Mike Novo, Director of Planning
Planning Department
168 West Alisal, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901

Subject: DEIR for Villas De Carmelo

Dear Mr. Novo:

The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula has reviewed the DEIR for Villas De Carmelo which is a standard subdivision to convert 10,350 square feet of the existing hospital structure into nine (9) condominium units and construct 37 additional condominium units for a total of 46 condominium units in the Carmel area. We have the following comments:

1. Tree Removal: The project would require removal of 213 existing trees which would have significant impacts on the viewshed, biological resources and Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG). Proposed mitigation includes replacement of 148 trees. (p. 4.1 -11). The DEIR finds that existing vegetation is considered a scenic resource that is an important component of the visual integrity of the Highway 1 corridor and removal of these trees would be a significant and unavoidable impact (p. 4.1-29). The DEIR fails to address, however, increased GHG emissions resulting from the loss of mature vegetation (carbon sequestration) and increased GHG emissions resulting from the disposal of the 213 trees.

2. The DEIR states, "GHG emissions do not create environmental effects; rather it is the cumulative increased concentration of CO2 (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere that results in global climate change and associated consequences." (p. 4.3 -18). If GHG emissions do not have environmental impacts, CEQA would obviously not apply. Climate change may represent the ultimate environmental impact. This statement should be deleted from the document.

3. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 proposes that a PM10 control plan be implemented by all relevant contractors at the site and monitored daily by the Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department during demolition and grading activities at the site. The applicant should be required to pay a mitigation fee for daily monitoring by the County to ensure enforceability of the proposed mitigation measure.

4. Mitigation Measure 4.3- 2 is a deferred mitigation measure requiring the applicant to develop a diesel risk reduction plan for submittal to the MBUAPCD prior to issuance of the permit and that the plan demonstrates that adverse health effects are reduced to an acceptable level. Given the proximity of the project to nearby residents, significant impacts may not be able to be reduced to levels that protect the public health. A diesel risk assessment should be required prior to completing the environmental document.

5. The DEIR fails to address the impact of locating residents adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway (Highway 1). What impacts would diesel exhaust and other vehicle emissions have on the public health of future residents? Additionally, what noise levels would future residents experience and would those levels be unhealthful?

6. Carmel Area Land Use Plan/LCP, Policy 2.4.3.2, requires, "Runoff volumes and rates should be maintained at pre-development levels, unless provisions to implement this result in greater environmental damage." The DEIR finds the proposed project has the potential to increase stormwater run-off from the project site. It finds that Mitigation Measure 4.8 requiring the project’s Geotechnical Engineer to provide evidence to the Monterey County Planning Department that Preliminary Drainage Report recommendations have been adhered to would reduce impacts to less than significant (p. 4.8-7). Does the Preliminary Drainage Report show that post-development runoff would be maintained at pre-development levels as required by Policy 2.4.3.2?

7. Land Use: The proposed project would require amendments to the LCP, Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and Part 1 of the Coastal Implementation Plan (Title 20 Zoning Ordinance). Based on the Thresholds of Significance described in the DEIR (p. 4.9-4), a project would have a significant impact on land use if it would "conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." Using this criterion, the DEIR finds the project would not conflict with adopted policies intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact and would therefore not have a significant impact on land use.

   Table 4.9-1 identifies over 120 policies applicable to the proposed project. Policy 2.2.4.6 requires, "…New development along Highway 1 shall be sufficiently set back to preserve the forested corridor effect and minimize visual impact." As noted earlier, the DEIR finds that the existing vegetation is considered a scenic resource that is an important component of the visual integrity of the Highway 1 corridor and removal of these trees would be a significant and unavoidable impact. Yet, in Table 4.9-1 the project is found consistent with Policy 2.2.4.6. Based on this one policy alone and findings in the DEIR, the project should be found to have a significant impact on land use.

8. Inconsistent with Housing Element: The project is inconsistent with the County Housing Element because it fails to provide housing for low and very low income groups. It finds this impact would be less-than-significant if the County agrees to allow this inconsistency. (p. 4-11-16). Using this logic would enable all significant impacts to be reduced to levels of insignificance.

9. Traffic: The proposed project would add an estimated 269 total daily trips to the local street system and Highway 1, which have been identified as deficient in LOS standards. The DEIR finds this increase is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of numerous highway improvements. Improvements include capacity improvements along the Highway 1 corridor in Carmel between the Carmel River Bridge and Carpenter Street identified in TAMC’s 2005 Regional Transportation Plan from the Unconstrained Regional Project List. The DEIR fails to state that all projects on this list are unfunded and have no time frame or schedule for implementation.

   The DEIR also recommends implementation of the following projects (P 4.13-7):

   • Consider either widening the southbound shoulder at the Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection to allow vehicles to pass vehicles waiting to turn left onto Valley Way, or consider changing this intersection to all-way stop control to eliminate the need for left-turn channelization on the southbound approach.
   • Increase the radius at the northwest triangular ‘corner’ of the Highway 1/Valley Way intersection to improve maneuverability for the southbound right turns onto Valley Way.
   • Remove and/or trim any trees or shrubs remaining on this corner that interfere with the sight distance from Valley Way to Highway 1.
   • Provide a right-turn flare on the southbound Highway 1 approach to Valley Way to provide deceleration for vehicles turning right from Highway 1 to Valley Way.

   The DEIR finds that with the payment of a pro-rata share to the County for these projects, impacts would be reduced to less-than significant. As noted above, none of these projects is scheduled for implementation. Payment of a pro-rata share for constructing non-existent projects does not constitute a mitigation measure. Further, the DEIR fails to include evaluations of the impacts of the proposed mitigation measures on the environments as required by CEQA.

   The DEIR further finds that payment of regional impact fees to TAMC would mitigate the proposed project’s cumulative impact on regional roadways. (p. 4-13-29). There are no projects on the TAMC Regional Project list in the vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project should be found to have a significant cumulative impact on regional traffic conditions.

10. Water: The proposed project is found to have a less-than-significant impact on water supply because it would meet MPWMD requirements for using water previously allocated to the former use. Meeting a regulatory requirement does not equate to addressing a project’s impact on water supply.

    Based on the existing environment, the proposed project would result in an additional 6.865 AFY of water demand from the water supply system. (p. 4.14 -12). Under Order 95-10, a significant portion of Cal-Am’s current water extractions from the Carmel River is illegal. Additionally, pumping from the Seaside Groundwater Basin currently exceeds the safe yield by almost 2,500 AFY. How can the DEIR find the project’s impact on water supply is less-than significant when the only available water is paper water?

11. Alternatives: While Table 6.3-1 identifies the Existing Zoning alternative as having the fewest impacts, the DEIR finds the Reduced Project alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce environmental impacts to the extent feasible while still meeting the project’s objectives.

    Project objectives are identified as:

    • Rehabilitate and preserve a historic community institution;
    • Establish a high quality residential village community to house future residents within the County;
    • Provide market rate, affordable, and work force housing stock to the Monterey Peninsula with 20% designated as affordable and workforce housing; and
    • Reuse of vacated buildings on a site with infill development.

    The DEIR does not identify the buildings as designated historic buildings. Further, since the project does not meet the County’s Inclusionary Housing requirements, providing affordable housing for all segments of the community is not a basic objective. Thus, the basic objective appears to be to provide in-fill residential development. Further, CEQA Guidelines require identification of alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts of the project or reducing them to a less-than-significant level, even if the alternative would not fully attain the project objectives or would be more costly.

    While the Existing Zoning Alternatives appears to best meet the above criteria, the alternatives analysis must be re-evaluated based on identification of significant adverse environmental impacts described in this letter.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR.

Sincerely,

     Janet Brennan, President, LWV of the Monterey Peninsula