Bill Fell , Chief of Planning
Community Development Department
City of Monterey
Monterey CA 93940

Dear Mr. Fell,

Subject: Ocean View Plaze Project

Thank you for sending us a copy of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on the Ocean View Plaza Project. We submit the following comments regarding the Alternatives Analysis:

Since construction and operation of a desalination plant is an essential part of the project, the descriptive Comparative Analysis (Section G) and Comparison of Impacts (Table 9) should clearly indicate (1) the estimated amount of water demand which would be created by each alternative, and (2) the proposed capacity and location of the desalination plant as adjusted for each.

The Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Alternative 2), a multi-lot development plan for mixed-use projects on separately-owned sites, also would require a central desalination plant to serve all the lots. The amount of water needed for the residential and commercial uses, as well as the probable size of the desalination plant, should be included for this alternative.

Having the Ocean View Plaza project and others served by the municipal system, with its supplies augmented in the future by a regional desalination plant, may be considered environmentally superior to multiple private plants along this coastline. None of the Alternatives addresses the possibility that the necessary permits for a private desalination plant may not be granted. We assume that the City would then not issue building permits, and the project(s) could be placed on the waiting list for a future water allocation.

All local jurisdictions are currently developing methodologies for estimating their future water needs, based on their land use plans, developable sites, and growth patterns. This information is needed by local and regional water agencies trying to provide for an increased, alternative water supply. It is important to include the water needed to serve this large site in Monterey's estimates.

The identification of Alternative 3 is confusing. It is noted as one of three new alternatives on p. 3, and on p. 12 as the "Project Approved by the City Council in October 2002." It is in fact a modified version of the project approved by the Council, and includes some important changes. This Alternative proposes to increase the number of affordable units to 6; however, this will occur with any project of 30 units, since the City Council is preparing to increase the City's inclusionary requirement to 20%. A correction is needed in Table 1 also.

Although it is noted on p. 32, it would be helpful to decision-makers to point out in the Introductory material that the new Alternative 7, the Historic Resource Preservation Alternative, is considered to be the environmentally superior project. This could be included on p. 3, in Section D. Factors Applied in the Selection of Project Alternatives.

The expanded set of alternatives in the Supplement presents new choices for possible projects which could be built on the site. City officials and advisory bodies should review and consider each of them carefully in terms of Monterey's priorities for the Cannery Row area.

We will appreciate notice of the hearings on the project.

Sincerely,
Beverly G. Bean, President