Pacifica Tribune/Letters to the Editor, 8/10/16. "It’s about housing" by Todd McClune Bray
 |
| Conceptual Land Use Plan, 75% permanent open space. Nothing makes NIMBIES happy! |
| Developer bags of money too heavy for Quarry getaway. |
The language of the ballot measure is very vague about what 206 multi-family units could be. Our municipal codes say a multi-family unit has three or more dwellings per structure. That begs the question: if we approve the quarry vote in November are we actually approving 206 units of housing or 618 units, if not more, of housing in the quarry?
Make no mistake, the quarry vote isn’t about hotels, restaurants, office space or commercial retail (all of which could be built without a public vote) the vote is about housing in the quarry period, that will certainly create an entirely new neighborhood of either 206 dwellings or at least 618 apartments in West Rockaway. The ballot language is really that vague.
The Michigan-based developer could walk away with a big bag of money leaving us property owners to subsidize the city services his new neighborhood will require. No matter what way you look at the math for this new quarry, housing just doesn’t add up."
----------
Reference. The Pacifica Quarry Restore and Connect, "The opportunity". The Pacifica Quarry/Updates and Resources, "Conceptual site plan" (scroll down). City of Pacifica Planning, "Proposed Pacifica Quarry reclamation project". City of Pacifica/Quarry ballot initiative, see Quarry Initiative Title and Summary, .... "2) At least 75% of the Quarry site would be designated as permanently-protected open space, including setbacks of at least 100 feet from Calera Creek."
Related. Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop/Staff Writer, 5/5/16, "Pacificans rally against quarry development." Note Photograph/graphics. land use graphic from The Pacifica Quarry/Updates and Resources, "Conceptual site plan." Helicopter from Pacifica Tribune 6/29/16, under a title "Questions big and small concern residents about proposed Quarry development." (?).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
34 comments:
I really never knew Bray, was a project manager. Or majored in Construction Management or Urban Development.
What makes him specialized in knowing if a project pencils out or not?
"We're not against developing the quarry, it's just we don't like this project. We have a better idea. We'll get back to you." Where have we heard that before! The nobies have opened their playbook and are at it again. Unbelievable. Watch for your local nobie at the next housing meeting advocating rent control. "BUT DON'T EVER BUILD ANOTHER UNIT!"
Or the famous chant of the nimbys, hippies, noobees, and gang of no.
Good project bad location.
Here's the thing Rantanons, if one of these wannabe Trumps built the commercial ideas first, had them up and running generating revenues, the housing thing might go over a lot easier. But when the initiative language, and the city attorney's report both state there is no gaurantee of anything being built but housing... what use is that except to realtors, mortgage brokers and the Trump wannabes?
Todd,
Don't you think you should be conferring with Nancy Hall. She's the land use expert that covered the entire Fassler hill with roads, sewer lines, storm water drainage systems and utilities all to serve just 10 homes going for $5,000,000 a piece. She knows how to limit housing in Pacifica better than anyone I know.
Bad project bad location
1059, why?
Suggesting the developer will build over 600 apartments is total bull and exemplifies the dishonesty the NIMBYs will resort to if they think they can get away with conning voters.
On the other hand, I won't vote for this unless there is some guarantee that the commercial will be built.
I won't vote for it unless some serious traffic mitigation north of the Vallemar Cut. The West Fairway Park area has already been turned into a parking lot by the GGNRA (thanks Brent Plater)and traffic nightmare (thanks WAZE App). The area does not need anymore traffic clogging up Bradford Way and the very horribly maintained Old Mori Point Road, which the GGNRA owns BTW.
Steve, there is no guarantee anything will be built but housing. If you think I lie read the minutes of the council meeting in July that put the measure on the ballot, or read the initiative and/or the city attorney's report to council. And BTW it's not a suggestion of 600+ units of housing because the ballot language is purposely vague about what the type of units a multi family unit is leaving the door purposely wide open to interpretation which means the final number of multi family units will be determined by lawyers vs. City of Pacifica. Again refer to the above documents.
A vote isn't needed for commercial/retail/hotel or office mixed use. Build that first and I'd lay odds on a positive housing vote in the future.
Todd, you're being dishonest to suggest over 600 apartments will be built, and you know it. A winning vote for the developer doesn't approve a project, it just lets him propose one. The developer has said over and over that only about 200 housing units will be built, and there's no way the city would approve anything more than that.
You should be happy that I'm agreeing with you on the other issue - that there's no guarantee commercial will be built. That's a show-stopper for me.
No Steve, the vote is not a hinderance to proposing a project in the quarry. It's only a hinderance if a proposal wants to include housing. BTW the developer has already submitted a proposal to the Planning dept. which can be reviewed on the city's website.
And before you get all high and meanie again about the number of housing units Measure W will allow in the quarry read up on it as suggested above. Please.
As for what the city would approve... that will depend on the lawyer vs. city lawsuit outcome when Michigan decides to sue because the vageness of the ballot measure W (as in Dubya) lets him interpret the final number of quarry units by judicial findings.
Michigan will have his own new neighborhood of 206 units, possibly 618 units or any multiple of 206 if the 206 is the number of apartment buildings. Steve, the vagueness of Measure Dubya ( measure W) almost guarantee's a law suit against the city to determine the final number of multi family housing units Michigan feels he can get away with.
Todd, you don't seem to worry when your good buddy Peter Loeb, sued the city. Why worry about Michigan suing the city?
Todd, I'm looking at the conceptual plan that's on the planning commission website. It looks like the one that was presented to the planning commission a few months ago, where the developer's rep said it was nothing more than some initial ideas. It's not an actual proposal.
Where are the 618 apartments? I'm seeing 25 Live-Work units, 74 1-bedroom units, 71 2-bedroom units, and 36 3-bedroom units. If he wanted to built 618 units, where would he put them given the acreage restrictions?
"Todd, you don't seem to worry when your good buddy Peter Loeb, sued the city. Why worry about Michigan suing the city?"
I have no doubt that if this passes there will be lawsuits, but it will be from the NIMBYs trying to stop the project rather than the developer trying to build more apartments.
If you live in West Fairway Park don't worry about traffic. Worry about Councilman Keener and be deathly afraid if his hand picked candidate Deirdre gets elected. Both advocate managed retreat. Look that up, it'll scare you what the ramifications will be to your homes over there. Remember the homes falling into the ocean, well that could be your whole neighborhood. If the levee isn't maintained how long do you think it could be before the ocean takes your homes, 5 years, less? Be afraid, be very afraid!
Just a point of clarity, San Francisco owns & maintains the Levee. Neither The City of Pacifica nor any of its Council members Has any control over what happen there.
Another point of clarity, the littoral cell committee is hard at work in SF as well.
Hey Tom, what happens if the beach is breached just north of the levee, does San Francisco then build a levee all the way around the gold course? They're crazier than we are (but not by much) so don't think for a minute they won't embrace managed retreat.
True, Mr. Clifford, but if the retaining wall north of the pier isn't replaced by a proper sea wall, there'll be no point in maintaining the levee at the golf course because the whole area will flood anyway. That's why neither Keener nor Martin want the library in Sharp Park - they both support "managed retreat", which would eventually allow Sharp Park to become part of the Pacific Ocean.
Back to the topic: Although I supported the previous two quarry measures, I'm voting no this time. It's a very poor proposal compared to the other two and we can do better.
San Francisco has already embraced managed retreat:
http://www.spur.org/featured-project/ocean-beach-master-plan
And so has Pacifica:
http://esassoc.com/projects/pacifica-state-beach-managed-retreat-beach-and-estuary-restoration
"ESA's award-winning managed retreat project reduced flooding hazards by realigning oceanfront property and infrastructure away from coastal erosion hotspots, and restored estuarine functioning on San Pedro Creek. This project was identified as a Top Restored Beach by the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association in 2005 and is featured on the NOAA website in the Shoreline Management: Managed Retreat area."
Todd,
Why are you afraid of telling the truth? The initiative approves a binding contract between the citizens of Pacifica and the developer to allow for the building of up to 204 rental units (not buildings) and only if the hotel and commercial areas are built as well. The developer has even said that he will build them concurrently if that is what is required.
Please pursue your hobby of blocking development with integrity instead of falsehoods.
To the "managed retreat" advocates:
If man always ran from the challenges Mother Nature presents, I can't even imagine where we would be today as a species. Think about it. That's right. Try using some of that vacant real estate between your ears and solve the problem. We homo sapiens are capable of amazing things. In 1969, we even put a man on the moon. Certainly, by the year 2066, we can figure out how to save Pacifica - i.e, if we really want to...
I read most of the info on this website. I didn't notice any areas with dense housing, rental stock and small business being condemned to destruction via "managed retreat". Did I miss something?
Mike Bell, now you are the one not telling the truth. The initiative DOES NOT approve "a binding contract between the citizens of Pacifica and the developer to allow for the building of up to 204 rental units (not buildings) and only if the hotel and commercial areas are built as well." THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES in the initiative that the hotel and commercial areas would ever be built. Stop making stuff up.
1035, Quarry initiative Title and Summary. found on the City of Pacifica/Quarry ballot initiative web page-- also referenced on this blog article.
Summary paragraph 1... This Initiative would eliminate the public vote requirement for any future rezoning which includes residential development within the Quarry, so long as ALL the following conditions are met:
1) Any development of the Quarry must receive zoning approval for a planned development district that allows a mixed-use development which includes a hotel, recreational, retail, and residential uses substantially consistent with the land use plan set forth in Exhibit A attached to the Initiative ('Exhibit A'). ...
.... 5) Residential uses would be limited to 206 multi-family units, which could not exceed four stories in height. Of these 206 units, no more that 181 would be residential apartment units of which at least 20 percent must be designated as affordable for very low, lower or moderate income households. At least 25 of the 206 units must be designated as live-work units.
Thanks, Kathy. Yes, the initiative would eliminate the public vote requirement as long as the planned development includes a hotel, etc. It does not say that the 206 residential units can be built "only if the hotel and commercial areas are built as well." A plan is 1 thing, building is another.
BOOM!!! "Residential uses would be limited to 206 multi-family units."
As usual Bray, Loeb any his minions are wrong!! Hey Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.
How these buffoons have such a following is beyond me.
What is a multi family unit? How many families does that house? And to the person who posted at 12:25, you have shown me just how confusing this measure is. It seems to be written for a populous the authors hope wont read it or if one does they will be discouraged by the complexity, various sections and subsections. When in doubt, don't. Thank you for helping me to decide to vote no on measure W.
RE: "Rantanon" mike bell at 8/23 9:28 am
I read most of the info on this website. I didn't notice any areas with dense housing, rental stock and small business being condemned to destruction via "managed retreat". Did I miss something?
Exactly! I was wondering the same thing and would really love to have some info about same. Hopefully, Council person Keener can supply that since he is such an advocate of same. I also noticed Peter Leob recently did a lot of work on his place over there behind the Best Western. Maybe he didn't hear about the imminent sea level rise or maybe he's just getting it ready to sell to some sucker who doesn't read the news. Although, in the terms of any sale all known problems with the home must be divulged. Maybe the fact that it going to be underwater tomorrow doesn't count.
Keener and Martin (if she is elected) and their crazy group of supporters are already causing property values to fall right now because of their interference with the maintenance and construction of the earthen berms at the golf course and a seawall north of the pier. They are attempting to usher in a "managed retreat" strategy for the entire West Sharp Park and Fairway neighborhoods.
It's all based on junk science.
As for Loeb, I wouldn't be surprised if he is looking for a fast cash out.
Well let's see there must be a few thousand homes and businesses west of the highway, seems like a good base for a class action lawsuit against the GGNRA, SAN Francisco, Pacifica and San Mateo County for gross negligence, not taking appropriate action to protect those areas and a host of other charges I'm sure a good lawyer could come up with, yeah? Anyone know a good lawyer????? Also, I guess all those west of the highway need to march right down to the tax assessors office and demand their home/business valuations be adjusted accordingly. Why should anyone west of the highway pay taxes for homes that will be underwater tomorrow??? Makes sense to me.
Sharon, you forgot to include Keener and Deirdra Martin should she become a council person. She is supported full throttle by all of Keeners kooks.
@8/25 8:43 PM If the shoe fits....
Post a Comment