The
city's planning director heard back from the California Coastal
Commission on the city's proposed development on Beach Boulevard, most
recently on Nov. 26 in a lengthy letter.
The city presented the project to the Coastal Commission in an application filed in March. Since then, there have been several letters and meetings between city staff and commission staff.
In official planning terms presented in the application, the city proposes a land use plan amendment by changing the designation of the 3.5 acre parcel from public facilities to mixed use. It also proposes the demolition of existing businesses, grading and the construction of new buildings, streets and landscaping. Coastal Commission staff, through several letters sent to the city, expressed concern about the amount of public benefit provided by the proposed development, its visual impacts, a lack of analysis of project alternatives, the potential coastal and geotechnical hazards and potential water quality impacts.
The latest letter dated Nov. 26 also serves as a working draft of suggested modifications, meant to be a starting point in discussions with the city about the proposal, wrote Stephanie Rexing, Coastal Program Analyst, the author of the letter.
Read more...
Posted by Steve Sinai
(Letter submitted by Jim Wagner)
39 comments:
"It also proposes the demolition of existing businesses"
Anyone know what businesses we're talking about here?
That could just be a typo. She could have meant the demolition of existing buildings.
Between the ineptness at city hall, Tinfow not understanding real estate, and the city trying to do the planning and permitting of the property and the restrictions put on the city by the coastal commission I see exactly what the hippies want in town, nothing being done with this site.
Steve it maybe that I have not had enough but I did not find anything about demolition of existing businesses.
So the CCC checks in with a list of items that make the site economically infeasible. Great. One of the few sites the city could generate some much needed revenue from and some freshly-out-of-college-save-the-world twenty something is dictating the revenue stream for Pacifica. Absurd.
We have no stinkin' businesses, existing or otherwise. The writer must have meant buildings.
Forget that the CCC wants it to be a park, the Coastal Hazards Analysis alone will probably kill it.
I see a library and a large public plaza in our future. It's very clear. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the CCC doesn't give a rat's ass about the financial problems of some chronically badly run coastal city. The CCC is doing the job they were charged with by the voters back in the '70s. Can't expect them to also manage Pacifica's finances. Manage our finances? What a concept! Too bad this city hasn't had any one on council who can count past 4 in decades. Chickens:Roost.
Low cost hotels? Aren't they in the Tenderloin!
So do you see someone lending Pacifica $35,000,000 when they can not even tell us where $4,000,000 "unaccounted for dollars" are?
2:32
Ever hear of Hotel-No-Tell?
238 Creative financing is a specialty of government entities and there is a lot of money out there for these things. If there's a will, and you know there is, I think we may have the personnel on board to find a way. And they don't need the voters to do it. Few within Pacifica, and no one outside, gives a rat's ass about the four million. It will undoubtedly be characterized as a one-off accounting laxity. All better now. Just an opinion.
Don't expect taxpayers to fund seawalls when this gets washed away due to erosion and sea level rise -- because we are already over taxed - and can't afford it, even if we wanted to.
1037 Like they're even going to ask the taxpayers. The game is to find ways to do this stuff without asking the taxpayers because that's so messy. Of course all the while bleating transparency and communication while you maneuver. Basically, ya got no say, bud!
This has been a hole in the ground for 15 years. Unproductive dirt that the city owns. It's about time we did something for the good of the WHOLE city not just the vocal gang on no. They scream NO on everything now just because they are so used to it they don't know how to look at a project objectively. We need a there, there. The Coastal Commission needs a dose of common sense and a couple of adults running it.
It's that damned geography, again. It's zoned for public buildings and the CCC has consistently questioned how much public benefit there is to the "commercial" aspects of the city's request to change the land designation to mixed-use and include a hotel, retail and housing. Looking more and more like a library and public plaza, folks. All they've got to do is deliver the disappointing news, blame the CCC and find some way to finance it without the public vote. Jeez, all that money gambled on plans and consultants. Gambled.
where's the Chamber on this?? Is the Chamber going to defend the project and the start of our Main Street?
I'm hearing that the Chamber of Commerce is in favor of a library.
Library fines are big business.
The coastal commission doesn't like Pacifica, due to the bozo who files bogus appeals.
I'm a chamber member and I'm not in favor of a library. I dont' think I'm alone. Even within the chamber board are some members who don't want a library. Surprisingly, the republican contingent, (no names mentioned) is in favor of a library. Go figure! Bonds/parcel taxes take money out of local consumer pockets translating to fewer dinners out. Many people in Pacifica live in poverty. Even used clothing stores would be hit. I think some of the same arguments against measure V go against the library. That in this environment, spending so much money on ego trips is a bit irresponsible. Closing Sanchez Library is opposed by many constituents of Mike O'Neill, Karen Ervin and John Keener right in their neighborhoods. Restoring, rehabilitating and renewing our two libraries is the best way to go.
(Bold) (Underline): A single library strategy is in approrpriate for a geographically balkanized city such as Pacifica.
hmm, I'm a chamber member. I'll try to be a little more lucid than the above post. I can't remember the last time the Chamber said something thoughtful at Councilon an issue affected the entire town. I doubt they are aware of the Coast Comiss letter and therefore have not read it. That all means they have no opinion because they have not made the effort.
The chamber kisses the city council bootie to get a couple bones tossed their way.
Chamber has never been critical of council.
Chamber has done zero to try to bring in new business into town.
The chamber maid is milking it just like good old Don did.
I am on the Chamber Board and cannot disagree more with the above posts. The Chamber receives NO funds from the City so why would we need to kiss anyone's backside? We were at the hearings regarding Beach Blvd and made comments. We were opposed to the phone tax because many of our small businesses came to us about the burden this tax would be on their bottom lines so we would not endorse the tax which the Council asked us to do. We went to City Hall to object to the increase in the fire inspection fee and thru our efforts we got the fee reduced. Courtney has brought in editors of visitor serving magazines to showcase our communities. These events were all sponsored by business people and in no way financed by the City. The businesses of this City fund the Shuttle. We do not have to go to a City Council meeting to show we are not in agreement with some Council policies. Believe me that the Chamber board is aware of the CCC letter and I have read it. We will comment when we are ready to do so. A personal comment to end 2014: I continue to look across the street at a viable revenue producing site who's project was stopped in 2000 because the developer was three days late with a $100,000 payment. The developer's rep was at the City Council meeting with the cashier's check and then Council members Vreeland and DeJarnett refused to accept the check and killed the development. This developer had been brought to the City by the Chamber of Commerce. It was said at that time that "there were other eager developers on the horizon" but every day for the past 15 years I have looked outside at nothing. Where would this City be today if this project was not stopped?
Chris, do the chamber support 35 million dollar library or not at Beach Blvd? Do you? Is the chamber or you in particular willing to oppose Mary Ann on this issue? Pacificans from all neighborhoods think its an outrage to spend so much money on a new library when there are so many other things that can qualify as higher priority.
IMO, I think it is too early to say whether or not the Chamber supports the library project on Palmetto. Personally I will do what I always do on big City decisions; wait until I have all the facts. In this case I would need both financial and property use of current library sites, before I make any type of personal decision. Regarding my previous post, I keep bringing up the story of the lost opportunity in 2000 because I am probably one of the few people who was sitting in the audience that night and saw first hand this "power play" that cost our City millions, that still blogs so I do not want the true outcome to ever be distorted.
Do they or don't they? No position will be taken publicly until it is absolutely safe do so. Remember how long it took to get a CoC public stance on Measure V? Got to check which way the wind is blowing. Wouldn't want to be left out of the festivities if that library does manage to get built. Avoid getting side-tracked by the distracting rehash of ancient history, and, remember kids, it's not just a library, it's the anchor of Pacifica's downtown. If that doesn't just scream CoC, what does? Remove the immediate threat to the Sanchez branch and you remove most of the opposition to a new library. They can always shut it down later during the euphoria phase.
Ah, Ah, Ah!
Be careful not to disparage the legacy of St. Vreeland and his little lap dog deJarnutt. You don't want to stir up the RIPTARDS do you?
Public Libraries are NOT anchors for downtowns. They are amenities at best.
What the hell is the CC wIting for? The city is moving forward with the new library. The plans are in place and the city is working at implementing them. There will never be a "use study" you're looking to base a decision on. The city sure isn't interested in one, it's full speed ahead with this new library come hell or high water.
Let's be honest. The CC is waiting to see which horse is ahead before it hops on the bandwagon, just like it did with measure v.
The CC will stay silent until the opposition to the library is too loud to be ignored and then you'll see a My Turn column in the paper once it's too late to make any difference. That'll be the extent of their "leadership."
If the CC was a real leadership group in town, they'd be out in front of the issue, but...
I don't remember the Chamber coming out with a position on V.
5:09:
http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica-columns/ci_24008453/our-turn-chamber-takes-position-measure-v
The Chamber of Commerce needs to grow a pair and provide some "business" leadership.
If they think a library in a strategic revenue zone makes sense, then so state it.
If they think it would hinder revenue growth, then so state it.
Please stop being the problem and start being the solution.
As with V it looks like they're waiting to see which way the wind blows/which horse is ahead before saying something official, but haven't we read endorsements of a new downtown anchored by a "library complex" from less bashful chamber members? I believe we have. You believe in Palmetto as a "downtown", you believe in the library, don't you? Something for you, something for me, let's all work together, ba ba ba dump.
measure v was an utter failure.
Before City Hall gets too carried away with the pie in the sky library plans maybe they should all take Finance 101 at Skyline.
Happy New Years!
Hey Chamber members, what has the Chamber done for you lately?
Thought so.
Where is the library anchor on Burlingame Ave,Burlingame;Laurel Ave,San Carlos;B St.,San Mateo,San Bruno Ave,San Bruno;Grand Ave.,South San Francisco.All areas successful without $50,000,000 anchor?
SSF has city hall and an operating carneghie grant library from 190?? that is not their main branch but none of the others are "library anchored". All of those streets are kind of restaurant rows, which is great food for thought, excuse the pun. Westborough Square overnight with its rehabilitation became a restaurant row, there's a five guys, sushi, bonchon chicken, vietnamese, chinese, filipino, philz, quickly, something for everyone and the restaurants are hopping and the parking lot is always filled to capacity. Palmetto seems more like a potential restaurant row street than anything else. Just needs the right seed businesses. Burlingame Avenue was very sleepy with local tenants until Starbucks came in around 1992. Then it blasted off as other national tenants came in. I don't see a new library as an attraction to out of town people. That's what Palmetto needs. Half the people in this town, probably more than half don't know it exists, never been there.
Don't drag the chamber into your continual rants. We did not support Measure V which in my opinion cost us any funding from the City. Contrary to alot of rants here, we wait to get all the info before we make a statement or take a position. In this situation, what is going to be done with the current library sites is very important (at least to me). Will they be sold and monies received offset any bond measure, will the facilities be rented out for some type of revenue generating income to the City, do we have an anchor tenant for the complex, ect.
Maybe the people in the neighborhood would prefer a nice, sleepy library instead of a bunch of noisy businesses? Looks like the CCC has real issues with the hotel, housing parts of the plan. What a surprise! Like no one saw that coming. Full speed ahead FabFive with the library and plaza. The rest of it never had a chance. I'm damn proud this city under Vree and then Nihart spent hundreds of thousands to find that out. Probably a million bucks. Damn proud! Still spending, aren't they? By god, they're fools.
Didn't the Chamber lose the political rabble element? Same element that lost the election because they continue to misjudge this town? Organic or strategic, smart move. Stick to promoting businesses and Pacifica. There's your value.
Post a Comment