LandWatch
Monterey County
Post Office Box 1876, Salinas, CA 93902
Website: www.landwatch.org
Telephone: 831-759-2824
FAX: 831-759-2825
| A
PDF version of this document is available here. |
July
29, 2002
Jenny
Mahoney, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
90 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
RE:
Comments on Draft EIR on Salinas General Plan (June 2002)
Dear
Ms. Mahoney:
LandWatch
Monterey County is a nonprofit membership organization, with a membership
of about 1,000 persons from throughout Monterey County, including
a substantial number of residents of Salinas. Our mission is to
promote and inspire sound land use legislation at the city, county,
and regional levels through grassroots community action. For us,
“sound” land use policies are those that promote a healthy
economy, achieve greater social equity, and protect the natural
environment. All three of these objectives are equally important
to LandWatch--and to the communities of Monterey County.
LandWatch
very much appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) prepared on the Draft Salinas General Plan
dated June 2002. We request the City of Salinas to respond to our
comments, and to the comments of other organizations, agencies,
and individuals, by revising and recirculating a new Draft EIR.
We believe that the current DEIR is legally deficient, and that
it is necessary to develop significant new information and analysis,
properly and adequately to identify the possible adverse environmental
impacts of the Draft Salinas General Plan, to explore realistic
alternatives, and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures.
General
Comments:
The DEIR properly notes at Page 1-1 that the purpose of an EIR is
essentially threefold:
- To
identify the significant effects on the environment of a proposed
project;
- To
identify alternatives to the project; and
- To
indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated
or avoided.
As
will be noted in the specific comments below, the DEIR on the Draft
Salinas General Plan dated June 2002 fails to identify some possible
negative effects of the proposed project. It also fails to explore
possible alternatives. Most importantly--and this is the most serious
deficiency in the document--the DEIR does not really suggest effective
mitigation measures that could eliminate or reduce a number of the
negative impacts it identifies.
Because
the proposed project (the Draft Salinas General Plan dated June
2002) is a set of proposed policies, CEQA requires the DEIR to examine
alternative policies. The DEIR generally does not do that in an
adequate way. Good faith compliance with CEQA requires the City
to analyze and evaluate “alternatives” to the policies
set out in the Draft Salinas General Plan--and this means actually
to analyze and evaluate alternative land use policies, different
from the policies that constitute the project as currently proposed
in the June 2002 Draft Salinas General Plan.
Attached
to this letter is a copy of a letter dated July 8, 2002, jointly
sent to the City by LandWatch and Creekbridge Homes, with a set
of proposed policies relating to the design of development within
any proposed future growth area ultimately designated in the final
Salinas General Plan. We believe that the incorporation of these
policies into the final Salinas General Plan would help eliminate
some of the adverse environmental impacts identified in the DEIR.
This set of policies should be fully evaluated and analyzed in the
revised DEIR and Final EIR.
An
even more extensive set of policy recommendations is contained in
the document entitled “A Community Plan For The City of Salinas.”
A copy of this document is also attached to this letter. The “Community
Plan” is being proposed by a local citizens’ group, Líderes
Comunitarios de Salinas, and recommends policies relating to housing,
density and design, agricultural land protection, school facilities,
parks and libraries, and infrastructure finance. These suggested
policies should be fully evaluated and analyzed in the revised DEIR
and the Final EIR. These policies not only represent “alternatives”
to the policies contained in the Draft Salinas General Plan, they
should be considered as possible “mitigation measures,”
as well, since the adoption of these policies--or policies like
them--could eliminate or reduce some of the major impacts identified
in the DEIR.
Table
2-1 (found at Pages 2-3 through 2-59 of the DEIR) summarizes significant
environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The first section
of the Table is devoted to what the DEIR believes are “Significant
and Unavoidable Impacts (Pages 2-3 through 2-15).” Too often,
the “Conclusion” column contains a finding that the specified
impact “will remain significant and unavoidable.” As noted
on the very first page of the DEIR, CEQA requires an Environmental
Impact Report to “indicate the manner in which those significant
effects can be mitigated or avoided.” In a policy document,
like the Draft Salinas General Plan, additional or different policies
can, in fact, eliminate or avoid identified impacts. The most significant
inadequacy of this DEIR is that it doesn’t adequately specify
what sort of policies could avoid or eliminate the negative impacts
it often quite accurately diagnoses.
LandWatch
hopes that the City will take seriously its obligation to consider,
evaluate, and analyze “alternative” policies, different
from those contained in the Draft Salinas General Plan. We also
hope that the City will not just “identify” negative impacts,
but will articulate and adopt mitigation measures that could reduce
or eliminate those impacts. Additional or different policies could
do just that, and we hope that our comments, and the two policy
documents mentioned above, will be seriously considered as a way
to achieve the results that CEQA demands.
We
have one final general comment, before listing our specific comments:
The latest census says that 65% of the residents of Salinas are
Hispanic, and a very significant percentage of the population is
monolingual in Spanish. The Líderes Comunitarios de Salinas,
with whom LandWatch has been working, is a group of Salinas residents
who have been educating themselves on the critical land use and
housing policies that will so profoundly affect their future. Most
of the Líderes do not speak English. LandWatch has, accordingly,
translated many city documents into Spanish, as a way to make it
possible for the Líderes actually to be involved in the General
Plan Update process. That is exactly what our mission statement
requires LandWatch to do, and we believe that our efforts to provide
such translations have been helpful. However, we are truly a small
organization, and we simply can’t do enough, ourselves, to
make it possible for the residents of Salinas who are monolingual
in Spanish to participate effectively in the General Plan Update
process.
LandWatch
urges the City of Salinas to begin making its planning documents
available in Spanish, so that the very large percentage of the residents
of Salinas who are monolingual in Spanish can effectively participate
in the land use decision-making process. Specifically, if the City
does revise and recirculate the DEIR, as we believe CEQA requires,
we urge the City to make the document available in Spanish. Even
more importantly, please make the General Plan document itself available
in Spanish (and at an affordable cost) so that all the residents
of the City can participate in a meaningful way.
Specific
Comments:
- On
Page 1-2, in the section entitled “Background,” the
DEIR lists comment letters received on the Notice of Preparation
prepared by the City, and indicates that copies are included in
Appendix A. In fact, a letter from LandWatch Monterey County and
a letter from Schoolhouse Services (for Alisal Union School District)
are indicated as having been received, but they are not included
in the materials in Appendix A. A letter from the Environmental
Policy Resource Agency of the County of Monterey is not listed
as having been received, but is in fact included in Appendix A.
The revised DEIR and Final EIR should properly list all comments
on the NOP actually received by the City, and should include copies
of the listed materials that have been omitted from Appendix A.
For your convenience, we are attaching several items of past correspondence
from LandWatch, which should be considered in the revised DEIR
and in the Final EIR on the project.
- On
Page 2-1, the Executive Summary notes a number of impacts that
the DEIR says “cannot be fully mitigated.” The revised
DEIR and the Final EIR must identify and propose measures that
will mitigate identified impacts, to the greatest extent feasible.
This DEIR doesn’t do that. In fact, it suggests that future
development under the proposed General Plan will result in growing
and unacceptable traffic congestion, growing and unacceptable
noise impacts, a possible degradation of air quality, significant
water quality and water supply problems, a very significant loss
of agricultural land resources, the possible loss of cultural
resources, and an increasing public service deficit. LandWatch
does not believe that a Plan that is predicted to have these kinds
of negative impact is the “right” plan for the future
of Salinas. As will be noted below, LandWatch believes that there
are possible mitigation measures (not evaluated by the DEIR) that
could eliminate or significantly reduce the negative impacts listed.
We believe that the revised DEIR and Final EIR must examine and
recommend such measures.
- On
Page 2-3, Table 2-1 recites the conclusion that “until funding
is identified, implementation of the proposed General Plan may
result in a significant and unavoidable impact of the regional
highway system.” This conclusion is based on the premise
that the land use policies in the proposed General Plan will continue
to permit development to proceed throughout the expected 20-year
planning horizon covered by the General Plan even if the transportation
infrastructure required to eliminate negative impacts is not built
(because funding is not available). It would clearly be possible
for the General Plan to contain policies that would “tie”
development approvals under the Plan to the actual construction
of the infrastructure needed to accommodate the expected impacts
of development. The “Community Plan,” for instance,
contains policies that would require that result. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR must examine such policies as “alternatives,”
and as possible “mitigation measures” that could reduce
or eliminate identified impacts.
- On
Page 2-3, in discussing noise impacts, the “Conclusion”
column says, “there is no guarantee that existing development
within the noise impact contours will be retrofitted to reduce
the noise impacts to a level less than significant.” Thus,
the DEIR concludes that noise impacts will remain “significant
and unavoidable.” This conclusion is another example of how
the DEIR fails to explore and recommend possible mitigation measures,
to help eliminate or reduce an identified impact. Nowhere in the
DEIR are possible mitigations for this identified impact examined.
The problem is that even if all new construction is conditioned
to reduce noise impacts to be expected by growing noise levels
within the city, the increase in noise levels expected with all
the growth called for in the Plan will start causing adverse noise
impacts in existing residences and businesses, and in areas where
there currently is no noise problem. At least two possible mitigation
approaches are possible. First, the city could regularly monitor
noise levels in those areas where this kind of noise impact is
expected, and stop new developments that would cause the impact
to occur. Second, since this is a type of “cumulative impact,”
not necessarily easily associated with discrete projects, the
city could impose a “noise impact” fee from all new
developments that might logically contribute to a cumulative noise
impact problem, and use the funds to retrofit existing residences
and businesses as noise impacts reach unacceptable levels. There
may be other approaches as well. To be adequate, the revised DEIR
and Final EIR must do more than identify the adversities to come;
they must explore how to eliminate or reduce such impacts to the
greatest degree possible. The DEIR is inadequate in this instance,
with respect to noise.
- On
Page 2-6, Table 2-1 notes that the General Plan does not use the
AMBAG population forecast as a basis for the population assumptions
that underlie the Plan. This, as noted in the “Conclusion”
column, means that “the inconsistency with the adopted AQMP
will remain significant and unavoidable.” The revised DEIR
and Final EIR should fully explore two different approaches that
could eliminate this inconsistency. First, the revised DEIR and
Final EIR should consider using the AMBAG forecast. There is no
real reason to “assume” that the population projections
for Salinas are “significantly low.” In fact, recent
growth history in Salinas reflects the “build out” of
several massive subdivisions (Harden Ranch, Williams Ranch, and
Creekbridge) over the past decade. As Salinas elected officials
have noted on a number of occasions, construction within these
previously approved subdivisions is now almost completed, and
no comparable large subdivisions have been approved. The last
large subdivision to be considered by the Salinas City Council,
the proposed “Mountain Valley” subdivision, was withdrawn
by the applicant after a citizen referendum effort succeeded in
qualifying a referendum of the project approval for the ballot.
There is no sound reason to “assume” that the AMBAG
figures are in fact “low,” and that growth in Salinas
over the next decade will match the most recent growth of the
City. The revised DEIR and Final EIR should analyze the Plan based
on that official AMBAG forecast. Second, there is no reason that
“growth management” techniques should not be considered
to maintain future population growth within the AMBAG forecast
figures. “Growth” is not something that happens independently
of what communities choose to do. Population growth is directly
related to the land use and planning decisions made by local jurisdictions.
Thus, the decision by past City Councils to approve several large
subdivisions, and to allow actual construction to be driven by
“market demand,” in an area in which the “market”
includes the mammoth Silicon Valley, has definitely contributed
to the rapid population growth that the DEIR assumes is somehow
independent of those past planning decisions. While not all growth
can be controlled or specified by land use planning, such land
use planning decisions can and do have a direct impact on the
amount of growth actually experienced by a community over time.
Thus, the revised DEIR and Final EIR must explore and examine
possible “growth management” strategies that would allow
the City of Salinas to eliminate this “significant”
impact--but an impact that is almost certainly not “unavoidable.”
The County of Santa Cruz has a basic growth management system
that should be reviewed for its possible applicability. There
are numerous other examples throughout the state and nation. In
general, such a system establishes procedures by which the City
Council, over time, can “match” actual growth and development
to community capability and community desires. Again, such systems
are not able to be “precise,” and are not all controlling.
They do, however, provide a way for local communities to minimize
or eliminate expected adverse impacts of projected growth. The
revised DEIR and Final EIR must explore such a “growth management”
alternative as one of the most likely way to eliminate or minimize
the negative environmental impacts that the DEIR so accurately
diagnoses.
- On
Page 2-8, the “Conclusion” column says, “overdrafting
and seawater intrusion associated with the increased pumping of
groundwater will remain significant and unavoidable.” This
statement is accurate only if the City does not adopt and enforce
appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce this expected
impact. The revised DEIR and Final EIR must explore and recommend
feasible actions that could mitigate this expected impact. In
fact, the City can refuse to permit new developments that would
contribute to increased groundwater overdraft. This is simply
one possible option. The Salinas General Plan, as finally adopted
can include policy provisions that would ensure that development
decisions by the City do not in fact lead to this very serious
(but “avoidable”) impact. The Implementation Programs
contained in the Plan are not adequate, because while the commit
the City to “monitor” the problem, they do not forbid
the City from taking actions that would in fact exacerbate it.
The revised DEIR and Final EIR need to analyze possible programs
to ensure that the future development of the City does not lead
to continuing a water overdraft that can ultimately become a water
supply crisis. As the DEIR notes, seawater has intruded to within
two miles of the Salinas City limits. A Plan that says that the
City will simply “monitor” a worsening situation does
not meet the requirements of CEQA.
- On
Pages 2-10 and 2-11, Table 2-1 notes that “there is no assurance
at this time that the historic/architectural preservation ordinance
[discussed in the DEIR] will actually be adopted and implemented
by the City….” Thus, the DEIR concludes that “the
impact to historic and archaeological resources is significant
and unavoidable.” Once again, the DEIR is inadequate in its
development and discussion of possible mitigation measures. It
is true that, absent appropriate policies within the Salinas General
Plan, the identified impact will occur. The impact, however, is
not unavoidable. The impact can be avoided by placing appropriate
archaeological and historic resource protection policies within
the General Plan itself. State law requires all project level
planning decisions, to be “consistent” with the local
General Plan. Therefore, if the Salinas General Plan contains
policies that provide adequate protection to historic and archaeological
resources, the identified impacts will not occur. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR must identify and analyze what General Plan
policies could eliminate this identified impact.
- On
Pages 2-11 and 2-12, the DEIR concludes that “the impact
related to the loss of agricultural resources will remain significant
and unavoidable.” The DEIR has not adequately explored alternatives
and possible mitigation measures that could feasibly and significantly
reduce the impact identified. The revised DEIR and Final EIR must
do so. In the “Community Plan” submitted with this letter,
several specific policy proposals are presented in the section
called, “Protecting Our Agricultural Land.” Adding these
policies to the Salinas General Plan would help mitigate the expected
impact on agricultural resources. Developing an alternative approach
to the kind and density of housing to be provided in the proposed
“Future Growth Areas” can also significantly reduce
the loss of agricultural resources. The “Community Plan”
contains a section on “Density and Design” that could
also reduce the need to convert agricultural land for urban uses.
Finally, the County of Monterey is considering a mitigation fee
program that would require the permanent protection of agricultural
land on a 2:1 ratio for every acre of agricultural land converted
to non-agricultural use. The City of Davis, and other local jurisdictions
in California and the nation, also employ this approach. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR must analyze and evaluate all these approaches
as possible alternatives, and as possible mitigation measures,
and must better articulate feasible ways to reduce the impact
of the Plan on the agricultural resources that are so important
to the local economy.
- 9.
On Page 2-15, the DEIR says, “Since the Regional Facilities
Expansion EIR has not yet been adopted, a significant impact associated
with the landfill capacity may occur if an expansion plan is not
adopted to provide long term capacity to meet the needs generated
by the proposed General Plan. Again, the DEIR acts as though the
development permitted by the Plan will occur “automatically,”
and that decisions by the City will not have an impact on what
growth in fact does occur. Nothing would prevent the City from
including a policy within the General Plan that would suspend
the approval of new development if landfill capacity were not
available. Such a policy would eliminate this possible impact.
The revised DEIR and Final EIR must analyze and evaluate such
a policy.
- On
Page 2-17, Table 2-1 says, “A significant impact would occur
if implementation of the proposed General Plan results in the
development of land uses that are not compatible with the Salinas
Municipal Airport Master Plan.” More importantly, such significant
impacts will occur if implementation of the proposed General Plan
is not compatible with height, use, noise, safety, and density
criteria compatible with airport operations, as referred to in
the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and mandated upon local
governments by Sections 21670 ff of the California Public Utilities
Code. In fact, the DEIR is significantly inadequate in not evaluating
the Draft Salinas General Plan against the state-mandated criteria
established in the cited provisions of State law. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR need to analyze and examine Airport-related
impacts much more seriously.
- For
instance, Figure 5.6-3 in the DEIR depicts the Salinas Municipal
Airport Area of Influence. The Airport Area of Influence described
in this figure is insufficient and inadequate. First, Figure 5.6-3
fails to identify Runway 14/32. This runway is currently in active
use. It is critically important that the Airport Area of Influence
and the DEIR analysis be based on actual operations at the Airport,
including the use of Runway 14/32. Further, the environmental
analysis required by CEQA must take into account all current and
projected activities on the Airport, and that definitely includes
the use of Runway 14/32. An attachment to this letter identifies
Runway 14/32, for your convenience. Second, Figure 5.63 fails
to identify the area affected by the low-level flight path utilized
during the California International Airshow. An attachment to
this letter identifies that area. This is important because Federal
Air Regulation 91.303 requires the evacuation of all individuals
from the area affected by the low-level flight path utilized during
the four days of the California International Airshow. As a practical
matter, building new residential and other structures in the designated
area, as proposed in the draft Salinas General Plan, would probably
mean the end of the Salinas Airshow. We believe that the Draft
EIR fails adequately to evaluate the environmental impacts of
the draft Salinas General Plan with respect to its impacts on
the Airport.
- Page
5.1-4 of the DEIR states that the Salinas Municipal Airport Master
Plan, scheduled for an update, must address limitations on surrounding
land uses to allow continuation of airport operations and the
California International Airshow. Land Use Implementation Program
LU-21 requires the City to update the Salinas Municipal Airport
Master Plan as a proposed “mitigation” for impacts associated
with planned use in the Airport Area of Influence. In fact, the
Salinas Airport Master Plan and the Salinas General Plan must
both be consistent with the requirements of the Public Utilities
Code, as ultimately reflected in the Monterey County Airport Land
Use Plan. The revised DEIR and Final EIR must undertake the required
analysis now, and not attempt to deal with a likely adverse impact
by having the City say, “we will get to this later (in the
scheduled revision of the Salinas Airport Master Plan), and will
amend the General Plan later on, if we need to.” In essence,
that is what LU-21 proposes, and this is not consistent with the
requirements of CEQA. In the revised DEIR and Final EIR, the Salinas
Municipal Airport Area of Influence should be expanded to reflect
the additional area necessary to accommodate Runway 14/32 and
the area affected by the low-level flight path utilized during
the California International Airshow. Given the severity of federal
requirements for continued operation of the Airshow and the general
incompatibility of aviation with many other uses, one reasonable
alternative that must be analyzed in the revised DEIR and Final
EIR is for the General Plan to be modified to prohibit any new
above ground development outside the airport boundary and within
the Airport Area of Influence. This alternative would maintain
current agricultural land uses in this area, and would also reduce
the impacts associated with the loss of agricultural land, noted
in the DEIR. The DEIR must be revised to analyze the alternative
of maintaining current agricultural uses within the Airport Area
of Influence.
- Placement
of an “Eastern Bypass” immediately adjacent to the Airport,
as proposed in the Salinas General Plan, raises issues about the
long-term ability of the Airport to expand, to accommodate changes
in the local agricultural economy. The revised DEIR and Final
EIR should examine these impacts. In addition, the revised DEIR
and Final EIR must explore the consistency of the proposed placement
of the “Eastern Bypass” with the provisions of the Public
Utilities Code.
- The
Conservation/Open Space Element Implementation Program (COS-9)
seeks to mitigate the significant land use impacts that might
occur if agricultural land to the west and south of the City were
converted to urban uses. COS-9 seeks to mitigate this impact by
committing the City to comply with the Boronda MOU, and to identify
areas to the north and east away from the most productive farmland.
In fact, the Draft General Plan has identified new areas for urban
growth in violation of the provisions of the Boronda MOU, which
specifically states that new growth should occur between San Juan
Grade Road to the north and Williams Road to the south. By directing
new residential and other urban uses south of Williams Road, the
Draft General Plan is in direct contradiction of the provisions
of the Boronda MOU. Note that such areas designated for residential
and urban development south of Williams Road are also within the
Airport’s Area of Influence. The DEIR is inadequate in that
it advances compliance with the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding
as a recommended “mitigation measure” for the loss of
agricultural land when the Draft General Plan itself directly
violates the Boronda Memorandum of Understanding. The revised
DEIR and the Final EIR must recommend changes in the Land Use
Element to eliminate any inconsistency with the Boronda Memorandum
of Understanding, or must identify some other, and effective,
mitigation measure.
- 15.
On Page 2-19, Table 2-1 proposes that the City “consider”
including allowing the use of Traffic Impacts Fees for alternative
modes of transportation (bicycle and pedestrian). The DEIR is
unclear about this mitigation measure. If the development of alternative
modes of transportation are important or even necessary mitigations,
then the revised DEIR and Final EIR should make that clear, and
then the appropriate policy would be for the City to “include”
such alternative transportation projects as projects eligible
for use of Traffic Impact Fees. A mitigation measure that simply
asks the City to “consider” doing something in the future
is not an effective mitigation.
- Also
on Page 2-19, Table 2-1 says, in the “Potential Impacts”
Column, “without the improvements depicted in the General
Plan and in Table 5.2-7, a significant impact to the local roadway
system may occur.” Again, the revised DEIR and Final EIR
must analyze policy changes to the Draft Salinas General Plan
that would link future development approvals to the completion
of necessary infrastructure. The possible negative traffic impacts
predicted are not “inevitable” or “unavoidable.”
They can be avoided by a policy in the Salinas General Plan that
requires the City, prior to approving significant new developments,
to ensure that the needed infrastructure is actually in place.
Such policies are often known as “concurrency” requirements.
The “Community Plan” attached to this letter contains
a section entitled, “Making Development Pay For Itself.”
Within that section, a proposed policy on “Adequate Infrastructure”
suggests one way to address the problem of future development
leading to unacceptable impacts on local roadways. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR must analyze this and other possible mitigation
measures that would eliminate or reduce the identified impact
by “tying” future development approvals to the actual
construction of the needed transportation infrastructure.
- On
Page 2-26, Table 2-1 proposes as a “mitigation” measure
a statement that the “City may [emphasis added] require a
hydrological/drainage analysis to be performed….” when
issues of stormwater drainage are at issue. Again, a proposed
mitigation that is not an actual requirement is no mitigation
at all. The revised DEIR and Final EIR should analyze and propose
an appropriate policy addition to the General Plan, establishing
a requirement, for a hydrological/drainage analysis in those circumstances
in which is would be necessary as an effective mitigation for
the expected impact.
- On
Pages 2-33 and 2-34, Table 2-1 discusses the impacts related to
streambed alterations. COS-17 is designated as an adequate mitigation
measure, since it will require developers to retain creeks and
wetlands in their natural state when feasible [emphasis added].
Because this requirement is so vague, this proposed mitigation
is not actually effective. The revised DEIR and Final EIR must
either propose a policy for inclusion in the Salinas General Plan
that would simply require developers to retain creeks and wetlands
in their existing condition, or that would specify exactly when
that requirement will be excused. Otherwise, a significant impact
will have been identified, but no adequate policy mitigation will
actually have been proposed or incorporated into the General Plan.
- On
Page 2-45, continued implementation of the “Boronda Memorandum
of Understanding” is mentioned as a “mitigation”
measure. As noted earlier, this is not an effective mitigation
measure because the Salinas General Plan directly contradicts
provisions of the Boronda MOU. The revised DEIR and Final EIR
should analyze and consider a much broader and more effective
set of possible mitigations for the loss of agricultural land
that would be caused by adoption and implementation of the Salinas
General Plan as currently proposed, as this comment letter has
noted before.
- On
Page 2-47, Table 2-1 says, in the “Conclusion” Column,
“Implementation of Mitigation Measures PH1 through PH7 will
reduce the impact to substantial growth within the planning area
to a level less than significant.” The reference to these
proposed Mitigation Measures is not clear. I could not locate
measures PH1 through PH7. The text in the DEIR does not make clear
what impacts it believes are being reduced to “less than
significant.” The revised DEIR and Final EIR need to clarify
this matter.
- On
Page 2-48, Table 2-1 notes that the City’s proposed use of
the Smart Growth Network’s publication, “Getting to
Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation,” will be an
effective mitigation measure for population and growth impacts.
LandWatch urges the City to ensure that the revised DEIR and Final
EIR in fact outline a set of specific “Smart Growth”
measures to be incorporated into the General Plan as policy requirements.
A promise to consult a “Smart Growth” publication in
the future is not an effective mitigation measure under CEQA,
and actual policy requirements need to be incorporated into the
Final General Plan. In this regard, LandWatch urges the City to
have the revised DEIR and Final EIR analyze for possible inclusion
the policies jointly endorsed by LandWatch and Creekbridge Homes,
as attached to this letter. Additionally, the revised DEIR and
Final EIR should consider a mitigation measure committing the
City to hire an experienced attorney or land use consultant, to
incorporate “Smart Growth” and “New Urbanism”
principles into the Salinas Zoning Code. That, much more than
consulting a “Smart Growth” booklet, would actually
result in the kind of mitigations that CEQA requires.
- On
Page 2-57, the “Conclusion” Column in Table 2-1 notes
that the Salinas General Plan, as proposed, will cause the loss
of approximately 4,000 acres of agricultural land. This loss would
have an extremely significant economic effect on Salinas, and
Monterey County in general. Each acre of agricultural land in
Monterey County produces, on the average, $10,000 per year in
gross revenues. This means that the conversion of 4,000 acres
of agricultural land to urban uses will mean a loss to the local
economy of about $40,000,000 of gross revenues each year. That
is a loss of $800,000,000 over the 20-year planning horizon contained
within the Plan--though it should be understood that this figure
would only be accurate if all the 4,000 acres were converted in
the first year, which is unlikely. Because the impacts of the
conversion of this much agricultural land is so great, the revised
DEIR and Final EIR should seek all feasible means to reduce the
impact. To say that the 4,000-acre loss is “unavoidable”
is simply not accurate. This comment letter has noted, earlier,
that there are a number of possible mitigation measures that have
not been adequately explored in the DEIR. Furthermore, even within
the context of the current DEIR, it is not accurate to say that
the loss of 4,000 acres of agricultural land is “unavoidable.”
The “alternatives” analysis done within the current
DEIR notes that a restructuring of the General Plan to reduce
the amount of agricultural land converted is “environmentally
superior.” Adopting an “environmentally superior”
set of General Plan policies will definitely reduce, if it doesn’t
completely “avoid” the impact noted.
- On
Page 3-1, the DEIR begins a “Project Description” that
includes a section entitled, “Regional Setting.” The
DEIR fails adequately to describe or analyze the regional setting
in which Salinas is planning for the future. The revised DEIR
and Final EIR need to correct this error. The most important fact
impacting the future of the City of Salinas, and of Monterey County
generally, is the incredible growth pressures that the City and
Monterey County will experience from the Silicon Valley. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR needs to analyze the regional setting quantitatively,
to be able to describe, adequately, the potential impacts that
Salinas can expect, and to make clear what sorts of policy mitigations
will be needed to help eliminate those impacts. The Silicon Valley
is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing business centers
in the world. Average salaries there are on the order of 50% higher
than salaries in the City of Salinas. While Silicon Valley local
governments are continuing to stimulate job development, they
are not allowing for the development of the housing necessary
to accommodate that economic growth. For each seven jobs created
in the Silicon Valley, only about one new home is constructed.
This means that local governments in the Silicon Valley are intentionally
“spinning off” their residential growth demand to outlying
areas, specifically including the City of Salinas. Armed with
higher salaries, Silicon Valley workers who can’t find affordable
housing locally are coming to Salinas, and to other Monterey County
locations, and are “outbidding” local residents and
workers, driving them out of their current housing, and preempting
large portions of any new housing constructed.
The revised DEIR and Final EIR must address and analyze these
very real impacts, and consider mitigation measures that can help
reduce or eliminate the impacts. Specifically, an adequate EIR
will first quantify the impacts on Salinas that will be directly
caused by residential developments here that are constructed to
meet the “market demand” coming from outside the City,
and from outside Monterey County, and will then analyze an alternative
not included in the current DEIR--what might be called the “growth
management” alternative--which is designed specifically to
deal with these immense growth pressures. Absent some focused
attention on this “Elephant in the Bedroom,” the EIR
will not meet the requirements of CEQA. Acting as though Salinas
is a “stand alone” city, and can be understood as such,
isn’t realistic, or accurate. The revised DEIR and Final
EIR need to “figure out” what amount of expected new
growth and development will be generated by economic and population
growth from within the community, and what amount of expected
new growth and development will be related to the “spin off”
of Silicon Valley housing demand into Salinas. If the EIR makes
that clear, it will be possible to develop appropriate alternative
policies and mitigation measures that will minimize environmental
and community impacts, and that will meet the test of CEQA.
- On
Page 3-7 of the DEIR, Table 3-1 makes a “Comparison of Existing
Land Uses and General Plan Land Uses.” This Table reflects
the policy choices encompassed in the Land Use and Circulation
Policy Map (Figure LU-3 in the Draft Salinas General Plan) and
the accompanying Table LU-2, “Development Capacity,”
found on Page LU-37 in the General Plan. The revised DEIR and
Final EIR must consider “alternatives” with respect
to the land use proposals contained in the Salinas General Plan,
and depicted on the Land Use and Circulation Policy Map. There
are a number of ways to accomplish the objectives of the Salinas
General Plan, and the purpose of an EIR is to analyze such feasible
and realistic alternatives. Unfortunately, the DEIR doesn’t
really “analyze” possible alternatives, and a quantitative
exploration of different approaches is necessary to comply with
CEQA. We are attaching a chart entitled, “Salinas GPU –
Densities in Future Growth Areas,” to show how a different
configuration of land uses could achieve the housing unit goals
and the population goals contained in the Draft Salinas General
Plan while being more economical of land use. LandWatch requests
that the revised DEIR and Final EIR fully explore, in quantitative
terms, the kind of land use alternatives that the City should
consider, prior to making its final decision on the Salinas General
Plan.
- On
Page 5.1-l, the DEIR says that open space lands currently comprise
approximately 35 percent, or 4,670 acres, of the planning area.
The revised DEIR and Final EIR should reveal what percent of the
planning area will be open space after some the conversion of
4,000 of those acres to urban uses, as proposed by the Salinas
General Plan. The revised DEIR and Final EIR should also discuss
and analyze the change in community character that can be expected
with an open space conversion of this magnitude.
- On
Page 5.1-5, in Figure 5.1-2, the DEIR outlines current
Redevelopment Project Areas. LandWatch believes that the revised
DEIR and Final EIR should include an analysis of an alternative
land use pattern that would target additional lower income areas
in East Salinas for inclusion in the proposed “Focused Growth
Areas” (found in Figure 5.1-6), accompanied by the extension
of an existing Redevelopment Area, or the creation of a new Redevelopment
Area. This alternative could help provide increased housing opportunities
without the need to convert additional agricultural land, and
would result in the redevelopment and revitalization of areas
in significant need of new investment.
- On
Page 5.1-6, the DEIR suggests that there is some sort of “Specific
Plan” adopted for “Mountain Valley.” This statement
should be checked for accuracy, and the revised DEIR and Final
EIR (including Figure 5.1-3) should remove this description if
there is not, in fact, an adopted Specific Plan for the designated
area. Generally, the “Mountain Valley” area was proposed
for development, and the City Council approved the development
proposal. However, a citizens’ group then initiated a referendum
effort, and obtained enough signatures to place the development
approval on the ballot. Faced with the prospect of a popular vote,
the developer withdrew the project. LandWatch believes that there
is no existing “Specific Plan” for the area designated
as “Mountain Valley “ in the Draft Salinas General Plan,
and that there is no approved project for the area, either. The
Salinas General Plan and the revised DEIR and Final EIR should
be accurate on this matter.
- On
Page 5.1-8, the DEIR mentions the commitment of the Salinas General
Plan to “New Urbanism.” LandWatch believes that the
revised DEIR and Final EIR should analyze the suggested principles
submitted by LandWatch and Creekbridge Homes, and consider their
adoption into the Plan as a set of more definitive and stronger
“New Urbanism” policies.
- On
Page 5.1-13, the DEIR includes the “Land Use Classification
System,” specifying the densities and intensities of use
that will be permitted in the various land use designations. LandWatch
believes that the revised DEIR and Final EIR must consider the
effect of including a requirement for minimum (not just maximum)
densities within the Salinas General Plan, as a way to help eliminate
the negative impacts caused by the inefficient use of lands to
be annexed to the City and developed.
- Figure
5.1-7, the “Land Use and Circulation Policy Map” included
in the Salinas General Plan, shows three major new roads in the
Carr Lake area. The revised DEIR and Final EIR should analyze
the option of removing these three roads, which generally violate
the idea that Carr Lake should serve as a flood control area for
the City. Similarly, the revised DEIR and Final EIR should consider
an alternative that would remove both the “Eastern”
and the “Western” bypasses. As the DEIR makes clear,
the City’s ability to construct these roads within the 20-year
planning horizon of the Plan is very problematic. In order to
study reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, the revised
DEIR and Final EIR should analyze what the environmental and other
effects of removing these proposed new roads would be, and should
specifically consider how the land use designations in the Plan
would need to be changed, if the roads were not in fact constructed.
- LandWatch
notes that the agricultural land protection policies contained
in the “Community Plan,” which the revised DEIR and
Final EIR should analyze, would result in agricultural protection
policies being applies as to all the lands shown as “Agriculture”
(Light Green) on Figure 5.1-7.
- On
Page 5.1-18 of the DEIR, it is stated that all but 20 acres of
the 4,000 acres of agricultural land currently located in the
planning area will be converted to urban uses. These 20 acres
are located, apparently, along Highway 101. The revised DEIR and
Final EIR should analyze whether these 20 acres will in fact be
“viable” for agricultural production, and if not, the
revised DEIR and Final EIR should list the loss of these lands,
too--or (much better) should propose policies to provide substantial
mitigation to avoid the loss of such a great amount of agricultural
land.
- On
Page 5.1-19, the DEIR notes that a significant impact “would
occur” if implementation of the proposed General Plan resulted
in the development of land uses that are not compatible with the
Monterey County Airport Land Use Plan. As noted earlier, this
document, not the Salinas Airport Master Plan, is the definitive
document for the purposes of land use policy. The revised DEIR
and Final EIR must review the consistency of the Draft Salinas
General Plan with the requirements of the Monterey County Airport
Land Use Plan, and with the requirements of State and Federal
law.
- The
“alternatives” outlined in the DEIR related to traffic
and circulation are not genuine “alternatives,” in the
sense that CEQA requires a full “alternatives” analysis
of a proposed project. Essentially, as is noted in Appendix B,
the “Traffic Report,” at Page 6 of that document, the
analysis “describes…several network alternatives to
accommodate the proposed land use plan.” In other words,
the traffic analysis in the DEIR presumes that the land uses contained
in the Draft Salinas General Plan will be the project, and then
considers three (or perhaps four) different alternative roadway
systems (“network alternatives’) to accommodate the
given land use plan. To comply with CEQA, the revised DEIR and
Final EIR should review alternatives that posit changing the land
use plan, in connection with different traffic alternatives. This
letter has already suggested one exploration that the revised
DEIR and Final EIR should accomplish--namely, looking at what
sort of land use plan would be appropriate without the various
new bypasses that are quite problematic, from a fiscal point of
view.
- On
Page 5.2-59, the DEIR says, “If one or more of these roadway
modifications occur and affect the General Plan circulation system,
a significant impact may occur.” The revised DEIR and Final
EIR should analyze and suggest policies that would tie future
action on development proposals to the expected status of the
roadway system, so that if something happens that is not now expected,
and that would result in an adverse impact, the City of Salinas
will change its implementation decisions, instead of simply letting
the impact occur.
- On
Page 5.2-61, a similar comment is appropriate. The DEIR says,
in the last lines of the last paragraph on that page, that “until
funding is identified, implementation of the proposed General
Plan may result in a significant and unavoidable impact to the
regional highway system.” Whether the impact is to the local
roadway system, or to the regional highway system, the revised
DEIR and Final EIR should analyze and suggest policies that could
prevent this kind of adverse impact. As an example the Carmel
Valley Master Plan, adopted some years ago by the Monterey County
Board of Supervisors, contained a set of “traffic triggers”
related to possible (but not certain) traffic impacts that would
occur if certain roadway improvements were not made. The Hatton
Canyon Freeway, a major State highway improvement, was planned
for construction at the time that the Carmel Valley Master Plan
was adopted, and the Plan was premised on its completion. In fact,
however, the freeway was ultimately not constructed, but the Master
Plan contained a policy provision that required (because the freeway
wasn’t built) a change in future development. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR for the Salinas General Plan need to analyze
and propose similar policies.
- The
DEIR does not analyze whatsoever the impacts to be expected from
the extension of CALTRAIN service to Salinas. The section on “Rail
Service” on Page 5.2-63 needs to include a full analysis
of what the impacts of CALTRAIN service would be.
- On
Page 5.2-65, the DEIR mentions the Salinas Capital Improvement
Plan. In fully analyzing the impacts expected in connection with
the Salinas General Plan adoption, the revised DEIR and Final
EIR should analyze the current CIP, to see if it in fact can accommodate
and meet the needs of the growth and development projected in
the General Plan.
- On
Page 5.3-2, the DEIR says that noise barriers may need to be constructed
in the future, if the General Plan is adopted as proposed, and
development proceeds according to the Plan. The revised DEIR and
Final EIR should evaluate the impact of such barriers, and suggest
an alternative approach, that would prohibit further use of such
barriers, which have a divisive and isolating effect on neighborhoods,
and are the antithesis of the “New Urbanism” that the
General Plan seeks to embrace.
- The
discussion of school impacts in the DEIR, beginning on Page 5.13-8,
is generally neither quantitative nor detailed. The City Council
and the public should understand how badly the schools will be
impacted if development proceeds as proposed in the Draft Salinas
General Plan. The DEIR doesn’t really reveal that--only that
there will be “impacts.” Because the State Legislature
has made it almost impossible for local governments to deny development
projects because of their school impacts (a City Council can turn
down a proposed development because it will cause stormwater impacts,
or air quality impacts, or traffic impacts, but they are explicitly
forbidden to turn down a development because it will adversely
impact the local schools), the revised DEIR and Final EIR should
explore possible “mitigation” measures. LandWatch believes
that the revised DEIR and Final EIR should review and analyze,
specifically, the proposed policies relating to schools contained
in the “Community Plan” attached to this letter.
- The
DEIR examines impacts on libraries and parks beginning on Page
5.13-16. The current Draft Salinas General Plan does not “operationalize”
by any specific policy its commitment to libraries and parks.
The revised DEIR and Final EIR should evaluate the policies contained
in the “Community Plan” attached to this letter, as
mitigations that could help avoid adverse impacts, and that could
provide more certain support for libraries and parks as development
occurs.
- The
DEIR examines water quality and water supply issues beginning
on Page5.13-27. As previously noted, LandWatch does not believe
that the DEIR adequately analyzes the possible impacts. The revised
DEIR and Final EIR should attempt to quantify the groundwater
overdraft that could be caused by development under the proposed
Salinas General Plan, and analyze and propose specific policies
that could eliminate or reduce these impacts.
- LandWatch
believes that the “alternatives” section of the DEIR
(beginning on Page 6-1) is inadequate. The analysis is less an
“analysis” than an anecdotal review of different approaches--two
of which are revealed as “environmentally superior”
to the proposed project. This observation is never highlighted
or mentioned again, as far as we can determine. We believe that
the revised DEIR and Final EIR must undertake some quantitative
analysis, to see how different land use patterns would affect
the other parameters of the Plan. In addition, we believe that
the revised DEIR and Final EIR must consider what might be called
a “growth management” alternative, in which the Plan
will be revised to contain policies that will tie future development
decisions to available infrastructure (water and traffic, particularly).
As noted earlier, the DEIR acts as though the impacts will inevitably
occur, and in fact, the impacts will largely be created by developments
that can either be permitted, or not, in the future. One reasonable
and feasible alternative to the current Draft Salinas General
Plan would be a plan that contains the identical policies, but
that will ensure that impacts are in fact mitigated by requiring
that the impacts be eliminated before or concurrently with development
approvals. Such systems are widely used throughout the state and
nation; The revised DEIR and Final EIR needs to analyze such a
system for Salinas, to comply with CEQA.
- On
Page 7-1, LandWatch wants to note that the DEIR says that the
AMBAG countywide forecast was “fairly accurate” when
it predicted the total county population within 855 persons (out
of a total of 401,762 persons in the county). This seems unfairly
to diminish what was an astoundingly accurate prediction.
- 45.
On Page 7-3, the DEIR again says, in the last sentence of the
“Traffic/Circulation” section, that a funding failure
might lead to an “unavoidable” impact. The failure of
funding may well be “unavoidable,” but the “impact”
can be avoided, in the event that funding does not appear, by
tying future development approvals to adequate infrastructure.
This repeats an often-made comment.
- The
DEIR says that Monterey County has a total of 1,300,749 acres
of “agricultural land.” This figure is correct, but
only when the county’s 1,076,031 acres of “grazing land”
are taken into account. In fact, the county has only 224,718 acres
of what the State calls “Important Farmland.” Virtually
all the farmland surrounding Salinas is of this type. The conversion
of 4,000 acres of “Important Farmland” represents the
loss of almost 2% {1.8%) of the “Important Farmland”
in the entire county. The DEIR minimizes the adverse impacts of
the extent of the agricultural land conversion called for by the
Draft Salinas General Plan.
- Appendix
A contains some (as previously noted, not all) of the comments
submitted on the City’s Notice of Preparation. The following
comments made at the very earliest stage of EIR preparation do
not appear to have been considered in the current DEIR:
- The
Regional Water Quality Control Board asked for a requirement
for pervious surfaces.
- The
Regional Water Quality Control Board said that there
should be no development in Carr Lake.
- The
Regional Water Quality Control Board asked for a policy
restricting filling, particularly in floodplains, wetlands,
creeks, and riparian corridors.
- The
Housing Authority asked for a focus on the integration
of low-income and minority households into upper income
neighborhoods.
- The
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
said that where LOS will decline from D or better to
E or F, dispersion modeling should be undertaken.
- LAFCO
said that the EIR should consider the various soil types
and productivity of the various agricultural lands that
would be converted to urban uses.
|
LandWatch believes that the revised DEIR and Final EIR should
fully evaluate all of these issues.
- LandWatch
believes that the revised DEIR and Final EIR should consider the
Abbott Street area as an area that might be designated as a “Focused
Growth Area,” allowing for further housing production without
the need to sacrifice agricultural land.
- LandWatch believes that the revised DEIR and Final EIR should
further explore the “mixed use” opportunities in the
City of Salinas, and should pay particular attention to the possible
conversion of shopping centers to mixed-use commercial and professional
office and housing developments. This is an alternative to the
conversion of additional agricultural land that should be explicitly
analyzed in the revised DEIR and Final EIR.
- LandWatch
believes that the revised DEIR and Final EIR must explicitly evaluate
the possible traffic impacts of two projects that would generate
considerable truck traffic through Salinas, if approved. Both
are in the permit process now. One project, mentioned in the DEIR,
is the proposed new Regional Solid Waste Facility, proposed by
the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, to be located south
of Salinas. While the project was noted in the DEIR, truck traffic
associated with it was apparently not considered. In addition,
Granite Construction Company is currently proposing the development
of a major new rock quarry, to be located in the Gonzales area.
Information can be obtained from the County Planning and Building
Department, which is currently processing the permit. If approved
as requested, the Granite Construction mine will generate up to
870 one-way truck trips per day. If each of those trucks were
sixty feet long, and maintained a one truck-length separation
from the next truck, the line of trucks generated by the mine
would stretch for twenty miles along Highway 101. The impacts
of this proposed project should be analyzed in the revised DEIR
and Final EIR.
- LandWatch
believes that the DEIR needs to analyze in more depth the possible
adverse impacts on housing for lower income families that would
likely be caused by implementation of the Draft Salinas General
Plan. Table LU-3 in the General Plan documents the land use designations
made by the Land Use and Circulation Policy Map. This Table indicates
that of the 1,717 acres proposed for residential development in
Future Growth Areas, 1,042 acres will be reserved for “Residential
Low Density” development. 515 acres will be reserved for
“Residential Medium Density” development. Only 160 acres
will be dedicated to “Residential High Density” development.
In a “market situation,” this means that the homes to
be built on most of the new land taken into the City will be totally
unaffordable to ordinary working families who live in Salinas.
In fact, persons whose income is generated out of Monterey County
will likely purchase it. The revised DEIR and Final EIR need to
analyze this likely effect of the proposed Salinas General Plan.
The housing and other policies contained in the “Community
Plan” attached to this letter attempt to respond to the housing
impacts that will be caused by the Salinas General Plan as proposed.
They suggest a different alternative, which could make more affordable
housing available. LandWatch strongly urges the revised DEIR and
Final EIR to quantify the impacts, and seriously to consider policies
to change the result that will otherwise occur, if the Draft General
Plan is adopted and implemented in its current form. In addition,
LandWatch urges an analysis of the so-called “CHISPA Plan,”
proposed by a local nonprofit developer of affordable homes. A
copy of the Plan can be obtained from CHISPA. This plan proposes
that 10% of all housing constructed in Future Growth Areas must
be affordable to very low income families; 15% must be affordable
to low income families; and 15% to “moderate” income
families.
If policies like those contained in the “Community Plan,”
or in the “CHISPA Plan” are placed into the Salinas
General Plan, landowners and developers can take them into account
before annexations occur. Since the land value for lands currently
outside the City are about $20,000 per acre (agricultural value),
and the land values go to about $200.000 per acre once lands are
annexed for urban development, the policies described will have
the effect of capturing this “windfall” to benefit the
community, instead of individual property owners.
Conclusion:
LandWatch believes that CEQA requires the City to respond to these
and other comments and then to recirculate a redrafted DEIR for
further comment. We urge the City to do this, and seriously to consider
the possibility of adopting some or all of the policy suggestions
made in this letter, and its attachments. We particularly urge the
City to consider a “growth management” approach to the
future development of the City, so that growth decisions will not
proceed unless they can be accomplished in a manner that does not
overstress necessary social and physical infrastructure, and the
natural environment.
Thank
you for taking our strongly felt views into account.
cc:
Members, Salinas City Council
Members, City Planning Commission
Attachments:
"New
Urbanism" Policies Are Important
The future growth of Salinas should follow better design principles.
LandWatch has joined with Creek Bridge Homes to point the City
Council in the right direction.
POLICIES
PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SALINAS GENERAL PLAN, CLARIFYING
HOW TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT WILL TAKE PLACE WITHIN
FUTURE GROWTH AREAS
A
Community Plan For The City of Salinas
Letter
to the City of Salinas Regarding the General Plan Update (8/17/99)
The City of Salinas recently initiated a General Plan Update.
LandWatch will be integrally involved with the update process
as it progresses. The following letter was sent to the City Council
regarding the specifics of the Work Program that was released
on July 27, 1999.
Letter:
September 18, 2001 “Study Session” On The General Plan
Update (PDF file)
Letter:
“Preferred Alternative” For Salinas General Plan Update (PDF file)
Attachments
Not Included
This version of our letter does not include various diagrams
relating to the Salinas Airport, which are not available in electronic
form.
|
