Date: Thursday, August 3, 1995
To: Mr. Fred J. Hempel, Division Administrator
FHWA Program Development Office
California Division
980 9th Street - Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814-2724
From: Scott Boyd
Montara, CA 94037-0553
Subject:1995 Devil's Slide Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement / Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 83051706 4-SM-1 PM
34.0/41.0 (PK 54.7/66.0) 4210-112371, FHWA-CA-EIS-83-14-FS
The authors of the SEIS/SEIR (hereafter referred to as the Document), the California Department of Transportation District 4 and Federal Highway Administration Region Nine (hereafter referred to as Authors) signed off on the Document on June 26, 1995, and June 28, 1995, respectively. The Document was produced upon Judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Based on the deficiencies of the Document (further detailed below), I request that the Federal Highway Administration withhold approval of both the Document and the Proposed Project. I also request that the Authors produce a new Supplemental EIS based on the information below.
A summary list of requested items is appended to the end of this document (Appendix A - Requested Items). The items are requested in accordance with and pursuant to the U. S. Freedom of Information Act and the California Public Records Act.
If any portion of my request isn't clear to you, please call me immediately.
If you require an advance deposit to cover photo-copying costs, please call me immediately and I will bring a check to your office within 24 hours.
Please call me when you have the information ready, and please send the documents to me at the address above.
Please include this letter in the joint Record of Decision.
Please include this letter in the permanent public record in the Devil's Slide Project
File.
Please include this letter as part of the response to the Supplemental EIS/EIR.
Please include this letter in the reevaluation of the EIS/EIR.
Please provide a written response to each question posed (each is noted with a *).
1.1. Response - 30 says "...comments were received indicating a tunnel alternative would avoid project noise impacts." The document contains no response to the noise impact pros or cons of a tunnel alternative. This represents a major deficiency of the Document, and must be addressed.
1.2. * Please respond to the following assertion: "A tunnel alternative would have a substantially positive impact relative to the noise impact of the Authors' preferred alternative."
2. The Document introduces new tunnel info with no public hearings or comment The Document's Response to Public Comments section "9. Investigate Tunnel Option" introduces eight pages (pp. 30-37) of heretofore unpublished information on tunnels. New data includes:
2.1. Response - 31 "...the minimum acceptable cross section for a long, single bore tunnel is 19.8m (66 feet wide." This assertion appears in the Document for the first time in the "Final" version, and has not been subject to public hearing.
2.1.1. * Please provide a basis for this minimum cross section. Please cite relevant FHWA and AASHO guidelines.
2.2. Response - 31 "The design of any highway including tunnels must reflect safety as a major consideration." Section (8.c) asserts that "This final SEIS only addresses noise-related issues." However, by introducing the Authors' concerns over the safety of a Tunnel Alternative, the Authors call into question the safety of the Martini Creek Bypass. Expressed concerns over steep grades, curves, earthquake stability of cuts/fills, and frequent thick fog (roughly 50% of commute times [ref. P. Bechtel, 1986 study]) suggest that a safety study of the Authors' preferred project alignment might reasonably produce items of concern of comparable significance.
2.2.1. * Please provide a comparable response detailing the safety concerns of the Martini Creek Proposed Project.
2.3. Response - 33 Devil's Slide Bypass & Tunnel Option Cost Analysis. This table is new, was not available for public hearings, nor was it subject to a period of public comment.
2.3.1. * Please provide a basis for introducing new tunnel data without following CEQA/NEPA guidelines for public hearings and comment.
2.3.2. Absent the presentation of any basis for avoiding public hearings and comment, I object to the use of a cost basis for the Authors' rejection of a tunnel alternative.
2.3.3. * Please provide a basis for rejecting the estimates of environmental planner Nona Dennis (Pacifica Chamber of Commerce Tunnel Meeting, Joe Browne and other California DOT employees were present) that both the Martini Creek Bypass and the Tunnel alternatives would require comparably-similar permitting processes and timelines.
2.4. New mitigation info, no public hearings or comment
2.4.1. The Document rejects all proposed mitigation measures. The Authors propose to do nothing more than joint planning with State Parks. This surprising outcome deserves an opportunity for public hearings and comment.
2.4.1.1. * Please provide a basis for introducing new mitigation material and a choice of no mitigation without following CEQA/NEPA guidelines for public hearings and comment.
2.4.1.2. Page 7, item (2) - "Depressing just the roadway within the graded roadbed along the entire length of the bypass alignment to create a low noise barrier is similar to providing a noise berm which is not being included in the project as discussed above." The basis for the rejection of noise barriers was page 6 "serious concern regarding the obstruction of views and the aesthetic impacts of the proposed noise barriers."
2.4.1.2.1. * Please clarify why this justification would preclude depressing the roadway.
2.4.1.3. Page 7, item (5) - Authors reject the purchase of real property to preempt development of adversely noise-impacted areas on the basis that such property is in rugged terrain which precludes land use development. This assertion is false in that the entire meadow area, including Ocean View Farms, is directly on either side of the southern end of project. That land is neither rugged, nor precluded from land use development.
2.4.1.3.1. * Please explain how this mitigation suggestion does not apply (given your rejection of the option) to Ocean View Farms and the surrounding meadow area.
2.5. No cost/benefit analysis of the alternatives
2.5.1. The Document offers no cost/benefit analysis of the proposed alternatives, as required by CEQA/NEPA guidelines, and as will likely be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. This striking absence of comparative materials and analysis from expert cost/benefit analysts weakens the overall value of the document in the same manner as noted by the State Attorney General's office (Van de Kamp, Attorney General, to Marie Pang, California DOT, 1984). To wit, "The document contains insufficient information to support the evaluation of the alternatives that are discussed, and many foreseeable environmental impacts are not addressed at all."
2.5.1.1. * Please provide an expert cost/benefit analysis of the noise impact of each of the proposed alternatives.
2.6. Delay cost
2.6.1. Response - 33 The Document introduces a "delay cost" which is applied only to the tunnel, not to the Martini Creek Bypass alternative. According to Nona Dennis, environmental planning expert, both major alternatives require approximately similar permitting procedures and resulting delays.
2.6.1.1. * Please provide a timeline demonstrating the permitting process for all of the alternatives.
3. Factual inaccuracy
3.1. claim of Pacifica endorsement
3.1.1. Response - 31 "In addition, the cities of Pacifica and Half Moon Bay have formally endorsed the proposed bypass project." This assertion is incorrect on two accounts. As a result, this negates the claim that the proposed bypass is consistent with current planning policies.
3.1.2. First, the City of Pacifica never endorsed the proposed bypass project. In point of fact, the City of Pacifica was presented with two alternate alignments and voted a preference for one alignment (the Martini Creek alignment) over the other (the airport alignment). No other alternatives were presented. No reasonable interpretation of this vote could conclude that this was a formal endorsement of the proposed bypass project.
3.1.2.1. * Please provide a basis for the claim that the City of Pacifica formally endorsed the proposed bypass project. Please include the text of any City formal endorsement.
3.1.3. Second, as of July 24, 1995, the City of Pacifica voted to adopt a neutral stance on the project, offering no support. The vote was based largely on the lack of objective information presented by the Authors on the possibility of a tunnel alternative.
3.1.3.1. * Please provide a response to the following statement: "Given that both alternatives fail, according to the Authors' criteria, to measure up to the need for planning consistency, neither alternative can be rejected on that basis."
3.2. Claim that a 14m wide tunnel provides inadequate walkways
3.2.1. Response - 31 "A 14m (46-foot) wide tunnel is not acceptable because it does not meet the need for a safe walkway area for the Caltrans maintenance workers..."
3.2.1.1. The letter (Shank/Balfour Beatty, March 20, 1995, no page number) originally included diagrams which clearly show a safe walkway area for maintenance workers. Unfortunately, this diagram was omitted from the Document (see "Missing information" below).
4. Missing information
4.1. Several letters reference attachments which are not included in the Document. The Document is missing materials submitted as part of the public comment process, and is therefore incomplete.
4.1.1. Comment Letters - 138 references two attachments, the second of which (Shank/Balfour Beatty, March 20, 1995) originally was sent with several diagrams. The portion of the letter which was included in the Document references these diagrams, which were clearly an integral part of the letter. These essential diagrams were omitted, resulting in an incomplete Document.
4.1.1.1. * Please provide the omitted diagrams (Drawing No. 1 and Drawing No. 2), and add these to the Document.
4.1.2. In the unnumbered appendix of enclosures, a State of California memorandum (James E. Roberts, DOT, July 6, 1993) references "...the 1974 APS drawings and quantities (see attached drawings)..." No such drawings are included.
4.1.2.1. * Please provide the omitted 1974 APS drawings and quantities.
4.1.3. In the unnumbered appendix of enclosures, a letter (Stanley Hart, Nov. 2, 1987)
says, "I am including the draft of an unsent letter addresses to the Chairman of
the California Transportation Committee which may give you an insight as to
the pressures which affect the Caltrans decision-making process." The referenced
letter was omitted from the Document.
4.1.4. In the unnumbered appendix of enclosures, a "Summary of Feasibility Study for
Tunnel Alternative" appears to have been cut short. In addition, it notes that it
is "From Preliminary Feasibility Study Tunnel on Route 1 Corridor in San Mateo
County Between San Pedro Valley and Green Valley, Bypassing Devil's Slide,
August 1974." This document was apparently faxed from the District 4 Public
Affairs Office April 5, 1995.
4.1.4.1. * Please provide the "Feasibility Study Tunnel on Route 1 Corridor in
San Mateo County Between San Pedro Valley and Green Valley, Bypassing
Devil's Slide, August 1974."