Development of convenient peninsula village living outside Pacifica, with more jobs for us to drive to.
San Mateo Daily Journal/no author mentioned, 5/1/12, "Developers buy into Bay Meadows."" ...Bay Meadows Phase II includes three public parks totaling 15 acres and a community garden. It will include 1,171 residential units, up to 1.5 million square feet of office space and about 90,000 square feet of retail space. It will be within walking distance of both the Hayward Park and Hillsdale Caltrain stations." Read Article.
From the City of San Mateo, "Architect Rendering of Bay Meadows." Bay Meadows is San Mateo's newest neighborhood. A compact, transit-oriented community, Bay
Meadows successfully combines residential, office, retail and commercial
spaces, all within walking or biking distance of its gateway Caltrain
station. Landscaped parks and open spaces balance suburban density;
community gathering and shopping destinations include the Town Square
and Delaware Street. View graphics.
References - Bay Meadows, developer website. City of San Mateo Bay Meadows, complete project. San Francisco Examiner, 1/25/12, delays, lawsuits, and history listing.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
22 comments:
Why must you rub it in? You know we'd need a Bart and Caltrain spur and a nice big freeway connecting us to the real world to attract this kind of post-Crash development. We should focus on all the glorious benefits we have in Pacifica. What were those, again? Help me focus, would ya? Uh, a little help here people?
"..we'd need a Bart and Caltrain spur and a nice big freeway connecting us to the real world.." Anon, 2:01 pm
If nothing else, people living in the south coast might appreciate a better road cruising through town. Some Pacificans prefer sitting in traffic, crummy roads with the trade-off of our Measure A highway 1 money going to trails.
Benefits? We're like the city that fell-off the metropolitan bay area cliff. Only problem, we want someone else to pay the bill for the luxury of trying to go rural. Big box development? We'll have none of that here, while many who oppose "big box" slum shop at such stores as Costco. I saw Peter Loeb there.
Help elect "can do, will fix" city councilmembers in the Fall, and take away the reason to "rub it in".
A Peter Loeb sighting at Costco!! That's hysterical. Put one in the quarry and he could walk to it in true enviro style. We can dream.
"I hate big box stores!*"
*except for when I'm shopping there because it costs so much less.
Oh you poor conflicted Pacifican. Please don't be ashamed of your hypocrisy. Embrace your Nimbyism while endulging your Big Box Consumerism. Don't you love those food demonstrators on the weekends at Costco?
Some people seem to be confusing being against Measure L with being against a Costco, but the two are completely unrelated. If Peebles wanted to put a Costco in the quarry he could have done so without a public vote. Many who voted against Measure L would have welcomed a Costco, which is actually a progressive company, and is sometimes called the "Anti-Walmart."
Ian, Nobody is putting anything in the quarry. Peebles wouldn't have been able to apply for a permit for any structure before completing the property's reclamation. Don't play the idiot game with these folks. Neither you or the FP folks have the knowledge to address the issue in an informed way.
"Many who voted against Measure L would have welcomed a Costco.." (Ian Butler 6:54 am)
Interesting Ian. What other stores and/or developments would the same people welcome at the quarry? FMV, build almost anything to bring-in a substantial stream of city revenue, (keeping in mind our city future, and needs of the region).
The location for a "big box" such as costco (similar to a custom retail outlet) should be quite good. After all there are Costcos in South San Francisco and San Bruno, and their parking lots are full. The quarry (off highway 1) is central enough to the entire north peninsula, some parts San Francisco, and coastside south. As you say "I'm for it," if the land holding/bank company, the city, the companies concerned, regulatory agencies, and the developers agree. And it would be helpful if the ecology community would back this as well-- as we know, to a large extent we all shop together.
The 2006 Peebles Corporation mixed-use project concept would have added some class to this city. I'm not sure what the additional almost 1 year city "negotiations" brought forth, but FMU the intent was to develop the retail/business component. Ultimately the City Council subcommettee (Vreeland/Lancelle) "negotiations" and city legal start-over requirements failed, Peebles walked.
Todd (12:49 pm), the quarry reclamation requirement from the State is just another regulatory requirement (not the first quarry to be developed). Peebles said they applied for and received such permission, so no mystery and not the end of the world either. How about we work on productive economic city solutions where we can agree?
Well, the City had to peform their end of the reclamation before Peebles could start theirs, and that would have included the work to reclaim the former creek area that was relocated for the new WWTP. Apparently, that was a sticking point since the City had intentions of using that open Coastal Development permit for the biodiesel plant. Ooops.
So was the city the problem in advancing quarry development then, and is there any such problem now?
Ian and Bray
Are you 2 too obtuse to figure out the city is bankrupt?
Police going to the sheriff soon. City jobs cut.
The city can not pay for basic city services.
I can not believe you 2!!
"Don't play the idiot game with these folks."
Once again, when Todd isn't whining about the way people treat him, he's insulting everyone. Gee, I wonder if there could be any kind of correlation there?
Yes and yes to your question Ms. Meeh. Whoever tries to develop the Quarry will need the City to do their part.
Todd is always cranky when he is hungry
"Cranky when.. hungry?" Anon 5:02 pm
Many of us are. The answer is a drop in serotonin levels. US News/Health 9/16/11. Anyhow, don't make me defend Todd, his comment to Ian at 12:49 pm (lunch time) was aggressive and "idiotic". But, sometimes Todd's comments are quite good. Recently I saw one on Riptide and one here.
BTW Todd, you wanted an article with link to the Thomas Frank book, The Wrecking Crew. I posted it Sunday, 4/22/12. Now its in the older posts.
Trivia. Similar to the Bay Meadows development, the 2006 quarry concept that didn't get built would have included housing in phase II, and business in phase I. That may be the developmental process for most of these mixed-use projects.
Todd, I am well aware of the obstacles to putting a big box store in the quarry, I was simply pointing out that a public vote is not one of them.
But my actual point was that it is not hypocritical for someone that was against Measure L to shop at Costco, as four previous posters had implied.
You do have a lot of knowledge on this issue, but seem to have a hard time discussing it without resorting to off-topic insults that cast you in a bad light.
Development of any type in the quarry is a very,very dead horse. In the land of the living, wasn't the assisted-living developer supposed to be available to return for a council meeting this month? We better have a quorum for him! Didn't Nihart and Jaquith announce upcoming absences at that last budget meeting? Was it for budget session only or will it include a council meeting? Just wondering.
Eek. Even I wouldn't want a big-box store in the quarry.
Except maybe a Fry's, but then I'd go broke.
Council is clearly following the Mayan calendar. No need to plan for anything because everything ends for everybody in December
2012. Pacifica's impending failure is trumped by the Mayan Meltdown. Relax, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Not to worry, your fortune is safe here.
So Ian and Todd, regulation worries aside, what kind of quarry development would you support? Or after chopping city salaries and essential community services, what are your considered alternatives-- more taxes and fees to maintain the city minimum? My guess is your choices may be: 1) no significant sustainable development, and 2) no taxes-- while 3) waiting for the Pacific ocean along our coast to rise.
Steve (1015), its easy to agree with your quarry development assessment. But our city ocean property use also includes: repair shops, a trailer park, storage units, falling cliffs with little mitigation. Taco Bell at Linda Mar beach is a tourist improvement over these. Why spoil that special minimalist look? A quarry "big box" ("Costco", not Walmart as Ian suggested at 5/2 at 6:54am), off our highway, is a green advantage. We could enjoy "free" treats and cheap Pizza while socially commingling and stocking-up. Fry's! Regionally convenient if "boxed" in the quarry, and no anti-green driving to Palo Alto. Anyhow being broke in Pacifica is expected.
Todd Sid:
"Nobody is putting anything in the quarry."
"Neither you or the FP folks have the knowledge to address the issue in an informed way."
=====================
That came off pretty arrogant Todd.
I would love to see a big warehouse go it there just to burn the people who want nothing there.
Post a Comment