Saturday, October 12, 2013

Mixed use development on THE ROCK


Blogmaster's note: Click on the letter and image to enlarge them.











The above notice of a 9 story mixed use development on THE ROCK which is a granite outcropping next to the Surf Spot and Sea Bowl has been on the shelf for years due to the traffic issues raised by the number of units and the need for blasting, which is not allowed in Pacifica, to remove enough of THE ROCK to allow the building to have some depth. 

Since the Calera Parkway project promises an extra lane the own, who lives in Woodside Ca. has decided to bring this 9 story monstrosity forward.

Submitted by Todd Bray

131 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

Todd, where are you seeing that it's nine stories?

Anonymous said...

Is he counting The Rock in that 9 story height? The bldg. is only 41-46 feet high, 4 stories or less.

todd bray said...

Sorry, Steve, in previous attempts on this site there was once a proposed hotel, and about 7 years ago the proposal morphed into a 9 story condo development proposal with 201 units. That's were the 9 stories came from, MY BAD, sorry folks.

Today the proposal isn't 9 stories but it isn't really a mixed use development either as it only has an 18% sacrificial amount of commercial to 82% residential. If the ratio was a more typical 60% housing to 40% commercial then it would be a real mixed use proposal.

Right now it's just a housing development with 63 apartments with a sacrificial commercial component right on the corner of Fasslar and Highway One.

Anonymous said...

One would hope that even the staunchest pro-development supporters would balk at this project. Whether it be nine stories or 41-46 feet in height, it appears that it will be massive.

Hutch said...

We need more housing units. We really haven't added much in the last few decades. And our population has stayed the same or less.

Talking to one of our largest business owners yesterday he told me that increased population would mean more customers and more jobs.

I know the people against development say housing is a drain on the city. But they can't prove it for this area which has some of the highest property taxes in the nation. There's much more than property tax generated from adding new units and citizens. Rents will go down, store fronts will fill up, more local jobs and employment will equal lower crime rates. Schools stay open. Then you have all the other taxes and fees the city gets.

Scotty said...

Disregarding the economics, which no one ever agrees upon, this is the type of development Pacifica absolutely needs from an environmental perspective. Dense housing uses less resources and enables mass transit. The NIMBYs should tear down their Linda Mar ranchers and move into a development like this if they really care about the planet.

Anonymous said...

I disagree somewhat with what Hutch said about this type development will have much positive impact on our town other than a bit more in property tax revenues. First of all, I'm fairly certain this will be "high-end" and rather than populated by local Pacificans, will bring in higher paid workers, likely employed either at San Francisco or Silicon Valley tech firms. Whether they will spend their discretionary income locally or just use Pacifica as a place to hang their hat remains to be seen. There is certain to be some uptick in business revenue, but again that remains to be seen. Not too optimistic that this type project will bring rents down or fill empty store fronts. Fingers crossed though that it would.

Anonymous said...

IMHO the benefits of more housing without the offset of significant commercial, meaning retail, is often oversold, but what is the problem with adding 63 new units to our housing stock after years of basically no additions? What's the problem? When was the last "development"? We're overdue.

The project design will be thoroughly worked over by the PC, the immediate area is developed--it is certainly not pristine, the existing businesses in that little area would benefit from more residents, and builder fees, property tax, school funds all will flow to the city, and so on.

I suspect the real problem is some Pacificans prefer no growth at all in this town. They'd rather see further decline than allow anything be built. It's an extreme viewpoint, and like most of those, it doesn't work very well in the real world. We need to expect the opposition, compromise where we can, and move this town forward.

Anonymous said...

Besides housing on surplus school sites, Pacifica had only had a hand full of spec houses built in the last 3-4 years.

Anonymous said...

Todd, blasting was done a lot at the quarry.

Quit talking nonsense!

Anonymous said...

1135 Maybe so but enough high-end, more likely moderate, and we just might attract the retail and commercial we really need to pay the bills.

Anonymous said...

The hills are alive with blasting every July.

Bob the Blaster said...

Me thinks they be blasting on the wrong side of Fassler!

Anonymous said...

1221 drawing a blank here. what housing on surplus school sites are you talking about?

Tom Clifford said...

Cypress Walk ?

Anonymous said...

2:29

Right off skyline.

Anonymous said...

The gang of no, are all chiming in over on riptide!

Anonymous said...

I agree that Pacifica could sorely use some new housing stock, but " The Rock" is a highly visible area. I can't picture 63 units being built in such a way as to minimize the bulk unless The Rock is virtually leveled. As far as the comment about the project having to go through the PC, that could be hit or miss. Some of the projects approved over the years have been less than spectacular, at least from my viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

This will never be built, it's simply designed to increase the value of the property and sell it to the "greater fool". Banks used to love to finance these schemes because they believed a perpetually rising RE market guaranteed their investment, but no longer. Now they want to see real ROI not a developers shoe shine. Of course there's always a chance of self-financing, but the smart know you never risk your own money.

Anonymous said...

Cypress Walk? Was that school prop? Wow, how long ago was that?

Comments on Riptide all against this development and even on here, comments split. Let me guess...this isn't the right development. Better we wait for the Parthenon to be rebuilt here in Pacifica. Nothing less will meet our esthetic standards. Just look around.

Chris Porter said...

Oh well...no one can say there is too much traffic to stop the building because that would go against their current bs that there isn't enough traffic to widen the highway so now the lies start about the height and the need for the project. Todd, have you been paying the taxes on the property and doing whatever upkeep is necessary. If the project is approved, lets go forward because your group all knows there's no traffic problem.

todd bray said...

Let's try to get some elevation views of this thing. If they are available I'll ask Steve to add them to his post.

Anonymous said...

Based on the photo simulations We won't have to worry about a tall building sitting on top of the hill. The photo's show 75% or more of the "Rock" removed.

todd bray said...

Chris, I'm always flattered you think I have a group or am part of one.

Hutch said...

Todd you said I should find a new guru. Don't know what or who you mean, I've had these views for decades.

But you should really find a new God to worship. Loeb is going down.

Anonymous said...

Might these homes overlook Casa Bray? Is that the problem?

todd bray said...

Hoping to have some elevations to post tomorrow. Today it just wasn't in the cards

Anonymous said...

The site Plan says 'Pacifica Condos." Is this a proposed condo development, or a 63 unit apartment complex as posted by Todd Bray on 10/13@ 3:42 a.m.?

todd bray said...

I just sent Steve an elevation and 4 computer simulations of the proposal. It is 9 stories after all. Planning Direct White misrepresented the scale of the project in his study session notice. Ha, go figure.

Let's see if Steve posts the 5 files I just set him.

Anonymous said...

9 stories! I'm thinking that the Woodside owner is well aware that there are winds of pro-development inthe air and is trying to push this project through.

9 stories,a virtual highrise. And just how bad do we need this type housing again?

Anonymous said...

Winds of pro-development? Somebody please tell that builder that winds of pro-development have no odor. What he smells in Pathetica is sewer. It's the dominant feature here.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Bray may be on to something. That's an ugly bldg! You can see it on Riptide for now. It's got a multi-level concrete garage like the Home Depot in Colma. The main structure resembles the new terrorist-proof American embassy designs. Is this the best they can do? Would the developer build that in Woodside? C'mon man, get your 63 units in, make it profitable for yourself, but get a real architect to design it. Maybe a coastal specialist? You're making it too easy for the Nimby twits and they already have the edge here. Massive fail.

Anonymous said...

Almost as purty as those housing-project lookin' apartments right behind Eureka Square Shopping Center. May we expect "For Rent" banners hung off the front?

todd bray said...

I sent Steve the same files I sent John so will any guts Steve will add them to this post. I know you pro build out 'ner do wells are very vindictive when one of your own shows any sign of weakness, like those steaming a-wholes in the Republican House, but just for an open discussion I hope Steve will add the 5 files I sent him.

Hutch said...

Looks fine to me. Sure I would like to see something that fits into the landscape. More beachy. But I don't have 15 million to build it.

Anonymous said...

Just saw the builders renderings on Riptide. The design is perfect for it's location on "The Rock." It could be appropriately named " The Fortress;" locals will probably just call it Alcatraz.

Hutch said...

Todd I think you're a little confused. It is the hippie Riptide that constantly edits or refuses to post things from the opposition. They just refused to post my link to the LA Times story on NIMBY's. Much like a Fidel Castro, afraid of decent.

BTW, that "9 story building" looks more like separate buildings that are 4 stories each.

Anonymous said...

Finally, a military installation in Pacifica. I expect to see a fully armed contingent of US Marines guarding the fortress. Woohoo, the coast is safe!

Anonymous said...

How about a cannon installation like the guns of Navarone.....

Anonymous said...

The plans clearly say there are two separate buildings so Bray is wrong about it being 9 stories tall. One building is 5 and the other is 4. You don't add 2 different buildings together Todd.

Tom Clifford said...

Bring back the Nikes. there still must be some in storage.

Anonymous said...

727 True, no addition is required. Just look at the pretty pictures on Riptide and count. Try the one labeled East Elevation. Or any of the pretty full color architectural drawings. When viewed from below or from afar, all that will be noticed is the highest point and overall visual impact and that's fortress-like and much more than 45 feet. As someone asked earlier, would this wart be built in Woodside?

Anonymous said...

727 You do if they appear to be stacked atop one another.

Anonymous said...

617 Now that would have made for a really interesting America's Cup. Put Pacifica on the map. Briefly, because Ellison would probably take us out with one of his personal nukes.

todd bray said...

Thanks for posting the addition materials, Steve. They clearly show a 9 story building, attempting but not succeeding, to look like two separate structures built on top of each other. The blue prints show the structure uses one common foundation and shares all utilities and mechanical operations(HVAC, sewage, etc.

Anonymous said...

The horror, the horror.

The only reason why you miscretins liked the Nick's remodel was John Curtis, got paid off to shut up by Skyfield USA!

Anonymous said...

They are clearly marked building 1 and building 2. Two separate buildings separated by 20+ feet. There's no shared foundation or evidence that it is one structure. Again you distort the truth Todd. The building is 5 stories high. Period.

Anonymous said...

Okay, Okay, if we all get technical, there are two buildings and they don't exceed 45 feet. I had thought we had a 35 fooot height limit in town; perhaps that's only for residential. However, anyway you look at it, this complex is visually going to be one monstrosity of a building. Yes, we need the housing; yes, we need the revenue. But can't we do better? I expect there will be design modifications due to public uproar, but this initial proposal doesn't give me much confidence that the end product will be something we can all live with.

Anonymous said...

Fug ugly. Let's go for it!

Anonymous said...

Glad to see that someone is finally willing to take a chance on development in Pacifica.
I hope the usual suspects don't derail yet another opportunity to pull ourselves out of poverty.
Density is fine (acutally it's green), building height is fine, location is fine (near public transportation) ..........
Architecture is butt-ugly!
Let's convince this developer that he can count on the adults in town to support his project if he will commit to a nicer looking project.

Anonymous said...

It's 2 buildings. Building 1 is 4 floors and building 2 is 5 floors. Now look at the renderings and count the floors from bottom to top. It's a total of 9 floors from the bottom of building 1 to the top of building 2. OK?

Anonymous said...

By that method 11:35 you should count the parking structure. So it's 13 stories total?

What a load of crap. You don't add 2 buildings together.

Anonymous said...

Lots of questions still to be answered about this project. Will the owner willingly make design changes to create a more attractive project? Will a local builder even tackle this ugly project or will it be constructed by non-local, likely non-union workers? Biggest probable question: does the owner have a grudge against Pacifica or does he just hate us all?

My own thought is that the owner might be from some former Soviet bloc country and actually think that this mound of excrement constitutes a good design. That might be true in Belsarus or some other Soviet controlled region, but not here' please, not here.

todd bray said...

Anon @ 12:58, the owner lives in Woodside Ca.

Anonymous said...

Why isn't there more unbridled delight on here at the prospect of someone building something here? Need to see more of that tail-wagging, trembling, wetting yourselves kind of happiness. C'mon now, let it out. Massive amounts of concrete plopped on a rock. What's not to love?

Anonymous said...

1245 From the developer's own full color renderings of the project, it's appears that one building sticks up over the other, making the visual that of a 9 story building, even though there are to buildings in the image. No one but you is saying add them together and yet the visual is of something 9 stories high.
Is this going to be this week's version of the surplus/reserve mind-numbing debate? Or what's an assault weapon?

Anonymous said...

Why does it matter that he lives in Woodside?

Anonymous said...

Todd says the owner lives in Woodside.

What if anything do we know about him? Without that information, I proffer that he is a former Soviet KGB official who brought suitcases of rubles with him to his new life in America. Feeling nostalgic about his old KGB past, he has designed "The Rock" building to remind him of his glory days.

Anonymous said...

Groovy. A Soviet émigré. We could use a little Glasnost in Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

My first thought was, this is some kind of joke. That this was some sort of parody of a building that could go on the rock. Or perhaps an amateur attempt by a naughty collge student or high school kid. However, it dawned upon me that this is and can be our Mighty Fortress to Defend Pacifica from offshore NIMBY's and other enemies from the East. Each window conceals a cannon, and the entire building contains enough firepower to hold its own against an entire WW2 imperial navy. Great art. I love the world of make believe! Can the artist behind this do a rendering of a Walmart and Fast Food /Gas Station Corner at the Quarry?

Anonymous said...

You gotta laugh. After years of the NIMBYs automatically calling every project an ugly monstrosity, guess what actually showed up? Yup. And, we were finally in the mood (by Pacifica standards)for development. This town is cursed.

Anonymous said...

Courtesy of Riptide and Bray. Anyone remember a plan for the Sea Rock Inn for that site? Take a look at the South Elevation, lower right corner. Enlarge it and you'll see Seal Rock Inn. It was a hotel proposed in 1997. Yup. Can't blame this on the Tea Party.

Anonymous said...

The architect/design team, Lee Gage and Associates, is out of Fresno. The quote on their website reads, " we aim to provide our clients with the best design and building experience possible."
No wonder! A design from a company that has no stake in our area. Got to wonder if this "design" would even fly in a town like Fresno. I would like to think not.

Anonymous said...

Its a fortress to keep the bankruptcy attorney's and developers and builders out of Pacifica!

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine an architecture/design firm that says "we aim to provide our clients with a mediocre design and building experience"? They need new marketing material.

After years of people being called NIMBY who said anything critical of any project, finally a project that kills itself.

Anonymous said...

It's the same hotel project that was approved in 1997 - 16 years ago. Back then it was the 60-room Sea Rock Inn. Now it's the 63-unit Pacifica Condos.

todd bray said...

"You gotta laugh. After years of the NIMBYs automatically calling every project an ugly monstrosity, guess what actually showed up? Yup. And, we were finally in the mood (by Pacifica standards)for development. This town is cursed."

No, it's not. The concensus that's growing is the project is too big and or too ugly. If these issues are raised at the study session and the project gets scaled down and visually improved then that would be a good thing... ?

Lets say there are two buildings, the lower and upper structures. If the applicant lost the upper 4 floors, and two from the lower building making it just 3 stories tall on the ocean side of The Rock, with a veneer that had shingles or some other iconic coastal look I'd be quite happy with the project.

Granted it would be 1/3 the size of the current proposal but at least it would move forward with little or no opposition.

todd bray said...

p.s., having the structure 1/3 the current proposed size would give the developer 7 units with his 22,000 sqft of commercial, which also increases the ratio of mixed use to 60% commercial and 30% residential (me thinks) which makes EVERYBODY a winner

Anonymous said...

Todd you know that would kill the whole project to scale it down to 1/3 the size. But that's your goal.. NO you're wrong. There's no "concensus" that this project is too big. If you have right on your side why do you feel the need to distort facts? This building is NOT 9 stories. Sure it's ugly but a simple facade change would fix that.

But your goal is to stop this thing all together. Does that give you a feeling of power instead of impotence? That you can tell millionars what to do? Well you're not helping Pacifica by trying to stop every project that comes along.

Anonymous said...

This is an easy to see if you're a NIMBY. If you oppose this project, you are by definition a NIMBY.

Anonymous said...

The aesthetics of the design are completely subjective. Assuming that the entire community needs to weigh in and reach a "concensus" on how the project looks is naive to the point of delusion.

Anonymous said...

Todd

I see nothing in these drawings that show any commercial.

And this 60%-40% ratio you see is pure fiction.

Anonymous said...

Anon@9:50 a.m.: Not sure that it's a case of telling millionaires what to do. Rather, it seems that the millionaires are telling us what they're going to do, for us, to us.

Not saying that the project should be killed, but a reasonable compromise is in order. Perhaps a reduction in size without reducing the builder's profits beyond feasibility; a definite design change to the exterior materials, etc.
Granted, this is the first large project to come along to our cash-strapped town in years, but we should not allow it to be forced down our throats just because we're hungry for some kind of development.

Anonymous said...

From the staff report for the study session:

The size of the multi-story buildings and garage do not appear to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project appears to be more of a residential use than a truly mixed-used project.

The Commission should provide comments on whether or not the use is appropriate for the site, density, General Plan compatibility and any other issues of interest to the Commission.

Specifically, staff requests that the Commission comment on the following:
1. Would the Commission support the project density?
2. Would the Commission have any concern about the project compatibility with the neighborhood?
3. Would the Commission have any concern about the General Plan compatibility?
4. Are there any other areas of concern the Commission would like to address?

http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6177

Anonymous said...

Roger that, Todd. Shrink it to 1/3and slap some shingles on it. The Woodside Developer's money and time are yours to command.

Anonymous said...

While we're designing our building, how about another real restaurant with a killer view and a hotel? Provides continuing jobs and TOT and taxes. Maybe a few condos that could also become vacation rentals for more TOT as well as property tax? Total redesign and true mixed-use that is revenue producing.

Anonymous said...

@1032 Wow, just like that? What a simple little world you live in. Building anything on the coast is a process and one that the owner of that parcel has had plenty of time to observe. He either chooses to participate on this bounce or goes on waiting. Or selling.

Anonymous said...

12:53

Way to tell the owners what do to do with their property. Are you Peter Loeb?

Anonymous said...

139 No, are you clueless? Here's a hint. I happen to think the owner had a pretty good idea back in 1997of what to build. He ought to stick with it and maybe include a few add-ons like a restaurant and some of his high return condos. Before this process is done all sorts of people will be telling the owner what to do with his property. That's how it works. I like his original idea. The building design is secondary to its purpose.

Anonymous said...

Anon@1:39 p.m. brings up a good question; should property owners be told what to do with their own property, and if so, by whom?

I feel that I'm a strong believer in property rights. If you're building a house and the neighbors don't like the color or the finish materials, that should be their problem. It's your house, your land, do what you will. However, in an instance such as The Rock, a highly visible property and one that is not similar to its neighbors, the local residents should have plenty to say about what gets built. It's not as if the developer is going to live there; he's going to build whatever he can get by with, make his profits, and go elsewhere. It's the neighbors and the residents of Pacifica that will be stuck dealing with the visual and physical outfall of this project. I feel that Pacificans have every right to expect and demand a quality development that complements rather than detracts from our town.

Anonymous said...

There's a field over on Pedro Point that the owner has been trying to develop for more than fifteen years and the Point People are up in arms over it. The last rendering that I saw a few years back was a plan to build about 12 Cape Cod type homes on one side of a 5 acre parcel and leave the rest open space. Looked like quality design all the way through and still the Point crowd doesn't want to see homes built. The guy will probably eventually sell; hope that the new buyer doesn't hook up with that design outfit from Fresno. I doubt they would know what a Cape Cod type structure is supposed to look like.

mike bell said...

The only concensus I've been able to detect is that it is ugly.

Mr. Developer, if you're reading this, spend a little money and improve the design and you will get the public support for a density that provides a decent ROI (return on investment)

"Too big" is just the usual Todd/NIMBY mantra.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that, Mike Bell! Many, if not most of us, are ready for development, but we're not blind. Just make it attractive/not an eyesore and we'll support you. If you can make your money and include a hotel (as you originally planned) then we'll really sing your praises. How often has that happened?

Anonymous said...

259 Pedro Point and Vallemar smoke different dope.

Anonymous said...

Property owners all over America are "told" what to do with their property. Particularly in areas where property is scenic or expensive or scarce. Want the freedom to build ugly, head inland. Stop when you get to Fresno.

Hutch said...

extcve 7144I agree with Mike and Anon, the only "consensus" is that its ugly. Fix with a different facade. The size is not the problem.

Anonymous said...

Dense housing such as this design is better for the environment. The population is growing and needs a place to live. Saying "that's fine but they can't live in our town because we want more open space" is the very definition of a NIMBY.

If you oppose this development, you're a NIMBY.

Anonymous said...

Some of you might remember the uproar that occurred in El Granada when that Palo Alto developer Chop Keegan started out to build what is now known as The Beach House. Someone was so angry that they torched the unfinished building and it burnt to the ground. Keegan dug in his heels and rebuilt and the end product is pretty attractive. It's also a limited ownership property with owners (allegedly) only allowed to live in their units 3 months of the year; the rest of the time, the units are part of the hotel. Something like that at The Rock might be a good fit. A coastal design with limited ownership, operating as a quasi-hotel. Probably have less impact on traffic than a full time residency development and bring in additional monies to Pacifica in the form of increased hotel taxes. It might also have the added benefit of encouraging some of the other local hotels to improve their properties to stay in competition. The one that comes to mind is the Pacifica Beach Hotel at Crespi & Hwy1. From the reviews I've read on YELP, it's in constant disrepair. That's another high visibility project and sometimes it looks terrible; better on sunny days.

Anonymous said...

The Rock falls within the Coastal Commission boundaries I believe. While Pacifica has jurisdiction with the initial application, any appeals wind up being reviewed by the State Coastal Commission. This is what is happening with that proposed 9 unit condo complex at Beach Blvd and Palmetto. After reading through all the concerns (which I think were from omly 3 nearby residents), and reading about all the restrictions placed on the project, I'd be surprised if it ever gets built. Keep in mind that this 9 unit project had already been approved by the Pacifica Planning Commission prior to the appeals.

Same thing might be happening with The Rock. Planning Commission says "looks good," knowing full well that the project will get quashed at the State level.

Anonymous said...

Don't you mean Beach Blvd and Paloma? You could be right about the CCC having the final say on The Rock, and the OWWTP and those condos, but let's make sure this dying town at least puts up some fight before we surrender to ever-increasing taxation as the official Pacifica way of life. That starts with our local planning commission and wishy-washy council. Straighten them out and keep them that way, and we might have a shot at a balanced town economy. Or, surrender to every tax this and subsequent councils can think of. Fight. Start by making it known that, as a city, we want development. We have yet to do that.

Anonymous said...

The Rock is not in the coastal commission jurisdiction. Read the staff report.

Anonymous said...

Yes, thanks for the correction: Beach Blvd&Paloma.

I agree that increased taxation is not the way to go. If Measure V passes there will likely be some talk about recalling the current C. ty Council. However, is anyone waiting in the wings who could do a better job? Every City Council seems to fall short of our expectations. It's a tough job in a tough town.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, not another recall. That last mess was a pointless embarrassment very few wanted to associate with. Like many failed recalls, it probably served to embolden the entire council to pull crap like Measure V, FCSTF, the outsourcing debacle, etc. IMHO we should stick to the regular election process and do a better job as voters and civic organizations at not being fooled during the campaigns. It's a small town. Leopards don't change their spots and neither do tax and spenders, puppets or the easily influenced.

Anonymous said...

626 Score 1 for Pacifica. Best welcome mat for more development would be a highly visible (haha) project moving forward and making money.

Hutch said...

The last recall attempt resulted in 2 of the 3 enviro nuts going away. There was a lot of pressure on council to finally oust the MIA Vreeland. I'd say that was worth it.

Anonymous said...

Vreeland, was slightly worse than this council.

Anonymous said...

Hutch

Mary Ann, Sue and Ervin are just as bad hippies and nymbys and noobees as Vreeland, Julie and Pete.

Look at who endorsed them.

Anonymous said...

Seriously what makes you think you have a say in the matter.

I bet the city planner and city staff think you are a real ding dong.

Anonymous said...

Hutch, what that last recall attempt did was taint the whole recall process in Pacifica for years to come. That recall appeared personal and often irrational. Reasonable people with very valid concerns about the incumbents, rejected the recall because of its poorly articulated basis and its leadership. No doubt it still has its defenders who are obligated to lay claim to changes they did not cause. What else is new?

Anonymous said...

840 Not to worry. Looking at the council highlights of the past 2 years, I'd say a couple of this lot has the character and time to catch up and surpass Vreeland.

Anonymous said...

Todd, I think you got carried away by your euphoria at finding honest criticism of a development here on Fix. The criticism is about the ugly design, not the size of the project. No one here is suggesting a smaller project or less square footage. You've mislead Lee Diaz.

Anonymous said...

Todd

If you read the city of Pacifica notice for the study session you would have known the owner of this parcel lives in Glenbrook Nevada not Woodside CA.

Fact check 1

Todd Bray 0

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous 10/17, 7:46 PM, and 12:31 PM today, there's no reason to defend any past City Council Recall attempt against your pointless defamation (particularly since you hide under hidden anonymous cover).

Contrary to your two comments, conditions for the last Recall were stated in writing, were justified and rational. The time to execute the process was constrained, but the education process increased political pressure.

As Hutch 816 AM said: "The last recall attempt resulted in 2 of the 3 enviro nuts going away. There was a lot of pressure on council to finally oust the MIA Vreeland. I'd say that was worth it."

Recall is an option under our democratic process, justified or not. The last Recall effort was justified. Brava and bravo to those who participated in the last City Council 3 Recall effort.

Meantime, regularly scheduled elections will continue just as they always have. The City will probably continue to bumble along. But your chilling 1231 warnings of "tainting the Recall process" is inflexible, without vision, even anti-democratic.

Anonymous said...

Kathy

you are starting to sound a lot like Vreeland with your Anti Democratic speel.

Anonymous said...

Good to hear from you, Ms. Meeh. And thanks for providing more food for thought on the state of the recall option in Pacifica. It was not only badly tainted by that last farce, but it is inflexible, lacks vision, and, its repercussions can be woefully anti-democratic in the wrong hands. Be that as it may, I wouldn't have it any other way. Lots of respect for the American voter.

Kathy Meeh said...

418, 437, Nope, Recall is an option in the American democratic election process. Its an alternative in Pacifica and elsewhere.

Of course for every action there may be a reaction. Example, had a longer planned Recall of 4 NIMBY city council members been successful prior to 2006, the quarry might have been built, highway 1 might have had a traffic solution, and the City might not be begging for tax money again.

And since you've chosen to smear other people's efforts, its also understandable that you hide under anonymous cover.

Anonymous said...

437 here, Ms. Meeh, I don't think you sound like Vreeland, and I will continue to put my faith in the voters. They tend to get it right more times than not. They also have an excellent sense of what behavior warrants a recall and what is merely politics and personalities better left to the election process.

Hutch said...

We obviously stepped on some anonymous toes with our recall. Who are you Pete, Jimmy? Do you have the balls to use your name here? Didn't think so.

The main target of the recall was Vreeland. Once he stepped down or was removed or whatever happened, it lost steam. But we talked to thousands of Pacificans about how our NIMBY enviro radical council had put our city in peril. The election that followed was a mandate against the environmental one candidate if nothing else.

I'm not saying we swayed the election or caused Vreeland to go away or Pete to not run. But maybe we helped. It sure didn't hurt.

Anonymous said...

And don't forget, the recall helped the Giants win the 2012 World Series!

Anonymous said...

You can't just make up cause and effect. There is zero evidence that the failed recall attempt had anything to do with anyone not running, particularly when it was well known that Vreeland was already suffering health issues.

What it DID do is harm the credibility of its proponents by making them appear petty and childish to even those people who agreed with them about the NIMBY council members.

Their credibility is even further diminished when they choose to attack someone for posting anonymously, rather than refuting their arguments.

Kathy Meeh said...

1025, you're back with the same regurgitated anti-Recall option comments. This time adding "childish". Well that's swell.

This time you defend more than 1 year of city council member Vreeland not showing up to meetings on any regular basis. He was sick, did he himself resign? No. Would he have ever resigned? No proof of that. Was important city council work being delayed and neglected as a result? Yes. (The city has since adopted rules about long term sick city council members). Were there other valid reasons for recalling all three city council members. Yes, and those reasons were stated.

Now you're crying about being called-out for your baseless, not credible anonymous comments, which do not advance any argument, boo hoo. Having a name adds to credibility and motive-- not an attack, just another fact.

Anonymous said...

1025 You poke at that recall and you always get the same response from the same people. They fail to see how that last recall made a mockery of the recall process. It'll take years before the cringe-factor wears off.

Anonymous said...

Damn it Kathy! You can't lump all anonymi together. We are individuals. Do you lump all your cats together?

Anonymous said...

How does having a name add credibility? Motive is irrelevant, facts are facts, and ad hominem attacks are puerile.

The recall was an utter waste of time, and trying to recall elected officials because you disagree with their policies is the democratic equivalent of holding your breath and stomping your feet.

Anonymous said...

As far as Vreeland's departure, the recall was a joke and probably brightened his day. IMO the constant drum-beating on here about his absences did have an effect. When the blame and criticism spread from Vreeland to Rhodes to the rest of the spineless enablers on Council, things became uncomfortable. That's a very sensitive group, our local politicians. Lack of quorum fed the flames. Fixers and others were researching the State Municipal Code and quoting it to council members. An MIA Councilman holding up city gov't our council could ignore and protect, but the public blaming them, that had to stop!

BTW, Council enacted nothing in the way of rules to prevent another similar disaster. They simply gave themselves the all-important power to determine whether an absence is excused or unexcused. They became their own gatekeeper. And we all applauded. Of course, there is no limit to excused absences. Foxes. Henhouse. Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

Target of a Pacifica Recall=Badge of Honor.

Anonymous said...

Recall attempt by temper tantrum, that's all it was, recall by temper tantrum.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of temper tantrums, were any on display this morn at the Dems Debate on V?

Kathy Meeh said...

1247, you make the point that when you have something credible to say, you might consider being an individual, rather than a "lump of cats". But clearly I was responding to one Anonymous, 1025; 418, 437 (10/18); 1231, 746 (10/17).

138, since the issue of a limited number of allowed city councilmember meeting absences (excused or unexcused) was presented by City Manager Rhodes, and discussed in a city council meeting following Councilmember Vreeland's resignation, I question your comment that "there is no limit to excused absences." Of course, you may be correct that ultimately there is no stated city ordinance. However, there may have been some form of internal HR requirement change.

Anonymous 1254, 231, YOUR "motive is irrelevant", really? And are YOU "holding your breath and stomping your feet", and having a "temper tantrum". These are your words, replayed back to you, duh.

For those interested, the Ballotpedia comments about that 2012 recall effort are here. " "The recall targets (Councilmembers DeJarnatt and Digre) were accused of a lack of decision making leading to the mismanagement of city resources, violations of city codes which forced a whistle-blower to resign, a violation of state law regarding a biodiesel project that failed, rejected business developments, a lack of action regarding city properties, a lack of disciplinary action against employees whose neglect allegedly cost the city millions of dollars, and a waste of taxpayer funds." Councilmember Vreeland resigned during the Recall process which was abandoned.

Related, the planned eco-NIMBY ideology that wrought this city a 60% open space, dysfunctional economy is structural, more serious than a simple political disagreement. We are living with the consequences.

Anonymous said...

Oh, those poor cats.

Steve Sinai said...

Move that parking structure out of sight.

Steve Sinai said...

"How does having a name add credibility?"

People tend to be more responsible about what they say when they put their name, and thus reputation, behind it.

Hutch said...

Who's time did the recall waste? Mine and the other people involved. It did no harm and may have helped. Get over it.

Anonymous said...

Rose-colored glasses 24/7.

todd bray said...

There was an extraordinary turn out late night for an initial study session. Of note was the questions by several of the new commissioners about the financial feasibility of the project if it was reduced in scale. That, the financial viability of a project) is something that is illegal for them to consider. The new commissioners need to read the handbook.

The developer was there himself, something I thanked him for but also pointed out how many folks showed up and they didn't show up to say YEAH but rather to say NO. He got the message, I then asked if he'd be interested in hosting a neighborhood meeting at the VFW hall to meet the Rockaway folks, something he seemed to readily agree to which to me signals he intends to move forward with the project.

Like the quarry I personally think the parcel is undevelopable... because... the developer when asked by commissioner Vaterlaus how small the project could be and still be financially feasible (a big no-no) he replied 40 units of housing. To give that some perspective that means 40 units the same size as my house on the Rock.

Since the property is zoned C1+ meaning commercial, if the zoning must change to accommodate the project to a mixed use or i this case a housing development the + sign means it will take a public vote to change the zoning not just the usual rubber stamping of the commission or council.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, Bray. You and your gang of no have done enough damage in town.

todd bray said...

You are welcome Rantanon @ 12:42, don't mention it. Always willing to help.

Steve Sinai said...

The Planning Commissioner's Book

todd bray said...

Awesome link Steve, Kudo's. Do you have the one published by the League of California Cities for Planning Commissioners? And if so could you post it here?

todd bray said...

P.S. the city of Pacifica has it's own handbook for commissioners as well. I wonder if it's electronic?

Anonymous said...

I notice they removed Todd's exaggerated "9 Stories" off the titles here and on Riptide. Deception when you got nothin'. That's how some NIMBY's roll.

Hey Todd, I emailed the owner along with about 15 others to tell him not to give up there's plenty of support here.