Distribution: City Council, City Staff, media outlets, Nextdoor, Pacifica Tribune. City of Pacifica/Press Release, 8/24/16, "No Binding Commitment to Construction of Hotel Made by Quarry Owner to City of Pacifica."
 |
| Proposed Quarry empty space land development, again. |
| Want to bet the City Press Release resulted from NIMBY complaints about the developer's comment? |
'We want to ensure that the City's position related to the Quarry is a neutral one', said City Manager Lorie Tinfow. 'While we understand Mr. Heule's interest in demonstrating his commitments, we have no legally binding commitment from the Quarry owner and as a result cannot confirm any commitment'.
The City of Pacifica prepared an impact report known as a '9212 Report' related to the Quarry Initiative and it was presented to the City Council at its meeting on June 27, 2016. More information about the City works related to the Quarry Initiative is posted online at City of Pacifica/planning/quarry questions.
Mr. Heule submitted a development application to the Planning Department on July 7, 2016 that outlines the proposed project. The application remains incomplete at this time. A copy is posted online at City of Pacifica/planning/quarry development application.
For more information, contact: Planning Director Tina Wehrmeister, wehrmeister@ci.pacifica.ca.us or 650-738-7341."
----------
Note usual NIMBY anti-Quarry development campaign photographs. Empty space quarry land is the facepage image to the new Stop Quarry rezone organization, "No on W, ...206 multi-family units in the Quarry". Trashed quarry development sign is from the 2006 "No on L" campaign Rockaway Quarry incomplete website, the link only reads "coming soon?"
Posted by Kathy Meeh
22 comments:
"Want to bet the City
Press Release resulted
from NIMBY complaints about
the developer's comment?"
it should have remained hidden?
Assorted villains: ...and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
I bet that when City Attorney saw Heule's press release, immediately realized the city could be sued for breaking the law and quickly wrote the city's press release.
Or a journalist actually did their job and contacted the City for comment.
As one does.
How could the city be sued for Huele's press release?
It can't now as they basically called Heule a liar in their own press release. Heule's release implied that city officials were collaborating with him on his ballot measure which apparently is a no-no. The city denied it. So now no one has to sue anybody.
The semantic difference is the difference between a "Firm" commitment and a "Binding" Commitment if you read the two releases. Lawyers buy summer homes by arguing semantics like that.
Heule's press release made it sound like he had discussions with city staff and that he had some agreement with the city about a commitment to build the hotel. That would be illegal. That's why the city rushed to say that there was no binding commitment made to the city about construction of the hotel. The key word is "binding." The city can't accept any binding agreement without review and approval by the city council, and without going through planning review and EIR process. That's why the city manager is quoted in the press release as saying, "We have no legally binding commitment ... " She had to get that out there right away.
I don't know how the city can be held legally responsible for something the developer says.
There's nothing illegal about Huele having discussions with the city about committing to build a hotel. In fact, I think he needs to do just that, and put that commitment in writing.
It would be illegal for the city to have a binding commitment with the developer about any aspect of the development. That's why the city manager said, "We want to ensure that the City's position related to the Quarry is a neutral one" and that "we have no legally binding commitment."
"It would be illegal for the city to have a binding commitment with the developer about any aspect of the development."
That's not correct. If the developer wants to assure voters that he'll build the hotel and retail either before or concurrently with the housing, he can sign an agreement with the city guaranteeing that.
Interesting that you won't put your name behind your statement.
Steve, I'll put my name behind a rebuttal of your comment (I am not Rantanon @ 7:55 AM). So here goes: There is no binding deal, the developer purposely misled us by saying he had one with the city to make his Measure Dubya (W) look like something more than just a vote to allow housing in the Quarry. Lets not loose sight of the continuing deceptions of this development team to confuse, mislead and misinform us all, including you, Steve.
Todd, I agree that there is currently no deal between the city and developer. I never said there was. What I am saying is the developer can come up with a signed agreement with the city that says he'll build the hotel and retail either before or concurrently with the residential. Peebles had something that guaranteed he'd build the hotel, retail and housing, although I can't remember if it was part of the initiative or if it was a separate agreement.
I'm afraid you're not in a position to criticize the developer for attempting to confuse, mislead and misinform the public. You're the one trying to convince people that Huele is going to build over 600 apartments in the quarry.
Oh, you do get points for using your name. Thanks.
It would be illegal for city staff to reach a binding agreement with the developer. The agreement would have to be approved by the city council.
Yes, I imagine City Council would have to approve it.
Todd Bray signs his name to his statements. For that, on a scale of 1-10, he gets all 10 points.
Agree with him or not, identity credit is his.
Wish those who hide under Anonymous would learn from Todd-- step-up, and post with you own identity.
Thanks for your comment, Steve 226. And THANKS TODD!
206 "multi family units" are not 206 residences.
Multi family means 3 or more families per unit - or over 600
Is that not correct?
From wikipedia - "Multifamily residential (also known as multidwelling unit or MDU) is a classification of housing where multiple separate housing units for residential inhabitants are contained within one building or several buildings within one complex. A common form is an apartment building."
So Steve, you are saying it's semantics? 206 units versus 618? That will be a fun rewarding argument for the developers attorneys to make. Imagine the reward for winning 618 units in court versus a mere 206 units. Semantics are the things lawyers live for. You comment while heart felt I'm sure just reinforces the vagueness of the ballot language: Is it 206 or a variable like 618?
Toddster, if the legal definition multi-family unit is similar to what wikipedia had posted, there is no issue with semantics. You can have have many multi-family units in a single building.
Upon further research, it looks like the term, "multi-family unit" means one housing unit, such as an apartment or condo, inside of a multi-family building. It doesn't mean each unit houses multiple-families.
https://www.economy.com/support/blog/buffet.aspx?did=8015A9FA-79EF-4EE6-BF79-C84EC932B331
Steve, "It looks like" isn't an answer and again furthers the argument against the ballots wording of 206 multi family units. It looks like chum in the water for the developers attorneys to sue for at least 618 units. This is my point, the wording is intentionaly vague, on purpose, to allow the developer a window into court for a much higher density.
And it doesn't matter if this developer or the next starts the planning process. We wont be able to vote again on the issue and the vagueness of the ballot language allows the interpretation of what a multi family unit is.
Todd, that you're reduced to arguing your point based on a meaningless phrase only confirms that your claims have no basis.
I'm sure there's a legal definition of multi-family unit. I'm not a lawyer so I won't declare for sure what that definition is, but as best I can tell, my above explanation does define it.
Also, it was the city attorney who wrote the ballot language, not the developer. Are you saying the city attorney is part of a conspiracy to hoodwink voters?
Post a Comment