Thursday, August 8, 2013

City Council meeting, Monday, August 12, 2013

Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on local channel 26, also live internet feed,  The meeting begins at 7pm, or shortly there following.  City council updates and archives are available on the City website. 

City Council meeting agenda, 8/12/13.  Items listed may include embedded pdf documents, illustration and photographs of interest. The information below is restated or summarized from the city agenda documents. Additional links or comments may be added. 

Item 9.  Where's our Pacifica bear?
Closed session, 6:15 p.m. 
1)    CA government code 54956.8.  Conference with real property negotiator, price and terms of payment. Agency negotiator: Michael Garvey. Property: APN 023-73-050 and 080. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Dave Colt.
2)    CA government code 54956.8.  Conference with real property negotiator, price and terms of payment. Agency negotiator: Michael Garvey. Property: 1050 Crespi Dr. APN 023-132-160. Negotiating parties: City of Pacifica and Spindrift School of Performing Arts.
3)    CA government code 54957.6.  Conference with labor negotiator. Agency Negotiator: Glen Berkheimer/Holly Brock-Cohn. Employee organizations: Teamsters Local 350 Managers and Teamsters Local 856 Miscellaneous.

Open Session, 7:00 p.m. 
Consent calendar
1.    Approval of cash disbursements.
2.    Approval of  Minutes, 7/22/13.
3.    Ongoing proclamation confirming a local emergency, cliff erosion, revetment supporting City storm drain at 380 and 400 Esplanade Avenue (since 4/12/10).
4.    Reinstatement of City Council meeting, 8/26/13.
Open Space, Open Space, GGNRA
5.    Resolution to provided after elementary school STEM programing through PB&R, subject to City Attorney approval.  Grant in the amount of $46,000 from the County of San Mateo Human Services Agency,  
6.    Resolution declaring a 1992 modular unit surplus city property, donated  to Tides/Pacifica Resource Center, depreciated value $.00.
7.    Resolution approving the subdivision improvement agreement and the final map for Harmony @ 1. Developer/builder requirement includes various easements, and $344,940 payment in-lieu-of affordable housing fees, "used by the City for affordable housing purposes", see Section 1 of the Agreement.  For additional project details see City Agenda, Item 7.
8.    Approval of Route 1 San Pedro Creek Bridge replacement amendment 1, right-of-way agreement between the City of Pacifica and CalTrans. 
Special Presentations - none
Public hearings - none
9.    Nine citizen appointments to the Open Space and Parkland Advisory Committee (OSPAC), from applicant interviews by City Council, 7/23/13.  Twelve applicants all qualified.  Update 8/8/13, two council members absent, staff recommends continue item until 9/9/13, staff report.

Note:  "Fire danger low" graphic from Free camping and campgrounds, USA/CA,"Thanks for listening" graphic from Away for a Bit blog.

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Larry said...

"Resolution approving the subdivision improvement agreement and the final map for Harmony @ 1. Developer/builder requirement includes various easements, and $344,940 payment in-lieu-of affordable housing fees."

I wonder where that $344,940 goes. What fund? What is it used for, I.E. provide funds for low income housing, provide funds to the resource center to help them house the needy?
To fund the consultants campaigning for their ill-conceived, poorly vetted, money grabbing new tax scheme?
Hell, they've already spent almost $60,000 of tax payers money. What's to stop spending addicts from using more to push this tax and spend agenda?

Anonymous said...

Who/what owns the project now. Is it still Tait?

Kathy Meeh said...

Larry 7:36 AM, to the City Council Agenda, Item 7, I have added clarification and a link about the affordable housing fee. For additional information about the entire project conditions (and there are many), you may want to view Item 7 on the City Agenda.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:13 AM:

Good question. Here's what the San Mateo County tax rolls indicate as to the property owners mailing

Parcel 022-150-420:

2008: 640 Crespi Drive
2009; 640 Crespi Drive
2010: Morgan Hill address
2012; Fresno, CA address

Parcel 022-150-310: (13.25 acres)

2010: 4625 Coast Highway (Sea Bowl)
2011: 4625 Coast Highway
2012: 4625 Coast Highway

I understand that Tait Cowan was involved with the Sea Bowl owner (Szeto)and others in opening The Surf Spot; don't know if he ever actually was the sole owner the property he was hoping to develop.

Harmony is a big money project, so understandable that you'd have to bring in the big guns to get it built is understandable. Whether Tait is still involved or completely out of the picture would best be answered by him.

i don't see this as a "local project by a local guy." it's just too expensive. Last year, pre-sale depictions of the development were being advertised in the $3.5 million range per house, so you can imagine the construction costs. All far above my price point, so I'll stay in my LM rancher and just be green with envy. Maybe that's what people really mean when they talk about green development.

Anonymous said...


Read and learn, read and learn.

All your answers are in the City Council documents listed above

Anonymous said...

Are things finally starting to happen? Big, expensive houses with big tax bills and local spending. Hurry up!
Looks like the developer and the city have agreed the developer may pay the city $344,940(amount set by consultant) instead of providing 2 units within the approved project at below-market rate. From the document, "The fee payment, as required by an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Payment Agreement, will allow for the provision of comparable affordable units and serves the greatest community needs at this time." We know what "comparable affordable units" means, but is the part about "serves the greatest community needs" the council rat hole the money disappears into? This project moving forward is great news but why add that part to the sentence? If it's supposed to go to affordable housing why the apparent need to have city flexibility with the funds?

Anonymous said...

1157 The developers according to the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Payment Agreement are Stoneridge Development LLC, Pacifica (Dave Szeto signing) and Urban Land Preservation LLC, Fresno (Philip H. Weber signing).

Anonymous said...

The in lieu fee will be placed in the general fund and used to pay bills, the city can not otherwise afford to pay.

Rob Peter to Pay Paul.

Anonymous said...

If your water heater goes out you call a plumber.

If your lights don't work, and you blow fuses you call an electrician

If your surfboard needs to be fixed, you go to a surfboard shop.

If you have a parcel of land that needs to be developed, you bring in experienced real estate developers.

Anonymous said...

So which two council members are going to be absent this Monday.

Anonymous said...

Absent from meetings, an all star cast of nobees and nimby park commission. How is this council any different from councils past?

Anonymous said...

601 Ok, we've seen that scam before, but the agreement being signed by the current mayor and the developers says otherwise. Why bother to sign it?

Anonymous said...

Anon@ 6:02 PM:

Agree 100% about experienced developers. However, when the Harmony idea first hit the papers, it seemingly was presented as the brainchild of a hard working local guy. As such. I think a lot of local people were behind the idea. Now it looks like the big money guys have stepped in. While the harmony project might still be a good one, you have to wonder if it will be of much benefit to the residents of Pacifica or if all the profits are heading south to Fresno. Will the local population get to enjoy all that open space or is it going to become a community of elitists who will put out the "not welcome " sign and act like it's their personal playground ?

I can still recall the thrill racing my old Healy up and down that winding Sea Bowl road before Fassler was extended to connect with the Coast Highway. Be nice to walk on what's left of the old road before it gets developed.

Anonymous said...

Nostalgia. You ran the hills carefree. Under a full moon, no doubt. Are you effing kidding me? Let them build and let them do it now. Just as fast as they can and as much as they can. Open space hasn't put a dime in the city coffers and this gig is about up. Let's see what some new housing stock and well-heeled residents do for us. Stop the town's descent into ghetto-by-the-sea.

Anonymous said...


Wasn't suggesting that the project not be built in favor of open space. I was speaking to the "dedicated" open space that is a condition of development. my opinion is that other than contributing significant property taxes, those well-heeled residents will do what most everyone else does around here, spend their discretionary income outside of town.

Anonymous said...


Pacifica can not afford to maintain the trails and parks we have.

If you don't believe me go up to Frontierland Park and walk around.

Anonymous said...

952 Understood what your concern was and I think you're right about where these 10 new households will spend their money, but the property taxes on multi-million dollar homes will be nice. And who knows, one decent upscale development might encourage other building, although probably on a smaller, less expensive scale since there aren't many more 52 acre parcels left after the open-space movement rolled over this town.

todd bray said...

For those that don't remember one of the Conditions of Approval for the subdivision was that each parcel be designed by a pre chosen architect by the original Harmony folks which included Tait. I met the architect at Tait's insistance (meaning at gun point) and was blown away by how well thought out the designs of each house was. Those conditions of approval were also agreed to by the USFWS.

Since all our senior staff and council are new to this project I only hope that condition survives. Since it's on the consent calendar in the usual sneaky way staff works of late I must assume nothing from the original approval has been altered. But again Council member Nihart et al are Real Estate happy so....


Anonymous said...

Lee Diaz
City Planner
RE: Comments on Harmony EIR.
Dear Lee,
I'd like to say up front that I would prefer to see this project clustered
along Roberts Road so the ridgeline between Rockaway and Linda Mar can be
preserved from the ribbon style development layout described in the Harmony
I would encourage the planners/commissioners and council members who will be
influencing this project to look very closely at how these 14 to 18 units will
affect the visual harmony of the hillsides and ridgeline, as they now exists.
As conciliation to the applicant for modifying the subdivision from 14 lots
that travel up the ridgeline a density bonus could be offered to encourage the
development be clustered along Roberts Road.
This project has gone from 10 units to 14 to 18 units with little regard for
its visual impacts. The architects' designs are pleasing but present very loud
façades to the Linda Mar area of Pacifica. At the first study session the
buildings were shown to be on the Fassler side of the ridgeline. Now the
majority of structures are on the Linda Mar side of the ridgeline in an evenly
spaced cadence reminiscent of Christmas tree lights which the structures will
undoubtedly resemble during evening, night time and early morning hours.
The facades described in the EIR show a virtual wall of glass thirty to thirty
four feet high with rap around decks that will stare out at the ocean
overlooking Linda Mar State Beach. I'm sure the views from the structures will
be pleasing to the owners, but for the community at large to loose the
tranquility of an undeveloped ridgeline is quite un-necessary when a
clustering of the units along Roberts Road with a density bonus would
facilitate the applicants development ambitions and preserve one of
Pacifica's signature ridgelines.
Todd M. Bray
468 Donaldson
Pacifica CA 94044
(650) 355 6788

Anonymous said...

I live in Linda Mar and, personally, I have no problem with a row of structures on that hill. And no problem with lights on the hillside after dark. Mine is just another personal opinion. Different from Bray's, and no more or less important. Let's hope the city doesn't pay too much attention to any of them. Private citizens can make it personal, but council should have different priorities. This is a fine and much-needed project. Don't run these people off!

Anonymous said...

I support this project and believe it will be a beautiful addition to our community. Develop Away. I also live in LindaMar and don't mind more expensive homes. Not at all.

todd bray said...

Hehehe, Brownshirtanon @ 5:19 PM has morphed into Stalkeranon! Having another stalker, as always, is very faltering.

Whether one likes this project or not it was approved with a large number of conditions to minimize it's visual impacts.

Each lot will require it's own permit process.

I think the pro growth crowd maybe awaking a sleeping giant.

That would be a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Godwin's Law already?

Anonymous said...

Well, wake up something! This town has been in a coma for decades. Atrophy and decay have set in. Some people are comfortable with it.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like opposition to this project is encouraged by the requirement for individual permits for each home. Great opportunity to see if anything has really changed in Pacifica, isn't it? A real test of Council and its newly appointed Planning Commission.

Anonymous said...

opposition to this any any project that brings in badly needed revenue by the gang of no, is because they like Pacifica looking like a 3rd world county.

broken down infastructure, dusty pot hole ridden roads, a broken down sewer system.

Anonymous said...

640 Crespi is the old Central Foods building.

The Log Shop and the gym were also in this building.

This has nothing to do with Roberts Road Parcel.

Neither does the Bowling Alley parcel.

Seriously wtf are you talking about.

Anonymous said...

Anon@1:55 pm:

The two mentioned addresses (640 Crespi and 4625 Coast Highway are simply the addresses where the property tax bills were mailed to at one time. I think 640A Crespi is the Log Shop and Tait Cowan's business address. That was for one parcel listed as being part of the proposed development. The second parcel involved with the development is likely owned by the Sea Bowl property owner(s) which I believe might be the Szeto family.

Anonymous said...

Tait doesn't own the Log Shop building. Never did, never has.

Where the property tax bill gets mailed too doesn't mean that is the owners address, or he owns that building.

Anonymous said...

To clarify: There are two property tax bills for the parcels included in the Harmony development. One tax bill was sent to 640A Crespi in 2008, 640 Crespi in 2009, then Morgan Hill in 2011, then Fresno in 2012. The second parcel tax bill has been sent to the Sea Bowl address the past few years (at least). No one is claiming that the owner of 640 Crespi is involved with the Harmony project. No one is claiming that Tait Cowan owns 640 Crespi.

Anyone can go to San Mateo County Tax and plug in the parcel numbers and get the same information as I did.