coastal commission letter to big wave 8-17-2011

8/4/2019 Coastal Commission Letter to Big Wave 8-17-2011

1/6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUNDG. BROWN GOVERNORCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIONNORTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5260FAX (415) 904-5400

August 17,2011Big Wave, LLCAttn: Scott HolmesP,O, Box 1901EI Granada, CA 94018

RE: Appeal Number A-2-SMC-11-021 (Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park)Dear Mr, Holmes:As you know, San Mateo County's approval of a coastal development permit (CDP) for the BigWave development has been appealed to the Coastal Commission. The Commission's appealprocess occurs in two steps. First, the Commission determines if the appeal raises a substantialissue of conformance with the County of San Mateo's Local Coastal Program (LCP) or theaccess and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. If the Commission determines that the appealdoes not raise a substantial issue, the County's CDP approval becomes final. If the Commissiondetermines that the appeal does raise a substantial issue, the Commission takes jurisdiction overthe CDP application for the project and reviews it 'de novo'. The Commission may thenapprove, approve with conditions, or deny a CDP for the project.Often, the most expeditious way for the Commission to review appeals is to act on both thesubstantial issue portion and the de novo portion of the review at the same hearing. Because youagreed to waive your right to a hearing within 49 days of the appeal being filed, this combinedhearing option is available. However, as we have previously discussed, including in a June 30,2011 meeting with our Senior Deputy Director Charles Lester, additional information notavailable in the County's administrative record is necessary for the Commission to fully analyzeyour project for consistency with the County's LCP and the Coastal Act in de novo review,Normally, this information would be identified at the substantial issue stage of the appeal,meaning that a de novo hearing would have to wait for the information to be developed. In thiscase, and in an effort to streamline the appeal process for your proj ect, we have identifiedinformation that we believe is necessary for the Commission to review the project in a de novohearing. Although it is possible that we will identify additional information that will be needed aswe continue our review of the proposed project, providing the information we identify belowwill allow us to complete the bulk of our review of the project and further the applicant"s desireto expeditiously bring the proposed project forward to a combined substantial issue/de novohearing in front of the Commission.Moreover, as we have discussed and as described in our previous comment letters that wereprovided throughout the County's review process, based on the information provided, includingthe environmental impact report, the County's administrative record and your correspondence,staff believes that aspects of the proposed project have fundamental inconsistencies with LCPpolicies related to zoning requirements and hazards. We note also that the project includes a


2/6

A-2-SMC-11-021 (Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park)Appeal StatusAugust 17, 2011Page 2subdivision that would create new lots in an area that is subject to numerous constraints due tocoastal resources. Any new lots would have to be consistent with applicable LCP and CoastalAct policies, including these same zoning and hazard requirements of the certified LCP.Therefore, we strongly recommend that you either explore alternative locations for the WellnessCenteror propose a project consistent with the Waterfront Zoning District and then return to theCounty with a project that complies with the zoning and hazards requirements of the LCP .. Commission staff would work to provide comments to you and the County throughout such aprocess.If you do not choose this direction, and instead move forward with the project as approved by theCounty, we will need additional information to fully evaluate the project's consistency with theLCP, as described above. Although providing the additional information identified below willnot alleviate our concerns regarding the project's fundamental inconsistencies with the LCP, ourplanning, legal and technical staff have reviewed the project materials and have identified thefollowing information that is necessary to fully evaluate the project's consistency with the LCPand applicable Coastal Act policies. Please note, however, that staff may request additionalinformation, including if, upon further review, it is determined that the Commission will need toevaluate whether denial of the project would result in an unconstitutional taking of privateproperty for public use. In order to make that evaluation, staff would request additionalinformation from the applicant and the landowner concerning both the economic impact of theregulation on the applicant/landowner and the nature of the applicant's/landowner's propertyinterest prior to holding a de novo hearing on the project. The information we have identified asnecessary for the Commission to evaluate the project's conformity with the certified LCP and theaccess policies of the Coastal Act is as follows:Project DescriptionYou previously indicated that the applicant is interested in making various potential changes tothe project to address some of the LCP consistency issues that have been raised, such as reducingbuilding heights and dedicating the water well to a public utility agency. Please provide acomprehensive revised project description that incorporates all such proposed project changes.Please also provide two full sets of full size and two full sets of reduced size comprehensiveproject plans, including in plan view and elevations, that correspond to the revised projectdescription.UtilitiesLUP Policy 7.20 provides specific protections for the Pillar Point Marsh, and Policies 7.3 and 7.4protect sensitive habitats and prohibit development adjacent to sensitive habitat from havingadverse impacts on the habitat. In addition, LUP Policy 5.22 protects agricultural water suppliesand requires that when approving any division or conversion of prime agricultural land or otherlands suitable for agriculture, adequate and sufficient water supplies needed for agriculturalproduction and sensitive habitat protection in the watershed must not be diminished. To allow foran evaluation of the proposed water system's impacts on nearby habitat and the project'sconsistency with these policies, please provide a comprehensive water balance calculation that


3/6

A-2-SMC-11-021 (Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park)Appeal StatusAugust 17,2011Page 3corrects the errors identified by the County in special condition 5.jj of the County's approval,and that justifies the estimated demand for water, including through an analysis of irrigationdemand using an irrigation demand model such as the Department of Water Resources'WUCOLS III. Estimates must be made for both rainy and dry season irrigation demand, and allassumptions and methodologies for arriving at the calculation must be provided. In addition,please provide a report prepared by a biologist/hydrologist that evaluates the ability of theproject's irrigation and other outdoor water use to be managed and controlled to prevent changesin existing drainage and hydrology that could adversely impact the biology or hydrology ofadjacent habitats or result in ponding that could result in traffic circulation or structure stabilityproblems.LUP Policies 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 1.18 direct new development to existing urban areas in part tomaximize the efficiency of public utilities, and Policy 1.18 specifically requires newdevelopment to be concentrated in urban areas by requiring infill development. LUP Policy 1.19goes on to define infill as development of vacant land in urban areas that are served by publicsewer and water utilities. In addition, LUP Policy 5.22, which addresses the division ofagricultural lands, prohibits a single well source from serving more than four new parcels.Therefore, please provide copies of approvals and or 'will serve' letters from all applicable waterand sewer permitting and public utility agencies, including any necessary approvals of thepotable water source and water recycling facility by the California Regional Water QualityControl Board and the Granada Sanitary District, as well as 'will serve' letters from GranadaSanitary District, Coastside County Water District and Montara Water and Sanitary District, asapplicable. If such approvals have not yet been obtained, please provide copies of applicationssubmitted to these agencies, as well as contact information for the appropriate staff.AestheticsThe Visual Resources component of the LCP regulates development to protect the visualresources of the County's coastal zone. LCP Policy 8.5 requires new development to be locatedto be least visible from State and County scenic roads, to reduce impacts on views from publicviewpoints, and to preserve the visual and open space qualities of the coastal zone. In addition,LCP Policy 8.6 specifically protects visual resource qualities of streams, wetlands and estuaries.To allow for an evaluation of the proposed project's consistency with these policies, pleaseprovide a comprehensive visual analysis of the project as approved by the County and as revised(if revised by the applicant, as described above), including visual simulations and photographs ofstory poles as viewed from various public locations, including representative locations on nearbypublic streets and highways, hiking trails and beaches. Please coordinate with us on.the timingand methodology of story poles prior to any installation. (Note: We are aware that story poleswere previously erected and photographed, but it is our understanding that the story polesinstalled during the County's review of the project were based on a different project design thanwas approved by the County, and that only one of the office park buildings was represented.)


4/6


5/6

A-2-SMC-11-021 (Big Wave Wellness Center and Office Park)Appeal StatusAugust 17, 2011Page 5Geology, Hydrology and SoilsLUP Policy 9.10 requires site specific geotechnical investigations to determine mitigationmeasures to remedy hazards that may exist for structures intended for human occupancy oremployment. To allow for an evaluation of the project's consistency with the LCP's hazardspolicies, including this one, please provide a supplemental geotechnical report showing how theproject will avoid and mitigate impacts related to seismic hazards, soils and drainage. The reportshould include drainage plans that fully evaluate the existing site conditions and potentialhydrological impacts of the project, including from the project's irrigation and other outdoorwater use, and it should include a fault hazard investigation involving trenching, magnetic orseismic methods,' In addition, it should address the stability of temporary and final slopes andstockpiles, including the capacity for off-site slopes to fail and impact the project site, as well asseismic-related ground failures such as cyclic densification, liquefaction, lateral spreading,liquefaction-induced ground settlement, liquefaction surface manifestations, total and differentialground settlement and expansive soils. Any areas that need to address geology, hydrology, andsoils issues should be shown on site plans in relation to the County-approved project and anyrevised project, and on combined site plans showing these items in relation to wetland/habitatand sea level rise/hazards constraints described above.Traffic and Public AccessThe project site is located between the first public road and the sea, and therefore, must beconsistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act as well as theCounty's LCP. Coastal Act sections 30210 through 30213 protect the public's right to access thecoast and require maximum public access to the coast to be provided and maintained. Inaddition, LUP Policy 2.49 describes level of service (LOS) D as acceptable during commuterpeak periods and LOS E as acceptable during recreation peak periods. The Traffic Impact Studythat was provided was based on traffic counts and volumes from January 2007. Such an analysisis not sufficient for the Commission to determine the project's consistency with the public accessand recreation policies of the Coastal Act and the LUP because it does not address current peakrecreational traffic, and thus, the project's impacts on the ability of the public to access theshoreline are not known. Therefore, to allow for an evaluation of the project's consistency withboth Coastal Act and LCP access policies, please augment the traffic study to include trafficcounts and traffic volumes from the peak summer season. Also, please provide an analysis of theproject's impacts on the LOS of the flow of traffic along nearby segments of Highways 1 and 92.Airport Land Use CompatibilityLUP Policy 1.5 incorporates the adopted Montara-Moss Beach~EI Granada Community Plan intothe land use plan for the Mid-Coast, and Policy 3.21 of this plan requires developmentsurrounding the Half Moon Bay Airport to be consistent with the goals and policies of theadopted Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) plan. Therefore, the Commission's evaluationof the project for consistency with the certified LCP must include an evaluation of the project'sconsistency with the ALUC plan. As such, and as requested by the County ALUC staff, pleaseprovide a detailed acoustic analysis by a registered acoustic engineer that includes identification


6/6

A -2 -SMC -1 1-0 21 (B ig Wave Welln es s C en te r a nd O ffice P ark)Appeal S ta tusAug ust 17 , 2 01 1Page 6and documentation of single-event levels and cumulative noise event levels at the project sitefrom aircraft operations at the HMB airport. The noise analysis should include a graphic thatillustrates the single-event aircraft noise contours (in dBA) and the cumulative aircraft noisecontours (in CNEL) at the project site.ConclusionAs we have discussed, Commission staff believes that aspects of the proposed project, asapproved by the County, are fundamentally inconsistent with the zoning and hazard requirementsof the certified LCP. We strongly recommend that you re-envision a project that either conformsto the County's zoning and hazards requirements or relocates the Wellness Center to a moresuitable site, and return to the County for a new permit. Commission staff would make everyeffort to participate throughout such a process.If you have any questions about the information we have requested, please feel free to contactme at (831) 427-4863 or [email protected],M~~(l;~Madeline CavalieriCoastal PlannerNorth Central Coast District

cc: Jeff PeckNicole DeMartiniCamille Leung
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected].

coastal commission letter to big wave 8-17-2011

Documents