I believe the best use of the quarry is commercial only. Pacifica, a bedroom community of over 14,000 houses, needs more sustainable commercial development, not more houses. What I would like to see in the quarry is a nice hotel that will bring in more Transient Occupancy Tax, some mid to high- end retail shops a few nice restaurants, a multi-purpose theater and/ or convention hall. That's it! Zero residential units in the quarry-- period!

Do we really need more residential units taking up space on the only 45 acre commercial site left in Pacifica? Commercial use provides more permanent jobs for Pacificans. That is why I am voting NO on Measure L, which changes the commercial -only use zoning for forever, and will allow up to 355 residential units to be constructed perilously close to an environmentally sensitive restored wetlands along Calera Creek.

I did not mention civic buildings, because the quarry is in a Redevelopment Agency, and a City Hall or Library will reduce any potential revenues paid directly to the RDA. In addition, any further State Library grants would require our city to own and control a library site, which must be centrally located, close to schools within safe, walking distance. Pacifica currently owns and controls a lot that fits State grant requirements .

It is the site of the current City Hall and Planning Dept.buildings on Santa Maria and Francisco, adjacent to the Little Brown Church. By the way, State Library grants pay up to 60% of construction costs for a new library.

355 residential units could generate 700 additional cars on Highway 1 during the long commute twice a day, five days a week. Added to the traffic from additional houses already approved south of Pacifica, the four intersections, Linda Mar, Fassler, Crespi and Riena del Mar will back up commuter bottlenecks at stop- lights. Commercial only use would increase "car trips" in and out of the quarry, but those short trips would be spread out over a 24 hour period. Adding two lanes to the highway would only make it harder to cross lanes to make right or left turns into the east- west bound Avenues, and do nothing to alleviate the bottlenecks when six lanes narrow down to four at both ends.

Mr. Peebles says he needs 355 residential units, but what does Pacifica really need?

Although his company would make less profit, Mr. Peebles also said he would build something in the quarry if Measure L fails. He promised he would build a luxury hotel. I seriously doubt if he would detract from that high- priced hotel with ugly, big- box commercial. He is too smart a businessman to do that. He would also have another option that would make him not quite as much profit. He could negotiate a Development Agreement with fewer residential units, which the City council might approve.

After Measure L fails, a Development Agreement with the City of Pacifica would require specific plans and enforceable guarantees that are not in Measure L. The agreement would also demand an Environmental Impact Report before voters are asked to change the zoning from commercial to mixed use. The EIR would spell out how to mitigate traffic jams and environmental degradation. There would, of course, be another public vote, but a public vote for an approved plan by the City Council, not for just fancy conceptual sketches and promises with no enforceable guarantees by the developer.

Whether Measure L passes or fails, it will be several years before construction begins in the quarry. I think it would make more sense for Pacificans to vote No on L in order for voters to tell Mr. Peebles to go back to the drawing board and submit a smaller plan that would be better, in the long run, for Pacifica.

Nick Leone
Sharp Park

The above was printed as a Guest Column in the October 18th, 2006 Pacifica Tribune, and is republished here with the author's permission.