Saturday, April 30, 2016

Our City needs a downtown in the Quarry, that's a logical view

How much housing is the right amount in the 25% land development? Is the remainder 75% permanent open space about the right amount? How about solving the 1.3 mile Highway 1 traffic bottleneck through widening, light timing and whatever else it takes?

Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor, 4/27/16.  "Not Happy with Quarry plan" by Sean Smith"

Image result for half agreement picture
 NIMBY cat is focused the remaining
Quarry downtown land mouse.
Cat already ate Mori Point land mouse;
Quarry should be just as tasty.
Image result for half agreement picture
 Our balanced City economic and
community contract was torn-up by
NIMBIES who gained power decades
ago. So what's the big deal when the
NIMBY goal is open space? Oh, no City!
"I have recently seen the proposed idea and drawing for the development in the Rockaway Quarry and I have to say that I’m not pleased with it. The hotel concept is okay up to the point in which they wish to build 12 bungalows; all of which are twice the size of the average home here in Pacifica. That’s just absurd. Not to mention these bungalows are to be placed fairly far from the hotel itself, and I feel that they will intrude on the open space of Mori Point. In addition to that, I feel that there may be too many apartments going in, which raises a concern for the already crowded highway one commute and minimal available parking in Rockaway.

My proposition for this space would be to create a downtown type district for Pacifica, as we do not currently have one. I think it would be wise to create such a space in which small boutique shops, restaurants, bars, park(s) and a few apartments (not as much as currently proposed) could give our residents a more centralized area for social activities and gatherings. It would also allow for a larger farmer’s market to take place. 

Larger cities like San Jose have Santana Row while smaller cities like Half Moon Bay and Campbell have a main street/downtown area, which all seem to thrive in both daytime and nightlife. I feel that this kind of space is what Pacifica is lacking, and there really is no other place in town to develop one."

Related, cities population comparison (2013):  Pacifica, CA. City-data, 38,606; Half Moon Bay, CA, City-data, 12,013; Campbell, CA. City-data, 40,584.

Note photographs,  Focused cat is a face page image from The Guardian, UK, US Edition, "Paris climate deal: countries with about half of global emissions to join this year." Tearing-up the contract with our entire community is from Bankrate,"Looking for ways to break your contract".

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Kathy Meeh said...

Yes, I got a little carried away decorating this article (letter to the editor).
Sean is not happy with the Quarry for his reasons. And not enough retail, commercial is a shared complaint, although my view is that the quarry should be developed as a smart economic engine for this City. (A downtown there could be nice.) The Quarry is just off the Highway, easy to access.

More traffic? So? Do what is possible to fix that: Highway widening, light timing, what ever it takes.
Parking and traffic circulation within the Rockaway area? As Chuck Gust said at the Planning Commission Study Session (4/4/16), build the infrastructure first.

Housing? For mixed-use, include more housing, not less. It's a Village, and a synergy exists between living in the area and spending money there.
More people living there, more concerns about traffic? Part of the housing could be for Seniors who may not drive to work. (Foster City has added substantial Senior housing recently in its downtown area planning.)
And as Amy Vegan said on the City road article 4/24/16, 5:54 pm,"bring in more people and get samtrans on board w/better commute transit options."

These thoughts are not "rocket science", we should work together, rather than at odds, to help this City function.
Which brings-up another issue. Why would this developer propose a 25% land development (mostly housing), and cripple the balance potential land development with 75% permanent open space?

Anonymous said...

Chamber won't endorse the quarry. So I'm voting NO. According to what passes for a Chamber CEO report in wed. Tribune (other than meaningless meetings) Chamber will not endorse. So if pacifica's businesses can't support it, why should the voters?

Anonymous said...

For now the Chamber is taking a neutral stance on the Quarry initiative. As explained in the Tribune, the project is not well-defined enough to take a position.

Anonymous said...

Eenhoorn is the quarry OWNER REPRESENTATIVE not the actual owner. So if Eenhoorn reps the owner, who is the owner? Isn't eenhoorn! Intrigue!

Anonymous said...

Hey, genius at 10:03, do a little more research!

Kathy Meeh (not so intrigued by 1003's comment) said...

A. Eenhoorn/Executive Team, Paulus C. Heule, President Co-Founder.
B. City of Pacifica, Quarry Reclamation project: last section, "Acknowledgement and agreement by applicant", Paulus C. Heule.
C. The Limited Liability Company for the project is filed under The Preserve@Pacifica, LLC. That is the Eenhoorn LLC for this project.

"Intrigue" neutralized through Google. It's easy 1003, like ABC.

Anonymous said...

actually seems 1003 post is correct: eenhoorn is not the owner.
go to
read the welcome page-- The Team:
"PROPERTY OWNERS Preserve@Pacifica, LLC purchased the quarry property in 2014 with a commitment to undertake a sensitive balance of restoration and site-appropriate development.
Eenhoorn, LLC, a property management company based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, represents the quarry property owners. "
summary: nowhere does eenhoorn claim to own the quarry. The Preserve Pacifica LLC owns the quarry. Eenhoorn reps the LLC. If Eenhoorn was an owner they would have said so and not talked around the issue. If eenhoorn was a part of or a managing partner of the Preserve@Pacifica, LLC, seems they would have said so. Separately, actual parties involved in the LLC are not known. But all the language points to a silent owner--certainly not eenhoorn, who looks like a retained management company.
Ms Meeh posts this statement-- "The Limited Liability Company for the project is filed under The Preserve@Pacifica, LLC. That is the Eenhoorn LLC for this project." The file is a title doc. for the property. Neither Eeenhoorn nor Heule are mentioned in the doc at all. This doc is not a registration for the LLC and does not disclose any members of the Preserve@Pacifica, LLC

Kathy Meeh (332 comment, still no intrigue) said...

332, The Quarry Restore & Connect, scroll down to "The Team":
A. Property owners, Preserve@Pacifica, LLC.
B. Eenhoorn, LLC, a property management company...represents the quarry property owners.

The City documents are link at 12:34 above, Item B. Also, Paulus C. Heule signed as OWNER.
Then there was the news disclosure. "The new OWNER, Paul Heule, whose company is named Eenhoorn, based in Michigan, engaged a local project manager who is moving forward on a few site improvements before a development is proposed. John Zentner, a plant ecologist with experience in wetlands science and restoration, of Zentner and Zentner in Oakland,, a land planning and restoration company, met the Tribune at the Quarry and pointed out the areas where work will be done." Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 9/16/15.

332, 1003, so far these "alternative" comments from you are pure speculation. But to reconfirm the principals, you could track down the Preserve@Pacifica, LLC, and send us a link. Thanks!
PS: Since the main focus of Eenhoorn is "building apartments", don't you wonder why Eenhoorn (Paul Heule) would do the preliminary quarry land restoration, and let another company build the apartments?

Anonymous said...

You can find the LLC registration docs at

The authorized agent is James Rosloniec, verity law plc. LLC members themselves are not identified. The quarry owner is going out of his /her/their way to remain a mystery.

Kathy Meeh (no intrigue, not mystified) said...

Yeah, but the City is not mystified, City Planning documents, see City Planning documents: Acknowledgement and Agreement by Applicant and Owner, signed by Paulus C. Heule, Owner, 10/8/15. (Also linked 5/2, "B", 1234.)

Note: John Zentner signed 10/27/15 as Agent. An Agent is ".. employed or obligated to act on behalf of a person or represent them..."
You know, Santa Claus (the owner); Agent (Santa Claus's helper).