 |
| Item 13. Replacing a Chevron service station, mini-market with a 7-Eleven convenience store, gas pump station. Big deal! Opponents claim it will ruin the neighborhood. Are you serious? |
Consideration
12. First Annual Economic Development Committee Report.
13. Appeal Planning Commission approval to redevelop 700 Hickey Boulevard, 7-Eleven (privately owned by 7-Eleven and complies with zoning regulations).
14. Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee objects, modification consideration.
15. Economic Development Committee, appointments (3).
Note: photograph of the prior Fairmont Chevron service station is from Loopnet. The commercial lot owned by 7-Eleven is currently empty with a green vinyl fence around the property. (The old Chevron has been torn down to redevelop the site).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
57 comments:
DON'T MISS TOMMORROW NIGHT's FINAL CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON 7-ELEVEN at:
7:00pm Council Chambers (2nd floor)
2212 Beach Blvd, Pacifica, CA
(right by Pacifica Pier).
Here's what the building looks like and what door you walk in:
http://www.pacifica.city/images/MAP_PAC_2212_beach_blvd_pacifica_ca_94044.jpg
And here's a parking pass you can print out in advance:
http://www.pacifica.city/forms/pacifica_parking_permit_print_out_cut_in_half.pdf
Special thanks to FixPacifica for the chance to talk to your visitors.
What is the recourse if the city zoning is not consistent with city general land use plan? I have some property that is zoned R1-H. It is about 10000 sqft. However, the general land use specifies the area as "Open Space Residential" which in turn is mandated .2 residential units/acre or 1 residential unit per 5 acres. Clearly, the lot I own is not 5 acres large. But it is zoned R1-H. I spoke the city planning dept. they acknowledged the inconsistency but couldn't provide me with a specific direction other than asking to consider an amendment to city general plan.
What I don't follow is, it is the city that zoned the property R1-H. It is also the city that has mandated 1 residential unit per 5 acres with a clear understanding that my lot (and other lots) do not confirm to their specification. It is an inconsistency on their part. Any have a similar situation?
1122, an amendment for your R-1-H (single-family/low density residential land under 5 acres) sounds like good advisement from Planning.
Meantime, the area for the proposed 7-Eleven convenience store with 4 gas pumps, replacing the Chevron gas/service station is more likely zoned R1 for multi-unit higher density residential, with adjacent commercial. Pacifica zoning map, index, pdf computer page 3. And, a quick description of R1 zoning/Portland (quick search), here.
I would think that you could apply for a single family home on a lot of that size. I do not think they can refuse to allow you to build without running into illegal taking of your property. Now the question you have to ask yourself is how build able a site is it and is the cost to benefit ratio worth the effort.
Tom - the property is sloped and is on a hillside. With some excavation and grading, the lot is build-able.
Kathy - amendment to the general plan is an expensive and time consuming process. I'd much rather avoid it, if I can.
130, well I agree with Tom Clifford 115. The City will probably work with you and make an exception.
Tom Clifford is right. You can't be denied the right to build on a legal lot. The zoning ordinance is a law and is what rules legally. The General Plan is only that - general. The zoning is R1-H. That's a hillside so there are additional regulations but the zoning says you have the right to build 1 single family residence, within all the other applicable regulations.
Zoing says you have the right to apply to build, and stipulates maximum size and coverage. The city and planning commission have the right to limit any structure to something well below the maximum if it is overpowering neighboring structures. It's called planning, not expanding.
Item #13, the 7-Eleven convenience store/gas pump station project was approved, with lots of conditions. The Appeal failed.
The City Council vote was 3 (Nihart, Ervin, O'Neill) - 2 (Digre, Keener).
I told you ONeill would flip.
7-Eleven bought him a hot dog and slurpee!
I hope that Slurpee was worth send Fairmont residents down the river for, Mike.
You shoulda looked at your 2014 poll numbers again before becoming 7-11's lapdog -- you aren't going to be reelected after this betrayal. You needed those Fairmont votes.
Buh-bye!
829, fess-up NIMBY "lapdog", Councilmember Mike O'Neill never had your vote. No loss, no gain for anonymous you.
Also, not all Fairmont residents were against a modern structure 7-Eleven on the old Chevron site at 700 Hickey.
Some people are just against "everything" development. Yet this City needs services, jobs and revenue. How civilized, you may not understand.
8:29, Mike is termed-out anyway, as are Sue and Mary Ann.
Todd, Zoning is a set of rules promulgated by the planning department in consultation with and co-operation with the city and public. It is a city ordinance by which people may apply, construct and develop their properties (residential or commercial).
Planning commission cannot override zoning arbitrarily as it pleases without consultation or making their intent public.
Zoning is Law. If planning commission should want to override their own laws, they should reveal their due intention to do so, the rational and the process.
LOL whut? Tough to be any more wrong, dude.
Term limits enacted in 2010.
Subsequently, Nihart's first full term began in 2012. She can run for her second term (under the enacted limits) in 2016.
O'Neill likewise is serving his first full term. His 2-year stint doesn't count towards term limits.
Durr is right. This has been thoroughly researched. Ask the city attorney about it. The term limits ordinance does not apply to the term of council members who sitting at the time it was enacted, so the limit is 2 full terms that started after passage of the ordinance. Mike's first term was not a full term and Mary Ann can still re-up for one more full term.
Oops, I think Durr is right.
At least this is Sue's last term. I'm perfectly happy to have Mary Ann and Mike on the council.
Thank goodness Digre will be departing. What a waste of space we've had to endure all of these years.
We need to recruit some electable, progressive candidates to keep Keener the Greener and his selfish minions locked in their fantasy world to prevent any more damage to our economy.
Thus the reason why Julie Lancelle is going to run again!
That would truly be disastrous.
If you are right and she does run, her phony happy talk will be stopped every time. She will be required to explain missing million$ of dollars, incompetent leadership, dysfunctional government, failed infrastructure.....all under her watch.
12:22, what we need is to avoid is a vote-splitting situation.
12:57
The hippies never have to explain anything!
Right you are Mr. Sinai. We're going to have to play hardball with "no chance in hell" vote splitters on our side. I hope the hippies have hundreds of candidates.
Speaking of hippies, they need to be challenged this next cycle like never before.
Their phony enviro speak and all of the other fake topics they use to fool voters has got to be challenged and contrasted to the reality of their completely bankrupt legacy. Especially Lancelle if she runs.
These pixie-dust thugs have done real harm to our community and are ruining it for everyone here now and future generations.
Lancelle will fit right in. She and Nihart had quite a sister act going. They both understand the art of the political compromise. Could very easily end up with Digre, Keener and Lancelle on board together 2016-2018.
Dust off Schneider, Dyer and that other guy and run 'em again. They should be all rested up by
November 2016. Toss in a couple "serious" candidates from the "business community" and prepare for nimby domination.
Rob Schneider?
Yeah! Film career has slowed. Reagan, Schwarzeneggar and Schneider!
This is a serious question, If I were to run how many of you would open your checkbook?
I would run as a middle of the road candidate friendly to economic development and also a protector of our environment. Facts would be the basis of all my decisions.
Tom,
Only two seats are up in 2016 - Ervin & Nihart. Assuming that they both decide to run again (and fingers crossed that they do), then nobody from the non-nimby/nobie side should run against them!! Please save your powder for 2018 when Digre will out because of term limits and Keener will be up for re-election.
Nihart will not win another term. No way. Irvin will get in, but not with the margin of her first win.
Incumbents have a huge advantage. In Pacifica, with the small number of voters, any incumbent who runs will win.
"I would run as a middle of the road candidate friendly to economic development and also a protector of our environment."
Tom, everyone who runs says something like that.
I've gotta' tell you, it would be very hard for me to support someone who went before council telling them to implement the monster home ordinance (the one where DeJarnatt picked a square footage number out of the air that turned out to be not much bigger than the average new home size in California,) is against highway widening, and voted for Keener.
Actually, being against highway widening wouldn't be a big deal to me if you could come up with an alternative that actually had a chance of working.
Steve, I too was appalled when City Council took Months of hard work and research by the Planning Commission an turned it into a race to see who could come up with the smallest Sq. footage home as the base number. politics vs planning. I learn a lot from that experience.
Thomas, you are a thoughtful and eloquent speaker. I say go for it and I'll write you a check and pass out fliers for you.
Ervin won't run again.
We don't need another neutral candidate who isn't on board with our goals.
We need another Mary Ann.
Not physically but supporting what it takes to make Pacifica another Burlingame.
Ervin thinks she has a political future over the hill. Another joker.
8:21 why do you hate Pacifica so much that you want it to be another Burlingame?
Gentrification of Pacifica is underway because the Bay Area economy is so strong it's created a super-hot housing market. People making bags of money and they need a place to live. This is probably something even a Pacifica City Council can't screw up. It's our geography finally working for us. What are we saving it for? Will it translate into an economically sustainable Pacifica? Oh, probably not--it's just housing and we'll still be nothing more than a bedroom community with a few more cafes and shops and very vulnerable to any market fluctuations. Find the space to put 500 million dollars of new or improved housing and Pacifica only makes about $500K in annual property tax. A few more bucks in sales and gas tax-thank heaven for 7-Eleven! Same amount the new library complex might bring in. Nonetheless, delight among associated housing industry professionals would be off the scale. And there's nothing wrong with that. Our new well-heeled neighbors better love the idea of higher taxes for the privilege of living in heavily residential Pacifica. Hey, hear those echoes of Julie Lancelle? Still we've got to love it because our property values will go up and this old dump of a town will look great! Us long time residents are eager to pay more taxes for services, right? Gentrification. Time your bail out correctly and yippie skippee!
10:29 why do you hate Pacifica so much that you want to drive it into bankruptcy?
1025 Aren't you going to mention she promised you a new downtown Pacifica? I don't see political ambition in Ervin. Not at all. And maybe that's why she actually has more potential than anyone we've seen in 20 years. Comes across as accessible, compassionate, smart and genuine. Sure, she's Nihart's wingman on some things, it happens, but she's not a Nihart. Of course, that pretty much guarantees she won't seek higher office. And that's too bad.
1155 Wipe that grin off your face!
Pacifica is already bankrupt.
NIMBLY greenies like Keener who roll over for unions caused our problems.
Mary Ann nihart may be a nurse but she won't let unions get away with more than a five percent annual raise.
She is my candidate
Ervin can only speak after Mary Ann gives her the nod.
Oh Ya Ervin promised us a new Palmetto. It still looks like the same shit hole as it always has.
Karen is done.
She's not running again.
1216 How sweet! And silly. They all roll over for the unions. No more than 5%! My ass. And, btw, 5% is irresponsible. Beyond that, don't you know the raise they announce to the public isn't the whole picture? It's the fine print, the fringes, the benefits and the almighty work rules that cost the taxpayers as much as any raise. Under the radar. The more analytical bears like Nihart, and, yes, Keener, actually understand the contracts. And, let's not forget our council voted themselves executive level union benefits 7 or 8 years ago. Unions give a little here to make the co-operative politician look tough and fiscally responsible to the voters and they get a little there, quietly, to keep the members happy. The unions and their smart politicians scratch each other's backs. Nihart is a smart politician. She knows she needs union support and will never do anything to derail that. The unions know they need their politicians in place and will never do anything publicly to damage them as long as they play along. This city plays along, it always has.
Karen Ervin is headed for the shower. A good scrub should remove all trace of having served on a Pacifica City Council.
Thx 1259. Thought Nihart was sleepy or senile. All that nodding.
109, how about you ask Mayor Karen Ervin, then get back to us, putting your name on your comment?
1259, what City Council Candidate Karen Ervin said was "she would continue to support the plans to redevelop Palmetto Avenue and Beach Blvd.". That is not the same as "promised us a new Palmetto." See our reprint from the Pacifica Tribune, 9/7/12.
She also said she would "address the City's economic issues", which she an other City Council majority members have done, bringing in City Manager Lorie Tinfow and her team to address these issues.
If Ervin and Nihart both run again, they will both win.
If either one of them doesn't run, a new person will be elected. That person will form a majority with Digre and Keener.
If both of them don't run, the whole ball game is up for grabs.
248, or the pro-economy/pro-progress coalition candidates will agree upon no more than up to two (2) candidates running for City Council. That's where we win, and that's where we keep our City Council majority moving this City forward.
The NIMBY "alternative" may mean a dead City, expressed as desired "living in our neighborhoods" by some NIMBIES.
That "alternative" is City disincorporation, a fat resident/property owner bill to pay City debt, default City governance through San Mateo County-- and, confirmation of our already suspected loser, "free lunch" reputation.
I think last time an incumbent failed to be re-elected was when Cal Hinton lost. One of those vote-splitting things. Pete squeaked through. Thank Tod with one D. Prior to that, Sue Digre was first elected the year Maxine and Barbara were dethroned. It was a Sue, Julie and Jim trinity. Growthers better choose their 2016 candidates very carefully. No herding cats like the Republicans. That way, if they lose, the reason will be clear...to most of us, anyway.
109, how about you ask Mayor Karen Ervin, then get back to us, putting your name on your comment?
Kathy, What part of she doesn't respond to email do you not understand?
Email her, see if you get a response.
743, thank you for advising your 109 comment was YOUR MADE-UP LIE.
Meantime until otherwise confirmed, we'll assume Mayor Karen Ervin may be an incumbent (run again) for City Council.
PS: 743, 109, what part of the maliciousness of telling lies "do you not understand" (your words), Anonymous liar?
Kathy you are just as aloof as city council.
921 What an odd thing to say.
Kids, don't fight!
Post a Comment