PTT responds to the City's Election Code 9212 report

I would like to say thank you to our city attorney Cecilia Quick and city staff for preparing this report under such short notice.

I was particularly interested to hear that Ms. Quick was able to answer the question that I posed at last week's city council meeting.

If the voters of Pacifica did approve the project on November 7th, would that approval of up to 355 houses transfer with the property? As I suspected, the answer is yes, any owner of the Quarry would then be able to build up to 355 houses on the Quarry. I specifically mention any owner because the ballot measure language contains no references to Mr. Peebles or his company. There also is no expiration date on this approval. This is very important to Pacifica, because WE do not have any type of site development agreement or contract committing Mr Peebles to building something resembling the pretty pictures he showed Pacifica last May.

Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent Mr. Peebles from flipping the property after the November vote or selling it to another developer, say Trammell Crow, in coming years. By approving this ballot measure in November, Pacifica could still end up with 355 houses. Do we really want to give any owner of the Quarry, a blank check to build up to 355 houses in the Quarry?

Contrary to various comments expressed about the necessity of this report, I want to point out that this question and its answer will hopefully make Pacificans think twice about voting to approve this ballot measure. In 1983, Pacificans voted to have future voters approve any housing in the Quarry. Based on this question and its answer, I believe they were very wise to do that. Please place the ballot measure on the November ballot.

The above is the full text of the comments I made to the City Council tonight, August 2nd, 2006, on behalf of Pacifica Today & Tomorrow.