails you walk on that are inside the borders of our town are bad. very bad.

trails that you walk on that take you out of town are good. very good.

okay, yeah, it all makes perfect sense

Tax Our Way To Prosperity! said...

"bring on a special City tax"

Yes, the city has been so very successful getting taxes passed during the last ten years. Should be no problem. Especially since the city lost 4.5 million dollars and can't find its ass with both hands. The city has shown itself to be very responsible managers of our money so I'm sure voters will approve another yet another tryat a tax.

After all, you know what they say -- the seventh time's the charm!

Kathy Meeh said...

915, no that's what YOU said-- not what I said. But, it may make perfect sense to you that your fictional comments make "perfect sense" to you.

As for your 909 swipe at the use of "principal"; namely my 810 comment, "City NIMBY ideology is the failing principal," try the noun definition "boss". If that doesn't make sense to you, I don't care.

You still have nothing to offer to move this conversation forward.
What significant economic development will you support to save this City from even lower financial expectations, or default?

Anonymous said...

915 I'm gonna help you out. Remember when this trail vote was before council. Sue Digre, the Nimby Icon, was the only council member who opposed jumping right in, buying the option for the Colt property, hoping for more than half a million or more from "somewhere" (hey, they always find money), etc. Nihart, Stone, Ervin and O'Neill were in favor, embarrassingly so. I do believe that Sue's staunch opposition against something she felt was being rushed (and you know how Sue loves her trails) guaranteed Kathy's support of that trail... but ONLY that trail. As you can imagine, this leads to some puzzling contradictions from Ms. Meeh. Have I helped?

Anonymous said...

924 I believe the city has found its ass.

Anonymous said...

here's a wild concept...why don't we live within our means instead of pretending that we can have it all and pay for it.


Happy Trails said...

Pacifica needs a community-wide project which we can all be proud of. Our JFK, "let's put a man on the moon" moment that allows us to put aside our petty differences and unite behind. I propose that our "moon shot" be the construction of a trail from Pacifica to the Farallone Islands. Ms. Meeh, do I have your support?

Anonymous said...

Kathy complains about the city losing land to trails (see the caption she supplies for the picture) but the article she posts is about the construction of the trail she supports.

Make up your mind!

Anonymous said...

Happy, make sure they don't take the long way around.

Kathy Meeh said...

1003, "I'm gonna help you out". Trivia about Councilmembers Sue Digre's position on most anything, including the trail in question, doesn't inform my observation, understanding, or opinion.

Regarding the California trail, from my comment 8/7, 8:39 p.m.
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).

You and 1118 (or one and the same) should be the first to take that trail (1118 mentioned) to the Farallone Islands. You have my support to do that. Go in peace.

1152, I can understand your confusion, because it's you. But true, loss of chunks of City land may a more significant than trails.

Anonymous said...

Happy Trails

Maybe Chapter 9.

Eureka! said...

I've finally figured it out!

Trails that run from north to south are good and are worthy of our support. $5.5 million worth of support, in fact.

Trails that run east to west are evil, "take away" land from our fair city, and must be opposed at any cost.

As for why this is...dunno. Back to the Surf Lounge I go for some more research.

Unicorns and Rainbows said...

" 4. The substantial cost will be supported and paid by County...grants"

True fact: the county has a Grant Farm off of 92 in Half Moon Bay. Whenever the county needs funds for a grant, they send workers out to pick the needed amount off the money trees that grow there. The money we pay to the county (via property taxes, bond repayments) ot to the state (gas & income tax) is never touched!

So this $5.5 million trail will be built using someone elses money, not ours.

todd bray said...

Happy Trails, the City did have it's JFK moment about 8 years ago when everyone got behind the Harmony@1 proposal because it was going to be a LEEDS certified project. It was even written into the project Condition of Approvals, (which are not guidelines but contractually agreed to items a project is to satisfy) And look what happened to that, At the behest of a naive foreign developer and a local architect working for that company they asked for and received a reprieve from LEEDS, the only thing the project had going for it that qualified it as a JFK moment in this town. City council, in a heartbeat caved that one thing that gave Harmony@1 virtually unchallenged opposition. That kind of trust will never exist again. Nihart, O'Neill and Ervin have killed the communities ability to come together on anything. Anything. If the council can renege on Harmony's LEED certification it can renege on anything. Nihart, ONeill and Ervin have dashed any hope for any future JFK moment because they just showed there is no point to believe. And to top it off our new planning director referred to the proposals Conditions of Approval as erroneous. Nope there will be no further JFK moments Happy Trails.

Anonymous said...


Is there anyone in the world you actually like?

Anonymous said...


The people down at the Surf Lounge might do a better job on city council!

Kathy Meeh said...

Todd 1041, on the other hand, hurray for Councilmembers MaryAnn Nihart, Mike O'Neill, and Mayor Karen Ervin again for moving this NIMBY-limited Harmony@1 project forward, after 8 long years.

Anonymous said...

Oh, calm down, Todd. And wipe the grin off your face. It's not like you guys were going to sit out the next project approval anyhow. It's not a betrayal, it's a gift! A battle-cry!

I guess you're technically correct calling the Canadians, foreign, but is that necessary? Seems a little "Trumpish", eh? LEED, Schmeed, at this point, anxious to see some occupied homes up there. Hell, anxious just to see one actually built. We love you Canada!

Anonymous said...

1023 Tell them pickers to look for the 4.75 million down there on the farm.

Anonymous said...


Be careful for what you wish for. It is a couple months before the rainy season starts and with an expected strong El Nino...Well...


Harmony was no JFK moment in Pacifica. It was a concession to a bunch of obstructionists and whiners to finally get something built in our town.
Ironically these self-proclaimed "experts on everything" ended up dictating the antithesis of green development. If you want to be good to the environment you don't spread a tiny handful of homes over a huge hillside that requires roads, sewer, utilities and gas chugging drives to get up and down every time you go to the grocery store. Green development is concentrated to minimize the infrastructure and road burden and it conveniently incorporates a public transit node which then connects to BART.
To have a JFK moment you need people who actually have the brains of JFK not just self inflated views of their own importance.

Anonymous said...

147 Yeah, not a JFK moment. Pacifica never says "let's go to the moon". But let's forget residential, low-density or packed in. Realtors will survive. It shoulda been a spectacular hotel up there to produce real revenue for this city. Instead of a lousy (and iffy) $75,000 per year from that entire project we'd have millions. Of course, that could only happen in a city with intelligence at the helm and the ability to work with landowners and developers for mutual benefit.
Yikes, your last sentence is gruesome.

Anonymous said...

When Trump is President, you all will come to the board room, and be promptly fired!