This letter was sent to the Midpeninsula Open Space District regarding the MROSD Environmental Impact Report for the Annexation of the San Mateo County coastside. It is used with permission.
Memorandum For: MIDPENINSULA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Subject: Comments on SMC CAA EIR, dated June 2002
From: Terrence D. Gossett, Moss Beach, CA, August 24, 2002
The following comments and queries of the proposed San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft EIR dated June 2002 by MROSD are submitted through the rights granted me in the Cortese Knox Hertzberg (CKH) Government Reorganization Act of 2000. In accordance with the CKH Act I expect a response from MROSD to the following comments and questions. My comments and questions are in five areas:
Government should not treat citizens as the enemy in pursuit of no growth policies in the quest for land and power, while ostensibly protecting the environment. Acquisition of land by government and allied non-profit groups reduces the tax rolls, provides no revenues, and adds services to the affected communities without providing off-setting funding.
What are the ultimate outcomes of government policies and actions in this draft EIR document for SMC CAA? The reduced property tax base increases burdens on all of us. For Silicon Valley, workers will leave, or not be able to afford to move here, or will travel long distances from their homes to their workplaces. For SMC coastsiders, the coast will increasingly be a tourist attraction, with NO improvements to serve the tourists NOR the infrastructure for our traffic, health, schools, or services.
In this EIR MROSD maintains that in the course of acquiring 11,800 to 23,000 acres they will not create one solitary new service requirement throughout the SMC CAA. Summary section pages 1-34 cites all 57 entries of "less than significant" impact. If I as a homeowner in Moss Beach were to make that claim as I tried to modify a home or build on a small fraction of an acre, SMC would require permits, provisions for fire and water, soil analyses, payments to Montara Sanitary District, payments to School districts, studies by archaeologists, analyses of parking, access, and drainage, prediction of erosion of bluffs, and much more. This is not speculation, this, and much more, happened to me and my neighbors.
A prescient book entitled, The Environmental Protection Hustle written by a Professor of Urban Planning from MIT, Bernard J Frieden, was published in 1979. Frieden focused on the Bay area developments that were disapproved for environmental reasons during the 1970's when MROSD was founded. Frieden presented a number of facts showing how middle-class citizens are being hustled through environmental lawsuits, rising home costs, mostly due to the cost of land, and no-growth policies. Another good book documenting land use in California was written by Ralph Nader's study group entitled Politics of Land in 1973. The observations and predictions of these two books has come true, yet lawmakers and government in California, and especially in San Mateo County, are in denial.
On August 4, 2002, the Frontpage Headlines of the San Jose Mercury stated ---WHAT IS BEHIND THE HOUSING CRUNCH? Subtitles were: Areas Closed to Development, AND Cost of Land Drives Prices. The series by the Mercury summarizes our plight very well. "Let housing woes continue to erode employers' ability to recruit and retain employees, to sap the productivity of workers with long commutes, and to push families with moderate incomes inland, leaving the coast to those who can afford it or are willing to pay high rents or share crowded quarters. The Bay Area is already short more than 57,000 housing units, according to some estimates." What legacy are we going to leave our children? Is anyone in government responsible enough to address these issues?
Error -- Appendix B Traffic and Parking Study -- It is an error to state that the traffic for two random reserves on a random Saturday would be the "average" of all 26 MROSD preserves for "normal" Saturdays. And it is the most egregious error to then propose that any of the foregoing analyses applies to average or peak traffic for planned preserves using main thoroughfares of HWY 1, 92, and 84 in the SMC CAA over the next 15 years.
Error -- Appendix D Ð Fiscal Analysis Ð It is an error to state that the total tax revenue loss to San Mateo County over a 15 year period is estimated to be $86,123. First, these lands will be off the tax rolls for perpetuity, not just 15 years. Second, no tax loss was considered for 80% of acquired lands because it came from non-profit organizations that pay no property tax, BUT the non-profits acquired land for the express purpose of transferring to the government. Hence the lost tax revenues should be based on the "real" market value of $8000 per acre (per the EIR), or a total of $94.4M at a 1% tax rate, so a loss of $944,000 per year in perpetuity without including any inflation. Since most of the acquisitions occur during the first five years, let us roughly start with year 5 with the $944,000 per year, so for the remaining 10 years that would total $9.44M loss of tax revenue for the first 15 years. I submit to MROSD and the SMC LAFCo that the real tax revenue loss from this proposal is much closer to $9.44M than $86,123 for the first 15 years. Then, since this proposal is for "in perpetuity", the present value of said loss revenues would increase accordingly.
Omission -- Page S-3, A-1, Plan Conformance Ð What federal and state and local plans and policies are relevant and need to be included in this list, especially regarding traffic, economy, tax revenues, school districts, and housing? Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 2000 requires proposals for achieving a fair share of regional housing needs as determined by appropriate council of governments. Where is the appropriate council of governments concerned with housing?
Omission -- Page 1-2.A Ð Where is participation of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, their citizens, and their LAFCos in this process?
Omission -- Page II-11, paragraph 2 Ð It states that Appendix D considers effects of Proposition 12 and 40, but no specific mention of those effects are in Appendix D.
Clarification -- Page II-11, paragraph 2 ÐTypically every 2-3 years there is a State Bond issue with funding for acquisitions affecting water and air quality throughout the state. Propositions 12 and 40 were cited here, but further clarification is needed to explain exactly how Prop 12 ($2.1B) and Prop 40 ($2.6B) affect this Plan, and to estimate the impact of the probable 3 to 4 additional bond measures during the lifetime of this Plan. So how many acres will really be acquired in total in the SMC CAA from Prop 12 and 40? How much funding will MROSD receive from these two Bond issues, and for what purposes? If unknown, what are the ranges of possibilities for these two propositions and subsequent propositions?
Clarification -- 2800 cars per hour is cited as the maximum capacity combined (both directions) on a typical two lane undivided road. What is the basis for that assertion? Does that assertion apply to the types of roads within the SMC CAA?
Clarification -- A figure of $8000 per acre is cited as the current market value for acreage within the CAA. I believe this cost per acre figure should be much higher based upon the prices being paid for recent lands acquired by POST and others in the area., e.g. $3.95M for 267 acres for San Gregorio Farms in 2000 for $14,794 per acre, $2.65M for 3 acres of Whalers Cove for $883,000 per acre, and $39M for 1700 acres for Bolsa for $22,9400 per acre. QUESTIONS -- What is the basis for this assertion of $8000 per acre? Where is the inflation of that figure for out years through year 15? Since the above examples are mostly for hundreds of acres, what size parcels is that based upon? How does that $8000 figure apply to this plan, especially since market value has no value in your analysis? Please note that in general ocean view and ocean front parcels over 40 miles of coast of your proposed annexation are more valuable than inland parcels.
Inconsistencies -- QUESTIONS -- How can MROSD apply eminent domain to some citizens and not to other citizens (SMC CAA) in the District? How can MROSD tax some citizens in the District and not other citizens (SMC CAA)? Does any other special district, or county, or state in the United States of America utilize such an unfair model for eminent domain or taxation?
It is astounding to me that throughout this report that no effects of the proposed annexation were found to be significant. In a plan that calls for acquiring from 11,800 to possibly 23,000 acres (see page VI-4.b.2) over a 15 year period in a region of one of the richest economies and highest cost properties in the United States, one would expect some acknowledgment of the possibility of impacts to water needs, to social equity, and especially to tax revenues, traffic, schools, and businesses. The statements and assertions in this self-serving report are simply astounding, and merit very close inspection.
For all proposed plans, there is no worst-case scenario, no zero sum concepts are presented, and no acknowledgment of finite resources or the possibility that acquisitions will ever end. Where is John Q Public in all of this, and who in this process purports to represent him?
It is appalling to think that MROSD and Economics Research Associates surveyed public officials verbally before the draft EIR was prepared in order to assess any significant impact on those agencies. Then based upon responses to unknown questions to 27 agencies and districts ERA proclaimed no significant impact. In my humble opinion, the agencies queried should see the entirety of what is in the plan before making any assessment of impact and respond in a thorough and professional manner in writing, as a matter of public record. The agencies queried should also consider their resources, funding, and needs over the life of the plan, not just for their current situation and their current budgets. QUESTION -- How much money did Economics Research Associates receive for this report? Will the 27 agencies be given the full report and submit their statements in writing? For the past 30 years there has been no indication that these acquisitions by MROSD will ever cease, AND all acquisitions by MROSD are for perpetuity.
Page numbering system -- The next Draft EIR should use sequential page numbers, instead of the assorted page numbering system in this amalgamation. See following page number citations for an example of how it should NOT be done.
Page S-3, A-1, Plan Conformance-
QUESTIONS: What other plans and policies, especially state and federal, are relevant? Where are other factors that should be represented and cited as required by CKH such as housing, traffic, social equity, business, and economy? Among the cited plans and policies, what is the Hierarchy? Precedence among the plans and policies? Priority of goals and objectives among the plans and policies?
Page S-6, Mitigation LU-1b.1
EIR Plan should state that MROSD is responsible and liable for their actions with private land owners regarding fences, gates, and crossings. QUESTION: Why does Appendix D not address these possible liabilities?
Page S-13, Mitigation HAZ-1
EIR should state that MROSD will not acquire said hazardous properties, or if properties are acquired MROSD must provide proof of funding or bond in amount of restitution. QUESTION Why does the fiscal analysis not address these liabilities resulting from hazardous materials on acquired lands?
Page S-21-3, Mitigation HYD-1a-c
EIR cites a host of actions to mitigate negative hydrology effects, but the record should show that with nearly 50,000 acres acquired over 30 years by MROSD, that the creeks, streams, and rivers with headwaters within MROSD are still polluted, quite possibly more so than when acquisitions started 30 years ago. QUESTIONS- When has anyone seen a creek in San Mateo County, with headwaters acquired by MROSD, that is SAFE as it enters the Pacific Ocean? Does MROSD bear any responsibility? If it truly is a goal of MROSD to improve watershed hydrology quality, then propose a metric whereby that goal is measurable, monitored, and attained.
Page 1-2
QUESTIONS: How will Santa Clara LAFCo and/or its citizens participate in this EIR, if at all? Are they abdicating? How can Santa Clara County and San Mateo County subvert CKH 2000, by citing an agreement from 1987? Is this willful malfeasance or simply a disregard for the public? Do the citizens of Santa Clara or Santa Cruz counties have any say in this EIR? Why not? This EIR proposes to keep taxing them and use eminent domain against them, while the San Mateo CAA will have neither.
Page II-11, paragraph 2
This is a very significant paragraph involving Billions of tax dollars from Proposition 12 ($2.1B) in 2000, and Proposition 40 ($2.6B) in 2002 (and the bulk of the funding in these propositions was for acquisition of land), and now we the citizens in the SMC CAA are left hanging in mid-air regarding the following QUESTIONS-- How many funds from these propositions will MROSD receive? How many funds will 29 government agencies and districts and approximately 20 non-profit agencies allied with, and interacting with MROSD in the SMC CAA receive? Who will manage these funds from the Propositions and/or other grants and manage the subsequently acquired properties?None of these considerations are reflected in this EIR, Why not? If the above questions cannot be answered, then the fiscal analysis should show the range of possible impacts of these bonds, and any future anticipated bonds, on this SMC CAA plan.
Page II-14, Land Acquisition
Are these land acquisitions just from direct acquisitions by MROSD or does it include acquisitions from Prop 12 and 40, and other non-profit groups?
Page III-12
It states "There are no GGNRA managed units currently in the proposed annexation area." And it goes on to state "The National Park Service is in process of acquiring funding to update this plan(General Management Plan of 1980) to include new areas within the GGNRA boundaries, including northern San Mateo County." QUESTION -- What specific agreements exist between NPS-GGNRA and POST and MROSD regarding funding for, easements through, acquisition of, and plans for the land within the SMC CAA?
Page IV-C-8
2800 cars per hour is cited as the maximum standard total capacity combined traffic in both directions on a typical two lane undivided road. BUT, the roads in this SMC CAA are ATYPICAL (scenic views, oceans, surfers, curvy mountain roads, BFI garbage trucks and exits, landslides, flooding, quarries, nurseries, PLUS these roads are shared with the main thoroughfares for the populace for work, business, schools, and police and fire departments on a community that relies wholly on HWY 1, 92, and 84) QUESTION -- The choice of Windy Hill and Purissima as traffic indicators for the proposed CAA appears flawed. Both of those MROSD areas are served by minor roads with minimal collateral traffic. Windy Hill is at the end of a dead end road and Purissima Creek is an inland Park. It is specious logic to compare those traffic loads with those in the CAA. Especially when in Appendix C, page 6, it is stated that millions of bay area residents will be within 1 hour of this CAA. In addition, now visitors to the new parks will commingle with regular traffic on Hwy 1, 92, and 84. SO, WHAT is the REAL maximum capacity for roads within the SMC CAA? Traffic should be considered a significant impact.
Page V-3, V.A.2b
Private Non-Profit Land Trust -- This section states "These groups and other similar entities, such as the American Land Conservancy, have expressed an intent to continue with private land acquisition." QUESTION -- What agreements exist between private groups and MROSD? What agreements exist for land transfer, for shared acquisition planning, for funding, for trails, for pre-emptive buying by non-profits in the face of eminent domain proceedings in the non-SMC CAA? MROSD as a government agency must show details of their agreements with other entities to the public. Has MROSD done so?
Page VI-2, C
Effects Not Found to be SignificantÑ QUESTIONS: Mineral Resources --What is meant when EIR states " The CAA would not affect the availability of any of these known resources." Population/Housing---The EIR only talks of effects from their own facilities and personnel. The La Honda-Pescadero school district is clearly concerned that land acquisition by MROSD will affect the number of students, housing for their staff, and overall housing units available to the community. QUESTION -- What is the total impact on Population/Housing when you consider the real issue of diminished land available for housing for the CAA community, and the subsequent raising of prices for land and homes?
Page VI-6, 2, b Agriculture
It states "There will be no significant cumulative impacts associated with actions by other agencies either from purchasing land for open space and recreation or from managing it" QUESTIONS --Not only is MROSD saying that none of their own planned actions will have any significant impact on any services in the San Mateo CAA, NOW MROSD is also saying there will be no significant impact by ANY other agencies BY purchasing or managing.
How can we trust an agency with this much arrogance? In my humble opinion, I think that this is the high-water mark for all environmental proclamations! How could any agency making such a statement ever acknowledge any impact AT ALL from any of their proposals? Why should anyone ever again accept the assertions of MROSD?
Did any of the 27 agencies and districts interviewed by ERA and MROSD concur with this outrageous statement? Hypothetically, how does MROSD know with absolute certainty that no government or non-profit agency will buy, say, 50,000 more acres in the CAA causing significant impact over the next 15 years? Consider what amounts of property government and non-profit agencies already own and have purchased in the SMC CAA over the past 15 years. MROSD and POST and SMC know exactly to the acre. My guess is 50,000 acres purchased and much more in total ownership just in the past 15 years, so who knows what the true amount of land acquisition by government and non-profit organizations will be for the next 15 years and beyond.
Page VI-6, c
Public Services and Infrastructure -- It does not appear that anyone from MROSD or Hexagon Transportation Consultants consulted the people in the SMC CAA who use HWY 1 and 92 every day, or have read letters to the editor of the Half Moon Bay Review about traffic congestion and truck traffic on HWY 92, or the daily bottlenecks at HWY 1 and 92 intersection. QUESTION -- If citizens in SMC CAA currently maintain that public services are delinquent today (especially traffic, tax revenues, housing, and schools), how can there be no significant impact by taking more land off tax rolls and by adding preserves and more traffic?
Appendix A, SMC General Plan, Transportation Policies, Recreational Traffic to the Coastside states "Seek methods to mitigate the impact of peak recreational traffic to and along the Coastside" QUESTION -- How, by adding more recreational parks along the coastside, can MROSD comply with this SMC policy? No mitigation methods were stated in the EIR. Note the SMC General Plan is concerned with peak traffic not average traffic.
Appendix A, SMC LCP, Public Works, 2.49 Desired Level of Service, and 2.50 Route 1 and Route 92 Phase 1 Capacity Limits, and 2.57 Protecting Road Capacity for Visitors QUESTION -- Does SMC comply with level of service D and E now? Will the Routes comply after MROSD CAA? Is there a conflict of definitions between SMC and MROSD on level of service?
Appendix A, Scenic Roads and Scenic corridors, 8.28-8.31 --These sections of SMC LCP designate 9 roads throughout the proposed SMC CAA as scenic roads and corridors. QUESTION -- Is MROSD EIR in compliance with all SMC and state issues regarding Scenic Roads? Where are the details?
Appendix B, Traffic and Parking Study -- It states " From the survey, it can be concluded that an average open space preserve will generate between 34 and 83 total trips during the peak hour on a normal Saturday." QUESTIONS -- How can you say average open space preserve without showing all preserves and their corresponding traffic levels? How can you say a normal Saturday when you have not shown traffic on all Saturdays? How do you know what is peak without looking at all data points? Also, how can you compare traffic on isolated inland open space preserves like Windy Hill and Purissima Creek with the proposed preserves on 9 scenic corridors in SMC CAA? Why focus on "average" and "normal" when it is the peak that is the issue. What will be the true projected traffic impact on HWY 1, 92, and 84? However, Hexagon Transportation consultants did acknowledge that "there are traffic backups that occur during certain hours on week ends in and around Half Moon Bay." Given that admission, how is traffic from the SMC CAA going to be no significant impact or any additional fiscal responsibility over next 15 years?
Appendix B, Table 2 shows an existing traffic volume for HMB-Skyline Blvd as 1995 cars/hour, and 1667 for Route 1 in HMB each with a capacity for 2800 cars per hour. Section VI-6-c projects an increase in traffic from MROSD planned acquisitions of 719 cars/hour spread over all roads throughout the entire CAA in year 15. AND that is with "the proximity of the CAA, being within a one- hour drive, or less, to literally millions of Bay Area residents" (Appendix C, page 6). The number of 719 cars/hour seems very low for the entire 140,000 acres, and again we are dealing with averages when peak is the concern of the SMC General Plan. QUESTION --Will MROSD get a second opinion of the real increase in traffic from their parks plan for CAA? Will the public get to see a second unbiased opinion before submittal to the SMC LAFCo? How much money did Hexagon Transportation Consultants receive for their report?
Appendix C, Draft Service Plan, page 4 -- It states a minimum of 14 broad areas that the SMC LAFCo must consider when reviewing the draft EIR. Several of these topics were minimally discussed in the draft EIR, such as:
The CKH Act requires an enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory. This EIR provides only a specious extrapolation of traffic services from Windy Hill and Purissima Creek to the SMC CAA, and the same specious extrapolation applies especially to housing, tax revenue loss, and agriculture as well. QUESTION -- Will MROSD provide more definitive details on these 4 topics to SMC LAFCo? Will the public and local agencies see these details?
Appendix D, Fiscal Analysis, page 3 --5 -- This section states that the net decrease in San Mateo County Tax Revenues over 15 years and with 11,800 to 23,000 acres of land being taken off the tax rolls is $86,123. This is bizarre. On page 4 it states "Éapproximately 80% of lands acquired by he District will already have been removed from the tax rolls because the District will be acquiring lands from other non-profits or public agencies." I guess it helps to have a middle man, but in this case the middle functioned in anticipation of future transfer to MROSD, as has been the case for 30 years. It appears then that MROSD is not counting tax revenue loss on 80% of their acquisitions. QUESTION: Is it true that MROSD is not counting any tax revenue loss on 80% of their acquisitions? If MROSD were to take a worst case analysis, what would the real tax loss be? If those 11, 800 acres had been sold to the public at fair market value of $8000 per acre (MROSD numbers) that would be a total of $94.4M, and at 1% tax rate that would be lost tax revenues of $944,000 per year (plus a 2% increase for inflation per year) in PERPETUITY. That would total more than $9.44M and is over a hundred times larger than $86,123 spread over a fifteen year period, with no estimation of the present value of lost tax revenues in perpetuity. Lost tax revenues are a huge issue in this proposal. ALSO What if the true number of acres acquired is 23,000 acres or greater, and the real price was $14,000 per acre, what would the real lost tax revenue be?
Appendix D, page 4, states that the current market value of land is estimated to be $8000 per acre in this analysis. Hence at current values the 11,800 acres should cost $94.4M, but since the land is being acquired over 15 years there should be some appreciation, say nominally 3% per year. Also on page 12 MROSD states that $82.7M will be the cost over 15 years for land acquisition and preparation. What is the source of grant monies? QUESTIONS: Will private land owners get fair price? What markup does MROSD pay middle men such as POST? How does the public and/or LAFCo know what the details are between MROSD and all these middlemen? What are the details of transactions between MROSD and these "middlemen" over the past 5 years?
Appendix D, Fiscal analysis, page 5 Service Impacts on other SMC agencies and districts -- States "All agencies and districts said that they could "accommodate" the estimated increase in service demand following annexation within their current budget allocations." QUESTIONS: Are we to believe that all 27 agencies and districts cited in the EIR used the same term "accommodate"? What did they mean with that choice of words AND what information were they specifically verbally presented to elicit that response? Will those agencies and MROSD ever do the calculations to assure the taxpayers of not just "accommodation" with "current" budgets but for budgets over next 15 years? What inflation rates were assumed? Will those agencies and districts put those statements of "accommodation" for "perpetuity" in writing and submit to the taxpayers and/or LAFCo?
Appendix D, page 15, The average assessed value of 15 sample properties was $460/acre, but the current market value was estimated at $8000 per acre. For the fiscal analysis to use the $460/acre number is hyper-unrealistic and denies the full potential and value of the land. If, as MROSD states, fair market value is $8000 per acre, then if a citizen bought said property they would be subject to taxes of about $80/acre per year, or $944,000 per year for the total 11,800 acres. If MROSD ceased to exist, then assessed values could rise to its current market value through purchases by citizens, and subsequent purchases would raise tax revenues to $944,000 per year. QUESTION --Will MROSD get a second fiscal analysis opinion from an "independent" consultant? If not, why not? Will LAFCo do any analysis? If not, why not?
Terry Gossett
193 Reef Point Road
Moss Beach CA 94038
Contact: pastoralist@hotmail.com
Updated 5 April 2003