Pacifica Union Roofer says NO ON L

I am a 22-year resident of Pacifica, and I have been a Union Roofer for over 30 years. I cannot support the Residential Development in the Quarry, due to the fact that Mr. Peebles has decided to circumvent the process in which development is approved.

In the last two years, the current City Council has agreed on two residential projects the Cypress walk in Manor, 95 single family homes, and the Connemara Development at lower Moraga Ridge, 23 single family residences and 5000 sq. feet retail. Each of these projects went through a long process for approval. First they submitted an Environmental Impact Report along with a proposed Development Plan to the Planning Commission. After months of studying the EIR and public input, these developments were approved by the Planning Commission and sent off to Pacifica's City Council where more input from the public and the developers are given before the city council votes on the proposals. In the case of the Quarry Development if there is to be residential development then the people would vote on the project. Why has Mr. Peebles decided to side step this process? Why does he have 355 homes attached to his initiative? He could have easily just asked Pacificans to allow some residential in the Quarry that will mutually be agreed on by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Some people call this high density residential mix use proposal smart growth it is, but not in Pacifica due to the fact that most urban high density is being built in Transportation Corridors. You find these developments in Colma, South San Francisco, and San Bruno all within walking distance to BART or Cal Train. Is BART planning an extension to Pacifica?

Mr. Peebles states in his letter to the City Council dated October 2:

This letter is intended to serve as a further guideline to be used during the planning and negotiations process by the Pacifica Planning Commission, City Council, and other regulatory agencies to ensure that the development proposal we summit conforms to the voters' wishes.

If L passes Mr. Peebles will have the political clout to have all 355 residential units approved. He will have the upper hand in negotiations with the Planning Commission and the City Council. My NO vote is not a NO vote for development, but a NO to the process that Mr. Peebles has chosen.

Steven Tucker

The above was sent to the Pacifica Tribune but wasn't printed. It is published here with the author's permission.