Pacifica Riptide

Big Brother: Uncle Sam Monitors Facebook, Twitter, Blogs

Department Of Homeland Security (DHS) tells Congress why it monitors Facebook, Twitter, and blogs: If you're the first person to tweet about a news story or you're a community activist who makes public Facebook posts, DHS has your personal information.

CLICK HERE FOR BREAKING NEWS STORY

LAFCO Vacancy for Alternate Public Member

Applications for Alternate Public Member of the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) are now being accepted for the term ending May 2014.
 
LAFCo was created by the State Legislature to make decisions on the boundaries and organization of the cities and special districts in San Mateo County. LAFCo is an independent commission composed of two members of the Board of Supervisors chosen by the Board, two members of city councils chosen by the mayors of the 20 cities in the county, two members of special district boards chosen by the presiding officers of the special districts in the county and the Public Member appointed by the other six Commissioners. Each category of membership has an Alternate.
 
The San Mateo Local Agency Commission meets on the third Wednesday of odd-numbered months at 2:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 400 County Center, Redwood City. Additional meetings may also be held on occasion.
 
To be eligible to serve as Alternate Public Member, a person must be a resident of San Mateo County and may not be an officer or employee of the county, a city, special district or school district with territory in the county. The term of office for this alternate public member position is four years expiring in May 2014.
 
The deadline for receipt of applications is April 9, 2012. Applications and additional information about LAFCo may be obtained from Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer, 455 County Center, Redwood City, at (650) 363-4224 or visit www.sanmateolafco.org.
                      
Download Publicmemberreleasemay2012

General Plan Update Notice of Preparation/DEIR and LCP

The City of Pacifica is preparing an update to its General Plan and Local
Coastal Plan and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
will be necessary pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The City of Pacifica requests your input on how the General Plan
and Local Coastal Plan update may affect the environment. More
specifically, input is being solicited relative to the scope and content
of environmental analysis that is relevant to your individual or agency's
statutory/regulatory responsibilities in order to ascertain potential
impacts of the proposed project.

Specific proposals and revisions for the Pacifica General Plan and Local
Coastal Plan update have not yet been determined. However, your input will
be taken into consideration during the formulation of the environmental
impacts of the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan to be addressed in the
EIR. A description of the proposed project, location map, and preliminary
identification of the potential environmental effects are contained in the
attached materials. If your agency is a responsible agency as defined by
Section 15381 of the State CEQA Guidelines, your agency will need to use
the environmental documents prepared by the City of Pacifica when
considering your permit or approval for action.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, you should submit your
comments as soon as possible but no later than March 20, 2012, or 30 days
after receipt of this notice per CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). Please
send your written response, along with the name of your agency contact
person, to Elizabeth Claycomb, Management Analyst, City of Pacifica
Planning Department, 1800 Francisco Boulevard, Pacifica, California 94044.
Responses can also be faxed to Ms. Claycomb at (650) 359-5807 or emailed
to claycombe@ci.pacifica.ca.us. A public Scoping Meeting will be conducted
on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 from 4:00 to 6:00 PM, at the Pacifica
Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive in Pacifica. If you have questions
regarding this NOP or the Scoping Meeting, please contact Ms. Claycomb at
(650) 738-7361.

CLICK FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PAGE

CLICK FOR NOTICE OF PREPARATION

Opinion: Pacifica Must Revisit Oddstad Project Decision

The February 14 City Council meeting lacked a quorum due to Councilman Jim Vreeland's absence, so the Oddstad project agenda item #7 was continued to Monday, February 27. Please turn out then and request additional EIR analysis and recirculation for additional public comment. In short:

1. There is significant new information that appeared only in the Final EIR. The Final EIR must be recirculated for another round of public comment and city response. Only in the Final EIR was the public told that the middle fork of San Pedro Creek was spawning and rearing habitat for threatened steelhead or that the project site includes such suitable steelhead habitat. This is significant new information that the public deserves the right to comment on.

2. The EIR fails to discuss the feasibility of the proposed mitigation measure of “bioswales.” An EIR must discuss the feasibility of proposed mitigation measures. This is particularly important because here the EIR admits that the project could generate stormwater runoff that could cause/contribute to water quality standard violations, provide substantial additional polluted runoff sources, and substantially degrade San Pedro Creek water quality. In addition, the EIR admits that project runoff could cause substantial erosion and siltation, and contribute to stream channel impacts. Despite acknowledging such impacts, the EIR fails to discuss the feasibility of the mitigations in reducing these impacts.

3. Increased erosion potential exposes the city to significant financial liability.  The project conflicts with the Clean Water Act requirement that stormwater discharges not cause ANY increase in erosion. The EIR admits that this project will cause erosion from stormwater runoff and water quality violations from graywater for landscape. Clean Water Act violations are punishable by fines of up to $32,500 per day per violation. The Oddstad project, as currently proposed, will expose the city to significant Clean Water Act liability.

Three groups have filed appeals to the City Council: San Pedro Creek Watershed Coalition, Neighbors Concerned About Pacifica, and Protectors of San Pedro Creek. Please lend your voice.

Brian Gaffney
Neighbors Concerned About Pacifica

San Mateo County Public Safety Realignment Plan Ready for Review

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. – San Mateo County’s draft plan to supervise offenders who had previously been sent to State prison is available for public review. The goal of the Public Safety Realignment Local Implementation Plan is to reduce crime and reincarceration with a countywide strategy. The plan was developed by local officials, in collaboration with Resource Development Associates, to comply with State legislation that seeks to reduce overcrowding in the State prison system by transferring responsibility for certain low-level offenders to local jurisdictions.
 
The plan contains 13 strategies. These include providing drug and alcohol counseling programs and placing certain inmates in alternative sentencing programs that could be more effective in reducing the likelihood that an offender would return to jail.
 
The draft plan was prepared by the Community Corrections Partnership, which includes representatives from the County’s Probation Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney, Health System and Human Services Agency. The Partnership also includes representatives from the Superior Court, the Private Defender Program, cities, schools and nonprofit agencies.
 
The final plan must be approved by the County Board of Supervisors in April. To view the plan, visit www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/probation and click on “Community Corrections Partnership” or use the following link: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/CommunityCorrectionsPartnership
 
For more information, contact:
Melissa Wagner
(650) 312-5219
mwagner@smcgov.org

Pacifica Budget Crisis Solutions: Survey Results Now Online

The City of Pacifica faces a budget crisis. Significant options are being considered, including cutting library hours, reducing funding for Pacifica Resource Center, and eliminating the police department. The Financing City Services Task Force completed its community survey in January and continues its work to find solutions to the crisis. Thank you for all your comments on this topic, which will remain here in the Riptide archives.

CLICK HERE FOR SURVEY RESULTS

Calif. Senate Punts on SB 810 Health Care; Single Payer Fights On

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Six Democrats broke ranks and voted like Republicans (2 NO and 4 abstain). The fight is NOT over. We will mount a response to this irresponsible representation!

Good article on One Care
http://californiaonecare.org/sb-810-killed-on-the-california-senate-floor/

On Maplight and over the last 4 years:
http://maplight.org/california/legislator

Calderon:
Insurance - $165,000
Pharma - $80K
Health Professionals - $37K

Correa:
Insurance - $150K
Pharma - $110K
Health Professionals - $89K

Padilla:
Insurance - $137K
Health Professionals - $105K
Pharma - $67K


Rubio:
Health Professionals - $94K
Insurance - $36K

Vargas:
Insurance - $115K
Health Professionals - $46K
Pharma - $28K

Wright:
Insurance - $87K
Pharma - $45K
Health Professionals - $43K

Good News: Money in the Pipeline for Local Schools, Cops, Fire?

January 18, 2012. Initiative 12-0001: The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION. GUARANTEED LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for five years. Increases sales and use tax by ½ cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent. Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues over the next five fiscal years. Estimates of the revenue increases vary--for 2012-13, from $4.8 billion to $6.9 billion; for 2013-14 through 2015-16, from $5.5 billion to $6.9 billion on average each year; and for 2016-17, from $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion. These revenues would be available to (1) pay for the state's school and community college funding requirements, as increased by this measure, and (2) address the state's budgetary problem by paying for other spending commitments. Limitation on the state's ability to make changes to the programs and revenues shifted to local governments in 2011, resulting in a more stable fiscal situation for local governments. (12-0001)

Pacifica Budget Crisis Meeting—Share the Sacrifice or Dodge a Bullet?

(Pacificans thronged information tables in the Community Center on January 11, talking with city staff from various departments, but there was no presentation or Q&A for the whole crowd. Was this a missed opportunity for some honest dialog between the city and the voters, or just a crafty way to avoid open confrontation and conflict? —John Maybury)

OPINION BY TODD MCCUNE BRAY

On January 11 in the Community Center, our city officials hosted a financial meeting (see above) to sell us on the idea of increased taxes to cover the cost of their paychecks. A few numbers that most likely will not be discussed are the 80 employees who earned more than $100,000 last year. Of those 80 employees, 44 earned more than $120,000; 16 earned more than $150,000; and two earned more than $200,000. The fiscal crisis of Pacifica isn't a revenue issue but a payroll issue. Please let me explain.

Several years ago, during the real estate boom, we had a dramatic increase in revenues, thanks to the corresponding rise in property values. During that time, city staff asked for and received very large increases to salaries, wages, and benefits for all of our employees. But when the housing market crashed, staff didn't volunteer to reduce their compensation increases to match the new reality of lower revenues, so we are left with their housing-bubble wages without the housing-bubble revenues. Rather than reduce compensation, staff recommends cutting services so their paychecks won't change.

The numbers that won't be batted around are the actual W-2 Line 5 totals for the following positions: City Manager $195,872; Administration Services Director $$172,849; Planning Director $212,760; City Attorney $200,751; Director of Public Works $172,716; Deputy Fire Chief $184,185; Police Chief $164,287; and so on for another 73 employees, each earning more than $100,000 a year.

God bless our city employees, but to cut library services, senior services, or whatever paycheck-saving services our senior staff, department heads, fire, and police may target, none of that is necessary if they all agree to a scaled reduction in pay of 1 percent for every $10,000 earned.

Opinion: Pacifica Budget Crisis Solution—Let CoC Stand on Its Own

Today we received the yellow mailer from the City of Pacifica about the budget crisis. The last time the city asked us to approve a  tax (fire district), I believed it needed the money, and not only voted for the tax but gave money to the campaign. Later I learned that Pacifica taxpayers subsidize the Chamber of Commerce to the tune of $10,000 a year.

Why we fund a private advocacy organization is beyond me. If the chamber can't get enough local merchants to pay its dues, why should taxpayers make up the shortfall? For whatever good work the chamber may do, it also has decided to make itself the very prominent face for widening Highway 1, which (to say the least) is controversial. Some of us don't want our taxes going to that kind of advocacy.

If the city has money for the Chamber of Commerce, how about other membership-based private organizations like the Pacifica Beach Coalition, PTA, Friends of the Library, or Sierra Club?

I hope it goes without saying that if Pacifica considers reducing library hours and eliminating senior services, it first picks low-hanging fruit. Let the Chamber of Commerce stand on its own.

BILL COLLINS