Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Post from rip(tide)

Well this is interesting. It's a bigger step than has been taken, in what, 25 years! the 4 Horseman of the Apocalypse have been so proactive that they forgot there was a RDA in town. Thanks EDC! Now let's see if council will sign it.


Economic Development Comm. Quarry Plan, June 8

The Economic Development Committee (EDC) presents a resolution to develop Rockaway Quarry, Tuesday, June 8 at 6 p.m., Pacifica Police Department, 2O75 Highway 1 at Reina del Mar. Also on the agenda: widening Highway 1. Below, see two relevant documents that you can download: minutes of EDC's May 11 meeting and EDC's quarry resolution.

Download EDCminutes5.11.10
Download EDCResolutionQuarryv3

Submitted by Jim Wagner


Jeffrey W Simons said...

I hate to shatter your ego, my friend, but this is the exact conclusion they came to in 1986. And when Trammel Crow and Don Peebles came to town to fulfill this demand, they were told to leave. I suffer no delusions this will amount to anything besides more talk, more arguments, and ultimately no development.

Kathy Meeh said...

Of course the quarry in the heart of what should be Pacifica's downtown, and glad to see the Economic Committee engage-- good work depending on what they are actually suggesting. "Public-private partnership", what is being proposed for that? Otherwise, if city council or their friends running for office support, its election year. As you say Jeff, there's a clear history and city council 4 supported none of the above. Cal Hinton on city council at that time supported all of the above, one voice, we need three pro-economy advocates on city council to make a difference.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, this resolution is an election manuever by Vreeman. It's meaningless. Doesn't really say shit. Council would be idiots not to sign on, it's a freebie to make them look like they have development creds.

Anonymous said...

"It would be an awesome idea to do something with the quarry property so we should totally start thinking about building something there."

-the resolution in a nutshell

Anonymous said...

WHEREAS, the quarry space would be a cool place to build something;

BE IT RESOLVED, we should totally build something there!

Anonymous said...

This resolution is put forward by a friend of Jimmy V's who tried to strong arm Bill Bottoms, using the City of Pacifica, to sell him the property. He couldn't then, nor can he now, find the money to do this development.

This is just an election year effort to make it look like Jimmy V is doing something.

Steve Sinai said...

"This resolution is put forward by a friend of Jimmy V's..."

Who's the friend?

Where's the part recommending an outlet mall?

Anonymous said...

Jimmy has friends?
Or people he uses.

Lionel Emde said...

There was, according to a witness, no quorum for the meeting to vote on this resolution tonight.
Stinks so bad they wouldn't show up.

Markus said...

Correct, Lionel. Thought I would check this out. Meeting was to commence at 6:00. EDC members (Less 2 key members who didn't show up,and apparently could not be reached), sat around the big conference table basically doing or saying nada. They were joined by a public of approx. 6, including yours truly. We sat around til approx. 6:35 when meeting was called due to lack of quorum. Meeting agenda was moved forward to next month's scheduled meeting, I beleve on 7-11. What a joke. A few familiar faces, I believe to be proponents of NO commercial development. I may be mistaken? My gut feeling tells me I'm not.

Markus said...

"The lack of success in developing said Property has comprised the economic sustainability of the City of Pacifica;".
Above is the last sentence of the 1st. paragraph in the quarry resolution. I find it quite ironic. Obviously the writer intended to write "compromised" and instead wrote "comprised", a much more fitting word for the quarry's long history of failed development. I am guessing this issue will crop up, say every 2 years, shortly prior to elections.

Anonymous said...

At the moment I'd prefer to see focus on revitalizing the EXISTING empty, underproductive retail / commercial space in town, as well as with clearing through the inventory of existing homes on the market. There is a lot of opportunity here to work with what is already built, versus abandoning it for a scheme to build something new that won't necessary generate new revenue, but could possibly put existing business further in trouble and leave existing areas (back of the valley, Palmetto, all of Oceana Blvd)in blight. The quarry -- someday -- but we have the opportunity to do something now. One of those things, by the way is to SHOP PACIFICA, and take advantage of what is unique and here in town, versus thinking the fix is a "big box" store.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous, the "fix" is all of the above. And, if the new owner want to build "big box" come on down"! Certainly an outlet mall would be welcome as Steve, Sharon, Marcus and others have suggested. Property areas change with private ownership as long as the property is retained for productive use within city jurisdiction. Once the property is moved out of city jurisdiction for unproductive "open space" use that's it, no money, its gone. Build the property. The zone is redevelopment and the two big opportunities there have been squandered by lack of support from the existing city council. Time to move.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks you give the council too much credit.
The opportunity was "squandered" due to a lack voter approval from the people of Pacifica who didn't believe in the vision of what the developer had created. If it was what people had wanted -- and we had plenty of opportunity to review the glossy pamphelets sent out by the developer -- then it would be, regardless of the position of the individual council members.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous, yes I remember that campaign: 355, Traffic, Outsider. No city council support, except Cal Hinton. Got it. Me thinks you might have been involved with that campaign spin, believed it, or enjoy the "wink".

After Measure L failed by about 550 votes, and housing would not be included, Peebles Corporation continued to discuss quarry development with the City Council sub-committee (Vreeland and Lancelle). However, when their proposal to this private property owner/developer was "private-public" partnerships, that was the last straw and Peebles walked.

A downtown city village with classy hotel, movie theater, shops, restaurant, aquatic center, walking paths, 21st century library, and housing, highway 1 fix-- $17 million city tax revenue. Leed green development, 45% open space. Really, what's not to like? But then, the same people who killed Measure E prior, killed Measure L. After all "nothing for Pacifica" is better than fixing traffic, fixing crumbling infrastructure, improving the city and adding some housing. "Outsider" and "eminent domain" smears added a little extra confusion. Bottom line by doing nothing, we get the net sum of less than nothing while some people quibble over the economic scraps, and while more taxes on property owners are being proposed going forward.

Jeffrey W Simons said...

"Me thinks you give the council too much credit.
The opportunity was "squandered" due to a lack voter approval from the people of Pacifica who didn't believe in the vision of what the developer had created. If it was what people had wanted -- and we had plenty of opportunity to review the glossy pamphelets sent out by the developer -- then it would be, regardless of the position of the individual council members. "

sorry to step in here but that is complete revisionist history. After the failure of Measure L, Peebles Corp through regional VP Daniel Grimm went into negotiations with the city to hammer out a development footprint and what support they could expect from the city.

I don't feel I am betraying confidences here when I say that Grimm refused to meet any more with City Attorney Cecilia Quick (the original negotiator) after 1 meeting, and made the decision to walk away from Pacifica entirely after meeting with Jim Vreeland and Julie Lancelle.

The bottom line is 2 City Council members botched negotiations with a developer still interested in the property. It had nothing to do with Measure L winning or losing.