Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 3/27/12. "City Council amends contract with environmental consultant to continue work on Beach Blvd. Project."
"The
city of Pacifica is taking the lead on clearing environmental hurdles
for a proposed development on Beach Blvd. to replace the old wastewater
treatment site and City Council Chambers.
 |
| The view and the challenge |
The proposed idea for a
development that came out of a study session last year would include a
boutique hotel, restaurant, 84 residential units, underground parking
and a library on the northwest portion. The city is facilitating all the
environmental studies so a potential developer can come in and make a
proposal with a lot of the preliminary studies out of the way.
 |
| The neighborhood |
To
this end, City Council unanimously approved an amendment to its ongoing
contract with Leland Consulting Group, an environmental consultant. The
amendment
contains funding for the development of a revised
site plan and preliminary data to help establish current property values
for the Beach Blvd. site. The work is expected to be finished by the
end of the year. City Council also authorized the city manager to enter
into a contract with RBF Consultants to develop an environmental impact
report for th
is site. That will be brought back to council at another
time.
'I'm glad we are moving forward," said Mayor Pro Tem Len Stone. Mayor
Pete De Jarnatt said he could potentially see a developer balk at the
idea of having the city impose a condition that a library be built
there, but he thinks it won't be a problem.
"I don't think there is a huge risk. We've had very little interest
in that site for a long time," he said."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
24 comments:
Hey Pete! Call me malcontent but there's been very little interest in that prime beach front location because the city has done nothing to promote it. Plus your ilk has scared most developers off.
This is why you deserve to be recalled.
Another city council fantasy play expensively staged to distract the sheep from the ravenous wolves circling them.
Doing an EIR in advance of developing a coastal property in this city, whether sold and/or developed is pure genius from Steve Rhodes, our City Manager.
However, nagging that we "can do nothing" has worked to confuse the people and block developers for quite some time. "Knowledge is power!"
If Dejarnett is against this I'm even more for it.
The only way we're going to get anything big built in this city is to show a developer that plans are already approved. The developer can always negotiate changes but at least they know the city is serious and they don't have to worry as much about the malcontents like Dejarnett and his anti development followers creating any problems.
Knowledge is power. Well a little financial knowledge would be awesome. Where does this council get its financial advice? How smart is it to bet big on development in this economy? That's what Pacifica is doing by spending, just in this round, more than $220,000 on an EIR for the OWWTP before any developer even shows an interest. Then add in the fact that this bet is being made as our city reserve dwindles to about $500,000 which is 1/10th of what it should be. This is reckless and incompetent spending. The kind of spending we've seen for years in Pacifica. Usually in response to political pressure. It serves to distract. Another $300,000+ was spent a few years ago on a plan for this same site. If this city wants to sweeten the deal why not wait for the developer to show up before paying for an EIR? And lose the library. Sticking a public building in the middle of prime, oceanfront real estate sends that old Pacifica anti-developer message "we'll tell you what you can build with your money".
Dejarnatt isn't against it. He probably knows that supporting this hare-brained scheme is the best way to guarantee nothing gets built there.
Hutch: Mayor Dejarnett was was responding to a comment that I made during the public comment portion of the hearing. I stated my concerns about saddling a potential developer with a Library on the site.They already will have to deal with the pump station that cannot be moved.
I was also concern because the City would have to float a bond to pay for the library.
Are you all completely clueless to the fact that this site has been a hole in the ground for, what,15 years!!
Do you not know that our old city council refinanced the police department building some 6 or 7 years ago to finance an ill-fated city taj-mahal at the site. Cooler heads prevailed and the money was placed in the Capital Reserve Fund for rational uses. 2 million dollars came out of that refinance. The money is being used to explore developing this site, like we were promised so many years ago. Library! Go explore how much pedestrian traffic the other libraries generate in the county. Then come back and make your argument. A lot of dominos fall into place if a library and the rest of the site are developed according to plan. Do some homework.
"How smart is it to bet big on development in this economy?" (Anon 534)
Several months ago, consultants were brought-in by the city and suggested a mixed-use area plan. There was an open-house for that professional consultant concept. Now we are at the EIR. Once that is completed, a developer will have an "appropriate for the neighborhood", fast-track coastal project with preliminary regulatory review to move through planning. Win, win! The blighted area will finally be developed.
Other Bay Area cities are developing properties now. Easy enough to google, and if you scroll back in our articles here you will find some of these projects.
As for the previous limited, expensive EIRS for Beachfront City Hall (Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Digre), well?
BTW, the Library could be optional. That's what I heard, stated by Steve Rhodes at a recent city council meeting. As Hutch said at 5:06 pm, changes may be negotiated.
Watcher:
How much foot traffic does the current library [which is across the street from the proposed new library] generate?
Why not build a new library on that site?
Can the City of Pacifica afford a new library at all?
I personal think we should not tie any potential Developer hands.
The site should be developed with an eye to maximum income for the City not spending money on things we cannot afford.
I see it as a wants vs. needs issue.
Can the City of Pacifica afford a new library at all?
Interesting point, Tom (8:20 pm). Giving-up 2 existing libraries to get 1, however 21st century, does not seem to be a popular idea. Maybe Watcher (7:39pm) has additional information, but that's what I'm hearing.
Giving-up 2 existing libraries to get 1, however 21st century, does not seem to be a popular idea.
Amen! We're broke, or nearly so. Not the time to think about new libraries. Or library.
I can't see what wrong with the ones we currently have, anyway. (And I'm a patron)
Chances remain excellent that it will be a hole in the ground for another 15 years. Only it won't be empty because apparently this council has found an even bigger stash of taxpayer money to fill it up. Story-time continues.
An extra 2 mill just laying around waiting for somebody to spend it. Just how much money do we really have and who says what it can and can't be used for?
Must be big money in library fines. Big.
Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on purely speculative stuff like this from whatever fund it comes from really is offensive when out of the other side of your mouth you're talking about cutting out the resource center (a measly $83,000 per year)and outsourcing our Police dept, and making many other painful cuts and suggesting tax increases. It's just not right.
"Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on purely speculative stuff like this from whatever fund it comes.."
Anonymous 9:55 PM, what you're saying isn't quite right either. Visit the City website, Finance Department. Scroll down for Funds and Budgets. Funds are not interchangeable. Money for the Resource Center comes out of the General Fund (ordinary city bills). Developing Beach Boulevard is not "speculative", its smart.
Maybe tune into or attend the Budget work sessions, coming right up. First Budget work session this year is April 11th.
Ms. Meeh, Well aware of the budget process and the mystical world of government accounting and its intricacies, thank you. It's not at all a persuasive argument for this reckless spending. This remains a question of priorities and no amount of fund mumbo jumbo justifies putting real estate speculation and marketing ahead of much-needed city services. Poor use of a lot of public funds, once again. It isn't necessary and it just isn't right.
"This remains a question of priorities and no amount of fund mumbo jumbo justifies putting real estate speculation and marketing ahead of much-needed city services." (Anon 1140).
Well then, "Smoked-out" Anonymous, your mixing-up of Funds comment is "mumbo jumbo". City services revenue? You mentioned funding the Resource Center, $83,000. The estimated annual revenue produced from the proposed Beach Blvd development concept would be $500,000. So, that should pay for some city services.
"Real estate speculation?" Not sure what you're talking about. What is there now is a big minus zero, upkeep and no revenue off-set except from the solar panels. The old WWTP property would be replaced by a boutique hotel, restaurant, shops, 84 residential units, possibly a library-- nice for visitors and the neighborhood. Currently in process is a streetscape with underground utilities on Palmetto Avenue.
Other cities are planning for their future, whereas this city has not planned much for its future for the past 10 years. The improvement plan for Sharp Park is an revenue producing investment in our city's future. Yes, the question is one of priorities.
Our libraries are open part time. Pacifica can't afford to continue to fund 2 libraries. Clifford, do your own homework on pedestrian traffic. Better yet, re-read the report that as a planning commissioner you should have already read.
This is not a waste of money. If you want to make Pacifica more of a destination then you have to start planning projects like this. And guess what? It takes money. A mere drop in the budget next to the 40 + million we're spending fulfilling fat cat union contracts that are driving us into bankruptcy. I live in Sharp Park. I'm not going to side with the NIMBY's on this. Regarding the library option, I say take it out of the plan.
Wow, that's incredibly generous of you to support a nice new development over an abandoned poop plant. Let's see if we can scare you up a medal.
He's a generous kind of guy.
The best welcome mat for a developer would be a blank canvas and some changes on the Planning Commission.
And it would cost nothing.
Instead we're spending another $225,000+ on an EIR for what we want some unknown developer to build. That's on top of $300,000+ spent previously for other plans for the same location that never went anywhere. Now I know some folks who like this plan didn't like the previous plan, but no matter how tantalizing the development fantasy and all that dreamy revenue, this is no way to run a railroad. A nearly bankrupt railroad.
Post a Comment