Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are held at City Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Boulevard. The Planning commission meeting from 7:00 p.m. is televised on Pacificcoast.TV (formerly known as PCT26). The Study Session is not televised, Pacificcoast.TV calendar.
Planning Commission Study Session Agenda, 3/17/14, 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., pages 4.
| Good luck! With the wind at your back, may your projects go the distance. |
 |
| 801 Fassler Avenue |
Street View
Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report(s), 3/17/14, 7:00 p.m., pages 7.
1. Coastal development permit, CDP-342-14. "... to demolish an existing building, to subdivide a parcel into two lots and to construct a single-family dwelling on each lot at 251 and 261 San Pedro Avenue (APN 023-034-020, 030, 040 and 050."
Note photographs: 801 Fassler Avenue from a prior Fix Pacifica article (Planning Commission meeting, 7/2/12), originally from Zillow. St. Patrick's Day four leave clover from Dr. Kathy Koch.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
34 comments:
Fassler project sold last August with planning permits to expire this Sept. Lotsa luck to new owners as they begin process to modify project. We could use a couple dozen market-rate oceanview condos and the revenue that comes with.
Another project that will be approved and then Bray will appeal to the coastal commission, and city hall, and the city council, and the planning department, cause he doesn't like !
That's his right. Yours to cheer! Coastal Commission has no say on this one. You trust your council and city to approve and facilitate, don't you? I keep hearing about 99%.
5:12
Coastal commission can act on anything with An ocean view. They acted on a property up on the ridge above Miramar.
I don't think that's correct. Their jurisdiction is the coastal zone which in Pacifica is everything west of highway 1.
If they can act on anything with an ocean view, that includes parts of upper Manor, East Sharp Park, Gypsy Hill, parts of Vallemar, Fassler, and so on.
The Coastal Commission denied Todd Bray's meritless case against the Holiday Inn expansion. Yay
http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2014/03/pacifican-appeals-to-coastal-commission-for-holiday-inn-redesign.html
640 Within the city limits the Coastal Zone under the jurisdiction of the CA Coastal Commission is the area west of Highway One plus the Shelldance Nursery Property. Info and map can be found in the General Plan.
11:50 the Coastal Commission started from the High Tide line to Highway 1.
Read up on Sterling vs The California Coastal Commission.
Here is the link
Sterling VS Coastal Commission
http://www.inversecondemnation.com/files/ct-stmnt-of-dcsn.pdf
With regard to the "Todd Bray Appeal" posted on Riptide, our City (Planning Planning and City Council) and the Coastal Commission process, evaluation and screening seem to be working without further delay and interruption. Additionally, "Big Banker" posted an astute comment 3/15/14, 8:41 AM, with postscript 8:51 AM.
On the human side, I'm sorry to hear Todd Bray is having health problems. Plus Long Beach for consideration of a Northern California Coastal Commission hearing request is a bit far.
Here's Big Bankers comment about Bray's empty complaint:
--------------------------------------
If you read the staff report and/or watched the Coastal Commission meeting, the building of the hotel expansion at sea level is not true. The Coastal Commission had no problem with the elevation of the property.
As for matching the neighborhood. We have the buildings on Dondee that match the building on the corner of Rockaway Beach and Old County Road. The Clocktower, which was approved both by the City Of Pacifica and the Coastal Commission, does not match the surrounding buildings. Did any of you protest this building. I think not.
The new construction on Dondee doesn't match anything in Rockaway: three buildings on one small parcel. With parking in between the buildings.
This was simply a tactic to delay the owner, make them waste time and money. You have no concern for what is best for the city, and its need for badly needed money. This city needs revenue-producing projects; the owner was going to replace a horrid, empty eyesore of a building (Horizons) with a very nice hotel expansion.
You people act as if you have some kind of right to tell the property owners what to build and how many units, etc. Only the city and the Coastal Commission hold that right.
Seriously, move on to something else, get a hobby, or go to the JC and take a class. You're wasting everyone's time and money.
Posted by: big banker
- See more at: http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2014/03/pacifican-appeals-to-coastal-commission-for-holiday-inn-redesign.html#sthash.BtpChSA5.dpuf
So these useless hippies views about other projects like The Rock not fitting surroundings will not be taken seriously by the coastal commission. Good sign. Hopefully the word gets out. Someone send the Rock developer a copy of the decision.
The Rock is on the east side of the highway. Not in Coastal Commission jurisdiction.
The hippies know all! That is why we should trust them on developement and Highway 1.
Joke. Nothing has been done in Pacifica in the last 30 years thanks to the hippies, noobees and nimbys
Yes 1123, the CCC has no control of the Rock because it's not in their jurisdiction. It never was. The owner is aware and now so are you. Maybe the city process scared him off. Tell him about the 99%.
1:12
Read the link to the lawsuit Sterling vs Ca Coastal Commission
You are wrong.
Yet the hippies noobees and nimbys put out Todd Bray as the offfical spokeman to call the guy.
You know the same Todd Bray who called his buddy Barry Swenson and told him not to buy the quarry.
Peter Loeb and the Vallemar, Pedro Point NIMBYS and HIPPIE and NOOBEES won't post here because they know they led the financial distruction of the city.
I suggest you read Sterling for content this time, probably for the first time. And really, your Bray thing approaches obsession. IMO he's a superb press agent for Todd Bray. A smart, articulate, well-written/read guy with time on his hands. What would he do without you? Aren't you part of the 99%? If you've got all that AND the city council, then Todd should be of no real concern. Now that you've got all this support, why not focus on attracting developers? Study Putin. He knows how to make things happen.
The Sterling decision is about unincorporated land in El Granada. The coastal zone and the CCC's jurisdiction is different in that area than in Pacifica. In Pacifica, the coastal zone and the CCC's jurisdiction is legally defined as the land west of highway 1.
4:48
Do you have any idea where their land is located?
4:17
Is Bray posting anon
Lemme get this straight. Todd Bray will exercise his right to try and stop a developer, and in the process cost said developer $1000's, but when it comes to actually putting his money where his big mouth is and showing up at the hearing he's a dud?
A letter from the California Coastal Commission staff to Lee Diaz, Pacifica City Planner, dated July 13, 2004 says the Rock project "may require a permit from the California Coastal Commission if the project involves work within the the Highway 1 right-of-way. According to the April 27, 2004 Traffic Study prepared for the project, the project will result in significant adverse impacts at the Highway 1 intersections at Fassler Avenue and at Reina del Mar. These impacts would interfere with the public’s ability to access the coast in conflict with the coastal access policies of the California Coastal Act.”
The letter says “as Commission staff has noted in previous correspondence, it appears that the Calera Parkway project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act because it would result in the destruction of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. As confirmed by the California Court of Appeal, both the relocation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas and filling of wetlands for roadway expansion projects are prohibited under the California Coastal Act.” The letter goes on to say that, “the Calera Parkway project appears to be prohibited under state law."
854 Do you think a wider highway to cross will make it harder and more dangerous for residents and visitors on foot to access the coast? Coastal access is kind of a big deal in California. Guess they can pitch up a couple pedestrian walkovers (lots more money) or maybe reconsider another option altogether.
726 Don't know exactly but it's described in the HMB paper as back in the hills of El Granada and overlooking town. Part of it is along El Granada Creek watershed. As someone else posted, it's important to note El Granada is unincorporated rural SMC. The CCC has different jurisdiction in rural coastal areas meaning it can extend further inland than it does in the City of Pacifica. There's no one size fits all with the CCC.
You should read the court's decisions. The Sterlings filed 2 suits in SMC Superior Court and won both times. Just google Sterling v California Coastal Commission. Amazing stuff.
I knew about the lawsuit before it was filed. The Coastal Commission over stretched its might and wanted to show they can pull this kind of crap.
Its sick what they did to these people.
Pedestrians can wait in the landscaped median to cross if they can't make it all the way across in one shot. There can be a bench there. At most they will have to wait a few minutes. Hardly denying access to the coast. As far as dangerous, 10X more pedestrian collisions take place on 2 lane streets than all the highways combined.
This is just the newest strategy to delay this project.
And 854, The plans for the highway have been greatly adjusted since 2004, Any widening over wetlands will be raised on piers. more poppycock.
It's fun to see the nimby's run out of objections and grasping at straw.
Pedestrians can wait in the median if they don't make it all the way across in one shot? Oh the school kids will love that game. Slap down a bench? You are an old softie. You got something for the dogs? Maybe a big slingshot?
812 You say 10X less pedestrian collisions on highways than 2 lane streets? Your numbers are your own, but it's true more pedestrians are killed on streets than highways. You think that might have something to do with keeping pedestrians off those highways through design and regulation? They're not designed for pedestrian safe access to anything. That includes the coast and this widening.
Council has that rare opportunity to be a hero and a victim on the same issue. Well, not so rare. Politicians live for and through these things. They can vote yes because the proponents have delivered 99% wink wink and what else could they possibly do? Then they're forced to watch as the CCC kills the widening. Oh boohoo. Politics as usual.
5:00
You think council will do the right thing? This will get delayed by Bray and the gang of no.
Council is afraid to make a move. The 'gang of no' know that our city council is spineless and pretty much useless. Ask them for their personal opinion on a project and you get yes no and maybee.
Really? Is this any way to spend St.Patrick's Day?
Well, yeah, if you're Irish. 608 what I think is that Council will do the politically expedient thing and try to minimize their exposure to political injury by bowing to the mythical 99% while bleating about the people's will and all the while knowing the Coastal Commission is probably not going to love THE WIDENING (cue Stephen King). By trying to stay out of the growth/no growth fire, Council will have compromised their chance for leadership in asking Caltrans to find a better alternative. What else is new? I do not include Digre and O'Neill in this because I think they do follow their conscience--often to opposing ends, perhaps without effect, and with little reward. Troublemakers!
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-03-17/centennial-village-gets-city-approval-long-awaited-south-city-project-to-revamp-aging-shopping-center-add-housing-offices/1776425119832.html
South San Francisco gets a nice new project, while Pacifica does nothing!!
Post a Comment