The Future of West Sharp Park: No We Can't

I’ve just recovered from the shock of witnessing the Council’s recent (Nov. 12) “Study Session” wherein architectural consultants delivered their facilities Plan for a Civic Center. This barely advertised, sparsely attended meeting was a stunning illustration of Pacific’s inferiority complex. Perhaps city officials were embarrassed in advance about the implications of paying a fat consulting fee (“$30 or $40,000,” according to our City Manager, who said he wasn’t sure) for redundant information. Which might explain why virtually no advance notice was given. The lone advertisement for it appeared in that morning’s Trib, a weekly paper; likely many readers failed to see the 2-inch ad until two or three days later, if they noticed it at all.

This seems an odd oversight, considering that future use of the former sewage treatment plant on Palmetto Ave. has been a hot-button item since the previous century. Shouldn’t we want all Pacificans informed on this issue, the better to participate in its outcome? Nor were members of the West Sharp Park Advisory Committee (WSPAC), who have worked the past two and a half years developing a proposal to upgrade this neighborhood, notified. Do I take this personally? Well, yes, as a charter member of WSPAC who’s volunteered endless hours to this project, I do.

It doesn’t require a hell of a lot of time or energy to fire off an email from City Hall. One councilperson apologized to the WSPAC members in attendance for having “forgotten.” Good thing a few of us (A) spotted the little Tribune advertisement, and (B) had made no other plans for the evening. This snub (whether unintentional or not) looms all the more peculiar, considering that the council itself appointed WSPAC to define a vision for a city center—and unanimously and enthusiastically applauded our proposal.

Lots of other cities have proven capable of creating bold homegrown—and successful—plans to revitalize and generate income. A spectacular local example is Redwood City, where creation of a gorgeous town square, site of an ongoing program of musical and community events, has transformed a business zone in deep deep doldrums into a vital, humming city center generating impressive and unprecedented tax revenues for Redwood City. This is much like the proposal WSPAC presented a year ago. But why take WSPAC seriously? We’re just a “little citizens group.” Or so councilperson Cal Hinton told me at a WSPAC presentation earlier this year.

A little history: After the warm reception for our proposal, WSPAC was told to drop any further discussion of the treatment plant site—the jewel at the heart of our vision, the magnet capable of attracting throngs of people (and their money). Let’s deal with that later, city officials said. Let’s call that Phase 2. We’ll offer that site to developers and let us work it out.  “You don’t think we can leave that to some little citizens group, do you?” Hinton had said to me. “That would be ridiculous. That’s a decision for developers, the people who’ve got the money.”

Never mind that WSPAC had tirelessly researched similar successful civic projects nationally, even internationally. Never mind that the best of them were overwhelmingly citizen-driven. The citizen-driven approach is not the Pacifica way, apparently. If our experience with WSPAC has taught us anything, it’s that Pacifica is not Yes We Can territory. A spirit of No We Can’t prevails. We are unworthy, or too stupid, or something like that. Just hicks. Pay no attention to the extensive business, activist, professional, community, academic, property owner, and entrepreneurial experience WSPAC represents. Whatever. Consensus of city officials November 12, after hearing the $30-$40,000 consultants, added up to: Yes, good; we’ll turn the Palmetto site over to the developers; they know what’s best.

And we have to say that’s the attitude they’ve consistently conveyed to WSPAC. It amounts to a vote of no-confidence to us, to themselves, and to everybody else except “the money.” Having gotten the message to lay off the treatment site, WSPAC soldiered on, creating plans that, if ever put into effect, will dramatically upgrade and prettify Palmetto Avenue. Good stuff—so far as it goes: murals, arches, commodious benches, and other cool street features, streetlights and sculpture evoking West Sharp Park’s historic status as the coastside’s earliest civic and commercial center. It’s good, we’re proud of it, and it’s not enough. Not even close.  Prettying up Palmetto alone will never attract visitors in droves, and therefore cannot be expected to generate anything approaching the tax revenues to justify doing it.

Let’s return to Hinton’s contention that this matter is simply too important to leave to “little citizens.” This raises the question: If not us—Pacificans, I mean—then who? As prime a plot of coastal real estate as any in Northern California, the treatment site has lain dormant for a decade and more, while one developer after another sketched up plans for it—and then one after another dropped the ball. The “money guys” couldn’t envision a payoff worth pursuing. According to fellow WSPAC member Shirley Gibb, a leading light in the Pacifica Historical Society and the restoration of the Little Brown Church, there have been at least eight of these false starts, or no-starts, during the past 15 or 20 years. At that pace, we can expect to see another eight or so lame proposals from developers between now and, oh, 2023, and still have zip to show for it.

Or we could do what cities like Redwood City, Portland, Chattanooga, and scores more have accomplished. Come up with our own vision, flesh it out, and convince the “money people”—investment types, government agencies, etc.—who will want to share our success. That $40,000 (or was it $30,000?) could have far better gone toward projecting a future we’re capable of building for ourselves.

No we can’t? If other cities can pull this off, so can we. Yes we can. 

Deborah Nagle-Burks, Chair, West Sharp Park Advisory Committee           
John P. Burks, WSPAC

Comments

[Conor Casey]

If the state of debate is this active, I'm alarmed that the City Council just sent out an advanced meeting agenda for December 10 announcing they will consider dissolving the West Sharp Park Advisory Committee. It seems a little early if this level of conversation is still going on. Just wanted to let all of you know ahead of time so you can go to the meeting.

[Lionel Emde]

"To address the Ocean Discovery Center first, it was a nice idea (I even contributed $50 to the effort early on,) but ultimately it would have required financial support from the city. A little seed money at the start would have been fine, but it never looked like it would be self-supporting."

The city council of that time did not OK the one-year option that the ODC people requested, which would have given them the credibility of city backing to write grant proposals to help fund the project. So we'll never know if it would have become a going concern.

I have no sympathy for developers who:
A. Don't really have the capital to fund their project.
B. Don't have the competence to shepherd a project through the city's process.
C. Don't really want to do a project because they'd rather use the legal system to bring the city to its knees. (Fish & Bowl)
D. Don't really intend to do a project because an entitlement for their property will allow them to flip it for a tremendous profit. (Quarry)

Is development easy? Of course not, and our city makes plenty of mistakes, but all developers in all cities bit#h and moan about the terrible treatment they receive at the hands of the mean ol' government. Sorry dude, no soap.

[Scotty]

I don't see any evidence of a logical fallacy, and I also don't think it's any kind of newsflash to say that, where there are more people, there's going to be more crime.

Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring population growth is disingenuous. It would be better if we could all concentrate on how to solve the problem rather than offering a Bush-like "stay the course" attitude. Screaming "NIMBY!" and "Go to Daly City!" is not a solution.

[Steve Sinai]

Looks like NaturalState prefers urban sprawl to increased density.

[NaturalState]

Said Scotty >

Me:
Uh, no dude. You are trying to imply I am saying things and advocating things I did not say- by way of logical fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

I am stating that density blows and my point is generally people enjoy nature quiet and privacy- Hillsborough is an example where no one seems to want 'density' or La Honda or Woodside.

YOU are the one advocating that it is we who should make up for the people having too many kids,the onus being on us to solve the world's problems and try and guilt trip us into your agenda for your glorified and overrated new urbanism nonsense.

Density= more crime, more noise, more stress.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1262/Violent-Crime-Pressures-Density.html
The observable pattern in the graph is one of overwhelmingly higher rates of victimization in urban areas versus suburban and rural areas
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/crimefactors.html

Results indicate that crowding contributes to social problems and crime. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ107902&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ107902

We don't HAVE to let the whole world in. Just because we can doesn't mean we have to. Sure some things are infinite, but most things are very finite, and squeezing people into lego condos to make a buck under the pretext of environmental crunchy goodness is just disingenuous.

[Steve Sinai]

"Ah come on Steve, this is the most pro-development council I've seen in years: Can you name one project they've turned down?

And yes, it was Mr. Hinton and Madames Carr and Gonslaves who stopped the Ocean Discovery Center."

To address the Ocean Discover Center first, it was a nice idea (I even contributed $50 to the effort early on,) but ultimately it would have required financial support from the city. A little seed money at the start would have been fine, but it never looked like it would be self-supporting.

We don't have much land that's available for development, and we need to use that land for projects that increase city revenues...not drain them.

As for naming projects the council has said no to - the problem with the question is that the city has all kinds of ways to block projects before they even get to the city council. From what I've seen since I first moved here 25 years ago, any developer who wants to build here can expect lawsuits, e.g., the Fish and Bowl; inaction and no help from a city that has a reputation for ambivalence at best, and hostility in general toward developers and new businesses, e.g., the guy who was trying to redevelop the building with the Horizons Restaurant complained that it took him 3 years before he had a chance to present his plan to city council for approval; and groups like the Commitee for Open Space and Pacificans for Sustainable Development who reflexively oppose every plan as presented, and demand that developers scale down their projects to a point that they don't make economic sense anymore.

In a city council meeting from three or four months ago, even Julie Lancelle admitted that nobody's coming to Pacifica with any proposals. Given Pacifica's reputation toward development, that shouldn't have been surprising. But just the simple fact that she recognized that issue, and seemed worried about it, gave me a small bit of hope that more people in town are beginning to come to terms with economic reality.

[Scotty]

It's mind-boggling to me that people could be advocating Hillsborough-style urban sprawl in Pacifica. Thumbing your nose at the environment because you want to spread out is not the answer in this day and age. Of course, it's also mind-boggling that someone would prefer a theater that's been boarded up for years to a tax-paying business, given the financial state of our city. I guess that's just Pacifica, though.

[Karen Rosenstein]

Thank you Deborah and John for your comments at that sparsely attended meeting and the subsequent article.

Larry and I became involved in Pacifica land use issues several years ago. We believe that when building in a neighborhood, the neighborhood's concerns and suggestions should be paid attention to. Needless to say, this has been an uphill battle ever since. We live in the back of Rockaway. Developers are slowly but surely starting to open up a paper street on BOTH sides of the canyon plus another paper street that goes up the north slope of the canyon. The neighborhood has repeatedly asked for a series of meetings to discuss the impacts these streets would have on our homes to no avail.

I do wish you had mentioned your exchange with soon to be former Councilmember Hinton sooner. This attitude of Citizens having no say in how our town that we live in, pay taxes in, raise families in and more, unfortunately extends beyond him tho. How else can the Walgreen's be built? The negative traffic impacts to an already messy intersection were obvious to the citizens of Pacifica but alas not the developers or Pacifica's Planning Dept. This is just one of many projects in Pacifica that will benefit the developer's pocket while negatively impacting our town.

So when do we start the Revolution and demand that our voice be heard and be the final arbiter instead of the developers in Pacifica?

[Robert Boles]

It’s an inspiration to read such passionate, literate sparring about a civic project. I can see that my off the cuff vision for a town center that Riptide published last week was a few years, and a few schemes, behind the curve – it has evidently been dreamed many times before.

Like Deborah Nagle-Burks and John Burks, I was puzzled by the city spending $30 to $40,000 on what was essentially a programming study – how many employees do we have and what kind of workstations to they need – that might almost have been done by city staff themselves. The adjacency diagrams, ‘service model’ descriptions and organizational information gathered was not exactly revolutionary. Most newer city offices are similarly arranged. If the real purpose of the study was to prove that the existing city office site was suitable, so that the Palmetto site could be sold off, then the study makes more sense.

Cynthia Montanez was kind enough to point out a few problems at the Palmetto Avenue former sewage plant site – like sub soil conditions, sea wall problems, concerns about future sea level rising. She also told us about the failed attempts to develop the quarry site next to Rockaway Beach. Both sites have environmental problems, neither site is ideal in every aspect, but I think either site could work well for the intended purpose of creating a civic center that strengthens existing development and the town as a whole.

There may be other sites as well…any new ideas ? Would people support a forum that brought WSPAC’s ideas, old plans for the quarry site, and other visions out into public view ? Maybe an on-line forum? Yes we can, indeed.

[NaturalState]

The tone of some of these comments remind me much of 'Jimmy' and "Susan', famed AstroTurf sockpuppets of yore. I don't see the folk in Hillsborough all up in arms about 'density', they seem to enjoy their private drives and not living on top of their neighbors. Let's call a spade a spade: If you have experienced apartment living, you know that this 'density' can really, really suck. What else sucks is the expectation that we have to solve the whole world's problems. Like, I guess it wouldn't be PC to say, "hey, do you have to have 6 kids you can't feed and we have to pay for your medical and your rent and etc. etc?." But it's fine for us to spuriously guilt trip people in order to achieve that buttery-flavored 'urbanism' approval.

[todd bray]

"Uhhhhhhhhhhhh Leo, what about the ahhhhhhhhhhhh, you know, quarry? seems to fit your scenerio to a T"

Not really. If you have paid attention to the quarry you will remember just how much regulation impedes any project there. Even the owner land use attorney has said it could easily take 15 years to clear the hurdles and a multi million dollar reclamation must take place before any development permits could be approved.

Leo's ideas to focus our energies on a site that is a brown field in-fill lot makes the most sense in the near (10 year) term. A mixed use civic/retail/hotel/condo hotel/condo project along with the WSP street improvements the committee has developed is something a large majority of folks would go for. It complements the promenade and pier usage.

It would be a real money maker and would get a large amount of community support.

[Frank Siciliano]

Leave it to the "big money guys" and you'll get more luxury condos "in the low millions" for the rich. The citizens group idea has to be a better approach.

[Summer Rhodes]

This meeting is not on the public City Calendar.

It's shocking that it is not there.

http://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/calendar.asp

Everyone should write the City Manager and the City Council and ask why not. And ask / request that all meetings be posted publicly, on the City of Pacifica calendar.

[Lionel Emde]

Ah come on Steve, this is the most pro-development council I've seen in years: Can you name one project they've turned down?

And yes, it was Mr. Hinton and Madames Carr and Gonslaves who stopped the Ocean Discovery Center.

No action equals an action.

[Lance Fernork]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh Leo, what about the ahhhhhhhhhhhh, you know, quarry? seems to fit your scenerio to a T

[Leo Leon]

The actual number of failed attemts for the old WWTP site is closer to 13. As far as developing and revitalizing the West Sharp Park District, Yes, I think we can!

One of the reasons I presented a suggestion to the City Council on July 28, 2008 in favor of pursuing alternatives to the General Plan process before committing to that expense, is because in my opinion we would benefit more as a City, by pursuing a process that would first lead us to much needed Retail, Commercial, Mixed-Use and Civic development.

It remains my opinion that spending time and money to find out what and where our future development should be placed is not necessary because I believe West Sharp Park is clearly the best place to invest in our effort to renew and revitalize Pacifica.

Wholesale changes to our General Plan are not necessary to develop West Sharp Park into the Business and Civic Center that we need. It’s also my opinion that no other area in Pacifica has the ideal central location to meet our civic needs. It has varied means of accessibility with vehicle, pedestrian and trail access linking all areas to the north, south and east. Another plus for the area is that the existing zoning already exists for commercial, retail, mixed-use and multi family development.

West Sharp Park's close proximity to the ocean, pier and beaches and all this with trail connection to the Mori Point GGNRA is a natural wonder. Of course there is also a golf course and library in the vicinity. I have discussed the idea of going after a local and community based plan approach to West Sharp Park with a cross section of Pacifica residents and with our Public officials. I heard positive comments and agreement that West Sharp Park is a prime location. However, it was decided to go first into the General Plan revision.

How do we get the ball rolling? One thing we can do that does not cost us any up front money is to advertise through the RFP process for proposals that will result in development scenarios, these alternatives along with financial benefit analysis can lead us to make an informed decision based on the financials of our development choices. Once these are presented for community input a decision can be made to move forward.

I believe we can all agree that we urgently need to get something done rather than do more to study or pay others to find out where and what Pacifican’s want to develop. I believe that if we make this a goal we’ll see it through to its completion.

[Steve Sinai]

I really don't think this is Cal Hinton's fault. He was only 1 of 5 members of the council, so there's no way he could have been the problem. The problem is the same old "we can't do it" or "we don't want anything changed" attitude that this town has had since I first moved here 25 years ago.

When I went to the WSPAC presentation a few months ago at Sanchez, Pete DeJarnatt said outright that the city had no money to implement the project. (Grants would be necessary, of course.) Having seen the history of these types of initiatives in town made me suspect the WSPAC proposal wouldn't go anywhere, and Pete pretty much confirmed it.

This city never seems to be able to do anything beyond "let's form a committee" or "let's hire consultants" or "let's come up with a plan." Implementation is the hard part of all this, and Pacifica's "leaders" always fail when it comes to implementation.

And considering the lack of development in Pacifica for the last 25 years, I'd hardly call any city council, including this one, pro-development.

[Lionel Emde]

Kudos to the authors of this post for the articulate expression of their collective frustration. The best thing about our local election, in my opinion, was the retirement of Mr. Hinton by the voters.

But the problem is, as always, the developer-worship mindset of whoever seems to inhabit the council seats. I defer to Ms. Gibbs as to how many false starts there have been regarding Palmetto Ave., but the one I shall always remember is the rejection of the Ocean Discovery Center proposal for the old sewage treatment plant. That was another fired-up, hardworking citizen's group that asked for a years' option to try to get the project started, and no cost or harm to the city if it didn't work out.

But what did we get? Well, we HAD to go with Barry Swensen Builders, who were going to do this and that, and ended up doing nothing. And this all took place during the good economic times. Why do we expect differently now?

The non-responsiveness of elected officials and, by extension, some staffers isn't surprising. There are certain mindsets that preclude creative and/or critical thinking and it's going to help kill us as a viable community.