Sunday, August 18, 2013

Planning Commission meeting, Monday, August 19, 2013

Holiday Inn Express, 519 Nick Gust Way, APN: 022-024-250-270-280.  Adopt as conditioned, a mitigated negative declaration for expansion of the existing 38 room Holiday Inn Express hotel.

Item 2, project summary, page 3. ...."44 guest rooms and 2,010 square feet of retail space would be added to the existing building.  The existing 8,500 square foot parking garage would also be expanded to provide 24 additional parking spaces, 3 bicycle parking spaces and 2 motorcycle parking spaces.  ...."

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Please sprinkle holy water on this project fast! The city saw a nice increase from TOT income last year. This is a well-run hotel and they promote Pacifica businesses to their guests. More rooms means more money for Pacifica.

Tom Clifford said...

I am going to the meeting tonight to speak in favor of this project.

The approval of this Project will revitalize the entrance to the Rockaway Beach shopping mall. Removing a long empty building and replace it with over 2,000 sq. ft. of store front Plus enlarging a well run visitor serving business.

This is how we need to go about improving our City's economic health.

Anonymous said...

Tom, you are right! Much needed shot in the arm for our most successful visitor-serving district. It's also the place with the most potential to become an even better visitor draw. Fingers-crossed.

Anonymous said...


Have you walked around Rockaway and seen how much empty space is out there?

I agree hotel rooms are much better than the rotting bullding (horizons)

Anonymous said...

Anyone know whatever happened with that planned hotel for the rock outcropping at Highway 1 and Sea Bowl.
It's been a few years, but I seem to recall that the owner of the Holiday Express (Patel) was also proposing the other hotel. Just wondering if the idea is still alive or has fallen through.

Anonymous said...


you asked the same question on riptide last week or the week before.

That was 30+ years ago.

Pacifica Index said...

HERE is a list from April of all the residential projects still alive and kicking (some are probably on life support).

Anonymous said...

Don't know about that hotel but I really wish Patel bought the Pacifica Beach Resort. I think his group could really develop the hotel's potential and do it quickly.

Anonymous said...

343 thanks for the memories. other than a flicker in the harmony thing, is there any life in any of these? same people with the same money problems.

Anonymous said...


Do you realize that the Pacifica Beach Resort has many building code violation when it was built.

The previous owner tried to be the projects developer-owner builder.

Anonymous said...

And General Contractor also.

Anonymous said...

631 Yes, we all remember Paul. And yet there it is, open for business. Somebody with deep pockets could turn it into a destination property. Location, location, location.

Anonymous said...

This hotel is an eyesore. Can we get them to clean their colors up?

Anonymous said...

They recently repainted. You don't like the new colors? Do we want to have the Planning Commission dictating color schemes?

Anonymous said...

That place needs a big budget remodel top to bottom. Maybe the budget just isn't there so it's baby steps. Better than before!

Tom Clifford said...

The good news is that the Holiday Inn Express Passed the Planning Commission.
The not so good news is that the California Coastal Commission sent a letter saying that they wanted a 100 foot buffer for the creek.Keep in mind that the existing hotel building is in some places within 3 feet of the creek.

Will the CCC let it go or play its trump card?

Anonymous said...

who testified in favor of the expansion? All 5 commissioners in favor?

Anonymous said...

Tom, so you mean the CCC has a problem with the existing hotel structure? Do they have any retroactive power in this situation?

Anonymous said...

There are 7 planning commissioners

Anonymous said...

Pacifica Index

The Fish Bowl Project=Not in any of our life times will we see this project built.

Vista Mar=8 Townhouses Monterey Blvd. I thought this was to be commercial retail down and condos on top. Maybe they switched the plans. Incomplete application tells me they were never serious about building this out. Property was for sale a while back.

1567 Beach Blvd=Condos, Developer builder walked away and let the lender foreclose. Property is for sale.

Prospects-Fassler=Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. Which means the builder developer asked the lender to take it back, also known as a freindly foreclosure.

Harmony @1=approved but wait till these guys pay the in lieu of low income housing fee and get the streets and infastructure in first. The lots have been marketed for quit a while with no deposits or none sold.

Gyspy Hill=I doubt this will ever happen. One of the owners or property up there is quite vocal about anything else being built up there.

Assisted Living=permits expired and property is for sale.

1335 Adobe=townhomes on the empty lot just past the Sun Valley Dairy. Do not know a thing about this project.

Mixed Use Palmetto=Houmans project is finished. Sneaky Pete and his friends tried their best to delay and stop this but their pathetic attempt to bankrupt the owner builders failed.

Holiday Inn Express=approved. Anything on this lot is better then the falling apart Horizon's Building.

Mixed Use Rockaway=Dondee Way empty lot and building on the corner will be torn down. I am surprised Loeb didn't pitch a fit with the city about this. It is across the street from his shack.

Anonymous said...

That hotel is in potential Tsunami inundation zone.

Better to probably tear down everything in that neighborhood and let nature take over.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:40pm:

No, I was not the one who asked the same question on Riptide last week. Guess I wasn't the only one wondering and the proposal certainly wasn't 30+ years ago. It was after the Holiday Express was built, what's that 10 years or so? The design, I believe, was some kind of semi-circular structure that would avoid leveling the outcropping.

Tom Clifford said...

Six of the seven Commissioners voted for the project. Sue Vaterlaus had to step down because her office is within 500 ft. of the project.

The project includes removing some old buildings near the creek and building a large space on the ground floor next too the lobby that would be used for wedding and such. the second and third floor above would be guest rooms. Because that part of the site is already build on and replacing the existing structure with the new project would come with mitigations that would improve the health of the creek not harm it.

I do not believe that the CCC can impact the existing building but they can refuse to grant the coastal permit and not let anything be built.

I expect that some middle ground will be reach but delays are never good for and project.

Anonymous said...

There is an existing house next to the Hotel. I don't know if the ownership group who owns the hotel also owns the single family residence.

Steve Sinai said...

"That hotel is in potential Tsunami inundation zone.

Better to probably tear down everything in that neighborhood and let nature take over."

The Bay Area is in an earthquake zone. Perhaps we should tear everything down because of that.

Anonymous said...

"Better to probably tear down everything in that neighborhood and let nature take over."

Yes and lets close off Hwy 1 and make a big commune.

Pass the soy burgers. Kumbaya.

Anonymous said...

Divert the build out Palmetto Area and keep Vallemar, Rockaway and Pedro Point area low commercial density.

This will help make the area more scenic, exclusive and raise the property prices. Plant more trees and restore the California coastal cypress and other coastal plants.

By allowing commercial sprawl there might be some immediate benefits but long term losses.

Pacifica is a beautiful town. And abominations like Sea Bowl, Surf Spot, Strip malls by the beach, Taco bell on the beach -- stupidity like that needs to go away or well concealed so it does blight the views.

Plant more trees along the streets and flower beds and so on.

There is no need for mindless sub urban sprawl.

Anonymous said...

@Pacifica Index 7:17am,

What do all have in common?

Anonymous said...

1143 Abominations? Really? You may be entirely too sensitive to live among us. The keep it rural movement is doomed. Find yourself an island.

Anonymous said...


Do you always act this way during a full moon?

Anonymous said...


Pacifica is the most beautiful town/neighborhood in North SF bay outside of Pacific Heights/Presidio Heights along the coast.

It has similar weather, astounding views, lots of outdoor activities, relatively clean. It also has crappy restaurants, ugly housing, tasteless design and a broken planning commission.

If you are looking to make quick pennies, you'll end up making Pacifica that much more drab.

If you are willing to invest in the future of Pacifica and maintain exclusivity and strong property prices, clean up the neighborhood.

Hutch said...

11:43 said "abominations like Sea Bowl, Surf Spot"

Are you the same "free thinker" who wants to vacate Rockaway because it's in a tsunami zone?

Thank God only about 1% of the population is on Thorazine®.

Pacifica Index said...

Just a note that the list I linked to was put together and provided by the City. I was surprised to see some of those projects still listed as "active."

And I appreciate 7:17's insights -- thanks for those.

As for what they all have in common? I don't know... you tell me.

Anonymous said...

@115 Maintain exclusivity? North SF Bay? Are you nuts or lost? We're about as exclusive as the SF Muni.

Anonymous said...

Anon @1244.

Agreed that Pacifica is beautifully situated and realize that much of what is already here would never have been allowed with today's planning standards. Bad planning,cheap housing and suburban sprawl are all by-products of a 1950's mindset that we're pretty much stuck with. Pacifica is a Plymouth and no matter how hard we try, it will never become that Cadillac we wish it to be. However, it can still be kept clean, waxed and polished, so that it is a nice looking Plymouth.

Anonymous said...

115 Exactly where are you when you see all that exclusivity and stuff?
What's your vantage point?

Anonymous said...

@ 2:17

Look at Santa Cruz and then take another look at Pacifica.

Pacifica is dump compared to Santa Cruz. Why?

Anonymous said...


My vantage point ..

I have the view of Pedro Point, Farallon Islands and Marin Headlands in one Panaromic view.

On a clear day I can see all the way to Cliff house in SF. So, I'd like to think it is one of the best view in SF bay!

Yeah, Seabowl and Surf Spot with their ugly banners and large open parking lot is an abomination. Plant some trees. It sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of nowhere.

And the Rockaway beach "downtown" is another abomination with its tasteless colors and design. Whats up with those cheap gaudy hotels on what is a pristine beach? You really want that for Pacifica?

It like kitsch overload.

And then in Vallemar with all those ugly restaurants and gas station. Why would you take a scenic highway and trash it like that?

Who ever thought letting Taco Bell on one of the most beautiful beaches in Northern California was bright idea?

Anonymous said...

Yeah 317 Figured you were up there. That stuff you find gaudy and tasteless is among the only signs of economic life in this town. Too grubby for you? We can all dream about an idyllic village by the sea, perfectly planned, meticulously maintained, plantings to rival Filoli. The reality is that this Pacifica can't even support itself. We look like a failed city because we are. While we might agree in broad terms that bad land use decisions have crippled Pacifica, I suspect we would disagree on the finer points of those land use decisions. You offer no solution. Dream on.

Anonymous said...

317 You sure you're not the white whale?

Kathy Meeh said...

3:17 PM, if your land view logistics are real, you must live on one of those Pacifica hill ridges where there are no people.

The rest of us live in a more populated real world. Its called a city. And this city includes limited commerce. You mentioned all those "ugly restaurants, gas stations, cheap gaudy hotels", and our one highway only. The highway takes us to and from jobs, more commerce, cultural events, more cities-- to more city "ugliness", and even to more country open space beauty.

In your quest to eliminate "ugliness", maybe you will find a forest. Then your view (from your view) will be pure bliss. And may you live in trees "happily ever after". But leave the rest of us who have the same right to thrive in city "ugliness" alone. We like and need our commerce, our jobs, our road, etc.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, I want a glass of whatever 1143 and 317 and that lot are drinking. Whoa.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the zoning nightmare on Palmetto.

1. 1 * trailer park

2. RV parking

3. Wrecking Yard

4. Self Storage

5. A few run down SFR's

6. A school in the middle

7. The empty old waste water treatment plant

8. The garbage company

Anonymous said...

Pacifica likes being poor dusty broke down and bankruptcy

cause this is how Pacifica lives

not in mcmansions and not by looking like Daly City

I crack up every time I read the gang of no say that

Anonymous said...

422 Yes, we can all see the problem. What do you suggest be done? Where should these businesses go? Who pays? Even if these "eyesores" leave, can we be confident that a "prettier" replacement will be allowed in by the CCC? Of course not. So, we just pushed out a business for what? Open space? Public access to the shore? Seriously, what is your solution that doesn't take money out of Pacifica's pocket? Improving the view isn't enough.

Anonymous said...

Every other beach town is nicer than Pacifica.

todd bray said...

Fortunately this project is appealable to the Coastal Commission, that is if the CCC doesn't reverse the vote last night itself.

In a letter to Mr White first dated May 6. 2013 the CCC staff were vary explicit about area's the project fell apart on. Height is a big one at 41' feet. Another is taking away access to the beach by using up off site parking currently used by visitors. Another is a required setback from the creek and yet another has to do with FEMA and flooding. And I haven't even mentioned the wildlife issues.

So if there is some one out there that wanted this project scaled back to comply with Pacifica's Local Coast Program AND the Coastal Act itself that would be an easy thing to do. Contact the CCC staff, in Santa Cruz, at 831 427 4677 and outline your issues. The CCC have a bunch of their own and would like to hear from you I'd bet.

Anonymous said...

No truer Todd Bray words have been spoked. Encourage a Coastal Commiss appeal just to gum stuff up. From a charter member of the Gang of No. Priceless!

Anonymous said...

536 said "Every other beach town is nicer than Pacifica."

Ever see Coney Island?

Anonymous said...

Oh you mean the city that hasn't updated the general plan since the early 1980's?

Are you talking about the old Horizon's building?

Hutch said...

Right now the Coastal Commission has no authority to impose fines. That will change soon if a current bill passes in the senate. The last thing we need is more power in these bureaucrats hands.,0,918766.story

Anonymous said...

The Coastal Commission was an inch away of being shuttered. Too bad the let them stick around. Now The State is going to let them issue fines. Wonderful!

Steve Sinai said...

Todd, you seem to have a death wish for Pacifica.

Anonymous said...


Yes, I do live on a ridge and yes it is true and it is a fantastic view. The views in fall are surreal. The nippy evening weather with orange fire lit sunset over the immense and seemingly unending expanse of the blue Pacific is an astounding view.
I have seen hues of purples, blues, violets and blackest of black skies. Views never encountered else where.

I love the fog. I love the cold crisp air. I love the wind. I love the skin numbing wet surf. I love it all. So yes, I am in love with Pacifica. It is a wonderful place. And perhaps the most beautiful place on this side of the bay.

If we trade pristine beauty for a little bit of economy we'll end up with no beauty and a failed economy. Which is apparently the case now. Pacifica is close to being a dump.
Understand that once we destroy what has been nurtured for a million years or more for a fleeting raise in bank accounts or some material worth -- it will be gone forever.
Do we really want that?

All that said, I think there are ways to improve commerce and economy in Pacifica without destroying the pristine beauty.
There are parts of Pacifica that can be developed. And then there are parts of Pacifica that should be integrated back into nature.

Rockaway Beach is a lovely beach. The commercial area in that neighborhood spans is big enough to be a blight and intrusive and small enough to have no real impact on economy. It would probably be better to let that part of Pacifica to be returned to nature and move the businesses to Palmetto area. Likewise with the Taco Bell on the Linda Mar beach. In fact, move the beach parking and Taco Bell to the east side of the freeway and let beach goers cross the freeway by foot (perhaps using an over bridge). This way, there will be more beach to enjoy and less trash on the beach.

I really think those places on Rockaway Beach need to go and be relocated elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

11:00 I really think you're out of your mind.

Anonymous said...

There really is no NIMBY like a nouveaux riche Pedro Point NIMBY... Such a surreal combo of cluelessness and entitlement.

todd bray said...

Steve, if you have a chance to re-read my comment I use the term "to scale back" not to outlaw. Better yet get a copy of the CCC staff letter to George White. As for this Brownshirtanon "gang of no " business I find it farcical.

There are laws Rantanons that supercede your personal wishes.

Anonymous said...

@ 1:05 AM

I am out of my mind because I'd rather choose better environment over a quick buck?

Maybe if you want to make money, how about moving to NYC?
Or to some other urban center that fits your choices rather than force your view of wealth making on all of us?

If all you care for is an inexpensive roof on your head and nature be damned, why not move to Sacramento or Central Valley where living is relatively cheaper and none of the hassle of Pacifica?

How close do you want to be to the water so you can have your romantic taco during the Sunset?

How much more non-degradable plastic junk do we want to litter our beaches with?

Really think about it please. Its not within our capability to undo what we can easily destroy.

Steve Sinai said...

Todd, your tiresome "tie everything up in bureaucratic red-tape" tactics to block anything that might improve Pacifica's economy is bad for the city.

You've done a good job turning city employees into bogeymen in order to distract from the damage the NIMBYS have done, but you can only go so far cutting expenses. At some point, you have to increase revenues.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous 11:00 PM (8/20), 3:17 PM (8/20), 7:29 AM, I'm not buying your either/or 1) quick buck vs. 2) better environment argument. Nor FMV would most people agree with your opinion that existing commercial structures you named are "blight".

After all, Pacifica is a city in a major metropolitan area. Fantastic views" and "pristine beauty" are accessible and valued along the entire west coast. Vistas in northern Washington are awesome. Locally, even more built up city areas have wonderful coastal vistas (examples, San Francisco and Sausalito). The mid-20th century population build up in Pacifica was "blue collar" (lower middle class), so FMV the city never has been very fancy. Hence, money to run this city matters, as do services, jobs and revenue.

You say in this city you want "more areas integrated back into nature"? And since this city has already given up 60% of its land to open space (most of which is unproductive), theoretically how much land are you willing to give back to building and development of a better city? Most balanced, savvy cities that serve their human population have business parks, commercial/retail services, commerce, jobs. Living and working in a city is a green concept.

Expansion and remodel of the Holiday Inn Express is an updated business progression. We live in a community, which includes the "blight" (your word) of human activity and progress. That happens wherever people live, including Pacifica. You may not like Taco Bell, Seabowl, Surf Spot, Rockaway beach business area, our hotels, Vallemar restaurants and gas station, but these businesses all serve a function. Other people like them, and keep them in business. And unless you own the property, Rockaway beach businesses will not be returned to nature. Nor will Linda Mar Taco Bell and the west side of highway 1 parking lots be returned to nature, unless the Pacific Ocean tide rises and changes the landscape. Meantime, some of us will continue to hope the blighted quarry area will be developed as a sustainable source of city services, jobs, and revenue.

todd bray said...

Steve, there is nothing I can do to help you with reading comprehension or interpretation. Your finger pointing is meaningless to me as is your re-imaging of whatever view you support today. If you were a Rantanon I would have thought you one of the Brownshirtanons turned Stalkeranons.

Anonymous said...

729 Careful up there. You're in imminent danger of crossing that line between exquisitely enlightened nature lover and smug, entitled elitist.

Anonymous said...

@505 amen to that.

Anonymous said...

oh Todd, just own it!

Anonymous said...

So the CCC really doesn't like the plan for Beach Blvd, and they have issues with the plan for the HIE expansion. We've got a problem here. What's a coastal city supposed to do? Would it be too much to hope they'd veto the poop pit for LM Blvd? Or is that the kind of "anti-development development" they favor?

todd bray said...

Scale back the HIE expansion to conform.

The CCC isn't about stopping development, it's about making sure a development within it's jurisdiction conforms to the Coastal Act. Nothing more nothing less.

During the hearing even the architect paid homage to changes that may be necessary to conform.

Anonymous said...

Oh swell, the ccc and the architect would like a scaled-back expansion. I wonder how the owner's accountants feel about it. I sure hope this doesn't become another example of how development is discouraged and often made financially unfeasible by the ccc and like-minded local agencies. Pacifica cannot afford to lose again.

Anonymous said...

If I was building or getting ready to build a project, and some bozo started mouthing off, I would have my atttorneys knocking on his door with first a cease and desist and then a restraining order.

This wacko runs around town mouthing off thinking people actually listen to him.

Just another mouthpiece pigeon.

Anonymous said...

The First Amendment trumps your cease and desist and restraining orders. It's a free country, y'know.

Anonymous said...

Don't the Irs and find out how free of a country it is.

Or mouth off to the wrong people.

todd bray said...

Rantanon @ 7:15 inspires us thus:

"If I was building or getting ready to build a project, and some bozo started mouthing off, I would have my atttorneys knocking on his door with first a cease and desist and then a restraining order."

Ranty baby, go to school.

todd bray said...

It is done. let the dagger be bedded, it is done.

Anonymous said...


You do know that pre existing mental conditions are covered under Obama care right?