Developer Don Peebles' New Quarry Plan?

DEVELOPER DON PEEBLES HAS A NEW PLAN FOR THE QUARRY?

Rocks in a hard place

Developer to release new plan for quarry

By Julia Scott, STAFF WRITER

Article Created: 03/06/2008 02:36:18 AM PST

Click photo to enlarge

The owner of the former quarry site in the Rockaway district of Pacifica wants to build a...

• «
• 1
• »

PACIFICA — Nearly a year and a half after Pacifica voters rejected a proposal to develop a small hamlet's worth of homes in the long-vacant rock quarry near Rockaway Beach, developer Donahue Peebles is trying again.

The Florida-based housing scion and founder of The Peebles Corp. plans to unveil a new proposal for a mixed-use housing, retail and hotel development in the 86-acre former limestone quarry as soon as city officials give their blessing to make the plan public — possibly later this month, according to the company....[click link above to read full story-

Comments

[Peter Loeb]

There are a number of factually false statements in the article. The city has not "workshopped" a plan for a year. The City Manager and the Planning Director both confirm that they have no plan and they have not been in discussion about the quarry project for some time. Peebles can present any plan to the public at any time he wants. "City officials" are not going to "give their blessing to make the plan public." They have no plan to bless. If Daniel Grimm is "waiting for the city's say-so to make public the particulars" he'll go on waiting because the city has nothing to say.

There are several other factually incorrect statements in the article.

• "The ballot measure of November 2006, which came up only 459 votes shy of approval." Actually, Measure L lost by 509 votes: 7,689 to 7,180.

• "The ballot measure ... asked voters to approve up to 355 housing units, a luxury hotel and an unspecified amount of retail space at the quarry. The proposal would have preserved 45 percent of the quarry's acreage as publicly accessible open space as well." There was no proposal on the ballot. The ballot measure was only about 355 housing units and was not tied to any specific proposal. If the ballot measure had passed, the developer could come in with a different plan or sell the property to someone else who could propose a different plan.

• "Under Pacifica law, a majority of voters must approve any proposal for the quarry." Not true. Voters must approve any housing in the quarry. A project without housing does not need voter approval.

• "Peebles spent $867,000 on an aggressive 'Yes on L' campaign." According to the Yes on L committee campaign finance filing from October 2006, which covers spending through 10/21/2006, they reported spending $1.3 million in the calendar year. This does not include the report that covers the last 3 weeks of the campaign, when there was certainly considerable additional money spent. The final total must be well more than $1.3 million.

And Grimm's statement that the "preliminary indication is that most of the site may be developed ... without violating Coastal Commission rules, or any of the other authorities having jurisdiction over the site" is yet to be shown. There has not been any comment from those authorities on a proposed plan or any preliminary review of what an acceptable development footprint would look like.