Environmental
review for the proposed "Preserve at San Marcos" continues.
After
two all-day Planning Commission hearings in September, SMFC and our supporters
have established many solid points with the Commissioners. We wish to thank those
who have taken time to write to the Planning Commission and local papers, donate
speaking time or speak at the hearings. Your support is making a difference! The
Final Environmental Impact Report
finds that the development project will cause significant unavoidable impacts
(Class I) relating to slope stability/potential landslides,
50 acres loss of sensitive plants, loss of wildlife and wildlife diversity and
loss of 18 acres of habitat due to fuel modification. However, we believe there
are several areas in which the Final EIR is deficient. Our experts will continue
to register these deficiencies to create a strong body of legal evidence for our
case.
County Planning Commission, Thursday December
16, 2004
This is the last Planning Commission hearing, and very important to
attend.
Hearing starts at 9:00 am and may go all day until 4:00 pm.
For
those wanting to testify it may be best to come in the afternoon.
The
position of the San Marcos Foothills Coalition
We oppose development on
the West Mesa of San Marcos Foothills because it is a unique remnant of our geological
history that supports a community of animals and plants with wetlands occurring
nowhere else along the South Coast. This part of the foothills is within view
of thousands of residents. (Read here for more of our concerns
regarding the West Mesa.) We are voicing other concerns for Traffic, Visual, Landslide,
and Cumulative effects that affect other parts of the property. Taken together,
these impacts impose huge constraints on all development scenarios. At the same
time, we are asking the community to share our alternate vision that welcomes,
rather than excludes, artists, students, teachers, Native Americans, hikers, old
folks and young. Only active citizen input can convince decision-makers to help
provide an alternative to mansionization of our last and best of the foothills.
Swap
Alternative
A well-researched alternative project has been proposed by
Coalition members SWAP (Small Wilderness Area Preserves) and the EDC (Environmental
Defense Center). This alternative avoids some of the worst impacts of the proposed
development including loss of the West Mesa boulder fields, reduces the area
of impact by one third, and triples the number of affordable dwellings in
the project. It is presently undergoing feasibility studies by an appraiser for
EDC. Other ideas and proposals will be needed and of course, SMFC will continue
to work for preservation of the entire property
A
Contrast in Vision
Our proposal for this property encourages public
access, education, ecological restoration, Native American transmission of cultural
information (and activities including special plant cultivation), cattle ranching,
and research at several academic levels. In short, San Marcos Foothills Coalition
envisions the jewel of all parks and we have the energy and know-how in planning,
restoration, and management to make this happen.
Compare this to the vision
offered by this developer. There will be public access to the West Mesa. We see
no plan for education, no restoration plan for erosion and streambank damage other
than that which facilitates project approval, no interest in working with the
Native American community, no interest in maintaining a cattle operation for fire
management and education about this part of California's history. There is no
endowment established for management of the land that has been set aside. Instead,
we see mansions undoing the ecology of the unsurpassed West Mesa, lasting impacts
to Cieneguitas and Cocopah neighborhoods, fences closing off private conservation
areas, and permanent visual impacts viewed from many parts of our community.
Class
I (adverse, unmitigable) Impacts from Preserve at San Marcos |
| Biological | | | Sensitive
Plants | | | | 50.1
acres of high biological value and diversity would be destroyed. |
| | Wetlands | | | | Adverse
effects due to habitat fragmentation to wildlife access, use, and movement (Direct
impacts to wetlands on the West Mesa are not part of this Class I impact.) |
| | Fuel
Modification | | | |
17.9 acres of habitat would be removed
(The problem is
that the 100' setback used for the EIR analysis may be superceded by insurance
company requirements that 200 or 300' setbacks are needed in fire-prone areas.
This would greatly increase the amount of habitat mowed, especially the coastal
sage scrub habitats. Beacuse no wording would disallow setbacks greater than 100',
the affected habitat area could greatly exceed 17.9 acres. ) |
| | Wildlife
Diversity | | | | Due
to habitat conversion. |
| | Sensitive
Wildlife | | | | Loss
of foraging and nesting habitat will reduce the number of individuals. (The EIR
fails to inform us where on SMF sensitive wildlife and wildlife diversity would
be impacted. This makes actual impact areas hard to identify and thus because
of their vagueness, these impacts can be more easily ignored.) |
| Geological | | | Landslide/Slope
Stability, lots 12-14 | | | | (Our
experts tell us that the area of Rincon Shale extends well into other areas proposed
for large homes not shown as impacts in the EIR.) |
Class
II Impacts ("can be mitigated") that merit a closer look (i.e., we think
these should be Class I Impacts) |
| Visual | | | From
101 going N on 154 | | | | Severe
alteration of visual landscape from many parts of the community. |
| Cumulative
Impacts | | | | Especially
on the Designated Remainder from loss of the 177 acres on the W. Mesa. |
| Traffic
| | | On Foothill Road E of Highway
154 | | | | From
15 years of construction on the lot sale, from service vehicles exacerbating an
already severe problem area on Foothills Road. |
| Geology | | | Of
the West Mesa | | | |
A unique remnant of our geological history that supports animal populations occurring
nowhere else along the South Coast. The uniqueness of the West Mesa Geology and
Ecology is supported by: |
| |
The rarity of the landform in its undeveloped state | | | The
presence of the boulder field (319 boulders in all!) with its ornate display of
lichens in its original context, | | |
The groundwater storage capability is a far greater asset to our community than
the hard surfaces and rapid runoff conditions that would be created by this portion
of the project (8 homes.) | | | The
wetlands on the formation, or seeps fed by groundwater absorbed and held by the
formation, | | | Its
assemblage of native grassland plants, | | |
Its scenic quality and physical prominence next to a State Scenic Highway, |
| | The
added ecological dimension offered by the boulders where animal display, mating,
foraging, resting is so easily seen. | | | And
its size is a feature we now have to recognize as its greatest asset, not one
to be whittled away. | | | Here
we should be directing off-site mitigations from other project sites in the community,
rather than dissipating the riches from this property and attempting mitigate
losses on SMF to inferior sites elsewhere. By saving the West Mesa in its
entirety we confer ecological benefits to other smaller, less self-sustaining
properties. |
|
