League of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley
P.O. Box 1302, Salinas, CA 93902
July 6, 2004
Therese Schmidt, Senior Planner,County of Monterey
Planning and Building Inspection Department
2620 First Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Re: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR
for the proposed Rancho San Juan specific plan and HYH Project
Dear Ms. Schmidt,
The Leagues of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula appreciate this opportunity to comment upon the (DEIR) for the proposed Rancho San Juan (RSJ) Specific Plan and HYH Project. The League of Women Voters has positions it has developed after careful study with which it takes stands on various issues; those positions are attached to this letter as Appendix A.
The project quotes the 1982 Monterey County General Plan and the 1986 Greater Salinas Area Plan as providing its mandate for development. It does not note nor account for the numerous qualifications within those Plans that would discount that mandate. In particular the Greater Salinas Area Plan states that Area of Development Concentrations (ADC) will be developed given the following assumptions are in place:
- "Continued support for realignment of 101 and the 101 Bypass.
- "Groundwater overdraft and salt water intrusion is arrested."
- "Specific areas within the planning areas may be unsuitable with detailed information."
- "The cost burden should be placed directly on the beneficiaries".
In reviewing the DEIR the two alternatives discussed result in significant cumulative impacts to Water, Noise, Traffic, Agriculture, Air Quality, Biology, Historic and Archaeological Resources. Evaluation of 38 percent of the issues that must be considered in an EIR resulted in findings of significant non-mitigable cumulative impacts. The impacts to Biology, Water, Land Forms and Agriculture are also noted as Significant and Irreversible.
Several of the mitigation measures rely on changes to ordinances and other regulations that are not within the control of the applicant. CEQA states that mitigation must be within the control of the applicant and must be done in a timely manner. We are concerned that the following mitigation measures will not meet those criteria:
The assumption that a Russell/ Espinosa interchange and the widening of Highway 156 will be available to directly serve the site and to divert traffic from the vicinity is unreasonable given the availability of funding. Therefore, the FEIR must address the impacts of this project without the assumed improvements.
The assumption that they will be allowed to use groundwater from beyond the project boundary to mitigate sufficient water within the basin is unreasonable. The FEIR needs to address where the water will come from and the impact of pulling water from beyond the groundwater basin.
We also wish to comment on the following sections of the DEIR:
Water Resources
The applicant proposes that the maximum annual allowed consumption increase to 3,370 AF (the current usage, which can be interrupted, is 2,770) despite the fact that this project is proposed in an area that is already experiencing significant groundwater overdraft. (Impact 5.10-1: Overdraft of local groundwater supply "Significant Direct and Cumulative Impact.") Mitigation Measures 5.10-1a through 5.10-1d would reduce but not avoid a significant impact on local groundwater storage. There are several major issues to be addressed:
Golf Course Water use: p. 4-46 of the DEIR states that, during early years, before home buildout and full occupancy, the irrigation system would be provided from well water. "The golf course irrigation distribution ... would consist of reclaimed wastewater to the extent it would be available. At full occupancy, the wastewater treatment plant should be able to provide ample water for all irrigation needs." However, page 5.12-4 of the DEIR specifically states that "The wastewater treatment facility is proposed as a phased project, resulting in expansion of the facility over a projected period of 20 or more years." Furthermore, the discussion of water use in Chapter 5 specifically excludes water consumption information for the golf course under the claim that only recycled water will be used so there will be no groundwater impact. Given the critical nature of the groundwater basin, the golf course development should not be permitted until sufficient recycled water is available to provide full irrigation.
Residential use assumptions: The DEIR uses a lower residential forecast than actual daily usage in Salinas. The result of using lower numbers per resident is an unrealistic forecast of groundwater demand. The developer needs to be required to install water conservation fixtures and landscaping requiring minimal water.
The applicant assumes that residential water use will be lower than average on an on-going sustained basis. This has not been found to be valid in studies of residential behavior regarding water conservation. This faulty assumption of low water use further underestimates demand on ground water.
The DEIR proposed mitigations are to reduce agricultural consumption or to shift the burden to public agencies. The first mitigation (5.10-1a reducing agricultural consumption) is faulty in that it is not a long-term solution because the agricultural use is temporary until build-out. In addition, agricultural use of water returns one-third of its volume as ground water recharge, whereas residential use does not. The second mitigation measure (5.10-1d: The County shall also determine that the long-term maintenance of water conservation methods will be assured. If not ... then the Water Resources Agency shall impose some or all of the following measures:
- Water rationing;
- Landscape retrofit;
- Increased water consumption fees; and/or
- Installation of a reverse osmosis unit or its equivalent at the wastewater treatment plant for RSJ)
This is unrealistic because the applicant does not have the authority to impose this responsibility on the County or on the Water Resources Agency, who do not have the resources or the political will to do the work.
Agricultural versus Residential use: The DEIR argues that the impact is less than significant because the proposed use (residential and commercial development) uses less water than the current use (strawberry farming). The comparison is not valid because:
- As recognized in the DEIR agricultural irrigation is a significant source of ground water recharge; and
- More significantly, agricultural use can be stopped in times of drought while residences must be furnished with water.
Use of recycled water without advanced treatment: The DEIR is unrealistic in assuming that the project will be allowed to use 947 AF of recycled water for groundwater recharge without doing advanced treatment. On page 5.10-1 of the DEIR, it states that the treatment plant will be producing reclaimed water at a level sufficient for a golf course but that reverse osmosis is infeasible at this time. At the same time, it states that they will reduce groundwater overdraft by "In addition, reclaimed water would be placed in underground basins and allowed to percolate through the soil; this process is referred to as "applied subgrade reclaimed water." Such a proposal to recharge the groundwater basin with water that has not been significantly treated has the potential to substantially degrade the groundwater and must be approved by numerous state and federal agencies who protect the groundwater before such a proposal could be considered a feasible mitigation option.
Storm Water Impacts on Surface Water Quality
This project has a significant likelihood to substantially degrade water quality (Impact 5.9). We recommend that mitigation measures requiring the project implement the state-of-the-art storm water controls, especially for the golf course, be addressed in the FEIR and that ongoing compliance with these controls be made part of use permits.
While there is adequate provision for the amount of parkland in the Specific Plan and in HYH, the DEIR proposes that those parklands will be used for storm water detention and percolation of storm water run-off and treated effluent (Chapter 4, page 17). There is not a discussion of how these activities will affect the access and use of these parks by the public when the parkland is unavailable because of the percolation. In particular, the FEIR should address the impact of using the parks for percolation of treated effluent, as that will be a year-round activity while storm water detention primarily occurs between October and May.
Use of a Satellite Waste Treatment Plant
The specific plan has proposed treating the wastewater in a series of satellite treatment plants until a conventional treatment plant is built. This proposal raises a number of concerns regarding water and air quality from the handling of treatment byproducts including the sludge, odor, brine, and effluent and recycled water. The DEIR proposes discharging the recycled water from the proposed waste treatment plant three ways: as irrigation for the golf course, as "subgrade" groundwater injection, and discharge for percolation in the park areas. This raises concerns about the potential to negatively affect surface and ground water quality especially given that the proposal specifically states that advanced treatment is infeasible at this time. Furthermore, there is a letter from Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) (2/13/03) stating there is a more desirable wastewater alternative than the RSJ option. The better alternative is to convey raw wastewater from the project to MRWPCA's Regional System, through an interceptor that would connect the Castroville pump station. Advantages to this regional solution include:
- Lower capital and O & M costs
- More effective use of treated wastewater in the county's ongoing efforts to halt seawater intrusion.
- Small plants have turned out to be a problem for counties and the state.
- Consistent quality treatment
The FEIR needs to better address these concerns including the proposed MRWPCA alternative.
Traffic and Circulation
The DEIR shows that alternatives 2 and 4E have significant impacts on major roads and intersections in the area. Tables displaying the level of service (LOS) for the year 2010 overwhelming indicate LOS F (the lowest possible level). Some roads that are currently at a LOS B (stable operation/minimal delay) are being degraded to a LOS F.
Another significant traffic impact not measured in the DEIR was non-commute weekend and holiday traffic. The part of 101 near the project is known for its worst congestion being on Sunday afternoon and evening. The FEIR must address and mitigate for this.
Analyses of the traffic impact mitigations are based upon "fair share" funding. These mitigations are unlikely to occur because the City of Salinas, Caltrans, and Monterey County all lack funding in the foreseeable future to add "their share." This will result in unacceptable traffic impacts and is contrary to the Greater Salinas Area Plan (1986) that states that the ADCs will be developed given that "The cost burden should be placed directly on the beneficiaries" (the developer). The FEIR must include an analysis and appropriate mitigation of the impacts.
The EIR has failed to provide an analysis of the impact on traffic on Highway 101 north of the project to Highway 129. That section of the freeway, which is primarily accessed by uncontrolled intersections, is already seriously impacted and, it is likely many RSJ residents will commute north to work. This impact should be included in the FEIR.
A new question arose June 23, 2004 when TAMC proposed to replace the Prunedale Bypass with an Eastern Expressway. This will be voted on July 28. If this is accepted, 4E alternative studies for this DEIR are irrelevant and the expressway alternative should be studied.
Library Service (5.12.7)
The Specific Plan proposes to provide library service by a combined middle school (Gavilan View) library and public library. This will not provide adequate library service for the large area of Rancho San Juan. Our concerns are:
- The middle school library is located is at the southern end of the project, not central to the residential areas, and is far too small - 600 square feet.
- The outlying libraries need to be identified by their library system. Castroville and Prunedale are part of the Monterey County Library system. The third (which is spelled incorrectly, is the El Gabilan Library) is part of the Salinas Public Library system. It is the only north Salinas branch and is extremely small (3,000 sq. ft.). It is inadequate to serve the existing growing north Salinas area. Addition of a Salinas branch farther north in the growth area has been considered but is not financially possible currently.
- While the combined library plan appears in the DEIR, there is a new plan according to the County Librarian, Robert McElroy. The latest negotiations are for a separate public library in the "town center," with about 7,500 square feet, with the site and building provided by HYH. Maintenance and operation will be funded by a Community Facilities District. This is a satisfactory solution and needs to be included in the revised Specific Plan and the FEIR.
Schools (5.12.3)
Superintendent of the Santa Rita Union School District, Dr. Bob McLauglin suggested, in response to the NOP, that the statewide average student generation rate per household for an elementary school in a district with mixed housing is 0.80. The rate used in the DEIR is 0.55. No explanation is given as to why the lower rate was used. The lower rate underestimates the capacity needed by 958 students. If the proposed schools aren't built to accommodate these students, there could be long-term overcrowding. The FEIR needs to address this discrepancy.
Public Services
The DEIR is assuming public services for fire, police, and libraries will be staffed by local government. This is a cost issue that needs to be addressed by the FEIR.
Housing
While the plan and the DEIR provide for affordable housing at all levels within the project we want to stress the following points:
- The project must be developed following the percentages listed in the plan and EIR for affordable, workforce, and market rate housing
- Affordable housing needs to be developed concurrently as the plan states. We support the change of placing affordable units near the town center to ensure there are adequate services for lower income households, assuming we are not "ghettoizing" these households.
- The Plan proposes that all accessory dwelling units should be second story units above garages to serve senior citizens. Secondary story units are generally not appropriate for senior citizens. These units should not be counted as part of the affordable housing requirements.
Agriculture
We are concerned about the impact to agricultural land and the inconsistencies in the various plans affecting the right to develop. The General Plan states:
- "New area shall not, under any circumstances, be located where it may adversely impact significant prime of productive agricultural lands." Eighty-eight percent of the land that will be developed to non-agricultural purposes in the proposed build out of this project is currently listed as Prime, Farmland of Statewide Significance, or Unique Agricultural land.
- "Protection and conservation of prime agricultural land will be enhanced by concentrations of development in designated areas."
The proposal to eliminate agriculture buffers will further reduce the viability of agricultural land in the vicinity. Right to farm laws are a supplement, not a substitute, for good land use planning. They do nothing to prevent the conversion of farmland to nonfarm uses. While they may be helpful when farmers are sued by non-farm neighbors, they do not prevent conflicts between farmers and non-farmers from occurring in the first place. They also have been subject to successful legal challenges.
These are important concerns to the health and welfare of our community. We hope you will take the time to make decisions that reflect the needs of the community.
Thank you for your consideration in this important matter.
/s/Anne Herendeen
|
/s/Beverly Bean, VMD
|
