Friday, November 20, 2009
Planning Commissioners Hold First Hearing About Big Wave Project
Montara Fog: WRITTEN BY DARIN BOVILLE: THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2009 18:35
The room was packed at a Planning Commission “informational hearing” for the Big Wave office park/sanitarium complex that is proposed for the Moss Beach/Princeton harbor area.
Big Wave is the controversial 300,000 square foot development made up of a 75,000 sanitarium for the developmentally disabled and a 225,000 office/R&D/manufacturing park adjacent to it.
The hearing was intended to examine the environmental report on Big Wave and to uncover and identify deficiencies in the report.
About two thirds of the audience was made up of Big Wave supporters, many of whom are on the Big Wave development team or are potential beneficiaries of the sanitarium. Those opposed to the project were made up almost entirely of midcoast residents.
The hearing opened with a presentation by county staffer Camille Leung who gave a detailed outline of the proposal, followed by the development team of Big Wave. The next several hours were dedicated to comments from the public, with two minutes alloted to each speaker, though some were given extra time.
The hearing video, pdf and movie links for the presentations can be found on Montara Fog. You can open these in a separate window and follow along with the speaker in the video.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Orderly Growth
Petaluma pioneered the time-controlled approach to development. Because of the region's soaring population in the sixties, the city enacted the "Petaluma Plan" in 1971. This plan limited the number of building permits to 500 annually for a five year period beginning in 1972. At the same time Petaluma created a redbelt around the town as a boundary for urban expansion for a stated number of years. Similar to Ramapo, New York, a Residential Development Control System was created to distribute the building permits based on a point system conforming to the city's general plan to provide for low and moderate income housing and divide development somewhat equally between east and west and single family and multi-family housing.
The stated objectives of Petaluma's time controlled growth management were to ensure orderly growth; to protect the city's small town character and surrounding green space; to provide a variety of housing choices; and to maintain adequate water supply and sewage treatment facilities.
The controlled development plan attracted national attention in 1975 when the city was taken to court by the Construction Industry Association. The city's restriction was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1975 and the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in 1976.
Paper White
The stated objectives of Petaluma's time controlled growth management were to ensure orderly growth; to protect the city's small town character and surrounding green space; to provide a variety of housing choices; and to maintain adequate water supply and sewage treatment facilities.
The controlled development plan attracted national attention in 1975 when the city was taken to court by the Construction Industry Association. The city's restriction was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in 1975 and the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in 1976.
Paper White
Some experts don't think the Sycamore Ridge model is best for the developmentally disabled
By Jennifer Johnson | news@onlineathens.com | Story updated at 12:19 am on 8/5/2009
"Having this here is going to take resources and attention away from people in the community," said Jenny Manders of the Institute on Human Development and Disability, a federally-funded agency at UGA that advocates to keep developmentally disabled people living in their own homes and a part of the community. Organizations like the Statewide Independent Living Council and the Georgia Advocacy Office agree and are opposed to the facility.
"Having this here is going to take resources and attention away from people in the community," said Jenny Manders of the Institute on Human Development and Disability, a federally-funded agency at UGA that advocates to keep developmentally disabled people living in their own homes and a part of the community. Organizations like the Statewide Independent Living Council and the Georgia Advocacy Office agree and are opposed to the facility.
Winterville planners won't back new class of zoning
By JENNIFER L. JOHNSON Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald Wednesday, November 04, 2009
WINTERVILLE - The Winterville Planning and Zoning Commission voted Monday night to recommend that the city council not adopt a new zoning class that would allow assisted-living communities.
The proposal for an "assisted residential district" would accommodate Sycamore Ridge, a proposed community for developmentally disabled people. A nonprofit proposed building the community on an 87-acre tract of land stretching from Parkview Drive across to South Main Street that supporters hope to buy.
"I've heard no one give me - not one - one concrete example of how the city of Winterville benefits from such a district," said commission member Jack Eisenman, who voted to recommend denial. "This, I think, would compromise tremendously the (city's) comprehensive plan."
Georgia communities are required to prepare comprehensive plans every 10 years; Winterville's plan was last adopted in April 2008.
After trying to rezone the tract of land - and failing because the existing zoning classes don't include a use like Sycamore Ridge - supporters worked to create a text amendment to Winterville's zoning codes to allow a development like theirs.
Lee Carmon, a Northeast Georgia Regional Development Commission planner hired to advise city leaders, said the proposed district doesn't fit into the city's land-use plan and its terms are vague.
"This proposed zoning district doesn't fit with any of the character areas in its comprehensive plan," Carmon said. "It's not a tightly written ordinance."
Jon Williams of Williams and Associates, the firm that drafted the text amendment and spoke for Sycamore Ridge, heard Carmon's assessment for the first time Monday night.
"I'm sure that I can work with her and add things to the zoning amendment," said Williams. "A community like this could definitely be beneficial to the city of Winterville. We just ask that you keep an open mind."
The proposed zoning district would allow commercial, agricultural and retail facilities on the property, Carmon said, a fear that other speakers echoed.
"We don't have any guarantees about what's going to go there," said Wintervillian Nikki Crew.
Sycamore Ridge's plans include family-style cottages with private rooms for residents and businesses like a garden center, an artist market and a cafe that would be open to the public, but provide meaningful jobs for the developmentally disabled adults living there.
Citizens worried that if Sycamore Ridge fails, a commercial or industrial buyer might turn the property into something bad for Winterville.
But the people who drafted the proposed district worked to make sure that wouldn't happen, Williams said.
"If the community goes away, there can't be a McDonald's on the site, or a vegetable stand on the site," said Williams. "Everything that is specifically enunciated in this zoning district is there for the benefit of the developmentally disabled people that will reside in this community."
Commission member George Chandler recommended that Sycamore Ridge supporters look for a tract of land in Clarke County, though he recognized the need for services for developmentally disabled people.
"We want to stay a single-family residential community," said Chandler.
The decision to deny the proposal was not unanimous. Commission member Shawn Kotch voted against recommending denial, and commission Chairman David Dreesen abstained.
"I try to keep a very open mind," said Dreesen. "If I was required to vote, I think I'd almost have to flip a coin."
The commission voted on the merits of the proposed zoning district, and not on the merits of Sycamore Ridge's program, according to Dreesen.
Sycamore Ridge supporters were disappointed with the commission's recommendation, but haven't given up.
"We really feel that this concept, as written, is in keeping in your comprehensive land-use plan, at least in spirit," said David McKenna, one of the people who proposed Sycamore Ridge. "We need to work on the words."
Williams plans to approach the mayor and city council at its workshop meeting Dec. 1, the first time the council will take up the zoning proposal.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sierra Club Letter
LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER
San Mateo - Santa Clara - San Benito Counties
November 15, 2009
Ms. Camille Leung, Planner
San Mateo County, Planning and Building Department
455 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
cleung@co.sandmateo.ca.us
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Big Wave Wellness and Office Park Project.
Dear Ms Leung:
We are writing to inform you that the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Coastal Issues Committee has a high number of concerns regarding the scope and feasibility of this purported “economically and environmentally sustainable community development” project. That this project envisions the largest business park and residential complex in the history of the San Mateo County Coastside, yet is to be situated on top of geologically unstable land containing historic wetlands and a high groundwater table which was converted to minor agricultural use just three years ago (with the addition of a great amount of fill added to its southern portion), and that it borders a known Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and coastal resource in Pillar Point Marsh through which an earthquake fault runs and is within the mapped Tsunami Area and100 year FEMA Flood Zone adjacent to the Half Moon Bay Airport, with potential hazards from aircraft operations are just the most obvious of the problems that we see.
We think there are several commendable aspects of this project, most notably the “Wellness” and green building aspects, but we also think the project itself suffers from a lack of answers to a host of obvious questions and what appear to be false assumptions on the part of the proponents. The most obvious question is: Why plan this development in an area nearly devoid of infrastructure or public services? For example, contrary to the developers’ stated assumption that most traffic would come from the north, it is far more likely to come from the other direction where the bulk of the Coastside population is concentrated. This being the case, it strongly contradicts the traffic analysis because entry and egress from the southern route along serpentine Capistrano Road and Princeton’s tiny roads is clearly not suitable for the infusion of the thousands of projected trips per day. Moreover, even if the developers are right in predicting that the bulk of traffic would come from San Francisco instead, this clearly runs counter to the goals of AB 32 and AB 375 mandating no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the way to plan for the future.
Perhaps our key concern is the lack of piped-in water, relying on wells and a plan to recycle and recharge the groundwater instead. This is near the major wells from which Coastside County Water District draws 30% of its local water in serving the towns of El Granada and Half Moon Bay, yet aside from questionable assumptions regarding cutting daily use in half (to 5000 gpd) during drought years, next to nothing is known or said about the cumulative impact on the public resource, let alone this private use. There are other disturbing concerns raised by the careless projections of water use per day that do not pass close scrutiny. In the face of the looming drought cycle projected for California, cavalier projections could come back to devastate this development, if built, and have a big cumulative impact on the nearby residents in significant ways not addressed in this report.
Another related key concern is the lack of sewer infrastructure, with reliance instead on a septic system installed in land with a water table reported to be from three to eight feet of the surface. What will be the impact on the water quality of Pillar Point Marsh and the marine area on its western side during storms, or just considering the normal runoff from perpetually flooded areas? which is what high groundwater produces. Stanford Professor Alexandria Boehm published research in March of this year “Septic Tanks Affect Coastal Water Quality,” stating, “our project is one of the first in California to show definitively that septic tanks can affect coastal water quality through submarine groundwater discharge.” The California legislature recently directed the Water Resources Control Board (AB 885) to establish regulations on California septic systems. The DEIR does not acknowledge, let alone address this issue. A system-wide septic system management plan for the Midcoast should be required to meet this objective, and without such, the burden of proof that the Big Wave septic system would not be detrimental to groundwater and ocean water would have to be much higher than presented in the DEIR.
The Coastal Issues Committee is part of Sierra Club Loma Prieta’s Conservation Committee, and we are compelled to remark that the known occurrence of the Red legged frog around the Big Wave property merits closer attention than specified in the DEIR. It is our belief that the fill brought onto the western portion of the property three years ago, most notably close to Pillar Point Marsh, probably covered estavation areas long used by this Species of Concern. If development were to proceed as planned, careful mitigation and monitoring for this species is a minimal requisite.
This letter highlights some of our committee’s key concerns with the DEIR, but not all of the ones we saw in the report that we may still want to address later during this comment period.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment.
Respectfully,
Ken King
Co Chair
Sierra Club
Loma Prieta Chapter
Coastal Issues Committee
San Mateo - Santa Clara - San Benito Counties
November 15, 2009
Ms. Camille Leung, Planner
San Mateo County, Planning and Building Department
455 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
cleung@co.sandmateo.ca.us
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Big Wave Wellness and Office Park Project.
Dear Ms Leung:
We are writing to inform you that the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Coastal Issues Committee has a high number of concerns regarding the scope and feasibility of this purported “economically and environmentally sustainable community development” project. That this project envisions the largest business park and residential complex in the history of the San Mateo County Coastside, yet is to be situated on top of geologically unstable land containing historic wetlands and a high groundwater table which was converted to minor agricultural use just three years ago (with the addition of a great amount of fill added to its southern portion), and that it borders a known Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and coastal resource in Pillar Point Marsh through which an earthquake fault runs and is within the mapped Tsunami Area and100 year FEMA Flood Zone adjacent to the Half Moon Bay Airport, with potential hazards from aircraft operations are just the most obvious of the problems that we see.
We think there are several commendable aspects of this project, most notably the “Wellness” and green building aspects, but we also think the project itself suffers from a lack of answers to a host of obvious questions and what appear to be false assumptions on the part of the proponents. The most obvious question is: Why plan this development in an area nearly devoid of infrastructure or public services? For example, contrary to the developers’ stated assumption that most traffic would come from the north, it is far more likely to come from the other direction where the bulk of the Coastside population is concentrated. This being the case, it strongly contradicts the traffic analysis because entry and egress from the southern route along serpentine Capistrano Road and Princeton’s tiny roads is clearly not suitable for the infusion of the thousands of projected trips per day. Moreover, even if the developers are right in predicting that the bulk of traffic would come from San Francisco instead, this clearly runs counter to the goals of AB 32 and AB 375 mandating no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the way to plan for the future.
Perhaps our key concern is the lack of piped-in water, relying on wells and a plan to recycle and recharge the groundwater instead. This is near the major wells from which Coastside County Water District draws 30% of its local water in serving the towns of El Granada and Half Moon Bay, yet aside from questionable assumptions regarding cutting daily use in half (to 5000 gpd) during drought years, next to nothing is known or said about the cumulative impact on the public resource, let alone this private use. There are other disturbing concerns raised by the careless projections of water use per day that do not pass close scrutiny. In the face of the looming drought cycle projected for California, cavalier projections could come back to devastate this development, if built, and have a big cumulative impact on the nearby residents in significant ways not addressed in this report.
Another related key concern is the lack of sewer infrastructure, with reliance instead on a septic system installed in land with a water table reported to be from three to eight feet of the surface. What will be the impact on the water quality of Pillar Point Marsh and the marine area on its western side during storms, or just considering the normal runoff from perpetually flooded areas? which is what high groundwater produces. Stanford Professor Alexandria Boehm published research in March of this year “Septic Tanks Affect Coastal Water Quality,” stating, “our project is one of the first in California to show definitively that septic tanks can affect coastal water quality through submarine groundwater discharge.” The California legislature recently directed the Water Resources Control Board (AB 885) to establish regulations on California septic systems. The DEIR does not acknowledge, let alone address this issue. A system-wide septic system management plan for the Midcoast should be required to meet this objective, and without such, the burden of proof that the Big Wave septic system would not be detrimental to groundwater and ocean water would have to be much higher than presented in the DEIR.
The Coastal Issues Committee is part of Sierra Club Loma Prieta’s Conservation Committee, and we are compelled to remark that the known occurrence of the Red legged frog around the Big Wave property merits closer attention than specified in the DEIR. It is our belief that the fill brought onto the western portion of the property three years ago, most notably close to Pillar Point Marsh, probably covered estavation areas long used by this Species of Concern. If development were to proceed as planned, careful mitigation and monitoring for this species is a minimal requisite.
This letter highlights some of our committee’s key concerns with the DEIR, but not all of the ones we saw in the report that we may still want to address later during this comment period.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment.
Respectfully,
Ken King
Co Chair
Sierra Club
Loma Prieta Chapter
Coastal Issues Committee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)