Help our candidates gain an endorsement from the Sierra Club!

How would you answer these questions to get the coveted Sierra Club endorsement. No interest in economic issues necessary.

2010 Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter

Candidate Questionnaire for Pacifica City Council

           Candidate Information

Name:

Election ID (FPPC):

Phone:

Fax

Email:

Website:

Please Send a JPEG photo of candidate:  Send it to Political@lomaprieta.sierraclub.org 

Are you a Sierra Club member? (Membership is not required for endorsement)

               Questionnaire  (Candidates’ answers are used internally in our endorsing considerations, and are not published).

1). What’s your preferred vision for the future of the 400 acre Sharp Park property

currently owned by San Francisco but located entirely within Pacifica?

Please be inclusive of the berm/Coastal Trail, Laguna Salada, golf course, clubhouse.

archery range and the majority of the acreage in the eastern portion. 

2). How much growth in housing and office space/commercial is appropriate for Pacifica, and why?  What changes do you favor in the General Plan relating to development and climate change? 

3). What are your priorities for addressing Pacifica’s climate impacts?  Do you support calculating Pacifica’s baseline greenhouse gas emissions, adopting meaningful targets for reduction of emissions, and implementing those targets?

4). Your past record is the best indicator of your work for the environment.  What have you done to protect natural resources and the environment?

5) How do you propose to eliminate waste going to landfills by 2020?   

 

6). Should construction in Pacifica incorporate green building principles? 

7) The Loma Prieta Chapter’s Transportation Committee has serious reservations about the pending CalTrans/SMCTA proposal for the 6-lane Calera project on Highway 1. Do you favor this $45 MIL project?  If not, what alternative(s), if any, would be most suitable?

8). How can Pacifica better manage its water supply and demand?

 

9). What do you regard as the major environmental and conservation issues facing Pacifica and the Bay Area?

10) Snowy plovers have abandoned their historic nesting area at Pacifica State Beach due to disturbances. What do you favor to protect their remaining habitat?  Would you support restrictions on human activities as recommended by the Pacifica Open Space Committee?

11). Please provide your ballot statement as submitted to the County at filing.

12). Tell us about your campaign viability (funding, volunteers, organization, endorsements).  Please bring examples of your prior and current campaign literature.

13). Given that the "Quarry" property is located entirely in the Coastal Zone and therefore subject to the habitat protections of the California Coastal Act (particularly as defined by the Supreme Court Bolsa Chica decision disallowing habitat alteration/mitigation for housing related development) - do you favor Pacifica requiring a thorough biological assessment of the entire property prior to planning exercises or processing development applications?

14). Do you support reducing the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers by Pacifica's Public Works and Parks functions?  

End of Questionnaire

Posted by Steve Sinai

For Member Of The City Council - Susan Vellone

SUSAN VELLONE            AGE:47

Occupation:  Businesswoman

As a resident and business owner for 30 years, I presently serve my community as President of the Chamber of Commerce, Chamber Liaison to the GGNRA, Director on the Board of Pacifican’s Care and President-Elect of Rotary.

I believe City Council should be a balanced representation of our community. With leadership and determination, the improvement of our city’s economy is needed to maintain our vital emergency services and our Public Works for our weakened infrastructure. Change can be made through visibility and appeal to the Tourism Industry and new businesses.

The focus in leadership should be marketing our City’s potential as a destination for outstanding business opportunities, recreational use, improving our greatly needed sales tax revenue and assuring an optimum quality of life for our community.


I look forward to your support.

Susan Vellone    President of the Chamber of Commerce

Dog Parks in Pacifica

Let me first explain the genesis of this problem.  I have lived in Pacifica since 1978 and although there were always leash laws, they were not enforced.  Off-leash recreation was happening, but never was an issue.  In the year 2000 time frame, then Mayor Jim Vreeland made a specific demand of the Peninsula Humane Society and the Pacifica Police Department calling for the strict enforcement of the leash law. 

This demand was made without public notice or comment. However, no provision was made at the time to provide any areas where residents could exercise or play with their dog(s) off-leash.  At that time, as is the case today, there existed no public area where one could play the most basic time-honored game of fetch with their dog. As many Pacificans suddenly became the recipients of very expensive off leash tickets, a huge outcry ensued and the city’s Animal Advisory Commission was asked to address the problem.  As a member of the Animal Advisory Commission in 2001-2002, it was estimated by several sources, including the Peninsula Humane Society, that 40% of Pacifica households had at least one dog.  In fact, there were actually more dogs in Pacifica than there were children.  We held many meetings with the public to ascertain whether a dog park or other off-leash area was desired by the Pacifica population.  It was indeed a big quality of life issue for Pacifica residents.  
 

As to the issue of expense of a dog park, one needs to consider the point raised by many dog guardians that they, as taxpayers, pay for the education, day care, school lunches and park/recreation facilities utilized by the children of this city without complaint.  Is it so unreasonable for these taxpayers to ask for an opportunity to recreate with their dogs?  Many of these dog guardians are senior citizens who have lost spouses and friends and live with their dog as their only companion.  These seniors strongly preferred an enclosed dog park, because many suffer from disabilities and are unable to run or hike with their dogs.  The best choice for an enclosed dog park was and still is Lower Frontierland Park. 

The area is not usable for any other park purpose because the landfill has created methane gas seepage.  Coastside Scavenger/Recology provides the city $75,000.00 annually for rehabilitation of this area.  The City has year after year misappropriated that money for their own desired purposes as part of the General Fund.  I have in my possession plans for a dog park at Lower Frontierland (with parking) as drawn up by Scott Holmes when he was the Director of Public Works in that time frame.  It is important to note that Scott Holmes was indisputably highly involved in our environmental projects here in Pacifica, and he believed this was a great use for Lower Frontierland.  Does someone have an objection to the $75,000./year being spent for the purpose for which it is specifically earmarked? 

Other citizens preferred hiking trails they could utilize with their dogs off-leash—Mori Point being the most popular.  No cost to allow people to hike with their dogs on trails.  Would any of the dog park detractors support lobbying the GGNRA for that policy?  Pacificans turned over Mori Point to the NPS/GGNRA and we do not derive any revenue from our generosity.  Is it too much to make a small demand regarding the usage of this area?  

Other Pacificans wanted an accessible beach to play with their dogs—Esplanade Beach is not accessible to the vast majority of the population.  We selected Sharp Park Beach south of Clarendon for that purpose.  The SPB location was ideal because natural boundaries already existed, there was no habitat for any threatened or endangered species due to the construction of the berm, and we even obtained approval from SF Recreation and Park Department for the use. 

There would be no cost to implement this area as an off-leash area except perhaps a few signs.  

Open your mind to the possibilities—they are within reach despite the poor economy. Certainly the overall economy was not an issue back in 2000 - although Pacifica has always seemed to be in a recession.  Further, who is to say people won’t come from out of town to utilize our off-leash beach/trails/park and actually spend money here?  Dog guardians DO spend money—proof of that is the business model Carmel has built in part because it is a dog-friendly environment. 

Yet these same critics of off-leash recreation seem to have no problem with the fishermen who come to Pacifica to fish or crab at the pier or the surfers who come to surf at Linda Mar beach.  These two groups are notorious for spending little or no money here, and the fishermen leave a litter mess as well.  

For many of us off-leash recreation areas are a quality of life issue. This is why we pay our taxes. Neighboring cities have accepted their responsibility to provide off-leash recreation areas to their residents. Only in Pacifica, where open space far exceeds developed space, is it so difficult to find a small area where our best friends can thrive.

Suzanne Valente

Pacifica City Council incumbents need to go!

[*Blogmaster's note: The following was written before Councilmember Lancelle decided not to run.]

Do I stay or go?  That is the question the three incumbents need to be asking themselves. Councilmembers Digre, Lancelle, and Vreeland have all pulled papers to run in the November election. 

Who will actually turn them in before the deadline is unknown at this moment. I have a simple question for each of them: "What makes you feel like you have anything to offer this community? How can you possibly think you can run on 'your record?' Most importantly, name one economically viable initiate you have brought to this town. ONE!

These questions will be asked, of that I guarantee you. You incumbents have run this town like a personal hobby. You think the way to create a sustainable economy is to tax the heck out of us. You have guided this town to the precipice of bankruptcy all the while playing favorites with your "chosen ones." In my opinion our leadership skills are non-existent.

Some may feel that I'm being overly harsh. Wake up! There's a reason why we have tax measures on the November ballot, on the June ballot next year, and again on the November ballot in 2011. We're promised that things will be different, that we'll encourage economic growth. Where have we heard that before? I'll tell you, during the run-up to the Fire Assessment Tax. They deceived us. Remember that? Immediately afterwards we lost control of our Fire Department to Daly City. 

If there exists anyone that can remember any brilliant economic plan presented during that five years they were taxing us I'd like to hear it. I remember the awe-inspiring phrase "Our Ecology is Our Economy". How'd that work out?

You three incumbents need to look within. Ask yourself, truthfully, "have I really done a good job and can I defend my record?" Be ready to defend yourself. Don't tell me it's the economy. Don't dare to. The economic stagnation of this town happened on your watch. Think hard about submitting your papers. It's going to be a tough campaign.  
 
Jim Wagner
From Pacifica Tribune letters-to-the-editor 8/4/2010.


Submitted by Kathy Meeh
  

For Member of the City Council - Len Stone

Pacifica is home to both my family and business.  As a City Council person my decisions will be driven by this vested interest to represent you - Pacifica residents and business owners who want our city to flourish. My priorities include:

Maintaining a fiscally responsible City Council.

Filling our commercial vacancies to produce a viable and vibrant local economy to generate sufficient tax dollars to pay our own bills.

Provide residents of Pacifica with the police, fire, schools, city works, and infrastructure they deserve with policies that respect and cherish Pacifica's most valuable resource, our unique environment.

I have owned and operated an insurance agency here in Pacifica for 8 years, am president-elect of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, donated time to local school programs, and organized local teen driver safety seminars. I will bring the same thoughtful decision-making process and excellent listening skills to the council that have been instrumental in my business success. My livelihood and family are invested in Pacifica, and I hope you will support me to build our local economy while preserving the small town living which we all enjoy.

I respectfully ask for your vote to City Council.

http://www.vote4stone.com/

Len Stone

Sink Putts, Save Sharp Park!

Putting Tournament to Benefit SF Public Golf Alliance
at The Golf Lab in San Carlos, CA, Saturday, August 14

Leith Anderson and David Balbi, proprietors of the Golf Lab on the Peninsula, and members of San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, will hold a Grand Opening celebration Saturday, August 14 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. at their new golf teaching and fitting facility on Industrial Rd. in San Carlos. In addition to free lunch from Noon to 3 p.m. from “the Peninsula’s best taco truck,” Golf Lab will conduct an all-day putting tournament on their new Mark Sweeney-designed 1500-square-foot indoor putting green. Practice and Qualifying rounds are Saturday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., with putt-off matches for the Round of 16 beginning around 5 p.m.

The only sure winner will be the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, for the continued defense of Sharp Park Golf Course. The Alliance will be the beneficiary of all tournament proceeds. Thank you Golf Lab.

Mark Sweeney, a former Hewlett-Packard engineer, is a golf inventor and founder of AimPoint, the science-based green-reading system that is used in GolfChannel tournament broadcasts to map the break of putts. Golf Lab is AimPoint’s new California representative. Sweeney will be in San Carlos this weekend for the Golf Lab festivities.

What: Golf Lab Grand Opening and Putting Tournament
To Benefit Public Golf Alliance’s efforts to Save Sharp Park
Where: The Golf Lab
1100 Industrial Rd., #10
(in the south parking lot, intersection of Industrial Way and Brittan)
When: Saturday, August 14, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
How Much: $5 donation for each 9-hole round (practice and qualifying)
Prize: $500 Edel putter and putter-fitting to the winner
Free Lunch: “Best Taco Truck on the Peninsula”

Directions
Exit the Bayshore Freeway at Whipple Ave. in Redwood City; go west to Industrial Way (approx. ¼ mile), then north on Industrial to Brittan (approx. 1 mile). You can’t make a U-turn at that intersection so go left and duck into the industrial park with the blue roofs on your left. Circle the building until you find Unit 10.


_______________________________________________
We are on Twitter:SFPublicGolf   Facebook  and our website.

Submitted by Richard Harris

The latest list of Pacifica City Council candidates

 

OK, at the end of the extended Wednesday filing period, here's who we've got...

Three seats up for grabs in November.
Sue Digre (Incumbent)
Jim Vreeland (Incumbent)
Thomas Clifford (General contractor)
Karl Davidson (Information security specialist)
Heather Tanner (Attorney)
Barbara Arietta (Public relations consultant)
Susan Vellone (Local business owner)

Len Stone (Local business owner) 
William "Leo" Leon (Planning Commission)

BJ Nathanson decided not to run. Len Stone and Leo Leon did.

Posted by Steve Sinai

Crowded field set in race for Pacifica council seats

By Julia Scott
San Mateo County Times

Posted: 08/09/2010 11:18:23 PM PDT

Updated: 08/09/2010 11:18:24 PM PDT

Pacifica voters will see a lot of unfamiliar names on the ballot in November.

At least eight people are running for three seats on the City Council. With only two incumbents in contention, the race is wide open -- and it could get even more crowded by the filing deadline Wednesday afternoon.


Councilman Jim Vreeland and Councilwoman Sue Digre will try to hold on to their seats, and they are facing a diverse field of challengers of all ages and levels of experience, including current planning commissioners, local business owners and folks who recently settled in Pacifica to raise families.


Councilwoman Julie Lancelle surprised even city insiders by choosing not to run again. She has served three terms and more than 10 years on the council. She did not return calls for comment.


"I think part of the problem in Pacifica right now is the incumbents have been in office for a very, very long time and people are frustrated," said Barbara Johne Nathanson, a planning commissioner who jumped into the council race this year to reduce "infighting and nastiness" at public meetings and create a more civil tone in the governance of Pacifica.


Indeed, it was voter frustration that spurred two residents to launch a petition to impose term limits on the council. The term-limits measure qualified for the ballot this November, as did a council initiative to raise Pacifica's hotel tax from 10 percent to 12 percent.


Residents say this is the most highly contested council race in recent memory, although Pacificans aren't shy about jumping in to challenge the status quo when they have the chance. 

In 2008, two incumbents and three challengers competed for two seats. In 2006, seven people vied for three spots. In all that time, only one incumbent was unseated.

Many of the candidates singled out Pacifica's budget crisis as a reason to jump into the race this year. The city recently used most of its remaining reserves to cover a $3 million budget deficit, and leaders recently embarked on a five-year austerity plan to generate $8.5 million through salary freezes and pension-contribution freezes.

"We're at a serious economic crossroads and we need leaders who are going to give 100 percent of their energy and experience and regional connections," said candidate Barbara Arietta, a public relations consultant who leads Pacifica's Green Building Task Force and sits on several other citizen subcommittees.

Candidate Thomas Clifford, a general contractor and a member of the Pacifica Planning Commission, wants to see city officials aggressively pursue opportunities to build up commercial tax revenue.

"As a businessman, I can say that not enough has been done in the last 20 years. There hasn't been enough of a focus on it," Clifford said.

Not everyone is focused on change. Karl Davidson, one of the youngest candidates at 34, grew up in Pacifica and recently moved back to town with his young family. He wants to make sure Pacifica continues to protect its open spaces and views from sprawl and unsightly development.

"I want to keep it the same," said Davidson. "When I moved back, I was awestruck by how similar the city was to when I was growing up."

Contact Julia Scott at 650-348-4340.

Original story here

PACIFICA CITY COUNCIL CONTENDERS

Three seats up for grabs in November.
Sue Digre (Incumbent)
Jim Vreeland (Incumbent)
Thomas Clifford (General contractor)
Barbara Johne Nathanson (Operations manager)
Karl Davidson (Information security specialist)
Heather Tanner (Attorney)
Barbara Arietta (Public relations consultant)
Susan Vellone (Local business owner)

Posted by Steve Sinai

S.F. man hurt in stabbing outside Pacifica bar

By

@mercurynews.com

Posted: 08/09/2010 07:06:46 AM PDT

Updated: 08/09/2010 07:07:41 AM PDT

Pacifica police are investigating a Friday night stabbing that left one San Francisco resident injured.

The San Francisco Police Department informed Pacifica officers at 2 a.m. Saturday that a 30-year-old victim was being treated at a hospital for stab wounds. The victim said the wounds were the result of an altercation outside the Octopus Lounge in Pacifica on Friday evening.

No other information was available; police are still investigating the circumstances of the stabbing, and ask anyone with information to call 650-738-7314.

Contact Shelly Meron at 925-945-4782.

Submitted by Jim Alex

Check out Your Money - The Coming Class War Over Public Pensions - NYTimes.co

Click here: Your Money - The Coming Class War Over Public Pensions - NYTimes.com

There’s a class war coming to the world of government pensions.

Enlarge This Image

Kevin Moloney for The New York Times

Gary Justus, a retired teacher, sued when annual pension increases were lowered.

Your Money

Who should pay for the trillion-dollar pension gap?

Multimedia

Video

Pension Pain

The haves are retirees who were once state or municipal workers. Their seemingly guaranteed and ever-escalating monthly pension benefits are breaking budgets nationwide.
The have-nots are taxpayers who don’t have generous pensions. Their 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts have taken a real beating in recent years and are not guaranteed. And soon, many of those people will be paying higher taxes or getting fewer state services as their states put more money aside to cover those pension checks.
At stake is at least $1 trillion. That’s trillion, with a “t,” as in titanic and terrifying.
The figure comes from a study by the Pew Center on the States that came out in February. Pew estimated a $1 trillion gap as of fiscal 2008 between what states had promised workers in the way of retiree pension, health care and other benefits and the money they currently had to pay for it all. And some economists say that Pew is too conservative and the problem is two or three times as large.
So a question of extraordinary financial, political, legal and moral complexity emerges, something that every one of us will be taking into town meetings and voting booths for years to come: Given how wrong past pension projections were, who should pay to fill the 13-figure financing gap?
Consider what’s going on in Colorado — and what is likely to unfold in other states and municipalities around the country.
Earlier this year, in an act of rare political courage, a bipartisan coalition of state legislators passed a pension overhaul bill. Among other things, the bill reduced the raise that people who are already retired get in their pension checks each year.
This sort of thing just isn’t done. States have asked current workers to contribute more, tweaked the formula for future hires or banned them from the pension plan altogether. But this was apparently the first time that state legislators had forced current retirees to share the pain.
Sharing the burden seems to be the obvious solution so we don’t continue to kick the problem into the future. “We have to take this on, if there is any way of bringing fiscal sanity to our children,” said former Gov. Richard Lamm of Colorado, a Democrat. “The New Deal is demographically obsolete. You can’t fund the dream of the 1960s on the economy of 2010.”
But in Colorado, some retirees and those eligible to retire still want to live that dream. So they sued the state to keep all of the annual cost-of-living increases they thought they would be getting in perpetuity.
The state’s case turns, in part, on whether it is an “actuarial necessity” for the Legislature to make a change. To Meredith Williams, executive director of the Public Employees’ Retirement Association, the state’s pension fund, the answer is pretty simple. “If something didn’t change, we would have run out of money in the foreseeable future,” he said. “So no one would have been paid anything.”
Meanwhile, Gary R. Justus, a former teacher who is one of the lead plaintiffs in the case against the state, asks taxpayers in Colorado and elsewhere to consider an ethical question: Why is the state so quick to break its promises?
After all, he and others like him served their neighbors dutifully for decades. And along the way, state employees made big decisions (and built lifelong financial plans) based on retiring with a full pension that was promised to them in a contract that they say has the force of the state and federal constitutions standing behind it. To them it is deferred compensation, and taking it away is akin to not paying a contractor for paving state highways.
And actuarial necessity or not, Mr. Justus said he didn’t believe he should be responsible for past pension underfunding and the foolish risks that pension managers made with his money long after he retired in 2003.
The changes the Legislature made don’t seem like much: there’s currently a 2 percent cap in retirees’ cost-of-living adjustment for their pension checks instead of the 3.5 percent raise that many of them received before.
But Stephen Pincus, a lawyer for the retirees who have filed suit, estimates that the change will cost pensioners with 30 years of service an average of $165,000 each over the next 20 years.
Mr. Justus, 62, who taught math for 29 years in the Denver public schools, says he thinks it could cost him half a million dollars if he lives another 30 years. He also notes that just about all state workers in Colorado do not (and cannot) pay into Social Security, so the pension is all retirees have to live on unless they have other savings.
No one disputes these figures. Instead, they apologize. “All I can say is that I am sorry,” said Brandon Shaffer, a Democrat, the president of the Colorado State Senate, who helped lead the bipartisan coalition that pushed through the changes. (He also had to break the news to his mom, a retired teacher.) “I am tremendously sympathetic. But as a steward of the public trust, this is what we had to do to preserve the retirement fund.”
Taxpayers, whose payments are also helping to restock Colorado’s pension fund, may not be as sympathetic, though. The average retiree in the fund stopped working at the sprightly age of 58 and deposits a check for $2,883 each month. Many of them also got a 3.5 percent annual raise, no matter what inflation was, until the rules changed this year.
Private sector retirees who want their own monthly $2,883 check for life, complete with inflation adjustments, would need an immediate fixed annuity if they don’t have a pension. A 58-year-old male shopping for one from an A-rated insurance company would have to hand over a minimum of $860,000, according to Craig Hemke of Buyapension.com. A woman would need at least $928,000, because of her longer life expectancy.
Who among aspiring retirees has a nest egg that size, let alone people with the same moderate earning history as many state employees? And who wants to pay to top off someone else’s pile of money via increased income taxes or a radical decline in state services?
If you find the argument of Colorado’s retirees wanting, let your local legislator know that you don’t want to be responsible for every last dollar necessary to cover pension guarantees gone horribly awry. After all, many government employee unions will be taking contrary positions and doing so rather loudly.
If you work for a state or local government, start saving money outside of the pension plan if you haven’t already, because that plan may not last for as long as you need it.
And if you’re a government retiree or getting close to the end of your career? Consider what it means to be a citizen in a community. And what it means to be civil instead of litigious, coming to the table and making a compromise before politicians shove it down your throat and you feel compelled to challenge them to a courthouse brawl.
“We have to do what unions call givebacks,” said Mr. Lamm, the former Colorado governor. “That’s the only way to sanity. Any other alternative, therein lies dragons.” 

Submitted by Jim Alex

From our Buddy "Tex" Simons

Monday, August 9, 2010

Vreeland Follies Part III: Skyfield USA and the Old Waste Water Treatment Plant

As the incumbent City Council members gear up for their campaign, surely they will want to avoid mentioning any embarrassing foibles during their tenure as public servants. Fortunately, my records are pretty thorough on a few subjects. As the City of Pacifica sits on the brink of bankruptcy, and the voting public is asked once again to foot the bill with higher taxes, it is time to examine opportunities the incumbents missed in expanding the city's tax base.

Where to begin on the Old Waster Water Treatment Plant on Beach Boulevard? Primarily used for City Council chambers, and storing waste cooking oil so it can be conveniently be stolen once the biodiesel refinery went belly up (they never DID quite solve that crime, did they??), this site has been the source of contention since the city approved the construction of the Calera Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant over a decade ago. There is little doubt that City Council, which included Jim Vreeland, Pete Dejarnatt, Cal Hinton, Maxine Gonsalves, and Barbara Carr had the majority vote and intention of selling that property to a developer to provide Pacifica with a strong commercial business to anchor the Palmetto district.

Unfortunately for Pacifica, Pacificans for Sustainable Development and the "no growth" crowd were able to oust Maxine Gonsalves and Barbara Carr in 2002 and replace them with Julie Lancelle and Sue Digre, thereby insuring there was a council majority that would never allow a commercial development to see the light of day on that site. The leader of the club, of course, was Councilman Jim Vreeland who made his vision of a new City Hall on that site part of his 2006 re-election campaign.

But we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here . . . the earliest public records I could pull for this site were letters from Marchetti and Sochin detailing development proposals dated 9/10/03, and then 10/10/04. Sometime between then and the 2006 election, developer Barry Swenson had made a deposit to the city for a development proposal, and was eventually cut loose by then mayor Pete Dejarnatt for being 24 hours late on a deposit to continue with the development process.

As reported here, on April 17, 2006 the City of Pacifica (with Sue Digre as mayor) sent a letter to the West Sharp Park Advisory Committee instructing them to ignore the OWWTP site in their plans . . . "specifically the Council wants you to exclude the future site of the City Hall (Council chamber building) and the thickening building, which is the future site of Council Chambers." And yet City Council agendas for 4/10/06 and 3/27/06 (2 previous meetings to the date on the letter from City Manager Joe Tanner) have no items indicating a vote or discussion on establishing the OWWTP as the cite of a new city hall. However the March 13, 2006 City Council agenda showed they were still negotiating with yet another developer (closed session item #2, conference with real property negotiator for 2212 Beach Boulevard, with Kiwi Properties, LLC.)

On May 8, 2006, the City Council moved forward to put a new City Hall on that location (agenda item #11 (Consideration) "Authorize the Budget Authority for the Remodel of the Sharp Park Sewer Plant Buildings Located at 2212 Beach Boulevard into the New City Hall Complex for $2,000,000" (this money was borrowed during the refinancing of the COP Bonds that year). The agenda clearly states:

"it is necessary for the health and safety of of the City Staff to move forward with a relocation plan without delay"

which of course turned out to be complete BS since the staff is still in the mold infested City Hall.

Pete Dejarnett, Sue Digre, and Cal Hinton all publicly stated if the costs exceeded $2 million, they would not approve the project. An architect’s estimate produced for the City put the costs at just under $2 million, but the validity of this estimate came into question by development professionals. A local construction project manager

But I digress . . .

The City of Pacifica then received a letter from Tobin and Tobin on behalf of Marchetti and Sochin dated 7/11/06 seeking to continue negotiations. Furthermore, on the 7/24/06 City Council agenda, City Manager Joe Tanner is back to negotiating with Marchetti and Sochin for the property. Kiwi Properties later submitted a letter requesting an exclusive right to negotiate on November 20, 2006. Skyfield USA submitted a similar letter in December 2006 and entered into an exclusive right to negotiate with the city in January 2007. In early 2007, members of the group Pacifica Business for Responsible Government agreed to meet with representatives from Skyfield USA at their business office, and Councilman Jim Vreeland attended without their prior knowledge. He insisted the development of the Old Waste Water Treatment Plant as anything BUT a new city hall was off the table.

And of course, the owner of the Rockaway Quarry property, Peebles Corp, never received a response to their interest in developing the downtown Palmetto property during the November 2006 Measure L campaign.

Which kind of makes you wonder how anyone on City Council can state that the property wasn't developed because no one was interested. All told, this vision of "City Hall by the Sea" was spearheaded by Councilman Jim Vreeland at the cost of over $300,000 to the taxpayers. Of course, supporters like Nancy Hall called the vision a “creative and intelligent move, both fiscally and environmentally”, despit there being no development proposal at the time. She then accused groups like PBRG (who were opposed to the project) of trying to "obstruct our democratically elected City Council" for questioning the cost and the Draft Environmental Impact Report conducted for this site by the City of Pacifica.

Based on the DEIR, the alternative of renovating the current City Hall is dismissed because it “does not meet the project objectives with respect to cost” (Section 12.4). Yet no costs for the renovation of the current City Hall are even detailed, nor are there qualified estimated costs for “remodeling” the OWWTP. Renovating the current City Hall is deemed the environmentally superior alternative per CEQA (Section 12.6), but nowhere in the DEIR is there a comparison between the environmental impacts of renovating the current City Hall and renovating the OWWTP to determine which option is the most environmentally conscious choice for our community.

During the 3/5/2007 Planning Commission meeting to discuss the DEIR, only one person spoke in support of the DEIR, and she admitted that she had not even read it. No feasibility study had been conducted to determine the “highest best use” of that property, and there are also concerns in regards to the crumbling under-structure of Beach Boulevard that have not been adequately addressed by DEIR. When it was discovered that city HAD conducted a professional appraisal of the property, public records were stonewalled by City Attorney Cecilia Quick for almost 2 years before the report was released under threat of litigation, only to reveal that the highest and best use was evaluated to be a "mixed use development" at the site and NOT a civic building. OOPS.

As for Skyfield USA, they are currently being sued for failure to pay rent on their offices in Rockaway, as well as being on the losing end of a $360,00 judgment from an investor.

Winston Churchill once quipped that "truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is." The truth is that for 10 years this City Council, led by Jim Vreeland, has obstructed the proper development of the Old Waste Water Treatment Plant into a viable, revenue generating commercial development at significant cost to developers (both local and national) and the taxpayers (who are still paying for this debacle).

When you make your selections for City Council this election, if you push that button for Jim Vreeland, you might as well hand what's left in your wallet over to the poll workers and ask they give it directly to the city. That's where your money is going anyway . . . privately solicited several reputable companies to perform their own estimates, the lowest being $5.7 million. This information was presented to all sitting council members. (In late December 2008, Pacifica City Council voted to rejects beachfront city hall option with estimated costs at over $20 million.)

Submitted by both Jim Alex and Lois Rogan

Watchdogs

Memory lane:  A reminder from the past - reasons to vote-out incumbents
 
Just love this cute dog!  Would this cute dog had more financial intelligence than the existing 8 year city council?  

Many 2002 Pacifica Watchdog recall issues continue 8 years later.  More debt, more outstanding maintenance, more cost passed to property owners (including sewer laterals).  A few more examples:  high franchise fees (scavenger) more taxes proposed (3), an embedded utilities tax (because they can); more city rotting (no planned north Pacifica seawall, continued city staff reductions, $50 million in sewer collection pipes outstanding, road deterioration.  No city paid and maintained dog park or museum. Highway 1 still not fixed, Quarry still not developed, abandoned old waste water treatment plant at Palmetto also still not developed. City structural failure. No plan and no motivation for the improvement and future of this city. 

Pacifica Watchdogs 2002.   Mission:  To replace the current City Councilmembers James Vreeland, Pete De Jarnatt, Julie Lancelle and Sue Digre with responsible public servants from the community. Our goal is to raise the City of Pacifica from its current state of financial insolvency to one of financial strength. It is then and only then that both current and future generations of Pacificans can enjoy the quality of life they desire in this community.

How different is the need to bring-in economic sustainability to this city now?  Vote-in known pro-economy candidates this Fall.   

Posted by Kathy Meeh

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are YOUR Pacifica City Council candidates

According to a slew of emails I've received, the following people have filed papers to run for Pacifica City Council. The deadline to submit was Friday, August 6.

Barbara Arietta
Tom Clifford
Karl Davidson
Sue Digre
BJ Nathanson
Heather Tanner
Susan Vellone
Jim Vreeland

Posted by Steve Sinai

Answers Surface in Missing San Mateo County Voter Guide Case

Secretary of State Concludes Investigation, Determines Vendor Admail West Made Mistakes

Sacramento, CA – Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, received a letter from Secretary of State Debra Bowen today outlining the conclusion of her investigation into the cause of San Mateo County’s missing voter guides from the June 8 primary election. 

Bowen said managers of Admail West, the firm contracted to mail the guides, admitted “their company is responsible for duplicate or triplicate mailings of state voter guides to voter households in some counties, while at the same time failing to mail a single state voter guide to other households.” 

During the week preceding the primary election, Hill’s district office received calls from constituents who had not received their voter information guide.  Hill’s office immediately contacted the Secretary of State’s Office, which began looking into the problem. 

“I’m grateful to the Secretary of State for identifying the vendor who prevented San Mateo County voters from receiving their voter information guides,” Hill said. “There are many unanswered questions that still need to be resolved to ensure that this problem does not happen again. I will be working with the Secretary of State to identify corrective actions that may include legislation or a state audit.”

In response to the missing information guides in San Mateo County, Hill introduced Assembly Bill 814 on June 16.  The bill would require that for a statewide election officials include a notification with the sample ballot informing voters they can obtain a voter information guide on the Secretary of State’s Internet Web site.

The notice shall also include the telephone number designated by the county elections official, where a voter may request that a ballot pamphlet be mailed to him or her.  The bill, which is awaiting approval by the State Senate and will likely be sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger later this month, also would require that the ballot pamphlet be available at the polling place.

This year, Hill also authored AB 1717, which was signed into law by the governor last month. The measure authorizes county and city elections officials to establish procedures allowing a voter to opt out of receiving their sample ballot, voter pamphlet and notice of  polling place by mail and instead receive them electronically by e-mail or on the county's or city's Web site.

Posted by Steve Sinai

08/09_2010 City Council Meeting Agenda

08/09_2010 City Council Meeting Agenda

Submitted by Jim Alex

Car crash kills local performer

August 03, 2010, 01:17 AM By Steven Dubois The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. — A van carrying two metal bands crashed Monday on Interstate 5, killing a vocalist and injuring two guitarists, police said. The San Francisco-area bands Early Graves and The Funeral Pyre played a show in Oregon on Sunday and were heading to Nevada when the driver lost control after falling asleep, state police Lt. Gregg Hastings said. The van rolled over and came to a stop in a grassy area off the freeway. Makh Daniels, 28, of Pacifica, died at the scene north of Medford, Hastings said. He was the vocalist for Early Graves, which recently released its second album, “Goner.” Daniels was ejected from a rear cargo area, where he and two others had been lying down. He was not wearing a seat belt, Hastings said. The driver was identified as Justin Garcia, 24, a guitarist for The Funeral Pyre. He and a passenger, Early Graves guitarist Tyler Jensen, were taken to a hospital for treatment of injuries not considered life-threatening. Six other men escaped injury in the van, which was pulling a utility trailer. Early Graves said on its MySpace page it had been on the road since June 25 in support of its new album, playing gigs from Southern California to New England and then back to the West. The group was scheduled to perform in Reno on Monday. In press materials announcing the album release, Daniels said he had been through some dark times and writing the lyrics, with themes of loneliness and depression, had been “an exorcism of sorts.” “Doing this record has been absolutely necessary for all of us in the band,” Daniels said. “And personally, it’s the proudest I’ve ever been of anything I’ve ever done.” ——— On the Net: http://www.myspace.com/earlygravessf Submitted by Jim Alex

Debate challange Re: new Pacifica hotel tax

Open Letter to Three Pacifica Council Incumbents Running for Re-election

No hiding this election year.

Pacifica Mayor Sue Digre and Council members Jim Vreeland and Julie Lancelle are challenged to debate Pacifica's 20% hotel tax increase they placed on this Nov ballot. This new tax is the first leg in Council's attempt to secure $6 million in new taxes in the next 20 months.

Digre, Vreeland and Lancelle are the three incumbents who are running for re-election after between 8 and 12 years on Council. They also will sign the pro hotel tax ballot statement.

These incumbents apparently don't get it: Calif. has a 12.3% unemployment rate; all other Bay area cities are making budget cuts and staff contract adjustments; we are close to a double-dip rceession. Pacifica picks tax increases with no plans available that demonstrate verifiable economic improvements to boost tax revenue.

Local Pacifica residents Jim Wagner and Mark Stechbart make the debate challenge, particularly after no Councilmember chose to debate Wagner nor Stechbart last year over the ill-fated sales tax increase that was defeated 2-1.

Wagner and Stechbart propose this debate to be patterned after the well attended sales tax debate last year.

1. the debate can be sponsored by the Tribune, Chamber or Pacifica Democrats club.
2. venue: council chamber, on a Saturday and covered by Channel 26.
3. opening statement, a short rebuttal.
4. audience questions: written down, signed by an identifiable person. All debaters answer all questions.
5. closing statements.

All three pro tax incumbents have to attend or no debate. No surrogates. Failure to debate means hotel tax questions asked at every public candidate forum.

Copies of this release to all city council via City Clerk O'connell, Pac Tribune, chamber, Pacifica Democrats, Pacifica Riptide blog, Fix pacifica blog and julie Scott Times.

rock on.

mark stechbart
 

Legalized sports betting

Click here: California may benefit from legalizing sports betting, state senator says - latimes.com
 

nia may benefit from legalizing sports betting, state senator says
 

Roderick Wright supports a New Jersey lawsuit challenging federal law that limits the activity. Experts say legal sports betting could generate $1 billion in annual revenue for the state

Reporting from Sacramento —

Los Angeles gamblers may have bet big on their Lakers winning the NBA championship, but they could not do it legally in California, and the cash-strapped state did not get a piece of the action.

What if Californians could place such bets in the future without having to drive to Vegas or break the law by calling the local bookie? A state legislator who wants to legalize Internet poker says California should consider sanctioning sports betting too to help fill government coffers.

State Sen. Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood), who chairs the committee that oversees gambling, supports a lawsuit filed by New Jersey officials challenging federal law that limits sports betting to Nevada and a few other states. Wright said he might ask the Legislature to join the suit.

"If you took the sports book in Nevada and other places, it's a pretty healthy piece of money, and we currently don't get squat,'' Wright said. "I don't know how much longer we can afford to basically be providing the revenue to all these other states from California people.''

Under California law, it is a misdemeanor to bet on a sporting event. And the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act prohibits the state from sanctioning sports betting, according to Whittier Law School professor I. Nelson Rose, an expert on gambling law.

The lawsuit by New Jersey argues that the 1992 federal law violates the U.S. Constitution by allowing betting in some states but not others. Rose said the law has "major constitutional problems.''

On Wednesday, federal legislation that would legalize some Internet gambling in the U.S. was approved by the House Financial Services Committee. The measure, which gambling interests hope can pave the way for legal sports betting, would allow online poker bets with firms licensed by the U.S. Treasury Department.

It is widely estimated that more than $100 billion is wagered in the U.S., legally and illegally, on sporting events each year, according to Marc Lefkowitz, an expert at the UCLA Gambling Studies Program.

About $2.6 billion is bet on sports legally in Nevada, and the state takes a share with a tax on the profits of casinos where the betting occurs, according to Frank Streshley, a senior research analyst for the Nevada Gaming Commission. Last year, the tax brought in more than $9 million, he said.

California could reap much more, according to Rose. He said California could generate more than $5 billion in legal sports betting and about $1 billion in annual revenue for the state, depending on how much the state would take from the operators it would license.

European bookmaking firms have been lobbying California officials in favor of a Wright bill to legalize Internet poker, in hopes of eventually seeing sports betting made legal as well. The bill is on hold in Wright's committee while he tries to negotiate changes acceptable to Indian tribes that operate casinos.

Allowing sports betting could mean 10,000 or more jobs for California, said Breon Corcoran, managing director of the Irish bookmaking company Paddy Power, which would like to operate sports gambling in California.

"It's a curiosity to us that Nevada is really the only state where you can do [unlimited] sports betting in the U.S.,'' Corcoran said.

Lefkowitz said any effort to legalize sports betting in California would be fought by professional sports leagues that don't want the taint of gambling in states where they have franchises. Nevada and Delaware have no NFL or NBA teams, and different levels of sports betting are allowed there.

The National Football League does not want the federal or state law changed, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, because the organization considers gambling a corrupting influence.

"We recognize that many states have many pressing economic issues, but more state-operated single-game wagering presents a threat to the long-term health and integrity of our sport,'' McCarthy said.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Submitted by Jim Alex

 

Pacifica as a tourist destination

The following was originally meant to be a comment over on Riptide regarding the Transit Occupancy Tax, but it figured I ought to post it here, too.

****************************************************

I believe I've mentioned this before, but I frequent the TripAdvisor website and answer questions for people who plan to visit SF.

People rarely ask about Pacifica. When they do, the other local regulars on the website often discourage people from staying here because of it's cold and foggy reputation, they can't think of anything to do here, and without a car, it's not that easy to get into SF.

While staying at a hotel on the beach is nice, it's not enough. Tourists want to be able to shop and eat at a variety of places within walking distance of their hotel, and Pacifica doesn't offer that.

They've also been told not to use a car in SF, so if they want to stay in Pacifica, they need to be able to take convenient public transportation into SF. Pacifica doesn't have that, either.

If visitors say they plan to stay at a Pacifica hotel because it's cheaper than a San Francisco hotel, they will be told that the necessity and cost of renting a car, and money spent on parking in SF or taking BART into town, will eat up the savings they'd get on the lower room rate. So they might as well stay in SF.

If someone asks about surfing lessons, and I list the surfing school in Pacifica, inevitably others will recommend that visitors go to Santa Cruz, or if the tourists are going to Southern California, to wait until they get down there. Over the last 2.5 years, I think about 5 people have asked about surfing lessons near SF, and as far as I know, all of them decided to take their lessons somewhere other than Pacifica.

If someone from Kansas says they want to visit the beach to walk some trails or visit charming beach towns, they're advised to go to Marin or Half Moon Bay, not Pacifica.

I try to pimp Pacifica all I can, but it's very frustrating both to see what a low regard others in the Bay Area have for Pacifica as a destination for tourists, and the false impression some Pacificans have that Pacifica is an appealing place for tourists. It's not.

I do give Mary Ann and Steve Rhodes lots of credit for trying to do something about Pacifica's miserable economy, but I expect that the other four on council will ultimately undercut their efforts. So as I said over on Fix Pacifica, I won't vote for the TOT, or the other two proposed taxes, until Vreeland, Lancelle, Digre, and DeJarnatt are off Council, or I see tangible evidence that the city is becoming more business friendly. That means more than committees and promises, because I hear the same thing before every council election, and then nothing ever gets accomplished. I want to see Pacifica start doing things FOR its businesses, rather than only doing things TO its businesses.

Voting for these kinds of taxes simply allows council (Mary Ann excepted) a reason to continue to do nothing.

Posted by Steve Sinai

Outlet Mall in the Quarry

This is a recently-posted instance of a question I see asked several times a month on TripAdvisor's San Francisco forum.

**************************

We are visiting San Fran twice at the end of August - for the second visit we plan a day's shopping, hoping to pick up some designer clothes at much reduced prices to the UK !
Is there a Designer Outlet Village in or just outside San Fran

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g60713-i30-k3821081-Designer_Outlet_Malls_is_there_one_near_San_Fran-San_Francisco_California.html

Posted by Steve Sinai