December 23, 2009
Camille Leung, Project Planner
San Mateo County Planning Division
455 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park Project
Dear Camille,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced DEIR. On behalf of the 1300 family members of Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), I am pleased to provide the following comments, which focus on the Project Description, Agriculture Resources, and the project’s consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) in the Land Use and Planning Section. Alice Chang Kaufman, an attorney with expertise in toxics, is providing comments on Hazards and Hazardous Materials (attached). The law firm of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger is submitting separate comments on selected sections of the DEIR on behalf of CGF.
Character of the Project Site: The project site is currently an expansive open space area with a natural landscape that has been actively farmed with row crops for the past four years. Views of the site from Highway One, Airport Street, West Point Avenue, and public viewing locations on protected open space lands owned by POST at Pillar Point Bluff to the west and Rancho Corral de Tierra to the east are of attractive and scenic open space/agricultural lands, with riparian and wetland vegetation along the stream channel that bisects the two properties. The Pillar Ridge residential community, adjacent to the Office Park site, is comprised of one-story manufactured homes. The Waterfront district of Princeton, adjacent to the Wellness Center site, is comprised of one and two story buildings with uses that are directly related to or provide support for the working waterfront at the Pillar Point Harbor. The harbor is San Mateo County’s only commercial and recreational harbor along 55 miles of coast. The world famous Maverick’s surf break, a popular visitor attraction, is just offshore. The Half Moon Bay Airport is across Airport Street. The environmentally sensitive Pillar Point Marsh is adjacent to the site to the south and west. Pillar Point Marsh is an extraordinarily diverse wetlands area with both saltwater and freshwater marsh, and is second only to the Pescadero Marsh in San Mateo County in total wetland acreage.
Some of the wetlands, which extend onto the project site, have recently been destroyed on both the project site and on adjacent public parkland through intensive agricultural activities (see discussion under LCP Policy 7.14).
Construction of the project would result in the wholesale alteration of the scenic and natural open space character of the project site due to the mass and bulk of the industrial, commercial, warehouse, and residential structures. In this sensitive location, the proposed scale and areal extent of buildings and associated infrastructure are fundamentally incompatible with the natural setting.
Project Description: The project, as proposed and evaluated in the DEIR, is comprised of diverse land uses, including permanent residences and common facilities for developmentally disabled adults, general office, research and development, light manufacturing, storage facilities, communication facilities, and associated infrastructure. It proposes on-site utilities including on-site groundwater well(s), water treatment systems, wastewater recycling, a wastewater treatment plant, on-site solar and wind power, natural gas power generation, and microwave facilities/telecommunication facilities. There are several proposed project-related business operations, including on- and off-site farming, a commercial kitchen, catering/food services, and the production processing, and sale of food products such as yogurt, ice cream, eggs, and poultry.
The DEIR has failed to analyze the impacts associated with many of these auxiliary business operations. For example, the processing of food products such as poultry and production of ice cream and yogurt has not been included in the analysis of water demand or wastewater generation. Commercial production, preparation, and sale of food products also have ancillary traffic impacts that are not analyzed.
There is no assured source of water to serve the project. The Project Description, page III-19 states: “options for water systems such as (1) domestic hook-ups and one fire system hook-up, and (2) use of well water/treatment systems…” There are problems with each of these “options”:
The project site lies outside the boundaries of the Coastside County Water District (CCWD), the water service agency that the project proposes for domestic and fire service.
The DEIR fails to acknowledge that the project site is located within the boundaries of the Montara Water and Sanitary District (also see comments regarding project’s inconsistency with the certified LCP maps). The MWSD should be noted as the appropriate community water service provider.
The proposed water service from CCWD would require an Amendment to the Coastal Development Permit issued by the Coastal Commission (A-2-SMC-99-63) that restricts the area served by the CCWD’s El Granada transmission pipeline The project site is not within the area permitted by the CDP.
The on-site agricultural well was drilled in 1986 without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and therefore is not an approved source of water to serve the project. Domestic use of the groundwater would require treatment, due to high iron and manganese levels.
The availability of water from the agricultural well is also in question. Pumping of groundwater by the agricultural well has not been factored into the limit on total annual extractions currently being pumped from the Pillar Point Marsh Groundwater Basin - see Conditions of Approval for Permits A-3-SMC-86-155 and A-3-SMC-86-155A.
Without an assured source of available water identified for the project, and analysis of its impacts, the DEIR is incomplete and inadequate, and would more appropriately be analyzed under a Program EIR.
The specific treatment and disposal of the project’s wastewater has also not been determined. The Project Description, page III-19 states: “options for wastewater systems such as: (1) use of an on-site wastewater treatment plant with disposal through irrigation and infiltration, and/or (2) municipal hook-ups….” Again, there are problems with each of these “options”.
The project site is within the Granada Sanitary District, and as such, would appropriately be served by the public district. Yet the project proposes to operate its own on-site sewage treatment and disposal system.
Evaluation of impacts from on-site treatment and disposal are vague and depend upon future studies to ensure their effectiveness.
The DEIR does not address the potential for chemicals and/or other pollutants associated with the 45,000 square feet of Manufacturing uses and the 56,250 square feet of Research and Development uses proposed for the Office Park site to impact the wastewater stream, as well as air quality, create offensive odors.
The Wellness Center is not a Sanitarium: The proposed Wellness Center is “designed as an economically and environmentally sustainable community development that provides housing and employment opportunities for low-income developmentally disabled (DD) adults” (DEIR page III-18). The project proposes a maximum of 70 residential units for approximately 50 DD adults and 20 live-in staff members, plus other onsite living and recreation facilities” (III-18). As a residential land use, the Wellness Center is not a permitted use in the Waterfront zoning district. The project proponents have applied for a Use Permit under Section 6500 (D) (3) of the zoning regulations, which allows a Sanitarium to be located in any zoning district subject to issuance of a Use Permit, upon making certain findings.
The DD housing is neither permitted by right in the Waterfront zoning district, nor does it fit the definition of a Sanitarium. A Sanitarium is an institution for rest, recuperation, treatment of the chronically ill, or therapy for rehabilitation. In some European countries, a sanitarium is a luxury retreat intended for short-term rest, similar to spa resorts. Sanitaria are typically located in quiet rural or mountain settings, where clean air and peaceful surroundings can speed recuperation.
The Big Wave Wellness Center is not designed for rest and recuperation, rather it will assist and support the resident DD adults with jobs and other skills. It does not propose any on-site medical facilities or services, rather “each resident will be required to provide for their own health care” (Facilities Plan Draft #2, 1/1/2009). A Use Permit for a Sanitarium cannot be found to be “necessary for the public health, safety, or welfare” within this marine industrial zone.
The Wellness Center is fundamentally an incompatible land use in the Waterfront district where indoor and outdoor storage of all but the most hazardous chemicals is allowed. Additional hazards from flooding, tsunami and seiche events, violent shaking/ liquefaction/differential settlement resulting from earthquakes along the active Seal Cove/San Gregorio Fault, and safety hazards from airport operations make this site particularly unsafe and unsuitable for DD adults.
The Phasing of the Project and Construction Schedule is Inconsistent and Contradictory: The DEIR, page III-60 states: “The project construction time schedule would be between approximately 30 and 36 months to fully complete the Wellness Center and Office Park property development.” This statement is either confused or contradicted by the next statements: “Construction of the first office building would take approximately 18 months. The construction of the other buildings would begin (one building at a time) after the first building is completed and when buyers and/or renters have been established.” (DEIR, page III-60). If construction of one building requires 18 months, and the buildings are constructed sequentially, after sale or rental of space, construction of four buildings would require at least 72 months (six years).
Repeating the optimistic expedited schedule, the Evaluation of Construction Noise, page IV.J-15, states: “Overall, the initial grading and sorting of materials would taken approximately three weeks, utilities installation approximately one month, and foundation construction approximately two months.” “After construction of the foundations, the placement of the prefabricated Wellness Center units and the erection of the structures for the Office Park would take approximately 18 months.” These statements contradict the phasing schedule of construction of one office park building at a time, as each building’s space is rented or sold.
It is also unclear whether the foundations would be constructed for all four office buildings at the same time, or for one building at a time. Similarly, would the parking lots be constructed in phases, or upon completion of the first office building?
The Enright & Company, Inc. June 29, 2009 Appraisal Consultation, which is not part of the DEIR, includes a Table titled “Big Wave Employees – Phased Development (provided by Big Wave Group) that shows phased development of the Office Park over 15 years, rather than three years, with full buildout in 2025. Enright (page 4) states: “The financial and/or economic viability of successfully developing Big Wave in accord with this time frame is also not examined… Nonetheless, it is noted that phased construction of what is a relatively large-scale project on the San Mateo County coastside, over an extended time frame, is considered to be more viable than developing the entirety at once.” The Enright Phased Development Table projects that each five year phase (approximately) would include 33% of total buildout for the General Office and Research and Development uses, whereas the Storage and Manufacturing uses (which have the least demand for parking and create the least traffic impacts) would be 50% developed in the first five years, and 75% developed in the next five years. All uses would be 100% developed in approximately 15 years (or the year 2025). There is no evaluation in the DEIR as to how space in each of the four Office Park buildings would be allocated to these diverse and potentially incompatible uses. The Site Plans and Elevations of the proposed buildings do not indicate how building design and access for manufacturing and storage uses (which require large bays and delivery areas) would be accommodated in every building. Parking requirements and traffic impacts would be affected by the percentage and timing of these uses. CGF questions the enforceability of the mix of uses, inasmuch as the market demand for space will likely trump any conditions of approval.
Impacts of construction, including traffic, air quality, noise, and stormwater runoff/pollution could be significantly greater than analyzed in the DEIR, depending upon the time frame and sequencing of each of the phases. Restoration of the site and stormwater runoff facilities are not proposed until completion of construction. This could be a very long time, and the environmentally sensitive wetlands and buffer zone could be left in an unrestored condition for up to 15 years. The DEIR must be revised to provide clarity as to the specifics of the timing and phasing of construction, the mix of uses in each building and the potentially long term impacts of leaving stormwater mitigations and restoration of wetlands to the year 2025.
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the loss of Prime Agricultural Land. As commented under LCP Policy 5.1 below, the soils on the project site qualify as Prime Agricultural Soils under the San Mateo County certified Local Coastal Program. Prime agricultural soils are being lost in California at a significant rate, and such losses are irreversible. The project site has been in agricultural production sporadically since the 1930’s and over the past five years the current owners have leased the site for field row crops including chard, peas, beans, and pumpkins. The DEIR, IV.B-18 acknowledges that the soils on the project site are classified as Class II soils under the LCC system, and as grade 2 soils using the Storie Index rating. Yet the DEIR concludes that the conversion of soils on the project site to industrial, commercial, and residential uses would not completely preclude crop production in the future inasmuch as the Big Wave Farming component proposes to farm up to 12 acres at the airport and to operate a 5-acre onsite native plant nursery on site.
Neither of these proposed agricultural operations would be adequate mitigation for loss of prime soils. First, the 12-acre site at the airport is already being farmed and therefore continuing to farm this area by Big Wave programs would not compensate or mitigate the loss of agricultural land on the Big Wave site. Second, there is no feasible location on the Big Wave site for a native plant nursery, as all of the developable land is being proposed for non-agricultural (industrial/commercial/ office/housing) uses along with associated, parking, roads, and utilities. The only undeveloped land is within the 100 foot wetland buffer, and nurseries are not an allowable use in this buffer.
The DEIR must be revised to evaluate appropriate mitigation measures for the permanent conversion of prime soils. Examples of effective mitigation measures include the preservation of equivalent acreage of prime agricultural land of substantially similar quality and character through purchase of land or conservation easements, or payment of in-lieu fees to an agricultural conservation entity that are sufficiently to fully fund the acquisition of agricultural lands or agricultural conservation easements for permanent protection, plus the cost of monitoring and enforcement. Another option would be for the project to be revised to preserve an equivalent amount of agricultural land on site with enforceable restrictions such as an Affirmative Agricultural Easement. The area dedicated to agricultural use should not be part of any restoration of wetlands that will be necessary to compensate for the applicant’s destruction of historic wetlands on the property (per CGF’s November 18, 2009 presentation to the San Mateo County Planning Commission, referenced above).
The DEIR Fails to acknowledge Project inconsistencies with the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP): A project is deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if it will: “Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan…) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” (CEQA Guidelines). The San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP) was certified by the Coastal Commission in 1980, and is part of the County General Plan. The LCP was based on the Midcoast Community Plan and incorporates many of the policies and implementing ordinance provisions of the Community Plan. Approval of this project requires the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). In order to issue the CDP, the County must make findings that the project is in compliance with all applicable goals and Land Use Plan (LUP) policies of the LCP and its implementing ordinances. Accordingly, the DEIR must fully evaluate and analyze the project’s consistency with all applicable polices and implementing ordinances of the LCP.
The DEIR’s analysis of the project’s compliance with the LCP is woefully inadequate. A significant number of critical policies of the LCP, including several Sensitive Habitats and Visual Policies, have not been analyzed at all. In several instances, the DEIR concludes inexplicably that the project is consistent with relevant LCP policies where it is clearly inconsistent. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to provide a full and complete analysis of the project’s compliance with the certified LCP.
Land Use and Planning, Table IV.I-1 County of San Mateo Regional and Local Requirements Consistency Analysis provides a summary chart containing a column showing the LCP Policies, with comments on the Project’s Consistency with the LCP in a second column. CGF’s specific comments on this chart and its analysis are:
1.18 Location of New Development: Section (c) states: “Allow some future growth to develop at relatively high densities for affordable housing in areas where public facilities and services are or will be adequate and where coastal resources will not be endangered”. Section (d) states: “Require the development of urban areas on lands designated as agriculture and sensitive habitats in conformance with agriculture and Sensitive Habitats Component policies”. Re: (c): Public facilities and services, particularly public water service, are not adequate to serve the project, and the use of a on-site agricultural well (that was installed and operated without receiving the required Coastal Development Permit) is not consistent with LCP policies which assume that urban development within public service districts will be served by public systems. Re: (d): The proposed development is not consistent with the LCP sensitive habitats component as some of the development (fire road, fences, stormwater retention ponds, and a transformer pad) would be located within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone. Such uses are not allowed in wetland buffer zones. These conflicts with LCP policies are potentially significant adverse impacts.
1.19 Definition of Infill: This policy states: “Define infill as the development of vacant land in urban areas and rural service centers which is: (1) subdivided and zoned for development at densities greater than one dwelling unit per 5 acres, and/or (2) served by sewer and water utilities”. The site is not subdivided, nor is it served by water utilities, although it is within the boundary of the Montara Water and Sanitary District. MWSD is under a connection ban that was imposed by the State Public Utilities Commission upon its predecessor, Citizens Utilities Company of California. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP) issued by the Coastal Commission to Coastside County Water District for the CCWD El Granada transmission line specifically prohibits extension of water service from CCWD to the project site, without an amendment to the CDP. Given the fact that neither MWSD nor CCWD can serve the project site, the project cannot be determined to be consistent with Policy 1.19. This is an important policy that was not included in Table IV.I.1. or analyzed in the DEIR.
1.24 Protection of Archaeological/Paleontological Resources: The DEIR states that Archaeological site (CA-SMA-15) was identified on the site. This site is known to contain human remains. Mitigation Measure CULT-2a proposes to either exclude the area of the archaeological site or perform additional fieldwork. Additional fieldwork is not appropriate mitigation in a confirmed sensitive location. The project must be redesigned to avoid disturbance to the site, otherwise the project would not consistent with LCP Policy 1.24 that requires a mitigation plan, adequate to protect the resource, be implemented as part of the project.
2.2 Definition of Public Works: This policy defines Public Works as all water, sewage, telephone, and other utilities owned or operated by any public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission except for energy facilities. The Public Works component policies that apply to the Midcoast area (too numerous to cite individually here) are based on the assumption that public works and related services within the urban area of the Midcoast will be served by public systems. To the degree the project proposes to develop, own, and operate private on-site water supply, wastewater treatment and disposal, energy, communications, transportation, recycling, and stormwater systems, the DEIR should analyze its conformance with Policy 2.2 and all other relevant LCP Public Works policies.
2.23 Management of Pillar Point Marsh: This policy requires that as a condition of development permit for any facilities to increase water supply, that any water system drawing water from wells in the Pillar Point Marsh aquifer agree to participate in and accept the restrictions resulting from hydrologic studies of Pillar Point Marsh required by Policy 7.20. The DEIR does not include any analysis of this policy.
3.1 Sufficient Housing Opportunities: The DEIR states that 50 of the 70 new residential housing units would be available to developmentally disabled adults at below market rates, but there are no eligibility requirements or restrictions on rents or sale/resale prices that would ensure affordability. Without such guarantees, the promise of affordability is an empty gesture, and cannot be relied on.
3.2 Non-Discrimination: The DEIR concludes that the project will comply with the requirement that guarantees housing for developmentally disabled and support staff regardless of age, race, sex, marital status or other arbitrary factors. There are no guarantees by the project proponents of such a non-discrimination clause. How will residents of the wellness center be chosen? What would the eligibility requirements be, and who would determine eligibility? What percentage of residents would be from the coastside? The project’s proponents appear to be families with teenage or young adult children who are developmentally disabled. In order to better manage a population with a wide variety of mental and physical disabilities, it may be necessary to screen out some applicants. How will that be done? How would problem residents be dealt with, inasmuch as they have purchased an ownership share in the project?
3.3 Balanced Developments: The DEIR does not adequately address the project’s location at an isolated site with inadequate public transport systems that will require the use of automobiles to transport residents to Big Wave job sites that are not nearby, such as Big Wave Farming, or for services such as neighborhood commercial, health care, and specialized jobs not provided by the Office Park. The DEIR states (IV-M-39) that if needed, the applicant would implement parking options to reduce impacts from the proposed parking exception that proposes to reduce the required parking spaces at the Office Park by 102 spaces, or 14%. The DEIR concludes (IV.M-40) that only 15 and 13 new transit trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively would be added, based on a transit share of 5%. The DEIR (IV.M-41) also concludes that no more than 5% of the travel trips during peak AM and PM commute hours would be by bicyclists. The access roads to the site from both the north and south are narrow and have serious safety issues for bicyclists. There is no explanation of how the transit and bicycle percentages were arrived at, rather the DEIR states they were “assumed”. If one accepts the “assumptions”, this still leaves 4% of the peak AM and PM commuters unaccounted for. Would commuters simply park on Airport Street, or use the trailhead parking at the Jean Lauer coastal access trail just north of the Pillar Ridge community? The project proposes to work with SAMTRANS to increase bus service along Airport Street, but does not propose to provide any financial assistance for such increased service. In order for transit to be truly effective as an alternative, the one-to- two hour headway of buses must be improved, and additional bus or shuttle service must be provided at least at peak commute hours. Because the Cabrillo Unified School District does not provide bus service, school children fill the available SAMTRANS buses during school transport hours. The DEIR should discuss how the project’s alternative transportation can be met more specifically in order to adequately mitigate the proposed parking exception.
3.4 Diverse Housing Opportunities: This policy urges improving the range of housing choices by location, type, price and tenure, available to persons of low and moderate income. The Wellness Center does improve the range of income types, however, the 825 jobs created at the Office Park and Wellness Center will likely exacerbate the need for affordable housing both locally and regionally, depending upon the type and range of jobs associated with the office, manufacturing, research/development, and other uses at both the Office Park and Wellness Center. The DEIR should discuss this potentially significant adverse impact.
3.13 Maintenance of Community Character: The DEIR includes this policy requiring that housing projects maintain community character by being of compatible scale, size, and design, and further requiring that the height of new housing development be limited to two stories to mitigate its impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The DEIR erroneously concludes that the project’s 36 foot high three story residential buildings comply with this clear and unambiguous two-story requirement. This is a significant adverse impact.
3.12 Reservation of water and sewer capacities for affordable housing: The DEIR does not address this policy, which designated three affordable housing sites in the urban Midcoast area as priority land uses for which water and sewer capacity will be reserved. The project site is not one of the identified LCP affordable housing sites. The project does not guarantee eligibility and affordability through restrictions on rents and/or sales. Unless there are such enforceable restrictions, this site would not be eligible to be designated as affordable, and therefore would not be eligible for priority water and sewer.
5.1 Definition of Prime Agricultural Lands: This policy defines prime agricultural lands as Class I or Class II and all Class III lands capable of growing artichokes or Brussels sprouts, as well as land which has returned an annual value of not less than $200 per acre within three of the five previous years. Most of the project’s northern site is located on soil that is classified by the NRCS as Dennison clay loam, nearly level, while the remainder is Dennison clay loam, nearly level, imperfectly drained. Most of the southern site is located on land that is classified as Dennison clay loam, nearly level, imperfectly drained (n.b., the imperfectly drained classification is consistent with wetlands found on this site). The rest of the southern site is Dennison clay loam, nearly level (see Figure IV.B-2). Both categories of soil are considered Class II and are therefore prime agricultural lands as defined in the LCP. The DEIR (Page IV.B-16) states that LCP Policy 5.2 does not call for parcels containing prime soils to be designated as Agriculture if the parcel is located in an urban area. Nonetheless, conversion of virtually all the site’s prime soils and agricultural lands to non-agricultural housing and commercial uses is a potentially significant impact. The DEIR, page IV.B-18 erroneously and inexplicable concludes that the project would not involve conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural use and no mitigation is required because the project proposes to lease up to 12 acres at the airport (which are already in agricultural production) and would also operate a five-acre on-site native plant nursery. These are not appropriate mitigation measures for loss of prime soils on the property. There is no guarantee that the airport will lease land to the project, and in fact the land proposed to be leased by Big Wave is already in agricultural production, so there would be no offsetting mitigation for the conversion of prime soils/ important farmland. The proposed five-acre onsite native plant nursery which is being cited as mitigation for this loss is not shown on the project Site Plans, and is in direct conflict with the Project Description, page III-40, which proposes two 8,000 square foot temporary potting/nursery areas on the project site, the locations of which are not identified on the Site Plans, but which would apparently be impermissibly located in the 100 foot wetland buffer zone (for the northern parcel) or on the parking lot for the southern parcel. The loss of prime soils without mitigation is a significant adverse impact.
7.1 Definition of Sensitive Habitats: This policy defines sensitive habitats. Sensitive habitats, including wetlands, and endangered, threatened species/species of special concern, are present on the property. This policy was not included in the DEIR’s analysis.
7.2 Designation of Sensitive Habitats: This policy designates sensitive habitats in the Coastal Zone. The Pillar Point Marsh is the second largest wetland in the County’s Coastal Zone, and is home to diverse species of resident and migratory fauna. A portion of the project site includes wetlands, as defined by the State of California. This policy was not included in the DEIR’s analysis.
7.3 Protection of Sensitive Habitats: This policy prohibits any land use or development which would have significant adverse impacts on sensitive habitat areas, and requires that all uses to be compatible with the maintenance of biologic productivity of the habitats. Large scale development on the site, including within the 100 foot buffer zone of the wetlands, has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on these sensitive habitat areas. Policy 7.3 was enacted by the voters in 1986, and requires County officials and employees to apply and enforce its provisions. This policy was not included in the DEIR’s analysis.
7.4 Permitted Uses in Sensitive Habitats: This policy was also enacted by the voters in 1986, and makes reference to the following other Sensitive Habitats policies: 7.6, 7.16, 7.23, 7.26, 7.30, 7.33, and 7.44. By direction of the voters, the Board of Supervisors and other officials and employees of San Mateo County are mandated by the citizens of the County to apply and enforce these policies, as well as other LCP policies contained in Measure A. Any changes to Policies 7.4, 7.9, 7.16, 7.23, 7.26, 7.30, 7.33, or 7.44 that weaken protection of sensitive habitat areas requires a vote of the people of San Mateo County. The DEIR, page IV-I-60 concludes that the restored wetlands would extend both foraging and breeding habitat currently available in Pillar Point Marsh for project area special status species as well as provide a wider, protected movement corridor through the site. Contrary to this conclusion, the project proposes to fence off all of the development area from frogs and reptiles as well as other migratory species through “permanent ‘habitat fencing’ consisting of a 3 to 4 foot high concrete wall (constructed by linking the exposed foundation walls), a 4-foot high fabric existing chain link fence, and two 4 foot high habitat gates. Fabric installed between the concrete barriers would separate walkways from the wetlands habitat. When the gates are closed, the fabric would limit passage for frogs and reptiles.” (Project Description, Page III-39). The DEIR should explain how developing the open fields that are currently available for foraging and migrating with buildings and parking lots, and constricting the movement of species to a narrow 100 foot fenced corridor on each side of the stream/riparian area that bisects the two sites could conceivably result in a “wider, protected movement corridor through the site”.
7.14 Definition of Wetland: This policy defines wetlands. As acknowledged in the DEIR, there are both federal and state-defined wetlands present on the project parcels. However, the wetlands depicted in the DEIR are far less extensive than were delineated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1994, in response to a request by San Mateo County. Under the guise of agriculture, extensive ripping, disking and importation of soil destroyed wetland vegetation on the southern parcel, including a narrow finger that extended across the proposed Wellness Center building envelope, as delineated by the Army Corps. In June, 2006, the current owners began disking, deep ripping, and importing huge truckloads of soil onto the Southern (Wellness Center) parcel. (see Presentation to the San Mateo County Planning Commission Meeting of November 18, 2009, attached). Wetlands that remained on the site have been repeatedly disked and/or plowed each year since 2006. The applicant’s wetlands consultants, Lyndon Lee and Peggy Fiedler of WSP Environment and Energy, sent a letter dated April 24, 2008 to the applicant which stated that their observations in the field on March 27, 2008, found significant wetland vegetation on the southern parcel, in areas previously not found, but when Ms. Fiedler returned on April 9, 2008 to more accurately map the wetlands plants, the field had been plowed, destroying them (see attached letter). CGF’s noted this wetlands destruction in a letter dated March 9, 2009 to the Project Planner and requested that additional field investigations be done during the winter (fallow) season to determine the extent of wetland vegetation, using Coastal Commission (State) definitions and protocols. Analysis of the project’s compliance with this important LCP policy was not included in the DEIR’s analysis.
7.15 Designation of Wetlands: This policy designates several areas as wetlands requiring protection, including Pillar Point Marsh. The DEIR inexplicably omits any analysis or discussion of this policy.
7.16 Permitted Uses in Wetlands: As stated in the DEIR, the only uses permitted within wetlands are: (1) nature education and research, (2) hunting, (3) fishing, (4) fish and wildlife management, (5) mosquito abatement, (6) diking, dredging and filling in Pescadero Marsh, ( 7) diking, dredging and filling in any other wetland only if such activity serves to restore or enhance the biological productivity of the wetland, (8) dredging manmade reservoirs for agricultural water supply, (9) and incidental public services such as burying cables and piles and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. The DEIR analysis omits any discussion of the existing wetlands on the site, and erroneously states that proposed uses within the “restored wetlands” would be limited to the allowable uses and would include wetland trails. Trails are not a permitted use within wetlands.
7.17 Performance Standards in Wetlands: This policy requires that any permitted development in wetlands must minimize adverse impacts during and after construction. The DEIR omits any analysis or discussion of the project’s compliance with this policy.
7.18 Establishment of Buffer Zones: This policy establishes Buffer Zones that extend a minimum of 100 feet landward from the outermost line of wetland vegetation, and provides that a reduced setback of no less than 50 feet is allowed only where no alternative development site or design is possible, and that a larger setback shall be required as necessary to maintain the functional capacity of the wetland ecosystem. The DEIR, page III-60 states that grading within the 100-foot buffer zone would only be for wetlands restoration and in accordance with the restoration plan. This statement is in conflict with the project Site Plans, which show additional uses within the 100 foot buffer zone (see comments on Policy 7.19 below). The DEIR, page IV.I-61 concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 7.18 inasmuch as the buffer zone will be planted as a riparian corridor and uplands/coastal scrub between the proposed development and the proposed riverine ecosystem restoration area, but does not analyze or demonstrate how planting with uplands/coastal scrub and riparian species rather than wetland species would maintain the functional capacity of the wetland. Moreover, there are uses proposed within the buffer zone that are not allowable uses in wetland buffer zones (see comments on Policy 7.19 below).
7.19 Permitted Uses in Buffer Zones: This policy permits only the uses allowed within wetlands per Policy 7.16 plus public trails, scenic overlooks, and agricultural uses that produce no impact on the adjacent wetlands. The DEIR does not include any analysis of the project’s compliance with this policy. The project proposes to locate major portions of the 20 foot wide Fire Road (that must be engineered, designed and constructed to support heavy fire and other emergency vehicles), the access road to Building D, transformer pad, stormwater retention ponds, rainwater gardens (for rooftop runoff) as well as grading for wetlands restoration, within the 100 foot buffer zone. These uses are not permitted uses in wetlands buffer zones. Additionally, two “temporary” 8,000 square foot native plant nursery sites or “potting yards” would apparently be located within the 100 foot buffer zone, and although temporary, would be actively used until project construction is complete (page III-43). The location of the two nursery sites is not shown on the Project Plans, and the Project Description page III-40 states that one would be located in the east corner of the Office Park, which would apparently be within the 100 foot buffer zone. The other nursery site would be in the north-east corner of the Wellness Center property, which is apparently also the required parking lot for the Wellness Center. The DEIR should clarify whether any of the parking lot area would be devoted to Nursery use, and if so, for how many years. The DEIR further states on page III-40 that the nursery would continue to supply about 15,000 to 30,000 native plants per year for restoration projects along the coast, which conflicts with the assertion that the nursery is “temporary”. Growing plants in containers is an intensive non soil-dependent floricultural use that requires maintaining the nursery site in weed free condition, either through use of weed suppression fabric, or herbicides. Watering and fertilizing plants in containers, whether temporary or permanent, could alter the functional capacity of the wetland ecosystem within the buffer zone. The DEIR’s failure to analyze the proposed uses and their potentially significant impacts within the 100 foot buffer zone is a significant omission.
7.20 Management of Pillar Point Marsh: This policy defines safe yield from the aquifer feeding the marsh as the amount of water that can be removed without adverse impacts on marsh health, and restricts groundwater extraction to the safe yield as determined by a hydrologic study participated in by the two public water systems. The policy further encourages management of the marsh to enhance the biological productivity of the marsh and to maximize wildlife potential, and requires that all adjacent development, where feasible, contribute to the restoration of biologic productivity and habitat. The DEIR does not include any analysis of the project’s compliance with this policy. The marsh and its wetlands are not only contiguous to the project site, but some of the marsh wetlands are on the project site. Recent farming activity on the project site, including ripping, disking, plowing, and bringing in fill, has altered the extent of the marsh/wetland vegetation. The DEIR should analyze this impact to the biological productivity of the marsh. An agricultural well, installed in 1986, without receiving a Coastal Development Permit, or analysis of its impact upon the marsh, is proposed as a possible water source for the project. The DEIR does not include any discussion or analysis of the California Coastal Commission’s conditions placed on Permit A-23-SMC -86-155A, as amended in December, 1993, which limited the total groundwater extraction from the Pillar Point aquifer to an average of 459 acre feet per year. All groundwater wells in the Pillar Point groundwater basin, including agricultural wells, are subject to this restriction. The aquifer studies, which formed the basis of the groundwater extraction limit did not include any extraction by the agricultural well on the project site. Since the well on the project site has never received a Coastal Development Permit, and it is not part of the allowable limit on groundwater extraction, it cannot be relied upon for water for the project.
7.32 Designation of Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species, 7.33 Permitted Uses,
7.34 Permit Conditions, 7.35 Preservation of Critical Habitats, 7.43 Designation of Habitats of Unique Species, 7.44 Permitted Uses, 7.45 Permit Conditions, 7.46 Preservation of Habitats: These policies require protection of species of concern, and specifically require analysis and permit conditions that protect their habitats, food, water, nesting/reproduction, migration, climate, and geographic requirements. Table IV.I-1 does not include any analysis of these LCP policies that are designed to protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and which have the highest priority for protection under the California Coastal Act. Construction activities as well as the development of the site will alter the current habitats that are in part adapted to agricultural use of part of the site. Reduction of habitat for winter resident raptors including White Tailed Kite, Northern Harrier and other species that forage on rodents and other prey occurring on open fields such as the project site, is a potentially significant impact. Reduction of migration areas for the California red-legged frog and migration and estivation areas for San Francisco garter snake due to exclusion fencing of the site is also a potentially significant impact. The DEIR includes measures for avoidance of harm or take to individuals of species of concern, particularly SFGS and CRLF, but does not adequately address the reduction of habitat or migration areas. Impacts from potential geotechnical hazard mitigation, which are impermissibly left to future studies, particularly deep piles (GEO-3b (3) and GEO-4 (3) that could create impacts from noise and vibrations have not been analyzed as to their effects upon species of concern, particularly during their breeding and nesting seasons.
8.1 Definition of Landforms: This policy defines natural topographic and landscape features that include (among others) ridgelines, hillsides, coastal terraces, hills, wetlands, estuaries, streams, and arroyos, and forms the basis of many of the LCP visual resources policies. Table IV.I-1 of the DEIR does not include this policy.
8.5 Location of Development: This policy requires that new development be located on a portion of a parcel where the development is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads, is least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints, and is consistent with all other LCP requirements. The policy provides that if conflicts in complying with this requirement occur, the conflicts shall be resolved in a manner, which on balance, protects significant coastal resources on the parcel. When new parcels are created (as in the case of this project), new parcels must have building sites that minimize visibility from State and County Scenic Roads and other public viewpoints. This policy has not been analyzed in the DEIR. The visual simulations in the DEIR are misleading and inadequate in their depiction of views of the site. Only five views were selected, and these views are not the most representative of the potential impacts from public viewing locations. Given the visually sensitive nature of the project setting, the DEIR photographs do not sufficiently document the landscape setting and pre-project visual conditions. Existing views 1-3 of the project site, Figure IV.A-2 are very small and are of poor quality. Existing View 4, from the misnamed North Trail, has trees in the foreground that partially block views of the project site and therefore minimize the view impacts from Jean Lauer Trail section of the California Coastal Trail. There are other locations from the Jean Lauer Trail and the Pillar Point Bluffs of the site without such foreground trees. Existing views and visual simulation images are presented on separate pages with 14 pages of intervening text that make it difficult to compare “before” and “after” visual conditions. If both the existing view and the simulation image were on the same or facing pages, it would give a clearer depiction of visual impacts. More importantly for disclosure of visual and aesthetic impacts, the DEIR does not include the technical details of the photos, computer modeling techniques and software used to produce the images and assumptions regarding the heights and maturity of the proposed landscaping depicted in the visual simulation images. Because of lack of adequate visual analysis of 45 ½ foot high buildings with five foot high equipment on the roofs, which would dwarf all other structures in the vicinity, the community has requested that the applicant erect story poles so the public and decision-makers can adequately evaluate the visual impacts of the project. The applicant has refused to comply with this reasonable request. The visual and aesthetic impacts of the project have yet to be fully disclosed.
Policy 8.6 Streams, Wetlands, and Estuaries: This policy requires development to be set back from streams, prohibits structural development which will adversely affect the visual quality of perennial streams and associated riparian habitat, and requires wetlands to be retained intact except for public accessways that are designed to respect the visual and ecological fragility of the area and adjacent land. Table IV.I-1 states the project is consistent with this policy as it includes a 100 foot buffer planted as a riparian corridor and uplands coastal scrub/shrub between the development and the proposed riverine wetland ecosystem restoration area. There is no analysis of how the proposed 45 1/2 foot tall commercial buildings may affect the visual quality of the riparian habitat located between the two development sites, and riparian and wetlands to the south. See also comments on Policy 7.19 above.
Policy 8.10 Vegetative Cover: This policy requires that vegetation removed during construction is replaced with plant materials (trees, shrubs, ground cover) that are compatible with surrounding vegetation and are suitable to the climate, soil, and ecological characteristics of the site. Table IV.I-1 states the project is consistent with this policy as it proposes extensive landscaping throughout the site as well as the restoration of wetland and riparian areas. The Planting Plan depicted on Figures III-23 and -24 includes tree species that are not indigenous to a location near the ocean, such as Live Oak, Madrone, and California Buckeye. These trees prefer hotter, dried sites and are not suitable to the foggy ocean climate and soggy soils found on the site. Tall trees rooted in marshy soil would be susceptible to wind sculpting, leaning, and blowing down due to the strong coastal winds experienced on unprotected sites such as this. As such, these species are not suitable to the climate, soil, and ecological characteristics of the site. Red Alders, which are proposed as part of the Planting Plan, should not be planted anywhere near water or sewer lines, as their roots are extremely invasive. Western Sycamore trees are proposed along the western boundary of the Office Park parcel. These trees attain a height of 75 feet and would shade the adjacent Pillar Ridge homes.
Policy 8.12 General Regulations: This policy applies the Design Review Zoning District regulations to urban areas, employs the design criteria in the Community Design Manual, and requires new development and landscaping to be designed and located so that ocean views are not blocked from public viewing points such as public roads and publicly owned lands. Table IV.I-1 of the DEIR does not include any analysis of this policy. The Visual Impact analysis in IV.A includes only one selected view from the inaccurately named “North Trail”, which is actually the Jean Lauer Trail segment of the California Coastal Trail developed by Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). Other views from this public trail should be evaluated to determine whether the 45 ½ foot high buildings (plus rooftop equipment) and tall trees, such as Western Sycamore and Big Leaf Maples (which may grow as high as 75 feet in protected locations) would block ocean views from this trail.
Policy 8.13 Special Design Guidelines for Coastal Communities: This policy provides additional guidelines to supplement the design criteria in the Community Design Manual and in Montara, Moss Beach and El Granada requires structures that fit the topography of the site and do not require extensive cutting, grading, or filling for construction, employ the use of natural materials and colors which blend with the vegetative cover of the site, design structures which are in scale with the character of their setting and blend rather than dominate or distract from the overall view of the urbanscape. In Princeton by the Sea, Commercial Development buildings shall be designed to reflect the nautical character of the harbor, are of wood or shingle siding, employ natural or sea colors, and use pitched roofs (Policy 8.13 b (1)). For Industrial Development, employ architectural detailing, subdued colors, textured building materials and landscaping to add visual interest and soften the harsh lines of standard or stock building forms normally used in industrial districts (Policy 8.13 b(2)). The DEIR does not analyze the proposed project’s conformance with this policy. The proposed housing for DD adults is in the Waterfront zoning district, should be evaluated for consistency with 8.13 b.(1). The proposed storage or warehouse building on the housing site should be evaluated for consistency with 8.13 b (2). The proposed office/commercial buildings with some storage and manufacturing uses are a mix of commercial and industrial, and should be evaluated for consistency with 8.13 b (1) and (2). The prominent aggressive orange color proposed for the Wellness Center site and the extensive white at the Office Park site are inappropriate. The Midcoast Design Review standards state: “Earthtone colors are encouraged, along with darker colors used to reduce apparent mass.”
Policies 8.16 Landscaping, 8.19 Colors and Materials, 8.20 Scale and 8.21 are all policies that apply to Rural Structural and Community Features, and therefore are not applicable to this urban site. As such, they should be deleted from Table IV.I-1.
Policy 9.1 Definition of Hazard Areas: This policy defines hazardous areas as fault zones and land subject to dangers from liquefaction and other severe seismic impacts, unstable slopes, landslides, coastal cliff instability, flooding, tsunamis, fire, and steep slopes (over 30%). Of these criteria, the project site is located on land adjacent to the Seal Cove-San Gregorio Fault zone, and is subject to dangers from liquefaction and other severe seismic impacts, flooding, and tsunamis. The DEIR did not analyze the applicability of this important policy to the proposed project.
Policy 9.2 Designation of Hazard Areas: This policy designates hazardous areas in the Coastal Zone as those delineated on the Geotechnical Hazards Synthesis Map, the Floodway Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted under Chapter 35.5 of the San Mateo County Zoning regulations, and the Natural Hazards Map in the Natural Hazards Chapter of the General Plan. The County Geotechnical Hazards Synthesis Map shows the project site as being within the one percent Flood Hazard zone, the Tsunamis and Seiches Hazard zone, is located adjacent to the Seal Cove/San Gregorio Fault zone, and within 1500 feet of the high historical rate of coastal bluff/beach retreat. The Seal Cove/San Gregorio Fault is identified as an active fault with predicted very violent shaking, with poor earthquake stability and poor to fair foundation conditions.
The Geotechnical Hazards Synthesis Map - Effect of the Geologic Hazard for Earthquake Faults states: “While severe groundshaking is the major cause of damage associated with earthquakes, surface rupture along the fault trace causes locally high damage. Both natural and man-made environments are subject to this displacement, which can create physical off-sets of many feet. Associated movement may also occur on faults other than those involved in epicentral activity; supposedly inactive faults have been known to undergo displacement during earthquakes centered on nearby faults. Displacement may also occur along faults over a period of time, through the phenomenon of ‘tectonic creep’. Seismic groundshaking may trigger other associated phenomena, such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, and subsidence.” The Jurisdictional Response for Earthquake Hazards states, in relevant part: “Subsurface exploration (commonly by trenching) is usually necessary to establish the location and state of activity of a fault. Setback required from a fault trace is dependant upon information derived from an appropriate geologic investigation. Possibility of ground rupture or ground failure due to seismicity needs to be evaluated. Detailed geologic site investigation may be needed to accurately locate the trace of faults.” Although preliminary geotechnical investigation has been done by BAGG and reviewed by Treadwell and Rollo, no trenching or other subsurface exploration has been performed to evaluate the potential for fault traces that may cross the property and affect the construction of buildings. Without further investigation through trenching or similar subsurface exploration, the DEIR inexplicably concludes (GEO-1 Fault Rupture and GEO-2 Strong Seismic Ground Shaking) that the impacts related to ground rupture/fault rupture and violent shaking would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-3a Seismic Related Ground Failure defers to future studies what mitigation measures may be required to address differential settlement due to Cyclic Densification related to ground failure. Each of the potential mitigation measures (overexcavation and replacing loose sandy soil with compacted engineered fill, applying deep soil compaction techniques, and designing building foundations to accommodate total and differential ground settlement) may cause additional significant environmental impacts that are not evaluated. Such deferral of mitigation measures to future studies is impermissible under CEQA per the Sundstrom v. Mendocino County court decision.
The Geological Hazards Synthesis Map - Effect of the Geologic Hazard for Liquefaction Potential states: “When liquefaction leads to some form of permanent ground movement or ground failure, it becomes a serious foundation problem. Of the three basic types of ground failure associated with liquefaction (flow landslides, landslides with limited displacement often expressed as lateral spreading, and quick-condition failures), only the second is considered possible in San Mateo County.” The Jurisdictional Response for Liquefaction Hazard states: “Although liquefaction is not considered to be a major hazard in San Mateo County, evaluation of this phenomenon will be required as part of routine soil-foundation investigations which are undertaken in areas involving potentially liquefiable soils.” The DEIR (IV.F Geology and Soils) discusses the project sites’ susceptibility to Liquefaction and associated hazards including Lateral Spreading, Liquefaction-induced Ground Surface Settlement, and Surface Manifestations such as sand boils or lurch cracking. Mitigation Measure GEO-3b Seismic Related Ground Failure defers to future additional subsurface exploration the determination of mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant liquefaction and associated hazards to a less than significant level. Such deferral of mitigation measures to future studies is impermissible under CEQA per the Sundstrom v. Mendocino County decision. Impact GEO-4 Total and Differential Settlement similarly defers the determination of mitigation measures for the potentially significant impacts of ground settlement which include cyclic densification settlement and post-liquefaction reconsolidation settlement as well as consolidation settlement. The DEIR further states there is insufficient data available to accurately predict the amount of settlement that would occur at the site due to the weight of new fill and building loads, and therefore settlement impacts are potentially significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-4 defers to additional subsurface exploration to better characterize the subsurface conditions and soil properties at the site. Such deferral of mitigation measures to future studies is impermissible under CEQA per the Sundstrom v. Mendocino County decision.
Impact GEO-5 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil discusses the increase of imperviousness from construction of buildings and parking lots onsite that would increase runoff from the site by 80 percent. Impacts GEO-6 Expansive Soil and GEO-7 Pervious Pavements and Other Water/Wastewater Infiltration Systems discuss the presence of 1.5 to 2.5 feet of moderately to highly expansive clayey soil, which is also recognized in the Schaaf and Wheeler Report 9/07 which states: “Wetland Hydrology Indicators for Big Wave: It appears most likely that…site soils remained saturated for more than a week after the cessation of rainfall due to the inability of surface water to percolate through the thick clay “hardpan” that underlies the site.” The BAGG Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, 5/27/02 concluded that shallow groundwater levels at the site (encountered in 14 boreholes on the northern parcel) at a depth ranging from 5 ½ to 7 ½ feet below the existing ground surface may create difficulties during construction. BAGG concluded that dewatering of the near surface material may be necessary in order to recompact the material at a lower moisture content. BAGG’s 2002 report assumed that the grades on the northern site would be raised by 2 to 4 feet to raise the building pads above the flood level. The applicant at that time applied for a grading permit to allow fill to be placed on the development area on the northern parcel to accommodate a smaller project that entailed smaller scale warehouse buildings. Surcharging the site with up to four feet of surcharge was expected to reduce settlement of the buildings. The proposed project now anticipates that no fill is required and that pervious pavement will be able to drain adequately, without evaluation of the impacts of the 1.5 to 2.5 feet of expansive clay soil . Mitigation Measure GEO-7 Pervious Pavements and Other Water/Wastewater Infiltration Systems states: “Considering the near-surface soil may consist of moderately to highly expansive clay, special subgrade preparation and foundation and pavement design recommendations shall be required to prevent the near-surface clayey soil from ponding water, and becoming saturated and weak under the proposed site loading conditions, such as foundation and traffic loads. Final design recommendations for a pervious pavement system shall allow surface water to percolate through the pavement without causing adverse impacts to new pavements and building foundations due to moisture fluctuations in the near-surface expansive clay.” The DEIR again impermissibly defers to future studies the development of effective mitigation measures to address the high groundwater table and expansive clay soils that underlie the project. Absent this information the DEIR cannot conclude that such project features such as rainwater gardens which contain runoff from roofs, stormwater retention ponds, and leaching chambers and drainfields for on-site wastewater disposal would adequately function during wet weather conditions. Surface water runoff and discharge from these facilities has the potential to pollute the marsh and the ocean waters. The DEIR thus cannot conclude that any long-term stormwater disposal methods will be effective mitigation measures.
Policy 9.9 Regulation of Development in Floodplains: This policy requires development located within flood hazard areas to employ the standards, limitations, and controls contained in specified Building Regulations and applicable Subdivision Regulations. The DEIR has not analyzed the project’s conformity with this requirement. FEMA flood designations are based on past historic data and as such have been generally recognized as inadequate to be relied upon to accurately predict hazards from flooding. The project parcels remain within the delineated area of flood hazard on other maps such as the Pacific Institute map of the region). Flooding hazards in low lying coastal areas such as the project site appear to be underestimated for intense storm events with sustained onshore winds coupled with perigean spring tides (see The Strategic Role of Perigean Spring Tides in Nautical History and North American Coastal Flooding, 1635-1976 by Fergus J. Wood, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce). Raising the first floor level of buildings above projected flood levels still leaves parking lots, vehicles, and infrastructure, including the proposed on-site wastewater treatment plant, vulnerable to flood, tsunami, and seiche events.
9.10 Geotechnical Investigation of Building Sites: This policy requires site specific geotechnical investigations to determine mitigation measures for the remedy of hazards to structures for human occupancy and/or employment. Hazards and hazardous areas are those defined as the geotechnical hazards shown on the Geotechnical Hazards Synthesis Maps and LCP Hazards Maps. The DEIR impermissibly defers analysis of the project’s conformity with this policy to future studies (see also specific comments under Policy 9.2 above).
Policy 10.1 Permit Conditions for Shoreline Access: This policy requires some provision for shoreline access as a condition of granting Coastal Development Permits for any public or private development permits between the sea and the nearest road. The type of provision, the location of the access and the amount and type of improvements required shall be consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Access Component. The DEIR has not analyzed the project’s conformance with this policy. The Office Park site is located between the sea and the first public road. The project proposes a “trail” on the Office Park site, which is actually a 20-foot wide permeable concrete Fire Road (about 30% of which is located within the 100 foot wetlands buffer zone). A paved 20-foot wide road should not be considered a recreational trail. The project proposes an exception to the Office Park’s required 737 parking spaces, which, if granted, would result in only 635 spaces provided for the Office Park’s mixed uses. There is no provision for public parking on either the Wellness Center or the Office Park site to access any trails. The Jean Lauer Trail on the POST property, a new segment of the California Coastal Trail that leads to the Pillar Ridge Bluffs overlooking the ocean and Maverick’s surf break, was recently constructed with help from a grant from the State Coastal Conservancy. This trailhead has a ten car staging/parking area located just to the north of the Pillar Ridge community. Daily overflow parking from the Office Park is likely to spill over onto this small parking/staging area, which would reduce, rather than increase, the public’s ability to access the shoreline. The proposed eight foot wide sidewalk along Airport Street is not sufficiently wide to serve as a multi-use trail. This is the planned route of the California Coastal Trail, and should be designed and constructed to accommodate all non-motorized modes of travel. The sidewalk width would be reduced to just four feet at the crossing of the stream channel between the two project sites, and K rails would be installed at the edge of the 12-foot side travel lane to protect pedestrians from vehicles. Where would bicycles go in this narrow, constricted stretch? It is evident that the provisions for shoreline access are not merely inadequate, but would actually reduce public access to and along the coast.
12.3 Related Uses: This policy in the Commercial Fishing/Recreational Boating Component encourages development or uses which directly support recreational boating or commercial fishing before all others within one-half mile of the Pillar Point Harbor area on lands designated on the Land Use Plan Maps as …. General Industrial. The Wellness Center and Office Park sites are both designated as General Industrial on the Land Use Plan Map for the Mid-Coast. The DEIR should analyze the project’s conformity with this policy.
Failure to acknowledge Project Inconsistencies with the LCP Maps: The analysis does not include the certified LCP Maps, including the Water Utilities Map, which shows the project site to be within the boundary of Citizens Utility Company, which was subsequently acquired by Montara Water and Sanitary District. Therefore MWSD should be the service district for water utilities, not Coastside County Water District.
In conclusion, CGF believes that the DEIR is so fundamentally inadequate in its evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of this project that it must be substantially revised and recirculated so that the public and decision makers will have adequate information as to the project’s potential impacts and whether they can be mitigated or reduced to a level of insignificance. There is a wide array of missing critical information. In particular, we are deeply concerned about how the project will mitigate potential geotechnical hazards, earthquake hazards, violent shaking, liquefaction, total and differential ground settlement, etc., flood hazards, tsunami/seiche hazards, and project’s location adjacent to the airport and within industrial zone that allows storage of all but the most hazardous chemicals. Crucial information necessary to characterize the sub-surface conditions are deferred to future studies. Mitigation measures for the geotechnical hazards may well create new impacts that are not as yet evaluated. CGF is also deeply concerned about the destruction of wetlands on the project site and on adjacent County park property under the guise of agriculture. If these wetlands had not been destroyed, they would not need to be restored. While CGF is supportive of the Wellness Center, the proposed site is highly problematic for locating a vulnerable population, with its multiple natural and man-made hazards and difficult access along narrow, substandard roads and inadequate intersections.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, and for your careful attention to our comments. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss any of our comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate
Committee for Green Foothills
