Wednesday, August 14, 2013

New Planning commissioners, who are they, and their view of city development

City Council recently named three new planning commissioners -- Sue Vaterlaus, Jeffrey Cooper and John Nibbelin. 
Sue Vaterlaus, 2007 Realtor of the year
Sue Vaterlaus Realtor of the year, 2007

Sue Vaterlaus.  "The Pacifica Tribune's first profile spotlights Sue Vaterlaus. A longtime Realtor, Vaterlaus, 59, has served on many city committees and has kept herself informed about local issues. She's been an outspoken member of the community since 1979, and active on civic committees where plans and projects have been discussed for a couple decades.   ....  She wholeheartedly approves of the proposed Beach Boulevard development on the former wastewater treatment plant site."  Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff. 7/30/13.  "New planning commissioner looking forward to providing balance."  Read article.

Related -  Sue Vaterlaus, 2007 SAMCAR Realtor of the year.  The most honored award of the evening was presented to Sue Vaterlaus, who Gieseker described as a “go-to person, a person who has given a tremendous amount of time and energy to the community, and always helps our professionals. She always does what she can to help everyone. Most of all, she has kept her integrity. She is trustworthy and honest and has consistently demonstrated her commitment to the SAMCAR community.”   San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR) News, 12/14/07.  Photograph above from SAMCAR annual association installation of officers and awards event.
Jeffrey Cooper, Esq.
(Licensed Attorney)
Jeffrey Cooper.  ...."... In the next year I hope to see continued development of the new library and surrounding areas, movement towards a plan on the development of the old Oddstad school site, continued interest in residential and business construction, and some interest in the development of the quarry. ....I am the vice president of Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc., specializing in construction management services primarily for pubic agencies. Our specialized general contracting division provides environmental remediation services. I am a licensed attorney specializing in schedule delay analysis and claims."   Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff, 8/13/13.  "New planning commissioner encouraging investment in Pacifica."   Read article.  Note:  photograph from this article.

Note:  The Jane Northrop, Pacifica Tribune new Planning Commissioner John Nibbelin article reprint will follow when available.  

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Big deal. If no one wants to invest in town, the planning commission is irrelevant.

Don't mention Harmony @1, until they actually pay for the in lieu fee and get the roads and infastructure in.

Anonymous said...

True 1037, but you know how it is. We're so starved for any kind of progress in Pacifica that we get way ahead of ourselves with even the smallest scrap of encouraging news. Should some kind of actual development materialize, we at least now have a few planning commissioners who get it. Let's hope their common sense prevails.

Anonymous said...

I smell a library, and that's about it. Was it a box on the application form for planning commissioner?

Anonymous said...

Library=$35+ million dollars.

What part of Pacifica is broke and can not pay this bond money back do you people not understand.

Pacifica is over 100 million dollars in debt.

Anonymous said...

What is the point of library when you can go browse on the web for all the content and digital copies from other libraries?

Another wasteful move for lining the pockets.

If they actually gave that money back to tax payers perhaps people would actually want to move to Pacifica and help the economy.

Anonymous said...

It's vanity, baby, vanity. That, and a little self-help psychology. There's very little we can do today to escape our heritage of poverty, but let's build ourselves a fancy new library and we'll feel better. You know, you lost your job, the dog ran off, your wife's mother is moving in, but damn! that's a nice new car in the driveway.

Tom Clifford said...

Give back money to the taxpayers!!!
An I thought I lived in a fantasy world.

Hutch said...

I understand that this is much more than a library. It's a state of the art meeting area and new council chambers. But we just can't afford to waste prime beachfront real estate on non commercial space. City council can meet in the community center for all I care.

Put in more retail space or residential not a library.

Anonymous said...

The same 4-5 people are the only taxpayers who go to city council meetings.

When the numbys have a reason to go whine to council they all show up.

Anonymous said...

The cheerleaders for the UUT are making the rounds doing their best to educate the voters on why they should support this shameless scam of a tax. Yes, it's all about education. Yup. Propaganda delivered with the personal touch. It still smells like 2 week old fish no matter who delivers it. Gosh, why do I think this is the same gang that will hustle the library bond? That's a big No on both.

Anonymous said...

Here is a better idea:

Re-zone all the area around Palmetto as commercial usage/special use zone (most of it is already Commercial usage).

(From Lands End apartments up to the Pier -- also known as the most scenic part of Pacifica with the most derelict and tasteless construction)

Allow construction of high rises along the coast in that part of Pacifica.

Provide tax moratoriums for businesses. Maybe for Bio-tect, Greentech and IT.

Focus on fixing the public transportation systems:

To the SF airport
To nearest BART
To the nearest Caltrain

And then see what happens to Pacifica!

Anonymous said...


Did you just drink the bong water again, or do you want to give "the gang of no" massive strokes.

The only way the city could pull this off is to condem all the crappy properties and start over.

At one time the plan was to wipe out the residential from Beach Blvd. to Palmetto and rebuild it.

This was right around the time when Bart was buying up the properties for the Daly City Bart Station.

Anonymous said...

"Allow construction of high rises along the coast in that part of Pacifica." Are you effing NUTS?! What part about building on eroding bluff tops do you not understand?

Anonymous said...

1203 and what part of abusive language do you not understand.

Anonymous said...


Building on eroding bluffs is an engineering problem. And as far as engineering problems go, we know we can build offshore rigs in deep water.

So high rises that have well engineering and deep foundations are better suited for our coastline rather than the current derelict housing and poor management.

The following could also help:

1) allow offsets from the cliffs. No building within 100 ft or some distance from the cliffs.

2) sink a few old boats and/or concrete blocks along the coastline to help the reef and tide pool inhabitants

3) disallow humans from accessing the beaches along palmetto/esplande. Hopefully this will bring back the sea lion/seal breeding back to the beaches

This way you have both environment and economy.

It is simply utter mis-allocation of resources to have a RV park and a Safeway and run down apartments on what is possibly the most beautiful stretch of real estate that is already connected to the outside world.

Hutch said...

We already have a plan for Palmetto. It started this year with under grounding of utility wires, then comes millions in street beautification, street lamps trees, landscaping, maybe a banner etc.. Construction and business will be attracted. Then hopefully the old WWTP will be a great restaurant and hotel by then.

Scrap the new library though.

Anonymous said...

@ Hutch

Why waste tax payers money on under ground wiring, street lamps, trees etc?

Appropriate re-zoning would attract business who would then invest in the beautification process.

Did the govt beautify Disney world? Its not in the mandate of govt to come up with subjective execution of what people want. Leave that to the people.

Government should help people to execute their projects and get out of executing the projects. That is it should stay in the business of governance and serving the people.
People know what is best for them.

Anonymous said...

Sure, the south end of Palmetto will look better but these pockets of cosmetic changes really only benefit the immediate neighborhood. That's reason enough to do it, particularly if someone else pays the bill. But Palmetto will remain an eyesore and a monument to really bad zoning. To change Palmetto enough to change Pacifica would require funds and expertise this city lacks. And then there's the problem of political will. As far as the state-of-the-art library with council chambers goes, the CA Coastal Commission will decide the fate of that entire farce. Easy to now see the city's thought process though...if the CCC mission is public access, hey kids, let's put up a public building! God help us.

Anonymous said...

Vreeland is gone but his dream of a seaside council chambers lives on, and is embraced by all manner of folk, not all of whom would embrace Mr. Vreeland. To be honest, some of them wouldn't have pissed on him if he burst into flame right in front of them. Be that as it may, this is how communities come together...behind a dream. Kumbaya, baby.

Anonymous said...


There is still no real reason to go down to Palmetto.

Hutch said...

Anon said "Why waste tax payers money on under ground wiring, street lamps, trees etc?"

This is what cities do in case you hadn't noticed. Every street lamp, tree and street furniture in every city was put there by the city.

Sharp Park & Palmetto is a cute beachy area with a lot of potential. I know you can't see that stuck in that back of a boring valley with cookie cutter houses. I'v lived in both places and I prefer West Sharp Park.

But it doesn't matter much what you think. Just sit back and watch.

Anonymous said...


Well, I have a piece of property in Pacifica. And the city wants me to:

1) Pay for the road access to my property (even though I'd be happy driving my 4-wheeler on the dirt road and I am the only person on that length of the street)

2) Have proper side walks on both sides of the road (never mind that I am the only resident on that street)

3) Pay for water and sewer infrastructure to my property

4) Pay for light fixtures on the street for my safety.

This, even though my property is on a city designated street. And even after I am prepared to explicitly absolve the city of any liability.

So I guess, its different rules for different people.

Or perhaps you have some explanation ..

Anonymous said...

602 He has a dream. As I understand it, if we choose to believe council, this dream costs Pacifica nothing. That's a bug ugly neighborhood, so if we can improve the visuals of a tiny section of it, for free, what's the harm? Not going to be a business or visitor magnet for anything other than the small stuff that's already struggling there.

Anonymous said...

That cute beachy area seems to be attracting some real undesirables, carloads of them in fact, on Sunday afternoons. Late in the day and complete with their canine of choice. Families seem to keep their distance. Maybe it's just a fluke, right? Not the kind of "banner" Pacifica needs.

Anonymous said...

6:43 so we'll color the eroding cliffs and dance around a fire.

Eco tourism!.

Nevermind that people and their dogs get on the beach and scare away the sea gulls, crabs and other beach dwelling critters ... not to mention pollute it

but hey, we must absolutely protect that red legged frog and garter snake!!!

Hutch said...

@ 602, You're talking two completely different things. You would have a brand new street going only to your property. We are talking about an existing city street. Either way landowners are usually responsible for sidewalks.

@643 Check the police logs. Seems like more serious crime (including our recent bloody murder) happen in Linda Mar not Sharp Park.

Anonymous said...

No interest in your adolescent battle of the 'hoods. The point is that when you have an area to which you wish to attract visitors and their money, it matters who else is using the area. I don't take my family to places where thugs hang out. Won't be spending any money there, either. You got some thugs visiting Sharp Park Beach. LMBeach? More of a surfer and kids vibe.

Anonymous said...


Back of Linda Mar Valley gets much nicer weather then Palmetto.

Plus we don't have trailer parks and wrecking yards and a zoning nightmare from hell.