Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or, view on local channel 26, also live internet feed, pct26.com. The meeting begins at 7pm, or shortly there following. City website, and Planning Commission archives.
Planning Commission Agenda, 2/19/13, includes Staff Report, project summary, recommendations and findings, 15 pages. Fix Pacifica article.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
25 comments:
Are we going to get a new planning commission to go with our new council? Or does this one now get another chance to obstruct another project? Maybe council is worried about losing their nimby support? How about worrying about Pacifica for a change?
The Planning Commission tonight approved a three building mix-use development on Dundee Way. This is not news since in the last six years we have not rejected any projects.
If it were only that simple, Mr. Clifford. Real news would be something like this project actually making it all the way through the lengthy process and being built.
Thomas, do you have a guess as to how many proposals or projects come before the planning commission but never get to the point where they're voted on?
I genuinely don't know the answer to that. I haven't watched a planning commission meeting in years. What I remember is that there were all kinds of arbitrary little conditions being placed on applicants, and I'm wondering how typical it is for applicants to just give up in frustration?
Steve: I can remember only one in the six and a 1/2 years that that I have been on the Commission that chose not to go forward.
Steve, not everything that goes into planning for a permit goes to the commission. A really good example of this are the monster homes that were springing up in Vallamar during the lending bubble. Unless a project was requesting a variance or other oddity it doesn't go to the commission.
It's too bad the current planning director is jaded. He could do lot to educate you and you fellow FM's on the actual way things are determined, like if a project needs to go to the commission or not.
Conditions of approval are part of the game, Steve. Some are arbitrary, some are not.
A question for Tom, was last nights item looking for exceptions or variances of any kind? My guess is yes hence the trip before the commission.
" conditions are part of the game."
They certainly are; many time it gives the planning commission a chance to pass the cost/requirement onto the applicant for those "little" things for which the City should have responsibility, i.e.. another fire hydrant, etc.
don't anyone get their hopes up for this council to replace this commission. we wouldn't want to broadcast a real change in Pacifica's attitude towards development. mustn't upset our nimby pals.
If the council does do something radical like replace a majority of commissioners with ignorant pro growth buzz kills like you FM's who post Anonymously here and elsewhere then yeah, there will be a major back lash. Why wouldn't there be?
This is this council's planning commission. Don't expect any changes.
"If the council does do something radical like replace a majority of commissioners with ignorant pro growth buzz kills..."
So Todd, what you're admitting is that the Planning Commission currently consists of anti-growth folks?
Yup, that sounded like an admission from Mr. Bray. No surprise there. The surprise is that this remains the planning commission of this "new" council. Surprise and major disappointment.
Council needs to revamp that commission quickly. That action would be the best announcement to developers, builders, etc. of a "new" pro-growth attitude in Pacifica. Council's failure to do so is their admission that they are not a pro-growth council. Stop pandering to your no-growth supporters and do your job!
Hey, Bray, explain your comment that out planning director is "jaded".
Steve-O,
As Tom pointed out above the current PC hasn't denied a project in at least 6.5 years. Why would you even suggest they are anti growth? The current PC has not only approved everything but through deliberations and added conditions of approval have greatly improved those projects.
What exactly are you suggesting? No community oversight of any kind? Or just like minded automatons?
Todd says, "The current PC has not only approved everything but through deliberations and added conditions of approval have greatly improved those projects."
Right there, right there in that one sentence is the whole problem with this planning commission and the city Council that allows it to continue.
So the fact that the nimbys are so outraged at the thought of replacing the PC means they consider this crucial to their hippy no growth dogma.
They are terrified because they saw how voters really feel when their man got tromped in November. They know they are losing power and there's nothing they can do but whine and delay.
Ah life is good.
@922 You're dreaming. All the wishful thinking in the world won't remove that planning commission. Only the city council can remove them and this doesn't appear to be the kind of council to ever do that. Nihart and Ervin received a lot of nimby endorsements and lots of nimby votes. They aren't going to kiss off the nimbys and the nimbys
know it. When council moans about consensus and inclusiveness those are just code words for we saved a seat at the table for you nimbys in return for your votes. Nimbys losing power? Not at all. Now they've got a couple new shills on council. In fact, they've probably got 3 votes and maybe 4 whenever they need them. The nimbys are still running the show. That's their planning commission and this council seems to be fine with it.
Oh I don't think the nimbys are done or running scared. Why would they? Democratically elected governments are usually coalitions and collaborations among different idealogies. Sometimes for admirable reasons, sometimes not so admirable. Seems like only dictatorships follow one idealogy, and then usually to an extreme.
We elected these boneheads quite democratically. They seem to have formed a coalition of pro-growthers, nimbys, enviros, hippies. Not exactly what we needed at city hall but that's what we have.
Kumbaya, baby.
Sorry Anon 1101 you're wrong.
Nihart went up against the no growthers on three major votes in the past year. The sales tax, the assisted living center and highway 1 widening. These votes outraged the hippies.
And Ervin is following her like a puppy.
Yes they voted to protect the Plovers but it's not a major thing without money to fund the fencing it wont happen.
@734 You're dreaming. Living in Pacifica will do that to you--it's an escape mechanism--the human mind can only absorb so much bad news.
We've now got 4 tax and spenders on council. As long as it isn't an election they're personally running in, they'll vote for a tax. Nihart just didn't want a tax measure on the same ballot with her name. That's all that was about. Basic political theory.
I'm not sure what heroic anti-hippie "stand" was really being taken in the votes last year on the highway widening and assisted-living issues because I think that "party lines" were crossed when council finally voted. Didn't Pete vote for the highway and Sue for the facility?
As for the expandable plover corral on LMBeach? Oh yeah, baby, it's happening. And if, as you say, this council actually thought up poverty as a strategy before they voted for this beach give-away, then shut that think-tank down, now!
This new council already bypassed Sue Digre as next Mayor. I believe they also removed her from some pro business committee. Sue is the only no growther left on council. That speaks volumes as to their agenda. It's still early. Have some faith. We managed to get Mike Oneill elected by a landslide. That was a clear mandate from the people that Pacificans have had enough of the enviro radicals who have helped destroy our economy. Yes Nihart has shown she can be pro tax. We just have to tell her we're not putting up with more taxes and I think she'll listen.
Be careful for what you wish for. This council seems to be the same as councils past.
Anyone who says this council is the same as past councils must have their heads up you know where.
I'm not saying they are ideal but they're a sharp departure from Vreeland, Dejarnett Digre etc who bowed to the anti growthers for 10+ years.
Now it's up to you to let them all know if you don't want more taxes. If you don't then look in the mirror for someone to blame.
This will be the sitting council to make the most important vote in the history of Pacifica.
Bankruptcy vote.
Make all the excuses and explanations you want but this council are tax and spenders and aging closet hippies--other than Stone who's at risk of becoming the odd-man-out. Passing over Digre and shaking up the council liaison posts was pure theatre meant for public consumption. Bad enviro, bad!! Cheap thrills. The true believers will keep dreaming...all the way to the bottom.
Post a Comment