Pacifica Riptide

Rockaway Quarry: On Again, Off Again

Our source looked at the website listed on the Rockaway Quarry real estate signs (pacifica-oceanfront.com), and the site says "Project Not Active. Thank you for your interest in Pacifica—Rockaway Quarry. Unfortunately, this project is no longer available." Recently, our source noticed that the brochure had changed to include an offering price of $10.9 million, with offers due in late September. "So maybe there's been a sale," our source muses.

Palmetto Newsletter

Download Palmetto Newsletter - Fall 2010 reduced size

Mixed Reviews for The Crossing in San Bruno

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/The-Crossings-44952182.html

Coastsider: Midcoast Groundwater Study

San Mateo County has released the report on the third phase of its midcoast groundwater study. Coastsider will release an analysis of the report in the near future. You can read the conclusions and recommendations after the jump. Or you can download the report from Coastsider and draw your own conclusions. The Phase II report released last year raised the alarm of risk of saltwater intrusion due to overpumping in some areas of the midcoast.

READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE

EDC Rockaway Quarry Resolution Postponed

The Economic Development Committee (EDC) was to present a resolution to develop Rockaway Quarry on June 8. Below, see two relevant documents: minutes of EDC's May 11 meeting and EDC's quarry resolution. Unfortunately, only five committee members showed up (it was election night), so there was no quorum and no meeting. Present were City Manager Steve Rhodes, Chamber of Commerce CEO Courtney Conlon, and three other members. Erin Tormey of Farmer's Market fame returned home without making her scheduled presentation. The next meeting of this committee is July 13, when the same docket will be considered.

Download EDCminutes5.11.10

Download EDCResolutionQuarryv3

Resolution of the Pacifica Economic Development Committee urging Pacifica’s Redevelopment Agency to engage the new property owner, Ambit Funding  and any partners working with Ambit, in preliminary discussions about forming a public-private partnership to pursue required land use entitlements for the quarry property:

WHEREAS, Pacifica’s sole Redevelopment District was formed in 1982 and covers the area generally described as Rockaway Beach (“The Rockaway Beach Redevelopment District” or the “RBRD”), including the vacant 90 acre Quarry Property (‘Property’). Over the almost 30 year history of the RBRD, numerous third parties (unaffiliated with the City or its Redevelopment Agency) have attempted development of said Property without success. The lack of success in developing said Property has comprised [sic] the economic sustainability of the City of Pacifica; and

WHEREAS, Pacifica is a community without an established downtown area. Downtown areas’ historically provide both residents and businesses a mix of residential and commercial uses which enhance community identity, pride and character and if properly planned, can stimulate economic sustainability for both existing and future generations. Numerous other coastal cities, such as Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Carmel, have established downtown areas which serve as economic drivers for their respective city; and 

WHEREAS, the City of Pacifica recently established an Economic Development Committee (“EDC”). A portion of the EDC’s adopted workplan is to identify and entitle an area that can serve strategically as Pacifica’s downtown area; and

WHEREAS, after much discussion and debate, the EDC has identified the Property as the optimum location for Pacifica’s future downtown area. Not only is the Property located in the geographic center of Pacifica, the Property’s combination of: (a) its visual identity and access to Highway #1; (b) its scale and adjacency to existing development; and (c) its location within the boundaries of the RBRD, combine to position it as the optimal location for Pacifica’s downtown; and

WHEREAS, numerous environmental, land use, political and other constraints exist which restrict the Property’s potential to serve as Pacifica’s downtown area. The EDC believes that the City (through the RBRD) is the most appropriate legal entity to plan and entitle said Property.  Doing so will undoubtedly require collaboration with a host of governmental, resource and other agencies as well as the local community. 

Now Therefore be it resolved that the Economic Development Committee urges the City, through its Redevelopment Agency, to engage the Property’s Owner in a public – private partnership that creates the needed framework for the City to properly plan and implement a development plan that will serve as Pacifica’s downtown for both current and future generations.

CCC's Beach Boulevard Condominium Conundrum

BY TODD BRAY, RIPTIDE CORRESPONDENT

You may receive a "Notice of Extension Request For Coastal Development Permit" for Pacifica Beach LLC, which is applying for an extension to its CDP A-2-PAC-07-022-E1 for developing a nine-unit, three-story condominium project with 10,575 square feet of underground parking at 1567 Beach Blvd. This notice (see above) arrives by mail from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as it did for some Pacificans on April 5. As the lone NO vote for this project when it was in front of the Pacifica Planning Commission, my concerns were about the building's mass and the safety of possible residents due to the unpredictability of the Pacific Ocean. Those concerns are only heightened now after the extraordinary events we all witnessed this winter on Esplanade. The notice that came in my mail says that if no one raises any concerns, the project will be granted an extension without board review. But if concerns are raised, the project may be returned to the commission board to reexamine and possibly deny the extension. If you have a comment or concern about this project's CDP extension, the notice in your mail contains contact information for the appropriate CCC staff member..

East Bay Judge Rules in Favor of More Housing

JUDGMENT: MORE DEVELOPMENT

Peebles Sells Quarry to Player to Be Named Later

Todd Bray has two little corrections for this article: The ballot measure was in 2006, not 2008, and Peebles Corporation bought the property from the Bottoms Family Trust.

By Julia Scott, San Mateo County Times, Posted: 03/02/2010 08:55:01 PM PST, Updated: 03/02/2010 10:11:42 PM PST

PACIFICA — Pacifica's vacant limestone quarry has been sold to a private investment company, leaving its future more uncertain than ever. The 87-acre Rockaway Quarry has been sold to an unidentified affiliate of AMBIT FUNDING LLC, a Pennsylvania-based company that originally loaned former quarry owner The Peebles Corp. $16 million to purchase and develop the property, according to an announcement by Peebles. Peebles bought the quarry for $7.5 million in 2005 from another company that had tried and failed to build a mixed-use housing and retail development in that location. Florida-based Peebles likewise failed to convince a majority of Pacifica voters in 2008 of the value of its proposed 355-unit mixed housing plan, which would also have included a luxury hotel and ample retail space — a new downtown along Highway 1, steps away from the ocean and several favorite beaches. While some Pacificans praised the Peebles plan as a new economic engine for the deficit-prone city, others decried it as an irreplaceable loss of open space and a threat to sensitive species living on parts of the site. Not even city officials know what Ambit, or its affiliate, has in mind for the quarry now. A representative of Ambit was due to meet with City Manager Steve Rhodes and other staff members today, a few days after the deal was completed. "It doesn't matter to me who the owner is. I guess at some point they'll disclose that," Rhodes said.

CLICK TO SEE FULL STORY

Rockaway Quarry: California Dreamin'

Below is an August 16, 2006 email exchange between Todd Bray and Lawrence Host of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) detailing two scenarios that would lead to the federal agency taking control of the Rockaway Quarry property. The correspondence occurred before the Measure L NO vote in November dashed Don Peeble's development dream in the quarry. This is why it matters who the new owner of the quarry is.  In brief, it raises the possibility that if the loan defaults, USFWS could take over the property to protect it as habitat, or the new owner could sell a conservation easement and take a tax write-off on the development value of the land as a business loss.

TODD BRAY: Here is some food for thought. North American Capital Advisors made a bridge loan to Donahue Peebles in order for him to close on the  quarry property. Bridge loans are characterized by short terms (a few weeks to a a year or two) and high interest rates. Mr. Peebles bridge loan is already a year old. It explains his fast talking fast acting devil may care strong arm push for a public vote on housing in the quarry. It makes me wonder what happens if he defaults on the loan? Will NACA seize the property? Will they be the 'new' new owners of the Quarry? If Peebles doesn't get a yes vote on 355 units of housing what respectable  lender will pick up the short term loan from NACA? The  Swiezz Banc du Laundri? One thing is clear. The property is not his (Peebles) to donate, gift or sell to a land trust unless the bridge loan is covered (17mil). This is not good news. Peebles purchased the property for 8 million by leveraging it against a 17 million dollar short term  high interest rate loan that makes the quarry property worth 17 million by default. It's a dumb ass deal, but it allows Peebles to play with 17 million dollars of  other peoples money for free. Not too shabby.  

LARRY HOST: Your source appears to know how the loan was secured, i.e., that the collateral for the loan was the Quarry property and nothing else. Supposing that NACA was doing either of two things, the land could end up being available for protection. Hypothetically speaking, they could be doing some sort of Enron accounting that keeps "assets" listed in carefully defined categories that will not hold up to scrutiny. Supposing the loan defaults, there could be an investigation of the accounting which could end up with the title to the land being held by Federal authorities such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. Lands being held for disposition by a Federal agency may be subject to a requirement for consideration of transferring the land to another Federal agency due to its being appropriate to satisfying the mission of such an agency. This could include the National Park Service (which often acquires land with recreational, ecological, and National Historic Trust values), the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge system, etc. I'm pretty sure any of these would be interested in land occupied by the California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake, or is suitable habitat for promoting the recovery of these species. Another hypothetical scenario if the loan defaults is that NACA, realizing that it has become the proud owner of a white elephant (a gift given by the king of Thailand [?] to show esteem for an honored individual or bankrupt a gadfly by the high costs of keeping such a precious gift safe and well), might try to sell a conservation easement to someone, essentially writing off the development values of the land as a business loss for tax purposes. The inflation of the development values of the land would make such a maneuver more attractive, rather than less, while depending on the appreciation of the parties interested in protecting the land to lubricate the approval of the sale and tax write-off process. I don't say this is what is happening, but it does recall the advice of Deep Throat to Woodward and Bernstein, "Follow the money." It will be interesting (not necessarily fun or comfortable) to watch this thing unfold.

 

Big Wave Site Visit Postponed @ Moss Beach

San Mateo County Planning Commission has postponed its planned visit to the site of the Big Wave development in Moss Beach. The cost of updating the project's draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has caused a cascade of delays. Because the consultant requires more money to complete the EIR, release of the final report has been delayed. The Planning Commission has delayed its scheduled March 10 hearing until the final EIR is completed. This led the developer to delay putting up story poles until the minimum 10 days before the hearing, and the Planning Commission has delayed its site visit until the story poles are erected. (Phew, now that's what we call a daisy chain of delays. Did you follow that?) Click COASTSIDER.COM for more on this project and to follow its progress—or lack thereof.