Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2006 General Plan
September 27, 2006
Mike Novo
Acting Planning Director
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department
168 West Alisal St., 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Dear Mr. Novo:
The Leagues of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula and the Salinas Valley have reviewed the DEIR and have the following comments:
- Buildout. The DEIR analysis is fatally flawed because it is based on
incorrect assumptions about the buildout of the 2006 General Plan. The
DEIR states
the 2006 General Plan is based on the 1982 General Plan (P. 4.15-8). The
1982 Plan has a buildout of 229,377 units (p. 121, 1982 General Plan).
Yet, the buildout number used in the DEIR is 53,947 units (37,047 existing units and 16,900 new units). The 16,900 number is from the Bay Area Economic Report prepared for the Board of Supervisors on the Community General Plan Initiative. It was completed in February 2006 prior to completion of the Draft 2006 General Plan and does not reflect many of the draft policies, the land use maps, development in the Chualar Community Area (up to 10,000 units), property owner requests totaling over 4,000 acres, or the 1982 General Plan.
The buildout number is significantly underestimated. At a minimum it should reflect the 1982 General Plan buildout number since the 2006 Plan does nothing to limit that number of units and, in fact, adds new areas for growth, deletes the maximum units per acre on thousands of acres of rural lands, Resource Conservation, Rural Grazing, Permanent Grazing and Urban Reserve lands, allows subdivisions anywhere in the unincorporated area including farmland, and adds transition areas between Rural Centers and adjacent properties.
- AMBAG Forecasts. In some analyses (e.g., Air Quality, Transportation
and Noise) the DEIR relies on AMBAG’s population and land use forecasts
to determine project impacts. AMBAG’s numbers are used based on the
incorrect assumption that the forecasts reflect buildout of local general
plans (P. 3-95,
P. 4.15-8, and P. 6-8). Having participated in the development of AMBAG’s
forecasts in previous years, we find that this assumption misrepresents the
forecast methodology. AMBAG first estimates economic and population growth
at the regional level – Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito Counties. The
regional number is then allocated to the counties factoring in land use availability,
infrastructure constraints, and county demographic data. General plans are
only used to distribute the population within each county. This should be
self-evident since the buildout of the 1982 Monterey County General Plan
alone would add
over 229,000 units.
- Location of Development. The DEIR repeatedly states (P. 4.1-4, P. 4.6-59,
P. 4.11-9, and P. 4.15-8) that the 2006 plan would concentrate development
in cities or existing developed areas. Again, this does not correctly represent
the plan or its policies. As noted above, development could occur throughout
the unincorporated area in the following categories: rural lands with low
density development, Resource Conservation, Rural Grazing and Permanent Grazing,
and
Urban Reserve. Further, Policies AG-1.3 and LU-2.12 would allow subdivisions
anywhere in unincorporated Monterey County, including farmlands. The provisions
are unlike those in GPU#3 that only allowed development on 40 acres or more
of land outside Community Areas, Rural Centers and the Affordable Housing
Overlay. The 2006 General Plan is markedly different from the Community General
Plan
Initiative that generally prohibits subdivisions outside of Community Areas
or cities.
- Impacts Underestimated. Because of the use of incorrect buildout numbers,
AMBAG’s population forecasts, and incorrect assumptions about the location
of future growth, most of the impact analyses underestimate impacts. The
DEIR finds the following significant and unavoidable impacts: agricultural
land;
conflicts with Williamson Act contracts; soil erosion; groundwater overdraft;
saltwater intrusion; roadway level of service on County and regional roads;
visual character; light and glare, and growth. If the analysis were done
correctly, the following additional impacts would be added: air quality;
noise; water
demand; biological resources; population and housing; exposure of future
residents to hazards such as fire; safety in terms of emergency access; biological
resources,
and public services. It is important to note that if correct assumptions
were used to assess impacts, impacts that are identified as significant and
unavoidable
would be even more significant and unavoidable!
- Alternatives Analysis. Because the DEIR relies on incorrect buildout
numbers for the 2006 General Plan and the 1982 General Plan, its analysis
of impacts
for each of the alternative plans is flawed. It finds, for example, that
the 2006 General Plan would have fewer impacts on the environment than GPU#3
because
buildout is lower than the buildout for GPU3 - 53,947 v. 57,792, respectively
(P. 3-10, Table 3-5). The conclusion would be exactly opposite if correct
buildout numbers were used.
- Cumulative Impact Analysis. The DEIR relies on AMBAG’s forecasts
to address cumulative impacts. As noted above, this does not meet CEQA
requirements
to address the project, i.e., buildout of all local general plan. Use of
forecasts significantly underestimates cumulative impacts. The DEIR identifies
the following
cumulative impacts: agricultural resources; water resources; transportation;
aesthetics, and light and glare. If the analysis were done correctly, the
following additional impacts would be added: air quality; noise; water
demand; biological
resources; population and housing; exposure of future residents to hazards
such as fire; safety in terms of emergency access; many public services,
and infrastructure.
- Existing Environment. The DEIR uses 2001 as the base year for describing
the existing environment. Under CEQA, the existing environment is to be based
on the date the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued. In this case, the
NOP was issued on February 9, 2006.
- Major Change to Slope Policy. The 2006 General Plan allows cultivation
on slopes over 30% with a permit. There are almost 600,000 acres of privately
held land in excess of 30% slope. The impacts of this policy on erosion,
visual
resources and biological resources has not been addressed.
- Mitigation Measures. The DEIR relies on project-by-project mitigation
to address many of the impacts of growth and development. This approach either
underestimates impacts or fails to assess the cumulative impacts of all development
on the environment, e.g., water demand, traffic, and public services. Additionally,
while the DEIR claims that impacts on infrastructure are mitigated by 2006
General Plan Policies requiring that services or infrastructure are funded
or planned for prior to development, the policies include loopholes that
allow
development to go forward without mitigation. Further, since new development
cannot be required to address existing deficiencies, development would be
allowed where existing infrastructure is below standards. Examples of loopholes
in
2006 General Plan policies include:
- Minor subdivisions in Rural Centers can be developed without adequate infrastructure (Policy LU-2.32).
- Development in Rural Centers can occur without addressing existing infrastructure inadequacies (Policy LU-2.31).
- Wells and septic systems allowed on inadequately sized parcels even in Rural Centers discourages public systems in higher density areas.
- Traffic congestion can increase to LOS D in all areas except Carmel Valley before mitigation is required.
Because of these major and fundamental flaws, the County should prepare a revised DEIR, and it should be re-circulated so the public and decision makers have full knowledge of the impacts of the 2006 General Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Maxner, President MaryEllen
Dick, President
LWV of the Monterey Peninsula LWV of the Salinas Valley
