1 Murdock, Christian
From: Cindy Abbott < >
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Support for Extending the Growth Control Ordinance (Item 2, Planning Commission April 18, 2022 Agenda)
[CAUTION: External Email]
To: Pacifica Planning Commissioners,
I was pleased to see that the Growth Management Ordinance is on the agenda for this evening's Planning Commission meeting (Item 2 of the Agenda), in advance of its current expiration (on June 30, 2022). I am writing today to express my strong support for the staff recommendation to extend the timing of the Ordinance for five years to June 30, 2027.
The Ordinance contains provisions requiring a public vote to re‐zone Agricultural and Hillside Preservation District parcels.
The citizens of Pacifica dedicated time and energy to enact these provisions and it was the voters who re‐ enacted the Ordinance by an overwhelming majority after a previous City Council allowed it to lapse in the early 1990’s. The GMO has remained in force since that time with prior commissions and council extending the provisions, as you are being asked to do today.
The Growth Management Ordinance is a critical tool for the City and upholds the community's longstanding commitment to ensuring responsible planning and care deeply about this Ordinance. I thank you in advance for voting to recommend its extension.
Cindy Abbott
West Sharp Park, Pacifica
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Jerry Clements < >
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:16 PM
To: Elizares, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Full Agenda - Apr 18, 2022 (Mon) - Planning Commission [CAUTION: External Email]
To all Planning Commissioners:
If the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council wish to avoid profound embarrassment, all these groups need to review the absurd formula contained in the HPD ordinance. It prohibits ANY DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER on our 8.5 acre parcel on Barton Place which has 300 feet of street frontage. Plans for two houses have been prepared showing minimum disturbance to the hillside, with the amount of grading for each house the same as for a normal swimming pool. The vast portion of the site remains "preserved".
I am resolved to engage the media with this entertaining and preposterous matter if the ordinance moves forward in its current form. Your Planning Department is aware of the implications of this formula but has steadfastly embraced it.
Jerry Clements
Registered Civil Engineer No.14030
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:43 PM Jennifer Elizares <[email protected]> wrote:
Please see the attached Full Agenda document for the following meeting:
Planning Commission
Regular
Monday, April 18, 2022 7:00 PM
2212 Beach Blvd, Pacifica, CA 94044
Download PDF Full Agenda | View Web Full Agenda
Document Modified: 4/13/2022 7:33 PM
Please note that the Full Agenda has NOT been finalized and changes may be made before the meeting date.
If you no longer wish to be included in this distribution list you can remove yourself through the meeting web portal or reply to this message. 1 Murdock, Christian
From: James Kremer < >
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 4:23 PM
To: Murdock, Christian; Woodhouse, Kevin
Cc: O'Connor, Bonny
Subject: Question about tricky legal wording in the GCO (Item #2 PC meeting) [CAUTION: External Email]
P.S. (pre‐script!) I was unable to find email for Ms Kenyon on the City web site; no hits at all for “Kenyon” even though the Legal page lists her by name. Would you please forward this. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
I have a technical – perhaps legal – question about the Growth Control Ordinance on Monday’s PC Agenda (Item 2). I was pleased to see a “redlined” version provided (well, blue lined! ϠϡϢ). It is clear that only minor changes of expiration dates is being proposed. I am pleased that this is being renewed, as the GCO is very important, along with the HPD.
I had trouble parsing the wording in Sec. 9‐5.08 HPD (and the previous on on Ag land, 9‐5.07). It seems ambiguous to me and while the legal interpretation may be clear, to me the English is not. I hope you can clarify it. & Perhaps the wording should be modified slightly to avoid confusion?
Here is the section at question with my own emphasis (indeed, redlined!). (there are parallel questions for Sec 9‐5.08 on Ag)
Sec. 9‐5.08. Hillside protection.
In order to maximize public participation in rezoning decisions concerning development of sensitive hillside lands, in order to preserve areas of open space where possible and to retain natural terrain by encouraging the concentration of dwellings and other structures on their sites, to help protect people and property from potentially hazardous conditions particular to hillsides, and to insure that development is compatible with the unique hillside resources of Pacifica, through June 30, 20271977:
1. (a) All land within the City which is zoned or designated Hillside Preservation District on the zoning maps of the City as set forth in Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter may not be rezoned out of the Hillside Preservation District without a vote of the people.
2. (b) The standards governing the Hillside Preservation District shall be the standards specified in the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 9 of the Pacifica Municipal Code on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, unless otherwise approved by a vote of the people. (§ 1, Ord. 604‐C.S., eff. July 8, 1993)
1. The key to my confusion is the specification of the “effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter”. Ch 4 of Title 9 is the HPD itself. Ch 5 of Title 9 is the GCO that we are reading.
Q: What is the intent of the word “this”? Note that the sentence itself points to Ch 4, i.e. the HPD. However, the context of this paragraph/section leaves open the possibility that it refers to Ch 5, the GCO. 2 This seems unfortunately ambiguous, and it may just be prudent to clean it up. However, I foresee a scenario where this ambiguity could cause real problems –
2. I have studied the HPD and have written City officials on it more than once. We all agree on its importance, but I feel that there are a number of places in the verbiage where small improvements could be made to eliminate ambiguity and provide definitions or clarification of critical terminology. I have suggested that this be addressed in the near future.
My question is: If the City Council were to make changes to the HPD to improve detailed wording and enforce the intent, how would such updates be affected by the “effective date...” that is specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) in this section (and Sec. 9‐5‐07)?
I think changes to the HPD require a public vote, so perhaps the “without a vote of the people” would be already have happened, so that the change in "this” chapter (GCO, Sec 9‐5) might somehow already be met? Still, it does seem to me to be unclear how changes to HPD would impact the intended “effective date” on one or the other "ordinance codified in this chapter."
Lastly,
3. The blue‐line changes in the new version extends the GCO to 2027. The prior version of the Ag section was 1997. But the prior version of the HPD section is shown as 1977. I’m just checking that this is not a misprint. I thought these updates were on a 5 year timetable, so the 20 yr lapse for Sec. 9‐5.08 seem surprising.
Again, I fully support the renewal of the GCO as well as the strong intent of the HPD. Thank you for addressing this important issue.
-- Jim
James Kremer
Pacifica, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. 1 Murdock, Christian
From: Dinah Verby < >
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:13 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Murdock, Christian; Dinah Verby
Subject: Planning Comm 4-18-22 (Item 2- Growth Management Ordinance) [CAUTION: External Email]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to support the extension of the Growth Management Ordinance (Item 2 of the Agenda) as recommended by staff.
I want to thank staff for bringing this item forward. The Ordinance contains provisions requiring a public vote to re‐zone Agricultural and Hillside Preservation District parcels.
The citizens fought for these provisions and it was the voters who re‐enacted the Ordinance by an overwhelming majority after a previous City Council allowed it to lapse in the early 1990’s.
Pacificans care deeply about this Ordinance and I thank you in advance for voting to recommend its extension.
Sincerely,
Dinah Verby
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Pacifica. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply.