July 15, 2006
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Villas at Laguna Seca
Luis Osorio, Senior Planner
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department
168 West Alisal St., Second Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Dear Mr. Osorio:
The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula has had an opportunity to review the Initial Study and MND for the project which includes 82 market-rate and 22 inclusionary condominium units. The project would remove the “B-6" overlay zoning district, require development on slopes over 30%, remove 191 protected oak trees, and require 35,000 cubic yards of grading. Finally, a traffic mitigation measure includes widening York Road to four lanes between Highway 68 and Wilson Road/Blue Larkspur. Based on our review, the project and Mitigation Measure 15.1 may have significant effects on the environment, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is required.
1. The MND fails to address the cumulative impact on biological resources resulting from the removal of 191 protected oak trees. Additionally, while a one-to-three ratio for replacement of landmark oak trees is recommended, this will not mitigate the loss of 25 landmark trees in the foreseeable future.
2. The MND defers mitigation for the loss of oak trees to a later time when a Revegetation and Landscaping Plan is prepared and The Forest Management Plan is updated. This does not meet CEQA requirements for either an MND or an EIR, since the effectiveness of the measures cannot be determined prior to project approval.
3. The MND defers mitigation for air quality impacts related to wind blown dust and diesel exhaust emissions through the preparation and submittal of an Air Pollution Control Program and a Best-Available Control Measures Implementation Plan at a later time. This does not meet CEQA requirements for either an MND or an EIR, since the effectiveness of the measures cannot be determined prior to project approval. Mitigation measures may not be deferred to a later time.
4. Under discussion of biological resources, the widening of York Road should be referenced as Mitigation No. 15.1, rather than as 15.2. Potential impacts on wetlands through implementing the mitigation measures would require the applicant to contract with a qualified biologist to perform a “Jurisdiction Wetland Delineation” as required by the Army Corps of Engineers. This does not meet CEQA requirements for either an MND or an EIR since the effectiveness of the measures cannot be determined prior to project approval. Mitigation measures may not be deferred to a later time.
5. As noted, the MND does not fully address requirements of SB 1334 (p. 24, last sentence).
6. The MND notes the site is located close to the southern boundary of Fort Ord and that future residents could be exposed to smoke from wild land fires at Fort Ord. It states, “...it is assumed that if a significant wild land fire were to occur...people would be effectively evacuated from the area.” It is an invalid assumption that an evacuation to protect residents from smoke exposure would occur. The final environmental document should address measures that protect residents from exposure to toxic air pollutants from combustion of vegetation from controlled burns.
7. The MND notes that water uses within the Laguna Seca Subarea currently exceed the safe yield by approximately 600 AFY. The MND finds that a long-term water supply is available as required by the Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance even though water would be supplied from a basin that currently exceeds the safe yield. This finding is based on data that show overall demand for potable water from the basin would decline as the result of the project’s contribution to reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course. While this may be accurate, it nevertheless does not address the overall issue of safe yield.
8. It is noted on p. 40 that “an amendment is necessary to the Bishop Unit distribution system to add the 104 connections needed to serve the project. The California American Water Company has filed an application for such amendment before the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The amendment application is subject to environmental review and approval by the MPWMD”. Since changes to the distribution system are part of the proposed project, the County as lead agency should include this analysis in its final environmental document. CEQA provides for only one lead agency per project.
9. Mitigation Measure 8.1 requires preparation of a drainage plan to address on-site and off-site impacts. This does not meet CEQA requirements for either an MND or an EIR, since the effectiveness of the measures cannot be determined prior to project approval. Mitigation measures may not be deferred to a later time.
10. Mitigation Measure No. 11.1 requires preparation of a “Construction Activities Schedule and Management Plan” to address noise issues. This does not meet CEQA requirements for either an MND or an EIR, since the effectiveness of the measures cannot be determined prior to project approval. Mitigation measures may not be deferred to a later time.
11. The MND in part relies on the 1983 Laguna Seca Office Park traffic impact analysis. Use of a document prepared 23 years ago does not meet CEQA requirements. The project’s impacts must be evaluated based on the existing environment which includes, but is not limited to, an LOS F on Highway 68. A new traffic analysis was required by the County which compared the traffic generation of the proposed project with the original land use designation. This, however, does not address the basic CEQA requirement of comparing a project’s impact against current traffic conditions.
12. Finally, except for air quality, the MND does not address the project’s cumulative impacts on the environment, e.g., traffic, biological resources, and water supply.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the document.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Maxner, President
