City of Pacifica, Minutes, regular meeting of June 10, 2013, see pages 33 through 37. Who voted for which planning commissioner candidates. As I understand it, under the new system, Planning Commissioner tenure is reviewed annually. From the following City Councilmember votes, appointed candidates include: 1) Mike Brown, 2) Rich Campbell, 3) Jeffrey cooper, 4) Chuck Evans, 5) Josh Gordon, 6) John Nibbelin, 7) Sue Vaterlaus.
| Councilmembers: | |||||||
| Candidates | Len Stone | Mary Ann Nihart | Sue Digre | Karen Ervin | Mike O'Neill | Total | |
| 1 | Mike Bell | X | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Mary Brown | X | 1 | ||||
| 3 | Mike Brown | X | X | X | X | 4 | |
| 4 | Rich Campbell | X | X | X | X | 4 | |
| 5 | Tom Clifford | X | X | 2 | |||
| 6 | Jeffrey Cooper | X | X | X | 3 | ||
| 7 | Chuck Evans | X | X | X | X | 4 | |
| 8 | Allan Federman | X | 1 | ||||
| 9 | Josh Gordon | X | X | X | X | 4 | |
| 10 | William Keaney | X | 1 | ||||
| 11 | Celeste Langille | X | 1 | ||||
| 12 | Connie Menefee | X | 1 | ||||
| 13 | John Nibbelin | X | X | X | 3 | ||
| 14 | Victor Spano | 0 | |||||
| 15 | Sue Vaterlaus | X | X | X | X | 4 | |
| 16 | Lisa Villasenor | X | 1 | ||||
| Total possible votes: 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 35 | |
Posted by Kathy Meeh
43 comments:
Yeah, that's what I thought. Not even close. Thanks for trying Mike.
WTF? This is not OK. Unless that admin streamlining we heard Nihart did to the planning dept made the commission obsolete and powerless, this is really not ok. Really big bone to toss the nimbys. Big.
I like that Mike votes what he thinks is best, not what he thinks will get him the most votes or popularity.
Hopefully some of the old bad habits Len and Mary Ann learned from Vreeland and Dejarnette will slowly disappear. They need to break free from the past and stop trying to appease the hippies, control people and hide information.
Campbell was crystal clear during the City Council election about his anti development pro environment agenda. Mary Ann and Len should have never voted for him.
What's not okay about this? The city council, elected by a majority of Pacifican's, cast their votes for who they thought were the best candidates for the Planning Commission. Those appointed were almost unanimous and the decision was made in one round.
Maybe what's not clear to you is that the majority of Pacificans currently approve of the work of the city council.
Might be time to rethink the use of nimby; your approach of disagreeing with the planning commissions considered decisions that provide workable solutions to development that are respectful of open space and are appropriate for our environment, seems in the minority.
Anyone watch the meeting on the 17th?
Cooper & Nibbelin were very impressive. This group is a major improvement.
well, this is really a collision of Council ethics vs. politics. Appoint 3 violators of open government law nicely fits with the current secret taxpayer funded poll to sweet talk taxpayers into increasing their taxes for city services that don't need the money... politics wins...
A bit surprising that Campbell with his NIMBY background got elected. I agree Len and Mary Ann should not have voted for him.
1247 Anon, yes, O'Neill is a breath of fresh air in the political muck. As far as Nihart and Stone picking up bad habits from Vreeland and DeJarnatt, here we may be seeing the students far surpass the professors. Pete survived unscathed, true believers sometimes do, but look what it cost Vreeland. Everything.
I agree Cooper and John Nibbelin were impressive in the meeting. Impressive backgrounds, too. Dare we hope that they and Sue Vaterlaus will be functionally pro-development, cut through the crap, and that Chuck Evans turns out to be the swing vote? Kind of the Sandra Day O'Connor of the old Supremes. We better hope so.
Anon 1248 said "Maybe what's not clear to you is that the majority of Pacificans currently approve of the work of the city council."
Yes and we know that because of the highly accurate scientific poll that council had done. NOT!
@1248 Wow, that poll sure came in handy! Best $24,000 this council ever spent, right? But what 'considered decisions' by the planning commission are you encouraging people to embrace? I don't think we have any from the newish planning commission, so that leaves us with the old ones. You know, the ones that earned Pacifica it's anti-development reputation. Or, future ones, but with 4 retreads from an anti-development PC optimism for growth is premature. Yeah, I don't think we can discard the word 'nimby' just yet. And of course where 'nimby's' thrive, taxes follow. Looks like both are still alive and well in Pacifica. But you knew that from your poll, didn't you? Money well spent!
Looking for the minutes of their first meeting but probably too soon. Did notice that the July 1 meeting of the PC has been cancelled. Somebody else doing the scut work quicker and with less hold-ups or is there really no work for anyone?
Holy Crap!
Vreeland Council lives on.
Mike O'Neil, don't let them do to you what they did to Cal Hinton.
Wise counsel, Nyuk Nyuk. I always wondered who was really driving that SUV in front of Camelot.
1248 What's not clear to me is this quiet, kind of desperate complicity in this bullshit by people who should know better. If we backed the wrong horse, we backed the wrong horse. What we believed in shouldn't change.
What did they do to Cal Hinton?
In the Vreeland era--mocked him, passed over him for Mayor, etc.
They did treat him better after he was run down and nearly killed by a
sidewalk-jumping SUV in front of Camelot Fish and Chips while buying a Trib. I don't think Cal gave a rat's ass about how they felt about him.
Anonymous at 12:47pm said, "Campbell was crystal clear during the City Council election about his anti development pro environment agenda. Mary Ann and Len should have never voted for him."
Rich Campbell actually declared during his campaign that he was against "big box development" not all development. He particularly noted that he didn't support big boxes that would take from current existing local businesses.
Thanks goodness someone with this sensibility was reaffirmed to continue on the Planning Commission. Bravo to the four council members that voted for Rich.
Yes, we have so much tax revenue that we can afford to be extremely picky. NOT.
RC's fan wrote: Rich Campbell actually declared during his campaign that he was against "big box development" not all development. He particularly noted that he didn't support big boxes that would take from current existing local businesses.
Big boxes dont' make sense in Pacifica. There is no where for them to go. Noone is banging the doors looking around for Big Box sites, they are up the road though. Add 20000 to our population, the story begins to change. This was a really Specious remark. Even Don Peebles, who said, "if you defeat L, I'm' bringing Walmart.." could not deliver a stinkin big box.
Classic moments before the Pacifica Planning Commission.
I'm for development, but only the right kind of development.
I like the project but not for this location. Don't you have other property?
Make these changes and come back before us and we'll take another look, another look, another look.
What's the rush? You act like time is money.
I'm sorry. Your building casts a shadow. You'll have to fix that and come back.
Anonymous at 7:51pm said...
"Yes, we have so much tax revenue that we can afford to be extremely picky. NOT."
Ah. Hopefully the new planning commission doesn't think as 7:51 states.
We MUST be extremely picky. It is very difficult to undo poor development choices. Does Pacifica move slow (maybe yes, maybe even too slow) but would rather have slow growth than a vacant strip mall or an outlet mall.
Yes, we have so much revenue we can worry about business competition. How big of us! It'll never happen, but just one or two big stores would provide the sales tax and fee revenue we need plus hundreds of jobs for teens, seniors, FT, PT.
Pacificans and coastsiders could actually shop local, save gas and time. Maybe spend a little money in a Pacifica restaurant? Other businesses will open. Maybe more housing will be needed and built. Gawd! Before you know it, we'd have economic development and an economy.
The PC doesn't decide who makes sense as a business in Pacifica; businesses willing to invest in Pacifica decide who makes sense as a business in Pacifica.
People who try and keep out big box business are like the NIMBY geniuses who think we should be able to charge Colma for the tax dollars we spend over there -- obviously the logic of twirly dancers who never ran a business that didn't involve hemp.
"We MUST be extremely picky."
Says another hypocrite NIMBY who shops at Trader Joe's in DC and Costco in SSF.
Anonymous at 8:33pm said...
"Yes, we have so much revenue we can worry about business competition. How big of us! It'll never happen, but just one or two big stores would provide the sales tax and fee revenue we need plus hundreds of jobs for teens, seniors, FT, PT.
Pacificans and coastsiders could actually shop local, save gas and time. Maybe spend a little money in a Pacifica restaurant? Other businesses will open. Maybe more housing will be needed and built. Gawd! Before you know it, we'd have economic development and an economy."
Low wage paying jobs generally without benefits that are offered by big retailers selling cheap bulk products are one of the worst ways to build long term economic stability. Your "big stores" would could also put locally owned and operated business out of business as they undercut the competiton. Who wins in that scenario? the big retailers and the locally community loses big time.
What is it that you don't - can't find in Pacifica? Save your expensive gas and time by shopping locally. By not doing so you yourself are creating the economic woes of the city.
Deliver me from the yippies (yuppies with hippie understones) who don't want to live in a town with stores that sell bulk, mass-produced products, create jobs some people are happy to have, pay retail wages, attract customers, create competition, and contribute big bucks to our economy. Big bucks. It's bad enough I run into them over the hill at Target, Costco, TJ's where we're all dropping bundles of cash before going home to quaint, dying, decrepit Pacifica.
Anonymous said...
A bit surprising that Campbell with his NIMBY background got elected. I agree Len and Mary Ann should not have voted for him.
June 21, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Go back and read the people who endorsed Mary Ann and think this over.
Anonymous at 8:55pm said...
"We MUST be extremely picky."
"Says another hypocrite NIMBY who shops at Trader Joe's in DC and Costco in SSF."
You are incorrect Anonymous 8:55pnm. I don't shop at TJ's in DC or Costco in SSF. I shop locally at Oceana Market, Pacifica Farmer's Market, Coastside Farmer's Market and even the two Safeways here in Pacifica.
We must cut once and measure twice!
Sure, we believe you. Everyone's a saint when they're anonymous.
Anonymous said...
We must cut once and measure twice!
June 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Only after the consulants get paid $25,000 for the report which kind of saw to use.
RC's fan wrote: "Rich Campbell actually declared during his campaign that he was against "big box development" not all development."
I believe I recall Campbell saying during the campaign that he's not in favor of more residential development because he buys into the false premise of it not generating more taxes than it costs in services.
I'd say that qualifies as anti development.
754 very true. lots of overlap between Campbell voters and the Nihart, Ervin posse. scratch either nihart or ervin and you got a hippie in a yuppie package. small town, multiple seats to fill, it happens. of course this fact is blasphemy to some.
Hutch said...
RC's fan wrote: "Rich Campbell actually declared during his campaign that he was against "big box development" not all development."
I believe I recall Campbell saying during the campaign that he's not in favor of more residential development because he buys into the false premise of it not generating more taxes than it costs in services.
I'd say that qualifies as anti development."
It might also qualify as a true statement.
Hutch, and we see how well that worked for Mr. Campbell.
Planning Commission picks are proof that Council is either dishonest or political cowards.
Good luck Mike O'Neil. Don't sell out. You have a lot of people supporting you.
well campbell is still on the planning commission. he rec'd votes from digre, nihart, stone and ervin. all 4 voted to recycle 4from the old planning commission. that's so sweet.
Mike O'Neill does not disappoint. Can't say the same for the rest. I don't agree with him all the time, but he's an open and honest man who keeps his word. Knows who he works for. Watch your back, Mike.
@1215 no. they just revealed their real selves to a lot of people who believed the hype. nihart and ervin are closet hippies. stone either was brain-washed by nihart or some bargain was struck. basic everyday politics. some play, some don't.
For those of you wondering what Chuck Evans, did for work. He is retired from East Bay MUD.
Several comments relating to "not in favor of residential development not bringing in enough revenue."
There are numerous in-fill lots that are only suited for housing and I would expect that what people would want to see unless they approve of denying a property owner his/her right to build; I'm sure some do feel that way.
There are also a few large commercial parcels that should be encouraged for development to bring in that much needed revenue.
@538 That makes sense. Add some nice, new houses on those empty lots around town. Commercial growth isn't so easy. We're too small for the biggies that might give us real income and jobs and draw other business to us. So we're left with small business that goes into existing spaces and tends to fail on a pretty predictable cycle.
Post a Comment