LWVMP and LWVSV

March 31, 2010

Monterey County Planning Commission
168 West Alisal Street, 1st Floor
Salinas, CA 93901

Subject: Draft 2010 Monterey County General Plan

Dear Commissioners:

The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula and the League of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley have reviewed the draft plan. We find the plan includes the following positive additions:

  1. Several deferred mitigation measures and implementation ordinances now include specific performance criteria, e.g., exterior lighting requirements, biological study and survey ordinance, stream set-back ordinance, Oak Woodlands program, and the Adequate Public Facilities and Services plan.
  2. Building intensity standards added to land use designations as required by State law.
  3. Requirement for future development to incorporate Low Impact Development techniques to protect water quality.
  4. Review of Community Area and Rural Center Plans and new development proposals for emergency response routes.
  5. Expansion of criteria for proof of a long term sustainable water supply to include effects on in-stream flows needed to support riparian vegetation, wetlands, fish, etc.
  6. Requirement for discretionary permits for new wells in the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer and a requirement that all new wells fully offset any increase in extractions from the aquifer.
  7. Requirement for a discretionary permit for all new wells in fractured rock or hard rock in the North County Area Plan.
  8. Adoption of a 75% waste diversion goal.
  9. Requirement that wineries provide for proper storage and disposal of pomace resulting from winery operations.
  10. Requirement for biological studies for permanent facilities with the potential to affect biological resources within the Winery Corridor and to obtain a discretionary permit if the studies indicate a significant impact on biological resources.
  11. Identification of the maximum units allowed within mapped land use designations. (Maximum units allowed were deleted on the maps included in GPU5.)

We have concerns about the following revisions and additions:

  1. P. LU-17. Development in Rural Centers has been amended indicating that development should meet the criteria that are to follow; however, the list that follows identifies possible uses rather than criteria. This section needs clarification.
  2. P. C/OS-10. Proposed revisions to the GPU5 policy on cultivation on steep slopes attempt to address impacts on water quality and biological resources due to conversion of land on steep slopes to agricultural uses. The policy would allow conversion for agricultural uses on slopes “where the area(s) containing slopes exceeding twenty five percent (25%) meet all of the following criteria:
    1. does not exceed 10% of the total area to be converted;
    2. does not contain a slope over 50%
    3. is designated for Farmland, Permanent Grazing or Rural Grazing land use;
    4. is planted to a permanent crop such as trees or vines; and
    5. is situated in the interior of the parcel(s) in which the permit is sought.”

    Does b) mean that the slopes over 50% must be part of the slopes over 25% or that the parcel proposed for planting has slopes over 50%? Does c) mean that only the area exceeding 25% be designated for Farmland, etc. and the rest of the parcel could have other designations? Does d) mean that the parcel is already planted in permanent crops or that permanent crops are proposed for planting? Does d) mean that only the area with slopes exceeding 25% must be planted in permanent crops? Regarding e), how is “interior” defined, e.g., would an area within a 1 foot perimeter of the parcel be considered as interior?

    Even with clarification, we believe that enforcement of the proposed policy is problematic. Most agricultural activities do not require any permits, and proposed regulations far exceed any requirements that the agricultural industry must currently meet. Title 21 currently prohibits any conversion of uncultivated land with slopes greater than 25% to agricultural uses. Even this straight-forward regulation has been difficult to enforce, and frequently enforcement has depended on complaints filed by individuals after planting has occurred. We think the current prohibition should remain in place to prevent erosion and degradation of water quality and to protect biological resources and wildlife habitats and corridors.

  3. P. C/OS-13. Policies OS-5.1 and OS-5.2 only address protection of listed species. Candidate, sensitive or special status species are excluded from protection. Policy OS-5.4 provides that developments comply with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game requirements which address listed species as well as those excluded from the policies. The FEIR finds that this later policy is adequate to address impacts related to the exclusion of candidate, sensitive or special status species from Policies OS-5.1 and OS-5.2. However, many agricultural activities are excluded from the development process since they require no permits and thus would not be addressed by Policy OS-5.4. We believe that OS-5.1 and OS-5.2 should be revised to address candidate, sensitive or special status species.
  4. P. C/OS-17. Policy OS-5.2 provides that the County examine the degree to which thresholds predicted in the General Plan EIR for the time frame 2006-2030 for population, residential construction and commercial growth have been attained. If the analysis indicates that actual growth is within 10% of the thresholds, the County shall initiate a General Plan Amendment process to consider expansion of growth areas. The purpose of such expanded areas would be to reduce the loss of species and habitat addressed by Policy OS-5.16 due to continued urban growth. The new growth areas shall accommodate at least 80% of the projected residential and commercial growth in the unincorporated county from 2030 to buildout. OS-5.21 requires the County to assess related impacts on non-listed species.

    It is unclear which growth areas would be subject to the policy, i.e., Community Areas and/or Rural Centers. The Community Areas of Boronda, Castroville, Pajaro and Chualar are largely surrounded by agricultural land that has been in production for years. Significant impacts of expanding these growth areas on species and habitat - the stated purpose of expanding growth areas- seems unlikely. The Fort Ord/East Garrison Community Area plan already includes provisions to protect species and habitat. On the other hand, expansion of Rural Centers (Bradley, Lockwood, Pine Canyon, Pleyto, River Road, San Ardo, and San Lucas) would most likely affect biological resources. Since most growth in unincorporated Monterey County is projected for Community Areas rather than Rural Centers, the proposed policy seems designed to facilitate growth and development instead of protecting biological resources. Expansion of all of the areas would further urban sprawl, create more greenhouse gas emissions, undermine Smart Growth policies, and diminish city-centered growth. We recommend deletion of this policy from the General Plan.

  5. P. C/OS-20. Policies OS-5.24 and OS-5.25 are intended to protect wildlife corridors and habitat of migratory birds by requiring discretionary projects to mitigate impacts on these resources. These policies should be applicable to all ministerial and non-permitted development as well as discretionary projects.
  6. P. C/OS-28. Policy OS-10.11 requires adoption of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan within 24 months of adoption of the General Plan. The GHG Plan is to include a target to reduce emissions by 2020 to a level that is 15% less than 2005 emission levels. Nine items are identified for inclusion in the GHG Plan, including the establishment of “an inventory (2006) GHG emissions in the County of Monterey including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural emissions;...”. It is unclear why a 2006 emission inventory would be prepared when the base year is 2005. Also, mobile source emissions should be added to the list of emissions to be inventoried. This policy also references the 2020 and 2030 reduction goals. What are these goals?
  7. P. C/OS-30. Policy OS-10.12 relates to emission controls for sources of PM10. This policy would be more appropriately located after Policy OS-10.9 which relates to non-GHG emissions rather than being placed in the middle of GHG policies.
  8. Carmel Valley Master Plan (CVMP) Supplemental Policies. The moratorium on subdivisions within the CVMP area has been excluded from these policies. Yet the reason for its adoption - congestion at Carmel Valley Road and Highway 1- has not been addressed. At the same time the methodology for measuring traffic congestion has been revised and made less stringent. Until traffic congestion and access of emergency vehicles to and from the area are addressed, either the moratorium should remain in effect or the allowable growth reduced.

Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report will be submitted in a separate letter. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Dennis Mar, President                                   MaryEllen Dick, President
LWV of the Monterey Peninsula                      LWV of the Salinas Valley