Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or, view on local television or live feed Pacificcoast.TV, (formerly pct26.com). If you miss civic meetings, view on PCT 26 You Tube! The planning commission meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following. Planning Commission updates, archives are available on the City website/Planning Commission.
Planning Commission meeting agenda, Tuesday, September 6, 2016, pdf pages 142.
 |
| 252 Stanley Avenue, #A |
Continued public hearing
1. CDP-365-16, PE-168-16. Expand an existing 3-story residence, garage, and living space: 252 Stanley Avenue (APN 023-019-210), Pedro Point. Recommended action: approve as conditioned, agenda pages 3- 32.
New public hearings
2. CDP-366-16. Pacifica Land Trust and San Mateo County Parks Department grading and landscaping a 640 linear foot segment of Middle Ridge Trail, (APN 023-730-020), Pedro Point Headlands. Recommended action: continue to the 10/17/16 meeting, agenda page 33.
3. PSD-790-14, PV-513-14, PE-160-15. Amend approval construction of 4 detached studio apartments and 4 stall carports to construct a 3-story, 3,169 sq. ft. apartment building comprised of 4-dwelling units, 2 each on top floors, and an attached ground floor garage: 4009 Palmetto Avenue (APN 009-402-270). Recommended action: approve as conditioned, agenda pages 34-142.
Consideration items, none. Communications: Commission, Staff.
Adjourn.
----------
Reference, acronyms. APN, Assessor's parcel number. CDP, Coastal Development permit. PSD, Site Development permit. PV, Variance. TA, text amendment. UP, Use permit. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), class 1. CA CEQA Code of Regulations, (Guidelines) . Reference.com/R1 zoning, (typically freestanding, single-family residences).
----------
Note Item 1 photograph from HotPads, 252 Stanley Avenue #A. Item 3, related sale, Redfin, 4000 Palmetto Avenue.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
18 comments:
Interesting that this blog ignores the recent revelation that the library bond proponents submitted a false argument that the Coastal Commission passed on the new library location as free from sea level rise. Pacifica.city did the work and revealed that that is not so.
Do you people have any interest in the truth of things?
Pacifica.city? LOL. That's like the local enviro-mental version of Breitbart.
857 Only as it serves their agenda. If the truth doesn't serve the agenda, which in this case is the library and developing that glorious new downtown, then the truth is optional. Of course, they're not unique in their situational ethics. Common as snot.
The letter from the Coastal Commission is fact
1246, 857 pacific.city Dan, by all means link the Coastal Commission letter, and show us the "false argument", which has no government scientific study, basis, or official recourse follow-up.
The ballot Argument for Measure "N" submitted by Eric Ruchames for the voter information packet stated that:
"The Coastal Commission and third-party experts thoroughly vetted Measure N to ensure our library is safe from flooding and sea-level rise"
We asked Coastal Commission if that was true and they replied:
"...Coastal Commission staff wrote the attached filing letter regarding the project-specific LCP amendment that would be required to build the multi-use development (including the library) at the Beach Boulevard site. The letter discusses required analyses we would want to see to assess whether all the development in this location would be safe from hazards such as wave uprush, flooding and increased sea levels (see “n” on page 5 of the attachment). It is not really accurate to say that the library’s been “vetted” as safe from flooding at this point, in the absence of the analyses we laid out in the attached letter.
Further, our District Manager, Nancy Cave, wrote a letter generally supporting the inclusion of a library in the plans for the redevelopment. Specifically this letter stated that, though a library is not a typical high priority, resource-dependent use, the library use at this site would be generally consistent with the land use designation of the property. However, this letter was silent on coastal hazard risks such as flooding..."
__________________________________________________
Stephanie R. Rexing
District Supervisor
North Central Coast District
California Coastal Commission
OK, so the library proponents shouldn't have used the word "vetted" in their material. Big whoop. Unlike Pacifica.city, the Coastal Commission doesn't seem too worked up about this. What's more important is that they said they supported the inclusion of a library in the plans for the redevelopment.
Love how the CCC minces around in their letter..."It is not really accurate....". No shit. It's a lie. A very convenient lie. And not just a lie over coffee at Starbucks, but a lie on an official election ballot. A lie meant to mislead and sway the voters. Nice work Ruchames et al. How low the mighty have fallen.
Clear from the CCC letters that to vet the library as safe from coastal flooding, the CCC would require an analysis of flooding risk to be completed. Ain't happened. It's not vetted for flooding and who knows what else. Reading comprehension problem among our library crowd?? Doubtful.
Why would presenting a factual story ever occur to Stegs?! It hasn't before. Out of context and breathless hyperbole are standard tools in his chest.
2:12
Speaking of lies. Keener never mentioned once during his campaign that he favored "managed retreat". His protege Deirdre Martin has an almost identical election platform and also will not fess up to favoring managed retreat. There is a very dark and menacing campaign going on this town to flip the majority on council back to the enviro-mentals. They crave that power so they can turn this whole town into a wetland.
Library supporters BEWARE.
Dog walkers BEWARE.
Affordable housing advocates BEWARE.
These NOBY's lack the empathy gene and only care about themselves.
These are the "I got mines" who could care less if they ruin this town as long as the chips fall their way.
2:20 AM, The consultant hired by the city did a study of the flooding risk and said it wasn't a problem. It's a waste of money for the Coastal Commission to spend taxpayer money on another analysis.
Steve, in case you didn't hear the Moffat and Nickel presentation, they said there was no flood risk as long as the berms and northern Beach Blvd seawall were maintained. "Managed retreat" as promoted by John Keener, Sue Digre and Deirdre Martin would prohibit this maintenance and flood not only the library but all of West Sharp Park and West Fairway. This is the biggest weapon yet being used by the faux-enviro NOBY's.
Don't know if this would indicate any sign of future "flooding risk," but a few of us remember when there were two houses at the foot of Birch Lane on the west side of Beach Blvd. I know that one of them was demolished by a winter storm; think that the other was either heavily damaged by another storm or was simply torn down. This would have been in the late 1970's/early 1980's. I know the golf course berm was there at the time; not certain if the seawall or the pier had yet been built. There was a third structure at the south end of Beach Blvd, but that was subsequently burnt down by the Fire Department as a practice for their firefighters.
1112 Spend the money. This city is hardly a dis-interested party and does not deserve the public trust on this issue. They're masters at bias confirmation and buying opinions.
Well, 1107, I got mine and it's too close to the water's edge. And getting closer. Please spend whatever it takes to save my property for me and mine.
2:13. I think it was January of '83 that a winter storm caused flooding in Linda Mar and one big wave took out the house on Sharp Park Beach near the pier. The pier had been there for several years but the seawall wasn't there yet.
Looks like everyone's Recology bill will go up. Their big recycling yard in San Carlos-Belmont was on fire this am. 4 alarm fire!
Post a Comment