Sunday, November 5, 2017

Planning Commission meeting Monday, November 6, 2017

Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on local television or live feed Pacificcoast.TV, (formerly pct26.com).  If you miss civic meetings, view on PCT 26 You Tube!  The planning commission meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following.  Planning Commission updates, archives are available on the City website: City Council Agendas, and City Planning Commission.  Channel 26 television schedule, see Monday, 11/6/17.   


Interactive Planning Commission, 11/06/17.   Planning Commission meeting, 11/16/17, pdf pages 974.


Open Session, 7:00 p.m.  Administrative:  Order of the meeting agenda.  Approval of draft Minutes, a) 10/2/17. b) 10/16/17.  Designation of liaison to City Council meeting, 11/27/17:  Alternative Financial Institution ordinance, Item 2 below.  Consent items, none. Study Session, none.  Closed Session report, none.
Communications: Public oral.

New Public Hearings 

Image result for 801 Fassler Avenue, Pacifica, CA picture
Item 3.  24-unit condo project neighborhood.
NIMBIES love this new housing development.  NO!

1.   CDP-381-17.  Construct a 3,074 sq. ft. single-family residence on an 8,000 sq ft. vacant lot, San Pedro Avenue (south side) and Grand Avenue (APN 023-073-200), report.  a)  Draft resolution. b) Land use/zoning map. c) Project plans.

2.   TA-110-17 (initiated by the Planning Commission). Amend the City municipal code to establish Alternative Financial Services (AFS) payday lender check cashing and loan business regulations: classified at nonconforming uses,  subject to the City commercially-zoned property ordinance, report. a)  Resolution.  b) Poposed Ordinance. c) Public comment letter from Thomas L. Leonard, Executive Director, CA Financial Service Providers Association (CFSP).   

3. DP-75-14, RZ-192-14, SP-149-14, TDR-03-14, SUB-224-14. Removal of heritage tree, and request for payment fee in lieu of construction of a 24-unit below market housing residential condominium project (downsized from 34-units, on 1.23 acres of 11.2 total acres), 801 Fassler Avenue (APN 022-083-020 and 022-083-030), report.  a) Draft resolution and exhibits.  b) Land Use/Zoning map. c) Project plans.  d)  Supplemental environmental impact report. e) Public NIMBY comment letters (2). 

Communications:  Planning Commission, Staff, Adjourn. 
------------------------------  

Reference, development/planning acronyms.  APN, Assessor's parcel number.  CDP, Coastal Development permit. CZ, (Coastal Zone Combining) zoning districts. DP, development. LDR, low density residential.  PE, Parking Exception. PSD, Site Development permit. PV, Variance. S, Sign permit. SP, Specific Plan. RIA, Rent Increase Application.  SUB Subdivision. TA, text amendment (ordinance). UP, Use permit.  Zoning. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).   CA CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions: Class 1 categorical exemption, section 15301. Freestanding single-family residences set-back and parking, C-1, neighborhood commercial, R1, single-family residential, Reference.com. S, City of Pacifica Sign ordinance.  CA code, accessory (second residential) dwelling units, 65852.2.  Zoning/Planning Handouts, City of Pacifica.  RZ, rezoning.      Note photograph of the neighborhood, 905 Fassler Avenue from Zillow. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

Posted by at

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is not a proposal to build a 24-unit, below-market condo. complex, as the blog post suggests. The actual proposal includes a request to allow the developer to escape its obligation to set aside 15% of the contemplated units for sale at below-market rates. Staff recommendation is to deny the requested exemption.

November 7, 2017 at 2:33 AM
Kathy Meeh (oops, the cristal ball worked) said...

You're right, my personal, unintended error, not that of the blog. Item 3 text reads "... request for payment of fee in lieu of providing below market rate housing units.."
However, as you also mentioned, "staff recommendation is to deny the requested exemption." Hence at City Council, the project might include a 15% below market rate.

I didn't see last night's meeting, but expected NIMBY complaints would be about not building invisible structures on the pristine weed infested hillside.
Or, the entitlement of building dirt trails through private property, (even through the structure itself).
Or, protecting wildlife (frogs, snakes, rats, etc),-- after all, humans, and evil developers are the invaders.

Downsizing and delaying the condo project to zero and bankrupt over 10 years in planning still seems premature; thus, other strategies may include appeals and lawsuits.
Suckering outside people support may include themes of low-cost housing, and the dog-whistle: "TRAFFIC"!

But, do these same NIMBIES promote building new housing stock, or improving the highway?
NO, to the contrary, they have advanced decades of interference in improving City infrastructure, social and economic balance (without viable alternative solutions).

November 7, 2017 at 1:24 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)