I am not a life long Pacifican, but I choose to stay in Pacifica for many of the same reasons the rest of us do. When I first noticed that signatures were being collected outside our super markets to place Measure L, the quarry development initiative, on the November ballot, I immediately thought: Didn't we vote this down just a few years ago? Of course we did. So before I signed, I tried to establish what the difference was between the current proposal, L, and the prior one, 2002's E.

Here's what I discovered. One difference between the current L and 2002's E is that the current proposal calls for 355 residential units, while Measure E called for only 315. Another difference is that L promises to maintain 45% of the quarry as open space, while 2002's E promised to maintain 50%. Furthermore, 2002's E did not include the building of a 350-room luxury hotel in the quarry area, as the current measure does. And, unlike the current proposal, 2002's E targeted 20% of the housing to be made affordable for local teachers, firefighters, and other professions. The current proposal makes no such claim. I also found out what the term "charrette" means.

What does history teach us? 2002's E was overwhelmingly rejected by Pacificans, with over 66% of our citizens rejecting that quarry development plan largely because of concerns over its large scope, its effect on local traffic, its environmental impact, and the non-binding assurances of its developer. You would think that the next plan to come along would scale back and submit a somewhat more modest proposal for the quarry. Instead, four years later, we have Measure L, a proposal of greater scope, that would have a larger impact on Pacifica's traffic and environment, preserve less open space, and include still more non-binding assurances by the developer.

Like 2002's E, the current L should be rejected by Pacifica on Nov. 7, unless a heavily financed persuasion campaign succeeds in getting a majority of Pacifica voters to accept what we clearly don't want. I urge Pacificans to think about this the next time they are invited to a charrette, asked to attend a commmunity meeting, or inundated with a barrage of junk mail and telemarketing calls from strangers.

M. Coleman
Sharp Park

The above was printed as a Letter to the Editor of the Pacifica Tribune on September 27th, 2006, and is reprinted here with the author's permission.