« Rockaway Quarry Again a Battleground | Main | Trippin' at the Pier »

May 04, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

When I was approached by signature collectors, they gave me inaccurate information and did not mention that this is a proposal to change our ordinance that allows the voters to have a say in zoning changes. I have been approached by three of these signature collectors and all three have had exactly the same inaccurate information. They have obviously been told what to say, which is lies. If this developer is lying about this proposal, I cannot support it.

One big problem with the arguments of specious, money-grubbing, blindered developers and other property rights advocates and their Orwellian campaigns for being allowed to do whatever they want to do on their private property is that they always promote projects with large negative impacts that cannot be confined within the boundaries of their land. They import money into their corporations and export costs onto the public.

The misleading part is that the mailer purports to be Preserving the Quarry, NOT Developing the Quarry.

We've received more than 100 emails from folks asking questions on what the Quarry Petition does and does not represent, and it is overwhelmingly seniors who are fooled.

"I received the same petition and mailer like the rest of you have and don't understand what is misleading/false. It is what it is. It is his land and he should be free to do what he wishes with it." (FreedomOfSpeech)

That statement is the most critical. If your sole goal is to put 200 apartment units in the quarry, a voter would probably benefit from signing the Quarry petition.

The "reclaimed wetlands" haven't been approved, and the Army Corps of Engineers and California Fish & Wildlife don't appear to even have heard of them, and if that area were flooded as endangered-species habitat, it would be off-limits to recreational users, dogs, and cats.

Hotels in the Quarry don't require a vote.
Commercial in the Quarry doesn't require a vote.

Don Peebles had a history of building hotels. Eenhoorn has a history of managing apartment buildings.

"...Ballot initiative contains no guarantees to ensure that the proposed project is what ends up getting built and isn't substantially changed along the line... " (Chris Fogel)

Let’s stop wrapping ourselves in the flag of “voting rights” to justify this attempt to screw Pacifica, OK? Developers are using the ballot initiative process as a cheap business idea and a way to sidestep our real democratic process by avoiding planning commissions when they believe they are unable to push their community wrecking plans through the normal review process. They’ve learned that it’s worth spending big bucks on political campaigns, glitzy brochures, and paid signature gatherers spreading half-truths to bamboozle voters into thinking they are creating more options, when in fact they are slamming the door shut on the truly democratic planning process that is meant to protect communities and the general public.

This isn’t about voting rights; it's about their goal to create hundreds of millions of dollars in property value regardless of the negative impacts to residents. These hard-sell tactics would put a time-share huckster to shame. Trying to justify this nonsense with the claim that this is simply a “right to vote” is a charade worthy of a country on the cusp of electing Donald Trump as president. Letting these Quarry con artists use the initiative process is a loophole that should be ended by the state legislature. Until that happens, we can only hope that Pacifica has enough savvy residents to see through this unique form of initiative abuse being perpetuated.


Would update third bullet point to include the fact that the initiative specifically cancels the public's right to vote on housing in the quarry, by changing local land use ordinance.


1. Merry-Go-Round stops.
2. Developer banks mega profits.
3. Next developer puts in hundreds of rental units.

Rockaway gets paved over to accommodate traffic mess.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I am posting this comment from "FreedomOfSpeech" even though I believe this pseudonymous poster may be a sock puppet or troll, and despite the insulting language and name calling that are clear violations of our terms of service. I just thought that Riptide readers should see exactly what they are up against in this latest attempt to develop the quarry and defeat democratic process in Pacifica. Note the hashtag handle sign-off.)


Lol. The petition states that should the initiative pass, the owner (Paul Heule) must stay within the limits of the proposed plan (75% preserved, 25% developed). I'm still confused as to why you average Americans who obviously cannot afford the Quarry feel the need to further limit what Mr. Heule can do with HIS land.

And trying to talk other registered voters from signing the petition with your lies, really?l (Laurie and Todd and friends)???

It's plain and simple, signing the petition gives you the right to vote in November whether you want to allow or not allow rezoning of the Quarry to include residential housing. I could honestly give two s***s if you do not pass the initiative, but at least get it on the ballot so that everyone can vote. #cahmees


* Quarry owner won't develop without residential units, which make the project financially viable.

* Quarry owner proposes a project that includes some residential and is generally deemed acceptable by majority of Pacificans.

* Proposal appears on the ballot to allow quarry to be rezoned for residential units.

* Ballot initiative contains no guarantees to ensure that the proposed project is what ends up getting built and isn't substantially changed along the line.

* Because these guarantees aren't present, a majority of Pacificans vote against the ballot, because they don't have any idea what sort of project will actually be built.

Ad infinitum.

No thanks, Todd, I will keep my right to vote!

Butch, if you want to unsign the petition, you can contact Kathy O'Connell at City Hall

Just a correction for those still confused about what signing the latest petition re development in the quarry:

The developer-based initiative would change our current law so that voters no longer could vote on whether housing could go in the quarry. It is a permanent change to Pacifica's land use ordinance governing the quarry, an ordinance voted on and put in place by the people.

The fancy legal language in the initiative is there to make sure the public no longer has a say in whether housing gets built in the quarry.

If only a hotel or other commercial building were wanted, no initiative would be necessary, as the land is already zoned for that today.

"No one told anyone not to sign a petition."

From another Pacifica blog:

"Peter Loeb from Rockaway Beach -- The language in the initiative petition IS the final language. It can't be changed. If you don't like the language now, or if you're opposed to 206 residential units in the quarry, it doesn't make sense to sign the petition. You'll only be helping to make sure there's a campaign in the Fall. Save the time and the city's money and don't sign. It doesn't make sense to sign the petition unless you intend to vote yes on the ordinance that it would place on the ballot. If you will vote no, don't sign."

"No one told anyone not to sign a petition."

Really? Was it you who said signing the petition means you are for houses in the quarry? Signing the petition means it goes to the ballot to be voted on yes or no, correct?

Signing the petition does not mean the bulldozers will fire up ASAP, does it?

No one told anyone not to sign a petition.

What was said was that a signature for the petition is a signature for removing the right of voters to vote on housing on the quarry. Forever. Because the petition modifies Pacifica's current ordinance.

What was said: Move to a city, if you like that so much.
Instead of building "Daly City by the Shore" here, with all the traffic, noise, pollution, pave-over of Rockaway, added crime, etc. -- all the things that come with 206 additional households.

If anyone believes the Peebles "plan," who can help them?

One hotel or 12 -- the quarry is currently zoned to allow hotels, so if this developer (or Peebles) truly believed a hotel (or 12) was viable, we would have a hotel in the quarry, no vote necessary.

This is not about building a hotel in the quarry -- this is about rezoning the quarry to allow housing to be built. Literally everything else (except the rezoning element) is an empty, unenforceable promise.

To quote Jerry Trecroci, one of the two Pacificans serving as mouthpieces for the quarry developer: "Everything on the ballot is pretty much negotiable."

The only thing that is NOT negotiable (meaning subject to the whim of the developer) -- the one thing that would be set in stone -- would be the rezoning of the quarry to allow for housing. The rest is a pipe dream.

"If you like overcrowded big cities so much, move to San Francisco or Los Angeles."

Ms. Soca, if you like voter suppression, move to China or Russia!!

Chances are, most of us in Pacifica do not want to live in LA or SF; that is why we live here. This issue is about getting the Quarry on the ballot for me to vote yes or no. What are you afraid of? I have not fully made up my mind on this but do not like the idea of some of you telling citizens not to sign the petition to keep it from going to a ballot. Sounds like fear to me.
Let the voters decide, not the faceless writers here on Riptide & Fix who hide behind fake names.


A hotel was in the Peebles Plan for the quarry, over toward the Rockaway Business District.

Thank you, Chick Filet: Zoning dictates what you can do with your land. As for erecting a bunch of hotels out of spite, that might be better left to a comic hero devoted to radical right-wing dogma. Suggested titles could be Crazy M... or Donald Trump Man.

If you like overcrowded big cities so much, move to San Francisco or Los Angeles.

@FreedomOfSpeech, if you could get that in writing, it would certainly be a best-case scenario for City of Pacifica revenues -- multiple large, expensive hotels where we get 12% of the total revenues rather than 200 apartment units that pay only a tiny fraction of that.

Of course, nothing has stopped a hotel from being there for the past 30-something years except the owners haven't wanted to build a hotel there. Let alone many hotels.


"I truly hope this passes, and if it doesn't, I hope Mr. Heule places many hotels out of spite. It is his land and he should be free to do as he wishes. " (FreedomOfSpeech)

It is not true that you can do whatever you want on your land. That's why we have planning and development departments, zoning restrictions, coastal commissions, etc. Regulations exist to protect the environment and the community. Property rights do not trump human rights.

I don't understand what the "confusion" is, Laurie. The petition states that if and only if passed, the ordinance would be amended so that future vote on residential building is no longer needed. You are just afraid it will pass since Don Peebles' development plan failed at the ballot by only 400 votes. Well, I truly hope this passes, and if it doesn't, I hope Mr. Heule places many hotels out of spite. It is his land and he should be free to do as he wishes. This is ridiculous.

Why do you even feel that it is right to tell the man what to do with his land? The tax revenue from the hotel alone comes straight back into the town, and from what I've seen, it could really use the money. Schools need gymnasiums and libraries need books. Think about the future of our kids rather than an additional 10-minute delay in traffic. If you really want to see traffic, head to the 405. The complaints that I've read here are extremely selfish.

And to the editor, there were no grammatical errors nor was there name-calling in my last comment, but nice try.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Wrong. There was a missing word, a couple of grammatical errors, and two personal attacks. But that's okay, because -- to paraphrase your ode to Mr. Heule -- it's my blog and I am free to do as I wish with it.)

Just to be clear: Poster "FreedomOfSpeech" introduces some confusion as to the content of the initiative, Section 3.B, which explicitly amends the city ordinance that requires a public vote for any housing in the quarry.

If the developer-based initiative passes, the public vote no longer will be required re housing on the quarry.

The way it is now, a public vote Iis required if houses are proposed for the quarry.

This initiative changes that requirement so that the voters will never have that option again.

Just a correction to citizen4700's comment:

Anyone who reads the petition will see it 100% gives away the voters' right to approve housing in the quarry.

And that's all this developer, who specializes in mega rental units, wants.

In the words of the late great Ronald Reagan:

"Trust, but verify."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Red Rocks, Colorado and Utah

  • IMG_0955
    By John Maybury riding Amtrak

Southeast France

  • 30-Sainte Agnes
    Photos by John Elk

Viva Mexico

  • Mexico 01 Mexico City Cathedral
    Photos by John Elk

Snow Train

  • IMG_0830
    Photos by John Maybury, onboard Amtrak's California Zephyr


  • 7-Samakand
    Photos by John Elk


  • 12-Chateau de Commarque sunset
    Photos by John Elk


  • 5-Cado
    Photos by John Elk

Canyons, Cliffs & Clouds

  • IMG_0714
    Photos by John Maybury


  • 44-Ravello
    Photos by John Elk

Australian Rainforest

  • 2016_0529reunionfamily0032_opt
    Photos by Joel Maybury

Pacifica Shorebirds

  • 20110819_7165.2
    Photos by Paul Donahue


  • 20-San Agustin painted statue
    Photos by John Elk


  • 27-Okavango elephant
    Photos by John Elk


  • 16-Etosha rhinoceros
    Photos by John Elk

Scary Pumpkins

  • Unknown-16
    Photos by Ray Villafane

Big Sur

  • P1030837
    Photos by Dave Yuhas

Joshua Tree Natl. Park

  • Img_0815
    Photos by John Maybury

Gray Lodge

  • IMG_0985
    Photos by John Maybury

Yachats, Oregon

  • IMG_1044
    Photos by John Maybury

Bagpipes on the Beach

  • Img_0258
    Photos by John Maybury

Tucson Botanical Gardens

  • Img_0794
    Photos by John Maybury

Pima Air/Space Museum

  • Img_0758
    Photos by John Maybury

Desert Springtime

  • Img_0839
    Photos by John Maybury