* Blogmaster's note: Below is a copy of an email sent to Lee Diaz of the Pacifica Planning Department, along with Riptide and Fix Pacifica.
Hi Lee,
Please
excuse the crudeness of the drawing, I took like literally 2 minutes,
but the consensus on both blogs is the current proposal is too big and
or too ugly.
To
further the debate I offer this to the commission/public and applicant:
a 3 story alternative to the 9 story proposal. By loosing the top
building
and two floors of the bottom structure I think the proposal of this
scale with an iconic coastal veneer of shingles would not have much, if
any, opposition. It's a 1/3 the size of the project to date but would
still allow for 7 units and (possibly) a roof top bar and grill.
Todd Bray
37 comments:
Todd there's no consensus on both blogs that this project is too big. Get it?
Rantanon @7:55 AM, I get that the consensus on both blogs is the proposal is too big and too ugly. You only need to read the comments to understand that.
9 stories of anything in Pacifica is too much regardless of any game playing about structure. It's 9 stories, that part is undeniable.
talking about too big and too ugly.
Consensus = majority of opinion.
Based on the comments I've read there is consensus that this is an ugly design.
The opinion that this project is too large is coming from the NIMBY/NOBIE camp which should be called a "deal killing" tactic, not a consensus.
Mike, the criticism here on FIX is the project is too ugly and because it's too big it will get shot down. That shows you lot at least can reason.
On RIPTIDE the consensus is too big, too ugly without the hidden pro growth/anything goes ideology of your wee band of whatever the hell you are play to.
Consensus on Fix and Tide: too big, too ugly.
Also, constantly repeating that the design is nine stories does not change the fact that it's five stories.
Yo Todd, Mars to Earth. This is Fix. We agree with you on "too ugly", that's it.
"Too big"? Let the regulatory process figure out that one. But considering Mike's professional expertise and rational mind, I trust him, almost never you (its a learned process).
Meantime, how about you sign-on for fixing the highway-- you know highway widening. That could be something else we agree on.
Nope not too big Todd. No consensus here or on Riptide.
Did anyone else notice that the NIMBYs are so frothing at the mouth that they're now starting to channel their inner Tea Party wingnut? When Maybury tells Hutch "Bob, what's with the hero worship of so-called experts? Sometimes, even experts are wrong" I'm instantly reminded of right-wing climate change deniers.
Not me 1042. I'm instantly reminded of Mexican food. Must be the Mayburrito nickname, and it is lunchtime.
More futzin around with freakin housing. For what? The realtors?Max of $100K in property tax. Max. Put up a decent hotel like the original plan and maybe a restaurant and this town will make much more than that in TOT alone. They come, they visit, they spend, they leave.
more residents spend, generate sales tax, fees, other taxes, jobs as wells as property tax.
The site is unbuildable for a profit project like housing or hotel, it requires too much infrastructure. It's a raw piece of granite. Unfortunately the owner bought a white elephant in 2003. That and he's been listening to the wrong people in town. The Chamber gets a lot of money people in trouble with the encouragement they give regarding Pacifica. The quarry and the 55 acre site opposite the quarry are great examples of Chamber meddling and now The Rock. Too bad, but the Chamber does waste a lot of money peoples time, and money.
Obstructionists who instinctively oppose any and all projects are the cause of our financial woes. The fact that they then try to blame the problems that they've caused on city workers is shameful.
Bray, can you please list your building resume.
Please do not include Lego's.
Let the Planning Commission and the Planning Department do their jobs. They'll take care of it.
The Planning Commission is a very sore subject!
933 More residents suck up more services. The cost of those services is out of control. Those additional residents do spend money, but because we have only the most basic retail, they spend their money elsewhere. This will not change. Housing without substantial retail does not break even. Best use we can make of the scraps left for development is visitor-serving high return projects like hotels. Condos that can become vacation rentals also make sense. Hotels and vacation rentals bring in the hefty bonus of that TOT plus the incidental spending around town. Hotels also create a few permanent jobs. Visit, spend, go home.
Is the owner still planning on moving forward with the 9 story condo proposal? Does anyone know?
As far as the planning commission goes at least 3 brought up questions about the projects financial viability. This commission could have already zapped itself down to 4 members if the proposal does move forward.
Hopefully the owner will see the head ache of this parcel and come up with something much more modest and commercial. Or better yet just cut his loses.
It will be interesting to see what's next for THE ROCK-K-K-K-k-k-k-k (simulated echo).
Let's say there are 3000 2-story houses and 2000 1-story houses in Linda Mar. Does that make Linda Mar an 8000-story tall development?
Wow it's an honor to have his highness king Peter Loeb the archbishop of anti-development here. Yes that's him at 2:39. He said the exact same poop crap over on Riptide. Where was your business degree from again Peter? Funny, I talked to the owner of Oceana Market who said the exact opposite. If Pacifica increases it's population he would get more business, pay more taxes and hire more employees. I think I believe him over you.
If 2000 1-story houses are stacked on top of 3000 2-story houses, then there are at least 2000 3-story buildings.
4:20 LOL, that makes too much sense. Don't think he'll get it.
Dramanon @ 4:20 PM, are all those Linda Mar houses stacked on top of each other like the 9 story Rock condo proposal?
No, they're completely separate buildings, just like the proposal.
LMAO, good one Dramanon @ 7:11 PM. It's really creative to think of building that are side by side and compare them as equal to a tall 9 story structure, very creative.
It's a hill, Todd.
Change Linda Mar to Twin Peaks, and tell us what the difference is.
Hutch, that opinion @441 which you seem to find so problematic is one shared by many who have wrestled with the problem. Based in fact. Your grocer guru is part of Pacifica's very limited, group of basic businesses. A few more bags of groceries, tanks of gas, bargains at Ross, have negligible effect on the city's revenue, but probably a big effect on the bottom-line of the individual business.
Since you mentioned Riptide, so will I. In a similar exchange on there, you recently cited the City of San Mateo as having added housing that more than covered the cost of services. Of course, you overlooked the tax bonanza of Hillsdale Shopping Center. I can assure you it's not overlooked by those who run the City of San Mateo or by its residents and those of surrounding communities. It's been proven over and over that housing alone cannot pay the bills. And, no, I'm not Loeb or Bray or any of your other boogeymen. And yes, the answer to Pacifica's financial collapse is visitor-serving businesses like hotels and destination retail.
@ 955 This is a NIMBY theory only. It has NEVER been proven that on the SF Peninsula with the highest taxes in the country that building new housing puts more of a strain on services than what it generates in taxes. Yes there's been studies in bum-fuc Texas, but not here. The fact that new owners here pay 7,8, 9, 10 thousand dollars in property tax a year far out weighs any services they use. Add to that sales and other taxes, fees, jobs created, new and increased business and they are a veritable boon to our economy.
They are 2 separate buildings with 2 separate foundations Todd. That's why your buddy John removed your misleading description from the title.
Anon @ 9:55 PM says, "And yes, the answer to Pacifica's financial collapse is visitor-serving businesses like hotels and destination retail."
I disagree. A large part of Pacifica's financial ills are wages that reflect the housing bubble from a decade ago. It's well documented that staff et al had pay increases during the revenue growth of the bubble but once it burst compensation didn't burst with it.
Sorry. If your revenue is x, then rises to y for a few years and you justifiably take a pay raise, then when y drops back down to x so should your pay. That didn't happen so out of the dust of the housing crisis we are left with boom era wages.
Anon @ 7:59, no, 4545 Coast Highway is a 9 story structure with one foundation. The planning department has a large set of blue prints. Please feel free to go take a look.
Hutch, this is your theory only. It has NEVER been proven that on the SF Peninsula that new housing here pays more in property taxes than the cost of services they use. The city gets only a tiny percentage of the property taxes generated by new housing. You cannot prove that new houses are "a veritable boon to our local economy," while there are numerous well-researched studies around the country that show exactly the opposite.
922 Don't bother. Total waste of your time.
Todd, city employees will not be giving back those generous raises. Beat that drum all you want. Labor is far too important to local politicians for them to ever make those cuts. In fact, we can expect raises to resume any day now. In this town, it's city employees first, taxpayers dead last. For that we can thank this City Council and ourselves for having put them in charge.
A boon? Hutch, are you serious? Our share of property taxes is a pittance. Bray's wage cut mantra and your "boon". How'd you two guys miss the Nobel for Econ this year?
Bray you lost your credibility on city wages when you said you're voting yes on V just to spite Wagner.
Post a Comment