tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post4499004853775553669..comments2023-11-28T20:40:14.193-08:00Comments on Fix Pacifica: Planning Commission, Monday, March 16, 2015Fix Pacificahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14451072441256706977noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-40805527604096996832015-03-16T17:53:29.324-07:002015-03-16T17:53:29.324-07:00I hope that people will turn up at the P.C. meetin...I hope that people will turn up at the P.C. meeting tonight to support Dave's attempt to create a fairer and more open permit process.Tom Cliffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-25895026021084026482015-03-15T13:43:47.588-07:002015-03-15T13:43:47.588-07:00Tom, 1106, 925, thanks for your further clarificat...Tom, 1106, 925, thanks for your further clarification, which is appreciated. Your 1106 comment in part has been added to the article, indicating the new structure original appeal was in fact timely.Kathy Meehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-29309276654627319092015-03-15T11:06:32.336-07:002015-03-15T11:06:32.336-07:00Kathy The reason I am stressing the point that th...Kathy The reason I am stressing the point that the original decision was not noticed and that it was based on a faulty assumptions (remodel vs. tear-down and building a new structure)is that the issue before the Planning Commission is, was the first appeal done in a timely manner. My opinion is that since the decision was never publicly noticed the ten day time limit should not apply. <br /><br />It should be noted that the Planning Commission reads into the record after each decision it makes that anyone has ten days to appeal the decision to the City Council.A public hearing and a public notice of the right to appeal.<br /><br />Dave deserve to have his original appeal heard by the P.C. Tom Cliffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-59780956197638841492015-03-14T11:30:57.003-07:002015-03-14T11:30:57.003-07:00Thanks for your clarification comments Dave Blackm...Thanks for your clarification comments Dave Blackman, and also Tom Clifford. This Planning Commission issue (or issues), looks confusing on the Agenda text, and your follow-up comments are appreciated. <br /><br />I have updated the above Planning Commission article with part of your comments, Dave. Hope the needed, less expensive planning regulation changes occur, this time or in the near future.Kathy Meehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-74508885937315627852015-03-14T10:23:57.885-07:002015-03-14T10:23:57.885-07:00Just to be clear it is not a question of its a rem...Just to be clear it is not a question of its a remodel or not. It is in the coastal zone within 300' of the beach and also between the ocean and the first public road. This is a new office building adjacent to the beach and coastal cliff that required a coastal development permit. Furthermore the planning dept required the last developer of this same property to get a coastal development permit. Furthermore they imposed a Coastal development permit and CEQA based cliff erosion study on the neighbor who wanted just a Use permit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12332630778254769492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-1609346254853280182015-03-14T09:25:49.577-07:002015-03-14T09:25:49.577-07:00Dave You are the second person that I trust who ha...Dave You are the second person that I trust who has said that this was a complete tear-down. Tearing down and replacing a building is not a remodeling.<br /> The official position of the planning department is that only three feet was added to the building and that no tear down took place. Lee Diaz proof of this statement is that the building inspector never mention to him that the build had been completely replaced. Farther more Lee justification for this action is that the site is now much cleaner and that old code violation were taken care off. (The ends justify the means?)<br /><br />Tom Cliffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-70450498340812397892015-03-14T07:40:04.711-07:002015-03-14T07:40:04.711-07:00I am striving to make the permit process fairer fo...<br />I am striving to make the permit process fairer for everyone.<br />Dan Murphy proposed development on this property a few years ago. After an expensive and exhaustive Coastal Development permit process he quit. He was even required to perform an EIR for the Coastal Development permit which typically cost over an additional $80,000.<br />Any improvements in the coastal zone on property located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of a beach requires a Coastal Development permit.<br />The new office building at 12 Sharon Way is between the sea and the first public road. The new office building at 12 Sharon Way is within 300 feet of a beach. The new office building at 12 Sharon Way was a new use. The new office building at 12 Sharon Way was not a remodel it was a complete teardown and new construction.<br />Any change of use requires a Coastal Development permit.<br />What is except from coastal development permits are single family home on property not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of a beach requires a Coastal Development permit. The City of Pacifica continues to force homeowners down this expensive timely process even though it is not required.<br />Recent projects such as 1493 Grand Ave remodel, 251 & 261 San Pedro new story homes, 280 San Pedro new 1 story single family home, 240 Stanley “change siding style”.<br />I believe Jim Payne was denied a Coastal Development Permit near 12 Sharon Way for not performing the CEQA review of a coastal bluff study for just asking to continue his outdoor use. No structure was even proposed.<br />David Blackmanhttp://dbconstruction.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-28060290538057228722015-03-13T19:31:49.948-07:002015-03-13T19:31:49.948-07:00Reading Editors Corner from 2/25/2015 there was a ...Reading Editors Corner from 2/25/2015 there was a part about Mayor doing her first Mayor Walk and <br />meeting with businesses.She stated that the owners<br />were happy with the property manager now.That is all <br />fine , but there was a joke made about when a few years back when Eureka Square was quite empty<br />that the property should be imploded and affordable<br />housing considered.I do not think not having a place to afford and having affordable housing is a joke. You have no idea how it is to live with that day and day and especially if you have pets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-24042625130883452762015-03-12T21:34:03.840-07:002015-03-12T21:34:03.840-07:00Mr.Blackman makes a valid point,it is almost impos...Mr.Blackman makes a valid point,it is almost impossible to appeal the zoning administrator's (George White)decision in the ten day allowed because there was no notice that such a decision had been made. Tom Cliffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-79819985622695889342015-03-12T19:41:57.740-07:002015-03-12T19:41:57.740-07:00HERE'S A WAKE UP CALL FOR PEOPLE THAT ALLOW TH...HERE'S A WAKE UP CALL FOR PEOPLE THAT ALLOW THESE TYPE OF ACTIONS:<br />That property is zoned low and affordable income. <br />The ocean belongs to GOD!!!!!!<br />But wait was that another change(decision) made<br />by the Zoning Administration behind closed doors,in <br />secret barring from public or open forum !!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-15716206053913742122015-03-12T19:25:48.203-07:002015-03-12T19:25:48.203-07:00Shame on City of Pacifica for allowing any type
of...Shame on City of Pacifica for allowing any type<br />of upgrade or new contraction to 12 Sharon Way<br />or any part of Pacific Skies Estates when they are not<br />renting ,rentable mobile homes, taking appliances,toilets,sinks etc.to make them SEEM un-<br />rentable. There plan is to EVICT 1st and 2nd avenue<br />and more to receive Market Value and higher rents.<br />Investors should get a return on their money but not <br />EVICTING elderly,disabled,low income and more<br />people.Where are our Low-Lower- Affordable<br />Housing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7481238059942383326.post-17409432955787737592015-03-12T19:10:11.244-07:002015-03-12T19:10:11.244-07:00Everything Mr. Blackman said is true.Further more
...Everything Mr. Blackman said is true.Further more<br />the building site on 12 Sharon Way was not used for<br />office for last 6 and1/2 years and longer. it has been used for many other things including rentals.<br />The building was not remodeled it was totally<br />demolished and ground area scraped clean,leveled<br />and a new foundation was formed.<br />Allowing any of this venture by Scott Monroe aka<br />Pacific Skies Estates aka GreyStar Mgr.team will<br />render many people HOMELESS because they plan <br />to EVICT 1st and 2nd avenues first!!!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com