Friday, May 8, 2015

City Council meeting (and joint session with Planning Commision), Monday, May 11, 2015


Chicken Little said...

Nancy's back! Oh, great. and another example of Sue's fractured thinking. Ridiculous. green council members. What are they, Kermit the Frog wannabees!
Right out of John Curtis' playbook:

Please attend and help the green minded council members protect our coast

If you can about the future of Pacfica....Councilwoman Sue Digri is giving us all a up. There are people who have been dying to get their hands on our general and housing plans and unless we show up in fav our of keeping hillside preservation protections in place, WE ARE SCREWED! No more scenic pacifica if developers and their real estate pals get their hands on our open spaces. See below about important council meeting.

May 11th. 5:30 City Council and City Planning Commission and YOU at
a study session on the Housing Element AND the General Plan and , and....

Then City Council at 7pm!!! Whew.

Check out the agenda and information on the City Web.

YOUR voice matters.
We work for YOU!

Please pass the word. This is about OUR Community, our FUTURE.

To be honest, I am very concerned.

These are important city-wide issues, but

We are in a State experiencing a severe WATER CRISIS
Skyrocketing rents!

And sea level rising.....

No matter what, City-wide Public Interaction is so important.
Please attend and help the green minded council members protect our coast

Steve Sinai said...

But the Warriors are playing at 6:30!!

Anonymous said...

Didn't have time to check these before the meeting:

I love this, let them pay their own damned Costco Membership.

$330.00 04/24/15 00021 1 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP OUTSTANDING
41.25 01.300320.52300.0000.000 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL MAY 2015
82.50 01.800840.52300.0000.000 MEMBERSHIP RNWL-LANGE
82.50 01.800910.52300.0000.000 MEMBERSHIP RNWL-LESLIE, TIET
41.25 01.800870.52300.0000.000 MEMBERSHIP RNWL-HAYNES
41.25 01.700723.52300.0000.000 MEMBERSHIP RNWL-OCAMPO
41.25 01.700723.52300.0000.000 MEMBERSHIP RNWL-DOMINGUES

Anonymous said...

This one is a joke:

Does anyone on Council bring anything back to the city going to these dinners and meetings.

$180.00 04/24/15 00597 0 COUNCIL OF CITIES OUTSTANDING
180.00 01.100110.52300.0000.000 DINNER MEETING-3/27/15

Kathy Meeh said...

218, assuming the comment is true, the Nancy Hall comment to her eco-scarcity e-list buddies is a bit over-the-top. At City Council last night, the Pedro Point Community Association seemed to focus on the Calson Property (an open field). Only two citizens threatened to sue the City should there be residential development on that field. The property was not named in the General Plan Housing Element (a neutral position), and the General Plan was approved (with an additional comment) as delivered from the Planning Commission.

In City Council discussion Councilmember Sue Digre repeated her well recognized slogan "our environment is our economy", which likely pleased the mostly NIMBY audience, and in fact does reflect the state of our City economy.

On the other hand, during the City Council budget discussion, it was Councilmember Sue Digre who asked about "weed abatement", with concerns of fire threat in this City. Turns out the City has no private "weed abatement" ordinance. Hopefully such an ordinance will move forward. City Councilmembers all seemed pleased with staffing and system procedure improvements at City Hall. And, General Manager Lori Tinfow introduced new key personnel.(So, yes, with continued City effort, there's a chance this City may improve after all).

Thomas Clifford said...

Kathy I think you mean the Housing element was approved. Since the joint meeting of the Planning Commission & City Council was a study session for the G.P.U. no action was taken.

Anonymous said...

Re "weed abatement", this very issue is currently being discussed on Nextdoor. There IS a weed ordinance in Pacifica and it applies to private (and public) property.

Cutting and pasting from that discussion:

Sec. 5-25.03. - Public nuisance conditions.

The City Council finds and declares that it is a public nuisance and unlawful for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of any property within the City to maintain, or to allow or permit others to maintain, such property in such a manner that:

(B) Any one or more of the following conditions or activities, which are specifically declared to constitute public nuisances, are found to exist:

(6)Overgrown vegetation including, but not limited to, any one of the following:

(a)Vegetation likely to harbor rats, vermin and other nuisances;

(b)Vegetation causing detriment to neighboring properties, or out of conformity with neighboring community standards to such an extent as to result in appreciable diminution of property values; or

(c)Vegetation causing or adding to a fire hazard;

(d)Vegetation growing on or upon the roof of any structure.

(7)Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, weeds, and other vegetation that cause or contribute to any one of the following conditions:

(a)A danger to public health, safety and welfare; or

(b)Detrimental to nearby property; or

(c)Causing or adding to a fire hazard.

Kathy Meeh said...

Tom 742, good. Thanks for your clarification.

702, paragraph 1, last sentence should read: "The property was not named in the General Plan Housing Element, and the Housing Element was approved as delivered from the Planning Commission".

But, a comment was also added to the City Council approval. Anyone recall what what was?

Kathy Meeh said...

810, ha, well there it is contrary to City advisement at City Council.

But more than the laundry list of punitive measures, the City needs to act as a partner. Example, years ago when I lived in San Francisco, every year the City would burn-off the hill in back of our neighborhood property. That fire preventive measure, or alternative (such as bring-in the goats) doesn't seem to happen here.

Thomas Clifford said...

The Council added a statement that made clear the rent control status of the mobile-home park.

Anonymous said...

Most city have vagrancy laws also. I see a lot of wasters and vagrants hanging around town.

Has anyone seen our code enforcement officer lately?

Anonymous said...

Sadly, we don't have anti-vagrancy laws in this town. Apparently, precluding people from hanging around businesses and private property asking for money criminalizes homelessness. Whatever that means.

Anonymous said...

259 Bummer. Take it up with the Supreme Court. They've repeatedly found vagrancy laws to be too vague, unconstitutional, and unevenly applied.
Never happen here, right?

Anonymous said...

Pacifica having a housing element is like buying a brand new Ferrari and not having a driver license and not knowing how to drive.

Nothing will be built, Nothing!

jim said...

If you enjoyed camping as a child, then you can still enjoy it as an adult. There is no reason why you can’t get out there and make new memories if you know how to do it the right way. The following tips should be able to help you. | | | | | | | | |