Council Rejects Flavia Maucci Compromise

City Council on July 27 decided this issue in favor of the Houmams. Here is the text of Flavia Maucci's compromise offer leading up to the council meeting:

This letter is regarding the City Council meeting on July 13, 2009. I would like to publicly thank the Pacifica City Council members for granting a continuation of the hearing to July 27 for the proposed development at 2270 Palmetto. This was not a simple decision and the Council had to endure harsh criticism and abuse for it. This issue is very important for our community; the fact that Mrs. Digre was absent was detrimental to all of us. We want to hear everybody’s opinion. I would like to reiterate publicly that I, Flavia Maucci, am asking for negotiation and compromise between the developer and me. I am a good neighbor and believe that a reasonable compromise can be good for this project and future commercial mixed-use projects on Palmetto. If the building cannot be rotated, just give my home two additional feet for light and air so we would not suffocate. Also, make the windows on the north wall opaque glass for privacy. Stop intentionally blocking my backyard gate to the beach down Birch Lane and take out the big trees proposed in the back that will block sunlight to my rear garden. In return, if these improvements are approved, I will not appeal the project to the California Coastal Commission, which could tie the project up for many months or even years. In addition, I will encourage my supporters to end their opposition to the project. I am NOT against the development. I am only asking for both parties to reasonably negotiate and compromise. Thank you.

Flavia Maucci
2260 Palmetto Avenue, Pacifica        

 CLICK HERE TO SEE RELATED POST AND COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE

Comments

[Jeffrey Simons]

"Marxism doesn't have the corner on the market for basic fairness to one's neighbors" if you consider an endless class struggle and elimination of capitalism "basic fairness."

I'm more a fan of Groucho Marx, to be honest. He would find hilarity in your progression from a mixed-use development proposal on Palmetto to the end of civilization.

[Dan Underhill]

"you're talking about Marxism"

Marxism doesn't have the corner on the market for basic fairness to one's neighbors, just as Fascists aren't the only ones to believe that having the largest wad of money trumps all other considerations.

I heard a talk recently by the Indian physicist and activist Vandana Shiva in which she told a story about the Indian Government allowing Coca-Cola to take away the entire water supply and pollute the soil of an Indian town that had been there for perhaps a thousand years. This was justified by the fact that Coca-Cola would be paying more taxes than all the villagers put together. It is, of course, a more extreme case, and the owners of 2270 Palmetto Avenue are not a multinational giant corporation, but the decisions we make affect who we are and the decisions we are likely to make in the future.

We can learn a great deal from India at this time (particularly from articulate Indians who are paying attention, such as Vandana Shiva and Arundhati Roy) because the same Free Market Globalization that is bringing northern India all of our white-collar jobs, and China all of our blue-collar jobs, doesn't see a reason to care at all about anything not having to do with immediate profit. We the people need to make them care, or civilization and possibly humankind will quite naturally be extinguished.

[todd bray]

Do some homework, Jeffie Pooh, reread the thread. And if you are truly a Marxist, just say so. Don't be afraid to stand up for what you believe. If you like communism over capitalism, just say so. Don't live in the closet; it's the 21st century already.

[Jeffrey Simons]

"Check with your Queen Cynthia, Jeff, it's her idea. But it would certainly remove any democratic fairness to have a $1,500 appeal fee. I guess that's what appeals to you."

Well, you're the one who said all these appeals would generate income. If it's great at $100, it's better at $1,500, by your logic. I'm not sure how that translates into democratic unfairness, except to suggest that in an equal society, a developer should have a greater economic burden to push a project through the process? That a $100 appeal is "fair" to derail a million-dollar project?

Then you're not talking about democracy; you're talking about Marxism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Lois Rogan]

"Could it be you?"

Posted by: pacificapatriot | March 13, 2009 at 09:12 PM

I doubt it, though. The whole town amuses me when I'm not disgusted with the politics. The Council is actually pretty funny—especially when they speak.

[Lois Rogan]

possible.

[pacificapatriot]

Could it be you?

[Lois Rogan]

Someone on this thread has absolutely no sense of humor.

[todd bray]

Check with your Queen Cynthia, Jeff, it's her idea. But it would certainly remove any democratic fairness to have a $1,500 appeal fee. I guess that's what appeals to you.

[Lance]

Let's appoint an Appeals Czar, someone who would gauge the merit of each appeal and apply a sliding scale to determine the cost of the appeal. People who disagree with the Planning Commission or who have ever spoken contrary to the City Council's position would be assessed a fee not less than $10,000. Those who praise council and oppose everything proposed would be granted a subsidy paid by—guess—those who don't agree with council!

[Jeffrey Simons]

Todd, why not make it $1,500 per appeal? That would really fill the city's coffers.

[Cynthia Montanez]

Mr. Bray, every project I've ever seen come across is appealed! LOL! Raise the fee to $200 and let's make a profit!

:P

[todd bray]

Cynthia, it costs $100 to file an appeal. So I guess using your idea, everything should be appealed. Not a bad idea! To maximize the earning potential for the city under your plan, I suppose there could be multiple appeals of every project. I like it. I would not have thought you would think up an idea like this.

[Jim Currie]

Mike brings up a solid point. Every structure built had destroyed habitat for local wildlife. Redeveloping certain structures and streetscapes will only enhance public lands that have been set aside for good.

[Cynthia Montanez]

Mr. Bray, both Planning Department staff and Planning Commission found that the proposed mixed-use project was designed within the code tolerances.

Its beauty is subjective. But why put the entire cost of objection on the applicant? This could be a great way for Pacifica to generate some badly needed funds. Have the concerned neighbors pay to file their objections once they have reached the City Council level.

As we've seen in this week's Trib, the redevelopment of Palmetto has been promised for so many years, why is our Council (which is supposed to be behind this revitalization effort) hampering it?

[mike bell]

Does Council want to turn Palmetto Avenue into a commercial main street or not? If not, then don't waste one more tax dollar on a "street beautification" project. Fix the potholes, clean up the empty lots and let the homeowners do the rest. Has anyone really looked at this blue box with a palm tree stuck in the front yard. If this is a quaint beach bungalow, then Franciso Blvd. is the Washington Mall. Every structure ever built in Pacifica destroyed some critter's habitat and creates shadows. Why not just level the whole town, sell the land to GGNRA, and distribute massive quantities of hiking shoes and tents out of the proceeds?

[todd bray]

Cynthia, part of the legal limits includes the right to appeal a Planning Commission vote. It's part of the public process. The appellant is not responsible for any costs incurred by the applicant during the public process.

Zoning doesn't give a property owner the right to build but the right to apply to build. And "limits" are not a given either. The project was too massive and out of character, and it concerns me that the Planning Commission approved this project as designed.

The City Council did the right thing.

[Lance]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hahhaahahahah
Smashing comeback. 1967--70-76-81-88-93-98-02-09 ad nauseam. Lance predicts------------------------NOTHING!!!! How can you predict anything when Council can't even give a clear direction.
hahahahhahaha

[Cynthia Montanez]

Mr. Underhill, story poles would most certainly not have done anything more to "alert" the neighbors than the notices that go out to each affected property owner. They get these notices giving them 30 days prior to the first planning commission meeting.

I'm appalled that our City Council once again can't quite understand that they are the problem. The project was designed and presented within the legal tolerances. I would recommend that the lone complaining neighbor be charged the redesign costs and the costs for the time to go back to Planning and then City Council. This, children, is not development friendly, this is how you kill development by "local" developers.

[Steve Sinai]

Did anyone notice the following in the "Peek at the Past" section of today's (3-11-2009) Tribune? It's a reprint from 1967 -

"Palmetto improvements got a go ahead. 70% Okayed a street fix-up. Editor Bill Drake predicted the street 'will stage a smashing comeback'."

[Scotty]

Requiring the applicant to go through all these gyrations for a project that has been unanimously approved by the Planning Commission is silly and inefficient. Since the appellant knew this was a possibility based upon the zoning when she purchased her place, this is not "being as fair as we can to everyone concerned." Many of the people who are disrupting this development are the same ones that had such a "caveat emptor" approach to Peebles, and the fact that they take the opposite position towards this appellant is another example of their rank hypocrisy (as are most of their positions on the biodiesel refinery).

Also, council obstructing development for something that will directly and positively impact our supposed vision of a Main Street is just plain stupid, and is a perfect example for the council apologists who sometimes make the ridiculous claim that our city embraces development. Until we can elect a competent council, actions like this will doom us to more of the same when it comes to the annual plea for more taxes, higher assessments, increased fees, etc.

[Dan Underhill]

Story Poles would have had this problem up for discussion in a much more timely manner. $10,000 is much less than having to revisit a project that has already been through planning. Your point is well taken that a "conforming and commercial" building should not be exempt because this is probably not the only case where a "conforming and commercial" building might change a neighbor's life forever. Unfortunately, there is a one-size-fits-nobody aspect to any law, ordinance, or regulation. We just need to find ways of being as fair as we can to everyone concerned.

[Lance Fernork]

Well, all, a juicy rumor came my way. We all love rumors, more plausible than the truth. Anyway, rumor has it that Flavia lives in the basement of the house and rents the upstairs. So just exactly how much air and light is she going to really lose? Just a rumor.

Any guess as to the increase in her property value when the new project is built? And is the neighborhood going to riot when a revenue-generating project is proposed for the OWWTP?

[Sue Vaterlaus]

Story poles cost a minimum of $10,000 and they are not effective since most people do not even understand what they are. The planning commission decided against story poles in the "mega home" ordinance. We just have to see what happens when that ordinance comes back again to the council. Besides, they would not be built on this project because I believe it is conforming and commercial.

[Lois Rogan]

So...the applicants were within the limits, according to the City?