Pacificans will vote November 7th on Measure L.

Measure L simply states that the Pacifica Quarry will have a zoning change for up to 355 houses.

Because the access to the site is 50% by ocean and 50% by Highway One, Pacificans—and others along the coast—may expect tremendous additional traffic should this go through. Local beaches and trails would also see an increase in crowds.

The idea that so many houses could fit on such small site, bounded in so tightly, is radical; it fits in with New York City or other metropolises but not Pacifica.  Coastsiders south of Pacifica might be concerned as well, as their communities would also experience more traffic.

For information about No On L, please visit: http://www.pacificaquarry.org

To view the Bay Guardian story with blog comments, please visit:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=1482&volume_id=147&issue_id=248&volume_num=40&issue_num=48

Measure L Loophole?

There’s been an update in the Measure L story and how it may be used to take advantage of Pacifica.

To view information about the loophole:
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/loophole

This seems likely, give that the “Yes on L” campaign has spent over a $million dollars to try to pass Measure L.

To view details on campaign spending:
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/peebles-campaign-spending2

As of October 21, Peebles had spend $1,310,384.78 on the campaign to pass Measure L. Thanks to some Measure L opponents, you can also download the latest form from Coastsider, but the Pacifica Quarry site has more reports and more detail:

http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/planning/quarry/peebles-money-sept-oct.pdf

The most recent report includes:

$67,000 for Field Works, a “grassroots” organizing company in Washington, DC

  http://www.fieldworksonline.com/
 
$40,000 for Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, a Sacramento law firm

  http://www.nmgovlaw.com/firm.htm
 
A couple hundred thousand for the Davies PR firm

  http://www.daviescommunications.com/about.html

Of course, as Pacificans know well, the Tribune’s Editor & Publisher Chris Hunter endorsed Measure L on Wednesday. I found his reasoning is confusing, but it boils down to a recommendation that the community take a leap of faith for Don Peebles. He concludes:

Critics charge that there’s too much trust involved in making this decision, and that’s a perfectly reasonable attitude. It’s probably true. But sometimes, trust is a viable option.

http://www.pacificatribune.com/localnews/ci_4548354

Who says a pig in a poke is necessarily a bad thing? Some day a good pig might magically show up. Yes on L!

All automobile- and gasoline-related businesses in Pacifica stand to benefit from more cars and increased traffic congestion. Yes on L!

When people are tired after sitting in traffic trying to get home, the tend to send out or go out for food rather than cook. So Pacifica’s restaurants will benefit. Yes on L!

A developer and his staff from Florida, a PR firm from Santa Barbara running a campaign—who better to determine the future of Pacifica without being distracted by petty local realities? And they and the outsiders to be brought in to construct the development will patronize local businesses until they move on to their next conquest. Yes on L!

Because housing does not produce enough tax revenue to pay for its share of local government, long a problem in Pacifica, much more housing will apply even more pressure to allow a fast pass for any future, taxpaying commercial development proposed, no matter how inappropriate in the eyes of environmeddlers. Yes on L!

More effluent from an increased population into the wastewater treatment plant will serve to demonstrate even more odoriferously the plant’s problems and force a solution. Let money speak to make Pacifica reek. Yes on L!

You have to get worse before you can get better. So roll the dice. Yes on L!

Carl May

Measure L is only about zoning. It clearly states that the Pacifica Quarry will have a permanent zoning change to permit building of 355 residential dwellings.

Full text of the City of Pacifica’s report on Measure L (3MB/PDF)
http://www.ci.pacifica.ca.us/CITYHALL/QuarryElection.pdf

In this document, the City concluded that there is no plan, no project, and no tangible benefits to the City and its citizens. Additionally, the City concluded there is no way to determine prior to the November 7th election what damage 355 houses in the Quarry would cause to traffic and to the environment.

Full text of the petition for Measure L: http://www.pacificaquarry.org/petition

Measure L only provides for a zoning change. That’s it!

The total that Peebles’ campaign had incurred on FieldWorks as of 10/21/06, was actually $103,455.39.

More here:

http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/fieldworks

Published in yesterday’s Pacifica Tribune, a 13-point bulletin as to why Measure L is not a good choice for Pacifica:
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/node/466

This covers all the bases—and answers questions about where the $millions of dollars for Pacifica are sourced.

Peebles wrote this letter to the Pacifica City Council where he states:

“To the fullest extent permitted by law, this letter is intended to be a legally binding declaration on behalf of the property owner, Rockaway Beach Ltd., and an agreement with the City of Pacifica.”

In the letter he reaffirms his intention to do the things he set forth in the “plan” he talks about.  Now I realize if L passes this letter doesn’t legally bind him to do anything but at the same time, if he tries to sue the city because they won’t approve his plan to build only 355 houses (and nothing else mentioned in the letter) won’t they have excellent ammunition to fight such a lawsuit?

http://www.therockawayquarry.com/peb_pdf/10.02.06%20City%20Council%20Letter.pdf

13 reasons to vote NO on L
——————————————————————————————————-
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/thirteen-reasons
Longtime Pacifican and SFSU professor Bill Michaelis serves
up a baker’s dozen of excellent reasons to vote NO on L.

Mary Keitelman - 05 November 2006 05:50 PM

13 reasons to vote NO on L
——————————————————————————————————-
http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/thirteen-reasons
Longtime Pacifican and SFSU professor Bill Michaelis serves
up a baker’s dozen of excellent reasons to vote NO on L.

Most of these are related to the developers character and your inference is that we should not trust him.  Fine.  I do not trust him.  That’s why the legally binding letter he wrote to the City of Pacifica is so important in my view.  It prevents him from just trying to push 355 houses through since the city has a written document from him where he legally commits himself to the development of a town center, etc.

I was leaning toward a NO vote prior to the “letter of intent” he wrote to the city and if this is the best you can come up with to dispute that letter, I think you may have just convinced me to vote YES…..

“Pacifica City Attorney Cecilia Quick said the letter was not legally
binding, as it was not a contract entered into by the city with any
other party.”

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_4480194

The letter itself is linked here:

http://www.pacificaquarry.org/story/empty-promises-letter

Peebles’ letter contain so many caveats and “weasel words” as to make the promises virtually worthless.