This City Council meeting may be
viewed and virtually participated in on ZOOM https://zoom.us/j/99091160676 , or
through the City website livestream . Dial-in is also available 1-669-900-6833 .
Also, this City Council
meeting will be televised on local Pacific
Coast Television PCT/Pacifica Channel 26. PCT also links their program calendar, and recent coastside civic
meeting videos.
Complying with the Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Disease Notice (fully detailed on page 1 of the
City Council PDF link below): this civic meeting will not
be physically open to the public, and will be held through
teleconferencing.
Public comments, see pages 1 and
2 of the pdf agenda below. 1) Live
access is available through Zoom and dial-in:
during the public comment period, press 9 to raise
your hand; when called upon, provide the last 4 digits
of your phone number. Or, 2) comments for
the record only prior to 4 pm date of the
meeting may be submitted to publiccomment@ci.pacifica.ca.us. 1) In the subject line be sure
to specify whether oral communications or an
Agenda item and the number, 2) in the text
include your full name,
3) limit your text to no more than 350 words. Note: many of the pdf links
below currently redirect to the City (requires
an extra step to open).
Interactive City Council meeting, 1/25/21. City Council meeting, 1/25/21, pdf pages 357.
Closed Session, 6:00 p.m. CA
Code 54957.6. Conference with labor
negotiators: Pacifica Firefighters: Local 2400.
Teamsters: Local 350 Department Directors; Local 350
Management employees; Local 856 Miscellaneous
Employees; Local 856 Waste Water Treatment Plant
Employees; Pacifica Police: Officers Association;
Supervisors Association; Management Association.
------------------
| Item 12. City Financial
Reports, FY 2020. All good, except the City just needs more money !!! |
Consent Calendar
1. Approval of financial disbursements (checks) FY 2020-2021: a) 12/1/20 - 12/15/20.
2. Approval of Minutes: a) 1/11/21.
3. Review and acceptance of the Quarterly Investment Reports, report: a) 12/31/20.
4. Approval of plans, specifications and bidding for the Concrete and Curb Ramps Improvement Project, FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22, report.
5. Notice of Completion for the Pavement Rehabilitation Project: Monterey Road, FY 2019-20, report/Resolution. a) Notice of Completion.
6. Notice of Completion: the Slurry Seal Project, FY 2019-20, report/Resolution. a) Notice of Completion.
7. Notice of Completion: Safety Surfacing for the Playground Improvement Project, Phase 1, report/Resolution. a) Notice of Completion.
Public oral communications (through Zoom, or telephone).
Council communications, Staff communications.
Consideration
8. Economic
Development
Committee
Workplan, 1/21
- 6/22, report.
Workplans: a) FY 2019-20.
b) 1/21 - 6/22.
9. COVID-19
Questions and Answers Sessions with Councilmembers, report.
10. Extend an 8/10/20 City urgency ordinance:
Temporary moratorium on commercial tenant eviction
for non-payment of
rent for tenants impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, report/Ordinance.
11. Resolution for
support of CA State AB 3088, protection against rental
evictions until 1/1/22, report/Resolution.
a) CA Assembly Bill 15 -
2021.
12. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, FY
2020 (7/1/19 - 6/30/20), report. a) Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR). Special revenue,
transportation taxes: b) Measure A (local
transportation). c) Measure W (County
congestion relief). Accounting compliance:
d) GANN Report. e) City oversight control
2021/22; 2020 MOIC final 1/21/20.
Adjourn.
-----------------------
Other City News. Connect with Pacifica/Kevin Woodhouse,
City Manager, 1/22/21. Note graphic
found on Software Advice.com, from memegenerator.net.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
40 comments:
The very reason why the streets are not paved in Vallemar was because Nancy Hall wanted Vallemar to look rural.
Please pave our Vallemar street
Jan 26, 2021 0
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print
Save
I have lived in Pacifica for many years and have participated in local
politics from time to time. I am currently concerned about an issue that affects my own quality of life and those around me.
I read the article in the Jan. 13 Pacifica Tribune headlined, “Pacifica’s poor roads rank among worst.” In fact, we were listed at the very bottom of Bay Area roads. Unfortunately, while the article talks at length about the needed repairs for already paved streets, there was no comment about unpaved streets.
I live on an unpaved street in Vallemar. When I once asked the city if there was a chance it might be paved at some point I was told that our street was a “paper street” and that we were “unincorporated.” They said the only way our road would be paved was if each household could come up with $1,000.
On a couple of occasions when we made complaints to the city to help us with the many big potholes and a deepening ditch at the beginning of our street that would cause our cars to get scraped and dented, the city dumped a layer of loose fine gravel and spread it around. This made matters worse in that the dirt road now has just another layer of loose dirt.
Our street desperately needs to be paved. We have terrible air quality due to all of this loose material that creates a huge plume of dust that falls down on everything, creating a very unhealthy environment. We’ve put up with it way too long. We are breathing the road every day. It is even very dusty inside of our homes and hard to keep things clean. Worst of all, my husband developed a persistent cough. He had a chest X-ray and he has dust in his lungs that cannot be helped. I am constantly clearing my throat.
A couple years back my neighbor’s mother and brother both died. He told me they both had gotten lung disease and he blamed it in part on all the dust raining down. I did not take him seriously at the time, but I do now. Our air quality on this unpaved street is terrible.
Now that the city is discussing road improvements, might we please include the paving of this short, dead-end street In Vallemar that has been neglected. We need your help.
Nancy Hall
Vallemar
vallemar can pay for their own street. Set up a special assessment district. As a neighborhood, they generally objected to any development in town. Now they can say Yes to their own tax.
Nancy wants everyone else in town to pay for her street to be paved? Do you not understand how these things work in Pacifica.
Pacifica does have the worst streets in the Bay Area. But the residents shouldn't really complain about it since they voted for these conditions by voting revenue out.
If you want a modern life with modern services vote for it, simple.
Unbe----inglievable ! Nancy Hall took the Pacifica taxpayers for a BIG ride years ago with her bio-diesel production "plan" to the tune of approx. 400K. No permits, no nothing but pissing away tax money so she could feel good driving her "environmentally cool Mercedes diesel car".Now she would like you and me to pay for paving a road she would like to drive on when clearly her own self interest is at stake. Screw Pacifica, I have lived here X years and you (taxpayers) owe me. Maybe she could have written a song about her plight.
It seems to me, all the roads where people live in Pacifica should be paved.
Sorry Kathy, I have to disagree. Those that CHOSE to live " on the street where they live" knew from the git go what the ingress and egress is/or was. If it was crap 30-40+ years ago so they could have a secluded, separated existence, why would a logical person think it would improve over time? This was known to them when they moved in. Look at the neighborhoods and areas that became Pacifica. A clear hodgepodge of "communities" without planning. We have been retro-engineering since incorporation. And now after 40+ years, extreme budget issues mostly due to C19,she feels the City (taxpayers) owes her a 1st class road, I have to wonder where her non-selfish, socialist mind has gone.
Same is true for those who bought houses at the ocean's edge. They knew from the git what the deal was. I ain't paying taxes to protect them from the consequences of their decision.
First, there's the hypocrisy of fighting to prevent a decent, upgraded road in and out of the city for everyone (Hwy 1), but then asking for a decent, upgraded road outside her house. Second, the developer who built the houses on that street should have been responsible for putting a finished road in place. I'm sure that the price of the house when it was new reflected that it was on a dirt road - and that it still does. It's never the taxpayer's place to pay for a new residential street, and it shouldn't be to do it retroactively.
The solution is simple. Pacifica has revenue deficit. California has housing crisis.
Support housing. Avoid homelessness. Increase tax revenues. Improve Pacifica.
There is simply no way around this. We live in one of the most expensive regions in the world with an extreme economic concentration. Cost of living is atrocious. And relatedly, very high cost of labor and expenses.
The longer we linger about putting away revenue improvements, the worse it is going to get for everyone.
This message from Nancy Hall is rich. Her and her gang of "faux-environmentalists" have been killing off any and all Pacifica improvements, developments and projects for decades.
They bear the brunt of blame for our our chronically decimated city budget and the pernicious harm to the quality and safety of life by the majority of Pacificans.
Now Nancy, one of their chief megaphones for this abusively selfish group, wants the city
(aka our tax dollars) to fix the dirt street that she propagated.
Pacificans, PLEASE, take back our city and stop underwriting the "sanctimonious hippy poverty" lifestyle choice of these totally shameless hypocrites.
I have to agree with 2/21 10:04 IF you are talking about the bluffs.I guess they never built a sand castle and watched it return to it's original form. I actually kinda feel sorry for Nancy, but you reap what you sow. She and her like minded hippy dippy "faux environmentalist" isolationist, "sanctimonious hippy poverty" lifestyle choices have, for decades floundered any fiscal AND social progress. Those quotes are VERY fitting but NOT mine. Now Nancy is trying to reap her diseased, locust infested harvest.
I hate to say this but it must be said. NIMBYism is a kind of masked racism.
Who and how does it affect most? The poorest and economically.
Certainly, there are all races in the poor bracket. But ...
uh, libertarianism is racist
As one considered in the "poor" bracket, I can't say I don't agree. The improvements to Hwy 1 should have been a no brainer. Honestly the 6 lane fear mongering "freeway" was bullshit shoveled by the very hippy dippy's that have left a sustainable Pacifica in the rear view mirror for decades. Go load another bowl and grab your sitar. NOBODY wants Pac to be Newport Beach. Sorry, fools, sand don't make money unless you're in the cement bus. I really LOVE the new "woke" racism that now has a City appointed "Task Force" to adjust a Public beach to those disenfranchised surfers. So, successful long time non-profs now are, potentially, up in the air 'cuz Brown Girls feel segregated from the local break bra. Narly dude,ya know Frankie and Annette and Moondog, were like TOTALLY racist man, I mean like they all drove domestic surf wagons. C'mon man.
@8:28 PM .. better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. reading might be a hopeful remedy for you
Local Libertarian, here's some brief reading for you: Economist Brad DeLong believes libertarianism is essentially a form of white supremacy. Libertarianism, he wrote, “is a Frankenstein’s monster that got its lightning-bolt juice from massive resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.”He continued:"Dismantling the New Deal and rolling back the social insurance state were not ideas that had much potential political-economy juice back in the 1950s and 1960s. But if the economic libertarian cause of dismantling the New Deal could be harnessed to the cause of white supremacy — if one of the key liberties that libertarians were fighting to defend was the liberty to discriminate against and oppress the Negroes — then all of a sudden you could have a political movement that might get somewhere. And so James Buchanan and the other libertarians to the right of Milton Friedman made the freedom to discriminate — or perhaps the power to discriminate? — a key one of the liberties that they were fighting for in their fight against BIG GOVERNMENT. And this has poisoned American libertarianism ever since."
When Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) first entered national politics, he sparked a backlash by saying he opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it restricted private businesses’ right to engage in racist discrimination.
It’s exactly this narrow view of freedom which, as it plays out in the United States, has unavoidably racist and white supremacist effects. White people use their property rights and “freedom” from government regulation to further marginalize and oppress the black minority. Thinking that this is a world more in line with the ideal of “freedom,” rather than a world in which fair treatment can be more readily enforced, is an unavoidably white supremacist idea.
It’s also worth noting that Ron Paul, the senator’s father and predecessor in the Senate and at the forefront of national libertarianism, was caught having published wildly racist remarks in his own personal newsletter.
@Anonymous -- that claim has just about enough credibility as "Socialism is essentially a form of Stalinism". Libertarianism has a long history that precedes your 're-interpretation' of it in American context. It doesn't begin and end with Pat Buchanan's and Ron Paul's of America.
Libertarianism, Individualism, and Racism
@Anonymous 6:42PM - in any case, you are trying to dilute the point by pointing to "assumed" flaws of the messenger (me).
Do you disagree that
a) lack of housing stock development disproportionately affects poor people?
b) lack of economic opportunity creates an incentive to partake in crime?
I won't hold NIMBYism responsible for b. But NIMBYism in California is directly responsible for housing shortage here in Pacifica and across many regions in California. Do you disagree with this claim? If so why?
As a libertarian, do you support or oppose laws making it illegal to discriminate against people in employment and housing?
10:19
In case you didn't read 'em, those laws have been on the books for decades. Whoops! I almost forgot that those no longer apply. We must now have dozens of "new" categories for those that feel they must have special "feelings". I find it humorous that Libertarians are now part of the "problem" in American (or what's left of it) in your opinion. Erase, re-write and cancel are becoming the soup 'd jour(sic) apparently.
As a Libertarian, I support the right of people to constitute governments and make laws as they see fit. Every person has the natural right to preserve their life, propriety of life, property, labor and economic outputs regardless of their sex, race, creed or any kind of artificially construed groupisms. To this end I support every person's right to free expression and free association in so far as such expression and association doesn't override my own natural rights.
Is it illegal to discriminate against people in employment and housing? Well, if a person has a history of criminal enterprise and a known perpetrator of crimes violent and/or economic -- then yes, I would support the right of the employer/renter to deny.
Libertarianism deals in individual rights. As such, there is no place in Libertarianism to pre-emptively force or deny associating with other individuals.
It is an individuals choice to associate or dis-associate with other individuals either for mutual benefit or for self preservation.
Yes, Libertarianism is the precursor to modern Liberalism. Its all encompassing and more than just an excuse to evade taxes as employed by some opportunists.
"there is no place in Libertarianism to pre-emptively force or deny associating with other individuals. It is an individuals choice to associate or dis-associate with other individuals either for mutual benefit or for self preservation." So Libertarianism would allow me to not hire or rent to Black people.
WOW ! 11:32
I don't give two ----'s what ------- color you are !! By saying what you did you have become, by your statement, the biggest bigot. Please don't try to hide behind your INTERPRETATION and SELF DEFINITION of your bigoted belief. YOU, my dear, are the problem. There is a new invention I'd like to open you up to: The mirror. Please take a long hard look. I seriously doubt you will literally see what you are looking at. It's called embarrassment. That's ok, we've all done it, just not to this extreme.
@11:32AM - Libertarian principles would not dis-entitle you from playing the fool if you so wish. In the same manner they would not dis-entitle you from seeking rewards for your creativity.
The moral choice to do anything or not do something is the individuals prerogative. But you would not have a right to force someone to behave in a manner to confer an advantage to you or a disadvantage to them.
You could choose not to associate with racists. Or choose to be ignorant. You would reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of your choice.
Though if you are smart and a reasonable human being you could choose to develop as many personal relationships with variety of people to develop your outlook and improve your knowledge.
7:30 My point is that Libertarianism, as described by the Local Libertarian whose rationale I quoted, supports the freedom to discriminate. I don't agree with that philosophy. That is why I'm not a Libertarian and why I think Libertarianism is racist.
7:30 Exactly. That's how Libertarianism is racist.
@7:30 -- Libertarianism suggests that freedom of choice comes with the attendant consequences.
Can this be freedom be abused? Yes.
Does Libertarianism support abuse of this freedom to the detriment of others? No.
Freedom of Speech? Yes
Freedom to hurl verbal abuse at others? No
Everybody suffers from a degree of bias/prejudice. What really matters is the effort the individual makes to de-bias themselves and how much they restrain themselves from acting with prejudice. Repudiation of bias comes from knowledge.
Freedom is essential for flow of knowledge. Sure bad knowledge also flows along with good knowledge. But if you shut out bad knowledge then it becomes difficult to separate 'more good' knowledge from 'less good' knowledge.
Context matters. No system is perfect. And Libertarianism never pretended to be the perfect system.
By claiming that Libertarianism is "racist" .. did you happen to imply that I am a white person? You'd be very surprised to know the truth!
Let me introduce you to: Thomas Sowell
Freedom of choice is NOT freedom to discriminate. Your sanctimonious interpretation is amazing. So, by your interpretation, if I choose to disassociate with someone or something, I have now become racist ? In a normal persons mind, an ---hole is an ---hole. I don't care what or who you are. This also applies to policies. If you wish to apply philosophies, as you apparently, wish to do. I suggest you grab the adult beverage you clearly indulge in, and load your bowl again. Read the effects first. You know euphoria, paranoia etc.
I think your all on dope!
If you think we should have the freedom to not employ or rent to Black people if we so choose, then you're racist. If you don't think we should have that freedom, then you're not a racist, at least in regard to those situations. Is that clear enough?
1:19 I find it frightening that you clearly choose B&W when you live in a Kodachrome world. Again, I don't care what ------- color you are. If you're an ---hole, you're an ---hole. Your preconceived notions are the #1 problem in current American society.
@1:19 -- what about the freedom of black people to not employ or rent to some of the other black people? does it make them racist? Or the freedom of white people to not employ or rent to some of the other white people?
Because we know there are dregs in every social/race group that the majority will choose not to associate with.
So would it be racist for a black man to not rent/employ to a known white criminal?
Or would it only be racist for a white person to not rent/employ to a known black criminal?
It appears there are indeed sub-groups within Black community who do not all share a common "black" identity as you appear to suggest.
Who is black in America? Ethnic tensions flare between black Americans and black immigrants.
After careful consideration of all your posts, I am not at all convinced of your arguments.
8:22 so you are ok with discriminating against people on the basis of race as long as all colors are included – white, black, brown, yellow, red?
8:54 Exactly ! The VERY sad result of radical social decay and those fools that follow in lock step. IF I say NO, no matter the reason I will now be labeled an "ist", and I don't mean socialist. To say " I am not at all convinced of your arguments" is a breath of fresh air to those that can still think for themselves.
@7:15 .. I am OK with courts of law judging people for their crimes based on agreed upon rules of fairness & justice and without consideration for race and skin pigmentation.
If I have to choose between good and bad, I am going to choose towards good.
Am I going to show sympathy to a black gangbanger .. absolutely not.
Am I going to deal with a white meth hawker .. absolutely not.
Am I going to befriend and seek advice from a black man who is learned and way smarter than me? Most Certainly yes.
Am I going to encourage a latino business because they know what they are doing and are capable of executing to expectations? YES!
Am I going to help an earnest, sincere and hardworking black student solve his math problems -- Most definitely!
Am I going to rent to a Chinese immigrant who has a PhD in Physics? YES!
Bias and prejudice are expressed on a spectrum. Its nuanced. There is good bias and bad bias. And then there is everything in between.
Opinion from New York Times
How Berkeley Beat Back NIMBYs
A century ago, the civic leaders of Berkeley, Calif., pioneered what would become one of America’s most enduring systems of racial inequity — a soft apartheid of zoning.
In 1916, the city that is now a byword for progressivism became one of the first in the country to set aside large tracts of its land for single-family homes. Berkeley’s purpose was openly racist; as a real estate magazine of the era explained, excluding apartments and other densely populated residences was part of an effort to protect the wealthy white residents of Berkeley from an “invasion of Negroes and Asiatics.”
In the decades that followed, Berkeley’s restrictive zoning would be adopted by cities across California and the nation. Combined with other forms of discrimination in real estate — including “redlining,” which restricted access to loans for homes in nonwhite areas, another practice that shaped Berkeley’s growth — zoning limits cemented racism into America’s urban landscape.
Interesting that most of the "calls" made in Pacifica are made by WHITE HIPPIES.
A sanctimonious gang of politically correct "faux-environmentalists" who tear down anything and everything that does not underwrite their own selfish interests. HYPOCRITES!!!
YouTube Link (Interview of a person who just wants to be independent thinker)
Is this guy a racist?
New Public Hearings:
1. File 2021-005, Coastal Development Permit, CDP-426-21. Install seven ocean animal art sculptures at the Pacifica Beach Park (aka: Beach Boulevard Promenade): western side of Beach Boulevard between the intersection of Montecito Avenue and Clarendon Road (APNs 016-292-120, 016-314-190, 016-314-210), report. a) Resolution and COAs. b) Beach Boulevard Plaza preferred concept. c) Project plans. d) Art sculptures (images). e) Land Use/Zoning Exhibit.
This will save the city!!!
Post a Comment