| Good luck Dave Blackman! |
Planning Commission Agenda, 3/16/15, pdf pages 10.
"Public hearings (1): "Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision that Appellant did not timely appeal Zoning Administrator's prior decision that a Coastal Development Permit was not required for construction at 12 Sharon Way (APN 009-291-050)."
.... "... "On February 2, 2015, the City received a separate appeal from Mr. Blackman, which appeals the Zoning Administrator's decision that the appeal he filed on January 14, 2015 is untimely. (Introduction, page 2).
.... Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal on the ground that Mr. Blackman did not timely appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination that a Coastal Development Permit was not required for the construction at 12 Sharon Way (APN 009-291-050)."
Reference, property - 12 Sharon Way (lot 0.67 acres, commercial/multi-family), is in the industrial park, just south of 1100 Palmetto Avenue; north of 5th Avenue, and just north of Pacifica Skies Mobile Home Park. Loopnet includes graphic Bing and Google maps. Other: Realtor.com includes a Google map; Zillow, includes Bing map. Lot sold for $500,000, 2/2/12. Note photograph: Shamrock tattoo from Tattoo designs 24.
Update. Related comments from Tom Clifford, 3/15/15, 11:06 AM. ...."... original decision was not noticed and that it was based on a faulty assumptions (remodel vs. tear-down and building a new structure)is that the issue before the Planning Commission is, was the first appeal done in a timely manner. My opinion is that since the decision was never publicly noticed the ten day time limit should not apply..... Dave deserve to have his original appeal heard by the P.C."
Update. Related comments from David Blackman, 3/14/15, 10:23 AM. "Just to be clear it is not a question of its a remodel or not. It is in the coastal zone within 300' of the beach and also between the ocean and the first public road. This is a new office building adjacent to the beach and coastal cliff that required a coastal development permit. Furthermore the planning dept required the last developer of this same property to get a coastal development permit. Furthermore they imposed a Coastal development permit and CEQA based cliff erosion study on the neighbor who wanted just a Use permit." Also see his 7:40 AM comment: .... "I believe Jim Payne was denied a Coastal Development Permit near 12 Sharon Way for not performing the CEQA review of a coastal bluff study for just asking to continue his outdoor use. No structure was even proposed."
Reltated, David Blackman Construction, Inc. Build Zoom. "David Blackman Construction Inc operates out of Pacifica, CA and holds General Engineering Contractor, General Building Contractor licenses according to the California contractors license board. ....David Blackman Construction Inc has a BuildZoom score of 95 and is rated in the top 20% of 336,931 contractors in California."
Update. Related comments from Tom Clifford, 3/15/15, 11:06 AM. ...."... original decision was not noticed and that it was based on a faulty assumptions (remodel vs. tear-down and building a new structure)is that the issue before the Planning Commission is, was the first appeal done in a timely manner. My opinion is that since the decision was never publicly noticed the ten day time limit should not apply..... Dave deserve to have his original appeal heard by the P.C."
Update. Related comments from David Blackman, 3/14/15, 10:23 AM. "Just to be clear it is not a question of its a remodel or not. It is in the coastal zone within 300' of the beach and also between the ocean and the first public road. This is a new office building adjacent to the beach and coastal cliff that required a coastal development permit. Furthermore the planning dept required the last developer of this same property to get a coastal development permit. Furthermore they imposed a Coastal development permit and CEQA based cliff erosion study on the neighbor who wanted just a Use permit." Also see his 7:40 AM comment: .... "I believe Jim Payne was denied a Coastal Development Permit near 12 Sharon Way for not performing the CEQA review of a coastal bluff study for just asking to continue his outdoor use. No structure was even proposed."
Reltated, David Blackman Construction, Inc. Build Zoom. "David Blackman Construction Inc operates out of Pacifica, CA and holds General Engineering Contractor, General Building Contractor licenses according to the California contractors license board. ....David Blackman Construction Inc has a BuildZoom score of 95 and is rated in the top 20% of 336,931 contractors in California."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
12 comments:
Everything Mr. Blackman said is true.Further more
the building site on 12 Sharon Way was not used for
office for last 6 and1/2 years and longer. it has been used for many other things including rentals.
The building was not remodeled it was totally
demolished and ground area scraped clean,leveled
and a new foundation was formed.
Allowing any of this venture by Scott Monroe aka
Pacific Skies Estates aka GreyStar Mgr.team will
render many people HOMELESS because they plan
to EVICT 1st and 2nd avenues first!!!!!!!!!
Shame on City of Pacifica for allowing any type
of upgrade or new contraction to 12 Sharon Way
or any part of Pacific Skies Estates when they are not
renting ,rentable mobile homes, taking appliances,toilets,sinks etc.to make them SEEM un-
rentable. There plan is to EVICT 1st and 2nd avenue
and more to receive Market Value and higher rents.
Investors should get a return on their money but not
EVICTING elderly,disabled,low income and more
people.Where are our Low-Lower- Affordable
Housing.
HERE'S A WAKE UP CALL FOR PEOPLE THAT ALLOW THESE TYPE OF ACTIONS:
That property is zoned low and affordable income.
The ocean belongs to GOD!!!!!!
But wait was that another change(decision) made
by the Zoning Administration behind closed doors,in
secret barring from public or open forum !!!!!
Mr.Blackman makes a valid point,it is almost impossible to appeal the zoning administrator's (George White)decision in the ten day allowed because there was no notice that such a decision had been made.
Reading Editors Corner from 2/25/2015 there was a part about Mayor doing her first Mayor Walk and
meeting with businesses.She stated that the owners
were happy with the property manager now.That is all
fine , but there was a joke made about when a few years back when Eureka Square was quite empty
that the property should be imploded and affordable
housing considered.I do not think not having a place to afford and having affordable housing is a joke. You have no idea how it is to live with that day and day and especially if you have pets.
I am striving to make the permit process fairer for everyone.
Dan Murphy proposed development on this property a few years ago. After an expensive and exhaustive Coastal Development permit process he quit. He was even required to perform an EIR for the Coastal Development permit which typically cost over an additional $80,000.
Any improvements in the coastal zone on property located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of a beach requires a Coastal Development permit.
The new office building at 12 Sharon Way is between the sea and the first public road. The new office building at 12 Sharon Way is within 300 feet of a beach. The new office building at 12 Sharon Way was a new use. The new office building at 12 Sharon Way was not a remodel it was a complete teardown and new construction.
Any change of use requires a Coastal Development permit.
What is except from coastal development permits are single family home on property not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of a beach requires a Coastal Development permit. The City of Pacifica continues to force homeowners down this expensive timely process even though it is not required.
Recent projects such as 1493 Grand Ave remodel, 251 & 261 San Pedro new story homes, 280 San Pedro new 1 story single family home, 240 Stanley “change siding style”.
I believe Jim Payne was denied a Coastal Development Permit near 12 Sharon Way for not performing the CEQA review of a coastal bluff study for just asking to continue his outdoor use. No structure was even proposed.
Dave You are the second person that I trust who has said that this was a complete tear-down. Tearing down and replacing a building is not a remodeling.
The official position of the planning department is that only three feet was added to the building and that no tear down took place. Lee Diaz proof of this statement is that the building inspector never mention to him that the build had been completely replaced. Farther more Lee justification for this action is that the site is now much cleaner and that old code violation were taken care off. (The ends justify the means?)
Just to be clear it is not a question of its a remodel or not. It is in the coastal zone within 300' of the beach and also between the ocean and the first public road. This is a new office building adjacent to the beach and coastal cliff that required a coastal development permit. Furthermore the planning dept required the last developer of this same property to get a coastal development permit. Furthermore they imposed a Coastal development permit and CEQA based cliff erosion study on the neighbor who wanted just a Use permit.
Thanks for your clarification comments Dave Blackman, and also Tom Clifford. This Planning Commission issue (or issues), looks confusing on the Agenda text, and your follow-up comments are appreciated.
I have updated the above Planning Commission article with part of your comments, Dave. Hope the needed, less expensive planning regulation changes occur, this time or in the near future.
Kathy The reason I am stressing the point that the original decision was not noticed and that it was based on a faulty assumptions (remodel vs. tear-down and building a new structure)is that the issue before the Planning Commission is, was the first appeal done in a timely manner. My opinion is that since the decision was never publicly noticed the ten day time limit should not apply.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission reads into the record after each decision it makes that anyone has ten days to appeal the decision to the City Council.A public hearing and a public notice of the right to appeal.
Dave deserve to have his original appeal heard by the P.C.
Tom, 1106, 925, thanks for your further clarification, which is appreciated. Your 1106 comment in part has been added to the article, indicating the new structure original appeal was in fact timely.
I hope that people will turn up at the P.C. meeting tonight to support Dave's attempt to create a fairer and more open permit process.
Post a Comment