Before you all go off writing and calling with your comments on the biodiesel project, be sure that you check your facts, perhaps with the city manager, to make sure you are making correct statements. Do not rely on Internet chatter for your information.
I brought this idea to the city believing that it had merit and that if it were to succeed, it would be a micro-generator of both fuel and electrical power for the city, and a retail generator of local income. That projected potential benefit to air quality, energy bills, and local sales was my sole objective, with the added benefit of bringing a good number of green-minded souls to spend money on more than just fuel when they came to Pacifica. I had been accused of always saying "no" to projects (untrue in itself) and I wanted to come up with an idea that was green AND made money because I love my city and wanted to find one, small creative solution.
This project has gotten an enormous amount of detailed oversight and the engineered plans have been gone over in minute detail by the fire safety folks, and the thing is spill-contained beyond belief. I would never have considered this a reasonable idea if it were not for the fact that the site had been permitted for the chemicals in question and designed to avoid but still contain possible spills.
I understand that some honestly did not support the idea, feeling that risk outweighed benefit. Fair enough. Do what you gotta do. Based on everything I could find to assess the proposal, I was of the opinion, one shared by fire safety personnel, that the risks could be handled in a way that made them minimal, the benefits far outweighing the problems. Again, some disagreed, but some concerns were unsupportable hysteria, misrepresented and blown way out of proportion
There are those who want to see it fail because Jim Vreeland and I had anything to do with it. Old political divides die hard, sadly, and I think it would not matter to these folks WHAT my name was attached to or this council approved; they would still disembowel it. That is unfair but predictable. At a certain point I decided that the city and Whole Energy Fuels had a lease and a relationship and that they were responsible for moving forward, and I took a step back because I am not an engineer or a safety specialist or a lawyer, and these are the people whose hands it is in now. There is a time you let go of a project that you initiate because it either sinks or swims on its own merit and its own viability. I still think that it has merit, but from the beginning I knew that it would be (and wanted it to be) gone over in detail for safety and viability.
I would be sad to see it not happen after getting it to this point, and I wish that those denigrating it would actually look at and understand how it works and the calculations as to how much carbon it keeps out of the atmosphere. With Obama looking for shovel-ready green infrastructure projects, it would be ironic for this one to not to proceed. As for the plant design, I trust the fire safety and hazmat people who reviewed designs and will be doing at least 10 different inspections. I've seen no premeditated, nefarious schemes being hatched, but if anything was done out of order, it will be revealed and corrected or it will not go forward. Maybe the whole thing will "go away" as some would prefer. That would be a shame and a waste.
What seems to never go away is the nastiness and the inhumane way that we talk to our opponents. Some assume so much about my motivations and character that is based on a cartoon version of reality and just incorrect. This is not about personalities. It's on city land, and those whose hands now steer the project—that includes the city manager and city attorney as well as the council and a host of inspectors and regulators—will make it work or they will not. I strongly support all oversight.
There is nothing I can say that will ever convince certain people that I am not some witch trying to put a spell on the council so that I can have my own personal gas station. Seeing that in print makes me realize just how insane it is! There is only one body controlling the city and that is the voting public. They voted for a council that understood the town's overarching values, and to the best of their abilities they are trying to introduce energy-generating projects with an eye on the future.
NANCY HALL
Maybe they were trying to dig to China.
Posted by: pacificapatriot | April 16, 2009 at 09:26 PM
John and Dan,
from my talks with a source, OSHA says the trenching operation is unsafe and was performed without proper permits. Also, there is some question as to whether or not contractors licensed in the state of California were employed by Whole Energy to perform this work, which may be reported to the Contractors State Licensing Board.
As any concerned citizen, I would appreciate a timely and public response from the City of Pacifica and Whole Energy.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 15, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Cal-OSHA can shut down a trenching operation if it is unsafe, not done right, not shored up properly, etc. WEF's trench may have been a danger to workers on the project and/or others on or near the site. I don't have all the details, but WEF has not replied to my request for information, so your guess is as good as mine. As a skilled plumber, Dan, see what you can "dig up" for me!
Posted by: John Maybury | April 14, 2009 at 10:59 PM
What a joke.
Posted by: Lois Rogan | April 14, 2009 at 10:20 PM
On what grounds did Cal-Osha shut the project down? I wouldn't think they would be the agency to intercede when somebody jumps the gun on a permit issue.
Posted by: Dan Underhill | April 14, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Thank you all for your heartfelt comments about the biodiesel project, which I understand has been shut down this morning by Cal-OSHA. All sides on this issue have strong feelings and many facts to share with our readers, and we have tried to let everyone air their grievances and grudges. Last night we asked Jeff Simons and Nancy Hall to take the personal conversation offline. Jeff then posted his email address in a recent comment. We hope that any further personal comments can be handled privately so that we can get back to discussing the issues in a less emotional way.
Posted by: John Maybury | April 14, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Looks like Jeff Simons is suffering from an all-too-common Pacifica ailment, "Nancy Hall Derangement Syndrome." What is up with that? Why do a few very vocal people around here start becoming unhinged whenever Ms. Hall becomes involved in an issue?
Also, why is everything around here about Measure L? Don't people move on, realize they lost, and that they were wrong (economic collapse having squashed any big private luxury development plans anyone might have had) and just get over it?
Posted by: Frank Sicilano | April 14, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I find Simons' "when did you stop beating your wife" mode of argument truly pathetic. Maybe this little tantrum is because Simons' benefactor has left town with all his marbles and has left a few ungrateful knaves holding an empty sack, who now feel they have to blame someone! We all knew someone was going to get screwed over the quarry deal; sometimes karma works its magic.
Posted by: Linty Marr | April 14, 2009 at 09:07 AM
guys and gals,
I'll take this conversation off list out of respect for Maybury.
[email protected]
but I have never been, nor will I ever be, intimidated by threats of lawsuits when I have my facts straight.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 14, 2009 at 08:02 AM
"You have asked me this same question privately and publicly a number of times and do not seem to accept my answer that I have no future financial gain whatever in the plant. There is no arrangement for me to receive financial profit from it once it is completed."
Thank you, Nancy, that's all I wanted to know.
It's on the record.
Posted by: Lionel Emde | April 14, 2009 at 07:56 AM
I'm surprised the editor posted drama's personal attacks.
Posted by: todd bray | April 14, 2009 at 01:29 AM
Jeffrey,
Are you suggesting that Nancy Hall opposed Measure L? Are you suggesting that she was effective at it? I am not learning anything new from your recent posts.
Posted by: Dan Underhill | April 13, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Jeff,
Many of us had high hopes for Peebles coming up with a proposal for the Quarry that we could support. When Measure L came out most of us were shocked that it was for 355 homes with no specific plan. At that point the majority of us turned against it.
The fact that Nancy felt one way before Measure L came out and felt another afterward reflects the betrayal that a majority of Pacificans felt, as evidenced by the final vote.
Your other "example" of Nancy's dishonesty looks more like an example of your inability to understand distinctions between different roles. Hardly justification for use of the term "pathological liar".
I believe that if Nancy wished to, she would have a case against you in a court of law. Here is the Wikipedia definition of defamation:
"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written publications), slander (for spoken word), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Posted by: Ian Butler | April 13, 2009 at 11:21 PM
case in point #2:
"We're going to line up at the voting box
With our skepticism intact
And send Miami packing without ever looking back"
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/win-this-thing
Nancy Hall, a lifelong Pacifica resident who opposed the measure, said the other two obstacles impeding the development's approval were concern about how much space would be used and fear for the habitats of wildlife that live in the area, including the California red-legged frog and potentially the San Francisco garter snake, which are both threatened or endangered.
Hall said she worked with developer Donahue Peebles through her husband's organization Pacificans for Sustainable Development.
"I have no regrets because I feel like I very openly expressed to him "... that the environmental community was really willing to work with him to come up with a real beautiful project that met the needs of the community and respected our values," she said. "We tend to vote for the environment, and that means a majority of the people who live here care about open space and habitat protection."
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_11961598
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM
"Jeff, get it right, she didn't ask you what kind of a liar you called her, she asked you what you based that assertion on"
"in your testimony to the Coastal Commission you said you were not a part of the applicant team. How can you step away from a project for which you have been the public face and advocate, even stating you wore a developer hat for the process, but now you're stepping away from something you also said you were never a part of?? HUNH??"
Ian, if you need me to further illuminate this point, please let me know.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 13, 2009 at 10:12 PM
yes, Ian, you are all victims. my sympathies to you.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Jeffrey,
A great many of us have actively supported the biodiesel plant for exactly the same reasons as Nancy Hall. Nancy is comfortable in front of a microphone. I am not, as anyone who watched my very brief addresses to the council could easily see. Your attacks on Nancy rank right up there with your horror stories about exploding biodiesel plants and the environmental devastation we would certainly experience from trucks carrying vegetable oil instead of gasoline.
Posted by: Dan Underhill | April 13, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Nancy said:
"Jeff, on what do you base your continued assertion that I am a liar?"
Jeff replied:
"Nancy, get it right, I said you were a pathological liar."
Jeff, get it right, she didn't ask you what kind of a liar you called her, she asked you what you based that assertion on. Following up your evasion with a half dozen new questions doesn't let you off the hook. "Pathological liar" is a slanderous charge and shouldn't be thrown around without solid proof.
Such irresponsible posts enlighten more about the attacker than the victim.
Posted by: Ian Butler | April 13, 2009 at 06:27 PM
Jeffrey, I haven't experienced any lies from Nancy, but a great many from you. I lack the credentials to diagnose whether you are clinically pathological about it or not, but I would trust Nancy over you any day of the week.
Posted by: Dan Underhill | April 13, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Nancy,
get it right, I said you were a pathological liar. I never thought I'd see the day when I could discourage someone from talking to Tod Schlesinger and I would be vilified for it.
so has the fire department signed off on the building permit? who is the biologist that has been out there to observe per the conditions of the Coastal Commission?
what was your role to the point of photoshopping? in your testimony to the Coastal Commission you said you were not a part of the applicant team. How can you step away from a project for which you have been the public face and advocate, even stating you wore a developer hat for the process, but now you're stepping away from something you also said you were never a part of?? HUNH??
finally, who gave Whole Energy permission to dig a trench without a permit last week? was it the city, or was it Scott Holmes??
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 13, 2009 at 04:42 PM
I am not a stockholder or investor in the biodiesel project. I am not an employee of Whole Energy Fuels, but I did ask to be compensated for some specific work I did on permitting, i.e., Photoshop and other related computer work that took a good deal of time and went above and beyond what my role had been to that point. No money came to me from the city, only from a private company that I did a specific technical job for.
Lionel, after knowing each other all these years, what is it that makes you assume I am lying to you? You have asked me this same question privately and publicly a number of times and do not seem to accept my answer that I have no future financial gain whatever in the plant. There is no arrangement for me to receive financial profit from it once it is completed.
There are employment opportunities, but these are positions I am unqualified for, such as plant manager and accountant. I look forward to seeing skilled Pacificans in these positions. Get it? Do I have to swear on something? Is it so hard to take what I say at face value and understand that I was hoping to help create a good project for the city?
Jeff, on what do you base your continued assertion that I am a liar? On what specific points have I been factually incorrect? I'd like to know so that if necessary I can make my own corrections, so please advise. I remember you thundering down the stairs after a council meeting, interrupting a conversation I was attempting to have with Tod S., yelling,
"Don't talk to her, she's a liar!!!" It is one thing to disagree, it is another to slander a person's reputation and discourage dialog.
The angry mob is only one way to do business, and as much fun as pitchforks and torches can be, can we please move beyond the urge to lynch our adversaries?
Posted by: nancy hall | April 13, 2009 at 03:29 PM
Although I profoundly disagree with Jeff's take on Measure L, I think he asks a valid question that I've asked several times in the past and to which we've never gotten an answer:
Nancy, what, if any, financial interest do you have in the outcome of this project?
Posted by: Lionel Emde | April 13, 2009 at 07:58 AM
I just want to know why Jim Vreeland and Nancy Hall drove all the way down to San Luis Obispo to shill for a biodiesel refinery along a coastal highway that will MAYBE bring the city $60,000 in reduced costs at the sewer plant(ahh but don't expect your sewer rates to go down!), constructed by an out of town company who has never built a plant and has about $2 million in assets and all the profits to gain from this facility, and will have an almost negligible effect on reducing our carbon footprint as a city . . .
but they both worked tirelessly to dissuade an out of town billion dollar developer from building an innovative mixed use project, said developer then being obligated to mitigate our HWY 1 traffic (which will have a far more significant effect in lowering our carbon footprint as a city), said project bringing in tens of millions of dollars in revenue and tax benefits to the city??
I don't believe the facts and Nancy Hall have existed in the same zip code for quite a while, so I will ask one simple question of Ms Hall:
what is your slice of the Whole Energy pie once this plant is operational? Have you taken any money or will you receive any consulting fees as a result of this project???
let's get our facts straight. it will be public record anyway (unless our stalwart overpaid City Attorney uses our hard earned tax dollars to continue her trend of denying public records requests)
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | April 12, 2009 at 08:26 PM
I think Rhodes, Underhill, and Hall all have wonderful and beautiful ideas. Kumbaya on Easter Sunday
Posted by: Lance Fernork | April 12, 2009 at 01:45 PM
I support this project, as approved with requirements etc. by the Coastal Commission. And hope that Nancy in particular knows what a wonderful contribution this is to Pacifica, a town that has a City Council that is signator to the U.S. Mayors Climate protection agreement.
http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/map.asp
Another great project Nancy & Friends brought to fruition: Sanchez Arts Center.
Posted by: Summer Rhodes | April 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM