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. While we think there will be public access to the 200 acres,
there is no guarantee of this. We see no plan for education, no restoration plan
for the many problems on the land 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that the 100' setback used for EIR analysis may be superceded by typical requirements
of property insurance companies in fire-prone areas that 200 or 300' setbacks
are needed. This would greatly increase the amount of habitat mowed, especially
the coastal sage scrub habitats. There is nothing in the requirements that only
100' setbacks would be established. So, the EIR may underestimate the damage done
by home construction on San Marcos Foothills.) |
| | 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. |
|
