Saturday, September 25, 2010

City Council incumbent commentary

Vote for change and city improvement  - No on Vreeland

I can’t help but wonder why anyone would even consider re-electing Jim Vreeland for City Council.  Take a look at our city streets, the vacant storefronts, reduced fire safety and police staffing, and the still unresolved old vacant wastewater treatment plant property sitting there for years. 

Surely, if Jim Vreeland has not been able to improve Pacifica in these past 8 plus years of serving on the council, what makes you think he will do anything if he is re-elected?  If ever there was a clear need for change, it is now.

Posted by Marian Yap

65 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

Same goes for Sue Digre. A nice lady who's accomplished nothing.

The Vreelanater said...

Where's his hard hat? You know, the one he likes to wear in front of construction projects he has nothing to do with.

Kathy Meeh said...

"X" nice touch, don't think that's what Vreeland had in mind with his check box.

Fresh & Easy said...

By the way Is the Fresh & Easy open.

You know the one Vrelander promised

Anonymous said...

If ever there was a clear need for term limits, it's now.
If term limits had been in place years ago, the whole council would have been replaced at this point.

Anonymous said...

Angel lawsuit, named defendant Mayor pro tem Jim Vreeland http://www.ibabuzz.com/insider/2007/08/03/whistle-blowing-pacifica-building-official-suing-city/

Anonymous said...

6 years to build a scateboard park http://www.skatepark.org/forums/index.php?f=7&t=1273&start=0&rb_v=viewtopic

Anonymous said...

Big plan to bring-in Fresh & Easy (a mini-Safeway single store), not much tax revenue, but not even that happened. http://freshneasybuzz.blogspot.com/2008/10/pacifica-ca-mayor-jim-vreeland-says-hes.html

Anonymous said...

Vreeland, wrong guy on all the right committees. This one County housing and economic development committee 2003. Could have been any year of 12-- too long in city council office.

http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/6875.hcedroster2003.doc

Term Limits would solve this problem.

Anonymous said...

Kudos to Jeff Simons for publishing the Vreeland Follies on his blog, look for all of them. http://jeffsbigmouth.blogspot.com/

Well the "Vreeland Follies Fog Fest Collector's Edition" contains all of the Follies editions. http://jeffsbigmouth.blogspot.com/2010/09/vreeland-follies-fog-fest-collectors.html

Please ignore SOME of the San Mateo County Democrat endorsements, which are what they are-- extreme and too far left. At least the County Democrats did not endorse Vreeland this time. They did endorse Barbara Arietta (Pacifica Democrats Club President) okay; but they also endorsed Sue Digre and Leo Leon (more Pacifica "failure-to-thrive") not okay.

Incumbent now Mayor Sue Digre has been in office 8 years, term limits would assure her removal this year. Vreeland who promised "everything to everyone" and ultimately delivered promises to those who want "nothing" would be gone 4 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Vote for Len Stone and Susan Vellone.

Anonymous said...

Don't agree with term limits for the same reason people want them. Remove the bums. What happens when we don't have "bums"? Always be carefull what you wish for.

Anonymous said...

Barbara is for the hotel tax?
Did someone find that out?
Wouldn't vote for her if that's true, no way.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon @6:02pm, this city is about to collapse financially. Mary Ann Nihart and Tom Clifford (and who knows what other candidates and non-candidates)are for increasing the TOT tax from 10% to 12%. The City Finance Committee included this tax increase (along with other taxes in 2011) in their supervised and controlled by the city Report to the city.

The incumbent 8+ year city council members are responsible for this city being placed in the position of financial collapse. Don't vote for them: Vreeland or Digre. Vreeland and Digre along with Lancelle and DeJarnatt caused this.

The position Barbara Arietta, Tom Clifford, Mary Ann Nihart and others who support this tax are taking is principled and prudent: to avoid city bankruptcy. City bankruptcy is the worst of all possible city economic solutions.

Similar to you and the position taken by the Chamber of Commerce this year, however, I think this city who put us (its citizens) into this economic bind will have to find another way to solve this city financial insufficiency problem.

I will be voting for Barbara Arietta, because she is highly qualified to be an effective city council member.

Steve Sinai said...

I won't vote for any new local taxes until I see who's on council. Since the makeup of the next council is unknown, that means "no" on the hotel tax.

If any two of Vellone, Stone or Arietta make it onto council, then we'd have a council majority (including Mary Ann Nihart) who I'd be willing to entrust new tax money to.

Markus said...

Right on, Steve! My thoughts exactly.

Anonymous said...

"The position Barbara Arietta, Tom Clifford, Mary Ann Nihart and others who support this tax are taking is principled and prudent: to avoid city bankruptcy."
That doesn't make any sense at all. $160,000 in projected and highly questionable revenue is going to stave off bankruptcy? What garbage.
More nonsensical garbage. Haven't we had enough of that? $160,000 doesn't even cover a top staff position.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon, that $160,000 here, and $50,000 there, and another $80,000 somewhere else adds up to money. Same as home budget.

That's not "garbage", that a plan that was developed by a Financial Committee appointed by this city council. Don't like the plan, don't blame those to are trying to save this city. Kick-out these incumbents. Now that's a plan! Clear enough now Kathleen?

Anonymous said...

Why did Jimmy V look so annoyed and disinterested last night during the City Council meeting?

He looked like he got his hand caught in the cookie jar once again

Anonymous said...

It is time for new COUNCIL. Having Jim V. re-elected again is not going to do us any good.

We just advocating for him to get elected in the county for something that he might done and wants to cover himself.

Vote no on him. Let's vote for new people.There is good candidates that seem to know more of what's going in the city.

Steve Sinai said...

I deleted a couple of comments containing personal attacks.

Kathy Meeh said...

Steve, thank you.

Anonymous said...

Vote for Len Stone and Susan Vellone.

Banker said...

CNBC RPT: Analyst Whitney tells CNBC: we do believe that state gov will make a greater strain on local gov. California will have another double dip in housing. states will continue to default on social contracts. 4th quarter is going to be very tough on the banks. Banks do have capital but are in a tough spot. if you bail out the states you weaken the economy. if you layoff in public sector you raise unemployment. eighty thousand layoffs in financial industry are coming. banks; massive layoffs ahead. certainly in the first quarter on 2011. financials just dont have a lot of bright spots in the future.

Anonymous said...

"Some companies that had big rounds of layoffs during the worst of the recession, such as drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., are still trimming work forces to bring down costs."

Private sector is getting ready for second round of big layoffs in 1q of 2011 to help pay for rising state costs and prevent public sector layoffs. These private sector layoffs will be nation wide. States will need to deal with any public sector layoffs.

Just a Joe said...

Ammo, Guns, Gold, Silver. Buy it all.

Anonymous said...

What do Len Stone and Susan Vellone propose to do to improve the situation?

Steve Sinai said...

Banker, Anonymous, et.al.,

I'm not going to let anyone abuse the blog by continuously posting the same thing over and over and over.

Ok, so you think we're going into a depression. You've had your say. Give it a rest.

Anonymous said...

Sinai and Todd Bray BFF's (Best Friends Forever)

Steve Sinai said...

You know it!

The Costanza said...

"What do Len Stone and Susan Vellone propose to do to improve the situation?"

They should do the exact opposite of whoever they replace did.
Can't go wrong with that plan.

Anonymous said...

do the exact opposite of the current council? so they should not approve every development that comes before them. they should not cut staff positions. they should not reduce expenses. they should increase taxes. can't go wrong with that plan. yeah, right.

Steve Sinai said...

They never approved Horizons. How many times did the Houmam project get thrown back to the Planning Commission before council finally approved it. Six or eight times?

Anonymous said...

is that the plan? approve every project on the first round regardless of whether it conforms to planning standards or is appealed?

Steve Sinai said...

The guy trying to reopen Horizon's was held up by the city for over 3 years before he gave up. And sending the little Houmam project back to the Planning Commission over a half-dozen times is ridiculous.

That's how the no-growthers stop economic development in town. Tangling people up in bureaucracy until they give up or run out of money is their standard operating procedure. They can stop development and still claim they never said "no" to a project.

Scotty said...

"whether it conforms to planning standards or is appealed"

You mean the project that was already unanimously approved by the PC twice?

What's your plan, anon? Beat down the only development being proposed in the midst of the worst economy in our lifetime? Be particularly NIMBY-ish since it's one of the few that contributes to the downtown Palmetto this town needs?

Tom Clifford said...

Steve, in the interest of accuracy, the replacement building for the Horizons was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in one hearing. The City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, approved it in one hearing. The Coastal Commission sent it back for some changes, which were made and approved as quickly as staff could get them back to the P.C. and the R.D.A. The project recently was granted an extension on its approvals by the Planning Commission. My understanding is that the investors hope to either build it at some future date or sell it as an approved project to a new developer.

The Houmam project was approved by the Planning commission in one meeting and appealed by the neighbor (also called up by Councilman Dejarnett). At the first City Council hearing, The neighbor asked for a continuance that the City Council granted. At the second City Council hearing, the City Council sent the project back to the Planning Commission with recommended changes. The Planning Commission made most of the changes and approved the project again. The neighbor appealed that approval and the item again went to the City Council. The City Council denied the appeal.

I spoke to Mrs. Houmam at the Fog Fest and they will be building soon. For the record, I thought it was a good project from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Clifford, thank you for presenting FACTS, not the biased crap being spewed by people on this blog.

Anonymous said...

"That's not "garbage", that a plan that was developed by a Financial Committee appointed by this city council."
So the council is all-evil, but its hand-picked committees plans' aren't.
I've got news for you: Crap is crap still.
In an election year, it's important to appear to be doing something. A figleaf such as this hotel tax, which means next to nothing in the overall picture, is being touted as a "first step."
It's a convenient crutch for would-be and present politicians to appear to be doing something. They aren't.
Where's the action on the EXPENDITURE side of the ledger?
Answer me that.

Kathy Meeh said...

I agree with you Tom, the Houmam project is good for the neighborhood. After all the fun in planning with the "neighbors", they got held up with increased park fees I understand.

Steve Sinai said...

Tom, of course this is all from the memory of my swiss-cheese-looking brain, but I was sitting in the council chambers, about ten feet behind the guy who was trying to reopen Horizons, when he was up at the podium complaining that it had been three years since he had first applied to reopen the building. He also talked about how much it was costing him in rent per month, and why he didn't want the process to keep dragging out. Sue Digre was complaining about there not being enough windows, and council tried to give it some kind of meaningless conditional approval. (I can't remember what the conditions were.) Three years from the time he started, and he still didn't have permission from the city to go ahead.

Unless I'm mixing up my projects, at one of the Houmam council meetings, I remember Vreeland asking how many times the Houmam project had been sent back to the Planning Commission, and Steve Rhodes said something like six or eight times. Of course Monica could let us know what actually happened. I do recall that the Planning Commission had approved the project.

Steve Sinai said...

Len Stone had mentioned at the PCT candidates forum that Goodfella's pizza spent two years waiting for permits to open a restaurant in a spot that didn't need any drastic improvements. When the Pacifica Athletic Center moved from Pedro Point to Crespi, the original owners couldn't open up for several months because they said they were waiting for permits. All the club members (including me) joined new clubs, and the owners declared bankruptcy.

These are two examples of how difficult the city makes it for anyone to build anything here.

Am I right in that the only commercial building that's been constructed from scratch in Pacifica in the last eight years has been Kragan? In a city of almost 40,000?

Scotty said...

How about the owner of El Toro Loco who has been trying to expand into the vacant tea shop next door for 1 1/2 years?! Ask that poor man about his trials dealing with the city sometime. He wants to turn a vacant storefront into a tax-producing entity, and he hits nothing but roadblocks and has all but given up.

And then the NIMBYs, after stifling any development of our existing unleased space, will declare that same unleased space as a reason that things don't need to be fixed. It's sickening.

Tom Clifford said...

Steve on the Horizon Project It sounds like we are talking about two differant projects. The reopening of the existing building for the same type of use whould not have come to the Planning Commission.

I am fairly sure the Houmam project went the way I remember it. Mr. Vreeland has asked Mr. Rhodes about other Items over the years to show that Council has had plenty of public input and is not rushing to judgment.Sometimes the prossess is like watching paint dry.
Goodfells,The fitness center,and El Toro Loco sound like Planning dept. issues.
I personally will look into what is happening with El Toro Loco tommorrow. This is the first I have heard about it. I too have suffered
delays because my applacation was found to be incomplete.
Anyone who is having permiting problems please talk to me I will do what I can to help clear up the log jam.

Lets not forget Walgreens, or the two retail units at the entrance to Cona Mara. Others have been approved but not built yet. The resturant next to the bowling alley for one.

Unknown said...

Didn't Gorilla BBQ on Highway 1 have delaying issues, too?

Anonymous said...

Luigi's pizza paid rent on his space for 2.5 years before they let him open also.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon 8:39AM, wow, with a small business imagine paying rent that long, then installing equipment, advertising and starting up a business 2.5 years later. Luigi may not have broken even yet.

Then, there's the bigger building projects. Example, after more than 3 years, through planning, passed by city council, the developer at Horizons (Rockaway and Highway 1) ran out of money and could not continue.

And, there are the several residential projects, passed planning and city council. No money left to build.

Moral to that story: Fees are too high, the process too long and too unfriendly. Compare to other cities. Pacifica is on the coast, that is one excuse-- but so is San Francisco, and so many other smaller cities.

Anonymous said...

No customers, honey.

Anonymous said...

Do you know that the City of Pacifica have many fees that don't make any sense? And yet they don't have proof in why they have certain fees..


First, let me share with all of the many applicants that are trying to present plans. Watch out. Question every single penny they are adding on and ask them, when and who approved this fees increase.

Second the reason I strongly believed in this town almost every single project gets appeal if because it only cost $ 100. Only . I did my researched to find out with others cities and I found out the cost is ten times more.For example: San Carlos $ 1000.00, Burlingame and Milbrae.

That tells you a lot . Pacifica is the Coast we need to convince Michael Crabtree that the city is loosing money. They should raise up the fee.

I know in the future, We the residents of Pacifica that wants growth in this town . Would like to see the old waste water treatment, the quarry, the highway empty lots develop but if the non-growth group get together and appeal a project for($100) and developer have to pay twenty times more. It is not fair.

Historically that is why a developer easily changes their mind to invest in Pacifica. I am hoping someday a very wise council member brings that in a fairness agreement that on the long run the only beneficiary will be the City of Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

"Moral to that story: Fees are too high, the process too long and too unfriendly."

Prove it. No proof, as usual, and you think that the council's hand-picked task force is right when the council itself is always wrong.
Try logic for a change, it's refreshing as a cold shower.

Tom Clifford said...

I checked on El Toro Loco today. They had an approved permit for a new stand-alone restaurant next door to their existing business in Nov. of last year. The financing fell through, and they came back to planning at the end of May with new plans to open the load-bearing wall between the two units and expand the existing restaurant. The plans came back June 3rd from plan check (done by the outside service that has been in place since Mike Angel left) as incomplete and with comments. The applicant has not come back in since.

I looked at their plans, and what appears to be missing was hold downs, post caps, metal straps and load calculations. Their engineer should have been able to give them revised drawings in a day or two at minimal cost.

I hope to talk to the owners in the next day or two and see if there is anything I can do to get this project back on track.

Anonymous said...

Thanks again, Mr. Clifford, for FACTS. The people complaining about the permit process taking too long never state the reasons why permits are not issued in each case. If they did, their process-is-too-long-and-too-unfriendly assertion would collapse for lack of evidence.

Heather Tanner said...

Tom:
I do think we need to make the permitting process streamlined, fair, efficient, and most of all easy to navigate for the developers who want to bring business to Pacifica. I fully support you since you seem willing to take a keen look at the process and see what has gone wrong and what can be done. Do you have thoughts on other things that could be done to streamline?

Whether the developers are submitting papers that have omissions or not, from the examples listed here, the process takes too long. What can we do to help the process remain efficient and yet become more customer-friendly for the developers? That is what I would like to know and something perhaps you and I could work in if we are elected. Either way, I will support this issue being resolved.

Steve Sinai said...

I agree with Heather. I've heard too many horror stories about the permitting gauntlet in Pacifica to dismiss it.

The only people who think the process is fine are the no-growthers.

Let us know what happens with El Toro Loco, Tom. I have to admit, it would be a nice change to have a council member who actually went out and personally tried to solve problems, rather than leaving things up to staff.

Tom Clifford said...

Heather, one thing comes to mind immediately, and that is to hire a counter person that can walk people through the process. Someone who can translate planning-speak into plain english and assist the applicants through the process,heading off potential problems and keeping the applicant from being overwelmed. This person would act as a liaison to the other departments (Waste Water Treatment, Engineering, Public Works, and the School Districts) that are often involved in a permit application. This solution would cost money, but I believe it would pay for it self with more completed applications.

Steve, I will keep everyone posted about El Toro Loco.

Heather Tanner said...

Tom: I like that idea. We should see if we can consolidate another position or do some furlough days or somehow come up with the money in the existing budget without adding additional money. We definitely need a more user-friendly process. Why would anyone want to develop here if it takes so long to get a dang permit approved? We're shooting ourselves in the foot on that one.

Anonymous said...

You're making the assumption that the fault is in the permitting process and not in problems with the permit applications, as in the case of El Toro Loco as Mr. Clifford explained. What is the specific evidence that it's the process that's the problem? Just because there are some cases that took a long time to get permits does not mean that the process is not working. I'm not saying it's fine, but how do we know that, for instance, having a counter person to walk people through will make a difference? How do we know that's the biggest problem in permitting? Developers don't need a counter person to help them. So are we saying the problem is that we need to help local small business get permits? Which is it? You can't solve the problem until you correctly identify the problem. That means you have to look at each example of why it took a long time to get permits and figure out what would have shortened the time. It may be that sometimes it's the applicant's problem to solve, not the permitting process.

Kathy Meeh said...

Pacifica is "#88 on the list of "Top 101 cities with the highest cost per building permit in 2004-2006 (population 5,000+)" from Pacifica City Data.

Somewhere in this discussion the question of planning fees came-up. Of course, there is a lagging time period on the data (2004-06), but the cost probably didn't get better and its high-- approximately in the top 13%.

Heather Tanner said...

One city council meeting I attended, they discussed raising the fees and nobody spoke up against it. This was awhile before I became a candidate.

I remember when I lived in SF, they used to have a lot of filming in the city - then someone on the board of supes decided it was a good idea to charge for a filming permit. They started adding on things to the filming projects... and Hollywood revolted. The board of supes wised up!

I would like to look at the permitting process, talk with developers, and find out what we can do to make it easier for developers to bring business in. If its the fees, we need to look at that. If its the confusion of the process, we need to look at that. It should be a gentle compromise - between what the developers need and the safety and health of our residents.

Steve Sinai said...

I'm interested in knowing how Pacifica compares to surrounding cities in things like - how long on average does it takes to process a permit; how many applied for permits actually result in something being built; how many approved permits actually result in something being built; the cost, etc.

Until someone does a study like that, we can only make guesses based on anecdotal evidence. My opinions are mostly based on what I hear, and simply seeing how little building takes place in Pacifica compared to other cities.

During the Measure D campaign, I remember that Pacifica was among the lowest cities in the county, if not the lowest city, when it came to statistics like amount of money raised from building permits and amount of permit applications per capita.

Anonymous said...

Where is the money going? Believe me the city of Pacifica collects tons of money for building permits.

Believe me. Also in addition to that there is a fee for the famous "GENERAL FUND" Who is following the money.

Just imagine if PEBBLES project went through all the city employees, council members police department, fire department rest of their gang will be in heaven.

Steve Sinai said...

"Where is the money going? Believe me the city of Pacifica collects tons of money for building permits."

No it doesn't. I'll hunt down the numbers over the weekend.

Unknown said...

Friends of mine went through a remodel of a house that was just a mess. Not only did they get the run around every time they showed up at the Building Department, they got different answers every time a question was asked. Every time something was changed because the department didn't require it at first, it cost them time and more money. Did they complain during or afterwards? No...because they feared any repercussions against them by those working in the building permit department.

Vreelandia said...

In Vreelandia permits are for you small people. I didn't get any permits for my remodel.

Anonymous said...

The General Fund pays for fire and police! That cost according to finance is nearly $17 million alone and mostly salaries and benefits. That is only $10 million for everything else roads, parks, senior programs, sliding hills, children's programs, maintenance, and more. Where does it go? It seems obvious.