Comments for the

November 17, 2010
Planning Commission
Public Hearing for the Big
Wave EIR & Project




Date: November 15, 2010
Commenter Agency Date
1 Ed Rosiak Calpilots 10/26/10
2 Anthony Garcia FAA 10/26/10
3 Barbara Kossy -- 10/19/10
4 Barry Liftland -- 10/25/10
10/26/10
5 Bill Kehoe -- 10/26/10
6 Bob Kline -- 10/27/10
7 Bonnie Dunham -- 10/26/10
8 Carolyn Maddux -- 10/13/10
9 Chris Porter -- 10/27/10
10 Christine Hanlon CGF 10/11/10
11 Chuck Duffy GSD 10/25/10
12 Clemens Heldmaier MWSD 10/18/10
10/26/10
10/27/10
11/9/10
13 Dana Kimsey League for Coastside
Protection
10/26/10
14 David Schricker MWSD 10/25/10
15 David Skelly -- 10/28/10
16 David Vesprimi -- 10/26/10
17 Denise Aquila -- 10/22/10
18 Donald Freese -- 10/28/10
19 Gary Giovannoni -- 10/25/10
20 Geoffrey Perusse -- 10/27/10
21 Grace Maguire -- 10/19/10
22 Hal Bohner -- 11/9/10
23 Jack and MaryEm Wallace -- 10/27/10
24 Jack Sutton -- 10/26/10
25 James Porter County DPW,
Airports Division
11/2/10
26 Jan Gray -- 10/14/10
27 Jennifer Castner -- 10/24/10
28 Jerry West -- 10/25/10
29 Jim Larimer -- 10/13/10
30 John Collins AOPA 10/26/10
31 Karen Hoexter -- 10/27/10
32 Kathryn Salter Carter MWSD 10/26/10
33 Ken King Sierra Club Loma
Prieta Chapter
Coastal Issues
Committee
11/8/10
34 Kerrie DeMartini -- 10/27/10
35 Kevin Cooke -- 10/26/10
36 Kim Gainza -- 10/28/10
37 Kimberly Clark -- 10/27/10
38 Laurie Goldberg -- 10/25/10
39 Len Erickson -- 10/19/10
10/25/10
40 Lennie Roberts -- 10/15/10
11/10/10
41 Leslie O’Brien -- 10/25/10
42 Lisa Carboni Caltrans 10/20/10
43 Lisa Ketcham Pillar Ridge Home
Owners Association
10/11/10
10/19/10
10/26/10
44 Madeline Cavalieri CA Coastal
Commission
10/26/10
45 Mark Woyshner MWSD 11/10/10
46 Marshall Ketchum -- 10/24/10
47 Mary Larenas -- 10/21/10
48 Mary Lou Williams -- 10/19/10
49 Matthew Clark -- 10/26/10
50 Merrill Bobele Sierra Club Coastal
Issues Committee
Loma Prieta Chapter
10/26/10
51 Mike Ferreira Sierra Club Loma
Prieta Chapter's
Conservation
Committee
10/26/10
52 Mike Hagmaier -- 10/19/10
53 Nancy Horner GGNRA 11/10/10
11/11/10
54 Neil Merrilees MCC 9/29/10
10/26/10
55 Patty Lauritzen -- 10/24/10
56 Paul Perkovic MWSD 11/12/10
57 Peter Grenell San Mateo County
Harbor District
11/8/10
58 Petra Syme -- 10/26/10
59 Robert L. Pilgrim -- 10/25/10
60 Rosabelle and Michael "Arvin" Lynes -- 10/23/10
61 Sandy Gainza -- 10/25/10
62 Sandy Hesnard Caltrans Aeronautics 10/25/10
63 Sara DeSoto -- 10/25/10
64 Sarah Damron Surfrider Foundation 10/19/10
65 Terry Gossett Californians for
Property Rights
10/25/10
66 Vanessa Richter -- 10/25/10
67 Winter King, Shute Mihaly &
Weinberger
-- 11/9/10

PO Box 6868, San Carlos, CA 94070-6868
October 26, 2010
County of San Mateo, Planning and Building Department
Attn: Camille Leung
455 County Center, 2
nd
Floor
Redwood County CA 94063
Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Big Wave Wellness Center and
Office Park
Dear Ms. Leung,
The California Pilots Association’s mission is to promote and preserve the State’s airports.
As a statewide volunteer organization, we work to maintain the State’s airports in the best
possible condition.
Previously, we provided comments to the Notice of Preparation for the Environmental
Impact Report and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. We do not believe that any of
the following concerns have been adequately addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report. It should be noted CalPilots concurs with the letter from the FAA dated 7-8-2010.
We also agree with the Letters from CalTrans Div of Aeronautics dated Nov 17 2008 and
Dec 21 2009 as well as comments from AOPA. All express similar very serious concerns
about the placement of housing of any kind this close to Half Moon Bay Airport
The California Pilots Association commends the County of San Mateo for this 1)
worthwhile project. However, we are opposed to the project at its current location.
It does a disservice to the low income, developmentally disabled (DD) children and
adults the Big Wave Wellness Center hopes to serve, to be located approximately
300’-(even if moved to 800-1000’ feet) from Half Moon Bay Airport. This site will
subject more than 70 people to the impacts attendant to a location so close to an
airport such as safety and noise, etc. There is not a final depiction of the site plan
available.
The FEIR does not address the safety or other impacts of placing this project so 2)
near the Half Moon Bay Airport. The site is inconsistent with the 2002 California
Airport Land Use Handbook airport planning guidelines. These guidelines are a
minimum. It is inconsistent as well with the Deeds and Restrictions that came with
the Federal Government’s allowance of County of San Mateo to operate and protect
the airport from encroachment. It is not advisable to allow housing, or a medical
facility at this location.
Land Use Sensitivity Concerns related to Safety and Noise.
1
a) Highly Risk-Sensitive Uses.
Pg 2 CalPilots FEIR Comments
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, (the CalTrans Handbook) which is
required to be referenced during CEQA analysis for projects within 2-miles of Public Use
Airports, states the following:
“Certain critical types of land uses—particularly schools, hospitals, and other uses in which
the mobility of occupants is effectively limited—should be avoided near the ends of runways
regardless of the number of people involved.”
b) Sensitive Uses. The CalTrans Handbook further states:

This category includes land uses which, because of their special sensitivity, should be
excluded from certain locations near airports even if they meet other quantitative criteria.
Children’s schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and other highly risk-sensitive
uses are primary examples.” No matter what you call this project (Sanitarium) it contains a
vulnerable population who should not be placed near the Airport. Sanitarium is an
inappropriate designation.
c) School Site Reviews. Though not specifically a School Site, Two sections of the
Education Code (17215 and 81033) solicit input from the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) for use by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) when evaluating
such Sensitive Land Uses for schools “that would be within two miles of an airport runway
or potential runway included in an airport master plan.”
d) Wellness Center Location. The proposed Wellness Center certainly represents the criteria
indicated above and should not be located at the proposed site, or within 2-miles of the
airport.
CalTrans Land Use Safety Zones Around Airports.

a) State Law requires that the CalTrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (the
Handbook) be used as a “guide” to protect the Public from new incompatible Safety and
Noise Land Uses within 2-miles of Public Use Airports

b) Beyond the FAA’s Runway Protection Zones illustrated by the Planning Department, the
Handbook also includes Six additional Safety Zones. The following ones appear to also
apply to the proposed development.

i) Inner Turning Zone (3) , which would be further offset 17 Degrees than illustrated in the
Handbook over the proposed site location(s) to reflect the existing “RNAV (GPS) Y RWY
30” instrument approach to the airport. The following limitations are applicable in this area:

* Limit residential uses to very low densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of
2
noise)

* Avoid nonresidential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities (e.g., major
Pg 3 CalPilots FEIR Comments
shopping centers, fast food restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, buildings with more than
three aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable)

* Prohibit children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes

* Avoid hazardous uses (e.g. aboveground bulk fuel storage)

* The new SFO CLUP Zone 3 Maximum Density Criteria is 80 to 100 people per acre.

ii) Sideline Zone (5), which parallels the runway:

* Avoid residential uses unless airport related (noise usually also a factor)

* Allow all common aviation-related activities provided that height-limit criteria are met

* Limit other nonresidential uses similarly to Zone 3, but with slightly higher usage
intensities

* Prohibit children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes

* The new SFO CLUP Zone 5 Density criteria is 100 to 150 people per acre.

c) The proposed Business Park and the Wellness Center both appear to encroach on these
Safety Areas, and should be limited by the above criteria.

d) The appropriate body to make determinations on the above concerns is the Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC). As stated in former CalTrans correspondence on these projects,
the proposed action should be referred to the ALUC for further review and
a“Determination”.
The Half Moon Bay Airport is a vital link in the National Transportation System. It is
eligible for and has accepted Grants from the Federal Aviation Administration. When the
County of San Mateo last accepted a FAA Grant, the County signed Grant Assurances as part
of the contract with the FAA.
The County thereby agreed to an obligation to maintain compatible land use zoning. This is
Grant Assurance number 21.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport_sponsor_a
ssurances.pdf
3
21. Compatible Land Use. It (the County, acting as the sponsor) will take 3)
appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to
restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to
activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing
Pg 4 CalPilots FEIR Comments
and takeoff of aircraft. In addition, if the project is for noise compatibility program
implementation, it will not cause or permit any change in land use, within its jurisdiction,
that will reduce its compatibility with respect to the airport, of the noise compatibility
program measures upon which federal funds have been expended.
As we have seen above, in the FAA Grant Assurance, it is incumbent upon the County of San
Mateo to protect the airport with zoning which would prevent the development of a project
which is clearly incompatible to safe operation for Pilots at Half Moon Bay Airport as well
as the residents, particularly low income, developmentally disabled (DD) children and adults
on the ground.
Failure to comply with these Grant Assurances could likely result in the loss of millions of
dollars in future Federal Grants to the County.
NOISE:
Incorrect Noise Measurement Techniques Used by the County Planning Consultant:

When addressing noise concerns in relation to airports and aviation, the appropriate
modeling methodology to be used is the Integrated Noise Model (INM) as addressed in the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 “Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Program” documents and procedures. An appropriate output would be Airport Noise
Exposure Maps (NEM’s) representing the yearly Day-Night-average-sound-Level (DNL)
contours and also Single Event analysis. The procedure used by the County Planning
Consultant did not appear to produce the appropriate Noise Planning information for a
project that would be cited near an airport. No further action should be taken until this
required INM information is provided and discussed in a public Workshop Format at the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).


An example of inadequacy of the FEIR is Section V. General Impact Categories, Page V6
5. NOISE “The proposed project is not located near a private Airfield therefore
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important item.
From the DEIR pg IV.G-25: “Full compliance with all applicable Federal, State, Regional
and Local regulations, Programs and Plans related to land uses in proximity to a public
airport would be required” was stated. However, the project has not followed FAA or State
regulations, Programs and Plans related to land uses in proximity to a public airport and thus
results in a very significant impact associated with airport safety hazards to people residing
4
or working in the area of a public airport contrary to the stated intent.
Respectfully submitted,
s/s
Ed Rosiak
President California Pilots Association
800 319 5286
erosiak@comcast.net
5
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Western-Pacific Region
Airports Division
P. O. Box 92007
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
Federal Aviation
Administration
Son Mateo County Afrport$
July 8,2010
Mark Larson
Airport Manager
Half Moon Bay Airport
620 Airport Drive
San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Mr. Larson:
Half Moon Bay Airport
Planned Wellness Center
JUL 1 2 2010
RECEIVED
We are providing comments regarding the proposal to construct a Big Wave Wellness Center
(Center) next to Half Moon Bay Airport (HAF). Based on the information available to us, the
Center will be built approximately 500 feet west of runway 30. The presence of a center for
the developmentally disabled that is so close to the runway represents a use that is not
compatible with normal airport operations. Therefore, it is our determination that the selected
site is not appropriate. An alternative site outside HAF's influence area should be used for the
Center.
San Mateo County is reminded of the requirements of Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use.
Airport sponsors are required to take appropriate action to restrict the use of land adjacent to
the airport to activities that are compatible with normal airport operations. Clearly, a clinical
residential center serving disabled patients would not be considered a compatible use so close
to the airport and its runway.
Even if the center is not inside the noise contours of HAF, aircraft operations will have some
disturbing impact on the Center. Its occupants will surely be aware of normal airport
operations because aircraft over-flight noise will occur. The duration and intensity of the
noise, even if it is intermittent, will likely be deemed to be an undesirable nuisance by
occupants and residents of the center.
From a practical perspective, the consequences of incompatible land uses should not be
taken lightly. The airport's neighbors will surely complain about airport noise.
Incompatible land uses such as the Center will eventually provoke persistent criticism
related to noise, safety, and emissions.
Once incompatible land uses are established, it is the airport that is expected to undertake
remedial action to mitigate the offending irritants. For example, the San Mateo County
General Plan was formulated to "promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, convenience and general welfare." Additionally, the "Airport Land Use Plan includes
policies, standards, and criteria to address each of these issues to assist local agencies to
achieve land use compatibility with existing and future airport development and operations."
.J
2
Yet, because of incompatible land uses in the vicinity ofHAF, "the County has implemented
noise abatement procedures at HAF to further reduce aircraft noise impacts in the surrounding
noise sensitive areas."
The above example discloses the land-use incompatibility shortcoming related to the proposed
location of the Wellness Center. The planning and environmental documents proffer that there
will not be any negative environmental impacts related to the proximity of the Center to the
airport. However, experience actually reveals that the opposite is true. Inevitably, the Center's
users will complain about the airport. The unfortunate public policy reaction to the complaints
will inevitably be proposals to impose additional restrictions on normal airport operations.
Historically, case after case shows that incompatible land use becomes a quality of life issue
for the airport's neighbors and, thereafter, a losing proposition for the airport.
For these reasons, we must express our objection to the proposed site of the Wellness Center.
If you have any questions, please call me at 310-725-3634.
on 'a
Airports Compliance Program Manager!
Safety-Certification Inspector
Western-Pacific Region P. O. Box 92007
Airports Division Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
October 26, 2010
Mark Larson
Airport Manager
Half Moon Bay Airport
620 Airport Drive
San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Mr. Larson:
Half Moon Bay Airport
Planned Wellness Center
Follow-Up Comments
It is our understanding that San Mateo County (County) may remain in favor of the
Wellness Center being built next to Half Moon Bay Airport although it represents an
incompatible land use.
We wish to remind the County that protecting people on the ground from aircraft noise,
emissions, and the potential consequences of near-airport aircraft accidents are fundamental
reasons for establishing good compatible land use practices. People react differently to
noise and the threat of exhaust emissions, but inevitably some will react negatively and
actively seek to extinguish the noise irritant or pollutant. If Center residents do not speak
out, family or advocates may lead the protests. They will incessantly complain to
government officials and demand limitations be placed on the airport and aircraft operations.
The airport will be perceived as the cause of the problem when, in reality, the real cause is
incompatible land use.
As a substitute for good compatible land use planning, sound insulation and buyer
notification become the typical, less-effective noise mitigation measures to reduce the
negative consequences of incompatible land use development. However, these measures do
not change exterior aircraft noise levels and have no appreciable effect on individual
responses to noise. Furthermore, they become less effective if noise occurrences increase as
a result of increased aircraft operations or the types of aircraft operations. Therefore, noise
mitigation measures are not a substitute for good land use compatibility planning
The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California’s
economic future and the financial well being of the airport itself. Airports serve the local
and national interest. They facilitate transportation and commerce. They provide for the
national defense and serve the public good in times of calamity and emergency. Airports are
invaluable because they are irreplaceable. By way of comparison, one can replace a house
almost anywhere, but an airport could never be replaced in any of the developed areas of
California. Therefore, airports, such as Half Moon Bay, must be preserved and protected.
Compatible land use is an obligation that the County pledged to uphold when it made legal
commitments to the federal government in exchange for financial assistance. Ordinarily,
grant funding is the incentive motivating airport sponsors to comply with the Grant
Assurances. The County may not be concerned with future entitlement to FAA grant
funding, but the County should be concerned with the health, welfare, personal rights, and
the quality of life of the residents who might have to live and work next to an active airport.
The County will be responsible for the reduction in any of these measures of well-being.
The Airport Improvement Program cannot compensate impacted residents for any
diminution of their quality of life. If residents complain about the airport, it will be the
County’s responsibility to compensate them for their perceived harm or loss.
In the future, the airport should not be blamed for the irritation caused by noise and
emissions or the loss caused by an aircraft accident. Furthermore, the airport should not be
penalized in any way or made to suffer a reduction in its utility to serve civil aviation or the
rights of aviators who want to use the airport. The liability for incompatible land use will lie
at the door of the County and not the airport if the County makes a decision to allow
incompatible land use next to Half Moon Bay Airport.
Sincerely,
Or i gi nal Si gned by
Tony Gar c i a
Tony Garcia
Airports Compliance Program Manager
2
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
October 26, 2010
Mark Larson
Airport Manager
HalfMoon Bay Airport
620 Airport Drive
San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Mr. Larson:
Western-Pacific Region
Airports Division
Half Moon Bay Airport
Planned Wellness Center
Follow-Up Comments
P. O. Box 92007
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007
Son Mateo County Airports
OCT 29 2010
RECEIVED
It is our understanding that San Mateo County (County) may remain in favor of the
Wellness Center being built next to HalfMoon Bay Airport although it represents an
incompatible land use.
We wish to remind the County that protecting people on the ground from aircraft noise,
emissions, and the potential consequences of near-airport aircraft accidents are fundamental
reasons for establishing good compatible land use practices. People react differently to
noise and the threat of exhaust emissions, but inevitably some will react negatively and
actively seek to extinguish the noise irritant or pollutant. If Center residents do not speak
out, family or advocates may lead the protests. They will incessantly complain to
government officials and demand limitations be placed on the airport and aircraft operations.
The airport will be perceived as the cause ofthe problem when, in reality, the real cause is
incompatible land use.
As a substitute for good compatible land use planning, sound insulation and buyer
notification become the typical, less-effective noise mitigation measures to reduce the
negative consequences of incompatible land use development. However, these measures do
not change exterior aircraft noise levels and have no appreciable effect on individual
responses to noise. Furthermore, they become less effective if noise occurrences increase as
a result of increased aircraft operations or the types of aircraft operations. Therefore, noise
mitigation measures are not a substitute for good land use compatibility planning
The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California's
economic future and the financial well being of the airport itself. Airports serve the local
and national interest. They facilitate transportation and commerce. They provide for the
national defense and serve the public good in times of calamity and emergency. Airports are
invaluable because they are irreplaceable. By way of comparison, one can replace a house
almost anywhere, but an airport could never be replaced in any of the developed areas of
California. Therefore, airports, such as HalfMoon Bay, must be preserved and protected.
Compatible land use is an obligation that the County pledged to uphold when it made legal
commitments to the federal government in exchange for financial assistance. Ordinarily,
grant funding is the incentive motivating airport sponsors to comply with the Grant
Assurances. The County may not be concerned with future entitlement to FAA grant
funding, but the County should be concerned with the health, welfare, personal rights, and
the quality oflife of the residents who might have to live and work next to an active airport.
The County will be responsible for the reduction in any of these measures of well-being.
The Airport Improvement Program cannot compensate impacted residents for any
diminution of their quality of life. If residents complain about the airport, it will be the
County's responsibility to compensate them for their perceived harm or loss.
2
In the future, the airport should not be blamed for the irritation caused by noise and
emissions or the loss caused by an aircraft accident. Furthermore, the airport should not be
penalized in any way or made to suffer a reduction in its utility to serve civil aviation or the
rights of aviators who want to use the airport. The liability for incompatible land use will lie
at the door of the County and not the airport if the County makes a decision to allow
incompatible land use next to Half Moon Bay Airport.
From: "Barbara Kossy" <bkossy@coastside.net>
To: <plngbldg@co.sanmateo.ca.us>, <planning-
commission@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
CC: "sabrina brennan" <sabrina@dfm.com>, "Lisa Ketcham"
<Lisa.Ketcham@comcas...
Date: 10/19/2010 5:02 PM
Subject: Big Wave Final EIR
Dear Planning Commission,
The Big Way Project, as proposed, remains inappropriate for the proposed location.
The construction will threaten valuable wetlands, and proposes structures too close to
the airport.
It's also in a Tsunami inundation zone. And if that weren't enough, it's oversized and
would have a huge visual impact.
"As proposed, the project would not result in significant short-or long-term impacts to the
overall value of the views from these viewpoints." Totally the opinion of the developers. I
disagree. The project will result in significant short-and long-term impacts to the overall
value of the views..."
Also the impact of increased traffic on Airport road with limited access from Moss Beach
and Princeton is totally unacceptable.
Traffic reports do not decrease traffic, or make a road safer for more enjoyable for
pedestrians and cyclists.
Open space and farmed land are part of the fabric of the Coastside.
To destroy farmland, and pave valuable open space, with it's vistas, and wildlife
corridors, while bringing in unmitigated traffic flow, the damage and disruption of
construction, and a questionable enterprise, well, that's just bad planning.
This is a perfect project for an urban redevelopment zone with infrastructure in place.
Perhaps it could be built in an abandoned shopping mall or big box store. Those already
have huge parking lots, and any wetlands at those sites were destroyed long ago.
There's a big, mostly empty parking lot surrounding Harbor Village. Perhaps it should be
built there, if it must be built on the Coastside.
Barbara Kossy
Moss Beach
- Big Wave requests

From: BARRY <bevbarry@pacbell.net>
To: <Planning-Commission@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Date: 10/25/2010 1:24 PM
Subject: Big Wave requests
CC: <cleung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Greetings San Mateo Planning Commission:

RE: Big Wave

1. Please grant us - the public - at least 60 day to review the FEIR. It is HUGE and difficult reading for
me and other persons I know.

2. Please compel the Big Wave developers to erect full story-poles for each building and top them with
netting. Please require them to have the story-poles in place for the entire review period.

Thank you,

Barry Lifland
750 First Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Page 1 of 1
11/16/2010
I - Big Wave comments

From: BARRY <bevbarry@pacbell.net>
To: <Planning-Commission@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Date: 10/26/2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Big Wave comments
CC: <cleung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Greetings San Mateo County Planning Commission

RE: Big Wave FEIR

I disagree with certain parts of the proposed FEIR:

1. APPENDIX G MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE C: ALTERNATE OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION OPTION is at best wishful thinking. I maintain that all options in Appendix G will
impact to cumulative peak-hour traffic volumes and intersection LOS to a more-than-significant level.

2. Building heights of more than one story will impact the area to a more-than-significant level.

3. Potable water availability and sewage capacity from community sources do not seem to be available
and will impact those services to a more-than-significant level.

4. The Wellness Center occupancy of 70 persons would make a similar demand of all services as would
20 to 25 single family homes. This will impact service and the area to a more-than-significant level.

5. The HMB Airport Overlay does not allow for the high concentrations of people so close to the flight
paths; this will impact the airport and the area to a more-than-significant level.

I am requesting that the San Mateo County Planning Commission deny certification of the DEIR and the
FEIR.

Thank you,

Barry Lifland
750 First Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Page 1 of 1
11/16/2010
To: Planning Commission
County Government Center
455 County Center, MD-PLN122
Redwood City, CA 94063
planning-commission@co.sanmateo.ca.us.
Subject: Big Wave FEIR Comments
Honorable Commissioners,
I apologize for the incompleteness of my comments on the Final EIR. The short
review period does not permit me sufficient time to research the details presented
in the FEIR on all the issues and coherently summarize my concerns. I would like
you to consider and extension to the review period so that the public can
adequately respond to the many remarks, explanations and interpretations the
Planning Staff has added to the FEIR. I would also hope that if you do grant an
extension that you keep in mind of the holiday season that is approaching and
take into account that many of us in this community are not professional planners
or paid consultants and will be responding on our own time with limited
resources.
With that said, here are some preliminary comments which have caused me much
concern about this project.
Wellness Center 1.
First and foremost, none of us on the MCC or in this community are against
helping the disabled or disadvantaged in our community. In fact, it is one of the
reasons why so many of us volunteer our time to make this a community worth
living in.
But is this proposal well thought out? Its location, in the Waterfront (Zone W)
and next to Manufacturing (Zone M1) and beside the Airport Overlay (Zone AO)
places them in a warehouse environment and not in a community environment.
Where is the nearest local store for them to get incidentals they may need? Where
can they go during their off hours for social, medical, educational or spiritual
needs? Granted they will be near some of the most scenic trails and have
recreational facilities on site, but don’t we all need more to break up the
monotony of the same limited routine everyday? If the idea of a wellness center,
or sanitarium or what ever they are calling it, is to integrate their charges into
society and afford them independent living environments is this isolated area the
right way to go?
In the online literature on Searching for Appropriate Housing Options (this is just
one example) it states “When determining the best location, consider the
proximity to shopping, your doctor's office, friends and family, etc. If you do not
drive, you must also consider the availability of transportation.”
Is this a plan to warehouse the developmentally disabled and keep them out of
sight and out of mind?

Questionable process tactics to usurp the EIR process. 2.
This is probably the most damning display of unprofessional conduct by the
Planning Staff we have seen to date. I will briefly list subject areas that need to be
addressed in the public review process in further detail at a later date.
Review period is inadequate. Over 3000 pages to be reviewed in 12 days a.
and less if you consider that a subsequent package of drawings arrived a
few days after the FEIR was sent.
Organization of Materials. Some portions of the documents show b.
conflicting drawings and descriptions of the project. Is the Office Park 4
buildings or 8? Is the Wellness Center 2 buildings or 7? And why does the
AO drawing still show 7 building? Should the sections, drawings and
materials that are no longer relevant be marked as such with either
strikethrough marks or other such verbiage to indicate it has been
changed?
The question becomes is this really a “FEIR” or do the changes warrant c.
another round of “DEIR”? Some of the “changes” in the FEIR, in response
to the comments, has changed traffic flow, building count, building
location without updating the original supporting documentation to reflect
the new changes. Shouldn’t these changes be certified by the same
organizations and placed in the FEIR so the public and interested parties
can see “an effort at full disclosure”?
Is it the practice of the Planning Staff to both write and review FEIR for d.
projects in the county of San Mateo? Is this service open to all residents
and business in the county? Does this provide the checks and balances
need to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in
fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action”.
CEQA Guidelines Vol 1 page II-33 Section 15003. Policies. 3.
I would like to remind the Planning Commission of its duty to follow the CEQA
Guidelines and in particular Section 15003 which states (among other things):
(d) The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in
fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (People ex
rel. Department of Public Works v. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.)
(f) CEQA was intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest
possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the
statutory language. (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247.)
(h) The lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its
constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant
environmental effect. (Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area
v. County of Inyo(1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151)
(i) CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather
adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A court
does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but
only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (Kings
County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692)
It is this last, highlighted requirement that I feel has been totally ignored by this
committee and I will cite just a one of many of examples:
Traffic. To mitigate the objections of the Seal Cove residents concerned a.
with the backups on Cypress Ave and HWY 1, the proposed solution,
referred to as Alternative C, would “force” the traffic flow south through
Princeton, adding backups at several stop signs as the traffic migrates to
HWY 1. This will impact many small businesses, like restaurants, who
count on local patronage around the evening commute. It also moves the
bottleneck problem of Office Park traffic at Cypress Ave and HWY 1 to
N. Capistrano and HWY 1 where traffic going north will have to enter
HWY 1 without a traffic light and where HWY one transitions from a two
lane road to a four lane road adding to problem. Finally, traffic on HWY 1
is already considered LOS ‘F’ by the California Coastal Commission and
is currently an issue with the adoption of the LCP amendments between
the County and the CCC. Some questions that come to mind:
Was this changed looked at and commented on by any of the i.
organizations that deal with traffic?
Was a trained traffic engineer consulted with for this ii.
alternative?
Since it doesn’t really mitigate the traffic problem is it right iii.
for the Planning Staff to say that the issue was addressed?
Project Viability. 4.
One of the Planning Commissions duties is to assess the viability of this a.
project’s success so that it doesn’t fail and leave a blight or negative
impact in the community. There are numerous risks in this project that
have not been mitigated properly to ensure its success. One I would like to
point out here is the reliance on the businesses of the Office Park to
employ the residents of the Wellness Center to help them afford their cost
of living there. But the plan states that the Office Park buildings will be
phased in over time based on the ability to acquire tenants. The occupancy
types permitted in that zoning (M-1) are “administrative, research and
professional offices, excluding doctors and dentists” as a permitted use.
The current plan is for the Office Park includes 40% General Office, 25%
Research and Development, 20% Light Manufacturing, and 15% Storage
uses. But I also noted that they plan to sub-divide the parcels into 8
parcels which hint at the need to maybe sell some off separately if the
economic conditions don’t fall in their favor. This leads to many
questions:
Will any change of ownership of the Office Park still support the i.
Wellness Center residents so that their tenancy and care will not be
jeopardized?
How will the tenants of the Office Park legally be ii.
mandated to employ the residents of the Wellness Center?
What if the tenants can’t find the right job descriptions to iii.
fill with the residents?
One question which has not been addressed adequately is the actual need b.
in this location for any of the proposed office space. There are already
many available spaces here on the coastside which are vacant. Won’t this
glut of new office space drive down the cost of existing vacancies? Won’t
this have a negative impact on the area? And why would research facilities
or office parks locate here when the 101/Cal Train corridor has plenty of
vacancies which are better served?
Adherence to the Local Coastal Plan. 5.
The California Coast has been a battle ground for development since the last
century. Numerous public referendums have been voted on and approved by the
citizens of the state, the county and the local community. Let me just remind you
of the history
California Proposition 20 - The voters of California, by an 800,000 vote a.
margin (55%-45%), passed the Coastal Initiative -- Proposition 20 -- in
November 1972.
The California Coastal Initiative (Proposition 20), overwhelmingly passed b.
by the voters in 1972, was made permanent by the California Coastal Act
of 1976.
In November 1986, San Mateo County voters enacted Measure A, "The c.
Coastal Protection Initiative".
All of these in some form stated the following ideals for the California Coast
preservation:
Protection and expansion of public access to the shoreline and recreational a.
opportunities
Protection, enhancement and restoration of environmentally sensitive b.
habitats
Protection of productive agricultural lands and commercial fisheries c.
Directing new housing and other development into areas with adequate d.
services to avoid wasteful urban sprawl and leapfrog development
I know you don’t need a history lesson but I will ask you to consider why either
of these projects should be on the west side of HWY1 when they should be east of
HWY 1 since they are not really necessary to waterfront area or endangering the
salt marsh?
Thank you for your consideration. I will use any time you grant us to investigate
the changes, additions and validity of the assumptions in this FEIR.
Sincerely,

Bill Kehoe
Resident of Moss Beach
Member of the Midcoast Community Council
- Re: Big Wave


Dear Mr. Syme,
If you read my note to EGNAG closely, you might have noticed that it is possible I might become a MCC.
member. I interviewed for the vacancy last Wednesday At that recent meeting, I first learned about the Big
Wave project.

Since I knew little about the project, I have visited the web site you recommended. I read about Big Wave
on the web site and tried to learn as much as I could. In addition, I decided to get feed back from people in the
community. In my travels around El Granada, Princeton, Half Moon Bay and Montara residents. I asked people
about Big Wave. In addition, I called several EGNAG folks and asked them about Big Wave, too. The 50-60
people I chatted with were people I thought were well informed. These people knew very little about Big Wave
or thought I was talking about the Maverick's event. Although the project has been progressing for 5 years, it
would seem some folks are unaware.

Recent events with the cell tower in El Granada have rekindled my interest in community service. I take the
nomination to MCC very seriously. That is why my note of "Our Attention is Needed" went to our group. Our
attention is needed. Big Wave is an important project. That is why I urged people to the meeting on
Wednesday. I stated in my email that, "Regardless of your position, even if you have one, more information is
needed before this project becomes reality". I would hope, since you have been monitoring my emails, you
have seen other emails to the group urging them to visit the Big Wave web page as well as other information I
have forwarded to EGNAG. Jan Clark's informative email has reached our group.

I am not certain of the purpose of you email to me. If I were in your position, I would encourage and
welcome all citizens to attend this meeting, even first timer uninformed people like me. If the information at the
Big Wave meeting Wednesday appeals to the community, I would expect the community to support Big Wave.
If the information displeases the community, I would not expect the community's support.

I take the MCC vacancy very seriously. Since I have never met you and you know little about me, perhaps
this will help. My approach to the position will be to become as informed as I can about issues, involve the
community in the issues, try to keep emotion to a minimum, evaluate all factors and proceed intelligently. I hope
that meets with your approval.

Thanks for your email.. Look forward to meeting you tonight.

Regards,
Bob Kline



In a message dated 10/26/2010 5:05:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, petra_syme@hotmail.com writes:
Regardless of your position, even if you have one, more information is needed before this project
becomes reality
From:

<Rdkline1@aol.com>
To:

<petra_syme@hotmail.com>, <pprice@finexgroupllc.com>, <pfoster222@aol.co...
Date:

10/27/2010 9:48 AM
Subject:

Re: Big Wave
CC:

<planning-commission@co.sanmateo.ca.us>, <cleung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Page 1 of 1
11/16/2010
San Mateo County Planning Commission
Planning & Building Department
County Office Building
455 County Center
Redwood City, California 94063
October 26, 2010
Dear Commissioners:
With all due respect to the planning process, we request that the
hearing on the agenda for October 27 take place as planned. The Big
Wave Project has been studied for 5 years. The thorough (4,000 page)
EIR was released a year ago showing that the project has no
significant environmental impact. It's time for the Commission to
approve Big Wave, a project that meets the County's planning goals
and zoning requirements. Enough is enough.
If that's not sufficient, step back from the rules, regulations, and
politics and see the value of this proposal to our community. This is
a dazzling project in terms of its premiere design, meeting the highest
standards of sustainable development. And it's even more
remarkable in terms of its humanity. The Wellness Center creates a
new and unique community environment for special needs adults,
which is also sustainable. It's time to see how right this project is.
There is enough information. There has been enough time for study
and discussion. It is time to say "yes" to this truly special project.
Sincerely,
Dale and Bonnie Dunham
513 Ruisseau Francais Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
(650) 726-6775
- Big Wave

San Mateo County Planning Commission
County Planner Camille Leung

Dear Planners,

If the voice of a Washingtonian is worth listening to at all, I urge you to work toward a speedy
review of the Big Wave project before you. We're in an economic phase when there's not going to be public money available to assist the
developmentally disabled, and a privately funded project that needs only governmental approval is one of the best things you can do, not only for
the disabled among you and their families, but for the entire community.

Forty-some years ago, just such a project was started in Shelton, the town where I live and where I was a reporter and managing editor for the
local newspaper. Like Big Wave, our project was established with private funding and the support of the community. While Exceptional Foresters
Inc. has changed over the years (and been somewhat weakened by silly state regulations) it remains one of the best things about our town. I
don't recall ever having to write a negative story involving the organization or its residents, who were beloved here. You have a tremendous
opportunity for good in this proposal. Please make Big Wave a reality.

Best regards,

Carolyn Maddux
706 West Birch Street
Shelton, WA 98584
From: "Carolyn Maddux" <cmaddux@hctc.com>
To: <CLeung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Date: 10/13/2010 10:09 PM
Subject: Big Wave
Page 1 of 1
11/16/2010
- My support for the Big Wave Project

Dear Planning Commissioners and County Planner, Ms. Leung,

I support the Big Wave Project and all staff recommendations in the County Staff Report, including to "approve
the project as described in Alternative C and as presented in the Final EIR..."

I believe the Big Wave Project is precedent setting in the way it sincerely cares for our environment, our
economy, and our special needs community. It should be noted that the project applicant has been modifying their
initial proposal to comply with all County issues raised over the past five years, and now the current proposal is in
compliance with all County requirements with no significant environmental impacts.

Please do not further delay this urgently needed project. It is time to develop affordable housing on the Coastside
and to provide for our special needs population.

Vote yes to your staff recommendations. I hope the cancelled meeting will give you extra time to consider our
voice.

Warm regards,
Christopher Porter

Chris Porter
chrisporter8@gmail.com
Mobile: (650) 580-8696
From: "chris porter" <chrisporter8@gmail.com>
To: <Planning-Commission@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Date: 10/27/2010 6:54 PM
Subject: My support for the Big Wave Project
CC: <CLeung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Page 1 of 1
11/16/2010
October 11, 2010

David Bomberger, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
455 County Center, 2
nd
Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063

Re: Request for Extension of Time to 60 days for Public Review for Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR), Big Wave Project
On behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills (CGF), I am requesting a 60-day public review
period in order to give the public and responsible agencies sufficient time to review the FEIR for
the Big Wave Project.

As you know, the Big Wave Project, as proposed and described in the DEIR, is enormously
complex, and includes residential, office, manufacturing and warehousing uses, as well as an
onsite wastewater treatment plant, onsite wastewater recycling, conversion of an onsite
agricultural well to domestic and industrial use, and solar, wind, and natural gas power
generation.

The DEIR, along with its Technical Appendices and Facilities Plan, was over 2,000 pages long.
It was a daunting task to digest and comment on the DEIR. The public is keenly interested in the
project as evidenced by the 245 written comments on the DEIR.

CGF believes that given the complexity of the proposed project and the high level of
interest/controversy it has raised, it is vitally important for the County to allow sufficient time for
thoughtful review of the responses to comments.

Therefore, CGF respectfully requests that the review period for the FEIR be extended to 60 days.
As a member of CGF and coastside resident, I am deeply troubled by the scale of this project,
and believe there must be adequate time for careful consideration of this report.

Thank you for consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Christine Hanlon

Member of CGF

Local Artist/Teacher
www.christinehanlon.com

CR A NA DA S A NÌ T A R Y DÌ S T R Ì C T
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
504 Avenue A| hambr a. 3
r d
I| oor ∼ P. 0. ßox 335 ∼ L| Ur anada. Ua| ì f or nì a 94018
1e| ephone: ( 650) 726- 7093 ∼ Iacsì mì | e: ( 650) 726- 7099 ∼ L- maì | : esd©er anada. ca. eov
8oard oI DIrectors
RIc Lohman, PresIdent
Ron Fenech, VIce-PresIdent
CaeI ErIckson, Secretary
Matthew CIark, Treasurer
Leonard Woren, 8oard Member







October 25, 2010

Ms. Camille Leung
Planning and Building Department
County of San Mateo
455 County Center, 2
nd
Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063

Re: Big Wave FEIR and Project Permitting

Dear Ms. Leung,

The Granada Sanitary District is in receipt of the revised FEIR for the Big Wave project. Due to
the massive size of the EIR and its related documents, the District believes additional time
should be allowed beyond the 10 days allotted for responses to be able to adequately analyze
the impacts the project will have on our wastewater system. The short response time is
especially problematical since several tables critical to GSD’s review related to the sources and
uses of water were not made available to GSD until seven (7) days before the Planning
Commission’s Public Hearing. Their absence from the FEIR as released has deprived GSD, as
the wastewater agency with jurisdiction over the sewer system for the project, of sufficient time
to review and respond to the FEIR.

Overall, the District’s abbreviated review of the FEIR reveals a document so materially flawed
and lacking in basic project definition and environmental analysis that it makes a mockery of the
CEQA review process. Without a clear project definition, the District cannot delineate adequate
mitigation measures for the impacts the project’s wastewater generation will have on our sewer
system and the environment. At this time, we have, at a minimum, the following critiques of the
Big Wave FEIR.

• The District has not been afforded status as a Responsible Agency in the CEQA
process, which is required because the project now unquestionably includes connection
to the GSD sewer system, which requires the Applicant to obtain a Sewer Connection
Permit from GSD.
• The volume of wastewater which will enter the sewer system is still undefined by the
FEIR, and therefore, GSD cannot adequately analyze the impacts to our system,
including the empirically established potential for wet weather sewage overflows.
• The FEIR states that the project will send wastewater to the District sewer system during
times of wet weather. However, the downstream impacts on the District’s and SAM’s
sewer system during these rain events, including pipe sizing, impacts on pump stations,
and impacts on flow volume, have not been analyzed by any type of engineering report
or model. This is an especially important issue due to the District’s problems with high
flows during wet weather. Because this analysis has not been provided as required by
CEQA, the District is unable to develop adequate mitigation measures to plan for the
increased wastewater flow which will result from the project.
504 Avenue A| hambr a. 3
r d
I| oor ∼ P. 0. ßox 335 ∼ L| Ur anada. Ua| ì f or nì a 94018
1e| ephone: ( 650) 726- 7093 ∼ Iacsì mì | e: ( 650) 726- 7099 ∼ L- maì | : esdsanì t ar y©comcast . net
• The report contains multiple sections in the FEIR where it states that because the project
is not yet defined, additional CEQA analysis will be required. This lack of project
definition and deferred CEQA analysis is not allowable under the CEQA statutes.
• There are numerous instances throughout the report which state that “a total of 8 ERU’s
will be purchased for emergency and excess (wastewater) discharge into the Granada
Sanitary District (GSD) system.” Contrary to that statement, the District has not made
any assessment of the number of ERU’s which will be assessed to the project. If the
Project generates 10,000 GPD of wastewater flow, which is the applicant’s lowest
estimate of wastewater flow, the project will generate wastewater requiring at least 45
ERU’s of capacity.

The general lack of interaction the applicant has had with the District speaks volumes to the
inadequacies of the EIR. Prior to the document’s publication, the District’s sum total of
interaction with the applicant consisted of an hour-long meeting between the District General
Manager and applicant Scott Holmes, and a phone conversation with the District Engineer. I
have had greater interaction discussing the connection of a single family home to the sewer
system, much less a project which could generate 26,000 gallons per day of sewage. The
applicant has conducted no engineering study of the impacts this project will have on the
District’s sewer system, and indeed could not, since he has not requested any of the pertinent
pipe size and pump station specifications necessary to conduct such a study.

GSD also incorporates its prior comment letters by reference because they have not been
adequately addressed in the FEIR. The flaws in the FEIR need to be corrected and the
document recirculated as a Revised Draft EIR for public comment, in accordance with 14 CCR
§15088.5. Only then can GSD and its decision makers have adequate information to make a
responsible evaluation of the project and attempt to develop adequate mitigation measures.

Sincerely,

The Granada Sanitary District



Chuck Duffy, General Manager

MONTARA WATER & SANITARY DISTRICT
Serving the Communities of Montara and Moss Beach
P.O. Box 370131 Tel: (650) 728-3545
8888 Cabrillo Highway Fax: (650) 728-8556
Montara, CA 94037-0131 E-mail: mwsd@coastside.net
Visit Our Web Site: http://www.mwsd.montoro.com
October 18,2010
Camille Leung, Project Planner
455 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Re: Extension of Public Review Period for Big Wave Final Environmental
Impact Report
Dear Ms. Leung,
As of today, the District has not received complete copies of the Big Wave Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). MWSD received so far only one copy of
Volume 1 of 3. The missing volumes contain all comment letters and respective
anwsers and are crucial for MWSD's review. The review of a several thousand
pages thick document cannot be completed in a review period of 8 working days,
especially if incomplete documents are distributed. We believe that the starting
period does not commence until complete copies have been received.
245 comment letters written as response to the over 2000 page long Draft EIR
show a high level of interest of the public and responsible agencies.
Environmental Impact Reports require decision makers to account for their
decisions in light of detailed environmental studies and public comments on the
potential environmental impacts of the proposal.
In order to give the public and responsible agencies time to review the FEIR, the
Montara Water and Sanitary District is requesting the extension of the public
review period to a 60-day public review period and thus, the rescheduling of the
consideration of the Final EIR and Project by the Board of Supervisors.
Thank you for "ration of this request.
Sincerely. ~ fI/Jr--
Clemens Heldmaier
General Manager
MWSD
 Big  Wave FEIR Comment Letter 

Camille, 
Please see the Districts comment letter below. I will send the attachments in a separate email. 
Thanks, 
Clemens 
  
 October 26, 2010 
 
Ms. Camille Leung 
Planning and Building Department 
County of San Mateo 
455 County Center, 2
nd
Floor
 
Redwood City, Ca 94063 
 
Re: Big Wave FEIR and Project Permitting 
 
Dear Ms. Leung, 
 
 
At this time we note serious deficiencies in the Big Wave FEIR. Lack of comment on a County
response in the FEIR does not imply acceptance of that comment as accurate or adequate.
MWSD does not waive its right to raise issues from its previous comments in CEQA litigation.
The County has artfully dodged responses to numerous substantive issues. 
 
The FEIR does not adequately analyze the water supply impacts of the project. 
 
It does not address the growth potential of the increase in density of the manufacturing site
and the project provision of water for the project. The LCP calculated the water and sewer
capacity needed for buildout. The sewer and water agencies have planned their infrastructure,
service levels and funding mechanisms based on the county adopted zoning, general plan and
Local Coastal Program. The project supplied water and sewer service will be added to the
already determined capacities. The growth inducing impacts, including probable additional
traffic loads, of additional capacity remains unanalyzed. The EIR is fatally flawed. 
 
The DEIR states that recycled water will be used for all irrigation. MWSD must conclude that
recycled water will be used to irrigate the B/W Farm operation located on the airport. MWSD is
the supplier of water to the airport and has the sole authority to deliver recycled water to
MWSD customers. Big Wave LLC and or Big Wave Farms cannot usurp our recycled water
authority. The environmental impact of the water supply for the farming operation has not
From: "Clemens Heldmaier" <mwsd@coastside.net>
To: "'Camille Leung'" <CLeung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Date: 10/26/2010 5:01 PM
Subject: Big Wave FEIR Comment Letter
CC: <kathryn.mwsd@gmail.com>, "'Paul Perkovic'" <paul_perkovic@yahoo.com>, "...
Attachments: oledata.mso
Page 1 of 6
11/16/2010
been analyzed. Montara Water and Sanitary District has not been contacted in this regard.
 
A number of well known documents and reports about the aquifer have not been consulted. In
the recently released Groundwater Study Phase III has compared groundwater levels in the
2009-2010 with levels in previous droughts without analyzing the amount of water that has
been taken out of the aquifers. Therefore prior studies and associated documents should be
included in the EIR. 
 
MWSD sewer lines and sewer pump facilities are adjacent to the project. Clay pipes are easily
destroyed and MWSD’s sewer system impacted by trees planted on the Big Wave site. This
has not been analyzed in the current EIR.  
 
The following sections comment on the County’s responses in the Final EIR to MWSD
comments on the Draft EIR in the District’s comment letter dated 24, 2009. The District has not
been able finish the review of all comments: 
 
231-2 MWSD respectfully disagrees with the response. The purpose of an EIR is to evaluate
environmental impacts, not to attempt to make conclusions of law that are within the
jurisdiction of the courts. MWSD asserts its right to serve this project and has initiated LAFCo
consolidation proceedings with County Service Area 12 to conform District boundaries to our
acquired Service Area. 
 
Without conceding in any way the County's claim that CCWD has, or in the future might have, 
authority to serve the water needs of this project, MWSD continues to assert that it has the 
exclusive right to serve within the former Citizens Utilities Company of California Service Area. 
However, to prevent the project from being left entirely without access to public water in the 
event that MWSD prevails in its position through LAFCo decisions or litigation, MWSD 
respectfully requests that Condition of Approval 9 be modified to allow the project to obtain 
public water from either MWSD or CCWD, whichever is ultimately determined to have the 
authority to serve the project. 
  
This may be accomplished by modifying the last sentence in the condition to read: 
In the event that the annexation application to CCWD is denied by LAFCo or overturned by a 
court of competent jurisdiction, or that necessary amendments to CCWD's CDPs are 
not approved by the Coastal Commission or are approved with conditions that preclude 
service within the former Citizens Utilities Company of California (CUCC) Service Area, or that a 
court of competent jurisdiction determines that CCWD is attempting duplication of service by 
invading the existing MWSD Service Area, the applicant shall actively pursue annexation to the 
Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) and shall not object or obstruct an application by 
MWSD to consolidate with County Service Area 10 (or is it 12?) defining the Service Area of the 
former CUCC. Upon completion of annexation or consolidation into MWSD, the applicant shall 
apply for domestic water service connections, private fire protection connections, and any 
necessary infrastructure improvements such as mainline extensions necessary to serve the 
project, and after those water connections are approved and installed, the existing well shall 
be transferred to MWSD for incorporation into the public water supply serving the Montara / 
Page 2 of 6
11/16/2010.
Moss Beach community. 
 
According to the General Plan Water Service Area map the project is in the Citizens Utilities
water district. MWSD purchased the Citizens Utilities District and its assets, including its entire
service area. MWSD is on record as to its ability to provide hydrants and service for sprinkler
systems within the structures.  
 
On November 7, 2008, MWSD notified Jeff Peck by email (acknowledged by Mr. Peck also on
Nov. 7) that their project is within our service area, that "MWSD stands ready, today, to provide
public fire hydrants and private fire protection connections to internal sprinkler systems for your
proposed project," and that "We would like to meet with you to get a better idea of the water
needs of your proposed project, and how MWSD might be able to include sufficient capacity in
our plans for new water supply development to meet the needs of your proposed project as
well as the needs of other property owners in our entire Service Area." 
 
Big Wave delayed meeting with MWSD until November 23, 2009 - more than a year later, and
after the DEIR was published. 
 
MWSD was not contacted by the project applicants in regard to it’s ability to provide providers
into the Administrative Record, since clearly the County is stonewalling on this issue. 
 
231-3 MWSD respectfully disagrees with the County's response. See comment on 231-2. 
 
With regard to MWSD's question about septic system drainfields, our concern is not satisfied
by elimination of drainfields from the project. The DEIR does not adequately document the
location, age, or condition of existing septic drainfields that may affect the aquifer providing the
proposed well water supply for the project. The FEIR does not demonstrate that this proposed
water source will be safe from contaminants, especially nitrate, from existing septic systems
that the FEIR acknowledges are in the vicinity. 
 
231-4 MWSD includes the certified LCP maps in the Administrative Record, despite the
County's refusal to do so, as the basis for future litigation. San Mateo County General Plan
Water Suppliers identifies Citizens Utilities Company as the water supplier – MWSD is the
successor water supplier to Citizens Utilities district. 
 
231-5 MWSD finds the County's response inadequate, in that it fails to consider existing
certified maps and depends on a future action, i.e., LAFCo and Coastal Commission
approvals, that are by no means certain. 
 
The FEIR refuses to consider likely future changes to the Half Moon Bay Airport safety zones,
which would preclude this project, and yet depends on hypothetical future approvals for water
service, which is essential to the project. 
 
231-7 MWSD submits its Master Plan and Addendum to the Administrative Record in support
of anticipated litigation. 
 
231-8 MWSD respectfully disagrees with this response. 
 
231-9 MWSD reasserts its readiness to provide fire service to the project. 
Page 3 of 6
11/16/2010
 
231-10 MWSD again raises the service duplication issue and asserts it has exclusive rights to
provide recycled water within its Service Area. 
 
The Waterfront zoning district is subdivided and zoned for residential development at densities
greater than one DU per 5 acres: W zoning has a minimum parcel size of 5000 square feet
and allows caretaker quarters (which are residential) on 20% of the parcels, thus yielding an
allowed density of 8 DU per 5 acres. Thus policies 1.18 abs 1.19 do apply. 
 
231-12 The County completely ignored the point of this comment. The proposed private
wastewater system adds at least 26,000 gallons per day to the regional wastewater treatment
capacity. Existing regional capacity is sufficient, and limited to that necessary to serve, buildout
of the LCP land use plan. Adding 118 equivalent resource units (ERUs) of private capacity to
the existing regional total is thus growth inducing, and no study of these growth inducing
impacts is included in the EIR. Consequently, the EIR is fatally flawed. 
 
321-14 The County does not have an adequate enforcement mechanism to enforce its use
permits or zoning regulations relying instead on citizen complaints to spur action. The use
permit hearing on Sept 8, 2010 for PLN2001-00553 a use permit that expired 9 years ago is a
case in point. The business is reported to be disposing of contaminated waste water into the
Princeton drainage system and has an occupancy far in excess of that allowed in the airport
zone among other violations. Monitoring of hazardous chemicals every two years is not
adequate. 
 
231-15 CEQA requires a full examination of cumulative impacts. The Farallone Vista Project,
Moss Beach Highlands Project and North El Granada Affordable Housing Projects remain as
planning priorities for the county as documented in the Local Coastal Program. The water
needs and traffic impacts of all of these projects need to included as part of the cumulative
impacts. Farallone Vista will require water from MWSD while the remaining two will use
CCWD as the water supplier. The traffic generated by all three should be included in the traffic
analysis.  
 
MWSD anticipates it will have adequate water to serve new development within 20 years, the
anticipated timeframe over which the project would be constructed (see term of DA). The listed
affordable housing projects have priority for new water capacity and would therefore likely be
first in line. Therefore it is "reasonably foreseeable" that projects with a comparable cumulative
impact will be proposed and approved during this 20 year time span. The existing approved
EIRs for previous proposals on these sites provide an excellent basis for performing a
cumulative impact analysis. 
 
If the County is willing to stipulate as a condition of approval or by contract on the DA that it will
not seek any commercial or industrial development at the Half Moon Bay Airport, then we
agree that there is no contribution to cumulative impacts from the airport. Otherwise, the Half
Moon Bay Airport Master Plan, which the County asserts was approved by the Board of
Supervisors in 1996 (?), forms the best guide for anticipating cumulative effects from Master
Plan implementation. 
 
231-20 MWSD reasserts all points and legal authorities cited in David Schricker's letter. Failure
to acknowledge MWSD's claim to rights to serve these parcels is likely to lead to expensive
Page 4 of 6
11/16/2010
and time consuming litigation with resulting significant delays to the project. It is in the interests
of all parties to resolve the water service issue through cooperation, which had been actively
refused by the applicant and the County. (See email correspondence to Jeff Peck dated
November 2008 and 2009.) 
 
231-21 The Phase II of the Kleinfelder report does not contain any long term study of the Pillar
Point Marsh or the specific endangered species or wetland habitats or information to evaluate
the impacts of this project on the Pillar Ridge water supply or the Montara Water and Sanitary
district water wells. The EIR needs to rely on the long term studies contained in the Half Moon
Bay/Pillar Point Marsh Ground-Water Basin Report Phase II by Luhdorff and Scalmanini, Sept
1991 and the 1993.12.02 California Coastal Commssion A-3-SMC-86-155 and 155A
Compliance Report. Given sufficient time to review the response MWSD will request a hydro-
geologist to comment. 
 
231-23 to 231-32 Given sufficient time to review the response MWSD will request an engineer
to comment. 
 
 
Water Supply 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
Clemens Heldmaier 
Page 5 of 6
11/16/2010
General Manager 
Montara Water & Sanitary District 
8888 Cabrillo Hwy 
Montara, CA 94037 
PHONE:  650‐728‐3545 
FAX:   650‐728‐8556 
mwsd@coastside.net 
 
  
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: 
  
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential. It is intended only to be read by the individual 
or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice 
that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message. 
  
Page 6 of 6
11/16/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\balbini.COMMON\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwiseC...

Camille, 
  
On the November 4 meeting the Board of Directors of the Montara Water and Sanitary District 
adopted RESOLUTION 1480, RESOLUTION OF THE MONTARA WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT 
CONCERNING PROPOSED “BIG WAVE” OFFICE AND WELLNESS CENTER DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY 
OF PILLAR POINT MARSH. Please see the resolution attached. A hardcopy will be send by mail. Please 
ensure that the Resolution will be included in the packet the for the next relevant Planning Commission 
Meeting concerning Big Wave. 
  
Thank you 
  
  
Clemens Heldmaier 
General Manager 
Montara Water & Sanitary District 
8888 Cabrillo Hwy 
Montara, CA 94037 
PHONE:  650‐728‐3545 
FAX:   650‐728‐8556 
mwsd@coastside.net 
 
  
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: 
  
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential. It is intended only to be read by the individual 
or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice 
that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy of this message. 
  
From: "Clemens Heldmaier" <mwsd@coastside.net>
To: "'Camille Leung'" <CLeung@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Date: 11/9/2010 1:59 PM
Subject: Big Wave
Attachments: oledata.mso; Resolution 1480 Big Wave0001.pdf
Page 1 of 1
11/16/2010...
MONTARA WATER & SANITARY DISTRICT
Serving the Communities of Montara and Moss Beach
P.o. Box 370131 Tel: (650) 728-3545
8888 Cabrillo Highway Fax: (650) 728-8556
Montara, CA 94037-0131 E-mail: mwsd@coastside.net
Visit Our Web Site: http://www.mwsd.montoro.com
October 26, 2010
Ms. Camille Leung
Planning and Building Department
County of San Mateo
455 County Center, 2
nd
Floor
Redwood City, Ca 94063
Re: Big Wave FEIR and Project Permitting
Dear Ms. Leung,
At this time we note serious deficiencies in the Big Wave FEIR. Lack of comment
on a County response in the FEIR does not imply acceptance of that comment as
accurate or adequate. MWSD does not waive its right to raise issues from its
previous comments in CEQA litigation. The County has artfully dodged
responses to numerous substantive issues.
The FEIR does not adequately analyze the water supply impacts of the project.
It does not address the growth potential of the increase in density of the
manufacturing site and the project provision of water for the project. The LCP
calculated the water and sewer capacity needed for buildout. The sewer and
water agencies have planned their infrastructure, service level s and funding
mechanisms based on the county adopted zoning, general plan and Local
Coastal Program. The project supplied water and sewer service will be added to
the already determined capacities. The growth inducing impacts, including
probable additi onal traffic loads, of additional capacity remains unanalyzed. The
EIR is fatally flawed.
The DEIR states that recycled water will be used for all irrigation. MWSD must
conclude that recycled water will be used to irrigate the BMJ Farm operation
located on the airport. MWSD is the supplier of water to the airport and has the
sole authority to deliver recycled water to MWSD customers. Big Wave LLC and
or Big Wave Farms cannot usurp our recycled water authority. The
environmental impact of the water supply for the farming operation has not been
analyzed. Montara Water and Sanitary District has not been contacted in this
regard.
A number of well known documents and reports about the aquifer have not been
consulted. In the recently released Groundwater Study Phase III has compared
groundwater levels in the 2009-2010 with levels in previous droughts without
analyzing the amount of water that has been taken out of the aquifers. Therefore
prior studies and associated documents should be included in the EIR.
MWSD sewer lines and sewer pump facilities are adjacent to the project. Clay
pipes are easily destroyed and MWSD's sewer system impacted by trees planted
on the Big Wave site. This has not been analyzed in the current EIR.
The following sections comment on the County's responses in the Final EIR to
MWSD comments on the Draft EIR in the District's comment letter dated 24,
2009. The District has not been able finish the review of all comments:
231-2 MWSD respectfully disagrees with the response. The purpose of an EIR is
to evaluate environmental impacts, not to attempt to make conclusions of law
that are within the jurisdiction of the courts. MWSD asserts its right to serve this
project and has initiated LAFCo consolidation proceedings with County Service
Area 12 to conform District boundaries to our acquired Service Area.
Without conceding in any way the County's claim that CCWD has, or in the
future might have, authority to serve the water needs of this project,
MWSD continues to assert that it has the exclusive right to serve within the
former Citizens Utilities Company of California Service Area. However, to
prevent the project from being left entirely without access to public water in
the event that MWSO prevails in its position through LAFCo decisions or
litigation, MWSO respectfully requests that Condition of Approval 9 be
modified to allow the project to obtain public water from either MWSO or
CCWD, whichever is ultimately determined to have the authority to serve
the project.
This may be accomplished by modifying the last sentence in the condition
to read:
In the event that the annexation application to CCWD is denied by LAFCo
or overturned by a court of competent jurisdiction, or that necessary
amendments to CCWD's COPs are not approved by the Coastal
Commission or are approved with conditions that preclude service within
the former Citizens Utilities Company of California (CUCC) Service Area,
or that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that CCWD is
attempting duplication of service by invading the existing MWSD Service
Area, the applicant shall actively pursue annexation to the Montara Water
and Sanitary District (MWSD) and shall not object or obstruct an
application by MWSD to consolidate with County Service Area 10 (or is it
12?) defining the Service Area of the former CUCC. Upon completion of
annexation or consolidation into MWSD, the applicant shall apply for
domestic water service connections, private fire protection connections,
and any necessary infrastructure improvements such as mainline
extensions necessary to serve the project, and after those water
connections are approved and installed, the existing well shall be
transferred to MWSD for incorporation into the public water supply serving
the Montara / Moss Beach community.
According to the General Plan Water Service Area map the project is in the
Citizens Utilities water district. MWSD purchased the Citizens Utilities District
and its assets, including its entire service area. MWSD is on record as to its
ability to provide hydrants and service for sprinkler systems within the structures.
On November 7,2008, MWSD notified Jeff Peck by email (acknowledged by Mr.
Peck also on Nov. 7) that their project is within our service area, that "MWSD
stands ready, today, to provide public fire hydrants and private fire protection
connections to internal sprinkler systems for your proposed project," and that
"We would like to meet with you to get a better idea of the water needs of your
proposed project, and how MWSD might be able to include sufficient capacity in
our plans for new water supply development to meet the needs of your proposed
project as well as the needs of other property owners in our entire Service Area."
Big Wave delayed meeting with MWSD until November 23, 2009 - more than a
year later, and after the DEIR was published.
MWSD was not contacted by the project applicants in regard to it's ability to
provide providers into the Administrative Record, since clearly the County is
stonewalling on this issue.
231-3 MWSD respectfully disagrees with the County's response. See comment
on 231-2.
With regard to MWSD's question about septic system drainfields, our concern is not satisfied b)
elimination of drainfields from the project. The DEIR does not adequately document the locatior
age, or condition of existing septic drainfields that may affect the aquifer providing the proposec
well water supply for the project. The FEIR does not demonstrate that this proposed water sour
will be safe from contaminants, especially nitrate, from existing septic systems that the FEIR
acknowledges are in the vicinity.
231-4 MWSD includes the certified LCP maps in the Administrative Record,
despite the County's refusal to do so, as the basis for future litigation. San
Mateo County General Plan Water Suppliers identifies Citizens Utilities Company
as the water supplier . ~ MWSD is the successor water supplier to Citizens Utilities
district.
231-5 MWSD finds the County's response inadequate, in that it fails to consider
existing certified maps and depends on a future action, i.e., LAFCo and Coastal
Commission approvals, that are by no means certain.
The FEIR refuses to consider likely future changes to the Half Moon Bay Airport
safety zones, which would preclude this project, and yet depends on hypothetical
future approvals for water service, which is essential to the project.
231-7 MWSD submits its Master Plan and Addendum to the Administrative
Record in support of anticipated litigation.
231-8 MWSD respectfully disagrees with this response.
231-9 MWSD reasserts its readiness to provide fire service to the project.
231-10 MWSD again raises the service duplication issue and asserts it has
exclusive rights to provide recycled water within its Service Area.
The Waterfront zoning district is subdivided and zoned for residential
development at densities greater than one DU per 5 acres: W zoning has a
minimum parcel size of 5000 square feet and allows caretaker quarters (which
are residential) on 20% of the parcels, thus yielding an allowed density of 8 DU
per 5 acres. Thus policies 1.18 abs 1.19 do apply.
231-12 The County completely ignored the point of this comment. The proposed
private wastewater system adds at least 26,000 gallons per day to the regional
wastewater treatment capacity. Existing regional capacity is sufficient, and limited
to that necessary to serve, buildout of the LCP land use plan. Adding 118
equivalent resource units (ERUs) of private capacity to the existing regional total
is thus growth inducing, and no study of these growth inducing impacts is
included in the EIR. Consequently, the EIR is fatally flawed.
321-14 The County does not have an adequate enforcement mechanism to
enforce its use permits or zoning regulations relying instead on citizen complaints
to spur action. The use permit hearing on Sept 8,2010 for PLN2001-00553 a use
permit that expired 9 years ago is a case in point. The business is reported to be
disposing of contaminated waste water into the Princeton drainage system and
has an occupancy far in excess of that allowed in the airport zone among other
violations. Monitoring of hazardous chemicals every two years is not adequate.
231-15 CEQA requires a full examination of cumulative impacts. The Farallone
Vista Project, Moss Beach Highlands Project and North EI Granada Affordable
Housing Projects remain as planning priorities for the county as documented in
the Local Coastal Program. The water needs and traffic impacts of all of these
projects need to included as part of the cumulative impacts. Farallone Vista will
require water from MWSD while the remaining two will use CCWD as the water
supplier. The traffic generated by all three should be included in the traffic
analysis.
MWSD anticipates it will have adequate water to serve new development within
20 years, the anticipated timeframe over which the project would be constructed
(see term of DA). The listed affordable housing projects have priority for new
water capacity and would therefore likely be first in line. Therefore it is
"reasonably foreseeable" that projects with a comparable cumulative impact will
be proposed and approved during this 20 year time span. The existing approved
EIRs for previous proposals on these sites provide an excellent basis for
performing a cumulative impact analysis.
If the County is willing to stipulate as a condition of approval or by contract on the
DA that it will not seek any commercial or industrial development at the Half
Moon Bay Airport, then we agree that there is no contribution to cumulative
impacts from the airport. Otherwise, the Half Moon Bay Airport Master Plan,
which the County asserts was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1996 (?),
forms the best guide for anticipating cumulative effects from Master Plan
implementation.
231-20 MWSD reasserts all pOints and legal authorities cited in David Schricker's
letter. Failure to acknowledge MWSD's claim to rights to serve these parcels is
likely to lead to expensive and time consuming litigation with resulting significant
delays to the project. It is in the interests of all parties to resolve the water service
issue through cooperation, which had been actively refused by the applicant and
the County. (See email correspondence to Jeff Peck dated November 2008 and
2009.)
231-21 The Phase II of the Kleinfelder report does not contain any long term
study of the Pillar Point Marsh or the specific endangered species or wetland
habitats or information to evaluate the impacts of this project on the Pillar Ridge
water supply or the Montara Water and Sanitary district water wells. The EIR
needs to rely on the long term studies contained in the Half Moon Bay/Pillar Point
Marsh Ground-Water Basin Report Phase II by Luhdorff and Scalmanini, Sept
1991 and the 1993.12.02 California Coastal Commssion A-3-SMC-86-155 and
155A Compliance Report. Given sufficient time to review the response MWSD
will request a hydro-geologist to comment.
231-23 to 231-32 Given sufficient time to review the response MWSD will request
an engineer to comment.
Water Supply
The question is not whether CCWD has enough uninstalled connections today to
serve Big Wave (if allowed by MWSD, LAFCo, and the CCC), but whether
CCWD will have sufficient water in 2080 (end of 50-year economic life of building
constructed at end of 20-year proposed Development Agreement), after all
Crystal Springs connections have been installed.
Note that the growth limits do not necessarily assure CCWD that water
connections will not be needed quickly. This single project requires 118 ERUs of
sewer capacity and might require a similar amount of water. Other non-
residential development, plus priority uses, could quickly place significant
demand on CCWD's system, beyond its existing drought year supply assurance.
There is no environmental analysis of CCWD water supply impacts to serve the
project long term.
Sincerely
/s/
Kathryn Slater-Carter
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 1480
RESOLUTION OF THE MONTARA WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT
CONCERNING PROPOSED "BIG WAVE" OFFICE AND WELLNESS CENTER
DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF PILLAR POINT MARSH
(APN 047-311-060, 047-312-040)
WHEREAS, significant improvements to the District's water system have
been made, and additional sources of water have been acquired, by our District
subsequent to acquiring the privately-owned system in 2003; and
WHEREAS, the District's Water Master Plan provides for service
throughout the entire service area acquired by the District including the Project
area; and
WHEREAS, this District has commented upon both the DEIR and FEIR
regarding their omission to acknowledge our authority and duty to provide water
service to the Project and the corresponding deficiencies and inaccuracies in
those documents; and
WHEREAS, this Board desires to set forth its policy and intentions
regarding the provision of water service within the service area currently located
outside District boundaries and to the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE MONTARA WATER AND
SANITARY DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The service area acquired by this District in 2003 is a valuable asset of
the District and of the citizens served by the District, both within and outside our
corporate boundaries.
3. Public policy and the legislative authority conferred upon our District
require that connection to a public water system shall be paramount to, and
preferred over, on-site systems such as that proposed for the Project.
4. Our District currently is capable of providing fire protection service for
the Project and our District likewise is capable of providing commercial and
domestic service for the Project.
5. In accordance with the foregoing, this Board fully intends to provide
service throughout its entire service area acquired by purchase of the water
RESOLUTION NO. 1480
RESOLUTION OF THE MONTARA WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT
CONCERNING PROPOSED "BIG WAVE" OFFICE AND WELLNESS CENTER
DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF PILLAR POINT MARSH
(APN 047-311-060, 047-312-040)
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the
development of 19.4 acres of land currently devoted primarily to agricultural use
and including wetlands in the vicinity of Pillar Point Marsh in the mid-coast region
of unincorporated San Mateo County ("County") has been submitted to the
County's Planning Commission for certification under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Pub. Res. C. §21000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the development, named "Big Wave" ("Project"), consists of
an office component and a "well ness center" component with associated
appurtenances and amenities; and
WHEREAS, as proposed by the Project proponent domestic and
commercial water service for the Project would be provided through on-site wells
with fire protection service and "backup" water service from Coastside County
Water District ("CCWD"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the service area acquired by this
District through its purchase in 2003 of the privately-owned water system then
serving our District; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located outside the corporate boundaries of
both CCWD and this District; and
WHEREAS, this District has initiated proceedings through the County
Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCo") to reorganize the District's
boundaries to incorporate that portion of the District's service area, including the
Project area, that currently is located outside the District boundaries; and
WHEREAS, this District currently provides water service to the Half Moon
Bay Airport outside our corporate boundaries and to the Pillar Ridge
Manufactured Home Community within our boundaries, both of which service
areas are adjacent to the Project; and
RESOLUTION NO. 1480
RESOLUTION OF THE MONTARA WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT
CONCERNING PROPOSED "BIG WAVE" OFFICE AND WELLNESS CENTER
DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF PILLAR POINT MARSH
(APN 047-311-060, 047-312-040)
system described above, including service to the Project in compliance with the
District's governing statute, all pertinent District regulations, specifications and
related terms and conditions in furtherance of the public health, welfare and
safety.
6. The District Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a
certified copy of this resolution to the County Planning Commission in
conjunction with its review of the FEIR, to the Project proponent and to the
County Local Agency Formation . ij "-

President, Montara Water and Sanitary District
COUNTERSIGNED:
Secretary, Montar Water and Sanitary District
* * * *
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1480 was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Board of the Montara Water and Sanitary
District, San Mateo County, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held on the
4th day of November 2010, by the following vote:
AYES, Directors: Boyd, Harvey, Perkovic, Slater-Carter & Ptacek
NOES, Directors: n/a
ABSENT, Directors: None

"f San ;O"Ia;e,). I'lu:ln tn;;. ulid IkilJing Department
e('llnl\ ( "lIlel. 2,w ntO,'r
.. C/\ 1)4063
Aim:
6507281451
'ul!l,;.,j: C,>IlHnenc" I'll I'i r\.'l I FIR .If)(: lUI' j\pplication :(1, Ilig \Va';.: Center.:md OnlCl' Par\;.
n'u, iilHi PLN 2.0())·OO.)>;2 j
\A'c lhl' to on ihc i-ina{ Fnvirufinh.:ntaj Rej")J.lj"l (FEH<)
[k,·t:'''pm,·n' ['c'rmtl j (,BPi applic;Hi'lI1 lilr ll:c Big ,"an' prujccl, Our as j"llows:
f. Borh ,h,' FEI R (Biologicl/! dlllpler) miff till! COIiIl(r ua.t/ report ( p_ 31) claim 11m! /he pr(,'jeet lftc/;s
.miwb/c' on-.<i{(' flllbiffli/"" -,pedal .1·wtU\· >pt.-des. Tlri.\· claim dircl'l£l' um/lirr.,· "'ill! l/if' IIllirdll',1 UX Fi.';' lind
H illllIfe Scn'in'/effer drl(c.! :! 7, 21109.
Pi-iS\.' 3 f Ci( (\:J.llt) staf!' •... " dirct:t impac! fir take of.<,p<.:cta: -;-.t.1hl"; spt!cks is t.::,uh
I'" I Pi"' '[",o:';..:d pro 'j l"Cl t,,-!h..: l:Y,;l...!li: , ... " (ul1(kri addl'd).
,.\ ,imi!;.r ,I:ll"mc:r:, appLar, in (he .;.kpl,;r or the ITIR. nol<: !Il;.!. tile Coun:.: ':, cl:!im IS
ir, dir"c:l ,'"nfliel '\ it:1 the llpi"ioll of !h·: and W iIJlifi.., S<:rvin' 11 :SJ· W S). In a ICller ,I:liet! Fd'l"uary 27.
::!IIU'} ( .. l i 11'\-1.:
..... .. L'ni<:CI aJjuc,'m 10 Idli(;lI IDr the
..d,I.'. and i;:, tn cnvironm'o...'1naHy .. ;J;'\ lhe PiHar Point
and 111<>11,1; 01' Cre..:". whic:l pn).vid,'., huhhal f()r Ihe g;:lrtcr ;:nd rd·kg.gd fro
s
.. ! hll'
h) pr..:s,:n(: of hahi1:.:l i.lnd he:t".vccn JI..lt:arnenled sigrnings. Ih.,'arhy nt'
I :d-k::g"" ifni's. garter snake". ':;1(.1 ib prey. tile I'aciiic trct" frll)! ;,1 or ncar lilt: ar.d tho;: ;mo
__\ two [i:'lL"d the
.... f tinder! aJd(.'d)
Bcc:.lUO;;;C Count)";.; thnJugh !e) ';'11".: pn . .=Jic.att,,"d on 1,h...:: ci-Jirn
that k·r :-cd-kggeJ :rog:-. and :.;artcr nol onw ... ilc nlillgmion ;J.:-t<
inaJc'qu"lc to rrclt'c{ Hu.'sc "[l

ciai li'mn fl:lrlll Itquin:d hy Int: I:.:deral Llldangcrcd ,\(t (If
1973. \·h".<fe'.)\-t,.'t. t!ivt.;;' that the prt)roS-l"d arc thc:-;e
ha!1r. lilJ..: COllnty L-:':lnnc1t :T\i.!k.C:1 li.lH.ling thaI lhe pro.ttxl \viLk l!-'it: j{,lh)\in,Q
i','dkic'" ,)rlilc S;:'1 ('DUlll)' Lot, .. l I'n}grJ\l>:
PO Box 126 • Half Moon Say CA 94019
LCP.sanmatec org' 10123'1363
p. 1
6507281451
U,T 73 ,Ill)" bod u .. " (or (k"dopmcTlt w:lid. \l'oLJiJ )HI\;; im;-l<lCl on
... ill\
I ,C1' p, .• iit.:ic, 7,4 ,mil 7.1" p;;m):L <.>nly n:;wtJrcc JqlC'1,J..::'rn tI:,,,, in h<lbiWl areas und als"
lint it;,xl tI,e;, mmr1y "vilh US/,WS ;jilt! CalifiJrllia I kp,;rll1lcnl ,lilt! (iWlh' {CDF(, j n:glllcnion:-
I (:I' rolic\ 7.;(\ wl1<;['e Eh'-'rc i, knnwn 'n bl!a ripiJri<lll o'-"l'tlanJ !ol.';njoll j,' thc
:':111 FnE1...:tst:1J g ..trl ..:r ("'itt:
I ,CP p;.)!ic.\- 7.3i.> ;.;.nd prntcclinr. 01 0;' c'\i migru:inn ('Owc:-, or the
F;-;_:'i1L"i,,:.:o t2.artc:
p.2
2. The COllllt)· JlIl/cd to make 1/;1' rcquirt"d jil1fiillJ:

Related Interests

.lor of fbI! cx:b·tin!: 1I,:.:riculwFUi well 10 tlO!I-
ll;,;ril '/ii!uTal [o"e.
;\ \'\.."H on the p'Jn.:¢1. :::.;rrcl1tly f()r inlgalinn. ;.;pnrinut; tn
u;":dt.:;," lilt" rHr){iscJ to \,l..lh.!r [',)r use \tf:dt:r rlt'

Related Interests

< s)'sh:m ... ·'
...... \,,1\:·:14:,' T'lC:Jl,'r::mJurn Sc"[lIL'Inilc:r 17. JOll7 (;nclu,kd as Apf,,:ndix 11
h;\Jn\il\g!l: impti'..:t!' lof'.h .. \vdlllO the Piilar Pc·int (\n ic the t.'n-lire mar.,h

Related Interests

, .. dC'rshc:j til h:: 1 .. linOl· ...
B,\lh lbe: FUR a:ld the ellll;)l), r('pnrt fail 10 <xlllrc,-" lilt: imp:Jcl' pwpn.y:J wc!1 IlIl supply of
l H\ g: "(.':1 lhl' t'nttnl} P.s [;JHvn.! to the presence of r)r
-"p£.:cia; nl)tcd in \.llIT t:OHlm-cnl } thl.! Jnaiysi;:-, in FE1R is inadequate: to :-,upj)i\rt a f):Hiing
\h.:li J)ul \yah:r needed hul''fital prOh.::cl;nn. 'fhe St.:harr •.md
mcn'p;;lIl,\l.iin hy t:lc C')-.lPly >luilrqlOf{ ;md ,..'·:lH ;j,j,jrc"c, on!) impact:; Of!llC we!1 ')tl 111"
PpilH

Related Interests

.. hil:h ,:,> ·:.!r .. t ·ount:. iaikd ... s. thc pOll."nti.:lj oth-.:r pj"{)p'..:f1.y
c'\·\-nt.:G ur F'.)lcn\i:tl imp:.J ..... ts th .... OJ1-"",h: hi.lb;Wl for :':jlecial in ;hc
I' ...·t';ru;w: .. 27. 2tJn
l
)
\;;. bchth. L C'P pol,c:., <Jrld SL'"ctioTl;-, (,J2N. J ,t and lht: Count:.-' I.l)niJ1g C()Jc n..:quin: thal hdzH(,
ct1n\··.;r-,i l'n ('If In n .. i1pplicanl dcmnnsrrah: lilat sul"!icil:IlL \illcr
n...:-..:dcJ E}r prnlccti,)t! not dinlinishcJ .J.nJ tbe ust: of \.

Related Interests

atl:f \'iIl O(ll intra.:- th ...'
Sllf'fl.\· or ;>mpcny ,1\:1CI>, (ii###BOT_TEXT###lt;?11 lim', no 11(1<; h<:e,l provided ill this the COWl!';, cmno[ th:
r if Ir or tit..: l:X agricultural \'1.;;1 ###BOT_TEXT### fHHi-a!!1 i r....""U usc.
'·5.]} Pril,,·,'rh"l ,,(.·t;:ril7t!f11f111 Wfllcr SlIl'r'ic'
,11,.1' d:·

Related Interests

L • .'I!;l ur (',-",1\·(T.\j(.'1{ ufj':wiJ!'I' /(/,ui or n[h\.:"F ion;"! :;"l:ilaf./F.-./()r {p.!. ... icu/!url:
I"t.'(i',i."'·· Ih:i!.
(; ih ....' ':'·:is!in.!.!. (In ...{h([tt:' (iud r,orahfe 11:t'fJ vnirct' hr dl.'J.1Ioo ... (rtJ!cd/iw 1}{j -ugrwu/f{lfil!
.... ol',"(Jr(/ing (t) i'ig c· !·'t..',.."ja: (i) eoch cXi.Hh.g part-i."" li'irh !7(H;-agnCI}!lurai li,"l:.\, ur !J(wcc/
iCgdh:t'U ;If...·(·ord, met.' li"ilh reI; Fnilr ..T I .!9. xhall d .w{!i; {{lid odequf.li(' '11..'11 wtHt:r SOUI"(

Related Interests

.' /OCLI(Ct...i 1."'/
,htl: nUin-/..
h .. md u'off'r .;j'Ppll·i.'.'t n:'(·I.-;l..'d/o.'· {},:!,ricttffUrtli prrJdllCfhJl,' CUff.' ....·c}Jsiril
l
!.! fnlhilul in Ilw
!'. arc! .\l!"d lye nof dll
1
linishcd ...
Cati[ir.:ri Zm:illg $'eC!iflll t>321i.14: Comlitiom
.. ':I/r t:h' ,.":,"(Y!-;"'S(,(! t/-t.TC/Or;.'}wr:f (Jnti nuT s;!l:;ecl "':W prrwi

Related Interests

io}H (:rS._'('fioN
(·,L . .\.{. rl'l{ui/{ {[ t'ondi.'ifjn .. .. cxi.,;riug (:{l1n (:nd
.... j·:lft'f ';",!irr',' ,tIJl' flfl' r.'··)r'()SI:d lh .. and 'hu! 1I5i.' .\.'i'(I" .. :,' wil! }Jot fJnpoir
.. 'he I: alcr n(o;/ter prri/1t'l'Ir (;wm.:,'·.\ ... :gncu,'rii,"ai or l"k.dnfu/.\
6507281451
St'Nim/ 63JS. .. 1ppficatiml RI.'f/llirenJc/IK
lb ..., ,JPI.'Iicnift:.,,/rJ!" a ( ...'lfi! !)e",':/opnU:1J1 1"enniJ btl (.H ...·C( ...,llptlnied by':."
(t" "';cw all :"i"0po

Related Interests