Here comes Miami Beach
A South Florida developer wants to turn the quiet coastal community of Pacifica into a glitzy retreat for the Bay Area's richest residents

gwschulz@sfbg.com

A pebbled, unmarked trail crunches underneath Peter Loeb's soft leather shoes as he walks through the Rockaway Quarry in Pacifica, his dog following behind.

Until recently, the 87-acre plot was owned by a man named William F. Bottoms. But he never showed much interest in developing it, and locals have long used the network of trails for hiking. It's one of the few remaining vacant lots of its size in Pacifica.

Bordering the west side of the property is a ridgeline — a small stone peak literally cut in half by what was once a noisy limestone mining operation — that separates the Pacific Ocean from flat seasonal marshlands that turn to rolling hills just past the highway, where the property stops.

Like the rest of the small coastal town, the former quarry is submerged much of the year in a thick, fast-moving fog. From the ground, it hardly seems like an ideal place in which to introduce luxury living.

"It's the windiest spot in Pacifica," Loeb says. "It's the coldest, windiest spot in the whole city."

But its close proximity to San Francisco has a headstrong Miami developer drooling.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


R. Donahue Peebles bought the quarry last summer for what he says was $7.5 million, and although he hasn't actually submitted a formal proposal to the town, he's talking about building 350 exclusive hotel suites, 130 single-family homes, more than 200 town houses, live-work lofts and apartments, and an untold number of stores, such as the Gap and Trader Joe's.

It's an unusual battle for the normally quiet town. Tucked 10 miles south of San Francisco just off Highway 1, Pacifica is a largely middle-class bedroom community of about 37,000 people that's so overwhelmingly residential, it's hardly seen any commercial development larger than a shopping center with a Safeway.

Loeb served on Pacifica's City Council for eight years in the 1980s and has lived in the same home near the quarry for three decades. He helped formulate the land use plan for the property, which was designated a redevelopment area in 1986. The plan calls for mixed-use residential and commercial spaces, preservation of the walk and bikeway system, and "high-quality design in both public and private developments including buildings, landscaping, signing and street lighting."

Joined by a stay-at-home dad named Ken Restivo, Loeb is now organizing the opposition to Peebles — and it hasn't been an easy task. Peebles has already poured several hundred thousand dollars into a campaign to overturn a 1983 city law that requires voter approval of a housing element in the redevelopment zone. This in a town where the typical council candidate spends less than $10,000 running for office.

Of course, as the opponents point out, it's not clear exactly what Peebles wants to do. His plans are still tentative; he's trying to get blanket approval for a massive development before he actually applies for a building permit.

The point of the 1983 law was to ensure that new development on the property would be mixed-use, mostly to offset the city's high residential concentration and to increase the amount of money the city received in tax revenue.

"What he's trying to do is privatize the certainty and socialize the risk," Restivo said. "He wants to know whether he can build the houses before he even starts with a plan, and he wants to leave us trusting him to do whatever."

Measure ...

Read more... Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

( 13 comments | Comment on this article )
MaryBeary on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 06:19 PM
The amount of traffic (and concomitant noise) would be a detriment to the quality of life in quiet Pacifica. In addition, we can expect air quality to be worsened, as traffic will add to smog and smell.

According to the slideshow Mr. Peebles' organization gave at Ortega School in Pacifica this month, the mininum additional traffic would be 15,500 average daily trips -- Over and Above current traffic.

Hardly a livable situation. Those of us who already live here do not welcome additional noise. At that same presentation Mr. Peebles said he was looking for a home for himself and his family-- in San Francisco. Why wouldn't he want to live here?

in beautiful quiet, green, peaceful Pacifica?

Other views of the development may be accessed at the "No on L" website: [link]
lemde on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 10:30 PM
This rezoning of the Rockaway Quarry in Pacifica will, if passed, be "turbocharged" by the passage of Proposition 90.

Proposition 90 states:"Except when taken to protect public health and safety, 'damage' to private property includes goverment actions that result in significant economic loss to private property."

What that means in this case is that approval of Measure L is a new regulation, which falls under Prop.90. The above statement (among others) enables the property owner to sue the city over ANY

reduction or restriction of his plan. The city, faced with an adverse court judgement in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, will cave and allow anything the developer demands.

Our would-be developer knows this full

well.
shannondelvecchio on Friday, September 1, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Dear G.W. Schulz,

As a Pacifica resident, I am offended by your lack of research for this article and blatant promotion of the reactionary (and unpopular) organization in our town called “Pacifica Today and Tomorrow.” It is unbelievable that you included a link to this extremist website without any other resources for additional information about the project.

The Peebles plan for the Quarry is not “glitzy” at all, nor will it be built in the style of Miami Beach. Preliminary drawings show small shops, a hotel/spa, many parks, and homes based on the Craftsman style, which is low to the ground and architecturally simple, showcasing high-quality natural materials. Not a single high-rise is anywhere to be found (the dominant feature of the Miami Beach landscape). Actually, the Pacifica building codes do not allow structures over 35 feet (that might have been good to include in your article), which is not about to change.

The majority of us who passionately support this project are committed environmentalists and long-time Pacifica residents who love our community. Many of us are professionals in the design and building trades, so we have a lot of experience analyzing and interpreting data that relates to architecture and urban planning. Having researched Peebles team, we are thoroughly impressed with their “green” credentials and approach. The lead architect on the Quarry project, Andres Duany, was a keynote speaker at World Environment Day 2005, and we greatly appreciate his desire to create a community with a LEED rating of “Platinum,” surrounded by a generous amount of open space. We believe this excellent team will be capable of creating a fantastic town center that will energize our community, both culturally and economically.

As a professional journalist, you might have considered asking a few supporters why they like the project, instead of asking detractors why those supporters like the project. Shame on you for this Enquirer-style journalism. My opinion of the Bay Guardian as a reliable news source has definitely gone down as result of reading this rubbish in your paper.

Sincerely,

Shannon Del Vecchio



shannondelvecchio on Friday, September 1, 2006 at 06:53 PM
Follow-up from Shannon -

In response to my letter (posted above) I received this email from Mr. Schulz -

From: George W. Schulz [mailto:[Email]]

Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 11:17 AM

To: Shannon Del Vecchio

Subject: RE: your article about the Quarry project

Thank you for your input on the story, ma'am. We'd really like to run your e-mail in our "letters to the editor" section as an alternative point-of-view. We need to get your permission first, however. As far as the story goes, I covered the dimensions of it that as far as I could tell were not being reported elsewhere. You're right that Peebles' tentative plans so far include New Urbanism concepts, and your letter reflects as much. I hope we get your permission. Thanks again for the e-mail.

------------------------------------------

I have already responded to Mr. Schulz personally, but wanted to share some of my thoughts here as well.

If this journalist honestly believes that Peter Loeb’s perspective has not been covered elsewhere, his research for this story plainly did not include even the most casual review of the Pacifica Tribune, the mostly widely read paper in our small town. This excellent local paper has covered all phases of the Quarry project from every possible perspective since the issue first came to public attention earlier this year. In addition to the Tribune’s factual and carefully balanced news coverage, they promptly expanded their “letters to the editor” section to ensure that all voices would be heard on this issue. One of the weekly columnists at the Pacifica Tribune is opposed to the Quarry project, and he has had a weekly opportunity to voice his tedious diatribes (similar to Mr. Loeb's) without censorship. However, his extremism has always been balanced with other voices within the paper.

In my opinion, the Tribune deserves a journalism award for their balanced coverage of this extremely sensitive issue.

The Bay Guardian, by contrast, deserves a slap on the wrist, failing to consult EVEN ONE PACIFICA RESIDENT who is in favor of this project and then running a truly flabby article full of misleading half-truths. This is lazy journalism at its worst. I am truly appalled.

tedminster on Monday, September 4, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Thanks G Schultz and SFBG for highlighting this issue.

Peebles has not submitted a plan; he is selling a concept that has seduced many. He offers a counter-threat as his only option, an office/commercial development.

Duany and the "New Urbanism" sales pitch are the window-dressing. His major policy pitch is to allow the construction of 355 residential units, "Measure L." Then, it is alleged, he will submit a plan.

By not submitted a "pre-plan" to the appropriate agencies, including the Coastal Commission and the City of Pacifica, his approach is a set-up to turn folks against the regulatory agencies...in the name of "democracy." This is classic right-populism. You attack public sector workers (a la Arnold), or you set folks up to attack the regulatory agencies.

By not submitting a plan, there is no real acountability. In the current process, there is option to review the reality of the intended specifics of any intended development. Peeble's PR, his public meetings, the mailings....all seek to cover his lack of accountability for a real plan.

He owns the property and he wants to do something on it 'his way.' If Pacificans don't authorize Measure L, the threat is in place. It is the epitome of "property rights" with no balance in terms of the interests or needs of the community.

The appropriate review of a real plan for the Quarry area, by the public and by regulatory agencies, the only guarantors of public and environmental interests---is clearly not his intent.

Thanks for your coverage.

Tom Edminster

Pacifica resident

avedminster on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at 05:48 PM
In response to Ms. Del Vechhio's comments, I would like to offer the following.

I have been working full-time as a green building consultant for more than a decade. I am a principal developer of LEED for Homes and served as a member of the LEED Steering Committee for many years. I am passionate about sustainable development.

I am a big fan of Andres Duany. I arranged for him to speak to a group of design professionals in SF about 10 years ago. A year or two later, I organized a series of lectures on sustainable development here in Pacifica. I may even have been the first person in town to talk publicly about sustainable development and new urbanism, and to urge that Pacifica create a green project in the quarry.

I think it very likely this could be the right project for Pacifica (once the wrinkles are ironed out via the sundry regulatory and public processes).

But it's not about the project. It's about operating on trust vs. operating on ironclad assurances. We don't have the latter, and we have no reason to have the former. Just as we have all voted against ballot measures in the past that were well intentioned but poorly structured, so too should we vote this one down, and in so doing give Mr. Peebles a clear signal that he needs to try again, this time with more than promises.

Ann Edminster

boopstar on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 12:59 AM
Re Peebles and the promises he's making to Pacificans concerning his plans for quarry development: caveat emptor or, in this case, voter beware. Most of us have learned not to "buy" politicians' promises--why should we believe developers' promises?

Mr. Peebles may mean what he says, but just as there's no free lunch, there's no guarantee of his true intentions. We Pacificans will only know what Mr. Peebles' development plans are after all elections and required processes are completed.

This issue reminds me of what happened to the small town of Big Fork, MT, where my mother-in-law lived. Big Fork's on the Flathead Lake and had a population of 200-500 during the winter. In the summer, due to tourists drawn by art shops, rep. theatre, fishing & boating, it grew to a couple of thousand or so. Then (early '80s) developers came in & built condos, large homes, etc. Worst of all, the Californians came! In a few years, longtime residents couldn't afford to pay property taxes, rent or buy homes so many had to leave. When I read Peebles is planning to sell residences for $3-8 mill, I worry Pacifica will become a Big Fork. With housing prices already too high for many, esp. families, to afford to live in Pacifica, I shudder to think that it could get even worse.

I suggest that we Pacificans need to think very carefully about voting on behalf of Peebles' promises. I, for one, am and remain a doubting thomas.

bette thomas
shannondelvecchio on Friday, September 8, 2006 at 08:52 AM
Hi everybody,

Voting yes on Measure L is not about trusting Peebles and Duany. It is just a nod from the public that the preliminary ideas sound pretty good, so now we would like the California Coastal Commission and other regulatory agencies to dive in and analyze the data in more detail. A "yes" vote means we trust these agencies to do their jobs carefully and act in our best interests.

I really do trust the California Coastal Commission. This notoriously rigorous agency has a phenomenal track record for protecting some of our most beautiful and valuable natural resources, and they have no problem going into full combat with a developer. If there is a way to angle for a little more open space in the plan, or if there are some endangered species that need protection, this agency is going to be ALL OVER IT -- and with a vengeance! Most of us don’t really have the knowledge or credentials to debate these kinds of issues, whereas the CCC has top scientists with not only the knowledge but also the authority to assess the plan and take a long view in defense of the planet. I say, turn 'em loose! Let's find out what they say.

As far our elected officials, imagine the public outrage if Peebles came back with an offensive lineup of McMansions and a dreary mini-mall. After all the promises he has made to the citizens of Pacifica? Up front and PERSONAL in all these town meetings? There would be rioting outside of city hall. Most enraged of all would be the thousands of Pacifica residents (like me) who have been supporting the project from the beginning. There is simply NO WAY that a bait-and-switch like that would go anywhere. By now too many citizens know what is going on, and there would be lobbying like you have never seen before in sleepy Pacifica.

Best wishes,

Shannon Del Vecchio

lrosenstein on Monday, September 11, 2006 at 03:42 PM
Measure L is all about trusting Peebles because none of his preliminary ideas are in Measure L. Tell me where in Measure L it says that there will be a Town Center or land donated for a library or any of the other things he's promised. You won't find it because it's not there.

Measure L is also not a straw poll to see what Pacifica wants. It's a permanent zoning change for the property, which Peebles can sell to another developer for a nice profit, if he so chooses.

The idea that City Officials or Coastal Commission will save us from a bad project is a myth. Unfortunately, the Coastal Commission is very much politicized these days; a few months ago, the Assembly Speaker tried to appoint alternates right before a vote on a project.

City officials cannot simply turn down a project just because Peebles promised something different, and it doesn't matter how much the public complains about it. The City needs legal reasons to turn down a project and Peebles' promises are not legally binding.

MaryBeary on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 02:10 PM
What's interesting is the supposed 'grass roots campaign' of the pro development people likely is not, according to the Coastsider, a newspaper that covers all the news in this part of the coast.

Here's a link to their article:

[link]
MaryBeary on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 11:26 PM
For a local discussion of Measure L and how Proposition 90, please go to the Coastsider online at: [link]

The Coastsider provides news and information covering the San Mateo county communities of Half Moon Bay, Pescadero, El Granada, Moss Beach, Montara, and southern Pacifica, California.

MaryBeary on Friday, November 3, 2006 at 01:03 AM
Pacifica Quarry development company just released a financial analysis indicating anticipated source of $ millions of dollars for Pacifica, California. View an assessment of that analysis and its assumptions: [link]
robsmith on Sunday, November 5, 2006 at 09:59 AM
13 reasons to vote NO on L

---------------------------

[link]

Longtime Pacifican and SFSU professor Bill Michaelis serves up a baker's dozen of excellent reasons to vote NO on L.

Comment on: Here comes Miami Beach

In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.

SFBG Classifieds