Octopus Walks on Land @ Fitzgerald Marine Reserve (VIDEO)
Get Spacey

Environmentalists Fight Oddstad Assisted Living Center Project, but Planning Commission Approves It 4-1

I am part of an environmental group called Protectors of San Pedro Creek. We are trying to stop developers from constructing the multi-building, multilevel Oddstad Assisted Living Center at 721 Oddstad Boulevard in Pacifica. We are not against assisted living as such. It is just that this is the WRONG location! They want to build this where many semi-endangered and endangered species live: steelhead salmon, red-legged frogs, garter snakes, deer, bats, raptors, and more. 

Also, the construction period (up to two years) would severely and negatively impact the mating habits/cycles of these creatures, quite probably upsetting or curtailing this activity, causing their extinction. If this project were allowed, the added air, land, and water pollution would be truly devastating, not only to the aforementioned wildlife but also to residents of the area.    

Read the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) and final draft environmental report (EIR), both at Sanchez Library, Planning Commission office (1800 Francisco Boulevard), and online at the city website (www.cityofpacifica.org). Contact Kathryn Farbstein, assistant planner, at 650-738-7341. Of course, we have many issues with the accuracy of these official statements and findings.
 
RICH ZIPKIN

(Editor's Note: On November 21, the Planning Commission approved the project 4-1, with Commissioner Leo Leon opposed. The project now goes to City Council.)

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Like one of those three-way trades in professional sports? Prior to sale of Coastside Scavenger, city agrees to a series of rapid rate increases with Recology, Recology agrees to pay $800,000 too much for CS, CS pays $800,000 owed to city? Or...?

Whether or not all the facts come to light, maybe the smell will go away in the fullness of time.

Post it on the Web if you want it confirmed. Like the mysterious consultant's report on the sewage overhaul, it's missing in action.

Don't tell me what to do; prove what the claims are in a public manner, posted on the Web.

Lionel: It has publicly been stated by city officials (City Manager, Councilperson Pete DeJarnatt, Councilperson Mary Ann Nihart) that the past-due fees were paid by the owner of Coastside Scavenger Company before the transfer was made -- BY LOUIE PICARDO AND NOT RECOLOGY. Call Ann Ritzma or Sandra McClellan at the Finance Department and they will verify for you. PLEASE do not continue to put out inaccurate information. I can no longer feed into your "theories" so happy holidays.

"For the 500th time, it was a sale of one company to another. I guess this does not work into your 'theories.'"

Chris, I don't recall the 499 other times you said this. Maybe that's what Recology wants the ratepayers to believe, but Coastside Scavenger was in breach of its contract with the City of Pacifica to the tune of $800,000.

There is no public record that the city (read: the ratepayers) didn't just eat the $800,000 while Recology picked up one fat contract for the highest residential and commercial garbage collection rates in San Mateo County.

It's a beautiful thing, if you're Recology. Ratepayers be damned.

Todd, personally I am just lovely but don't understand what your problem is. Happy holidays.

Chris, I don't understand your bitterness. You have a great job that is protected, you get to play housey with all your Chamber friends, and you live in a relatively safe, clean, nice environment. Why are you so angry about that?

The City of Pacifica funds the Visitor Center, not the Chamber of Commerce, and $10,000 for a year does not even fund a quarter of the year's Visitor Center expenses. Thanks for telling me how I still have a job.

Chris, it's a sale with a municipal contract that guarantees a profit over cost. Part of the deal was that you kept your job. You are also the president of the Chamber of Commerce, which receives public funding from the city general fund. Rather than rant and point fingers at residents who are engaged in their community, for free, try being grateful, just a little.

"I guess since the stream is already trashed -- per Mr. Shafer -- maybe it's okay if you just cement over it?"

Ms. Jana: With all due respect, please reread my comment. What I said was, "Is it possible the development will help prevent the creek from being trashed?" Meaning that it won't be a hangout, a "camp," or a dog-walking area if it is developed.
I snorkel frequently and my kids surf and boogie-board near the creek mouth; I don't want to see the creek polluted.
I can't seem to find in the EIR where the creek will be cemented over?

For the 500th time, it was a sale of one company to another. I guess this does not work into your "theories."

"I always am amazed that these court cases are usually done pro bono or on a contingency basis. If any of these people had to use their own money, I wonder how far they would go?"

Without public-interest law firms, they would, of course, go nowhere, which serves the interests of the firms such as Recology, and developers in general. So Chris, you're an advocate of cutting off the public's access to the courts to fight and/or challenge what they see as overstepping and/or illegal action as regards actions by private interests or public agencies?

Seeing as how you benefited by the backroom deal giving Recology the garbage contract, I can understand your position.

That's funny -- it's the same address where a small greenhouse/plant business was virtually forced out (no sign permitted by Council).

Again, I am sorry I posted a comment. I have an opinion that has nothing to do with the garbage.

That's a really funny comment, Chris, considering that the City of Pacifica and Recology concluded a backroom deal over the sale of Coastside Scavenger.
Y'all thought you were going to get away with it, and in large part you have, with the able assistance of the City Council, which passively sits astride as ratepayers are raked, bigtime.

What's it to you, Chris?

It seems that environmentalists, or NIMBYs masking themselves as environmentalists, always attempt to tie things up in court if they are outvoted or a good managed project is passed on merit with all mitigation of environmental concerns covered. I always am amazed that these court cases are usually done pro bono or on a contingency basis. If any of these people had to use their own money, I wonder how far they would go?

I agree with Lionel. Foregone conclusion. Opponents will need to seek legal remedies.

I guess since the stream is already trashed -- per Mr. Shafer -- maybe it's okay if you just cement over it?

The project will be approved by a unanimous vote of the council.
That's 100 percent certain, IMO. It has nothing to do with the merits or demerits.

Put the project in the backyard of the developer and see if they still approve it.

I feel this is an ideal space for this type of project, walking distance from shopping, church, and other assisted-living buildings. This was previously a working "greenhouse" agricultural pursuit and now is used for people walking their dogs. What type of runoff into the creek do you think that causes? I don't feel deer are an endangered species, even in this area. The sightings are year-round on Sheila Lane, a road I travel every day. I am tired of hearing this is "a good idea, but not in this spot." Pacifica has more than 50 percent open space and the Assisted Living Project addresses the environmental issues. This project needs to go forward.

Just a reminder that the Assisted Living Center project is coming before the Planning Commission on Monday.

Mr. Zipkin states that endangered or semi-endangered species including deer will be affected. Deer? Endangered? C'mon!
Have any counts actually been done to see if there are in fact any true endangered species, or is this just an assumption?
This area is down the street from me; it is behind Park Mall. The creek in this spot is now sometimes trashed; possibly by homeless folks or kids (just my guess, not a proven fact). Is it possible that the development could actually help prevent that?
I have no stake in this project, but I do always appreciate a factual discussion.

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the proposed building site at 721 Oddstad Boulevard should go over there and check out the location. I'm really surprised and disappointed that this property is even being considered.

Good project, wrong location.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)