NO on L: The campaign against Pacifica’s Measure L

Mr. Peebles, the Florida-based developer who bought the quarry property west of Reina del Mar, held a public meeting on Saturday, July 8th. The dozens of attendees listened to Mr. Peebles' presentation, most of which was a restatement of his plan announced in June to develop 40 acres of the parcel with 355 housing units together with variety of retail and commercial including a 350-room luxury hotel. Those present asked questions and expressed views about the merits of the plan and the initiative, which Mr. Peebles has launched to change the zoning on the parcel to permit housing. Many of those attending the meeting conveyed enthusiasm about the presentation; others expressed deep concern. These views are all heartfelt ones based on sincere beliefs and visions for the future. Although there is understandable passion about the outcome of Mr. Peebles' proposal, the most distressing aspect of the meeting was the recurrence of the hostility that surfaced during the last quarry development effort. Whether we agree or disagree, the views are beliefs of our neighbors, of people who live in our town and who will live in this town, whatever the outcome of the vote in November. I think that we should try to remember that that in the zeal to win approval for a project a casualty can be community accord and civility. We don't have to give in to the tendency to see our neighbors as "wrong" or "foolish," if we disagree about this project. We can remember, "This is my neighbor. He wants what he thinks will help this town. She wants to enjoy her vision of Pacifica." I know it is tempting to adopt the tone of former campaigns, but none of us needs additional anger. I am trying my best to remember the good intentions of those I disagree with, because in the end what matters most is the community of good-hearted people who make up Pacifica.

Mr. Peebles, the developer, commented with dismay that some in town are arrayed against him. I think this is a misperception. There is opposition to his plan, but as far as I can tell, there is no personal animosity. The concerns people have are deep ones about quality of life in the town where they and their families live. For example, they ask whether they want 17,500 additional car trips per day along highway 1, a notoriously congested highway. This is the number -- 17,500 more car trips every day along our major roadway -- that Mr. Peebles announced on Sunday will result from his preferred project, according to his own traffic experts.

Even more compellingly for me is whether this large project should be located smack in the middle of habitat for two highly endangered species.

Both the red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake have been found on this land. On July 8th, Mr. Peebles said that the red-legged frogs on the site may need to be sacrificed for the benefit of the community. This seems to me a terrible, sad and short-sighted outcome. Although the land was quarried for limestone until 1986, the resilient creatures have somehow survived. Should we now bring out the earth-moving equipment, to crush them once and for all? What a tragic legacy for our time.

If Mr. Peebles wants to develop, must it be precisely in this particular spot, in this particular way? Those who are concerned about the habitat of the endangered red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake are not enemies of development. I support developments and attended the first charrette hoping that if the project was of modest size and respectful of the biological uniqueness of the site, I could support this project as well. But this particular development has been proposed to cover the flat, streamside region of the quarry that biologists have designated critical habitat for the frog and snake. So, understandably, this creates a true dilemma if one actually believes that these species have a right to continued existence. Even so, I was willing to hear out Mr. Peebles and his architect/planner Mr. Duany. But I have heard nothing from them that suggests they have sensitivity to the dire predicament of the endangered species on the property. There seems to be an unquestioned assumption that endangered frogs and snakes are consistent with dense, urbanized development. Alas, this is not what the experts who know the needs of these species suggest. A large mixed-use development may have considerable merit, but it is not beneficial for frogs and snakes teetering on the edge of extinction.

I realize mine is just one opinion. Others may find it a strange or even ludicrous view. I ask for you to remember I am trying hard to respect the opinions of my neighbors. I would be delighted if you would accord me that courtesy. I speak honesty when I say that my objection is based on my belief that development should not be at the jeopardy of the most endangered creatures. If Mr. Peebles wanted to re-develop fading commercial areas of town that are not endangered species habitat, I, for one, would have a different reaction to his proposal.

Janet Hathaway,
Vallemar

The above is the full text of a letter printed in the July 19th, 2006 Pacifica Tribune, republished here with the author's permission.