Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Documents regarding the Beach Boulevard Project
The following link is a synopsis of the California Coastal Commission's concerns regarding the Beach Boulevard project. Thanks to Tom Clifford for tracking down this one.
www.fixpacifica.com/docs/CCC_Letter_7-15-13.pdf
The following two links were requested by our very own Kathy Meeh, and Kathryn Farbstein of Pacifica's Planning Department kindly sent them along
www.fixpacifica.com/docs/PC_General_Plan_Local_Coastal_Plan_Amendment.pdf
www.fixpacifica.com/docs/PC_Rezoning_Resolution.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Well golly, I'm sure glad we hired so many expert consultants to pave the way for this project!
The city should beg Swenson to come back.
@542 he's no fool. nobody will touch this thing til the ccc issues are resolved.
I read them (the two CCC letters) earlier today. George White sent them to me after I requested them, in a very short amount of time so Kudo's to our new planning director.
Of note is the number of references to the general plan and local coastal plan. Specifically that the project in the FEIR did not come anywhere near the requirements of either document.
I agree with Anon @ 4:45's sarcastic remark about having paid consultants so much money to come up with a package that is unworkable, especially as the December 3 rd comment letter made it very plain the project needed a lot of re-thinking.
It gives added credence to the Loeb complaint which focuses on general plan and local coastal plan documents and how the city, state and county have not only disregarded them but claimed the widening project was consistent with the Coastal Act itself.
I'm glad someone is trying to get the city back to the straight and narrow path. In recent years we have seen a tremendous push by basically one council person and the city manager to reinvent Pacifica in their image, and their image alone.
Thanks, but we all thought you were proud of putting your name on your frequent rants against Mary Ann.
The least the CCC could have done for us is shoot down that library as well. This will be seen as a papal blessing for that boondoggle. Condos or townhomes with lots of open space are looking better all the time? Retail, etc. on the ground floor along Palmetto. Maybe a little public parkie park on the ocean side.
I think that we can all agree that everyone will continue to disagree on what should or should not be built at the Beach Boulevard Project for years to come. In the meantime, the old WWTP or whatever is the correct acronym will continue to be an unattractive hole in the ground. Perhaps the next city council, or the one after that, etc. will come up with yet another vision with perhaps a catchy phrase, such as "Condos For Clones.". Hopefully a plan that won't commit future Pacificans to a life of financial slavery trying to pay off a $30 million library bond.
What about the wave project in HMB, couldn't that be built in Sharp Park instead?
@116 Don't be ridiculous. We're much too highly evolved for anything as crass as that. Years of theatrics and $750,000 spent on two sets of plans, and whadda ya know? Another prime piece of real estate saved from grubby commerce.
Damn, we're good!
What's this b&#@ talking about Landslides? Has she even seen this site? Is it better to leave it as it is leaching brown contamination for decades? Holy crap!
Anon @ 11:16 a.m. The WAVE project in Half Moon Bay was proposed to be built for the benefit of our better heeled cousins in that town.In actuality, it was to be housing and workspace for the developmentally challenged children of some aging HMB residents (including Scott Holmes, the project engineer) who wanted to ensure that their offspring would have a chance to remain in the area and a chance to be self-sufficient after their parents' demise. While allegedly a noble idea, it was questionable as it involved wetlands, a known tsunami zone, possibly 250,000 square feet of commercial that might or might not be leased to outside interests. In my opinion, it was an attempted end to circumvent building limitations in the area and at the expense of the tranquility of area residents, present and future. Who actually would have benefited from the development seems to still be quite unclear.
1258 Geology, hydrology, erosion, wave action are always issues on the coast. This should not have been a surprise to the consultants. The CCC's devotion to its core mission of providing public access to the coast, particularly through publicly-owned land like the OWWTP, should also not have been a surprise to the consultants. Guess they had to try?
1159 right now there is no public access though the site. With this plan there would be. And as far as hydrology, the site is no where near any wave action, the beach or LANDSLIDES. What a joke.
419 Have you visited the site?
@437 I have lived down there for 20+ years. I drive by the plant everyday on Palmetto and Beach Blvd. There is no wave hydrology, landslide or any other issue with the sand or ocean at that site. It is a good 300 feet from the water and 150 from the sand with no cliff for a landslide. that's all ridiculous and shows me the CC has never been there.
@515 It's tough, disappointing news, but the CCC has issues with the plan and it's not a surprise to anyone who's familiar with their mission, how they go about it, and the realities of building on this coast. Particularly as close to the ocean as this site is. Most Californians, and probably a great many Pacificans, support their efforts. This project, as long as it includes private residential and a hotel, has always been a real long shot. Smaller-scale private projects on Beach Blvd. have run into the same issues and failed to go forward. Council should never have presented it as anything but a long shot and the revenue as highly speculative.
Beach Blvd and the Promenade is subject to wave overtopping every winter. Erosion is unavoidable and on-going. And I seem to recall the loss of some structures somewhere along that stretch from Mori Pt. to Paloma in the 70's. The prospect of development can be intoxicating. Somebody not involved in the money has to worry about those pesky issues the CCC has raised. Hope they can be resolved. How good are those consultants?
CCC approved the project to build condos down the street on the bluff.
The developer walked away and let the lender take it back.
Another piece of empty dirt in town bringing in no money!!
Can you guys post the December letter from the Coastal Commission.
The letter 7-15 does not make sense unless you read the December letter first.
The first letter from the C.C.C. should be on the City of Pacifica web page.
It's impossible to find anything on our city website. Seems like that's the way they want it.
Tom
I know I have it in front of me. It would make it easy if it was posted here.
9:39 that is the reason why Fogel started Pacifica Index
that is the reason why Fogel started Pacifica Index
The problem is that I've mostly organized things by department/committee rather than by subject. I've indexed subjects, but only as they've been dealt with by City Council and not the Planning Committee or other groups, so I miss a lot.
I'm thinking the site might be more useful to people if I organized everything by subject in an encylopedia/wikipedia way. That way you could just type in "beach boulevard" or "highway one" and pull up all the documents/info related to the projects.
Right now my site falls a bit short in that regard. As an example, although there is a lot of info about Highway One that is out there and is of interest to our community, the subject has only come up in front of Council a couple of times and thus there's not much I've indexed about the subject. I should probably do it the other way around.
I've been thinking about making the changeover, but it would be a LOT of work and I've been stretched kind of thin for a while.
Thanks for posting the documents here in the meantime -- I agree that the city's website is really difficult to navigate for specific info.
@610 I think the underground garage under the condos that was part of the original plan had to be changed out at either City or CCC direction and the new approved plan no longer made financial sense for the developer so away they went! It happens quite a lot.
I know the guy walked away and let the lender take the property back and its another empty piece of non revenue producing dirt in town.
The Planning Commission approved the project with a Sea wall that was suppose to protect, the existing road, the building and the underground garage.[We had to include the City road because the C.C.C. does not allow sea wall for new structures] The C.C.C. wasn't buying it an removed the sea wall and had the owners plan on raising the grade of the site.
A real sea wall not a retaining wall that just moves all the sand further down the beach.
Like at Beach Blvd.
Post a Comment