Saturday, February 9, 2019

Coastal Commission. Please Explain.

Anyone out there want to explain what this says and what it encompasses? This is one paragraph out of 95 pages of similar Orwellian Speak.
The Coastal Commission is attempting to restructure the California coast to what they think it should look like, damn the torpedoes and all speed ahead.
Beware. Be scared
Be very scared

From the Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance (RAPG)

"B.8 Nonconforming Structures in Areas Subject to Coastal Hazards When proposed development would involve redevelopment of an existing structure that is legally non-conforming due to a coastal resource protection standard, the entire structure must be made to conform with all current coastal resource protection standards and policies of the LCP and, if applicable, the Coastal Act. Non-exempt improvements to existing non-conforming structures, regardless if the proposed improvements meet the threshold of redevelopment, shall not be permitted when the improvements increase the degree of non-conformity of the existing structure by, for example, increasing the hazardous condition, developing seaward, or increasing the size of the structure in a non-conforming location."

Submitted by 
Jim Wagner


Peter Proctologist said...

I can explain what it says. "Pacifica, we have written so much legalese into this document that we, The Truly One and Only Power in California, The Coastal Commissars" can do anything we want in your pathetic hamlet."
See, simple!

Anonymous said...

I can understand it. What's the problem?

Steve Sinai said...

We'll make the language so ambiguous that we can interpret it any way we like.

Murray said...

I can't wait until we get the dog and pony shows for our general plan and specific plans. Better than the foo-foo dog show over there in Britain.

This is really all BS. Start every document with "Do no harm". That would be a good start.

Anonymous said...

It's not ambiguous.

Anonymous said...

whats up with these RVS and their demands for land?? I find it very selfish, rude, and spoiled for those with RVS to be making demands. When pacifica only has the one freeway. we are a city cramped, and overpopulated for the only one freeway that gets us in and out. What do we do in time of emergency, like the fires in santa rosa, or the gas explosion causing fires in san bruno. Does anyone realize the amount of schools we have here, the elderly homes, how do we get them out in an emergency, or the rest of us?? And RV owners from all over the states want land freely at taxpayers expense. They do not care about our children or any of us. And what or when there is an earthquake, fire, or explosion, who do you think will be the first to escape on the only freeway without a care in the world about anyone else, yes thats right, the rv owners will be hogging the freeway with their rvs and their car hitched behind it. I guess they are special, while everyone else homes burn to the ground, they can just drive theres away. Stop these RV demands, there are too many places in america that have the means, the freeway and the land for them. Pacifica cannot provide.