Dotty E. LeMieux
Attorney
at Law
173
E. Blithedale, Suite 3
Mill
Valley, CA 94941
(415)
383-3715
FAX
(415) 383-3718
Shaelyn Raab Strattan
Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreation December
23, 2002
One Capitol Mall Suite 500 Via fax: (916)
445-9100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re:
Proposed Coastal Trails Rehabilitation Project at Mt. Tamalpais State
Park. Neg. Dec.
Dear Ms. Strattan,
Attached is the letter from Dave Boyd,
specifically stating ”This is to inform you that a Mitigated negative
declaration has been filed today....” “This document will have a 30 day public
review period.” The MND at p. 2
specifies Dave Boyd as the contact person for the lead agency, DPR. Therefore,
it is to be presumed that the contact person for the Agency would provide
accurate information as to notice.
CEQA Guidelines at 14 Cal. Code of
Regulations section 15072 provide that:
“(a) A lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible
agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within
which
the proposed project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the
lead
agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to
allow
the public and agencies the review period provided under Section 15105.
[thirty day review
period for draft EIR].”
As contact person for the Lead Agency,
Dave Boyd, is the one to provide notice on behalf of the Lead Agency, as he
does in his December 2, 2002, letter.
Accordingly, the review period cannot be less than thirty days from the
date of that letter, or January 1, 2003.
No copy of the MND was provided to TCC
(or anyone else that I am aware of in the environmental community) until at
least Dec. 6th, even though requested and filed earlier.
Further, CEQA requires that notice be
provided:
“For a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, the
lead
agency shall also provide notice to transportation planning agencies and
public agencies which have transportation facilities within their
jurisdictions
which could be affected by the project as specified in Section
21092.4(a) of
the Public Resources Code. “Transportation facilities” includes: major
local
arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site and
freeways,
highways and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site.”
(Guideline 15072 (e)
We have no evidence that the MND was
provided to CALTRANS or the Marin County Transportation Authority as required.
The Guidelines require notice
containing:
“The starting and ending dates for the review period during which the
lead
agency will receive comments on the proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration.
This shall include starting and ending dates
for the review period.” (Guidelines at (f) (2.)
NONE of the purported notices,
including what you are calling the Notice of Availability, contain this
information. The closet to it, is the Dave Boyd Letter of December 2. There is no legal requirement for something
called a “Notice of Availability” to trigger the comment period.
Guideline (f) (3) requires “ The date, time, and place of any scheduled
public meetings or
hearings to be held by the lead
agency on the proposed project, when known to the
lead agency at the time of notice.”
No such notice of any scheduled public
hearings is provided.
Therefore, it is legally indefensible
to close down the period at any time sooner than January 1, 2003. Due process
requires actual notice in accordance with the applicable laws and regulation.
Since all the notice has been and continues to be deficient, TCC renews its
request for an extension to file until January 31st.
In any event, a full environmental
Impact report must be done for this project in light of the many environmental
impacts that MAY result from it. They include but are not limited to the
following:
1. Soil erosion by allowing multi-use
of “single track” four foot wide trails, as evidenced at other State Parks,
including at China Camp. (See letter from Larry Minikes.) No discussion of this
potential soil erosion and other attendant problems is discussed in the MND.
The only discussion of soil erosion is
in conjunction with the construction of the project, not the impacts resulting
from high impact use on a narrow trails.
2. Increase use from additional users
attracted to these new trails, and additional staffing required. The
Application for the project itself provides the evidence of increased trail use
that this project is likely to create. The Initial Study fails to discuss the
increased traffic impacts, erosion, precedent setting aspects of the project
and cumulative impacts from adding a high impact, intense use to the Mountain.
3. Conflicts with the Countywide trail
plan. (At p. 44, it states that no conflict exists with regard to any existing
plan.) The application at p. 4 notes that the Marin Countywide Trails plan
calls for multi-use on the two trails in questions. However, it fails to note
that they are currently wide fire roads, not narrow pathways, as they will be
with this project. The Countywide Trails Plan discourages multi-use on single
track narrow paths.
4. Increased overall park use, leading
to cumulative impacts not dsicussed. The MND states in section XIV Recreation
that “overall trail use in the park is not expected to increase.” (P. 54.) And that no “additional structures or
attractions” would be added that would increase visitations or demands. The new
paths themselves will be “attractions,” that are likely to significantly
increase the use of the Park. (See Application at pp. 2-3. Increased visitor
useage of Highway one and improved turnouts allow viewing of these trails,
which in turn will offer additional recreational uses for the visitors.)
Specifically at pp. 3-4:
“It is anticipated that the new trails
will attract greater visitation as park users seek more aesthetically pleasing
pathways that provide the intimate experience of meandering through the
countryside, flowing the natural corridors of the hills, while taking in the
world class views of the San Francisco Bay Area.”
4. Traffic impacts. A statement at
page 56, states that increases to traffic would be “less than significant,”
This is unsubstantiated, since this type of trail use is likely to increase
overall traffic. Since this Project is itself a mitigation for a transportation
project, there should be no assumption that it will have a “less than
significant” impact on traffic without further environmental study, especially
in light of the increased visitor serving transit projects described in the
Application at p. 5.
Public Resources Code section 21080
(d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the
lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,
an environmental impact report shall be prepared. (Also see CEQA Guidelines, at
Title 14 of the Cal. Code of Regulations, 15064 (a) (1).
And: “As CEQA guidelines make clear,
an agency "shall adopt the proposed . . . mitigated negative declaration
only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the
initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the
. . . mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent
judgment and analysis." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15074, subd. (b).)”
(Arviv Enterprises Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com. (2002) [__ Cal.App.4th
__].)
The record, on the whole shows that
significant environmental impact MAY result from this project and a complete
EIR is required. In summary, the unprecedented conversion of fire roads into
narrow mountain pathways for multi-use cannot be considered to have no
significant environmental impact without full study. The cumulative impacts
when considered in conjunction with other projects and uses in the area, the
potential for increased usage by high impact user groups, soil erosion,
wildlife and plan life impacts, must be studied. The MND fails to do this.
Instead it makes conclusory statements that no impact or less than significant
impact will result. In light f the record as whole, the requirements of Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15074, subd. (b) are not met, and a full environmental
impact report is required for this project.
This letter is being written to meet
the artificially imposed Dec. 24th deadline, and is not intended to
cover all such potential environmental impacts.
The TCC does not recognize Dec. 24th as the deadline, and
will be supplementing this letter with further information to support its
contention that a full EIR is required for this project.
Please reconsider our request for
extension of time for the reasons stated herein. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dotty E. LeMieux
cc:
Dave Boyd, State Parks Ecologist, Marin District
Assemblymember Joe Nation
Clients