In a classic case of shooting the messenger when you don't like the message, I have been criticized for stating that Measure L [1] would rezone the Quarry for residential use. It is never my intent to mislead anyone, and I apologize if I have done so. Please allow me to clarify.

The Quarry is presently zoned C-3 Commercial District, which does not allow residential uses. (Municipal Code Sec. 9-4.1201) However, the 1983 ordinance that rezoned the Quarry provides that residential development in the Quarry may be allowed with a vote of the people.

Specifically, the ordinance provides that no further public vote is required for any future "rezonings" except that any residential development of the property shall require a vote of the people. (Ordinance No. 391- C.S.) The City Attorney's 9212 report states that a "no" vote on Measure L "leaves the current zoning in place." (p.33, A77) Most people would infer that a "yes" vote does not leave the current zoning in place.

In fact, Measure L, which is entitled "An Ordinance to Authorize Residential Development." etc. expands the types of uses allowed in the Quarry to include residential through the exercise of the voters' legislative power. This particular power is reserved only to the voters, and cannot be exercised by the city. I agree that implementation of Measure L would also require additional zoning changes by the city, including reclassification to a Planned Development District.

Whatever terminology one uses, the point is that passage of Measure L would provide the voter approval necessary to expand the Quarry use from strictly commercial to residential use for up to 355 housing units. According to the city attorney, this voter approval would remain with the property and could be transferred to any subsequent owner. (City Attorney Report, p. 21, A5)

The public understands (and the proponents well know) that Measure L would confer an extremely valuable right on the Quarry owner, one which he currently does not have, and which he has spent almost a million dollars to get. Does anyone honestly believe that the owner would sit idly by and not assert this right if the city failed to allow any residential development after Measure L passed?

Let me answer that question. At a recent public meeting, Mr. Peebles would not commit to refrain from suing the city if his project was scaled back. He reserved the right to sue if he disagreed with the city's reasoning and felt it was not reasonable or intellectual. Need I say more?

Dinah Verby
Vallemar

The above was printed as a Letter to the Editor in the October 25th, 2006 Pacifica Tribune, and is republished here with the author's permission.