Candidate Questionnaire : Would you support a detailed economic analysis of all Planning Commission, Planning Department, and General Plan land use decisions? Why or why not?

The Pacifica Chamber of Commerce submitted 12 questions to each of the candidates for Pacifica City Council. Every week we will be posting two questions, and the answers from each of the candidates.


Question 5: Would you support a detailed economic analysis of all Planning Commission, Planning Department, and General Plan land use decisions? Why or why not?


Gary Mondfrans – 2 Year Seat

The use of the word “all” here raises a concern in that such an analysis might become so onerous in and of itself as to become a detriment to what might otherwise may become a more streamlined approval process. A check-off in the review process similar to what is done with preliminary environmental reviews might be utilized instead in that projects which warrant further study due to significant negative and/or positive effects may warrant the need for either further study and/or enhancement.


Mike O'Neill – 2 Year Seat

Yes, like a great meal with several courses you need to have a great recipe and a mix of different spices. I would encourage sales tax, revenue generating businesses vs. the non taxable service businesses that are now the predominant business in Pacifica. I will push for an implement the full power of the City to proper planning. I will not be a doormat to anyone or anything. I am my own person and make my decisions. I will work cooperatively with all my fellow council members as I have with my fellow School Board members but will vote yes or no according to my beliefs and conscience. I am not afraid to ask questions of staff and will challenge staff or fellow Board Members if I have questions or concern. I am also willing to reach a consensus toward the common goal. A council that all think the same and do not discuss but rubber stamp is not good and a detriment to any progress in Pacifica. I will look at data, fiscal impact, sustainability, and benefits when making a decision.


Rich Campbell – 2 Year Seat

No. In general, I want to focus City staff on productive economic activity, not generating reports.


Victor Spano – 2 Year Seat

No. Who is going to pay for the analysis? We need to remove obstacles and barriers here, not erect new ones. A detailed Economic Analysis from a consultant is going to add $10,000 or more to a project cost. This kind of margin can make a project unfeasible. If you are going to have Economic Analysis, perhaps have requirement for larger projects...based on a threshold number of Square Feet proposed. (e.g. 8 or more housing units, 20,000 s.f. of commercial space, etc.)


Mary Ann Nihart – 4 Year Seat

Economics must be a component of land use decisions. However, a DETAILED analysis of “ALL planning commission, planning department, and general plan land use decisions” is simply not feasible. The cost and burden of this could be unfair to private landowners and unduly burdensome to the City. While I understand the sentiment, and strongly support making economics a part of the decision making process, I cannot agree with the extent and scope of the question due to the cost.


Susan Vellone – 4 Year Seat

Yes. The potential for economic growth does not need to be hindered. A progressive majority on Council can re-evaluate the Planning Dept. and Planning Commission, streamline and determine the proper course for economic stability. The current General Plan is not in line with this proactive process, reflects a different agenda, and is not good business for our community.


Karen Ervin – 4 Year Seat

Yes, it is important to have a clear and current evaluation of how viable the General Plan outlook is. Pacifica’s current economic plan is over 20 years old and we are currently developing a new one. Pacifica is over 50% open space; the land remaining needs to be properly zoned. We need a downtown and commercial opportunities.