Response To Comments Portion of Final Program Environmental Impact Report on the Monterey County 2006 General Plan Monterey County, California
Prepared for:
County of Monterey Resource Management Agency—Planning Department 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor Salinas, CA 93901 831.755.5025
Contact: Carl P. Holm, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates Bishop Ranch 3 2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 460 San Ramon, CA 94583
Contact: Stephen L. Jenkins, AICP, Project Manager
December 20, 2006
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Organization of Final Program EIR and Response to Comment Document.... 1 1.3 Decision-making Process ...... 2 1.4 Summary of Public Review Process...... 3 1.4.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Process ...... 3 1.4.2 Public Review of Draft Program EIR...... 3 Section 2 List of Commentors ...... 9 Section 3 Master Responses to Comments on Draft Program EIR...... 11 3.1 Introduction...... 11 3.2 Master Responses...... 12 MR-1: Program-level EIR Implementation and Timing ...... 12 MR-2: Project Description...... 14 MR-3: Existing 1982 General Plan Development Potential ...... 15 MR-4: 2006 General Plan Development Potential...... 15 MR-5: Land Use Change Between 1982 and 2006 General Plans ...... 29 MR-6: Analysis of Existing Conditions...... 30 MR-7: Land Use Section Policy Analysis - Intensity, Location and Timing ... 30 MR-8: Land Use Section Policy Analysis - Circulation and Agriculture ...... 34 MR-9: Loss of Important Farmland...... 36 MR-10: Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities...... 37 MR-11: Programmatic Analysis of Public Facilities ...... 40 MR-12: Fire Protection Impacts...... 41 MR-13: Housing Element Consistency...... 41 MR-14: Alternatives Analysis...... 42 MR-15: GPU3 Rural Lands Development Restrictions...... 44 MR-16: General Plan Initiative Conclusion...... 44 MR-17: Cumulative Impact Analysis...... 45 MR-18: Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan Alternatives Analysis ...... 45 MR-19: Local Coastal Program ...... 46 MR-20: Use of AMBAG’s 2030 Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Model ...... 48 MR-21: Programmatic Analysis of Biological Resources ...... 52 MR-22: 2006 General Plan Approach to Growth Management...... 55 MR-23: Changes to Significance of Impacts in Draft Program EIR ...... 56 MR-24: Requests for Extension of Time to Comment on Draft Program EIR...... 58 Section 4 Response to Comments on Draft Program EIR ...... 59 4.1 Introduction...... 59 4.2 Comment Letters and Responses ...... 73 4.2.1 Federal Agencies...... 73 4.2.2 State Agencies...... 99 4.2.3 Local Agencies ...... 115 4.2.4 Organizations...... 177 4.2.5 Individuals...... 371 Section 5 Errata to the Draft Program EIR...... 481
Michael Brandman Associates iii Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Table of Contents Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Section 6 County Planning Commission Recommendations...... 513 Section 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...... 529 7.1 Monitoring Authority ...... 529 7.2 Enforcement Responsibility...... 529 7.3 Mitigation Compliance Responsibility...... 530
Table 2-1 - List of Commentors on Draft Program EIR- Commentor...... 9 Table 3-1 - List of Master Responses To Comments on Draft Program EIR...... 11 Table 3-2 - Comparison of Buildout Projections ...... 16 Table 3-3 - Projected Maximum Hypothetical Buildout Under 2006 General Plan ...... 17 Table 3-4 - General Plan Planning Area Population, Housing, and Employment...... 19 Table 3-5 - Revised Estimate of Reasonable Foreseeable Growth Projections ...... 20 Table 3-6 - Building Permit Issuance Trends(single family homes and accessory dwelling units) - Unincorporated Monterey County (1996 - 2005) ...... 21 Table 3-7 - AMBAG Population, Housing Unit and Employment Forecasts For 2030...... 27 Table 3-8 - Estimated Traffic Generation at Buildout of 2006 General Plan...... 49 Table 4-1. Projected Growth of Wine Production in Monterey County ...... 161 Table 5-1 - Federal Endangered and Threatened Species in Monterey County ...... 499 Table 4.2-2 - Proposed General Plan Buildout Potential ...... 503
iv Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Introduction
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This document is the Response to Comments portion of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR) prepared for the 2006 General Plan (2006 General Plan) by the County of Monterey (County). The Responses to Comments and other information included in this document, together with the Draft Program EIR, comprise the Final Program EIR for use by the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in their consideration of adoption of the 2006 General Plan and an Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan, “Farm to Market” (AWCP) either as part of the 2006 General Plan or as an amendment to the currently adopted 1982 General Plan.
This Final Program EIR has been prepared for the County pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (section 21000 et seq., California Public Resources Code) and in accordance with the Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA (section 15000 et seq., California Code of Regulations, Tit. 14). The CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR must be prepared for any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The 2006 General Plan is a “project” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines. Upon preliminary review, the County determined that the 2006 General Plan may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, an EIR is required.
In accordance with § 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County of Monterey, as the Lead Agency for the 2006 General Plan, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Program EIR. The County is also required by section 15089 of CEQA to prepare a Final Program EIR. The Final Program EIR will be used by the County as part of its approval process, including incorporation of mitigation measures for project implementation. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included in Section 7 of this document.
1.2 Organization of Final Program EIR and Response to Comment Document
As required by section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Final Program EIR consists of the following elements:
• The Draft Program EIR; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft Program EIR; • Master responses to comments and recommendations received on the Draft Program EIR; • Comment letters and recommendations received on the Draft Program EIR as well as responses to significant environmental points raised during the review and consultation process; and • Revisions to the Draft Program EIR (in the form of errata contained in Section 5).
Michael Brandman Associates 1 2006 General Plan Introduction Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
This Response to Comments portion of the Final Program EIR is organized into the following sections:
• Section 1 - Introduction • Section 2 - List of Commentors: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft Program EIR. • Section 3 - Master Reponses: Provides a comprehensive response that addresses similar comments made on the same topic from multiple commentors on the Draft Program EIR. • Section 4 - Responses to Comments: Includes a copy of all of the letters received on the Draft Program EIR and provides responses to comments included in those letters. • Section 5 - Errata: Includes information, refinements, corrections, and clarifications to the Draft Program EIR. • Section 6 - County Planning Commission Recommendations: Includes a summary of the County Planning Commission Recommendations on the 2006 General Plan, along with the Resolution approved by the Commission on October 25, 2006. • Section 7 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Note: Textual changes recommended by the Planning Commission were incorporated into the October 25, 2006 draft of the 2006 General Plan. Because the revisions resulted in changes to some policy numbers, any references to 2006 General Plan policy numbers in this Final Program EIR refer to the October 25, 2006 draft of the 2006 General Plan, unless otherwise indicated.
1.3 Decision-making Process
The County is the Lead Agency for this Final Program EIR because the Board of Supervisors has jurisdiction over land use, zoning and the mandated preparation of a General Plan for all properties located within the unincorporated portion of the County. The County will use the Final Program EIR in its decision-making process in determining potential impacts of approving the various goals, policies, programs, facilities and land use designations contained within the 2006 General Plan. The County must certify that:
• The Final Program EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; • The Final Program EIR was presented to the County in a public meeting and the County reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Program EIR prior to considering the 2006 General Plan; and • The Final Program EIR reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis (Guidelines section 15090). In conjunction with certification of the Final Program EIR, the County must prepare one or more written findings of fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the document. These findings must either state that:
2 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Introduction
• The 2006 General Plan has been changed (including adoption of mitigation measures) to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; • Changes to the 2006 General Plan are within another agency’s jurisdiction and have been or should be adopted; or • Specific considerations make mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible. If any of the impacts identified in the Final Program EIR cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant, the County may issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the 2006 General Plan if specific social, economic, or other factors justify a project’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects. If the County decides to approve the 2006 General Plan for which the Final Program EIR has been prepared, the County will issue a Notice of Determination.
1.4 Summary of Public Review Process
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Process
The EIR process for the 2006 General Plan Project began with publication of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) by the County, mailed on May 15, 2001, thereby establishing the baseline for the environmental analysis in accordance with section 15125 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The County issued a draft EIR on the 21st Century Monterey County General Plan Update on or about December 18, 2001 and circulated the document for public review. The draft 21st Century Monterey County General Plan was revised (GPU3), and a revised draft EIR was issued on or about February 17, 2004 and circulated for public review. Following direction from the Board of Supervisors for further revision of the draft GPU3, the County circulated an amended NOP from February 13, 2006 to March 15, 2006. On February 21, 2006, the EIR consultant (Michael Brandman and Associates or MBA) and County staff presented some environmental issues for the Board of Supervisors to consider. Later that same day, a public scoping meeting was held at Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Division offices in Salinas to solicit public comment to assist with the preparation of the Draft Program EIR. Responses to the NOP from agencies and individuals are included in Appendix A of the Draft Program EIR.
1.4.2 Public Review of Draft Program EIR
On August 18, 2006, a Notice of Completion / Notice of Availability of the Draft Program EIR was sent to public agencies, non-governmental organizations, property owners and interested individuals who have expressed interest in, or may have jurisdiction over, aspects of the 2006 General Plan. The Notice summarized the conclusions of the Draft Program EIR and included information on how to access the Draft Program EIR.
The Draft Program EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 18, 2006, which “started the clock” on the 45-day statutory comment period. There is no provision in the CEQA statute that establishes a longer comment period based on the type of EIR (project, program, master, focused, etc.). However, the County extended the closure of the 45-day comment period by four days to October 6, 2006, resulting in a 49-day comment period. This exceeds CEQA’s 45-day minimum comment period.
A copy of the Draft Program EIR was made available on Monterey County’s website where it could be downloaded for review. In addition, printed copies as well as compact disks were provided for
Michael Brandman Associates 3 2006 General Plan Introduction Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report public review at various local public libraries throughout the County as well as each City within the County. In order to afford the most amount of time possible for review, some printed copies were mailed (with return receipts) directly to responsible agencies that were presumed to have an interest in the project (e.g. US Fish and Wildlife, California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Transportation, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, etc). A Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Program EIR were prepared and circulated, as required by CEQA (Guidelines § 15085 and § 15087). The NOC and NOA were circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested parties, including any person who had filed a written request for such a notice. The NOA was posted with the County Clerk and published in newspapers of general circulation, including the Salinas Californian and the Monterey County Herald.
A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft Program EIR, the comments received on the Draft Program EIR, and responses to the comments are provided in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Final Program EIR.
The Draft Program EIR was mailed via certified mail (return receipt requested) or otherwise distributed as noted to the following:
COPIES MAILED BY MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Fort Ord Reuse Authority California Department of Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 100 12th Street, Building 2880 Housing and Community 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Marina, CA 93933 Development Ventura, CA 93003 1800 Third Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Clearinghouse* California Coastal Commission California Department of Transportation Agency of Central Coast Area Office Transportation (District 5) Monterey County 725 Front Street, Suite 300 50 Higuera Street 55-B Plaza Circle Santa Cruz, CA 95060 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5415 Salinas, CA 93901-2902 Association of Monterey Bay Monterey Bay Unified Air National Marine Fisheries Service Area Governments Pollution Control District Southwest Regional Office P.O. Box 809 24580 Silver Cloud Court 501 W. Ocean Blvd. Marina, CA 93933-0809 Monterey, CA 93940 Long beach, CA 90802-4213 Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt Carmel Riviera Mutual Water Co Pajaro Valley Water Management District P.O. Box 22288 Agency PO Box 85 Carmel, CA 93922 Bruce Laclergue, General Monterey, CA 92942-0085 Manager 36 Brennan Street Watsonville, CA 95076 California American Water California Water Company Carmel Area Wastewater District Company 200 Commission Road 3945 Rio Road 25900 Boots Road Salinas, CA 93901 Carmel, CA 93922 Monterey, CA 93940-6669 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City of Del Rey Oaks City of Gonzales P.O. Box CC 650 Canyon Del Rey 147 Fourth Street Carmel-by-the-Sea , CA 93921 Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940 P.O. Box 647 Gonzales, CA 93926
4 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Introduction
City of Greenfield City of King City of Marina P.O. Box 127 212 S. Vanderhurst 211 Hillcrest Avenue Greenfield, CA 93927 King City, CA 93930 Marina, CA 93933 City of Monterey City of Pacific Grove City of Salinas Pacific and Madison 300 Forest Avenue 200 Lincoln Avenue Monterey, CA 93940 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Salinas, CA 93901 City of Sand City City of Seaside City of Soledad 1 Sylvan Park 440 Harcourt Avenue 248 Main Street Sand City, CA 93955 Seaside, CA 93955 P.O. Box 156 Soledad, CA 93960 Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Pajaro Sunny Mesa Community Nation Service District P.O. Box 1301 136 San Juan Road Monterey, CA 93942 Watsonville, CA 95076 Attn: Cari Herthel, Chairperson
COPIES DISTRIBUTED BY COUNTY
Administration County Counsel Resource Management Agency 168 W. Alisal, 3rd Floor 168 W. Alisal, 3rd Floor 168 W. Alisal, 2nd Floor Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93901 Planning and Building Inspection Public Works Environmental Resource Policy / 168 W. Alisal, 2nd Floor 168 W. Alisal, 2nd Floor Housing Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93901 168 W. Alisal, 3rd Floor Salinas, CA 93901 Environmental Health Parks Agricultural Commissioner 1270 Natividad Road, Room P.O. Box 5249 1428 Abbott Street B301 Salinas, CA 93915 Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93906 Local Agency Formation Monterey County Fire Protection Monterey County Sheriff Commission (LAFCO) Fire P O Box 1369 201-B Monterey-Salinas Hwy Salinas, CA 93902 Salinas, CA 93908
COUNTY MAILED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ONLY
Bureau of Land Management U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Navy Hollister Field Office 333 Market Street 1220 Pacific Highway 20 Hamilton Court San Francisco, CA 94105 San Diego, CA 92132-5190 Hollister, CA 95023 Attn: Sheila Donovan, Community Plans and Liaison Coordinator U.S. Marine Corps U.S. Air Force U.S. Army - Fort Hunter-Liggett Building 1164 Western Region Environmental Parks RFTA Box 555246 Office B790 5th Street Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5246 333 Market Street, Suite 625 Dublin, CA 94568 Attn: Patrick Christman, Director San Francisco CA 94105-2196 Attn: Peter Rubin, Director of Western Region Environmental Attn: Regional Environmental Public Works Combat Support Office Officer for California Training Center
Michael Brandman Associates 5 2006 General Plan Introduction Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
U.S. Army - Fort Irwin Union Pacific Railroad Monterey County Office of P.O. Box 105097 1416 Dodge Street, Suite 100 Education Fort Irwin, CA 92310 Omaha, NE, 68179 901 Blanco Circle Attn; Lt. Colonel Paul D. Cramer, P.O. Box 80851 Director of Public Works Salinas, CA 93912-0851 National Training Center California Department of Health California Department of California Department of Services Conservation, Division of Land Conservation, Division of Mines MS 0006 Resource Protection and Geology P.O. Box 997413 801 K Street, MS 18-01 Bay Area Regional Office Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 Building 3, Room 3-121 Sacramento, CA 95899-7413 345 Middlefield Road, MS 520 Menlo Park, CA 94025 California Department of Parks California Department of Forestry California Department of Forestry and Recreation Monterey Peninsula South Monterey County 2211 Garden Road 2221 Garden Road 401 Canal Street Monterey, CA 93940 Monterey, CA 93940 King City, CA 93930 California Department of Water California Native American California Office of Emergency Resources Heritage Commission Services P. O. Box 942836 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 3650 Schriever Ave Sacramento, CA 94236 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mather, CA 95655 Governors Office of Planning and Monterey Regional Parks District Regional Water Quality Control Research 60 Garden Court, #325 Board (Region 3) P.O. Box 3044 Monterey, CA 93940 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 County of Santa Cruz County of San Benito County of Fresno Planning Department Administration Building Planning Department 701 Ocean Street, Room 310 481 4th St, 1st Floor 2220 Tulare St 7th Floor Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Hollister, CA 95023 Fresno, CA 93721 Kings County County of San Luis Obispo Monterey County Sheriff Planning Department Planning Department 12 Crossroads Mall 1400 West Lacey Boulevard 1055 Monterey Street Carmel, CA 93923 Hanford, CA 93230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Moss Landing Harbor District Monterey Peninsula Airport Pebble Beach Community 7881 Sandholt Road District Service District Moss Landing, CA 95039 200 Fred Kane Dr # 200 Forest Lake Road Monterey, CA 93940 Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Alisal Union School District Bradley Union School District Carmel Unified School District 1205 East Market Street 224 Dixie Street 4380 Carmel Valley Road Salinas, CA 93905 Bradley, CA 93426 P.O. Box 222700 Carmel, CA 93923 Chualar Union School District Gonzales Union School District Greenfield Union School District 24285 Lincoln St. 600 Elko Street 493 El Camino Real Chualar, CA 93925 Gonzales, CA 93926 Greenfield, CA 93927 King City Joint Union School Mission Union School District Monterey Peninsula Unified District 36825 Foothill Road School District 800 Broadway Soledad, CA 93960 700 Pacific Avenue King City, CA 93930 Monterey, CA 93940
6 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Introduction
North Monterey County Unified Pacific Grove Unified School Pacific Unified School District School District District 555 Sinex Avenue 8142 Moss Landing Road 555 Sinex Avenue Pacific Grove CA 93950 Moss Landing, CA 95039 Pacific Grove CA 93950 Salinas City School District Salinas Union School District San Antonio Union School 840 South Main Street 431 West Alisal Street District Salinas, CA 93901 Salinas, CA 93901 P.O. Box 5000 Lockwood, CA 93932 San Ardo Union School District San Lucas Union School District Santa Rita Union School District 62428 Center Street 53675 San Benito Street 57 Russell Road San Ardo, CA 93450 P.O. Box 310 Salinas, CA 93906 San Lucas, CA 93954 Soledad Unified School District Spreckels Union School District Washington Union School 1261 Metz Road 130 Railroad Avenue District P.O. Box 186 Spreckels, CA 93962 43 San Benancio Road Soledad, CA 93960 Salinas, CA 93908 Pajaro Valley Unified School Monterey County Sheriff Monterey County Office of District 12 Crossroads Mall Education P.O. Box 50010 Carmel, CA 93923 901 Blanco Circle Watsonville, CA 95077 P.O. Box 80851 Salinas, CA 93912-0851 Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Valentin Lopez, Chairperson Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson Costanoan 3015 Eastern Avenue, #40 789 Canada Road Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Sacramento, CA 95821 Woodside, CA 94062 P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024 Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Xolon Salinan Tribe Ohlone (non-recognized) Luis Obispo and San Benito Donna Haro Jakki Kehl Counties 110 Jefferson Street 720 N. 2nd Street 14650 Morro Road Bay Point, CA 94565 Patterson, CA 95363 Atascadero, CA 93422 Bill Theyskens Monterrey LULAC Council 2895 Monterey Bay National Marine 17721 Berta Canyon Road P.O. Box 2612 Sanctuary Prunedale, CA 93907 Monterey, CA 93942 299 Foam Street [email protected] Attn: Maria Buell, Past President Monterey, CA 93940 Moss Landing Harbor District Attn: Linda McIntyre, General Manager 7881 Sandholdt Road Moss Landing, CA 95039
Michael Brandman Associates 7 2006 General Plan Introduction Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
COPIES MAILED BY MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES TO MONTEREY COUNTY FREE LIBRARIES
Buena Vista Branch Carmel Valley Branch Castroville Branch 18250 Tara Drive 65 W. Carmel Valley Road 11160 Speegle Street Salinas, CA 93908 Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Castroville, CA 95012 Jane Wallace, Branch Manager Crista Cannariato, Branch Shirley Dawson, Branch Manager Manager Gonzales Branch Greenfield Branch King City Branch 851 Fifth Street 315 El Camino Real 402 Broadway Avenue Gonzales, CA 93926 Greenfield, CA 93927 King City, CA 93930 Jane Ward, Branch Manager Elizabeth Lopez, Branch Manager Liz Cecchi-Ewing, Branch Manager Marina Branch Pajaro Branch Parkfield Branch 266 Reservation Road 29 Bishop Street 70643 Parkfield-Coalinga Road Marina, CA 93933 Pajaro, CA 95076 San Miguel, CA 93451 Kurt Ellison, Branch Manager Joseantonio Gonzalez, Branch Marlene Thomason, Branch Manager Manager Prunedale Branch San Ardo Branch San Lucas Branch 17822 Moro Road 62350 College St. (P.O. Box 127) 54692 Teresa (P.O. Box 28) Salinas, CA 93907 San Ardo, CA 93450 San Lucas, CA 93954 Tammy Del Conte, Branch Maria Lomeli, Branch Manager Linda Larson, Branch Manager Manager Seaside Branch Soledad Branch Steinbeck Center 550 Harcourt Avenue 401 Gabilan Drive 1 Main Street Seaside, CA 93955 Soledad, CA 93960 Salinas. CA 93901 Angie Lopez, Branch Manager Buena Vista Branch Carmel Valley Branch Castroville Branch 18250 Tara Drive 65 W. Carmel Valley Road 11160 Speegle Street Salinas, CA 93908 Carmel Valley, CA 93924 Castroville, CA 95012 Jane Wallace, Branch Manager Crista Cannariato, Branch Shirley Dawson, Branch Manager Manager Gonzales Branch Greenfield Branch King City Branch 851 Fifth Street 315 El Camino Real 402 Broadway Avenue Gonzales, CA 93926 Greenfield, CA 93927 King City, CA 93930 Jane Ward, Branch Manager Elizabeth Lopez, Branch Manager Liz Cecchi-Ewing, Branch Manager Marina Branch Pajaro Branch Parkfield Branch 266 Reservation Road 29 Bishop Street 70643 Parkfield-Coalinga Road Marina, CA 93933 Pajaro, CA 95076 San Miguel, CA 93451 Kurt Ellison, Branch Manager Joseantonio Gonzalez, Branch Marlene Thomason, Branch Manager Manager Prunedale Branch San Ardo Branch San Lucas Branch 17822 Moro Road 62350 College St. (P.O. Box 127) 54692 Teresa (P.O. Box 28) Salinas, CA 93907 San Ardo, CA 93450 San Lucas, CA 93954 Tammy Del Conte, Branch Maria Lomeli, Branch Manager Linda Larson, Branch Manager Manager Seaside Branch Soledad Branch Steinbeck Center 550 Harcourt Avenue 401 Gabilan Drive 1 Main Street Seaside, CA 93955 Soledad, CA 93960 Salinas, CA 93901 Angie Lopez, Branch Manager
8 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report List of Commentors
SECTION 2 LIST OF COMMENTORS
Section 4 provides copies of the comment letters submitted on the Draft Program EIR. Each comment letter is immediately followed by the corresponding responses to the comments. Comment letters are presented chronologically in several categories in Table 2-1 along with an identification number for each letter. Several comment letters were received after the close of the public review period on October 6, 2006. Section 15088 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the Lead Agency may respond to late comments. As noted in Table 2-1, the County determined that only late comments received from public agencies would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and has prepared responses to Comment Letters 1a and 5a because they were received shortly after the close of the public review period. Because Comment Letter 2a was received in excess of 30-days late, this Final Program EIR does not specifically respond to that letter but other responses address many of the same issues it raised.
Table 2-1 - List of Commentors on Draft Program EIR- Commentor
Comment Letter Name of Agency, Organization or Individual Date of Comment Identification Number Federal Governmental Agencies United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), Ventura 10/19/06 1a Office United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 10/06/2006 1 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State Governmental Agencies California Coastal Commission 10/31/06 2a Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 10/06/2006 2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 10/06/2006 3 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 10/03/2006 4 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Local and Regional Governmental Agencies Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) 10/12/06 5a Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency 10/06/2006 5 Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) 10/06/2006 6 County of San Benito Planning and Building Inspection Services 10/06/2006 7 City of Salinas, Office of the City Manager 10/06/2006 8 Monterey Regional Waste Management District 10/05/2006 9 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 10/04/2006 10 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 08/30/2006 11 City of Monterey 10/06/2006 12
Michael Brandman Associates 9 2006 General Plan List of Commentors Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter Name of Agency, Organization or Individual Date of Comment Identification Number Organizations Monterey County Association of Realtors (MCAR) 10/06/2006 13 Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBA) 10/06/2006 14 Independent Growers Association, Inc. / Salinas Valley Water 10/06/2006 15 Coalition Common Ground Monterey County 10/06/2006 16 LandWatch Monterey County 10/06/2006 17 California Native Plant Society 10/05/2006 18 Prunedale Preservation Alliance 10/05/2006 19 Sierra Club Ventana Chapter 10/05/2006 20 Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy 9/25/2006 21 LandWatch Monterey County 8/30/2006 22 Individuals Chris A. Bunn 10/05/2006 23 Marit P. Evans 10/06/2006 24 Margaret Robbins 10/06/2006 25 Brad & Leanna Towle 10/05/2006 26 Brian Finegan 10/03/2006 27 David Krueger 9/29/2006 28 Darryl & Geri Kenyon 9/26/2006 29 John Doering 9/25/2006 30 Manny & Pat Garcia — 31 Jane Haines 9/20/06 32 Robert C. Taylor, Jr. 9/13/06 33 John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Special Treatment Area 9/13/06 34 John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Policy Ag-1.7 9/13/06 35 John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Pleyto Rural Center 9/13/06 36 John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Carmel Valley Rural Center 9/29/06 37
10 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
SECTION 3 MASTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PROGRAM EIR
3.1 Introduction
In accordance with section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County of Monterey as the Lead Agency reviewed the comments received on the Draft Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006021054) for the 2006 General Plan and has prepared the following Master Responses. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final Program EIR in accordance with § 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Table 3-1 provides a listing of the Master Responses (MR), which address similar comments made on the same topic from multiple commentors on the Draft Program EIR
Table 3-1 - List of Master Responses To Comments on Draft Program EIR
Master Comment Main Subject of Master Response Identification Page Number Project Description Program-level EIR Implementation and Timing MR-1 12 Project Description MR-2 14 Existing 1982 General Plan Development Potential MR-3 15 2006 General Plan Development Potential MR-4 15 Land Use Change Between 1982 and 2006 General Plans MR-5 29 Land Use Analysis of Existing Conditions MR-6 30 Land Use Section Policy Analysis - Intensity, Location and MR-7 30 Timing Land Use Section Policy Analysis - Circulation and Agriculture MR-8 34 Agriculture Loss of Important Farmland MR-9 36 Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities MR-10 37 Public Facilities and Services Programmatic Analysis of Public Facilities MR-11 40 City of Monterey MR-12 45 Housing Element Housing Element Consistency MR-13 41 Alternatives Alternatives Analysis MR-14 42
Michael Brandman Associates 11 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Master Comment Main Subject of Master Response Identification Page Number GPU3 Rural Lands Development Restrictions MR-15 44 General Plan Initiative Conclusion MR-16 44 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impact Analysis MR-17 45 Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan Alternatives Analysis MR-18 45 Local Coast Program Local Coastal Program MR-19 46 Transportation Use of AMBAG’s 2030 Regional Travel Demand Forecasting MR-20 48 Model Biological Resources Programmatic Analysis of Biological Resources MR-21 52 Growth Management 2006 General Plan Approach to Growth Management MR-22 55 Clarification of Significance of Impacts Changes to Significance of Impacts in Draft Program EIR MR-23 56 Public Review of Draft Program EIR Requests for Extension of Time to Comment on Draft Program MR-24 58 EIR
3.2 Master Responses
MR-1: Program-level EIR Implementation and Timing
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analytical approach and the implementation and timing of the 2006 General Plan.
A General Plan provides broad policy direction to help guide development within a jurisdiction over a 20-30 year timeframe. Some policies provide direction and performance standards for preparing ordinances that will include more detail and that will be processed separate from and subsequent to the adoption of a General Plan. Some policies include requirements for how a specific impact will be mitigated in the interim until a specified program or ordinance is adopted. Upon adoption of the 2006 General Plan, the County will prepare and process an Implementation Plan that identifies the subsequent tasks (ordinances, programs, etc.) to be developed. This Implementation Plan will include estimated timing, financing, and resources needed to complete the task. As such, the environmental analysis on the 2006 General Plan is performed at a program level, which is more general than a project-level review that would include specific timing requirements for mitigation.
12 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
There have been numerous comments questioning the specificity of the information provided as well as the timing of implementation of proposed programs and ordinances. Although these comments are at a level of detail more appropriate for a project-level review, this Response to Comments document has made its best attempt to address those comments using the information available within the scope of the project.
As addressed in the Draft Program EIR (page 2-2), the CEQA document for the 2006 General Plan is a Program EIR as defined in the CEQA Guidelines section 15168(a). Since detailed development plans for the proposed land use changes anticipated by the 2006 General Plan are unknown at this time, the potential impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Draft Program EIR, in the Executive Summary Section of the Draft Program EIR, and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Section 7 of this document, address a broad range of potential impacts that could occur as a result of land use changes throughout the unincorporated portion of the County. The mitigation measures are recommended based on a programmatic environmental review of the proposed 2006 General Plan, which consists of a broadly-scoped evaluation of conceptual potential land use buildout and existing conditions.
The CEQA checklist as provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are the thresholds of significance used in the Draft Program EIR. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted the State CEQA Guidelines, as they may be amended from time to time. (Monterey County Code, chapter 16.70, adopted by Ordinance No. 04087). The Draft Program EIR analyzed 2006 General Plan policies collectively as they relate to each individual CEQA checklist item at a program level. Where a conclusion of “Less than Significant Impact” was made, it was determined that the policies ensured that the impact would not exceed the significance threshold. In some cases, mitigation measures were proposed as revisions to the 2006 Monterey County General Plan policies or to add new policies to better guide regulation of future development and land use activities. The 2006 General Plan does not propose individual projects or land use activities at specific locations; therefore, it is not possible to provide site-specific analysis of environmental effects at this time.
The Draft Program EIR discloses a range of potential environmental impacts anticipated from the 2006 General Plan based on land use designations, public facilities, and a general survey of existing conditions throughout the County. Therefore, the scope of the recommended mitigation measures is also broad and reflects a wide range of strategies to reduce potential impacts. Where mitigation is proposed or 2006 General Plan policies are applied, it is because the impact was considered significant in the Draft Program EIR without the proposed mitigation/policies. The specific content and method of implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Draft Program EIR may be clarified or modified following the site-specific design of individual land use planning and development projects so long as the overall purpose, intent, and level of impact reduction are achieved. Also, in response to comments received from the public, the Planning Commission recommendations, and additional Board of Supervisors’ public hearings on the 2006 General Plan, particular responses to comments in this Final Program EIR propose textual modifications to some policies and mitigation measures. The particular responses explain and provide the specific textual modifications. Detailed plans for land use planning and development projects will be subject to the issuance of ministerial permits such as building permits or discretionary land use entitlements by the County. Discretionary entitlements require the County to determine, and where necessary prepare, a subsequent project-level environmental document in accordance with CEQA to address the impacts from implementation of detailed project plans. That project-level CEQA analysis could require site- specific mitigation measures in addition, to the recommended program-level mitigation measures
Michael Brandman Associates 13 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report provided in the 2006 General Plan or may avoid potential impacts identified in the Draft Program EIR through appropriate project design as encouraged in CEQA. Therefore, more detailed mitigation measures may be recommended to reduce project-level impacts or some of the mitigation measures from the Draft Program EIR may no longer be applicable.
MR-2: Project Description
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the content of the Project Description of the 2006 General Plan that was contained in the Draft Program EIR.
The 2006 General Plan anticipates growth in the County through the year 2030. For most of the impact areas, the evaluation of environmental effects from the full development potential of the 2006 General Plan was performed by analyzing the change in land uses from the date the first NOP was issued on May 15, 2001. Given the absence of more recent information, this is considered to be the best available information.
Impacts associated with physical resources are evaluated by assessing the geographic development footprint of the 2006 General Plan. For example, impacts to most spatial issue areas such as agricultural, biological, geological, cultural and scenic resources are determined based on the full net conversion (or buildout) of non-developed lands to developed uses contemplated by the 2006 General Plan, regardless of when or whether they would occur at 2030 or at buildout. Biological resource impacts were evaluated at a programmatic level by analyzing the 2006 General Plan policies that relate to the protection of special status species and their habitats, wildlife corridors, and other topics, and then determining if the policies established an adequate framework to guide the protection of these resources when subsequently addressed at the project-level during implementation of the 2006 General Plan.
Impacts associated with human activity, such as traffic, noise and air quality, are analyzed based on computer models that are designed to analyze impacts up to the year 2030. The County analyzed traffic impacts by using AMBAG’s traffic model. Noise impacts were determined by analyzing the average daily traffic volumes for various roadway links throughout the County as reported by the AMBAG model. Air quality analysis also utilized overall growth projections in comparison with the level of growth for the County that was included in the local Air Quality Attainment Plan. Traffic analysis is highly dependent on land use and infrastructure. The AMBAG model incorporates land use data and planned infrastructure improvements from local city and county general plans, regional transportation plans, and growth forecasts. Because this land use and infrastructure data does not go beyond 2030, the AMBAG model cannot be used to predict traffic beyond that timeframe. Moreover, it would be speculative to predict potential traffic impacts beyond 2030 because uncertainties surround the accuracy of modeling for a wide range of unknown conditions. Nevertheless, for the impact areas of traffic, air quality and noise, which are based on models that predict impacts up to the year 2030, the County has made a concerted effort to analyze impacts of full buildout of the 2006 General Plan. See Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-20 for more detail on buildout beyond 2030. Thus, the Draft Program EIR analyzes impacts of developing all land uses allowed under the 2006 General Plan.
14 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
MR-3: Existing 1982 General Plan Development Potential
This Master Response addresses comments questioning the development potential and assumed methodology of the 1982 General Plan.
The existing 1982 General Plan employed a different population growth methodology than the 2006 General Plan. Land use acreage figures for the 1982 General Plan land use map were estimated by scaling areas from printed copies of the land use maps. The existing 1982 General Plan EIR anticipated the unincorporated areas growing to 296,000 residents over the life of the plan based on policies of that Plan and assumptions about growth and patterns of growth that were commonly accepted at that time. Although the 1982 Plan encouraged development to take place near or in cities, the 1982 General Plan did allow development elsewhere within the County. Nevertheless, population growth tended to be concentrated in those geographic areas that have been identified in the proposed 2006 General Plan as Community Areas and Rural Centers.
The California Department of Finance estimates that the unincorporated areas of Monterey County have a population of 108,590 persons, as of January 1, 2006. As shown in Table 3-1 of the Draft Program EIR, unincorporated Monterey County grew by 15,761 persons between 1980 and 2000, while the incorporated cities added 95,557 persons during that same period. The Draft Program EIR used the population, housing, and employment estimates provided by the “Analysis of Monterey County General Plans & Quality of Life Initiative” prepared by Bay Area Economics and dated February 2006. This report was also the source for the population, housing, and employment estimates of the existing 1982 General Plan build-out in Table 3-5 and Table 5-1 of the Draft Program EIR. Given that the Bay Area Economics report was prepared more recently and accounted for changes in development trends that have occurred in Monterey County during the past several decades, it is considered to be the best available projection of the 1982 General Plan development potential. The Draft Program EIR also relied upon population projections from AMBAG, which are more realistic estimates of growth based upon current local and statewide trends, 2006 General Plan data, and the professional planning expertise of this regional planning agency.
MR-4: 2006 General Plan Development Potential
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the development potential of the 2006 General Plan, including those comments that suggest that the buildout projections contained in Table 3-5 of the Draft Program EIR do not accurately reflect the development allowed by the 2006 General Plan.
Part A: Response to Comments Relating to Buildout of 2006 General Plan
General Plans are designed to establish development policy for a 20-year period. State law requires annual review progress on the implementation of General Plans, and encourages updates of these plans every 10 years. As such, State law suggests that a General Plan is not intended to reach its maximum buildout potential. This is especially true for a large, rural, agricultural County such as Monterey County.
However, since State law does not require periodic updates, the Draft Program EIR considers potential impacts of buildout in the unlikely event that a revised General Plan were never updated. One method of calculation for total maximum buildout could be to account for the maximum density allowed with each and every parcel assuming unlimited resources and services and no site constraints (e.g. water; geology, soils, etc.). This is a hypothetical number represented in comments on the Draft
Michael Brandman Associates 15 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Program EIR, but such comments are both out of date and not a realistic projection for Monterey County. CEQA requires that the Lead Agency examine the most reasonable foreseeable scenarios in the analysis of a proposed project. In this case, the proposed project is the 2006 General Plan. As the County’s analysis will demonstrate, there are limited resources such as water in Monterey County and hazardous site conditions (steep slopes and erosive soils) that would preclude full hypothetical buildout from occurring (i.e. every lot being subdivided) not just in the 20 year timeframe of a General Plan, but ever into the future. In addition, based upon the proposed 2006 General Plan, there are numerous policies with respect to requisite infrastructure, services and resource protection as well as restrictive policies directing growth to designated areas of the County that would limit the ability of full hypothetical buildout from ever occurring so long as this 2006 General Plan is in place. Last, a primary goal for the 2006 General Plan is to retain a viable agricultural industry. This goal and related policies further indicate that full hypothetical buildout as has been suggested in comment letters on the Draft Program EIR, is not a likely scenario, since there a number of policies that limit conversion of agriculture land to non-agricultural uses.
Accordingly, the development potential as used in the Final Program EIR is intended to reflect a realistic versus hypothetical buildout projection. The analysis in Table 3-2 below compares the following:
• the hypothetical full buildout number suggested in comment letters; • a hypothetical full buildout number based upon a methodology that the County believes is more accurate and current; • reasonably foreseeable likely buildout projection provided in the August 2006 version of the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR; and • adjusted reasonably foreseeable likely buildout projection prepared by the County in response to questions about the assumptions and methodology utilized by the County in the Final Program EIR.
Table 3-2 - Comparison of Buildout Projections
Maximum Hypothetical Maximum Hypothetical Draft Program EIR Final Program EIR Buildout Buildout Likely Buildout Likely Buildout Comment Letters County Projection Projection Projection 229,377 units 68,964 units 53,947 units 56, 410 units 746,709 population 186,203 population 145,657 population 152,307 population
Validity of Utilizing the Maximum Theoretical Buildout Projection from the 1982 General Plan
The comment letters rely upon projections provided in the 1982 General Plan for maximum theoretical buildout as the basis for questioning buildout assumptions in the Draft Program EIR. The commentors assert that since the 2006 General Plan adopts the zoning designations in the 1982 General Plan and then adds additional potential growth in the Community Areas and Rural Centers, maximum theoretical buildout should be at least as great as what was assumed in 1982.
16 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
The County has reviewed the 229,237 potential dwelling unit projection provided in the 1982 General Plan and has concluded that this projection is no longer valid because it was based on assumptions that do not take into account changes to the 1982 General Plan and changed circumstances that have occurred during the past two decades.
First, the 1982 General Plan growth projections include dwelling units in the Coastal Zone and the 2006 General Plan does not cover the Coastal Zone; moreover, the growth projections for the Coastal Zone pre-date the adoption of the Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) for the Coastal Zone. The 1982 General Plan policies would have allowed considerably more growth in the coastal areas than was ultimately approved in each of the LCPs. This includes significant growth potential in Big Sur and North County growth, which is constrained by the policies of the Coastal Act, as well as site constraints and water constraints.
Second, the 1982 General Plan build-out projection assumed that there would be significant growth in the creation of farm worker employee housing. This was an important focus of land use planning at the time of the drafting of the 1982 General Plan, and the 1982 General Plan places few limits on the amount of farmworker housing that could be developed. However, the anticipated growth of farmworker housing reflected in the building unit projections did not come to fruition and this trend is expected to continue.
Third, subsequent approval of the Area Plans resulted in a reduction in allowable buildout in a number of areas in the County from what had been projected in 1982. As an example, the Carmel Valley Master Plan sets a total cap on growth as well as a per year allocation of new lots and building permits. Theoretical buildout in Carmel Valley based upon the 1982 General Plan is considerably greater than what the subsequently adopted Master Plan allows.
Fourth, the most significant change in circumstances that would affect calculations regarding the maximum potential buildout, has been the annexation of lands in the unincorporated portion of the County to incorporated Monterey County cities. Since 1986, 10,600 acres have been annexed to Monterey County cities.
This combination of factors lead the County to conclude that the 1982 General Plan maximum theoretical dwelling unit and population projections cannot be relied upon as the basis for calculating the maximum theoretical potential buildout that could result from implementation of the 2006 General Plan.
Maximum Hypothetical Buildout Projections- 2006 General Plan Excluding the Coastal Zone (based upon the current land use map)
As noted in Table 3-2, the County has calculated the projected maximum hypothetical buildout under 2006 General Plan (assuming every lot would subdivide at its maximum density). The basis for these calculations is shown in Table 3-3:
Table 3-3 - Projected Maximum Hypothetical Buildout Under 2006 General Plan
Total Maximum Theoretical Residential Residential Land Use Category Acreage Units Residential- 2.4 units/acre 5.5 14 Residential- 2 units/acre 36.5 72
Michael Brandman Associates 17 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Total Maximum Theoretical Residential Residential Land Use Category Acreage Units Residential- 4 units/acre 389.6 1,560 Residential-High Density 5-20 units/acre 1,345.5 27,160 Residential-Low Density 5-1 acres/unit 26,359.2 26,090 Residential-Medium Density 1-5 units/acre 2,410.7 9,725 Residential-Rural Density 5+ acres/units 21,640.7 4,342 MAXIMUM HYPOTHETICAL DWELLING UNITS: 68,964 MAXIMUM THEORETICAL POPULATION: 186,203 (68,964 x 2.70 persons per household)
The County therefore concludes that if it were relying on a maximum hypothetical buildout projection for determining the impacts from the buildout beyond the 20-year life of the 2006 General Plan, it would use 68,964 dwelling units (based upon an up-to-date land use zoning map). This projection is 160,413 units less than has been asserted by commentors or a 43% difference. However, as stated above, the County believes that hypothetical buildout (68,964) is not a realistic projection because it does not take into consideration:
• any of the policies of the 2006 General Plan that would preclude or constrain growth; • historic growth and building trends in the unincorporated County including a decrease in population over the past ten years; • AMBAG projections which are less than the BAE report, and most importantly; and • physical constraints on many of the existing lots of record that make development beyond a single home on a lot infeasible. Reasonably Foreseeable Buildout (Draft Program EIR)
Again, the County believes that the maximum theoretical buildout is not the “most reasonably foreseeable” projection for assessing potential impacts in the Final Program EIR that could result from the implementation of the 2006 General Plan.
The Draft Program EIR based its likely feasible buildout projections on the BAE report, dated February 2006, prepared by an independent firm retained by the County. The BAE Report compared its projections against the 2004 AMBAG projections and concluded that these were generally consistent except for potential employment growth which they believe would be less than assumed by AMBAG. Note: The BAE report factored in the 2003 Housing Element’s projections for residential densities in Community Areas as established in the draft 21st Century Monterey County General Plan Update (GPU3). In Community Areas where a draft Community Plan or equivalent Specific Plan had been adopted or is in the process (e.g., Castroville, Boronda, Fort Ord -East Garrison I - and Rancho San Juan), the more accurate, realistic numbers from those draft plans were incorporated. This process took into account development in excess of 20 dwelling units per acre consistent with the Housing Element and is reflected in Table 3-4:
18 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
Table 3-4 - General Plan Planning Area Population, Housing, and Employment
Proposed 2006 General Change Between Existing 1982 General Land Use Existing (2000) Plan Land Use Existing and Proposed Plan Buildout Designation General Plans 136,973 persons / + 145,984 persons / Population 100,252 persons +9,011 persons / + 9.0% 36.6% +45.6% 50,617 dwelling units / + 53,947 dwelling units / + +3,330 dwelling units / Housing 37,047 dwelling units 36.6% 45.6% + 9.0% Employment 68,915 jobs 77,066 jobs / + 11.8% 80,665 jobs / + 17.0% +3,599 jobs / + 5.2% Note: Buildout potential is based on estimates; actual figures may vary Source: Bay Area Economics. Analysis of Monterey County General Plans & Quality of Life Initiative. February 2006; Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit & Employment Forecasts. Adopted April 14, 2004.
By calculating maximum allowable densities in Community Areas and Rural Centers, and assuming the development of one dwelling unit on each lot of record in areas outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers, BAE projected an additional 16,900 dwelling units to AMBAG’s existing (2000) figure of 37,047 units.
Revised Estimate Reasonably Foreseeable Growth Projections
Several comment letters indicated that the BAE report’s projections for the 2006 General Plan does not entirely reflect the reasonably foreseeable development potential of the 2006 General Plan. In response to these comments, the County has further refined the Draft Program EIR’s buildout figure as follows:
• Included development assumptions for the Chualar Community Area (the BAE report assumed only existing lots of record in this area would develop). These numbers are estimates because development as a Community Area would require a General Plan amendment to identify the location of a Community Area boundary as well as processing a Community Plan to change any land use designations. It assumes development would occur in a manner similar to the other Community Areas re housing densities and mixed uses; • Included Property Owner Requests and Special Treatment Areas that were not considered in the BAE report;1 • Included current project applications deemed complete in the non-coastal area outside of Rural Centers or Community Areas; • Included realistic and foreseeable development assumptions for additional dwelling units resulting from future subdivision of existing parcels in accordance with permitted 2006 General Plan land use designations projected for lots of record outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers. As discussed below, the 2006 General Plan’s policies regarding water availability, seismic and geologic hazards, affordable housing requirements, etc. limit development outside of the designated Community Areas and Rural Centers. In addition, the
1 While the specific number of dwelling units or commercial acreages were not contained in the BAE report, the environmental effects of the proposed Property Owner Requests and Special Treatment Areas were analyzed in the Draft Program EIR. Note that changes have been made to the Property Owner Requests listed in Table 3-22 and the list of Special Treatment Areas on Page 3-85. None of these changes will result in additional environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the Draft Program EIR. These changes are noted in the Errata.
Michael Brandman Associates 19 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
proposed Residential Evaluation System includes minimum requirements for affordable housing that are considerably difficult to attain. Recent studies conducted by several Monterey County jurisdictions as well as public testimony have indicated that the minimum requirement (50% affordable units) for growth outside of a Community Area or Rural Center would limit proposals that could comply with this requirement to a small, unique set of properties and owner/developers. In addition, residential development of five or more units or lots would be subject to a scoring method to reflect how a development proposed outside of Community Areas meets 2006 General Plan policies. The projection also takes into consideration that since 1982, the County has approved an average of seven standard subdivisions per year (5 lots or more) in the non-coastal areas of the unincorporated County. The projection includes accessory units. This is based upon recent trends. During the past 3 years, only 19 permits for accessory dwellings were issued in the unincorporated area of the County; and • Subtracted out lots of record in the Coastal Zone, which were included in BAE’s total for the 2006 General Plan, because development within the Coastal Zone is addressed through policies of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the LCP is not included as part of the 2006 General Plan update. These changes to the BAE projections would equate to the information contained in Table 3-5:
Table 3-5 - Revised Estimate of Reasonable Foreseeable Growth Projections
Reasonably Foreseeable County Refinements To Growth Projects Residential Units Unit growth in Chualar (proposed Community Area) 3,000 Property Owner Requests/Special Treatment Areas 350 Lots in subdivision applications deemed complete 502 Likely growth outside Rural Centers and Community Areas 1,200 (complying with the minimum requirements/policies) Subtract lots of record in the coastal zone 2,589 TOTAL REASONABLY FORESEEABLE BUILDOUT 56,410
This revised estimate (which equates to 2,463 additional dwelling units) is only 4.5% greater than had been presented in the Draft Program EIR. To further clarify the County’s assertion that the policies in the 2006 General Plan would constrain buildout to the maximum theoretical limit under the 2006 General Plan, it is important to consider historic trends and to review several critical policies in the 2006 General Plan.
Historic Building Trends. Even under the 1982 General Plan which has fewer restrictions regarding where development may occur, historic trends of building permit issuance in the unincorporated County indicate that an average of 368 permits were issued annually between 1996 and 2005. This included permits for accessory units. Extrapolating this average figure from 2006 to 2030 produces a total figure of 8,832 permits issued by 2030. When this annual average is applied to the revised reasonably foreseeable projection, it indicates that developing the maximum number of dwelling units would take 53 years to achieve. When applied to the maximum theoretical dwelling unit potential of the 2006 General Plan, it indicates that it would take 86 years to achieve. These trends are summarized in Table 3-6.
20 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
Table 3-6 - Building Permit Issuance Trends (single family homes and accessory dwelling units) - Unincorporated Monterey County (1996 - 2005)
Expected Total Building Permit Total Building Permit Residential Issuance Issuance Needed to Issuance Needed to Building Annual Based on Achieve Buildout of 2006 Achieve Maximum Permits Issued Average Historic General Plan (as projected Theoretical Buildout of (1996 - 2005) Average (2006 - in Revised Reasonably 2006 General Plan 2030) Foreseeable 3,677 permits 368 8,832 permits 19,363 31,917 permits Length of Time Expected for This To Occur 53 years 86 years Based on Historic Issuance Rates Source: Bay Area Economics. Analysis of Monterey County General Plans & Quality of Life Initiative. February 2006
Proposed 2006 General Plan Policies. A number of 2006 General Plan policies place conditions on future residential growth that make the maximum hypothetical development unachievable. These 2006 General Plan policies were considered in the analysis in the Draft Program EIR and as revised during the course of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings, are the basis for using a reasonably foreseeable buildout projection for the population, dwelling unit, and employment potential of the 2006 General Plan rather than a maximum theoretical potential projection. For the convenience of the reader, these policies are summarized below and explanations are provided for why they 1) limit the future creation of new subdivisions; 2) restrict the maximum realistic buildout potential to the reasonably foreseeable 56,724 dwelling units described above, and 3) ensure that the rate of development shown in Table 3-6 remains constant.
Land Use Element Policies Land Use Element Policy LU-2.12 (re-numbered as LU-2.13 in the August draft version of the 2006 General Plan) requires development outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers to meet certain criteria. This includes requirements that development demonstrate that adequate public facilities and services exist (e.g., water and sewer or septic) and meeting requirements of the Residential Development Evaluation System. Note that to clarify the intent to encourage development to occur within Community Areas and Rural Centers, 2006 General Plan Policy LU-2.12 is revised as follows:
LU-2.12 A Residential Development Evaluation System shall be established to provide a systematic, consistent, predictable, and quantitative method for decision-makers to evaluate residential developments of five or more lots or units in areas of the unincorporated County outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers, and Rural Centers prior to the preparation of the required Infrastructure and Financing Study. The system shall include a mechanism to qualitatively evaluate development in light of the policies of the General Plan and the implementing regulations, resources and infrastructure, and the overall quality of development. Evaluation criteria may include but are not limited to:
a. Site Suitability b. Infrastructure c. Resource Management d. Proximity to a City, Community Area, or Rural Center. The scoring system will provide more points for a project that is located in a Rural Center.
Michael Brandman Associates 21 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
e. Mix/Balance of uses including Affordable Housing consistent with the County Affordable/Workforce Housing Incentive adopted pursuant to the Monterey County Housing Element. f. Environmental Impacts and Potential Mitigation g. Proximity to multiple modes of transportation h. Jobs-Housing balance within the community and between the community and surrounding areas.
Said Evaluation System is not intended to be a “pass/fail” evaluation nor a competition among developments except for the following minimum requirements:
1) Developments in Rural Centers prior to the preparation of an Infrastructure and Financing Study must meet a minimum requirement of 35% affordable/workforce housing (25% inclusionary; 10% Work Force) for projects of five or more units to be considered. 2) Development outside of a Community Area or Rural Center mist meet a minimum requirement of 50% affordable/workforce housing (30% inclusionary; 20% workforce) for projects of five or more units to be considered.
The requirements of this policy described above will limit the ability of landowners to subdivide outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers, as well as within Rural Centers because the Residential Development Evaluation System will direct and guide growth in a manner that makes major subdivisions in these areas unlikely. The provisions that must be accounted for in the scoring system is expected to clearly distinguish development proposals that are consistent with the 2006 General Plan policies from those that are not, and allow decision-makers to make informed decisions about development proposals. In addition, policies such as slope and ridgeline restrictions are similar or more restrictive than the 1982 General Plan; and there are other limiting factors such as water and number/size of lots with residential designation. These restrictions would provide similar limitations as reflected in Table 3-6, thereby supporting a similar rate of development.
Land Use Element Policy LU-2.10 establishes conditions that must be met prior to the approval of accessory dwellings on lands designated for residential uses by the 2006 General Plan. The conditions that must be met include adequate water and sewer facilities, as well as restrictions on the size of such units. Note that Policy LU-2.10 is amended as follows:
LU-2.10 In areas where Adequate Public Facilities and Services (APFS) exist, one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a residentially designated lot if it meets the following criteria:
a. adequate water and sewer facilities exist, which may include on site wells and septic; b. the lot is zoned for single family or multi family use; c. the lot contains an existing single family dwelling; d. the increased floor area of an attached second unit does not exceed 30% of the existing living area; e. the total area of floor area for a detached second unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet. f. height, setback, lot coverage and other applicable zoning regulations are met.
22 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
In an area governed by a County-adopted Community Plan or Specific Plan, the Community Plan or Specific Plan shall govern the permissibility of accessory dwelling units
Again, this is similar or more restrictive than the 1982 General Plan polices thereby supporting the rate of development noted in Table 3-6 and limiting the likely creation of new subdivisions outside community areas and rural centers to 1200 units.
Safety Element Policies Safety Element policies S-1.1, S-1.2, S-1.3, S-1.4, S-1.5, S-1.6, S-1.7, and S-1.8 establish policies to regulate development in areas of seismic and geologic hazards. The policies include requirements for studies to address seismic hazards associated with new development, GIS mapping of the County to identify areas where seismic and erosion hazard conditions exist, enforcement of the Alquist-Priolo Act, and that new development demonstrate that the site is suitable and will not contribute to geologic hazards. These policies place similar or more significant restrictions on development in areas of significant seismic and geologic constraints.
Safety Element Policies S-2.2, S-2.3, S-2.7, S-2.10, and S-2.11 all establish limitations on development in floodplains. Limitations include promoting agricultural and recreational land uses in flood plains, requiring compliance with the National Food Insurance Program, discouragement of new subdivisions in 100-year floodplains, requiring that new insurable buildings on lots of record (e.g., dwelling units) be located outside of flood plains to the extent possible, and requiring mitigation for new structures located in flood plains (including mitigation that may preclude the ability to subdivide to the maximum extent allowed). Although floodplain areas are often envisioned for subdivision because they tend to contain flat relief and are located away from steep slopes and other geologic constraints, Safety Element policies require future development proposals in a floodplain to comply with an extensive number of requirements that will likely result in substantial reductions in density or preclude subdivision altogether in certain areas.
Safety Element Policies S-4.13, S-4.15, S-4.21, and S-6.1 require new development to provide measures to ensure that public safety is not compromised. These policies include requirements that all new development have adequate water available for fire suppression, all projects annex into fire districts, fire hazards risks be reduced by regulating the type, density, location, or design of development, and the availability of sheriff, ambulance, and fire services be considered prior to the approval of new lots. These policies, particularly the policy related to the provision of adequate emergency services prior to the approval of new lots, will have significant implications on development proposals in rural areas of the County.
Safety Element Policy S-7.1 requires that new noise-sensitive land uses be allowed only in areas where existing and projected noise levels are “acceptable,” as identified by Table S-2 of the Safety Element. Given that residential land uses are considered “noise-sensitive” this policy will require that future residential development projects be sited in areas where existing noise levels are acceptable or can be mitigated to acceptable levels. This requirement will have implications on the maximum development potential of many residential land uses because of potential noise mitigation requirements that many require a reduction in lots or units to allow for noise attenuating measures.
Michael Brandman Associates 23 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
These aforementioned Safety policies are expected to result in similar or more significant limitations on development as provided in the 1982 General Plan thereby supporting the rate of development noted in Table 3-6 and limiting the amount of likely subdivision outside Rural Centers and Community Areas to 1200 units.
Public Services Element Policies Public Services Element Policies PS-1.1, PS-1.2, PS-1.3, and PS-1.6 require residential development to demonstrate that adequate public facilities and services can serve the proposed project. This includes the standards contained in Table PS-1, “Infrastructure and Service Standards” of the Public Services Element. These public facilities and services must also be provided concurrent with new development.
The requirements of the policies described above will limit the ability of landowners to subdivide outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers, as well as within Rural Centers by mandating that they demonstrate that adequate public facilities and services are available. Given the economic and technological constraints of extending and/or expanding public services in rural areas, these policies can be expected to reduce the potential for subdivisions in rural areas of the County.
Public Safety Element Policies PS-2.3, PS-3.1, PS-3.3, and PS-3.11 set forth clear and unequivocal requirements that new development that is subject to a discretionary permit (i.e., subdivision) demonstrate that a proven long term sustainable water supply exists to serve it. These policies include specific criteria for determining if a “proven long term sustainable water supply” requirement has been met. The County has experienced how current conditions have restricted the ability to subdivide in certain areas of the County (e.g. North County, Carmel Valley).
The Public Service Element policies relating to proven long term sustainable water supply are the most restrictive policies in the 2006 General Plan that relate to subdivision. Long-term water supply is a significant issue in Monterey County and there are considerable uncertainties about how and where new sources of potable water will originate. Requiring new development to demonstrate that a proven long term sustainable water supply exists is expected to be most important factor in determining if a proposed project can be approved. These policies alone are considered to be the most significant factors for why maximum hypothetical development cannot be achieved in the unincorporated County. While some water projects (e.g. desalination) could increase supply thereby increasing development potential, assumptions in this regard would be highly speculative at this point. For example, a water project considered by the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency for obtaining water from the Central Valley Project was unable to progress because agreements with other agencies did not come to fruition. Furthermore, test desalination plants along the coast have faced significant opposition and hurdles to address environmental impacts. In addition, much of the desalination water anticipated is being considered to erase an existing deficit before considering additional new development. Other policies limit development to using only 50% of the historical average water use thereby reducing development potential as well as long-term water demand.
Public Services Element policy PS-4.8 requires that new development proposing to use septic systems demonstrate that such systems are suitable for the site. This requirement effectively limits the use of septic systems on inadequate sites. Given that septic disposal is the only form of effluent disposal in rural areas, this requirement will be a significant factor is evaluating proposals for residential development and encouraging development to occur in cities or Community where adequate facilities do or will exist.
24 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
These aforementioned Public Services policies are expected to result in similar or more significant limitations on development as currently provided (1982 General Plan) thereby supporting the rate of development noted in Table 3-6 and limiting likely subdivision outside of Rural Centers and Community Areas to 1200 units.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policies Open Space and Conservation Element Policies OS-1.2, OS-1.3, OS-1.4, OS-1.5, and OS-1.6 place restrictions on development on ridgelines and in visually sensitive areas. The policies require development in visually sensitive areas to be subordinate to the natural features of the area, prohibits ridgeline development unless certain findings can be made, establish criteria to guide the design and construction of ridgeline development where allowed, require new subdivision to avoid lot configurations which create building sites that will constitute ridgeline development, and require specific plans to address viewshed issues with provisions for setbacks, landscaping, height limits, or open space buffers. While these policies do not explicitly prohibit development on ridgelines or in visually sensitive areas, they do establish a number of methods the County can use to limit development in these areas.
Open Space and Conservation Element Policies OS-3.3, OS-3.4, OS-3.5, OS-3.6, and OS-3.7 require that geologic and hydrologic constraints be mitigated before new developments are approved. The policies include requirements for studies to address slope and soil instability, moderate and high erosion hazards, and drainage, water quality and stream stability issues associated with new development; mapping of the County to identify areas where severe slope conditions exist that pose constraints for development; the establishment of a permit process of development on existing lots or record with slopes greater than 25 percent or containing geologic hazards and constraints shown on the County’s GIS Geologic or Hydrologic Hazard Databases; and the implementation of a slope density formula on low density and rural density residential parcels to determine the maximum allowable units.
These aforementioned Open Space and Conservation policies are expected to result in similar or more significant limitations on development as currently provided (1982 General Plan) thereby supporting the rate of development noted in Table 3-6 and supporting the County’s assertion that site constraints are an important factor in the County’s conclusions that maximum hypothetical buildout would not be attained.
Agricultural Element Policies Agriculture Element Policies AG-1.1 and AG-1.3 prohibit land uses that would interfere with Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities on viable farmlands designated as Important Farmland and limits subdivision of agricultural parcels. This policy is intended to prevent adjacent land uses (i.e., subdividing a parcel for residential use) from interfering with the agricultural viability of farmlands and the premature conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.
Agriculture Element Policy AG-1.2 establishes criteria for agricultural buffers to protect existing operations. These buffers must be provided by the proposed new development rather than by the existing agricultural property owner. The intent of the buffer is to limit encroachment of new development on agriculture. This policy would further constrain potential growth adjacent to lands zoned Agriculture.
Michael Brandman Associates 25 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Policy AG-1.12 has been revised to add additional requirements regarding conversion of prime agricultural land that would apply to future annexations to cities as well as to lands in the unincorporated area. This revision which strengthens proposed Mitigation Measure AG-1 will likely constrain future subdivision of agricultural lands and is included in Master Response MR-9.
The County believes that this revised estimate of 56,410 potential additional residential units as contrasted with the 53,947 units projection provided in the Draft Program EIR, does not represent a significant increase in the impacts analyzed in the Draft Program EIR for the following reasons:
• The geographic areas that are likely to be targeted for development in this revised projection and substantially similar to those that already taken into account in the Draft Program analysis and for which the impacts of development were evaluated; and • The 4.5% increase in realistic buildout potential spread out over Monterey County’s 3,300 square miles is not a substantial enough change over the projection provided in the Draft Program EIR to result in any new significant environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
With respect to the data utilized to assess full buildout for potential traffic, air quality and noise impacts, the County relied on AMBAG regional traffic model. AMBAG’s projections for unincorporated Monterey County were derived from regional projections for growth provided by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. Woods & Poole analyzed historic growth rates and economic development trends in Monterey County and provided an estimate of the total County population in 2030 to AMBAG. Using this figure, AMBAG allocated growth throughout the County using factors such as growth anticipated by each jurisdiction's General Plan and water availability. The allocation for unincorporated Monterey County included the 1982 General Plan land use map, including calculations based on maximum buildout potential of lots, and included “emphasis areas” identified in the 2003 Housing Element.
The source of this information is confirmed in a November 13, 2006 communication of Todd Muck (AMBAG staff) to Grant Gruber (MBA) based in part on assumptions for growth in Community Areas and Rural Centers identified in the 2003 Housing Element. GPU3 included seven (7) Community Areas and 18 Rural Centers whereas the 2006 GPU includes seven (7) Community Areas and 10 Rural Centers. Del Monte Forest has been deleted since it is in the Coastal Zone. The forecast included the assumptions for buildout of the Rancho San Juan (4,000 residential lots and 3.7 million square feet of commercial and industrial use), which is much higher than what was ultimately approved as part of the Butterfly Village Specific Plan, which serves as the total Community Plan for the Rancho San Juan Community Area. Moreover, AMBAG’s projections for the unincorporated County do not distinguish between the Coastal Zone and the inland portions of the County and, therefore, include more development than will occur within the planning boundaries of the 2006 General Plan (project area). Accordingly, through the year 2030, AMBAG’s assumptions, which were utilized in the model that formed the basis of the traffic, air quality and noise impact analyses, were more than sufficient for analyzing impacts of potential growth through year 2030.
See also Master Response MR-20 for responses to comments pertaining to traffic impacts.
In conclusion, the Draft Program EIR has adequately addressed the impacts of buildout of the 2006 General Plan. The County and its consultants have relied upon data generated by its regional
26 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses planning agency, its own historical data, AMBAG for projections to 2030, modeling and extrapolation of projections beyond 2030. In addition, the County retained BAE to prepare a forecast of likely buildout utilizing proposed growth and land use policies in a 2006 General Plan. This data was further refined in responses to comments, but the refined number was not significantly different in total number of dwelling units projected nor distribution from what had been utilized in the Draft Program EIR ( i.e. a difference of only 4.5%). Last, the County has provided a maximum hypothetical buildout projection that updates and appropriately corrects the projection provided in the 1982 General Plan , but then has demonstrated that relying on the maximum hypothetical buildout projection in the CEQA analysis does not accurately reflect reasonably foreseeable growth based upon historic trends and the policies of the 2006 General Plan.
Part B: Response to Comments Relating to Reliance on of Draft Program EIR on AMBAG Growth Projections
The best estimates of the actual development likely to be realized by the 2006 General Plan by 2030 are contained in the 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit and Employment Forecasts. The AMBAG projections for unincorporated Monterey County in 2030 are summarized in Table 3-7:
Table 3-7 - AMBAG Population, Housing Unit and Employment Forecasts For 2030
Population 135,375 persons Housing 48,670 dwelling units Employment 97,113 jobs
Note that buildout of the 2006 General Plan would result in more persons, more housing, but fewer jobs relative to the AMBAG projections. These differences are a result of AMBAG calculating forecasts using a formula that takes into account regional influences and the 2006 General Plan looks only at proposed land use designations with the County.
AMBAG’s projections for unincorporated Monterey County were derived from regional projections for growth provided by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. Woods & Poole analyzed historic growth rates and economic development trends in Monterey County and provided an estimate of the total County population in 2030 to AMBAG. Using this figure, AMBAG allocated growth throughout the County using factors such as growth anticipated by each jurisdiction's General Plan and water availability.
The allocation for unincorporated Monterey County was based on the 1982 General Plan land use map, but did place some growth in Emphasis Areas (i.e., Community Areas and Rural Centers identified in the 2003 Housing Element). The allocation assumed that some large parcels designated for residential development could be subdivided. In addition, the Rancho San Juan development potential (GPU3 designated a larger Community Area plus an expansion area) was assumed to be much higher than what was ultimately approved as part of the Butterfly Village Specific Plan, which serves as the total Community Plan for the Rancho San Juan Community Area. Moreover, AMBAG’s projections for the unincorporated County do not distinguish between the Coastal Zone and the inland portions of the County and, therefore, do not precisely correlate to the planning boundaries of the 2006 General Plan (project area). Nonetheless, AMBAG’s projections for unincorporated Monterey County are considered the best available estimate of development potential
Michael Brandman Associates 27 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report that is likely to occur by 2030 as a result of implementation of the 2006 General Plan because it accounts for historical growth rates and water availability constraints.
The 2006 General Plan’s buildout potential is largely consistent with the AMBAG 2030 growth forecast. The Draft Program EIR analyzed air quality and traffic impacts of the 2006 General Plan’s development potential using existing models that incorporate AMBAG growth projections. First, the 2006 General Plan is consistent with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because the emissions budget for the North Central Coast Air Basin is based upon the AMBAG growth projections. Given that the 2006 General Plan for 2030 is generally consistent with the AMBAG growth projections for 2030, as well as preceding years, it is therefore determined that the 2006 General Plan is consistent with the AQMP. This is consistent with the conclusions made in the Air Quality section of the Draft Program EIR.
Second, this also demonstrates that the 2030 growth projections of the 2006 General Plan are reflected in the AMBAG Regional Travel Demand Model that was used for the traffic modeling in the Draft Program EIR. Accordingly, the traffic modeling for the 2006 General Plan accurately reflects the 2030 population growth assumptions for the 2006 General Plan (Also see Master Response MR-20).
Lastly, this demonstrates that the 2006 General Plan does not exceed the growth projections of the 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing, and Employment forecasts. Note that Impact POP-1 of the Draft Program EIR erroneously stated the 2006 General Plan exceeds AMBAG’s projections for 2030. This statement has been corrected to accurately state that the 2006 General Plan’s projections are consistent with the AMBAG projections. This change is noted in the Errata.
One commenter stated that the phrase “AMBAG’s growth projections between 2000 and 2030 are being used as the basis for the growth assumptions contained in the 2006 General Plan” on Page 3-94 of the Draft Program EIR was inaccurate. As explained previously, the AMBAG forecast represents the best available estimate of the development potential of the 2006 General Plan to 2030. Note that while the aforementioned sentence is not inaccurate, it has been clarified in the Errata to more clearly explain the relationship between the 2006 General Plan and the AMBAG’s projections for 2030.
Several commentors asserted that the development potential on the existing lots of record in areas outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers is much higher than the projections contained in the BAE report because of the possibility that every residential parcel could subdivide to its maximum potential based on the maximum allowed density of its General Plan land use designation. For instance, a 100-acre parcel located in a rural area designated by the 2006 General Plan for “Low Density Residential Development - 2.5 acres per dwelling unit” counts as one lot of record, but could theoretically be subdivided into a maximum of 25 lots of record.
The County recognizes that some subdivision outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers could occur. However, there are policies in the 2006 General Plan (discussed in detail previously in this Master Response) that would act as limiting factors for developing outside of cities, Community Areas or Rural Centers.
28 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
MR-5: Land Use Change Between 1982 and 2006 General Plans
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the change in land use designations between the 1982 and 2006 General Plans.
As shown in Table 3-4 in the Draft Program EIR, all of the land use groups maintain the same percentage of area (within 0.3 percent of each other) between the existing 1982 General Plan and the 2006 General Plan. The net increase in residential, commercial, and industrial acreage in the unincorporated County that would occur as a result of the 2006 General Plan is approximately 2,835 acres. This figure represents less than 0.01 percent of the total unincorporated acreage in the non- Coastal Zone portion of Monterey County. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the 2006 General Plan largely maintains the land use map of the existing 1982 General Plan.
Where the 1982 General Plan labels each parcel with a specific land use density, the 2006 General Plan provides the general land use designation with a range of allowed density with the detail of density to be provided on zoning maps. This is the typical format for general plan land use maps. For the purposes of defining development potential, the analysis in the Draft Program EIR generally uses the densities from the 1982 General Plan because the County intends for the 2006 General Plan to largely reflect the existing 1982 General Plan’s densities, although with higher densities in Community Areas.
A land use designation for “mixed use” has been added to the 2006 General Plan that was not part of the 1982 General Plan. This is consistent with the 2003 Housing Element to allow for density up to 30 units/acre for affordable/workforce housing in Community Areas. The 2006 General Plan applies this land use designation in Community Areas. As noted below, Policy LU 2.33 (Urban Residential) has been revised to clarify that residential density up to 30 units per acre is appropriate for the mixed use designation.
LU-2.393 The County will establish regulations for and designate three categories of Urban Residential Land:
a. Medium Density Residential (MDR): Medium Density Residential areas are appropriate for a range of residential uses (1-5 units/acre) and housing types, recreational, public and quasi public, and other uses that are incidental and subordinate to the residential use and character of the area. b. High Density Residential (HDR): High Density Residential areas are appropriate for a broad range of higher intensity (5-20 units/acre) residential uses and a blend of housing types, recreational, public and quasi public, and other uses that are incidental and subordinate to the residential use and character of the area; and c. Mixed Use (MU): Mixed Use development involves residential and non- residential (primarily commercial retail and office) to encourage activity centers and pedestrian orientation. Residential uses can be either separate development on the same site or New development in this category shall be subject to a General Development Plan and is encouraged to be at least two stories tall in order to allow residential uses above non-residential uses where appropriate, but no greater than three stories subject to a General Development Plan. Residential density similar to high density residential areas up to 30 units per acre shall be appropriate for the mixed use designation.
Michael Brandman Associates 29 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
This higher density development potential for several Community Areas (e.g. East Garrison, Castroville) was accounted for in the Draft Program EIR because both the BAE report (used to analyze impacts to physical resources based on geographic footprint) and the AMBAG traffic model (used to analyze traffic, air quality, and noise impacts) took account of the higher concentration of development in projected Community Areas as discussed in Master Response MR-4. In summary, the 2006 General Plan largely maintains the existing 1982 General Plan land use map, albeit with a few differences intended to promote higher density residential development in Community Areas.
MR-6: Analysis of Existing Conditions
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s definition of baseline conditions per CEQA and analysis of existing conditions as they relate to buildout of the 2006 General Plan.
The Draft Program EIR analyzed the environmental effects of development and land use activities contemplated by the 2006 General Plan based on the best available information about existing conditions at or near the time of the filing of the original NOP in May 2001. The only portion of the Draft Program EIR that analyzed the environmental effects of the 2006 General Plan in relation to the existing 1982 General Plan was in Section 5, Alternatives, of the Draft Program EIR as required by CEQA. This was done for the purposes of providing a qualitative comparison of the two versions of the General Plans and was performed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.
Existing land use acreages were provided from the County Assessor’s Parcel data. As explained on Page 3-10 of the Draft Program EIR, Assessor’s Parcel data uses different methodologies to classify land use than the 2006 General Plan (because each serves a different purpose) and is based on actual land use (even if non-conforming) rather than planned land use. Nonetheless, it was determined that the Assessor’s Parcel data was the best available source of information because no other source of existing land use information was available.
The Draft Program EIR employed the AMBAG Regional Travel Demand Model, which is used by jurisdictions in the three-county AMBAG region. The transportation modeling used the most recent version of the AMBAG Regional Travel Demand Model, which was updated in early 2006, as described in more detail in Master Response MR-20.
MR-7: Land Use Section Policy Analysis - Intensity, Location and Timing
This Master Response addresses comments pertaining to the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of 2006 General Plan policies which concentrate growth within cities and designated higher intensity areas and limit outlying growth based on resource constraints.
LU-2.10 AND LU-2.11
Land Use Element Policy LU-2.10 as clarified in response to comments states:
LU-2.10 In areas where Adequate Public Facilities and Services (APFS) exist, one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on a residentially designated lot if it meets the following criteria:
30 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
a. adequate water and sewer facilities exist, which may include on site wells and septic; the unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; b. the lot is zoned for single family or multi family use; c. the lot contains an existing single family dwelling; the second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; d. the increased floor area of an attached second unit does not exceed 30% of the existing living area; e. the total area of floor area for a detached second unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet. f. height, setback, lot coverage and other applicable zoning regulations are met.
In an area governed by a County-adopted Community Plan or Specific Plan, the Community Plan or Specific Plan shall govern the permissibility of accessory dwelling units.
Land Use Element Policy LU-2.11 states:
LU-2.11 For purposes of calculating allowable density on parcels, the County shall not include accessory dwelling units, caretaker units, guesthouses, senior citizen units, farm employee or farm worker housing units.
These types of accessory structures are intended to support an existing residence or other primary structure on a lot of record, particularly those located in rural and agricultural areas of the County. LU -2.10 prescribes criteria defining where accessory dwelling units are allowed. These policies are consistent with State law (AB 1866, codified at Government Code section 65852.2) requiring local jurisdiction to allow for secondary units, and, as allowed under state law, would restrict second units to areas where adequate public facilities and services exist. The County will adopt an ordinance implementing this policy and restricting the potential for second units in certain residentially zoned areas where traffic or water supply pose significant constraints. The County Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) places precise restrictions on the number, size, occupancy, and use of each of these types of structures to ensure that they are consistent with the allowable uses of residential lands. With the restrictions suggested by LU 2.10, the addition of second units would not create significant impacts on the environment. Master Response MR-4 includes a more detailed discussion of buildout potential of the 2006 General Plan.
LU-2.12 AND 2.13
The General Plan proposes a Residential Evaluation System which will limit the growth in areas outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers. Based on comments received, Planning Commission recommendations, and Board of Supervisors’ hearings, Land Use Element Policy LU-2.12 and LU- 2.13 from the August proposed 2006 General Plan are proposed to be combined and revised to clarify the intent to encourage development to occur within Community Areas and Rural Centers, as noted in Master Response MR-4 and as follows:
Michael Brandman Associates 31 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
LU-2.12 A Residential Development Evaluation System shall be established to provide a systematic, consistent, predictable, and quantitative method for decision-makers to evaluate residential developments of five or more lots or units in areas of the unincorporated County outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers, and Rural Centers prior to the preparation of the required Infrastructure and Financing Study. The system shall include a mechanism to qualitatively evaluate development in light of the policies of the General Plan and the implementing regulations, resources and infrastructure, and the overall quality of development. Evaluation criteria may include but are not limited to:
a. Site Suitability b. Infrastructure c. Resource Management d. Proximity to a City, Community Area, or Rural Center. The scoring system will provide more points for a project that is located in a Rural Center. e. Mix/Balance of uses including Affordable Housing consistent with the County Affordable/Workforce Housing Incentive adopted pursuant to the Monterey County Housing Element. f. Environmental Impacts and Potential Mitigation g. Proximity to multiple modes of transportation h. Jobs-Housing balance within the community and between the community and surrounding areas.
Said Evaluation System is not intended to be a “pass/fail” evaluation nor a competition among developments except for the following minimum requirements:
1) Developments in Rural Centers prior to the preparation of an Infrastructure and Financing Study must meet a minimum requirement of 35% affordable/workforce housing (25% inclusionary; 10% Work Force) for projects of five or more units to be considered. 2) Development outside of a Community Area or Rural Center mist meet a minimum requirement of 50% affordable/workforce housing (30% inclusionary; 20% workforce) for projects of five or more units to be considered.
The establishment of a residential development evaluation system for developments of five or more lots or five or more units is not inherently inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-2.2’s objective of discouraging premature or scattered growth because it would systematically evaluate proposals on a case-by-case basis and determine which are appropriate based on a variety of factors, including site constraints, provision of infrastructure, and relationship to other land uses. Therefore, nothing in this policy conflicts with any other 2006 General Plan policy and the conclusion on Page 4.1-16 of the Draft Program EIR is appropriate.
32 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
LU-2.16
Land Use Element Policy LU-2.16 states:
In coordination with the cities, sufficient land shall be designated to locate new housing as close to employment centers as feasible, and to minimize conflicts, competition, and consumptive land use patterns.
This policy is intended to provide a framework to guide growth to appropriate areas. It does not identify any specific area, but rather establishes a general goal of coordinating with cities to plan new growth. No timeframe is stated in this policy because it is intended to occur over the life of the 2006 General Plan. This policy should not be interpreted to suggest that additional land would be developed for housing within unincorporated areas beyond land designated in the Land Use Element. Therefore, nothing in this policy conflicts with any other 2006 General Plan policy and the conclusion on Page 4.1-16 of the Draft Program EIR is appropriate.
LU-2. 29
Based on comments received, Planning Commission recommendations, and Board of Supervisors’ hearings, LU 2.29 (Policy LU 2.32 in the August 2006 draft) has been clarified as follows:
LU-2.3229 Prior to the preparation of the Infrastructure and Financing Study and assuring the infrastructure funding mechanisms the following types of development may proceed:
Subdivisions creating four or fewer lots; The first single family home and one accessory dwelling unit on an existing lot; On-site employee housing and caretaker units; Small-scale, neighborhood-serving, commercial uses; and Public/quasi public use may proceed.
Development of Rural Centers is a secondary planning priority for the County after the development of Community Plans for Community Areas. Prior to the approval of new development in a Rural Center, a CIFP Infrastructure and Financing Study shall be prepared and a financing mechanism identified and approved to assure that construction of needed project related infrastructure improvements occur concurrent with the development. Capital Improvement and Financing Plans may be initiated by either the County or by party or parties owning property within the Rural Center acting at their expense. However, any such planning process will be conducted by the County. Proposed CIFPs may include recommendations for Rural Center boundary changes, subject to a General Plan amendment. This study shall address existing infrastructure and service deficiencies, increased capacity needed to accommodate new development and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. A priority list for preparing the studies shall be developed. Prior to development of a CIFP, only development that is consistent with the underlying land use may proceed except for:
a. residential development in accordance with the Residential Development Evaluation System (Policy LU-2.13). b. small scale, neighborhood-serving commercial uses
Michael Brandman Associates 33 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
This policy requires capital improvement and financing plans and improvements concurrent with development of Rural Centers and, with minimal exception, limits the types of allowable growth prior to development of such plans to development consistent with the underlying land use designation. Therefore, nothing in this policy conflicts with any other 2006 General Plan policy, and the conclusion on Page 4.1-16 of the Draft Program EIR is appropriate.
MR-8: Land Use Section Policy Analysis - Circulation and Agriculture
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the conclusion in the Draft Program EIR that the 2006 General Plan policies are internally consistent with each other.
C-6.3, LU-2.3, AND OS-9.2
Circulation Element Policy C-6.3 states:
New development should concentrate along major transportation corridors and near cities to make transit services to these areas more feasible.
Land Use Element Policy LU-2.3 states:
Areas designated for residential use shall be located with convenient access to employment, shopping, recreation, and transportation. Higher density residential areas should be located with convenient access to public transportation.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy OS-9.2 states:
Development shall be directed toward cities, Community Areas, and Rural Centers where energy expended for transportation and provision of services can be minimized.
The above cited policies are consistent with one another because the 2006 General Plan as a whole, through numerous policies, directs growth to Community Areas and Rural Centers. Policy LU-2.3 specifically stipulates that higher density areas be located with convenient access to public transportation.
As discussed in MR-4, Policy 2.12 has been revised since the August 2006 draft to further clarify and implement the intent to direct development to Community Areas and Rural Centers. While the 2006 General Plan includes rural residential designations, these policies are overall compatible with the overall goal of the Plan to direct most growth towards Community Areas and Rural Centers. Further, the 2006 General Plan, while recognizing that a different standards of service are appropriate in different areas, sets service standards applicable to new subdivisions (see Table PS-1), Therefore, nothing in these policies conflicts with any other 2006 General Plan policies and the conclusion that the plan is internally consistent on Page 4.1-16 of the Draft Program EIR is appropriate.
34 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
C-2.5
Circulation Element Policy C-6.3 states:
C-6.3 Overall land use patterns that reduce the need to travel by automobile shall be encouraged.
AG-2.1
Agriculture Element Policy AG-2.1 has been clarified and revised to state:
AG-2.1 Agricultural support facilities such as coolers, cold storage, warehouses, parking lots, greenhouses, temporary and permanent worker housing and offices, processing equipment and facilities, loading docks, workshops established to serve on-site and/or off-site farming and ranching activities shall be allowed considered compatible and appropriate uses in the Farmlands, Permanent Grazing, and Rural Grazing land use designations. The County shall establish an ordinance that determines which uses require a discretionary permit.
Policy C-6.3 establishes a general goal of promoting land use patterns that reduce automobile use. Policy AG-2.1 recognizes the economic and technical needs of providing agricultural support uses on agricultural lands and allows the provision of agricultural supporting structures on agricultural land use designations. One of the benefits of allowing agricultural supporting structures on agricultural lands is the elimination of vehicular trips that would otherwise be made to agricultural supporting facilities located offsite. Therefore, nothing in this policy conflicts with the other policy, or any other 2006 General Plan policy, and the conclusion on Page 4.1-16 of the Draft Program EIR is appropriate.
AG-1.2
Agricultural Element Policy AG-1.2 has been clarified and revised to state:
AG-1.2 The purpose of the following criteria shall be used to establish agricultural buffers is to protect the existing agricultural operations: Buffers are not meant to be permanent and will be terminated once the underlying reason for the buffer no longer exists. Buffers shall be provided from the proposed new use and not from the adjacent agricultural land unless by mutual agreement between the landowners.
a. Factors to consider include the type of non-agricultural use proposed, site conditions and anticipated agricultural practices. Other factors include weather patterns, crop type, machinery and pesticide use, existence of topographical features, trees and shrubs, and possible development of landscape berm to separate the non-agricultural use from the existing agricultural use. b. Drainage, shading, vegetation, and erosion control shall be considered in the establishment of an agricultural buffer area and be made beneficial to the adjacent agricultural use. c. Buffers shall be designed to comply with applicable state and local laws regulating school buffers, pesticide setbacks, and other controls shall be considered.
Michael Brandman Associates 35 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
d. Agricultural buffers and/or easements shall be provided from the proposed new use and not from the adjacent agricultural land unless by mutual agreement between the two landowners. e. Agricultural buffers are designed to be used for the purposes and manner described in this policy and for no other purposes unless agreed to by abutting landowners. f. Buffer maintenance will be the responsibility of the underlying fee title owner. g. Buffers are not meant to be permanent and will be terminated once the underlying reason for the buffer no longer exists. h. The Agricultural Advisory Committee shall review and recommend changes to established buffer zones.
Policy AG-1.2 provides a framework for providing buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural lands when or if adjacent lands are subdivided or developed. This policy does not contain any components that would allow or encourage subdivision of agricultural lands.
MR-9: Loss of Important Farmland
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of potential loss of Important Farmland due to buildout of the 2006 General Plan.
“Important Farmland,” as defined by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), consists of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The CEQA Guidelines clearly identify the loss of Important Farmland as the threshold by which the significance of the impact is to be assessed. For project-level analysis, the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model provided by the California Department of Conservation, can be used to determine the significance of the loss of Important Farmland, and assess site-specific characteristics such as quality of soils, adjacency to other farmlands, and availability of water. However, because the Draft Program EIR evaluated the loss of Important Farmland at a program level, use of the LESA model was not feasible or appropriate.
Instead, the assessment of Important Farmland lost to development contemplated by the 2006 General Plan was performed by overlaying GIS data of the 2006 General Plan land use map on GIS data of existing Important Farmland. This method indicated that 5,497 acres of Important Farmland could be lost to non-agricultural uses. While representing only approximately 2.2 percent of the total Important Farmland acreage in Monterey County, it nonetheless was considered a significant unavoidable impact because the loss of 5,497 acres would be an irreversible consequence of the 2006 General Plan. CEQA requires that all significant impacts be mitigated if mitigation is available and feasible. In this case, the Draft Program EIR proposed mitigation in the form of offsetting each acre of lost Important Farmland through the protection of other Important Farmland at a 2:1 ratio (see Mitigation Measure AG-1 in the Draft Program EIR).
Various commentors have noted that Important Farmland acreage in the County has experienced a net increase since 1992 and that the 2006 General Plan would result in a net increase of land designated for agricultural uses. While this demonstrates that the loss of Important Farmland has been offset at a greater ratio by the addition of similar land elsewhere in the County, and that this trend is likely to continue over the life of the 2006 General Plan, it is not considered mitigation under CEQA because it cannot lessen the significance of the irreversible loss of Important Farmland. The proposed
36 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses mitigation to offset the loss of Important Farmland through the protection of Important Farmland elsewhere in the County ensures that other Important Farmland would be permanently conserved and prevents this land from being converted non-agricultural uses in the future.
In response to several comments on this matter, Mitigation Measure AG-1 is revised (and included as policy AG-2.12 in the 2006 General Plan) and included in the Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as follows to clarify its intent and broaden its effectiveness and flexibility to reduce impacts:
AG-1.12 Prior to the discretionary approval of any new non-agricultural or non-agricultural- related land use to be located on designated Important Farmland, The County shall prepare, adopt and implement a program that requires projects involving a change of land use designation or land to be annexed to an incorporated area resulting in the loss of Important Farmland (as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) to mitigate the loss of that acreage. by permanently protecting other Important Farmland in the County at a minimum 2:1 ratio. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of Important Farmland on an individual basis as feasible as determined by the Agricultural Commissioner Board of Supervisors. The acreage in a project or annexation that is to be utilized for inclusionary housing shall not be subject to this mitigation policy. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy. This policy would not apply to annexations covered by the 2006 Greater Salinas Area MOU between the County of Monterey and the City of Salinas.
This mitigation measure was revised based on comments that the measure, as proposed, was not feasible because the proposed 2:1 ratio may not be appropriate Countywide and did not provide sufficient flexibility. The revisions strengthen the measure to include proposed annexations of agricultural land. The recommended revisions, on balance, did not diminish the effectiveness of the Mitigation Measure proposed in the Draft Program EIR. In any event, the residual impact remains significant and unavoidable, and does not alter the conclusion in the draft Program EIR in regard to the impact.
MR-10: Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft EIR’s analysis of “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities”, as defined by the 2006 General Plan.
The exemption of “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” from specific 2006 General Plan policies is described in the text of the Draft Program EIR. In response to several comments on this matter, Planning Commission recommendations, and Board hearings, 2006 General Plan policies AG- 3.1, AG-3.2 and AG-3.3 are revised as follows to clarify their intent and broaden their effectiveness to reduce the potential for environmental impacts:
AG-3.1 “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” shall be allowed pursuant to the policies in this plan. Activities that may have significant impacts are subject to a greater level of review.
Michael Brandman Associates 37 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
AG-3.2 In order to encourage the continuation and economic viability of the agricultural industry, the County shall work with the agricultural industry and state and federal agencies to streamline permit procedures for and exempt “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” as enumerated in policy. Exemptions do not preclude compliance with other state and federal requirements.
AG-3.3 ‘Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities’ include, but are not limited to:
a. cultivation, tillage and irrigation of soil; b. conversion of agricultural land to other agricultural uses; c. conversion of previously uncultivated rangeland to cultivated agricultural use; d. pasture and rangeland management; f. preparation of product for market, and delivery of product to market; g. sale of product to consumer in facility not having permanent utilities; h. crop, vineyard and orchard planting, harvesting, cultivation, tillage, selection, rotation, fallowing, all soil preparation activities, including, but not limited to ripping, tilling, leveling, adding amendments, fertilizing, fumigating and other pest control activities, and long term crop protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, revegetation , windbreaks, and other cover crops; i. choice and development of irrigation systems; j. raising of livestock, poultry, fur bearing animals, dairying, or fish; k. development of sediment basins, stock ponds, irrigation and tail water return systems, stream bank and grade stabilization, water retention and pumping facilities, erosion control and surface drainage activities, including, but not limited to soil and water conservation measures; l. construction and maintenance of farm access roads, trails, and parking facilities; m. fencing, corrals, animal handling facilities; n. sheds, storage and outbuildings; o. hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, farm stays, and eco tourism; p. any activity recognized as a compatible use under the Williamson Act; q. cutting or removal of Christmas trees; r. keeping of pets; s. storage structures for agricultural equipment and materials; t. greenhouses; u. windmills; v. non-permanent produce stands; any activity listed in this section conducted at night; and, other uses of similar character, density, and intensity as to those listed in this policy.
Related polices in other general plan elements from which routine and on-going activities are exempt include the following: Policy LU-1.6 (scenic), Policy OS-1.9 (scenic), Policy OS-3.3 (soil studies), Policy OS-3.5 (slope), Policies OS-5.1 and OS-5.4 (native vegetation), Policy OS-6.3 (archaeology), Policy OS-7.3 (paleontological), Policy OS-8.3 (burial sites), Goal OS-10 (air quality), Policy S-2.3 (100-year floodplain).
38 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
In lands with a Farmlands, Permanent Grazing, or Rural Grazing land use designation, farming and ranching activities that are “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” should be exempted from the General Plan policies listed below to the extent specified in those policies except for activities that create significant off-site soil erosion impacts or violate adopted water quality standards. The County shall, after consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner and with appropriate review by the Agricultural Advisory Committee, establish by ordinance a list of “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” that can, in harmony with General Plan goals and in accordance with State and Federal law, be exempted from the listed General Plan policies as described. Activities to be considered for inclusion in the list of “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” may include, but are not limited to:
a. pasture and rangeland management; b. conversion of agricultural land to other agricultural uses; c. preparation of product for market, and delivery of product to market; d. planting, harvesting, cultivation, tillage, selection, rotation, irrigation, fallowing, and all soil preparation activities; e. raising of livestock, poultry, fur bearing animals, dairying, or fish; f. maintenance of sediment basins, stock ponds, irrigation and tail water return systems, stream bank and grade stabilization, water retention and pumping facilities, erosion control and surface drainage activities; g. maintenance of farm access roads, trails, and parking facilities; h. fencing, corrals, animal handling facilities; i. greenhouses, sheds, storage and outbuildings; j. Emergency activity that protects the health and safety of the general public.
“Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” are exempt from the following General Plan policies to the extent specified by those policies: C-5.3 (Scenic Highway Corridors), C-5.4 (Scenic Highway Corridors), OS-1.9 (views), OS-1.12 (scenic routes), OS-3.3 (geologic/hydrologic), OS-3.5 (slope), OS-3.6 (erosive soils), OS-5.4 (native vegetation), OS-6.3 (archaeological), OS-7.3 (paleontological), OS-8.3 (burial sites), OS-10.8 (air quality), S-2.3 (floodplain). Further modifications may be made in Area Plans as part of this process.
The ordinance to be enacted by the County will also identify County permit requirement for specific “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” consistent with these exemptions, General Plan goals, and State and Federal Law.
These recommended policy revisions clarify the original wording of the policies contained in the 2006 General Plan. The clarifications do not increase environmental impacts and may reduce the environmental impacts of the policy because the revisions clarify that: the activities to be exempted will be determined by ordinance but must be consistent with the 2006 General Plan goals and state and federal law; The activities are exempted from specified 2006 General Plan policies only to the extent specified in those policies. For example, policy OS-3.5 addresses requirements for activities on slopes in excess of 105 on highly erodible soils including a requirement for conversion for agricultural purposes on previously uncultivated lands in excess of 25%. S-2.3 provides requirements for building structures in a floodplain. The County may still require permits for the
Michael Brandman Associates 39 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report activities, as will be determined through an ordinance process; and compliance with State and federal law is still required . Moreover, the exemption for Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities does not apply to activities that create significant off-site soil erosion impacts or violate adopted water quality standards.
MR-11: Programmatic Analysis of Public Facilities
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of public facilities.
Physical changes to the environment from the provision of new or expanded public services facilities or utility systems that would result from development and land use activities contemplated by the 2006 General Plan were assessed at a programmatic level. At the County-wide General Plan programmatic level, it is not feasible to analyze the precise impacts of future public facilities (e.g. fire stations, libraries) or utility systems (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, storm water detention basins, etc.) because of the uncertainty of the locations of these facilities, as well as their specific size, use, or other essential characteristics that are necessary to provide meaningful analysis. The Community Plans and required CEQA reviews that will be prepared for each of the Community Areas will consider the adequacy of public services and utility systems necessary to serve those areas. The Community Plans will be subject to future and separate CEQA reviews. Note that the 2006 General Plan does not identify or authorize the expansion or construction any specific facilities as a direct result of General Plan implementation.
In regard to the impact of projected development on school facilities, State law provides that payment of a statutory fee by developers provides full and complete mitigation. Mitigation Measure PSU-3A. on p. 4.11-55 in the Draft Program EIR should be clarified to indicate that development projects will be required to pay the statutory fee, as follows:
PS-7.8 New development shall assist in land acquisition and financial support for school facilities as required by state law. Where school districts have adopted appropriate resolutions, written confirmation from the school district that applicable fees and contributions have been paid or are ensured to the satisfaction of the district shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. The County shall, as a condition of approval of development projects, require the project applicant to pay the fees required by statute (Government Code section 65996, as it may be periodically amended) to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school facilities. PS-7.9 The adequate provision of public school facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County and the affected school district(s) prior to the approval of new residential subdivision maps or zone changes.
This revised language for Mitigation Measure PSU-3A (Policy PS-7.8) is reflected in the Errata and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Impacts related to the development footprint of future growth (e.g., agriculture resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; cultural resources; biological resources, etc.) were analyzed in relation to how much land could be converted to urban uses (i.e., agriculture resources) or how the 2006 General Plan establishes a framework to guide the protection of these resources at the project-level. Urban land uses, whether a shopping center, apartment complex, or school, have fairly uniform “footprint”
40 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses impacts, and the Draft Program EIR assessed the impact of the footprint. Therefore, the potential impacts that may result from the location and development of public facilities was incorporated in the programmatic impact analysis in the Draft Program EIR.
As noted in Section 4.11 of the Draft Program EIR, the expansion of existing (and the construction of new) public facilities will be subject to separate CEQA review.
MR-12: Fire Protection Impacts
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of potential fire protection impacts.
Exhibit 4.11-1 in the Draft Program EIR shows the location of each of the fire districts in the unincorporated areas of the County. Given that the Draft Program EIR is a program level document for the entire unincorporated County, detailed analysis of the adequacy of future response times, manpower or equipment needs for each fire agency is neither practical nor necessary. As noted on Pages 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 of the Draft Program EIR, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) provide contract staffing for several fire districts and is also responsible for wildland fires. No statement is made on either page that CDFFP provides fire protection for structures.
The analysis of fire protection impacts (Page 4.11-50 through 4.11-52) and wildland fire hazards (Pages 4.13-9 and 4.13-10) acknowledges that future growth and land use activities contemplated by the 2006 General Plan would result in increased demands for fire protection and increased exposure to wildland fire risks. A number of 2006 General Plan and Area Plan policies address the adequate provision of fire protection services and measures to reduce wildland fire hazards (refer to Page 4.11- 50). Three policies of note are Safety Element Policies S-4.27, S-4.28, and S-4.29 that establish a design review that includes the County planning officials and fire agency representatives to review development proposals for consistency and fire protection adequacy. These policies were determined to be adequate to address potential impacts related to each issue. Future discretionary development and land use activities envisioned by the 2006 General Plan will be required to demonstrate consistency with these policies and will also be subject to separate project-level CEQA review. These processes will ensure that potential fire-related impacts are adequately mitigated.
MR-13: Housing Element Consistency
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the consistency of the 2006 General Plan with the provisions of the 2003 Housing Element, especially with respect to higher density housing.
The 2006 General Plan is consistent with the 2003 Housing Element’s assumptions about areas for development of housing. The Housing Element, like the 2006 General Plan, places a priority on planning for residential growth in Community Areas. The “phase 1” Community Areas identified in the Housing Element (Pajaro, Castroville, Boronda, Fort Ord, and Rancho San Juan) are also identified as Community Areas in the 2006 General Plan. San Lucas is identified as a Community Area in both. The Housing Element identified Pine Canyon as a Phase 2 Community Area while it is a Rural Center under the 2006 General Plan, with some development potential as such. The change in location for the seventh Community Area from Pine Canyon to Chualar is not inconsistent with the Housing Element because the point of designating these areas in the Housing Element was to identify
Michael Brandman Associates 41 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report the target areas for meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The Housing Element is required to include programs and policies that would result in adequate land being zoned at appropriate densities to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In recognition that not all of the targeted areas would ultimately get rezoned within the planning horizon of the Housing Element, State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) required that the Housing Element include as potential target areas three times the amount of land that would actually be required to meet the RHNA. As stated on Page 88 of the 2003 Housing Element, the Community Areas are targeted for additional residential development at appropriate densities to meet the RHNA (These target areas are also consistent with the existing 1982 General Plan.). Since the adoption of the 2003 Housing Element, the East Garrison Specific Plan and the Butterfly Village Specific Plan have been adopted for the Fort Ord and Rancho San Juan Community Areas, respectively. The County has also drafted Community Plans for Castroville and Boronda. It is anticipated that both the Boronda and Castroville Community Plans will be adopted and with implementation underway in 2007, which, along with the Specific Plans and several affordable housing projects that have recently been approved will provide the amount of land required at the target densities to meet the RHNA of the Housing Element 2002-2008.
The County’s adopted Housing Element 2002-2008 calls for higher density housing in appropriate locations to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Several of the policies and programs are directed at increasing the densities allowed in the 1982 General Plan to provide for densities in the 15-30 units/acre range in Community Areas that have or can have the necessary services and infrastructure. These policies and programs are currently being implemented as part of the community/specific planning processes for Boronda, Castroville, and East Garrison I. These areas are being planned to allow densities in the 20-30 units/acre range within the mixed use designations targeted to providing housing for very low and low income housing, consistent with the Housing Element. A land use designation for “mixed use” has been added to the 2006 General Plan that was not part of the 1982 General Plan. The 2006 General Plan applies this land use designation in Community Areas. This is consistent with the 2003 Housing Element to allow for density up to 30 units/acre for affordable/workforce housing in Community Areas. As noted in Master Response MR- 5, Policy LU 2.33 (Urban Residential) should be revised to clarify that residential density up to 30 units per acre is appropriate for the mixed use designation. The BAE report and the AMBAG Travel Model, which was used to model the traffic impacts and analyze the noise and air quality impacts of the 2006 General Plan, factored in the 2003 Housing Element’s projections of higher densities in Community Areas.
In summary, the 2006 General Plan is consistent with the 2003 Housing Element and the Draft Program EIR considered the higher densities projected to occur in Community Areas as also noted in Master Response MR-5
MR-14: Alternatives Analysis
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of the three alternatives to the 2006 General Plan.
The Draft Program EIR analyzes three alternatives: the No Project Alternative (Existing 1982 General Plan); the 21st Century Monterey County General Plan - February 2004 (GPU3); and the General Plan Initiative (GPI). As shown in Table 5-4 in the Draft Program EIR, all three alternatives avoid or substantially lessen several of the effects of the 2006 General Plan (the proposed Project in
42 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses the Draft Program EIR). As stated in CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a), an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The three alternatives presented in Section 5 of the Draft Program EIR all meet these criteria, as they are all either existing or proposed versions of the County’s General Plan.
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d) requires sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The Draft Program EIR complies with this requirement by providing summary information on the extent of development (dwelling units, acreage and jobs) provided under each alternative. In addition, for each impact area, the Draft Program EIR explains whether the alternative would create fewer, similar or greater environmental impacts compared to the 2006 General Plan and explains why that is the case.
The analysis of each alternative employed a qualitative approach because of the programmatic nature of the Draft Program EIR. The use of the BAE Report to compare the development potential of the 2006 General Plan, the existing 1982 General Plan, and the GPI was appropriate because it provided an assessment of three versions of the County’s General Plan and had been prepared relatively recently (i.e., February 2006). The adjustments to the projections of 2006 General Plan build-out discussed in Master Response MR-4 do not change the comparative analysis. Quantitative comparisons of various aspects of each alternative by geographical area (e.g., dwelling units, employment, changes in land use classification, Community Area and Rural Center boundaries, farmland converted to non-agricultural use, impacts on slopes, impacts on groundwater basins, mineral extraction, biological resources, cultural resources, public services and utilities, parks and recreation, hazards and hazardous materials, aesthetics light, and glare, etc.) is not typically conducted for the purposes of a programmatic alternatives analysis. The CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d) does not require this level of detail; rather it states that sufficient information should be provided about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. However, the analysis does take into consideration the application of relevant policies regarding how and where development will occur, and the application of proposed regulations that address environmental impacts in each of the alternatives considered. Since the GPI amends very few of the chapters of the 1982 General Plan, the alternatives analysis assumed that certain impacts that would result from the implementation of that alternative would be similar to those of the 1982 General Plan.
Based on the population projected under each alternative and the funding mechanisms for infrastructure, the Draft Program EIR qualitatively describes differences in traffic, air quality, or noise impacts under each alternative relative to the 2006 General Plan. The conclusion for each alternative were appropriate and are consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d). The conclusions reflect the qualitative of assessment of each alternative relative to the 2006 General Plan and arrive at a logical conclusion based on the analysis.
In summary, the qualitative approach used in Section 5 of the Draft Program EIR is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines requirements for alternatives analysis. The thresholds used in the analysis of each alternative are the standard thresholds used for programmatic analysis in CEQA documents. As such, the alternatives analysis contained in Section 5 is consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
Michael Brandman Associates 43 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
MR-15: GPU3 Rural Lands Development Restrictions
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of the draft 21st Century Monterey County General Plan (GPU3)’s restrictions on development in rural areas in the alternatives analysis. The description of GPU3 on Page 5-9 and 5-10 of the Draft Program EIR reflected the key components of the Plan that would be used to qualitatively compare this alternative to the 2006 General Plan. The third paragraph on Page 5-9 mentions that growth in Community Areas and Rural Centers would be subject to development of an Infrastructure and Financing Study
As stated on Page 3-17 of the 21st Century Monterey County General Plan EIR, GPU3 would add 21,666 dwelling units to the unincorporated County. As such, this figure was added to the existing (2000) dwelling unit count of 37,047 provided in Table 3-5 in the Draft Program EIR and summed to the figure of 58,713 dwelling units. This figure was used for the basis for determining GPU3 development potential in Section 5, Alternatives of the Draft Program EIR.
Several commentors note that GPU3 policies limit the creation of new subdivisions in Rural Lands. Indeed, this is correct, but it should also be noted that GPU3 designated more areas for growth than the 2006 General Plan. For instance, GPU3 designated Aromas as a Rural Center and placed much of the low-density residential land uses within the Rural Center boundary. However, the 2006 General Plan does not designate Aromas as a Rural Center and, therefore, the low density residential areas in the Aromas area are not within the boundary of a Community Area or Rural Center. In addition, GPU3 proposed larger boundaries for several Community Areas and Rural Centers than are proposed in the 2006 General Plan. This included larger boundary for Rancho San Juan and an Expanded Area for Rancho San Juan. The end result is that GPU3 captured more growth in Community Areas and Rural Centers. In contrast, the 2006 General Plan designates fewer and smaller Community Areas and Rural Centers and, therefore, captures less growth in these areas, but compensates by allowing some subdivision outside of these areas provided that they are consistent with LU-2.12 and various policies of the 2006 General Plan. Given the offsetting effect of this policy, it was determined that it did not warrant detailed analysis in the alternatives section.
MR-16: General Plan Initiative Conclusion
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of the General Plan Initiative (GPI) in the alternatives section.
The qualitative analysis of the General Plan Initiative (GPI) Alternative’s impacts are valid and employed the same methodology used in the analysis of the existing 1982 General Plan and GPU3. The conclusions about GPI having a potentially greater impact on agriculture resources and hazardous materials are based upon the assumption that there would be growth in the cities that would impact agricultural resources, since GPI does not contain the types of policies that restrict growth into the agricultural lands surrounding cities that are included in the 2006 General Plan. Nor are there specific policies regarding hazardous materials other than what is in the 1982 General Plan. The 2006 General Plan is accordingly assumed to be more restrictive.
GPI was determined to avoid or lessen the severity of most environmental impacts relative to the two other alternatives and was designated as the “environmentally superior alternative”. The County’s interpretation of policies as written in GPI is such that restrictions in GPI such as concurrency requiring completion of infrastructure ahead of development and a requirement for subdivisions
44 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses outside Community Areas to require a vote of the people create significant obstacles to development occurring under GPI, thereby resulting in fewer impacts.
MR-17: Cumulative Impact Analysis
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of potential cumulative impacts. See also Master Response MR-23.
CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b) requires that a cumulative impact analysis provide a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or prior certified environmental document that evaluated regional or area wide conditions. In this case, the 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit & Employment Forecasts is the appropriate document because it provides population, dwelling unit, and employment projections for the three-county AMBAG region through 2030. It is standard CEQA practice to analyze the cumulative impacts of a General Plan relative to other program-level documents, not to lists of individual pending or approved projects because those are already contemplated in other land use plans. The AMBAG Forecasts incorporate data from other jurisdictions’ adopted land use plans and therefore satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b).
The cumulative analysis of the 2006 General Plan followed the requirements of CEQA. Where implementation of the 2006 General Plan would result in a significant unavoidable impact, cumulative impacts were determined to be considerable. In cases where the environmental effects of the 2006 General Plan would be less than significant after mitigation or be less than significant because of the implementation of various 2006 General Plan policies, cumulative impacts were evaluated to determine whether or not they were cumulatively considerable.
MR-18: Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan Alternatives Analysis
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the analysis of alternatives to the Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan.
The Agricultural Winery Corridor Alternatives (AWCP) was drafted to facilitate the development of wineries along a corridor in the central and southern Salinas Valley. The corridor consists of three segments (Central/Arroyo Seco/River Road, Metz Road, and Jolon Road) that overlap with portions of the Central Salinas Valley, Toro, and South County Area Plans. Although the AWCP can be a component of the 2006 General Plan, the County may choose to adopt this AWCP separately (to be part of the existing 1982 General Plan) if the 2006 General Plan is not adopted. Therefore, the Draft Program EIR provided a detailed analysis of the AWCP separate from the 2006 General Plan in order to allow the County to adopt the AWCP independently of the 2006 General Plan.
The objectives of the AWCP are as follows:
• Achieve a balance between the wine grape production and wine processing capacity within Monterey County; • Enhance the wine industry’s marketing of Monterey County appellation that includes connection between Monterey County’s agricultural and tourism industries; and • Encourages planned growth of the wine industry in Monterey County.
Michael Brandman Associates 45 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
The transportation analysis in the Draft Program EIR provides an analysis of the entire county, including weekday PM peak hour traffic levels of service for all county and regional roadways, including roadways within the AWCP. Levels of service are presented in Exhibits 4.6-6a and 4.6-7a in the Draft Program EIR (which show the levels of service for the AWCP) as well as several tables which identify impacted roadway segments. The AWCP is addressed at the same level of detail as other roadways within the County. While other traffic studies may evaluate individual intersections in more detail and may indicate specific localized level of service issues throughout the county, the programmatic level of analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR is sufficient to determine the general level of potential impact and necessary mitigation for the proposed AWCP. See Response to Comment 17-117 regarding weekend traffic in the proposed AWCP. The same ratio of peak hour weekday traffic to weekend traffic applies to the alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis of the AWCP in Section 5 of the Draft Program EIR is consistent with CEQA requirements. The three alternatives presented are all feasible and evaluated qualitatively. Sufficient information is provided about each alternative, including maps showing the corridors designated by the Reduced Density and Carmel Valley alternatives and the number of wine-related facilities allowed on each segment. Note: Based upon public comment, the County modified the AWCP to include only the 40 Artisan Wineries. One could therefore assume that any impacts are likely to be reduced. This is consistent with the level of detail provided in the AWCP. The CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d) does not require a greater level of detail; rather it states that sufficient information should be provided about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.
In addition, the AWCP and the alternatives do not identify specific locations of where future wine- related facilities will be located; as such, it would be speculative to discuss project-level impacts associated with traffic, infrastructure, biological resources, water resources, and other topics.
Therefore, the AWCP alternatives analysis is consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
MR-19: Local Coastal Program
This Master Response addresses those comments that relate to issues involving the County’s Local Coastal Program and why they were not analyzed in the Draft Program EIR.
Pursuant to the state Coastal Act (Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq.), each local government within the state coastal zone must prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. The LCP must be certified by the California Coastal Commission. The LCP includes a land use plan and implementing ordinances and actions. The land use plan that is part of the LCP indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource protection and development policies in the coastal zone.
Monterey County’s LCP was completed in 1987 for the four designated coastal areas. It consists of four plans: the North County Land Use Plan, the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan, the Carmel Land Use Plan, and the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan. A Community Plan for Moss Landing, within the North County Coastal Land Use Plan, is not the same as Community Plans in the 2006 General Plan, but is more like the Carmel Valley Master Plan.
As noted in Section 3.1.1 of the Draft Program EIR, the 2006 General Plan does not propose to make any changes to the LCP. Accordingly, these plans and land use patterns were not analyzed in the
46 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
Draft Program EIR, except where impacts from 2006 General Plan buildout would affect these areas (e.g., cumulative air quality emissions) and except for that portion of the Castroville Community Area in the Coastal Zone. Any changes or updates made to the LCP once the 2006 General Plan is adopted would require environmental review independent of this Program EIR.
The County will review the LCP after adoption of the 2006 General Plan. If any of the goals, policies, and standards of the 2006 General Plan are to be incorporated into the LCP, such proposals would be subject to all appropriate public review procedures, including noticed public hearings, separate action by the County Board of Supervisors, and submission of major LCP amendments to the Coastal Commission for certification.
In the interim period between adoption of the 2006 General Plan and update of the LCP Land Use Plans, the certified Land Use Plans will continue to govern in their respective areas within the Coastal Zone. This approach is intended to leave in place in the Coastal Zone the land use regulatory framework in effect prior to the adoption of this 2006 General Plan zone until the County has reviewed and amended one or more of the coastal Land Use Plans and the Coastal Commission has certified such amendments. The LCP will continue to govern land use designations in the Coastal Zone, and this 2006 General Plan recognizes that to the extent that the Castroville Community Area proposed in this 2006 General Plan is partially in the Coastal Zone, an amendment to the North County Coastal Land Use Plan would be required to be processed and certified by the Coastal Commission as part of the Community Plan process. Please see the following clarifying language to LU-2.21 in this regard::
LU-2.231 The following areas are designated as Community Areas:
a. Pajaro (Figure 14). b. Castroville (Figure 15). To the extent that the Castroville Community Area is located in the coastal zone, that portion of the Community Area shall require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program certified by the California Coastal Commission as part of the Community Plan process. c. Boronda (Figure 16) d. Fort Ord/East Garrison (Figure 17, and Policy LU-2.24) e. Rancho San Juan (Figure 18, and Policy LU-2.24) f. Chualar (Figure 19). Boundaries for the Chualar Community Area are to be developed by a citizen group with recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, but shall not exceed 350 acres over the first seven years of this Plan and 950 acres over the life of this Plan (20 years). Planning for the Chualar Community Area and any Community Plan ultimately adopted for Chualar shall be consistent with that certain Settlement Agreement between Chualar Area Concerned Citizens, et al and the County of Monterey in Chualar Area Concerned Citizens, et al v. County of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case no. 107519), executed on or about October 16, 2001. g. San Lucas (Figure 20)
The maps are descriptive of the Community Area, but may be modified through the Community Plan/Specific Plan process. Establishing Chualar Community Area boundaries and expansion of established Community Area boundaries would require an amendment to this General Plan.
Michael Brandman Associates 47 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
In addition, Policy LU-2.27 was amended to delete (f) Del Monte Forest as a Rural Center.
In accordance with the state Coastal Act, this approach recognizes that the Coastal Zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource, which requires unique planning considerations and may require different standards and policies than may apply in the non-coastal areas of the County. This approach also recognizes the unique procedural requirements for amending the LCP. The Coastal Commission must certify major amendments to the LCP, and the Coastal Commission may also recommend amendments to the LCP as part of its periodic review of the LCP, subject to all appropriate public review procedures.
In accordance with the foregoing, and in response to several comments on this matter, 2006 General Plan policies OS -4.4, OS-4.5, OS-4.6, OS-4.7, OS-4.8 and OS 4.9 are being deleted from further consideration in the 2006 County General Plan because they address policy issues that are specific to the Coastal Zone portion of the County. The deletion of the following policies is shown below:
OS-4.4 Development of marine-related industries that will not degrade the ocean environment or upset the natural balance of native plant and animal communities shall be encouraged.
OS-4.5 Reasonable development of harbor facilities for commercial fishing, research, and recreational boating that are compatible with conservation policies shall be allowed.
OS-4.6 Continued growth and development of aquaculture as an economic, research, and educational activity in the coastal zone, consistent with overall conservation policies shall be encouraged.
OS-4.7 Oil drilling and related activities along the California coast that can be shown to pose significant or potential hazards to the marine and coastal environments, resources, or air quality shall be opposed.
OS-4.8 Public access shall be provided to the shoreline, in accordance with state-approved Local Coastal Programs.
OS-4.9 The natural shoreline processes, including bluff erosion, sand transport, and tidal flushing, shall not be adversely altered by dredging, filling, or construction of shoreline structures. Repair and maintenance of properties that have been impacted by shoreline processes shall be encouraged subject to appropriate permits.
MR-20: Use of AMBAG’s 2030 Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Model
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the assumptions and use of the AMBAG Regional Travel Demand model for the traffic analysis (and secondarily for the air quality and noise analysis) in the Draft Program EIR. As noted herein, and in Master Response MR-4, the conclusions contained in the Draft Program EIR with respect to the potential impacts that might result from buildout of the 2006 General Plan, are lessened by several of the policies contained in the 2006 General Plan, are constrained or prevented by existing resource constraints and regulatory policies and programs, or would be speculative based on the uncertainties of trying to predict development trends beyond 2030.
48 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
Impacts at a regional scale must include coordinated land use data representing the planning horizon for all components of the regional travel demand forecasting model including Monterey County, local cities within Monterey County, adjacent counties (San Benito and Santa Cruz) and cities within these counties, and land uses with gateway counties including Santa Clara County. The AMBAG 2030 population and employment projections take into account local general plan designations and were developed collaboratively with local agencies. As stated on Page 55 of the 2004 Population, Housing Unit, & Employment Forecasts report the Technical Advisory Committee (FTAC) elected to use an in-house allocation modeling process that “took advantage of extensive land use and general plan data available locally.” Additionally, initial forecasts were distributed to local agencies for review and AMBAG made changes to the forecasts to reflect additional information provided by local agencies, and these revised forecasts were then submitted to local agencies for review.
In addition, the 2006 General Plan contains policies C.1-1, C.1-3, C.1-8, and C.1-11 that establish performance measures and restrict development until a Regional Traffic Impact Fee and County Impact Fee are in place to help achieve an acceptable level of service standard. These fees will result in improvements to the transportation system that will help mitigate the effects of new development over the long term.
However, for the impact areas of traffic, air quality and noise, which are based on models that predict impacts up to the year 2030, the County has analyzed impacts of full buildout of the 2006 General Plan. This effort involves the extrapolation of traffic with buildout of the 2006 General Plan.
Table 3-8 compares the reasonably foreseeable buildout of the 2006 General Pan (see Master Response MR-4) with the AMBAG 2030 population and employment projections and presents an estimation of the traffic generated by the difference. The AMBAG 2030 forecasts project about 16,900 fewer persons and about 7,700 fewer housing units than reasonably foreseeable buildout of the 2006 General Plan would allow. The difference in households equates to about a 62,700 difference in average daily vehicle trips. However, the AMBAG 2030 forecasts project about 16,500 more employees than estimated for buildout of the 2006 General Plan, as shown in Table 3-8
Table 3-8 - Estimated Traffic Generation at Buildout of 2006 General Plan
2006 General Plan Year 2030 AMBAG Average Reasonably Difference Projections Daily Trips Foreseeable Buildout Population 152,307 135,375 16,932 Housing 56,410 48,670 7,740 62,694 Employment 80,665 97,113 (16,448) (54,914) Net Under-estimation of 7,780 Trips: Average daily trips: Estimated using trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers. Proposed 2006 GP Projections: Table 3-5 Monterey County General Plan Draft Program EIR Year 2030 AMBAG Projections: Table 4 AMBAG 2004 Population, Housing Unit, & Employment Forecasts (unincorporated Monterey County)
The difference between the AMBAG 2030 and 2006 General Plan employment forecasts equates to about 54,900 average daily trips. This difference in trips is reflected in the analysis of the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, when compared to buildout, the 2030 analysis underestimates traffic generated by residential uses by about 62,700 trips and overestimates traffic generated by non-
Michael Brandman Associates 49 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report residential uses by about 54,900 trips, resulting in a net under-estimation of about 7,800 average daily trips.
The above extrapolation of traffic generated at buildout is based on simple estimation techniques, but indicates that the 2030 traffic analysis prepared for evaluating traffic, noise and air quality conditions nearly equals to conditions at the estimate of reasonably foreseeable buildout of the 2006 General Plan, and that the differences are not significant. While there could be localized differences between traffic origins, destinations and roadway volumes between the under-estimate of residential trip generation and the over-estimation of employment trip generation, the differences (and associated air emissions and noise generation) are not significant based on the regional and long-term nature of the programmatic traffic analysis conducted for the 2006 General Plan. Localized environmental impacts due to traffic, air quality and noise will be addressed at the specific project or Specific Plan level during implementation in accordance with the policies of the 2006 General Plan and the other mitigation measures contained in the Draft Program EIR.
In response to several comments on this matter, Mitigation Measures TRAN-1Ba (Policy C-1.2), TRAN-1Bb (Policy C-1.8), and TRAN-1C (Policy C-1.11)are revised and included in the Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as follows to clarify the intent and broaden their effectiveness and flexibility to reduce impacts:
TRAN-1Ba The standard for the acceptable level of service (LOS) as noted in Policy C-1.1 is to be achieved by 2030. That LOS standard is to be achieved through the development and adoption of Capital Improvement and Financing Plans (CIFP) and implementing ordinances that:
a. Define benefit areas to be included in the CIFP. Benefit areas could include Planning Areas, Community Areas, or the County as a whole. b. Identify and prioritize the improvements to be completed in the benefit areas over the life of the General Plan. c. Estimate the cost of the improvements over the life of the General Plan. d. Identify the funding sources and mechanisms for the CIFP to include, but not limited to, a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). e. Provide an anticipated schedule for completion of the improvements. f. Coordinate with TAMC regional fee program. g. A TIF shall be implemented to ensure a funding mechanism for transportation improvements to county facilities in accordance with Policy C-1.8. The TIF shall be imposed on development in cities for the improvement of major County roads in accordance with the Monterey County 2006 General Plan.
The CIFP shall be reviewed every five (5) years in order to evaluate the effectiveness of meeting the LOS standard for County roads. Road segments or intersections identified to be approaching or below LOS D shall be a high priority for funding.
TRAN-1Bb Development proposed in the county, the cities and surrounding jurisdictions shall be carefully reviewed to assess the proposed development’s impact on the County’s circulation system. The County, in consultation with TAMC and Monterey County cities, shall within 18 months of the adoption of the General Plan, develop a County Traffic Impact Fee that address impacts of development in cities as well as in
50 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
unincorporated areas on major County roads. From the time of adoption of the General Plan until the time of adoption of a County Traffic Impact Fee, the County shall impose an ad hoc fee on its applicants based upon a fair share traffic impact fee study.
TRAN-1C In addition to the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee established in Policy C-1.8, the County shall require new development to pay a Regional Traffic Impact Fee (developed collaboratively between TAMC, the County, and other regional and state agencies) to ensure a funding mechanism for regional transportation improvements mitigating Tier 3 impacts. In conformance with Policy C-1.3, the County shall not permit occupancy of new development after adoption of this 2006 General Plan until a funding program is in place that maintains a minimum LOS D on the regional roadway system. The County shall adopt the Regional Traffic Impact Fee within 12 months of the adoption by TAMC of a Regional Traffic Impact Fee, the goal of which shall be to achieve LOS D on the regional roadway system. From the time of adoption of the General Plan until the time of adoption of the TAMC fee by the County, the County shall impose an ad hoc fee based upon the regional transportation fee developed by TAMC through its 2004 Nexus Study or as subsequently amended or replaced.
If the Regional Traffic Impact Fee program is not adopted by the County within one year of its adoption by TAMC, then the County shall not approve any development that would degrade the LOS on regional roads below LOS D, or contribute to the further degradation of regional roads already operating at LOS E or LOS F until the TAMC fee is adopted.
The modifications to the measures provide greater clarity regarding applicability of the measures but do not change the requirement of adoption of the fee. Therefore, the revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the original wording of the Mitigation Measure contained in the Draft Program EIR. Mitigation Measures TRAN-1B-a and TRAN-1B-b serve to mitigate Impact TRAN-1A, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed measure TRAN-1B-a was infeasible because it would inappropriately impose a fee on non-County jurisdictions and would be within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies. The revised mitigation measures include the same requirements for development of a fee program; however, the measure requires the County to play a proactive cooperative role with jurisdictions. It includes a provision for mitigation in the interim timeframe until a fee program is adopted. Mitigation Measure Tran-1C serves to mitigate Impact TRAN-1C, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The original Mitigation Measure as proposed in the Draft Program EIR is revised because it relied upon actions that were outside of the County’s control and did not provide a mechanism for addressing impacts in the interim timeframe between adoption of the 2006 General Plan and implementation of a Regional Traffic Impact Fee program. Furthermore, the recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measure because it provides a realistic approach for implementing the measure, provides an interim program that effectively mitigates impacts and provides incentives for timely compliance.
Michael Brandman Associates 51 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
MR-21: Programmatic Analysis of Biological Resources
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of biological resources.
As noted in the 2006 General Plan, impacts on biological resources were analyzed at a program level in the Draft Program EIR. The Draft Program EIR analyzed the 2006 General Plan policies collectively as they relate to each individual CEQA checklist item. Impacts to special status species were determined to be less than significant after the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C. These Mitigation Measures (as revised below and included in the Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) require that three policies be added to the 2006 General Plan to enhance protection of special status species. Impacts to wetlands and riparian areas were determined to be less than significant after the implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C. Wildlife movement impacts were determined to be less than significant because the 2006 General Plan policies set forth appropriate guidance for the issue to be regulated at the project-level.
The discussion of "Special Status Species" in the Draft Program EIR is limited to those species that are directly protected under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act as either Threatened, Endangered, or Rare species. As of the most current version of the software of the Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB November 2006), there are still only 37 species that meet this criteria which is consistent with the number of such species analyzed in the Draft Program EIR.
Including the above mentioned Special Status Species, there are a total of 234 sensitive species, recorded to occur within some portion of Monterey County. Based on the most current version of the CNDDB and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, there are an additional 41 wildlife species, 2 mosses, and 154 plant species that do not have any formal legal protection.
The following definitions should be used to better understand the concepts used above:
• Special Status Species - These are species that are listed as Threatened or Endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, or listed as Rare, Threatened or Endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. • Species of Concern - These species are not listed as federally or state listed as threatened, endangered, or rare. These species have no legal protection under the federal or state endangered species acts. Species that are regionally common may be considered locally rare. Impacts may be considered significant for these species if a proposed project removes all or a significant portion of the species occupied habitat that would reduce the population of the species to a less than self sustaining level. • Sensitive Species - These are species that are either federally or state listed as threatened, endangered, or rare, or are otherwise recognized as species of concern by regional or local governments, agencies, or environmental conservation groups. This group includes both Special Status Species and Species of Concern.
52 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
The Draft Program EIR did not analyze parcel-specific impacts to biological resources because this level of specific biological assessment is not required or feasible for a programmatic analysis for a General Plan. Moreover, future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA review. Accordingly, it was neither possible nor necessary for site specific biological resources impacts to be analyzed in the Draft Program EIR. Countywide maps of biological resources such as included in Exhibits 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 in the Draft Program EIR, and special status species from the CNDDB were overlain on to the proposed Community Areas, Rural Centers, Property Owner Requests and Special Treatment Areas and then analyzed in electronic form in a GIS system at a broad scale appropriate to a Draft Program EIR.
Cumulative impacts on biological resources were analyzed programmatically in the Draft Program EIR. The cumulative impact assessment was in accordance with the methodology used to analyze other impacts related to the footprint of urban growth (e.g., agriculture resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; water resources, cultural resources; aesthetics, light, and glare, etc.). As noted previously, individual projects will be subject to separate CEQA review, at which time cumulative impacts on biological resources will also be analyzed.
While the preparation of large-scale multi-species habitat conservation plans (HCP) can be a more efficient and streamlined way to address cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources and potential habitat loss (including larger-scale issues such as wildlife corridors and wildlife movement), the process of preparing and seeking State and federal approval of such plans can take several years to accomplish (if ever). As a result, consideration of establishing new HCPs is not seen as being a feasible alternative to the current project-by-project approach unless changes are forthcoming from the regulatory agencies. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is encouraged to come up with incentives to streamline its regulatory and approval processes so that they can be more comprehensively and effectively utilized by local jurisdictions and property owners interested in minimizing the potential loss of important plants and wildlife and their habitats.
In response to several comments on this matter, Mitigation Measures BIO-1A (Policy OS-5.16), BIO- 1B (OS-5.17) and BIO-1C (OS-5.18) are revised and included in the Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as follows to clarify their intent and broaden their effectiveness and flexibility to reduce impacts:
BIO-1A Prior to the approval of any development project that could potentially disturb a special status species, the County shall require the project applicant to conduct a biological survey of the site for Federal and State designated special status species and document the results in a Biological Report. Based upon the findings of this report, additional focused surveys for certain species may be required. If resources are found on the site, the project biologist shall recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Biologists may also be required to be present during initial grading and grubbing in habitats to protect certain sensitive species, including protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Further, biological monitors should be present during clearing or construction that is immediately adjacent to sensitive habitats (e.g., oak woodlands, riparian, and coastal dunes). If no sensitive resources are documented in the Biological Report as present or potentially present on the project site, the applicant may proceed with preparation of the CEQA documents for submittal
Michael Brandman Associates 53 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
OS-5.16 Any development project requiring a discretionary permit that could potentially disturb a special status species or its critical habitat identified by the County requiring analysis under CEQA or identified for protection under an adopted Area Plan shall be required to conduct a biological survey of the site. Based on the findings of this report, additional focused surveys for certain species may be required. This report, and any mitigation measures recommended in the report, shall be used as a basis for the CEQA documentation for the project except if the County, in the exercise of its independent judgment, requires additional analysis. If sensitive biological resources are found on the site, the project biologist shall recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These All feasible measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in any permit issued. An ordinance establishing minimum standards for a biological report shall be enacted.
BIO-1B For every acre (or less) of habitat occupied by a federal or state listed (threatened or endangered) plant or wildlife species, the project proponent shall replace it at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Habitat may be created or set aside as onsite mitigation. If the project site does not contain sufficient habitat to fulfill the acreage requirement, offsite mitigation areas may need to set aside. The County shall prepare, adopt, and implement a program that allows projects to mitigate the loss of habitat occupied by a federal or state listed (threatened or endangered) plant of wildlife species. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of this habitat on an individual basis in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy.
BIO-1C Prior to disturbing any federal or state jurisdictional areas, the project proponent shall be required to satisfy the following all applicable federal and state permitting requirements shall be met, which includes including all mitigation measures for development of jurisdictional areas and associated riparian habitats.
• Obtain verification from USACE certifying that the project is authorized under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; • Obtain certification (or waiver of certification) from the State Water Resources Control Board that the project complies with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act; and • Obtain verification that the project is authorized under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
The modified mitigation measures will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measures as proposed in the Draft Program EIR because they maintain the level of protection afforded special status species or their habitat consistent with State and federal law and regulations, as well as by existing County ordinance. Refer to Master Response MR-23 for a discussion of the residual biological impacts of the 2006 General Plan.
54 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
MR-22: 2006 General Plan Approach to Growth Management
This Master Response addresses comments regarding the 2006 General Plan’s approach to growth management.
The 2006 General Plan establishes a fundamental policy framework for managing growth with its foundation based on focusing future growth primarily in the incorporated cities and specifically identified areas within the unincorporated area.
Land Use Element Policies LU-1.1 through LU-1.10 state:
LU-1.1 The type, location, timing, and intensity of growth in the unincorporated area shall be managed.
LU-1.2 Premature and scattered development shall be discouraged.
LU-1.3 Balanced development of the County shall be assured by designating adequate land for a range of future land uses.
LU-1.4 Growth areas shall be designated only where an adequate level of services and facilities such as water, sewerage, fire and police protection, transportation, and schools exists or can be assured concurrent with growth and development. Phasing of development shall be required as necessary in growth areas in order to provide a basis for long-range services and facilities planning.
LU-1.5 Land uses shall be designated to achieve compatibility with adjacent uses.
LU-1.6 Development that preserves and enhances the County's scenic qualities shall be encouraged. Routine and ongoing agricultural activities are exempt from the viewshed policies of this plan.
LU-1.76 Standards and procedures to assure proper levels of review of development siting, design, and landscaping shall be developed.
LU-1.87 Clustering of residential development to those portions of the property which are most suitable for development and where appropriate infrastructure to support that development exists or can be provided shall be strongly encouraged.
LU-1.98 Voluntary reduction or limitation of development potential in the rural and agricultural areas through dedication of scenic or conservation easements, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and other appropriate techniques shall be encouraged. The Transfer of Development Credit (TDC) in the Big Sur Land Use Plan is a separate program to address development within the critical viewshed.
LU-1.109 Infill of vacant non-agricultural lands in existing developed areas and new development within designated urban service areas are a priority. Infill development shall be compatible with surrounding land use and development.
Michael Brandman Associates 55 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
LU-1.11 Outside of cities, community areas, rural centers and areas where urban services such as public water systems and public wastewater systems exist, only low to very low residential density development shall be allowed. Clustering in accordance with General Plan policies is encouraged.
LU-1.120 Off-site advertising shall be discouraged to enhance public safety and to avoid visual clutter and scenic intrusion. Off site advertising may only be considered in heavy commercial, and industrial zoning districts. Such signs shall not abut residential districts
All of the policies, as well as the policies listed and described in Master Response MR-4, guide growth in unincorporated areas of Monterey County. As explained on Pages 4.9-15 and 4.9-16 of the Draft Program EIR, these policies establish various requirements that are intended to focus most of the future development in appropriate areas (i.e., areas adjacent to existing development) and avoids or reduces development in sensitive natural areas. Given that sensitive natural areas are far more likely to contain habitat that supports special status species than areas adjacent to urban development, these policies would contribute to reduction in the severity of impacts on special status species from growth contemplated by the 2006 General Plan. Note that these policies alone do not reduce the significance of this impact; a number of other 2006 General Plan policies and Mitigations BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C (as revised in Master Response MR-21) also mitigate impacts to special status species.
The Draft Program EIR analyzed the language and phrasing of each policy literally and interpreted words and phrases in accordance with their standard, commonly-accepted definitions. The Draft Program EIR recognizes that these are general policies relating to the guidance of growth and are written in a manner that relates to development. As such, their relationship to biological resources is often indirect, but still relevant for the purposes of the programmatic analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR. Therefore, the comments pertaining to the definitions of individual words and phrases (e.g., “encourage,” “balanced development,” etc.) can be addressed by stating that the words and phrases contained in individual policies were interpreted in the Draft Program EIR using the conventional understandings of the respective terms.
In regards to the questions and comments about how each of the above policies relates to specific biological impacts related in Community Areas, Rural Centers, Property Owner Requests, and Special Treatment Areas, please refer to Master Response MR-21.
MR-23: Changes to Significance of Impacts in Draft Program EIR
This Master Response explains why the following impacts considered to be potentially significant but less than significant with mitigation or the application of 2006 General Plan policies in the Draft Program EIR will be considered significant and unavoidable in the Final Program EIR.
Impact BIO-1 Future development anticipated by the 2006 General Plan may result in substantial loss or degradation of special status plant or animal species.
Impact BIO-6 Implementation of the AWCP could potentially result in significant impacts to special status species.
56 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Master Responses
Impact WR-2 Land uses and development consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in increased soil erosion and sedimentation during construction activities, thereby degrading water quality in downstream waterways.
Impact GEO-5 Erosion from activities and land uses consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in erosion hazards.
After consideration of the comments received, the Final Program EIR considers each of the above impacts to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. This is because the mitigation measures, while designed to avoid significant impacts, establish a process of implementation but cannot ensure, in all instances, that impacts will be mitigated. Further, it will be some time until the mitigation measures can be implemented and development could be proposed before those measures become enforceable. Therefore, these impacts are determined to be significant as identified in the Draft Program EIR and unavoidable. As a result, impacts to cumulative biological resources, water quality, and soil erosion are also significant and unavoidable.
In addition, Impact AIR-3 (Increased diesel exposure health risk may result from buildout of the 2006 General Plan) was identified as potentially significant, but mitigated to a level of less than significant by the following Mitigation Measure:
AIR-3 The County of Monterey shall require that construction contracts be given to those contractors who show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and other diesel
engine emissions upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50 percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.
Recent court decisions on federal preemption indicate that the County may not have the power to enforce the Mitigation Measure beyond County contractors as originally written. As a result, the original Mitigation Measure is not feasible as proposed and if applied would have a much more limited scope than intended. Therefore, the original version of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 (2006 General Plan Policy OS-10.10) is eliminated from the Final Program EIR as shown below:
OS-10.10 The County of Monterey shall require that contractors show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and other diesel engine emissions upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50-percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.
However, the original language of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 has been revised in response to comments in the Final Program EIR to capture its intent of reducing the potential for increased diesel exposure health risk. The language of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 has been included in response to comment to clarify the intent of the Mitigation Measure to endeavor to reduce potential diesel exposure health risk to the extent feasible in a programmatic environmental analysis. The revised wording is shown below, in the Errata and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
OS-10.10 Applicants for discretionary projects shall work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District to incorporate feasible measures that assure that health- based standards for diesel particulate emissions are met.
Even with mitigation, the impact noted in the Draft Program EIR remains potentially significant and the conclusion of the Final Program EIR is that the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Michael Brandman Associates 57 2006 General Plan Master Responses Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
MR-24: Requests for Extension of Time to Comment on Draft Program EIR
This Master Response addresses various requests to extend the public review and comment period on the Draft Program EIR and the reasons why such requests were denied by the Lead Agency.
Public Resources Code § 21091 requires a minimum 45-day public review period for EIRs that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review. The Draft Program EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 18, 2006, which “started the clock” on the 45-day statutory comment period. There is no provision in the CEQA statute that establishes a longer comment period based on the type of EIR (project, program, master, focused, etc.). Note that the County extended the closure of the 45-day comment period by four days to October 6, 2006, resulting in a 49-day comment period. This exceeds CEQA’s 45-day minimum comment period.
A copy of the Draft Program EIR was made available on Monterey County’s website where it could be downloaded for review. In addition, copies were provided at various local public libraries. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Program EIR were prepared and circulated, as required by CEQA (Guidelines § 15085 and § 15087). The NOC and NOA were circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and interested parties, including any person who had filed a written request for such a notice. The NOA was posted with the County Clerk and published in newspapers of general circulation, including the Salinas Californian and the Monterey County Herald. The distribution lists for the Draft Program EIR are included in Section 1 Introduction of this document.
The public comment period for the Draft Program EIR ended on October 6, 2006. Comment letters on the Draft Program EIR were received during the public comment period, and are addressed in this Response to Comments portion of the Final Program EIR.
The distribution of the Draft Program EIR by the Clearinghouse resulted in delays in receipt of the document by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other agencies. However, the County’s consultant directly mailed copies of the Draft Program EIR to USFWS and other agencies by certified mail. Delivery records provided by Golden State Overnight indicated that the USFWS Ventura office signed for the document on August 21, 2006.
58 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
SECTION 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT PROGRAM EIR
4.1 Introduction
In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the County of Monterey as the Lead Agency reviewed the comments received on the Draft Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006021054) for the 2006 General Plan and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final Program EIR in accordance with § 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Michael Brandman Associates 59
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Master Response 1a (12 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 61
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
4.2 Comment Letters and Responses
4.2.1 Federal Agencies
United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), Ventura Office, October 19, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 1A)
Response to Comment 1a-1 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 1a-2 As discussed in Master Response MR-21, the intent of the Draft Program EIR is to assess potentially significant impacts associated with the 2006 General Plan, and a discussion of the potential establishment of future HCPs in the County is beyond the scope of either document at this time. However, Master Response MR-21 does discuss this issue.
Response to Comment 1a-3 Comment noted. General environmental protection measures are outlined in the 2006 General Plan Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, and Agricultural Element Policies, as discussed on pages 4.9-15 through 4.9-20 of the Draft Program EIR. These general policies will be specifically implemented through adherence to the revised Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C as revised in Master Response MR-21 on a project-by-project basis.
Response to Comment 1a-4 See Master Response MR-21 for revised Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C. A distinction should be made between “federally-designated critical habitat” and “critical” or “sensitive” habitat that is occupied by special status (or sensitive) species that are federally or state listed as threatened or endangered.
Federally designated critical habitat refers to suitable habitat determined by USFWS to be necessary for the long-term conservation of federally and state-listed as endangered or threatened species. Impacts to federally designated critical habitat will require consultation with USFWS by a lead federal agency. There are no specific mitigation measures required with regard to federally designated critical habitat, however, mitigation measures will be negotiated as part of the Section 7 consultation process.
Impacts to critical or sensitive habitat that is occupied by federal or state listed threatened or endangered species will require specific mitigation, with the final mitigation ratio determined by the regulatory agencies on a project-by-project basis. The mitigation ratio can vary depending on the quality and quantity of suitable habitat being impacted. Generally, all project-related impacts to occupied habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species will be negotiated as part of a Section 10 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Likewise, impacts related to state-listed threatened or endangered species will be negotiated through Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game (CFG) Code.
Michael Brandman Associates 73 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 1a-5 Table 4.9-1 of the Draft Program EIR has been amended to include these federally threatened and endangered species. This change is noted in the Errata. Specific impacts to these and all other sensitive species will be addressed on a project-by-project based as outlined in Master Response MR- 21 and Master Response MR-23.
Response to Comment 1a-6 See Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 1a-7 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 1a-8 As discussed in Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OS-5.13, “policies and procedures that encourage the exclusion and control or eradication of invasive exotic plants and pests shall be established.” These invasive exotic plants include those listed on page 4.9-11 of the Draft Program EIR, as well as the following: Cootamundra wattle (Acacia baileyana), blackwood acacia (Acacia melonoxylon), Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), smilax (Asparagus asparagoides), Australian fireweed (Erechtites spp.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), gorse (Ulex europaeus), periwinkle (Vinca major), and hottentot-fig (iceplant)(Carpobrotus edulis). The control and eradication of invasive exotic plants and pests will be considered and implementated during the review of specific development projects.
Response to Comment 1a-9 The County is aware of the ongoing problem of groundwater overdraft and subsequent saltwater intrusion. As population growth increases, demand for groundwater will increase putting further strain on groundwater resources. Draft Program EIR Mitigation Measures WR-6 and WR-7, as clarified in response to comments and reflected in Response 1-4, are considered an appropriate and feasible measures to mitigate this problem on the program-level at this time. This measures will require that all new wells be evaluated and approved based on the specific criteria listed. In addition, drilling or operation of any new wells in areas of known saltwater intrusion will not be allowed until a program has been approved and funded which will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies. Future development projects that require discretionary permits will be subject to CEQA review, providing a means for addressing and mitigating the impacts of saltwater intrusion on sensitive biological resources on a project-by-project basis.
Response to Comment 1a-10 Saltwater intrusion problems are most acute in the coastal zone. The County is also concerned about increased salinity levels in McClusky Slough and Zmudowski Pond and the effects on sensitive species. Mitigation Measure WR-7, as clarified in response to comments and reflected in Response 1-4, addresses the issue of saltwater intrusion. However, as these areas are located within the Coastal Zone, they do not fall under the scope of the 2006 General Plan. See Master Response MR-19.
74 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 1a-11 Refer also to Response 13-2 and 15-8. Efforts to develop a comprehensive management strategy for the Elkhorn Slough watershed are commendable. However, development of this type of specific management strategy is beyond the scope of the 2006 General Plan and the Draft Program EIR. As discussed in Response,1a-9, Mitigation Measures WR-6 and WR-7 are considered to be appropriate and feasible measures for mitigating the saltwater intrusion problem at the program level. In addition, Mitigation Measure WR-3A requires that erosion control plans be developed and implemented for disturbed lands that might cause downstream sediment impacts. Mitigation Measures WR-2, WR-3A and WR-3B as included in the Draft Program EIR are revised to clarify their intent as noted below, in the Errata, and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Mitigation Measures WR-2 and WR-3A are combined into a single Mitigation Measure which is included as Open Space and Conservation Policy (OS-3.5) as follows:
OS-3.5 A permit process will be established as follows:
1. A discretionary permit process for development on slopes greater than 25-percent (25%) or that contain geologic hazards and constraints on the County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Hydrologic ( Policy PS-2.7) Hazard Databases shall be established. The process shall be designed to: a. evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan. b. identify development and design techniques for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage and construction techniques. c. Minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety. 2. The conversion for agricultural purposes of previously uncultivated lands on slopes in excess of 25% shall require a grading permit. 3. A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development, including for purposes of this policy conversion of previously uncultivated lands, on slopes between 15 and 24 percent(15-24%) and 10 to 15% on highly erodible soils. The permit process shall be designed to require that an erosion control plan be developed and implemented that addresses slope stabilization, and drainage and flood hazards. 4. All Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities, except for conversion of previously uncultivated lands as described in this policy above, are exempt from the above permit requirements.
OS-3.5 A permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development on existing lots of record with slopes greater than 15 percent (15%), or 10% or more on highly erodible soils, or that contain geologic hazards and constraints shown on the County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Hydrologic (Policy PS-2.7) Hazard Databases. The permit process shall be designed to:
1) evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan.
Michael Brandman Associates 75 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
2) identify development and design techniques and implementation guidelines for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage, and construction techniques. 3) minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, drainage, flood hazards or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety.
OS-3.10 A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for agricultural conversion projects on slopes greater than 15 percent, or 10 percent or more on highly erodible soils. The permit process shall require that an erosion control plan be developed and implemented for all disturbed lands where new cultivation is proposed. Routine and on-going agricultural activities are exempt from this requirement.
Mitigation Measure WR-3B: A new policy (OS-3.x) shall be added to the “Soils” section of the Open Space and Conservation Element that states the following:
OS-3.9 The County will develop a Program that will address the potential cumulative hydrologic impacts of the conversion of hillside rangeland areas to cultivated croplands. The Program will be designed to address off-site soil erosion, increased runoff-related stream stability impacts, and/or potential violations of adopted water quality standards. The County should convene a committee comprised of county staff, technical experts, and stake-holders to develop the Program, including implementation recommendations.
OS-3-x A ministerial permit process shall be developed that shall require that any new large agricultural land conversion project or activity, or cumulative new activity from multiple projects within any five-year period that have a reasonable potential to create off-site soil erosion impacts or to violate adopted water quality standards, and that substantially alters land cover in an area that is 25 percent or more of a watershed (defined as a “named area” by the State Water Quality Control Board) develop a Watershed Management Plan in coordination with the applicable Resource Conservation District or other appropriate agency. A large land conversion project is defined a project over 100 acres in size. Watershed Management Plans shall include the following:
a. An assessment of the condition and stability of all blue line streams downstream from proposed land conversion project areas where cumulative watershed disturbance effects may occur. b. A multi-year program to develop and implement soil erosion, sediment control, and stream stabilization measures. Within the affected areas.
Based on comments received, the Mitigation Measures as proposed in the Draft Program EIR were unclear because the areas identified as requiring a permit were not clearly delineated and therefore would be difficult to administer from both a temporal and spatial perspective. In addition, the Mitigation Measures did not appropriately distinguish gradation of slope with respect to the type of permit required for conversion of previously uncultivated lands. The recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measure because it retains comparable provisions for
76 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments requiring a permit, appropriately encompasses requirements for conversion of previously uncultivated agricultural lands and requires mitigation in those areas of the County that are known to have highly erodible soils and are currently regulated.
Response to Comment 1a-12 In response to comments received on the Draft Program EIR, 2006 General Plan policies AG-3.1, AG-3.2 and AG-3.3 are revised to clarify their intent as described in Master Response MR-10. As stated in policy AG-3.1, Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities that may have significant impacts are subject to a greater level of review.” As stated on page 4.9-19 of the Draft Program EIR, Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities will be subject to the federal and state laws that govern impacts to special status species and their habitats. Any Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activity that has the potential to impact sensitive biological resources will be subject to these policies. In complying with state and federal law, the conversion of rangelands to cultivated agriculture could potentially impact sensitive biological resources, thus triggering a review in which the conversion would be subject to a biological evaluation that analyzes the impacts with respect to all relevant federal, state, and local environmental statutes. 2006 General Plan policies AG-3.1, AG-3.2 and AG- 3.3 are amended in response to comments to clarify their intent and effectiveness in serving to mitigate impacts to biological and water resources as noted in Master Response MR-10. Draft Program EIR Mitigation Measures WR-3A and WR-3B (as revised and described in Response 1a-11) further mandate that agricultural conversions of uncultivated slopes will require a permit, thus triggering other regulatory actions.
Response to Comment 1a-13 See Response 1a-11 and Response 1a-12.
Response to Comment 1a-14 Mitigation Measure BIO-6 tightens the definition of the types of projects that can be approved as discussed in Section 3.3 of the AWCP. Projects that would undergo a discretionary review will trigger a CEQA review and thus an analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. In response to comments received on the Draft Program EIR, 2006 General Plan policies AG-3.1, AG- 3.2 and AG-3.3 are revised to clarify their intent as described in Master Response MR-10. BIO-6 is revised to clarify its intent in response to comments as follows:
BIO-6 “This Section includes a list of uses that can be permitted with a permit for properties within the designated AWCP. Projects deemed consistent within the criteria and conditions of the AWCP and Zoning District Overlay would require no additional zoning review. However, County and Uniform Building Code requirements still apply relative to those activities that would require a grading and building permit. More intensive uses or uses not otherwise consistent with the AWCP and/or Williamson Act provisions may require the issuance of discretionary permits such as Administrative Permits. Development of the wine industry outside of the corridor requires a is allowed subject to processing discretionary permits with separate environmental analysis.”
Response to Comment 1a-15 See Response 1a-12 and Master Response MR-21.
Michael Brandman Associates 77 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 1a-16 See Response 1a-12 and Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 1a-17 See Response 1a-12, Response1a-14 and Master Response MR-21.
78 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 1 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 79 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 1 (page 2 of 3)
80 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 1 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 81 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 1)
Response to Comment 1-1 See Master Response MR-21 regarding the objectives of the programmatic Draft Program EIR with regard to potential impacts to special status species, including steelhead, and their habitat resulting from specific development and land use activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan.
Indeed, many watercourses that exist within Monterey County have been designated as Critical Habitat for the federally threatened steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), specifically the south-central coast steelhead distinct population segment. As provided by a query of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and CalFish Data Internet Mapping Application Products and Solutions (IMAPS) Viewer for critical habitat, steelhead critical habitat has been designated for a number of stream courses within the County, including those contributing to the Salinas River Basin and Carmel River Basin watersheds which contain significant ground water resources and occupy the eastern and western-central portions of the County, in addition to those contributing to the Pajaro River and Elkhorn Slough watersheds in the northern portions of the County, as well as smaller watersheds containing seasonal creeks and streams located along the Big Sur Coast south from San Luis Obispo County and north to Carmel.
Exhibit 4.9-2 of the Draft Program EIR was developed solely from critical habitat mapping data provided by the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, which does not provide regional critical habitat mapping data for steelhead in Monterey County as the CDFG and CalFish IMAPS Viewer does. The USFWS critical habitat mapping included in Exhibit 4.9-2 in the Draft Program EIR is not intended to serve as a primary resource in determining the delineations of all critical habitat for protected species, nor is it intended to provide any information in determining the necessity to consult agencies responsible for the oversight of these protected species and their habitat on a project-specific basis, as all projects including development and land use activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan will be processed according to CEQA, from which detailed analyses would be executed with regard to development and land use activities and critical habitat.
Development and land use activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan, which may result in potential impacts to watersheds, and steelhead and coastal, marine, and river sources, and riparian and wetland habitats, shall require compliance with the Land Use Element Goals and Policies, Open Space and Conservation Element Goals and Policies, and Agricultural Element Goals and Policies summarized within Impact BIO-1 of the Draft Program EIR.
For project-specific development and land use activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan that may result in any significant impacts to steelhead and their habitat, and particularly to designated critical habitat as recognized by NOAA and NMFS, formal consultation with NMFS following an adequate Biological Assessment and technical analysis will be required. In addition, Response 1a-11 addresses clarification to the wording of Mitigation Measures WR-3A and WR-3B, and Response 1a- 12 and Master Response MR-10 clarify the wording and intent of 2006 General Plan policies AG-3.1, AG-3.2 and AG-3.3 as self-mitigation of potential water quality and sedimentation impacts to biological resources such as the steelhead.
Michael Brandman Associates 83 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 1-2 See Master Response MR-1 as to the programmatic nature of the Draft Program EIR, the implementation and timing of 2006 General Plan policies in concert with Master Response MR-21 as to their relationship to biological resources.
Response to Comment 1-3 Comment noted. For specific projects within the Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan (AWCP), which may result in impacts to steelhead and their habitat, or any other protected species whose recovery is administered by NOAA and NMFS, additional entitlements shall also include obtaining technical assistance through consultation, and if necessary, requesting for an incidental take statement or incidental take permit from NMFS. See also Response 10-4.
Response to Comment 1-4 See Master Response MR-10 regarding minimization of water quality impacts due to off-site soil erosion. Also see Response 1a-9, Response 1a-10, Response 1a-12, Response 1a-14 and Response 1- 1.
In addition, see Master Response MR-21 for revisions to Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1C; Response 1a-11 for revisions to Water Resources Mitigation Measures WR-2, WR-3A, WR- 3B, WR-3C; and the following discussion for revisions to Mitigation Measures WR-5A, WR-5B, WR-6, and WR-7.
In response to comments, Mitigation Measures WR-5A,and WR-5B as included in the Draft Program EIR are revised to clarify their intent as noted below, in the Errata, and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Mitigation Measure WR-5A: New policies (PS-2.8 and PS-2.9) shall be added to the “Water Quality and Supply” section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-2.8 The County shall require that all projects located within important or major groundwater recharge areas be designed to maintain or increase the site’s pre- development absorption of rainfall(minimize runoff) and to recharge groundwater following the guidelines contained in the proposed MCWRA Drainage Design Manual where appropriate. Implementation would include standards that could regulate impervious surfaces, vary by project type, land use, soils and area characteristics, and provide for water impoundments(retention/detention structures), protecting and planning vegetation, use of permeable paving materials, bioswales, water gardens, and cisterns, and other measures to increase runoff retention, protect water quality and enhance groundwater recharge. The County shall development voluntary guidelines for rural development that would accomplish the same purposes.
PS-2.9 Protect and manage groundwater as a valuable and limited shared resource by protecting potential groundwater recharge areas and streamsides from urban encroachment within the Community Areas and Rural Centers. The County shall use discretionary permits to control manage construction of impervious surfaces in important groundwater recharge areas. Potential recharge area protection measures at
84 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
sites in important groundwater recharge areas include, but are not limited to the following:
1) Restrict coverage by impervious materials. 2) Limit building or parking footprints. 3) Require construction of percolation ponds detention/retention facilities on large- scale development project sites overlying identified important recharge areas as identified by Monterey County Water Resource Agency. 4) Recognize that percolation ponds detention/retention facilities on small sites may not be practical, feasible, and are may be difficult to maintain and manage
Mitigation Measure WR-5B: In recognition of the important role that water conservation and re-use can play in helping achieve water resource sustainability, the following four policy revisions and additions shall be made to the Public Services Element:
Public Services Element Policy PS-3.12 shall be amended to read as follows:
PS-3.12 Maximize agricultural water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. The County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce agricultural water demand. Reduce agricultural water demand through conservation measures, including but no limited to, the following:
1) Recognizing that agricultural water conservation is an important component of agricultural water quality management, continue to aggressively work with representatives of the agricultural industry, such as the Agricultural Water Quality Alliance (AWQA), to develop and implement water conservation measures. 2) Continue to develop and expand the application of Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices. 3) Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement agricultural water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. 4) Enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful sues of water for agricultural irrigation.
New policies (PS-3.13 and PS-3.14) shall be added to the “Long-Term Water Supply” section of the Public Services Element that state the following:
PS-3.13 Maximize urban water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. The County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce potable water demand. Reduce potable water demand through conservation measures, including but not limited to, the following:
1) Work cooperatively with all water providers and representatives of the building industry to continue to develop and implement Water Conservation Plans that incorporate conservation measures and the Best Management Practices
Michael Brandman Associates 85 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
developed by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Become an integral member of the California Urban Water conservation Council. 2) Continue to expand the application of Water Conservation Best Management Practices. 3) Coordinate with water providers to continue to develop and implement Water Drought Contingency Plans to assist citizens and businesses in reducing water use during periods of water shortages and emergencies. 4) Revise the County’s Ordinances to include a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance to encourage, or as appropriate, require the use of water-efficient landscaping consistent with AB-325 (1990). 5) Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. 6) Develop and enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful uses of water for urban irrigation. 7) Fully fund a countywide Water Conservation Education, Outreach, and Enforcement program.
PS-3.14 Maximize the use of recycled water as a potable water offset to manage water demands and meet regulatory requirements for wastewater discharge, by employing strategies including, but not limited to, the following:
1) Increase the use of treated water where the quality of recycled water is maintained, meets all applicable regulatory standards, is appropriate for the intended use, and re-use will not significantly impact beneficial uses of other water resources. 2) Work with the agricultural community to develop new uses for tertiary recycled water and increase the use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of lands currently being irrigated by groundwater pumping. 3) Work with urban water providers to emphasize use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of parks, playfields, schools, golf courses, and other landscape areas to reduce potable water demand. 4) Work with urban water providers to convert existing potable water customers to tertiary recycled water as infrastructure and water supply become available.
Mitigation Measures WR-5A and WR-5B serve to mitigate Impact WR-5, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The mitigation measures as proposed in the Draft Program EIR are difficult to administer because they lacked the flexibility that is necessary to successfully implement water conservation and groundwater management into the future as new approaches and mechanisms evolve. Furthermore, the recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measures because the measures require the establishment of ordinances that will incorporate comparable performance standards to the ones proposed in the originally proposed measure and identifies the appropriate Agency to provide oversight.
In response to comments, Mitigation Measures WR-6,and WR-7 as included in the Draft Program EIR are revised to clarify their intent as noted below, in the Errata, and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
86 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Mitigation Measure WR-6 and WR-7: Public Services Element Policy PS-3.4 are combined and shall be amended to read as follows:
PS-3.4 Specific criteria shall be developed for use in the evaluation and approval of adequacy of all new wells. Criteria shall assess both water quality and quantity including, but not limited to:
1) Water quality 2) Production capability 3) Recovery rates 4) Effect on wells in the immediate vicinity as required by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency 5) Existing groundwater conditions 6) Technical, managerial, and financial capability of the water purveyor of a water system.
PS-3.5 The County shall require that pump tests or hydrogeologic studies be conducted for all new high-capacity wells, including high-capacity urban and agricultural production wells, where there may be a potential to affect existing adjacent domestic or water system wells adversely as determined by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency. The County shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells for which pump tests or hydrogeologic studies show the potential for significant adverse well interference.
PS-3.6 The County and all applicable water management agencies shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells in known areas of saltwater intrusion as identified by Monterey County Water Resource Agency until such time as a program has been approved and funded which will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies in that area. This policy shall not apply to deepening or replacement of existing wells. Mitigation Measure WR-6 serves to mitigate Impact WR-6, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure WR-7 serves to mitigate Impact WR-7 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the measures provide greater clarity regarding applicability of the measures, but do not change the effectiveness of the measures.
In addition, Open Space and Conservation Element, and Public Services Element Goals and Policies, provide measures to mitigate for land uses and development that result in non-point sources pollutants, wastewater effluents, and soil erosion and sedimentation into downstream waterways, in addition to those which result in groundwater decline and overdraft, well interference, and saltwater intrusion.
Exacerbation of existing groundwater decline and overdraft, and subsequent increase in saltwater intrusion conditions are considered significant unavoidable impacts, which may result from Routine and Ongoing, and new agricultural activities within the AWCP and development elsewhere in the County. These impacts can however be mitigated for to the greatest extent feasible at a program-level analysis, and would include a project-by-project technical analysis for well competition and interference, and a regional saltwater intrusion program approved by the County and water management agencies.
Michael Brandman Associates 87 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Future development projects that require discretionary permits will be subject to CEQA review, providing a means for addressing and mitigating specific project impacts to water resources and sensitive biological resources, including steelhead and their habitat, on a project-by-project basis. Technical analyses and agency consultation, including that which would require input or an incidental take statement or incidental take permit from NMFS, would be required under the environmental processing of specific projects.
Refer to Master Response MR-23 for discussion of residual environmental impacts to biological impacts.
88 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 2A (page 1 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 89 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 2A (page 2 of 4)
90 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 2A (page 3 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 91 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 2A (page 4 of 4)
92 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
California Coastal Commission (OPR), October 31, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 2A)
Response to Comment Letter 2A Because Comment Letter 2a was received in excess of 30-days after the close of the public review period on the Draft Program EIR, this Final Program EIR does not specifically respond to the letter but other responses address virtually identical issues as raised by the Coastal Commission. As an example, refer to Master Response MR-19.
Michael Brandman Associates 93 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 2 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 95 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 2 (page 2 of 3)
96 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 2 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 97 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
4.2.2 State Agencies
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 2)
Response to Comment 2-1 It is the County’s intent, communicated through the policies proposed in the 2006 General Plan, to improve roadways and highways to County and state safety standards as well as provide adequate capacity. Specifically, Policy C-2.3 states:
“The safety standards established by transportation-related agencies shall be supported and be used to guide land use to ensure the safe operation of the County’s transportation systems.”
Response to Comment 2-2 No policies in the 2006 General Plan preclude the ability of the County to adopt the TAMC Regional Impact Fee. The County and TAMC are collaborating on the establishment of a Regional Traffic Impact Fee program.
Through the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAN 1B and 1C in the Draft Program EIR as revised and described in Master Response MR-20, the County supports the development and adoption of traffic impact fees. In fact, TAMC and the County have initiated the concurrent development of the traffic impact fees.
Response to Comment 2-3 The County acknowledges that Caltrans uses a LOS C/D cusp as its threshold for acceptability. While the proposed 2006 General Plan established level of service policies and thresholds of significance for County roads, the Draft Program EIR evaluated state highways as well. The County included Caltrans District 5 staff in transportation-related meetings to discuss modeling and analysis methodologies, including the volume-to-capacity methodology used in the Draft Program EIR. Caltrans staff were provided with network volumes and capacities (plots of lanes and hourly capacities) at several milestones (including the final version used in the Draft Program EIR) during the Draft Program EIR process for their review and comment. Caltrans’ comments were integrated into network revisions. Electronic versions of the traffic projections and volume to capacity ratios were posted to an FTP site.
Response to Comment 2-4 Because the proposed 2006 General Plan focuses on County facilities, it does not specifically address the state’s route concepts for the state highway system. The modeling conducted for the 2006 General Plan included roadway projects in the Regional Transportation Plan’s constrained list of projects-projects that can be funded and implemented in the foreseeable future. The widening of Highway 1 to four lanes is included in the RTP’s unconstrained list of projects. While the County supports Caltrans’ plans for the state highway system, projects identified in the unconstrained RTP project list were assumed to be implemented beyond the life of the 2006 General Plan.
Response to Comment 2-5 Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OS-6.3 states:
Michael Brandman Associates 99 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
OS- 6.3 New development proposed within moderate or high sensitivity zones, or within three miles of a known recorded archaeological and/or cultural site, shall complete a Phase I survey including use of the regional State Office of Historic Preservation Clearinghouse or the Native American Heritage Commission’s list of sacred and traditional sites. Agricultural operations shall not be considered “previously graded” for the purposes of this reconnaissance requirement and such properties shall complete a Phase I survey.
Nothing in this policy precludes the use of both the regional State Office of Historic Preservation Clearinghouse or the Native American Heritage Commission’s list of sacred and traditional sites during a Phase I survey. Moreover, this policy recognizes that cultural resources professionals may need to use only one of the above listed sources because of project location, project characteristics, or other factors. This policy is adequate and does not need modification.
Response to Comment 2-6 As noted in Master Response MR-19, the LCP and areas of the County within the Coastal Zone are not part of the 2006 General Plan. As a result, Master Response MR-19 indicates that 2006 General Plan policies OS -4.4, OS-4.5, OS-4.6, OS-4.7, OS-4.8 and OS 4.9 are being deleted from further consideration in the 2006 County General Plan because they address policy issues that are specific to the Coastal Zone portion of the County.
Response to Comment 2-7 The comment suggests that the proposed 2006 General Plan reflect the need for roadside rest areas for truck drivers in southern Monterey County. Several policies address Caltrans concern at a broad level. These are:
C-4.8 Roadway safety programs that help reduce accidents and improve overall roadway safety shall be continued.
C-4.9 In cooperation with TAMC and Caltrans, the County shall monitor key County- maintained roadways, intersections, bikeways, and pedestrian facilities to observe and analyze the functioning of these roadways, as well as to identify capacity and safety concerns.
C-4.10 Priority shall be given to the improvement and maintenance of highways and arterial roads that carry a significant amount of people and goods movement, particularly agricultural goods.
C-5.6 Special scenic treatment and design within the rights-of-way of officially designated State Scenic Highways and/or County Scenic Roads shall be implemented and may include highway directional signs, guardrails and fences, lighting and illumination, provision of scenic outlooks, road lanes, frontage roads, vegetation, grading, and highway structures.
These policies provide an adequate framework to promote the establishment of roadside rest areas and do not need modification.
100 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 2-8 Land Use Element Policy LU-2.28 states:
LU-2.28 Rural Centers will be established in areas with a current concentration of residents and higher intensity uses than typically found in rural areas. Rural Centers will be allowed to develop over the life of this plan in a semi-rural character, both in terms of development intensity and community design. Residential uses will be allowed to develop at a density of 1-6 units per acre provided adequate water and wastewater facilities are provided concurrent with the development. Neighborhood commercial uses may also be developed in support of the residential uses.
Rural Centers are existing low-density residential communities, many of which are located in rural portions of the County. The 2006 General Plan contemplates Rural Centers continuing to develop in the same manner they historically have, albeit with provisions for residential densities as high as six units per acre. Note that the 2006 General Plan policies pertaining to Rural Centers do not preclude the ability to develop residential units outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers. Development in these areas is subject to separate 2006 General Plan policies (e.g., LU-2.12 and LU-2.13). For these reasons, the 2006 General Plan definition of Rural Centers does not need to be modified.
Response to Comment 2-9 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 2-10 Comment noted. The description of the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) transit system beginning on Page 4.6-9, in Table 4.6-5 of the Draft Program EIR, and the routes depicted in Exhibit 4.6-3 of the Draft Program EIR comprehensively describe all of MST’s transit service countywide including areas in South County. The table and exhibits do not depict para-transit services (MST Rides) serving South County, but the extent of this service is described in the text beginning on Page 4.6-9.
The County agrees with Caltrans’ desire to improve visitor travel to Monterey County through alternative modes of travel. Policies that support this initiative include:
C-6.1 Endorse the efforts of transit operators to improve their services and equipment, including aggressive marketing and education campaigns.
C-6.2 Major traffic generating events, activities, and development shall provide facilities adequate to meet the anticipated demand and to encourage the use of mass transit options, consistent with the Monterey-Salinas Transit’s Designing for Transit manual.
Michael Brandman Associates 101 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 3 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 103 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 3 (page 2 of 3)
104 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 3 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 105 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 3)
Response to Comment 3-1 A discussion of groundwater quality in Monterey County is provided on Pages 4.3-18 and 19 of the Draft Program EIR, which includes a mention of the groundwater quality contamination at Fort Ord. The Draft Program EIR did not provide extensive analysis of the groundwater remediation activities at Fort Ord because they are localized to that area and are being remedied as part of ongoing federal clean-up activities on the former military base. In contrast, nitrate contamination and saltwater intrusion were more extensively discussed in the Draft Program EIR because they are significant constraints on groundwater use in many parts of the County and are within the purview of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. As such no mitigation measures need to be modified to account for groundwater contamination at Ford Ord.
Response to Comment 3-2 The comment that well interference and cone of depression effects can also intercept contaminated groundwater is noted.
Response to Comment 3-3 At the request of the US Army, Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) has been added to the description of hazardous materials contained on Page 4.13-2 of the Draft Program EIR. This change is noted in the Errata. In regards to project-level activities at Fort Ord that may result in MEC exposure, these issues have been adequately addressed in various documents prepared by the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA). There are no policies in the 2006 General Plan that would conflict with FORA’s ongoing clean-up efforts, and therefore, the Draft Program EIR need not be revised to address such concerns.
Michael Brandman Associates 107 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 109 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 4 (page 2 of 2)
110 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, October 3, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 4)
Response to Comment 4-1 Although October 2, 2006 was the 45th day of the 45-day public review period, the County identified Friday, October 6, 2006 in the Notice of Availability as the last day to submit comments on the Draft Program EIR. As such, all comments received as of October 6 will be responded to in this Response to Comments, as well as comments received within a reasonable period of time after that date from public agencies having jurisdictional authority over various aspects of the implementation of the 2006 General Plan policies or mitigation measures contained in the MMRP.
Michael Brandman Associates 111 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Master Response 5A (page 1 of 1)
Michael Brandman Associates 113 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
4.2.3 Local Agencies
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), October 12, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 5A)
Response to Comment 5A-1 Comment noted. The transportation model utilized to prepare the impact analysis in the Draft Program EIR was obtained from AMBAG. All input assumptions and output analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR were reviewed with AMBAG staff prior to publication of the Draft Program EIR.
Michael Brandman Associates 115 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 5 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 117 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 5 (page 2 of 3)
118 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 5 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 119 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 5)
Response to Comment 5-1 Comment noted. The County Water Resources Agency will confer with the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency regarding this issue.
Response to Comment 5-2 The Draft Program EIR has been revised to reflect the changes suggested by the commentor. The changes are noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 5-3 The Draft Program EIR has been revised to reflect the changes suggested by the commentor. The changes are noted in Errata.
Response to Comment 5-4 Comment noted regarding the updated Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency web site with additional project information.
Michael Brandman Associates 121 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 6 (page 1 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 123 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 6 (page 2 of 4)
124 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 6 (page 3 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 125 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 6 (page 4 of 4)
126 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 6)
Response to Comment 6-1 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 6-2 The proposed 2006 General Plan contains a number of policies that directly respond to the comment regarding the addition of language to Page 4.6-8 of the Draft Program EIR supporting implementation of alternative transportation modes to reduce the need the costly construction and expansion projects. The text on Page 4.6-8 has been modified to reflect the commentor’s requested changes. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 6-3 The commentor identifies a correction to the description of a roadway segment in Table 4.6-4 on Page 4.6-8 (change southbound to northbound) and adding the designation of the Highway 68 on-ramp to either East (Monterey/Salinas) or West (Holman Highway). These corrections and clarifications are noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 6-4 The Draft Program EIR text has been modified to reflect the commentors requested changes. These changes are noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 6-5 The commentor requests clarification as to why the segment of Highway 101 that extends from the northern Monterey County border through Prunedale and the City of Salinas does not appear as an area of deficiency as past modeling efforts have shown. This change from past modeling was examined with AMBAG’s model developer during the preparation of the Draft Program EIR for the Butterfly Village project. AMBAG indicates that the change in traffic projections from past modeling is due to changes in the concentration of homes and jobs in the updated model which affects the distribution of traffic and expected changes in travel patterns. Changes include an increase in housing and jobs in the City of Salinas, which results in a more southerly-orientation of trips into and out of Salinas than projected in previous modeling.
Michael Brandman Associates 127 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 7 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 129 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 7 (page 2 of 2)
130 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
County of San Benito Planning and Building Inspection Services, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 7)
Response to Comment 7-1 It is not clear from the comment what “improvements” are being referred to or that may be needed. The Draft Program EIR analyzed the environmental effects of implementation of the 2006 General Plan, including all proposed land use charges. With respect to improving areas along the Monterey- San Benito border, the Draft Program EIR is a program-level document and is not intended to analyze environmental effects at individual locations. In addition, the 2006 General Plan does not propose any specific land use actions related to improving areas along the Monterey-San Benito border that would necessitate more detailed and rigorous analysis in the Draft Program EIR beyond what has already been done. The County concurs with the proposal by San Benito County to collaborate regarding any future projects that might occur on our shared border should that occur.
Response to Comment 7-2 The proposed 2006 General Plan contains policies that proactively address traffic impacts from development within Monterey County and indirectly impact adjoining counties. These policies relate to land use patterns, land use types, and transportation facilities and requirements that reduce dependence on the automobile, encourage transit, and non-motorized travel. These policies include implementation of traffic fee programs to address impacts to regional roads. These policies will benefit San Benito County as well as Monterey County for those shared roadways.
Response to Comment 7-3 See Response 21-1 through Response 21-5
Fremont Peak is in the nighttime viewshed of unincorporated and city (e.g., Salinas) growth areas, and it is foreseeable that the quality of nighttime views may diminish as a result of light and glare emitted from future growth. Fremont Peak is located approximately 10 miles northeast of Salinas, while Pinnacles National Monument is located approximately seven miles northeast of Soledad. The nearest existing unincorporated community to Fremont Peak is Prunedale, approximately 10 miles to the northwest, while the planned Rancho San Juan Community Area is approximately eight miles to the west. The nearest existing unincorporated community to Pinnacles National Monument is Pine Canyon (King City), approximately 19 miles to the south, while the planned Chualar Community Area is approximately 12 miles to the west. The 2006 General Plan’s contribution to adverse regional light and glare impacts was identified as a cumulatively considerable impact on Page 6-13 of the Draft Program EIR. Light and glare impacts from development and land use activities contemplated by the 2006 General Plan, in conjunction with growth in cities, was identified as a cumulatively considerable impact on Page 6-13 of the Draft Program EIR.
In regards to Pinnacles National Monument, much of the unincorporated growth that is contemplated by the 2006 General Plan would occur in the northern portion of Salinas Valley, outside the monument’s viewshed. Unincorporated area growth within the viewshed of the monument would primarily occur in Chualar. However, city growth in Soledad, Greenfield, and Gonzlaes is expected to be substantial over the life of the 2006 General Plan and it is foreseeable that future growth in these cities may diminish the quality of nighttime views from the monument. Unincorporated area growth would contribute to this cumulative impact, albeit at a much lesser degree. As noted above, light and
Michael Brandman Associates 131 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report glare impacts from regional growth was identified as a cumulatively considerable impact on Page 6- 13 of the Draft Program EIR.
In addition, as noted on Page 4.14-19 of the Draft Program EIR, Land Use Element Policy LU-1.16 requires that all exterior lighting be unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only the intended areas in illuminated, long-range visibility is reduced, and offsite glare is fully controlled. Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Inland) also establishes development standards for each zoning district, including specific requirements for lighting. Future development proposals will be reviewed in accordance with these standards and, if necessary, mitigate for light and glare spillage. As such, adverse light and glare impacts will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable. The County would like to obtain a copy of the referenced San Benito County ordinance.
Response to Comment 7-4 As shown on Exhibit 3-3 (North County Area Plan Land Use Map), Exhibit 3-4 (Greater Salinas Area Plan Land Use Map) and Exhibit 3-5 (Central Salinas Valley Area Plan Land Use Map), with the exception of the existing low density residential and commercial areas of Aromas, all of the areas along the Monterey-San Benito border are designated for grazing or resource conservation. This includes the ridgelines overlooking the Salinas Valley. Moreover, as discussed in the Scenic Vistas impact discussion on Pages 4.14-11 through 4.14-14 of the Draft Program EIR, a number of General Plan and Area Plan policies establish restrictions on ridgeline development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that new development will occur on the ridgelines on or near the Monterey-San Benito border.
132 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 8 (page 1 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 133 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 8 (page 2 of 6)
134 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 8 (page 3 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 135 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 8 (page 4 of 6)
136 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 8 (page 5 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 137 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 8 (page 6 of 6)
138 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
City of Salinas, Office of the City Manager, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 8)
Response to Comment 8-1 The comment refers to an October 5th memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates (FPA). The memorandum (Status of AMBAG Model Pertaining to Salinas Future Growth Area Study) summarizes FPA’s review of the AMBAG Model with a primary conclusion stating that the use of the model at the local level for project-specific evaluation requires development of a sub-area model specific to the application. The memorandum goes on to conclude that the AMBAG model is adequate for forecasting regional traffic flows including county-to-county trips and other large-scale trip interchanges. This is essentially how the model was used to evaluate the proposed 2006 General Plan by only evaluating countywide trip movements and assessing major County roadways and regional highways. Additionally, a number of network corrections and modifications were made to the model to improve its accuracy in reflecting proposed transportation improvements. The County agrees that the model requires continual modification to evaluate project-specific conditions at the local and intersection level of detail, but that use of the Model for analysis of the 2006 General Plan is appropriate.
Michael Brandman Associates 139 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 9 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 141 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 9 (page 2 of 2)
142 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Monterey Regional Waste Management District, October 5, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 9)
Response to Comment 9-1 The County concurs with the maintenance of a buffer between active landfills and residential land uses and is in the process of developing a landfill buffer ordinance. The issue of the adjacency of the Jefferson Property Owner Request to the Monterey Peninsula Landfill is addressed in Response 9-2.
Response to Comment 9-2 The County has since amended the Jefferson Property Owner Request to restrict residential uses from within the 2,500-foot buffer. As originally proposed, 506.8 acres (350 acres west of the landfill and 150 acres east of the landfill) would have been re-designated from Permanent Grazing and Farmland to Low Density Residential. The County now intends to amend the original proposal to apply a Special Treatment Area overlay on the 150-acresite located east of the Monterey Peninsula Landfill and adjacent to the City of Marina. Density for this 150-acre area would be limited to 16 new residential units located on the bluffs where it would not impact prime farmlands on the valley floor. The Special Treatment Area would include buffers between the Monterey Peninsula Landfill and the Marina Municipal Area and restrict development to the area outside of the buffers. The remaining 466.8 acres of the property would retain the existing Permanent Grazing and Farmland designations. This change is noted in the Errata.
Michael Brandman Associates 143 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 10 (13 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 145 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, October 4, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 10)
Response to Comment 10-1
The correction about the attainment classification of the North Central Coast Air Basin for PM10 has been noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 10-2 The correction about the attainment classification of the North Central Coast Air Basin for Carbon Monoxide has been noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 10-3
The correction about the attainment classification of the North Central Coast Air Basin for PM2.5 has been noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 10-4 A comment was made regarding VOC emissions as a result of the AWCP. The AWCP as evaluated in the Draft Program EIR included 40 Artisan Wineries and 10 full-scale wineries. During hearings on the provisions of the 2006 General Plan and the Draft Program EIR, the Board of Supervisors considered comments about potential impacts of full-scale winery development within the area of Monterey County covered by the AWCP. Members from the local wine industry testified at a hearing before the Board that a primary purpose and emphasis for creating the AWCP was to increase recognition of Monterey County wines, which they noted is better achieved through smaller-scale wineries like the Artisan Wineries that are included in the AWCP. As a result, the following provisions relating to the potential development of full-scale wineries have been removed from the AWCP: The Errata section will reflect this revision to the project description and the response below to Comment 10-4 reflects the AWCP without full-scale wineries.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
Projected number of artisan and full-scale wineries allowed within the next 20 years.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL According to data provided by the Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association, a two (2) million-case full-scale winery could cover a total of approximately 410,000 square feet of surface area with 300,000 square feet of building coverage. An artisan winery would cover approximately 58,000 square feet of surface area with 35,000 square feet of building coverage.
3.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.1 GENERAL REGULATIONS A. Full-Scale Winery: a maximum of 10 new full-scale wineries as follows: 1. River Road Segment; up to five (5); 2. Metz Road Segment; up to two (2); and 3. Jolon Road Segment; up to three (3).
Michael Brandman Associates 159 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
3.4 PERMITTED USES, ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT REQUIRED IN EACH CASE
A. Winery, Full-scale, including tasting facilities and a catering kitchen as part of the winery. Events included as part of the permit for a full-scale winery shall not be subject to other permit requirements of Sections 3.3.E or 3.6.
AWCP Artisan Winery VOC Emissions Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted during the fermentation process in wine production. VOCs are a precursor to ozone. The wine fermentation season in Monterey County is from August 1st to December 15th, with eighty-five percent (85%) of the VOC emissions from white wine fermentation occurring during the first 15 days of October and a similar peak of red wine fermentation occurring during the last week of October and the first week if November.
The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) is the agency that has jurisdiction over air quality in Monterey County. The MBUAPCD has established a CEQA threshold of significance of 137 pounds (lbs) of VOC per day to be applied to each project or single stationary source of emissions.
The AWCP includes a wine corridor, which will establish up to 40 Artisan Wineries. These 40 Artisan Wineries are projected to produce a total of 2,000,000 cases of wine per year, which is based on up to 50,000 cases per Artisan Winery. By applying a conversion factor supplied by the MBUAPCD of 2.38 gallons per case, there would be 119,000 gallons of wine production per Artisan Winery per year.
The MBUAPCD uses the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) wine fermentation emission factors of 1.8 lbs of VOC per 1,000 gallons for white wine and 4.6 lbs of VOC per gallon for red wine. Monterey County estimates that 60% of the wines produced in the county are white wines and 40% are red wines. Therefore the composite VOC emission factor for Monterey County is:
(4.6*0.40) + (1.8*0.60) = 2.92 lbs VOC per 1,000 gallons
Applying this composite emission factor to the 119,000 gallons of wine production projected for each Artisan Winery results in an estimated generation of 347 lbs of VOC per Artisan Winery during the overall fermentation season. Since 85% of the emissions (295 lbs of VOC) occur during 15 days of the Peak Season, an Artisan Winery producing the maximum 50,000 cases would generate an estimated 19.7 lbs of VOC per Peak Season Average Day. This is an overestimate because not all Artisan Wineries will produce the maximum and the peak of white wine differs from red wine (as noted above). Since the MBUAPCD’s threshold is 137 lbs VOC per day, each Artisan Winery will only be approximately 14% of the MBUAPCD’s CEQA threshold of significance and therefore the estimated generation of VOCs per Artisan Winery is considered to be less than significant.
Cumulative AWCP Artisan Winery VOC Emissions The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is commissioned to maintain an inventory of emissions in California. They also calculate growth rates of emissions in order to project future emissions. The MBUAPCD uses the CARB growth rates for wine fermentation for the emissions growth assumptions in their Air Quality Attainment Plan.
160 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
CARB’s growth rates for wine fermentation in Monterey County are based on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grape Acreage Reports for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2003. Monterey County Agricultural Commission reports for the base year of 2002 show 43,007 acres of grape production in Monterey County. However, the USDA reports show Monterey County had 38,522 acres in grape production in 2002. For purposes of this analysis, the more conservative USDA acreage has been assumed.
CARB used information from the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proportioned to Monterey County to estimate that 11,025,000 gallons of wine were fermented in the year 2002. For future years, CARB has estimated that growth will occur at a rate of 3.87% per year in Monterey County. Table 4-1 shows the growth rate as supplied by CARB with the projected growth in terms of gallons of wine produced extended to the year 2030.
Table 4-1. Projected Growth of Wine Production in Monterey County
Cumulative Projected Growth From 2002 Year Gallons Fermented (3.87%/year) 2002 11,025,000 2003 11,166,669 141,669 2004 11,598,526 573,526 2005 12,047,085 1,022,085 2006 12,512,990 1,487,990 2007 12,996,915 1,971,915 2008 13,499,554 2,474,554 2009 14,021,633 2,996,633 2010 14,563,902 3,538,902 2011 15,172,425 4,147,425 2012 15,780,949 4,755,949 2013 16,389,472 5,364,472 2014 16,997,996 5,972,996 2015 17,606,520 6,581,520 2016 18,342,173 7,317,173 2017 19,077,826 8,052,826 2018 19,813,480 8,788,480 2019 20,549,133 9,524,133 2020 21,284,787 10,259,787 2021 22,174,129 11,149,129 2022 23,063,471 12,038,471 2023 23,952,814 12,927,814 2024 24,842,156 13,817,156
Michael Brandman Associates 161 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Cumulative Projected Growth From 2002 Year Gallons Fermented (3.87%/year) 2025 25,731,499 14,706,499 2026 26,806,638 15,781,638 2027 27,881,777 16,856,777 2028 28,956,917 17,931,917 2029 30,032,056 19,007,056 2030 31,107,195 20,082,195
The total gallons of wine projected for each Artisan Winery is a maximum of 119,000 gallons per year. If all 40 Artisan Wineries were to operate at maximum production of 50,000 cases, they would cumulatively produce 4,760,000 gallons per year. While the AWCP assumes that the 40 Artisan Wineries would be built, the Cumulative Projected Growth of Wine Production shown in Table 4-1, indicates that even if all 40 Artisan Wineries were built out in the next five years (by the year 2012), they would meet the growth projection through 2012. However, these 40 Artisan Wineries only account for approximately 24% of the total projected growth of 20,082,195 gallons of fermented wine produces in Monterey County by the year 2030. Therefore, the cumulative VOC emissions estimated for all 40 Artisan Wineries are included in the estimated growth rate upon which the MBUAPCD’s AQAP is based, and the resulting cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.
Response to Comment 10-5 Note that Air Quality is discussed in Section 4.7-1; however, the section page numbers, heading numbers, and table number were erroneously numbered “4.1.” This section has been renumbered 4.7. This change is noted in the Errata.
As shown in Table 4.1(7)-1 of Section 4.7 of the Draft Program EIR, daily Reactive Organic Gas and nitrogen oxides emissions are projected to substantially decrease between 2006 and 2030 while Monterey County’s population (including cities) is expected to substantially increase during that same time period. Moreover, as shown in Table 4.1-4, average travel length is projected to decrease from 26.8 miles per person in 2006 to 24.4 miles per person in 2030. The 2006 General Plan facilitates these reductions in emissions and average travel length through policies promoting city-centered growth, use of alternative transportation, and the establishment of LOS D as the Countywide level of service. Accordingly, the 2006 General Plan, in conjunction with the Transportation Agency of Monterey County’s 14-year improvement plan, is projected to create a substantial reduction in delay in vehicle idling times and LOS F travel segments. For these reasons, the conclusion that the 2006 General Plan would facilitate improvements in air quality is valid.
Response to Comment 10-6 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 10-7 The correction regarding federal conformity issues has been noted in the Errata.
162 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 10-8 The correction about non-typical construction equipment and the need for MBUAPCD consultation has been noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 10-9 The correction about the lack of information regarding acute effects of acrolein as well as mitigation measures to reduce health risks have been noted in the Errata. The suggestion for mitigation measures that are based on calculated risk on a project-specific basis is determined not to be appropriate for a programmatic General Plan level of analysis.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2 as clarified below requires future development to comply with MBUAPCD’s applicable control measures. The following revisions are included in the Errata and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: A new policy shall be added to the Air Quality section of the Conservation and Open Space Element that states the following:
OS-10.9 The County of Monterey shall require that future development in accordance with the 2006 General Plan implement applicable the following Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District PM10 control measures.
y Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on type of operation, soil, and wind exposure; y Prohibit all grading activities occurring during periods of high winds (over 15 mph); y Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days); y Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area; y Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet, 0 inches of freeboard; y Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials; y Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land; y Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible; y Cover inactive storage piles; y Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks; y Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; y Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance), and y Limit the area under construction at any one time to as small as practical.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2 serves to mitigate Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-6 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the proposed measure delete examples that are
Michael Brandman Associates 163 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report duplicative of the reference to the overarching policy cited and allows for enhancements and changes over time.
As noted in Master Response MR-23, Mitigation Measure AIR-3 has been revised in response to comments in the Final Program EIR. Recent court decisions on federal preemption indicate that the County may not have the power to enforce the Mitigation Measure beyond County contractors as originally written. As a result, the original Mitigation Measure is not feasible as proposed and if applied would have a much more limited scope than intended. Therefore, the original version of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 (2006 General Plan Policy OS-10.10) is eliminated from the Final Program EIR. Revised language has been included in Master Response MR-23 in response to comment to clarify the intent of the mitigation measure to endeavor to reduce potential diesel exposure health risk to the extent feasible in a programmatic environmental analysis. Even with mitigation, the impact noted in the Draft Program EIR remains potentially significant and the conclusion of the Final Program EIR is that the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Response to Comment 10-10 See Response 10-4. The growth in wine production associated with the AWCP is included in the 3.87 percent growth rate in wine production for Monterey County assumed by the California Air Resources Board and incorporated into the MBUAPCD’s AQMP. Accordingly, cumulative impacts from the AWCP would be less than significant.
Response to Comment 10-11 See Response to Comment 10-10
Response to Comment 10-12 See Response 10-9.
Response to Comment 10-13 Per the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District request, mention of the District’s Nuisance Rule, Rule 402 has been noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 10-14 The AMBAG base year model reflecting year 2000 was selected to report existing conditions because it was the best source of comprehensive existing travel demand and level of service data available. This is also similar to the May 2001 environmental conditions baseline used for the analysis in the Draft Program EIR as discussed in Master Response MR-6. Use of the AMBAG model allowed a comparison between existing and projected traffic volumes and levels of service on all county and state facilities, and on all segments of these facilities. There were limited traffic counts available (particularly for County roadways) and located sporadically around the County resulting in an inadequate data base for reporting existing conditions.
Response to Comment 10-15 Direct impacts occur where new development needs to gain access to a roadway and/or where traffic generated by new development causes project-specific deficiencies in roadway or intersection operations. The Draft Program EIR addresses direct impacts to those facilities in which the County has jurisdiction. Regional and local agency direct impacts are not within the control of the County,
164 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments but the County supports and coordinates impact evaluation, review, and mitigation with applicable regional and local agencies.
Response to Comment 10-16 The summary statement about AWCP generalizes the findings of the impacts identified in Impacts TRAN-8 through TRAN-11. This finding reflects that the traffic analysis for 2030 did not identify any deficient County or regional roadways within the AWCP combined with the countywide performance measures and development restrictions in Mitigation Measure TRAN-1b and 1c. The analysis of the corridor is quantified in terms of traffic generation and level of service in Exhibits 4.6- 6a, b, and c, Exhibits 4.7-7a, b, and c and in Tables 4.6-9 and 4.6-10 of the Draft Program EIR.
Response to Comment 10-17 The statement on Page 4.6-7 of the Draft Program EIR refers to mitigating impacts through 1) construction and expansion of roadway capacity, and 2) travel demand reduction through prudent land use planning. The General Plan policies support both means. Roadway capacity will be restored at locations not meeting the County’s level of service standard through the following:
1) Implementation of the capital improvements identified in the 2005 Regional Transportation Plan incorporated by reference in the Draft Program EIR; 2) Implementation of the transportation improvements identified in the proposed 14-year plan by TAMC (listed in Table 4.6-8); 3) Implementation of the County’s Capital Improvement Program incorporated by reference in the Draft Program EIR; and 4) Development of improvement projects through the regional and countywide traffic impact fee recently initiated by TAMC and the County.
Response to Comment 10-18 Please refer to Response 10-14 and Master Response MR-6.
Response to Comment 10-19 The thresholds of significance used in evaluating the proposed 2006 General Plan are described on Page 4.6-26 of the Draft Program EIR. Each threshold was applied at the programmatic scale of a General Plan-level of analysis as follows:
• Level of service impacts are addressed in Impact TRAN 1A, 1B, 1C and 8. • Goods movement impacts are addressed in Impact TRAN 2 and 9. • Air traffic pattern impacts are addressed in Impact TRAN 3 and 10. • Substantially increased hazard impacts are addressed in Impact TRAN 4 and 11. • Emergency access impacts are addressed in Impact TRAN 5 and 12. • Parking adequacy impacts are addressed in Impact TRAN 6 and 13. • Conflict with alternative modes impacts are addressed in Impact TRANS 7 and14.
Michael Brandman Associates 165 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 10-20 The description of Scenario 2 (With TAMC 14-Year Plan) evaluated transportation projects all of which are unfunded. This scenario, as well as Scenario 1 (Without TAMC 14-Year Plan) did include the Prunedale Improvement Project is one of the projects that did end up being funded in the revised TAMC 14 year program. See also Master Response MR-20.
Response to Comment 10-21 Table 4.9-9 of the Draft Program EIR contains Year 2030 traffic conditions without implementation of the TAMC 14-year Plan. This scenario was modeled using the AMBAG Travel Model and represents the anticipated 2030 traffic conditions if none of the improvements identified in the TAMC 14-year plan, with the exception of the Prunedale Improvement Project, are implemented. A complete list of the 14-year Plan projects is provided in Table 4.6-8 of the Draft Program EIR.
Response to Comment 10-22 See Response 10-21.
Response to Comment 10-23 See Master Response MR-14 regarding the analysis of alternatives to the 2006 General Plan in the Draft Program EIR. The Draft Program EIR analyzed a No Project alternative (Existing 1982 General Plan) in the alternatives section of the Draft Program EIR. As shown in Table 5-4, the No Project alternative avoids or substantially lessens the effects of the 2006 General Plan (proposed project). For transportation impacts, the Draft Program EIR explains whether the alternative would create fewer, similar or greater environmental impacts compared to the 2006 General Plan and explains why that is the case.
The analysis of the No Project alternative employed a qualitative approach because of the programmatic nature of the Draft Program EIR. Based on the population projected under each alternative and the funding mechanisms for infrastructure, the Draft Program EIR qualitatively describes differences in traffic impacts relative to the proposed project. The conclusion for the alternative was appropriate and consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d).
See Master Response MR-20 regarding use of AMBAG’s 2030 Travel Demand Forecasting Model and buildout of the 2006 General Plan.
Response to Comment 10-24 The modeled travel times presented in Table 4.6-13 of the Draft Program EIR represent PM peak hour travel.
166 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 11 (1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 167 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 11 (2 of 2)
168 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, August 30, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 11)
Response to Comment 11-1 Per the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District request, these terms have been added to the Glossary. These additions have been noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 11-2 No standalone traffic study was prepared for the Draft Program EIR. The entirety of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.’s analysis of the 2006 General Plan’s impacts on traffic is provided in Section 4.6, Transportation of the Draft Program EIR.
Michael Brandman Associates 169 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 12 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 171 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 12 (page 2 of 2)
172 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
City of Monterey, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 12)
Response to Comment 12-1 The phrase “County roadways” used in Section 4.6, Transportation of the Draft Program EIR includes roadways within incorporated cities.
Response to Comment 12-2 The Paquin Property Owner request was not originally listed in the Draft Program EIR. The property owner has requested consideration of this project, but the County is not proposing to include this request in the General Plan. The County acknowledges the City of Monterey’s concerns about development on the Paquin property. At the present time, no application to develop residential uses on the property has been submitted to the County. Analysis of project-level environmental impacts is outside the scope of this Program Draft Program EIR and future proposals to develop the Paquin property will be subject to separate CEQA review.
Michael Brandman Associates 173 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 13 (page 1 of 1)
Michael Brandman Associates 175 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
4.2.4 Organizations
Monterey County Association of Realtors (MCAR), October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 13)
Response to Comment 13-1 The commentor is correct in stating that the 1982 General Plan policies do not directly state that the County has adopted a standard of level of service (LOS) C. However, the policy cited (Policy 37.2.1) in the 1982 General Plan does assert that a threshold of level of service acceptability exists. The County has historically used LOS C as its threshold, and this level of service threshold is supported in the Road and Highway Performance paragraph on page 125 of the 1982 General Plan. Again, it is not to be construed as a policy.
Response to Comment 13-2 Development on steep slopes on Existing Lots of Record, if small, (i.e. under 1 acre) are not necessarily covered by the County Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, or under the State NPDES storm water regulations. This proposed Mitigation Measures in the Draft Program EIR call for the development and implementation of a permit, similar to an over the counter building permit. If the applicant submits information that indicates they are in compliance with the proposed erosion control requirements, a permit can be issued. See Response 1a-11 for a discussion of modifications to Mitigation Measures WR-3A and WR-3B based on responses to comments.
A slope break of 15%, 10% for highly erosive soils, is a common break used, for instance, in soils and land capability mapping by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) , to distinguish soil mapping units based on the relative susceptibility to soil erosion, for land use planning and land management. Slope has been found to be the single most important independent variable in predicting soil erosion by a large number of scientific studies.
As discussed in Response 17-74, the County should convene a committee of technical experts, interested parties, and stakeholders to develop the final regulations that will govern permits required in OS-3.5.
Michael Brandman Associates 177 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 14 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 179 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 14 (page 2 of 2)
180 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBA), October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 14)
Response to Comment 14-1 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 14-2 Please refer to Response 13-1.
Michael Brandman Associates 181 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 1 of 7)
Michael Brandman Associates 183 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 2 of 7)
184 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 3 of 7)
Michael Brandman Associates 185 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 4 of 7)
186 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 5 of 7)
Michael Brandman Associates 187 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 6 of 7)
188 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 15 (page 7 of 7)
Michael Brandman Associates 189 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Independent Growers Association, Inc. / Salinas Valley Water Coalition, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 15)
Response to Comment 15-1 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 15-2 See Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 15-3 See Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 15-4 See Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 15-5 On Page 4.2-13 of the Draft Program EIR, the first bulleted item under the heading “Thresholds of Significance” states: “Convert Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively Important Farmland) to non-agricultural use.” This was the criterion used to determine the significance of the loss of Important Farmland. Grazing land was not counted as potential Important Farmland in the Draft Program EIR analysis because the potential for such conversion in the future cannot be quantified and is therefore speculative. In addition, refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 15-6 This comment is addressed in Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 15-7 Future growth in Community Areas will be driven by a number of factors, including economics, politics, and resource constraints. While it is anticipated that growth in Community Areas where Important Farmland is present (e.g., Castroville, Chualar, Rancho San Juan, Pajaro, etc.) will result in the conversion of these lands to urban uses, there is no firm evidence to suggest that the implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 to offset the loss of Important Farmland with the conservation of similar lands elsewhere will serve as an impediment to the development of these areas. Mitigation for loss of farmland through acquisition of permanent easements elsewhere has been required in unincorporated County and in the cities for a number of years and has not been an impediment to date. See Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 15-8 See Master Response MR-10 for a discussion of clarifications to the definition of Routine and Ongoing Agriculture. See also Response 1a-11.
Response to Comment 15-9 See Response 1a-11, Response 1a-12 and Response 15-8.
Michael Brandman Associates 191 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 15-10 See Master Response MR-10, Response 13-2, Response 15-8, Response 1a-11 and Response 1a-12. The commentor is correct in that agricultural land conversion from uncultivated rangeland to cultivated crop land, vineyards, and orchards currently requires a use permit in certain portions of the County, but the requirement does not extend county-wide. The issue is further complicated by the fact that one of the enumerated Routine and Ongoing Agricultural practices that would be exempt from General Plan policies is the planting of vineyards and orchards, and all of the necessary incidental cultivation and associated soil disturbance. Such land conversion on steep slopes especially those that have not been previously cultivated can cause significant soil erosion and water quality impacts.
The commentor also states that such hillside conversions would be covered under existing permit programs by the state or federal government, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s agricultural waiver program. The preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan prior to hillside conversion of rangeland to vineyards and other cultivated crops is not currently required under the Regional Water Quality Control Board Agricultural Waiver Program.
It could also be said that for new construction, a County level grading and erosion control ordinance mandating an erosion control plan submittal should also not be required, as it is a duplicate of State and federal efforts contained in the NPDES stormwater permitting program. However, certain types of permit programs, especially ministerial or administrative, are most efficiently carried out and overseen for compliance at the local level.
Response to Comment 15-11 The commentor mis-interpreted this section. The section discusses land disturbance and resulting soil erosion from agricultural and natural resources land use activities, such as mineral extraction and timber harvesting (not just mining and logging) as opposed to the next section of the Draft Program EIR, which discusses only urban land disturbances, mainly related to construction during land development.
The Draft Program EIR did note that agricultural land uses, including hillside land conversion of previously uncultivated land to cultivated land uses such as vineyards, can cause potentially significant soil erosion and sedimentation. Many of the County’s streams are, including those in rural, agricultural portions of the County are on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 303(d) list as impaired due to sediment. Requiring the development and implementation of soil erosion control plans through an administrative permit process for hillside conversion is an appropriate mitigation measure.
Response to Comment 15-12 The commentor is correct that the County Drainage Manual proposed in 2006 General Plan policy S- 3.7 does not now exist, but one is proposed as part of the 2006 General Plan implementation process. Based on comments received on the Draft Program EIR, policy S-3.7 will be modified as shown below to clarify its intent to ensure the minimization of potential impacts during the interim time period before the Manual is prepared:
S-3.7 The Monterey County Water Resources Agency shall prepare a Flood Criteria or Drainage Design Manual that establishes flood plain management policies, drainage
192 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
standards and criteria, stormwater detention, and erosion control and stormwater quality protection measures in order to prevent significant impacts from flooding and ensure that development does not increase flooding risk over present conditions. The Manual will include, as appropriate, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis procedures, procedures to assess stream geomorphology and stability, potential development impacts on streams, and design guidelines for channel design, including biotechnical bank stabilization. Until the Drainage Design Manual is prepared, the County shall continue to apply existing policies and ordinances to manage floodplains and minimize flood risk, erosion control and water quality impacts.
A new Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS system would also be developed as part of the General Plan implementation process. Specific criteria will be developed to define and map flood control and runoff features as a part of that effort. The proposed Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS and County Drainage Manual, including criteria and definitions, will be subject to a public review process prior to approval.
Response to Comment 15-13 See Response 15-12.
Response to Comment 15-14 California Water Law generally provides overlying water rights and use of the water, as long as that use is reasonable and beneficial, in non adjudicated groundwater basins. The issue is whether a proposed new well that causes significant impacts on an existing well can be considered a reasonable and beneficial use. The proposed new well development criteria and standards would define what constitutes potentially significant impacts on an existing well, and only prohibits construction of new wells that are shown to cause significant impacts. A proposed well located, for instance, to close to an existing well could possibly be relocated or resized and redesigned (mitigated) so that impacts are not considered significant. This would be handled during the well development permit review and discussions with the proposed well sponsor. This relocation or well redesign would not preclude use of underlying groundwater, it would make the use reasonable with respect to existing adjacent groundwater uses.
Response to Comment 15-15 As noted in Response 15-12, a new Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS system would be created that includes accurate maps showing the distribution of groundwater impacted by seawater intrusion, and where regulation of wells with respect to concerns about saltwater intrusion are applicable. The GIS would contain criteria and definitions, and sources of data (metadata) used to prepare the maps. The GIS maps would be periodically updated. It would be used by the County and other water agencies to assist in groundwater management activities, including regulating well development within and near areas of saltwater intrusion.
Response to Comment 15-16 Comment noted. The policies of the 2006 General Plan are not intended to conflict with applicable law with respect to technical, managerial and financial capability of water purveyors.
Michael Brandman Associates 193 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 15-17 See Response 1a-3, Response 1a-4 and Master Response MR-21 with respect to changes to Mitigation Measure BIO-1B.
194 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 16 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 195 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 16 (page 2 of 3)
196 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 16 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 197 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Common Ground Monterey County, October 6, 2006, (Comment Letter No. 16)
Response to Comment 16-1 As noted in Master Response MR-9, and in the Errata, proposed Mitigation Measure AG-1 as included in the Draft Program EIR will be modified to include a broader and more flexible means of accomplishing the same level of mitigation.
Response to Comment 16-2 The City of Salinas’ plans for annexation are outside the scope of the Draft Program EIR. In addition, any annexation proposals by the City will be subject to separate CEQA review during which specific agricultural impacts and mitigation can be identified and applied as necessary and appropriate by the City as Lead Agency for annexations under CEQA.
Response to Comment 16-3 Comment noted. See Master Response MR-10.
Response to Comment 16-4 See Master Response MR-21 which includes the requested definitions.
Response to Comment 16-5 See Response 1a-11 for a discussion of modifications to Mitigation Measures WR-3Aand WR-3B. New cultivation of sloping lands for vineyards is not prohibited, as the mitigation measure merely requires the development of a permit, based on the submittal of an erosion control plan prepared in compliance with accepted Best Management Practices standards that would be developed in consultation with the agricultural industry. The stipulated BMPs are likely to be a part of the proposed regulations. Such a ministerial permit approach is used in Sonoma County with little or no adverse effects on the agricultural sector.
As noted in Response 13-2, slope breaks of 10 to 15% are a common division used in separating soil map units based on erosion hazard and land management needs. Slope gradient has been found to be the single most important independent variable for predicting soil erosion and risk of erosion or erosion hazard.
Response to Comment 16-6 Please refer to Response 13-1.
Michael Brandman Associates 199 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 17 (70 pages) WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 201 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
LandWatch Monterey County, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 17
Response to Comment 17-1 Refer to Master Response MR-2, Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-20.
Response 17-2 Refer to Master Response MR-2 and Master Response MR-4.
Response 17-3 Refer to Master Responses MR-4, Master Response MR-5 and Master Response MR-6.
Response 17-4 Refer to Master Response MR-2 and Master Response MR-4.
Response 17-5 The existing 1982 General Plan employed a different population growth methodology than the 2006 General Plan. The existing 1982 General Plan anticipated the unincorporated areas growing to 296,000 residents over the life of the plan. The California Department of Finance estimates the unincorporated areas of Monterey County have a population of 108,590 persons, as of January 1, 2006. For the purposes of context, it’s worth noting that the 1968 General Plan anticipated 529,000 residents by 1985.
The Draft Program EIR used the population, housing, and employment estimates provided by the “Analysis of Monterey County General Plans & Quality of Life Initiative” prepared by Bay Area Economics and dated February 2006. This report was also the source for the population, housing, and employment estimates of the existing 1982 General Plan in Table 3-5 and Table 5-1. Given that the Bay Area Economics report was prepared more recently and accounted for changes in development trends that have occurred in Monterey County during the past several decades, it is considered a more accurate representation of the existing 1982 General Plan development potential than the estimates contained in the existing 1982 General Plan EIR.
Refer to Master Response MR-2, Master Response MR-3, Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-5.
Response 17-6 Refer to Master Response MR-6. Other than in the comparative alternatives analysis, the Draft Program EIR did not analyze the project’s impacts against the 1982 General Plan.
Response 17-7 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
The Draft Program EIR provides the best available information on the proposed services and infrastructure. Planned transportation improvement projects are listed in Table 4.6-8. Section 4.11 describes infrastructure such as wastewater treatment capacity, landfill capacity, etc, through the life of the 2006 General Plan. It would be speculative to project all infrastructure needs of the County throughout the life of the 2006 General Plan because of uncertainties associated with the locations of
Michael Brandman Associates 271 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report these facilities, as well as their size, use, and other essential characteristics that are necessary to provide meaningful analysis.
Moreover, the 2006 General Plan establishes a concept for where future development and land use activities will occur. Public service and infrastructure requirements and standards are established in the Public Services Element (refer to policies PS-1.1 through PS-1.6). Section 4.11 of the Draft Program EIR analyzes those standards in relation to the threshold criteria of the CEQA checklist.
Future discretionary development and land use activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan will be subject to separate CEQA review that will include analysis of any expansions and upgrades of public services and infrastructure systems necessary to serve those projects.
Response 17-8 Refer to Master Response MR-24.
The commentor asserts that the technical traffic information was not provided in technical appendices; rather, it was provided on a “FTP” site. All available pertinent traffic information was included in the Draft Program EIR. The additional information requested by the commentor, and which the County provided, is not the type of information normally included in technical appendices to an EIR.
Response 17-9 As noted in Master Response MR-1, the CEQA document for the 2006 General Plan is a program EIR. The 2006 General Plan has been written so that in most respects, the policies are self mitigating and are intended to avoid potential impacts. For each impact, the Draft Program EIR describes the 2006 General Plan and Area Plan policies that reduce potential environmental impacts. Where it is not readily apparent how the policies would ensure that impacts are less than significant, the conclusion section for each impact area provides further explanation.
Response 17-10 The commentor requests that a table be prepared to summarize implementation of the 2006 General Plan. To the extent this is a comment on the 2006 General Plan, not the Draft Program EIR, no response is required. Nevertheless, much of this information will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP), which will be prepared concurrently with the Final Program EIR. In accordance with County practices, the MMRP will identify mitigation measures, compliance and monitoring actions to be performed, responsible parties for compliance, timing, and the verification of compliance as required by CEQA. The County will develop a Implementation Workplan subsequent to the adoption of the 2006 General Plan, as is common practice. There will also be an Implementation and Finance Plan that will lay out specific timing, process and costs for implementation. Refer also to Master Response MR-1.
The commentor further suggests that a mitigation measure should be added that requires implementation of policies and mitigation measures prior to processing or acting upon affected projects. The County does not believe that is necessary because a finding of compliance with the 2006 General Plan will be a condition of future discretionary projects.
272 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-11 This Response to Comments employs Master Responses to address similar comments raised by multiple comment letters or multiple times in the same comment letter. Individual responses are provided to unique comments. This practice is in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15088.
Response 17-12 As listed in Table 3-5 and provided in the AMBAG 2004 Population, Housing Unit & Employment Forecast, there were 100,252 residents and 37,047 dwelling units in unincorporated Monterey County in 2000, for an average household size of 2.706. The Bay Area Economics report indicates 16,900 additional dwelling units could be added to the unincorporated area over the life of the 2006 General Plan. Using the 2000 average household size of 2.706, it was determined that the development of the 53,947 dwelling contemplated by the 2006 General Plan would result in a total of 145,984 persons in unincorporated Monterey County. Therefore, the statement on Page 1-8 that the 2006 General Plan would increase the unincorporated population by 45 percent over the life of the plan accurately reflects these growth assumptions. See Master Response MR-4 regarding revised reasonably foreseeable buildout projections.
Response 17-13 The reference to 6,586 vacant residential parcels in unincorporated inland Monterey County on Page 3-10. Appendix A of the Bay Area Economics report indicates that existing lots of record in the Coastal Zone were included in the 7,939 figure. Therefore, the use of 6,586 existing lots of record is correct for the purposes of the Draft Program EIR because the 2006 General Plan excludes the Coastal Zone portion of Monterey County. The County has since determined that the actual number of lots of record in the Coastal Zone is 2,589, not 1,350. Therefore, the EIR will be changed to reflect that the number of existing lots of record in the non-Coastal Zone is 5,350.
Response 17-14 Refer to Master Response MR-3 and Master Response MR-15.
Response 17-15 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-5 and Master Response MR-6.
Response 17-16 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Note that the Jefferson property owner request has since been modified to apply a Special Treatment Area overlay on 150 acres of the property to allow for residential development of no more than 16 residential units and retain the existing Permanent Grazing and Farmland designations on the remaining 466.8 acres. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response 17-17 See Master Response MR-19. The Del Monte Forest Rural Center has been removed from the 2006 General Plan. Additionally, several policies that referred to coastal resource protection have been deleted in OS-4. Commentor is correct that the Castroville Community Area designated in the 2006 General Plan is contained within both the non-coastal and Coastal Zone portion of the County. A Draft EIR on the draft Community Plan has been developed and circulated for public comment and this includes a discussion of consistency with the Local Coastal Program. Since the Draft Program
Michael Brandman Associates 273 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
EIR is a programmatic document, analysis of this small segment of a proposed Community Area re consistency with the LCP does not appear to be warranted.
Response 17-18 As shown in Exhibit 3-13, tentative boundaries for the Chualar Community Area have been proposed. These boundaries serve as reference points for future planning activities in Chualar. Land Use Element Policy LU-2.23 does not prohibit the drawing of tentative boundaries; rather, it states that the issue of the Chualar Community Area boundaries will be revisited at a later date. This does not constitute a conflict with any policies of the 2006 General Plan.
Response 17-19 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Response 17-20 The figure of 145,984 residents was arrived at in the following manner:
The 2000 estimate of 100,252 persons was divided by the estimate of 37,047 dwelling units to arrive at an average household size of approximately 2.70. The BAE report indicates that the 2006 General Plan is projected to add 16,900 dwelling units to the unincorporated county. The figure of 16,900 additional dwelling units was added to the 2000 existing count of 37,047 dwelling units to arrive at 53,947 dwelling units allowed under the 2006 General Plan. The total of 53,947 dwelling units was multiplied by 2.70 (the average household size) to produce the estimate of 145,984 persons. This number was then rounded up to 146,000 on Page 1-8 of the Draft Program EIR. See MR-4 for an updated projection re reasonably foreseeable dwelling units.
Response 17-21 The sentence on Page 3-94 has been clarified to state that separate CEQA review may be required for development and land use activities that are consistent with the 2006 General Plan. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response 17-22 Each jurisdiction’s General Plan land use map serves as a critical factor in how AMBAG forecasts growth. For instance, if a jurisdiction re-designates a significant amount of agricultural lands for residential development, that redesignation will be accounted for in the next AMBAG forecast. As the commentor notes, AMBAG does consider other factors in its forecasts (e.g., resource constraints), but the General Plan land use map is arguable the most important factor. Therefore, the Draft Program EIR is not incorrect in stating that the 1982 General Plan land use map served as the basis for the previous AMBAG projections.
Response 17-23 As stated on Pages 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 of the Draft Program EIR, the Growth Management Policy requires that managed growth be incorporated into the General Plan. This is a standing policy of the County of Monterey and is a principle that is incorporated into the 2006 General Plan. See also Master Response MR-22.
274 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-24 The CEQA Thresholds of Significance were used to analyze the 2006 General Plan’s consistency with other applicable land use plans and policies. The actual phrasing of the threshold was truncated; however, Impact LU-2 did analyze impacts in accordance of the full phrasing of the threshold.
In addition, the commentor claims that land use plan and policy consistency analysis failed to account for several items. Below are explanations as to where consistency analyses can be found in the Draft Program EIR or why they were determined not to be necessary:
• Consistency with the 2003 Housing Element was analyzed in Section 4.15. • Consistency with the California Coastal Act was not analyzed because the boundaries of the 2006 General Plan do not include the coastal zone. • Potential land use conflicts were analyzed in Impact LU-1. • Jobs-housing balance was analyzed in Section 6. • Visual impacts of the AWCP were analyzed in Section 4.14. Note that the CEQA Thresholds of Significance that relate to impacts on scenic highways only pertain to State scenic highways. • Consistency with habitat conservation plans were analyzed in Impact LU-3 and Impact BIO-5. • Air Quality Management Plan consistency was analyzed in Section 4.7.
Accordingly, all of the above items were accounted for the Draft Program EIR or were deemed not to be applicable to the 2006 General Plan.
Response 17-25 Refer to Master Response MR-7 and Master Response MR-22.
Response 17-26 The Draft Program EIR’s conclusion on Page 4.1-10 that the division of an established community would not be significant is supported by the policy analysis provided on Pages 4.1-9 and 4.1-10. To summarize, Land Use Element policies LU-1 through LU-10 and LU-13 and LU-14 provide a general framework to guide and manage growth. Compatibility with adjacent land uses is directly and indirectly addressed by these policies. Such requirements include review of proposed development’s compatibility with adjacent land uses (LU-1.5); review of proposed development’s siting, design, and landscaping (LU-1.6); voluntary reduction or limitation of development through transfer of development rights or credits (LU-1.8); and exterior lighting standards (LU-1.14). These policies ensure that land use activities and development contemplated by the 2006 General Plan do not conflict with adjacent uses and cause the division of an established community.
In addition, one of the fundamental principles of a General Plan land use map is that adjacent land uses will not inherently conflict with each other. Where possible, intensive land uses that may create adverse impacts on surrounding uses (e.g., industrial) are buffered from sensitive land uses (e.g., residential). In cases where potentially incompatible land uses are adjacent to each other, the 2006 General Plan policies listed above provide a framework to address potential land use conflicts. Therefore, the conclusion in the Draft Program EIR that the 2006 General Plan would have less than
Michael Brandman Associates 275 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report significant effects related to the division of an established community is reasonable and is adequately supported by policy analysis.
Response 17-27 As noted on Pages 4.1-9 and 4.1-10 of the Draft Program EIR, the 2006 General Plan establishes a number of policies to ensure that land use and development activities are compatible with neighboring land uses and do not result in the division of established communities. No specific examples of potential circumstances that may cause the division of an established community are provided because the Draft Program EIR is a program-level document and is not intended to provide project-level land use compatibility analysis.
The Draft Program EIR’s conclusion on Page 4.1-10 that the division of an established community would not be significant is supported by the policy analysis provided on Pages 4.1-9 and 4.1-10. To summarize, Land Use Element policies LU-1 through LU-10 and LU-13 and LU-14 provide a general framework to guide and manage growth. Compatibility with adjacent land uses is directly and indirectly addressed by these policies. Such requirements include review of proposed development’s compatibility with adjacent land uses (LU-1.5); review of proposed development’s siting, design, and landscaping (LU-1.6); voluntary reduction or limitation of development through transfer of development rights or credits (LU-1.8); and exterior lighting standards (LU-1.14). These policies ensure that land use activities and development contemplated by the 2006 General Plan do not conflict with adjacent uses and cause the division of an established community.
In addition, one of the fundamental principles of a General Plan land use map is that adjacent land uses will not inherently conflict with each other. Where possible, intensive land uses that may create adverse impacts on surrounding uses (e.g., industrial) are buffered from sensitive land uses (e.g., residential). In cases where potentially incompatible land uses are adjacent to each other, the 2006 General Plan policies listed above provide a framework to address potential land use conflicts. Therefore, the conclusion in the Draft Program EIR that the 2006 General Plan would have less than significant effects related to the division of an established community is reasonable and is adequate supported by policy analysis.
The Draft Program EIR concluded that the land use policies established by the Land Use Element and the various Area Plan elements adequate address and mitigate the potential for division of established communities and would not result in significant impacts. and it was determined that the 2006 General Plan policies adequately mitigated for potentially significant impacts
Response 17-28 Special Treatment Study Areas are specific parcels for which the 2006 General Plan establishes additional policies to guide future development and land use activities on, owing to conditions present on each parcel. Property Owner Requests are changes to the General Plan land use designations. All of the Special Treatment Areas, Special Treatment Study Areas, and Property Owner Requests were reviewed by County staff for consistency with the 2006 General Plan and compatibility with surrounding land uses. In addition, note that the total acreage of these designations represent less than 1 percent of total planning area of the 2006 General Plan. Finally, development and land use activities on each individual parcel envisioned by the Special Treatment Area or Property Owner Request designations will be subject to project-level approval, which will include project-level CEQA
276 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments review. For these reasons, the Draft Program EIR did not contain detailed parcel-specific analysis of Special Treatment Areas, Special Treatment Study Areas, or Property Owner Requests.
Response 17-29 Refer to Master Response MR-7 and Master Response MR-8.
Response 17-30 Refer to Response 17-70.
Eighty-percent (80%) of nitrates are contributed by agriculture in the form of fertilizer. It appears that the commentor is arguing that the use of all on-site wells and septic systems will cause significant environmental impacts without recognizing the mitigation provided by Policy PS-4.8, which includes development of new County criteria and standards for site evaluation and design, including enhanced treatment systems, and PS4-10 which requires the County to develop an alternative (on-site system) wastewater management program, including performance monitoring. The County has existing standards that adequately address problem areas through its development and implementation of a Nitrate Management Program.
Response 17-31 Refer to Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-32 Refer to Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-33 Refer to Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-34 Refer to Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-35 Refer to Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-36 Refer to Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-37 Refer to Master Response MR-8.
Response 17-38 Refer to Master Response MR-8.
Response 17-39 Refer to Master Response MR-8.
Michael Brandman Associates 277 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-40 Refer to Master Response MR-8.
Response 17-41 Refer to Master Response MR-8.
Response 17-42 The author asserts that the Area Plan policies would allow “sprawl and low density ranchette and suburban style development which result in the conversion of designated agricultural lands…” and therefore are inconsistent with a number of 2006 General Plan policies contained in various elements. However, given the absence of references to specific Area Plan policies, it is not possible to determine which policies the author considers to be in conflict with the General Plan polices. Moreover, development in the geographic areas covered by an Area Plan is governed by the policies in the 2006 General Plan, which focuses growth in Community Areas and Rural Centers.
Response 17-43 The acreage of Important Farmland that could be converted to non-agricultural uses was determined using GIS mapping. Refer to Master Response MR-9 for further discussion in this regard.
The commentor overstates the amount of Important Farmland that would be converted to non- agricultural use by property owner requests (refer to Table 3-22). For instance, the commentor claims the property owner requests (excluding the Guidici, Harris, and Salinas Land Company requests) would result in the conversion of 4,008 acres of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. However, all of the property owner requests contained in Table 3-22 only total 4,107 acres, which would mean that all but 100 acres of the requests would result in the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. This is simply not possible because several of the large acreage property owner requests (including the Reed and Brashears request that contains more than 1,000 acres of grazing land) do not contain Important Farmland. In regards to the issue of division of farmland allowed by 2006 General Plan Agriculture Element Policy AG-1.3, the policy states:
AG-1.3 SubdDivision of Important Farmland (as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) designated as Prime, of Statewide Importance, or Unique, or of Local Importance and designated as Farmlands, Permanent Grazing, or Rural Grazing and designated by the County as “Farmland” shall be allowed only for exclusive agricultural purposes and or when demonstrated not to be detrimental to the agricultural viability of adjoining parcels. Exceptions to this policy include: a. , or in accordance with polices of A Community Plan/Specific Plan, or Infrastructure and Financing Study for a /Rural Center Plan which that implements an alternative farmland preservation strategy. b. Division of land for the creation of farmworker or employee/family housing as allowed in Policies AG-1.6 and AG-1.7.
This policy explicitly states that division of Important Farmland is allowed only for exclusive agricultural uses or when demonstrated not to be detrimental to the agricultural viability of adjoining parcels. This does not imply that division will inherently result in the loss of farmland; rather it provides flexibility to property owners who may need to divide for economic, legal, or other reasons.
278 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Further, any subdivision proposals that would result in the development of the land to a use not allowed by the agricultural land use designations would require a General Plan amendment, which would be subject to separate CEQA review.
Response 17-44 Refer to Response 10-1, Response 10-2, Response 10-3 and Response 10-7. Per the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District request, mention of Federal implications of the Air Quality Management Plan was eliminated. These changes are noted in the Errata.
Response 17-45 Refer to Master Response MR-4
Response 17-46 Measure A, a 14-year half-cent sales tax increase that would have funded many of the transportation projects envisioned by the TAMC 14-Year Plan, did not receive a two-thirds majority in the June 2006 election and, therefore, was rejected. Note that the TAMC 14-Year Plan was not on the ballot; rather, a funding mechanism to finance its projects was the question placed before the voters. The TAMC 14-Year Plan still exists and alternative funding mechanisms to finance its projects are being pursued at the present time. Accordingly, the commentor’s claim that Monterey County voters rejected the TAMC 14-Year Plan is erroneous.
To clarify the commentor’s question about the difference in timing of the 2006 General Plan and the TAMC 14-Year Plan, the Draft Program EIR acknowledged this difference by performing “With” and “Without” analysis scenarios of the 14-Year Plan’s transportation projects. This approach is in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.
Response 17-47 ROG and NOx emissions in Table 4.7-4 of the Draft Program EIR were taken from the Regional
Transportation Plan. No discussion of PM10 existed in the RTP. However, application of reasonable ratios of PM10 to ROG/NOx, appropriate for transportation emission sources, would yield PM10 emissions of 0.93, 0.95, and 1.01 tons, respectively for 2006, 2010, and 2030 planning years. This does not change the conclusion that “From an overall regional air quality planning objective, the 2006 General Plan is considered neutral.”
Response 17-48 The revised County grading and erosion control ordinance will address naturally occurring asbestos in the soil and entrainment in the air as dust during construction. The Geologic Hazards GIS will identify areas where soils are known to be at or above regulatory levels of asbestos minerals. The GIS will be used during grading plan review, and construction inspection will focus on making sure that the appropriate Best Management Practice, such as keeping disturbed soils wet or mulched following completion of grading to minimize dust production, is adhered to.
In addition, information about asbestos has been added to Page 4.1(7)-6 the Draft Program EIR Air Quality section. This change is noted in the Errata.
Michael Brandman Associates 279 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-49 As noted in Master Response MR-23, Mitigation Measure AIR-3 has been revised in response to comments in the Final Program EIR. Recent court decisions on federal preemption indicate that the County may not have the power to enforce the Mitigation Measure beyond County contractors as originally written. As a result, the original Mitigation Measure is not feasible as proposed and if applied would have a much more limited scope than intended. Therefore, the original version of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 (2006 General Plan Policy OS-10.10) is eliminated from the Final Program EIR. Revised language has been included in Master Response MR-23 in response to comment to clarify the intent of the mitigation measure to endeavor to reduce potential diesel exposure health risk to the extent feasible in a programmatic environmental analysis. Even with mitigation, the impact noted in the Draft Program EIR remains potentially significant and the conclusion of the Final Program EIR is that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The FEIR incorporates the commentor’s suggestion that Mitigation Measure AIR-3 is revised to require that all project applicants work with the MCUAPCD to ensure that health based standards are met.
Response 17-50 Refer to Response 10-4. The growth in wine production associated with the AWCP is included in the 3.87 percent growth rate in wine production for Monterey County assumed by the California Air Resources Board and incorporated into the MBUAPCD’s AQMP. Accordingly, cumulative impacts from the AWCP would be less than significant.
Response 17-51 Release of water from the Nacimiento and San Antonio Reservoirs during spring and summer months varies by the water year, depending on rainfall, reservoir storage, and other factors, making it difficult to be more specific than to say that releases occur during the spring and summer months. Some of the releases relate to requirements by State and Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that there is adequate flow for steelhead. In addition, the releases are made for groundwater replenishment as part of the effort to reduce saltwater intrusion. This is a long term effort, with more water released in wet years than drought years, despite annual groundwater pumpage volumes, and is best viewed over a series of years, rather than on an annual water balance basis.
River channel maintenance occurs in the early fall.
Response 17-52 The Salinas Valley basin has long been divided into differing sub areas for a number of reasons, including, because of its large size, to facilitate monitoring and hydrologic analysis. It was not the intent of the Draft Program EIR existing conditions description to suggest that groundwater is currently or should be managed separately in each of the sub-basis. However, the wording differences between the Draft Program EIR and Central Salinas Area Plan do not warrant revision to either.
Response 17-53 The commentor is correct, individual wells and agricultural wells in the Carmel Valley also contribute to the total annual volume of water pumped from the aquifer. The Draft Program EIR considered the impact of all water pumped from the aquifer regardless of method or source.
280 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-54 Under the National Flood Insurance Program, a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) has a 1% chance of being flooded in any given year, and all such areas constitute the 100-year floodplain. Federal aid is available to flood impacted areas following the declaration of a flood emergency, including to local governments, and to private property owners who participate in the program by purchasing flood insurance. Portions of the Parajo Community are within designated SFHA’s. For a community to be eligible for flood insurance, the local government must also adopt floodplain management regulations, which restrict development within 100-year floodplains. Monterey County has adopted such regulations, based on FEMA standards.
Response 17-55 Many of the watersheds in the County have been delineated and were presented in the Draft Program EIR. A few small watersheds (such as the Estrella Watershed) were not presented in the Draft Program EIR but are availabale for review from the County Water Resources Agency. Providing these watershed maps as part of the Final Program EIR will not materially add to the analysis and discussion or conclusions regarding General Plan impacts. The proposed Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS will include all watersheds in the County.
Response 17-56 See Response 17-55. The Big Sur Watershed, however, is not part of the unincorporated area of the County addressed in the 2006 General Plan.
Response 17-57 The lack of certainty about long term sustainable water supply has lead to the determination of this as a potentially significant impact. The mitigation measure for this issue is the requirement that a project proponent or applicant provide proof of water in compliance with SB610 and proposed 2006 County General Plan Policy PS-3.11 and that the County develop specific criteria for determining what constitutes an adequate water supply.
Response 17-58 Comment noted. Calera Canyon is not included within the San Benancio Rural Center designation in the 2006 General Plan. In addition, the Growth Management approach in the 2006 General Plan does not anticipate that this area is suitable for development.
Response 17-59 See Response 17-55.
Response 17-60 Comment noted. In the future, should the trends continue with most wells having nitrate concentrations above Safe Drinking Water levels, the available options include drilling new water wells, installation of water treatment systems, or the purchasing of bottled water for human consumption, with high nitrate water used for other domestic purposes. In addition, Mitigation Measure PSU-6A requires that adequate availability and provision of water supply be assured prior to the approval of new development, and it is revised to clarify its intent as follows:
Mitigation Measure PSU-6A: A new policy (PS-3.x) shall be added to the Long-Term Water Supply section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
Michael Brandman Associates 281 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
PS-3.15 To ensure accuracy and consistency in the evaluation of water supply availability, Monterey County Health Department, in coordination with the MCWRA, shall develop guidelines and procedures for conducting water supply assessments and making firm determinations regarding determining water supply availability. Adequate availability and provision of new water supply, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County prior to approval of new final subdivision maps or any changes in the 2006 General Plan Land Use or Zoning designations.
Mitigation Measure PSU-6A serves to mitigate Impact PSU-6 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the policy were intended to improve the clarity of the measure and did not result in a substantive change.
Response 17-61 Evidence has not been presented of any situation in California where saltwater intrusion has been reversed to the extent that salt affected aquifers have recovered. Saltwater intrusion can be slowed, if not halted by sound groundwater management. The commentor is correct that all imbalances created by groundwater pumping in excess of basin recharge within an area act together, incrementally and in a cumulative fashion, in influencing rates of saltwater intrusion.
Response 17-62 The baseline period for presentation of existing conditions as stated in Master Response MR-6, is May 15, 2001. Information contained in the Draft Program EIR was the best available for that time period.
Most of the seawater contamination impacts the 180 foot aquifer, and in some locations the 400 foot aquifer. The 900 foot or deep aquifer has not been impacted. The inland intrusion along the coast is variable and can be determined by measuring off of the scaled maps of seawater intrusion presented in the Draft Program EIR, which is generally representative of the 2001 environmental baseline period. Similarly, the types of land uses impacted by seawater intrusion, and the geographic areas involved, can determine from the seawater intrusion maps. Information on seawater intrusion is collected periodically by the responsible water agencies by sampling each of the aquifers and the seawater intrusion maps are updated. Information on seawater intrusion for periods more recent than the 2001 environmental baseline period is available directly from the County Water Agency.
The saltwater intrusion maps are updated periodically by the Monterey County Water Agency. This information is available for review and examination at the Water Agency’s offices, but provision of this information in the Final Program EIR for periods beyond the baseline period will not materially add to the analysis and discussion of General Plan impacts.
Response 17-63 All groundwater pumping in the coastal areas and in the lower Salinas Valley in excess of groundwater recharge contributes to the problem of saltwater intrusion, with higher, or more significant rates of pumping, contributing incrementally more to the problem.
282 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-64 The deep or 400 foot aquifer is of good quality, but typically has a higher mineral and Total Disolved Solids (TDS) content than the 400 foot aquifer. It is generally considered to be a potable water source. The volume of water stored in the deep aquifer is not known with certainty.
Response 17-65 The commentor is requesting current project level information for projects developed and administered by the Parajo Valley Water Management Agency that are beyond the CEQA-defined existing conditions baseline for the Draft Program EIR, and also not within the scope of the 2006 General Plan. Some of this information is available on the PVWMA web site or can be obtained by contacting them directly.
Response 17-66 For proposed development relying on individual wells, or community wells in these areas, the county will require water quality testing in compliance with state and federal regulations. The proposed Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS database per Policy PS-2.7 will include hardrock aquifers with constraints, and one of the constraints to be mapped will be poor water quality. The County does not have a plan for replacing water that is no longer potable.
Response 17-67 Not all landowners/growers are required to be participants in the Cooperative Monitoring Program. Those that are not will be responsible for conducting monitoring of their own activities. This program is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, not the County, and it will be the responsibility of the growers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to make it work and be effective.
Response 17-68 In an adjudicated groundwater basin, specific groundwater alotments or extraction allowances for all individual propoerty owners within a basin are determined or adjudicated in Court. The Court typically continues to be involved after the decision through a specially appointed water master. (see A Primer on California Water Rights, prepared by Gary W. Sawyers, available on line at http:// aic.ucdavis.edu/events/outlook05/Sawyer_primer.pdf ) .
As noted by the commentor, groundwater adjudication has been considered for the Salinas Basin in the past because of the serious overdraft and seawater intrusion problems, and if the basin becomes adjudicated, it would potentially have significant efects on agriculture and the economy of Monterey County. Adoption of the Salinas Valley Water Project has forestalled basin adjudication.
Response 17-69 The commentor is asking a project level question specific to the Salinas Valley Water Project, not a question pertaining to the Draft Program EIR. This information may be obtained by contacting the Monterey County Water Agency.
Response 17-70 Refer to Response 17-30. The comments on the Department’s regulations are beyond the scope of the Draft Program EIR. Eighty-percent (80%) of nitrates are contributed by agriculture in the form of fertilizer. It appears that the commentor is arguing that the use of all on-site wells and septic systems
Michael Brandman Associates 283 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report will cause significant environmental impacts without recognizing the mitigation provided by Policy PS-4.8, which includes development of new County criteria and standards for site evaluation and design, including enhanced treatment systems, and PS4-10 which requires the County to develop an alternative (on-site system) wastewater management program, including performance monitoring. The County has existing standards that adequately address problem areas through its development of Nitrate Management Program. As to how the regulations might change due to adoption of 2006 General Plan per Draft Program EIR Mitigation Measure WR-4A (as included below), the County will develop new regulations for the design of on-site septic systems, including alternative systems per AB885. The revised regulations will be subject to the review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the approval of the County Board of Supervisors. These regulations will apply to individual lots and small communities in Rural Centers. Although these new on-site regulations have not yet been developed, it is very likely that significant restrictions will be imposed on the future use of septic disposal pits. It is probable that use of such pits will only be allowed where soil and site conditions do not permit the construction of standard septic tank leach fields or alternative systems (i.e. pressure dosed mound systems). It is also probable that a pre-treatment system for nitrate nitrogen removal will also be required for the allowed use of septic pits.
Mitigation Measure WR-4A: A new policy (PS-4.x) shall be added to the “Wastewater Treatment” section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-4.10 Prior to approval of any new alternative wastewater systems subsequent to adoption of the General Plan Update, the County shall develop an alternative wastewater system management program, consistent with the provisions of AB855 and required Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, to administer and monitor the use of alternative wastewater systems, pursuant to State law and regulations. Repairs to existing systems are exempt from this requirement.
Mitigation Measure WR-4A serves to mitigate Impacts WR-4, GEO-7 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
Response 17-71 The commenter is correct in that it is clear that increased pumping by private wells with riparian rights along the Carmel River has increased overall demand on the available water supply of this watershed, which has very likely had adverse impacts on the riparian community, and consequently on channel bank stability.
These sorts of impacts are magnified during drier than normal water years. For instance, Kondolf and Curry in an article published in 1984, reported intensified die-off of riparian trees along the Carmel River near water supply wells during the 1976-77 drought, and these same reaches experienced substantial bank erosion during the early 1980's (see Kondolf, G.M., and R.R. Curry. 1984. “The role of riparian vegetation in channel bank stability: Carmel River, California. Pages 124-133 in R.E. Warner, and K.M. Hendrix, editors, California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and management”).
It would be more correct to state that it is unclear what the relative impacts are on the riparian community along the Carmel River from increased small individual private wells, and agricultural wells, vs. larger public system wells
284 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-72 The commentor is asking a project level question specific to the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency’s strategic plan. This information may be obtained by contacting the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency.
Response 17-73 The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Quality Control Board) is the primary or lead agency responsible for monitoring and enforcement of surface water and groundwater quality in the multi-county region which includes Monterey. However, the County of Monterey is a key partner with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding water quality protection, and in many respects performs the initial assessment of potential project effects on water quality through its responsibility for development plan review and approval, CEQA review and mitigation monitoring, and provides construction inspection for approved building plan and code compliance, including compliance with grading, drainage, stormwater and erosion control regulations.
Common to many surface water bodies in California, a large number of such bodies in Monterey County do not currently meet, and have historically not met, water quality goals and objectives, and are on the State’s Clean Water Act section 303(d) list.
Many of the water quality problems affecting Monterey County creeks and rivers reflect historic urban, and agricultural land-uses; these sorts of existing historic problems will take time to remedy, and the gradual improvement process focused on prioritized especially important water bodies is implicit in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s water quality management programs.
The County takes its water quality management responsibilities seriously, and works closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and local cities, water management agencies, and special districts. Furthermore, the Commentor does not present any evidence suggesting that water quality will worsen as a result of 2006 General Plan on the grounds that its policies and subsequent ordinances will not be monitored and enforced.
Part of the solution to achieving water quality improvement is associated with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s watershed management initiative and their increased focus and in-progress programs (in Monterey County) on agriculturally related water quality through the agricultural waiver and TMDL programs.
Regarding improvements in surface water quality related to urban stormwater runoff, the County’s NPDES Stormwater Plan has recently (Oct, 2006) been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This will require the revision of the existing erosion control ordinance and its incorporation into a new and strengthened Stormwater Management Ordinance. The Stormwater Plan also includes an educational and public outreach component, training sessions for county and municipal employees and local planners, engineers, and contractors, and a stepped up surveillance and construction inspection program.
The County's approved Stormwater Plan and proposed Stormwater Ordinance revision, along with the proposed Water Agency's Drainage Design Manual will also address cumulative hydrologic impacts (the C-3 rule) from development and continued watershed urbanization that may occur in some
Michael Brandman Associates 285 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report already developed watersheds as a result of growth and development permitted by the 2006 General Plan. Both will require that an applicant generally control or manage runoff from a development site to pre-development conditions, and treat the runoff using various approved techniques such as biofilters. Both the Ordinance and the Drainage Design Manual will be subject to public review and comment, prior to Board of Supervisors review and approval. See Response 15-12 as for further clarification on the Drainage Design Manual.
The Important Farmland acreages provided by the commentor are the same as stated in Comment 17- 43. As noted in that response, there is reason to believe the Important Farmland acreages alleged by this comment to be converted to non-agricultural use are not accurate. Accordingly, no further response is possible or necessary. Refer to the Response 17-43 for a complete explanation for why the Important Farmland acreage is not accurate.
Response 17-74 See Response 17-73 for a response to the comment on runoff water quality. As noted in Master Response MR-1, a number of follow-up actions will be required for implementation of the policies and programs contained in the 2006 General Plan, once adopted by the Board of Supervisors, including conducting additional research and mapping, development of several new ordinances, and revision and updating of other existing ordinances and codes. In many cases this will require expenditures of additional public money to hire staff or outside experts to perform the work.
Since the 2006 General Plan and all of the individual policies and programs, contained therein have not yet been adopted by the Board of Supervisors, an exact timeline for implementation of the adapted policies and programs (i.e. GIS development) cannot be provided. In most instances Ordinance and Code development (including administrative rules and procedures) will require technical research, and will likely be completed under the auspices and direction of an existing County Agencies that will ultimately be responsible for its administration and enforcement. It is also likely that Ordinance and Code revision, development and review will be undertaken by Board- appointed committees working under the appropriate County Agencies. The appointed committees should be composed of technical experts, stakeholders, and other interest groups that might be affected by the new or revised ordinances and codes, in addition to public representatives. New or revised Ordinance or Codes will require a public hearing before the final version of the ordinance/code is approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The above generalized outlined process for Code and Ordinances development will likely require several years before enactment. GIS development of new data, such as hydrologic constraints, and their integration into the County plan review and approval process could take 1 - 2 years.
A separate Implementation and Financing Plan will be prepared to guide the enactment of the final adopted General Plan. This Implementation Plan will provide a more detailed outline and description of intent and content of the new or revised ordinances, codes, and programs, including a prioritized timeline for development and implementation, identify the commissions and departments responsible for the work program, procedures and standards for completing the work, and will contain an itemized cost estimate.
As indicated above, it will likely take several years or more before all GP programs, codes, and ordinances are completed. In the interim period and before their final adoption all new development
286 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments proposals in Monterey County will continue to be subject to existing County Codes and applicable planning, engineering, and environmental regulation and review.
Response 17-75 See Response 17-74.
Response 17-76 See Response 17-74. However, Best Management Practices are common techniques followed within different industries developed collaboratively with federal, state and local jurisdictions that are enhanced periodically as new information and technology evolves. See also proponed revisions to OS-3.5 in the Errata.
Response 17-77 Currently there is no readily available map of the highly erodible or high risk erosion areas of Monterey County. The Geologic Hazards GIS will contain this information. One of the key criteria used in defining high erosion hazard is slope percentage (along with soil type). None of the Community Areas or Rural Centers are located on strongly sloping ground (slopes in excess of 15 to 20%).
See Response 17-74 for a discussion of the projected timeline and proceedures for development of ordinaces codes, and rules and regulations and development of the Geologic Hazards GIS and the Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS.
Response 17-78 See Response 17-77.
Response 17-79 This comment refers to common General Plan language. The language means that County staff will develop the proposed criteria for well development standards, including water qualaity criteria, based in large part on state and federal standards, and that the Board of Supervisors will consider the staff suggested regulations for possible adoption as an Ordiance or Code, based on its merits and after considering testimony by staff, experts, the regualted public, stakeholders, and general public comments. The Board may make substantial modifications to the staff developed draft regualtion based on the public testimony, and comments from other agencies and experts, may adopt it as written in the draft, or may reject it entirely, as their authority allows and as the collectively decide. The 2006 General Plan policies, the Final Program EIR, and the adopted mitigation measures will form the initial basis for guiding staff.
Response 17-80 Comment noted. 2006 General Plan policy PS-3 does not define a long term water supply as 20 years, it provides a policy that encourages water conservation by looking back at historic use rates over the last 20 years, and providing an incentive to use less water than historic use rates.
Response 17-81 See Response 17-74. The proposed water supply assessment guidelines will include specific criteria defining what constitutes an adequate, dependable, and sustainable water supply, including the time
Michael Brandman Associates 287 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report horizon of water availability, and how to determine it, and detailed procedures for conducting the assessments.
The Water Conservation Policy, and follow-up implementation water conservation ordinance program will prohibit water wasteage and require use and implementation of water conservation Best Management Practices. The County’s water conservation program, housed in the Water Agency, will be responsible for developing the implementation program.
Response 17-82 See Response 17-74. The use of the term “may” was selected to give the committee and county staff maximum flexibility in developing the final regulations. The final version of the Policy is subject to editing at the direction of the Board of Supervisors prior to final adoption.
Response 17-83 As discussed in Master Responses MR-1, MR-2, MR-3 and MR-4, and Response 17-79, General Plans are policy documents that serve to guide development of new Ordinances and other regulations. The subject CEQA document is a Program EIR as noted in Master Response MR-1. No General Plans in California contain new or revised specific Municipal Codes.
All General Plans have a transitional implementation period that reflects the time it takes to develop and implement the General Plan programs, including Ordiance and code development. Development proposals submitted during this interim, transitional period are goverened by General Plan policies and Municipal code sections, and other rules and regualtions in effect at the time of submittal. In many cases projects will be subject to CEQA review. The Board of Supervisors has the option and authority of declaring a local or larger area development moratorium, including as an emergency ordinance, should they consider that there are potentially serious project impacts that could occur prior to final rule making and adoption of a specific rule or regulation, and that are not sufficiently dealt with under the existing set of County regulations at the project level of review.
Response 17-84 See Response 15-12 and Response 17-73. Policies are proposed in the 2006 General Plan that address stormwater runoff from both existing and new development.
All new development will be subject to drainage plan review by the County. In addition to CEQA review at the project level for discretionary projects, Stormdrain Master Plans will be required for larger development proposals. Development proposals may include either surface drainage systems to convey stormwater runoff, or have underground stormsewers. Design criteria as to what constitutes an adequate storm drainage system and when the stormwater system must be undergrounded, placed in bioswales, or other surface features willl be determined on a Project-by- project basis and included in the proposed new Drainage Design Manual. Commonly, Drainage Design Manuals require that all drainage plans consider cumulative runoff (impacts) from both existing upstream and downstream development and anticipated buildout, and that the stormdrain system be adequate to handle the increased runoff from a proposed development project, or that the proposed development reconstruct an adequate system, or pay in lieu drainage impact fees.
288 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
In general, most of the county unincorporated areas do not have underground stormdrains although some areas peripheral to incorporated cities, such as Salinas, have underground stormdrainage systems. The communities of Parajo and Castroville also have underground stormdrainage systems.
Detailed mapping at a scale and format suitable for inclusion in the Final Program EIR are not available for these areas, and it would not materially add to the technical impact analysis or findings to develop these for inclusion, or to include stormdrainage maps of the incorporated cities as part of the Program EIR.
Response 17-85 Policy OS-3.5 has been modified in response to public comments to more clearly distinguish the types of permits that would be required with respect to the steepness of slope and types of activities that would be covered. 2006 General Plan policy AG-3.3 has been modified based upon public comment to include an illustrative list of Routine and Ongoing Activities that would be further developed by a subsequent ordinance as well as a limitation exempting “activities that create significant soil erosion impacts or violate adopted water quality standards. Definitions in the 2006General Plan have also been modified and included in the Errata as follows:
Previously Uncultivated Lands mean those areas that have not been cultivated during the past 20 years.
Cultivated means to prepare or use the land for crops through the tillage of soil or planning of vines or trees. Cultivation includes periods of fallow rotation that are part of an agricultural production system.
Hillside conversion of previously uncultivated rangeland to vineyards and orchards are examples of “new cultivation” that would be subject to an agricultural grading permit program.
The State Department of Conservation has been mapping Prime and Important Farmland since the early 1980’s and the Department of Water Resources has been mapping cropland since the 1950’s. These historic records, along with historic air photos will provide the basis to determine if specific lands were previously cultivated, or if “new cultivation” on sloping land is proposed.
These State’s programs and other programs administered by the US Department of Agriculture contain definitions of a number of terms, including what constitutes cultivation, and the timelime from when a previously cultivated filed that has laid fallow would be considered historically farmed, and not new cultivation.
Response 17-86 It is expected that the Board of Supervisors will appoint committee members and county staff responsible for preparing the permit program for hillside conversion that will also address the need for management of cumulative watershed effects for instance, on streams from several large land conversion projects occurring in a watershed in a short period of time.
Response 17-87 The commentor is correct in that the County already cooperates with these agencies in agricultural water quality management. However, currently there is no County policy that requires this.
Michael Brandman Associates 289 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-88 The commentor has the opinion that the proposed 2006 General Plan, if adopted will result in a much more significant increase in County population and changes in land use than that presented in the Project Description of the Draft Program EIR with (in the commentor’s opinion) a corresponding increase in demand on services, increased need for water supply and wastewater infrastructure development, and increased development related impacts on creeks, storm drainage systems, and flooding. Master Response MR-1 through Master ResponseMR-5 address this aspect of the comment.
With regards to the comment on likely significant, unmitigated impacts on available water supply, all proposed new subdivisions are subject to Policy AG-3.3 which require proof of a long term sustainable water supply. Any subdivisions of 500 or more lots, will require the completion of a detailed water supply assessment (proof of long term water) with the technical assessment to be based on assessment guidelines and standards, developed specifically for use in Monterey County, and based broadly on SB610 Standards.
Proposed subdivision developments are also referred to the County Environmental Health Department, Engineering/Public Works, and County Water Agency for further analysis for conformity with County Code and implementing rules and regulations. These reviews will include a detailed analysis of groundwater quality, long-term water supply, site conditions, soil erosion and stormwater quality impacts, and potential impacts on strormdrain system infrastructure adequacy and creek stability and flooding.
Response 17-89 See Response 17-74.
Response 17-90 See Response 17-74.
Response 17-91 See Response 17-74.
Response 17-92 Many of the wastewater treatment and disposal systems in Monterey County are municipal service or special districts that are not under the direct authority of the County. The County can therefore only encourage use of tertiary treatment, and does not have the authority to require it.
Response 17-93 See Response 17-74.
Response 17-94 See Response 17-70.
Response 17-95 Comment noted. Please also see Response 17-74, Response 17-79, Response 17-83 and Response 17- 88.
290 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-96 See Response 17-73, Response 17-74, Response 17-83, Response 17-84 and Response 17-88.
Response 17-97 See Response 17-74.for a discussion of the timeline for the Implementation and Financing Plan.
Response 17-98 See Master MR-3, Master Response MR-4 and Response 17-88.
Response 17-99 See Response 17-74.
Response 17-100 The use of the term “discouraged” instead of “prohibited” is intented to convey regulatory flexibility. For instance some communities allow floodplain development using a “no net fill” concept, whereby floodplains can be excavated in one area and the excess cut used to fill other areas, provided that the applicant demonstrate through detailed hydrologic analysis no significant impacts (increases) on floodwater surface elevations and stream stability. The proposed Drainage Design Manual will provide much greater specificity and criteria for allowable and prohibited floodplain use and development restrictions. See also Response 15-12.
Response 17-101 See Response 15-12. The proposed Drainage Design Manual will contain design standards that prohibit floodway and floodplain alterations that redirect floodflow or cause stream stability impacts. All property modifications that are large enough in size to redirect floodflows will require a building permit, and/or grading permit, including a drainage review.
The Drainage Design manual will require a cumulative hydrologic analysis of large subdivision proposals which could impact downstream floodplains. Typically these projects would also be subject to scrutiny during the CEQA review process.
Response 17-102 See Response 17-92.
Response 17-103 Refer to Response 1a-11. In regards to the commentor’s stated fact that the existing County Grading and Erosion Control, and Zoning Ordinances already contain similar erosion control requirements as are presented in Mitigation Measures WR-2A, 2B, WR-3A 3B, and 3C, a well written General Plan provides a written policy that supports each Ordinance, especially those that are to be modified or revised. For clarification, new hillside cultivation of range land, including especially the planting of orchards and vineyards on previously non-cultivated slopes in excess of 25% will not be considered “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities”, and will not be exempt from permitting requirements, and the development and implementation of erosion control plans. The 2006 General Plan indicates that the County will require a grading permit this activity. The Board appointed committee and county staff charged with developing this a grading ordinance will determine the additional criteria and requirements.
Michael Brandman Associates 291 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-104 Wine facilities are considered agricultural supporting uses because they allow for onsite processing of grapes grown on the property and on properties elsewhere in the region. The development of agricultural supporting uses (e.g., wineries) on agricultural parcels does not constitute the conversion of farmland to urban uses because these uses are inherently related to agriculture. In addition, the AWCP contains development standards relating to the subdivision of agricultural parcels to accommodate wine facilities that limit building coverage to 30% of the parcel and require the facilities to conform to the requirements of the AWCP. These provisions will ensure that the- development of wine facilities do not adversely impact the viability of agriculture.
Response 17-105 See Master Response MR-1. The information, mapping, and technical analyses requested by the commentor is not appropriate or necessary for the environmental analysis of policies contained in a General Plan. See Response 17-74.
Response 17-106 The additional background information and clarifications provided by the commentor regarding the current County Code is noted.
As noted in Response 1a-11, Mitigation Measure WR-3a clarifies that the ultimately adopted version of Policy AG-3.3 should not exempt hillside slope conversion of previously uncultivated land to new agricultural uses such as vineyards and orchards. Hillside conversion, or “new cultivation” will not be considered a “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activity”.
We are unaware of other counties in California, that specifically require growers to obtain a permit (for grading or erosion control) to cultivate land that has a history of cultivation, especially on flatland areas. The notion of “a permit to farm” other than to address impacts of hillside conversion, is not feasible.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board will continue to be the lead agency regarding control and management of erosion and water quality impacts from on-going farming activities through their TMDL and agricultural waiver programs. In addition, the USDA encourages water quality protection through various farm aid and assistance programs, such as EQUIP.
The current County Code does not prohibit conversion on slopes over 30%, but requires a use permit instead. The revised Open Space Policy would reduces this criteria to 25%.
Response 17-107 See Response 17-106.
Response 17-108 See Response 17-106.
Response 17-109 See Response 17-74. The Implementation and Financing Plan will provide this information. This is not considered to be an impact issue that needs to be addressed in a General Plan Program Final Program EIR.
292 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-110 The commentor asks a rhetorical question regarding the presence of naturally occurring asbestos minerals in Salinas Valley soils, and notes possible health hazards from long time exposure to asbestos containing soils (dust). The comment is noted. The best and most practical way to control the asbestos problem is by controlling dust during soil disturbance and grading activities, for instance by watering, and following completion of grading and soil disturbance activities, by mulching and vegetative establishment in bare soil areas.
Response 17-111 As discussed in Master Response MR-2 and Master Response MR-6, the baseline year for purposes of presentation of existing conditions is 2001.
Response 17-112 Comment noted. However, there is no need to update the existing conditions section in the Draft Program EIR to include this information. The possible pipeline extension will likely be the subject of its own CEQA analysis.
Response 17-113 Compliance with the provisions of the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) through the County’s adopted review procedures for compliance with SMARA, are the appropriate means to address this matter. The abandoned asbestos mine located near King City was inadvertently left out of the discussion of abandoned mines, and is not shown on Figure 4.5-2, which may not be inclusive of all abandoned mines in the County. However, this exclusion does not materially affect the analysis and findings of the Draft Program EIR.
Response 17-114 Compliance with the provisions of the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) through the County’s adopted review procedures for compliance with SMARA, are the appropriate means to address this matter.
Response 17-115 See Master Response MR-20. In addition, the AMBAG 2030 population and employment projections take into account local general plan designations and were developed collaboratively with local agencies. For projections in unincorporated Monterey County AMBAG numbers anticipated Community Area development as proposed in GPU3. As stated on Page 55 of the 2004 Population, Housing Unit, & Employment Forecasts report the Technical Advisory Committee (FTAC) elected to use an in-house allocation modeling process that “took advantage of extensive land use and general plan data available locally”. Additionally, initial forecasts were distributed to local agencies for review and AMBAG made changes to the forecasts to reflect additional information provided by local agencies, and these revised forecasts were then submitted to local agencies for review.
Response 17-116 Refer to Response 17-46. The Draft Program EIR describes the assumptions used in the AMBAG travel demand forecasting model to the extent it could reasonably be provided in the body of the EIR, posted electronically on a website, or reference available documents. Land use assumptions are identified as the AMBAG 2030 projections (Page 4.6-27) and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level
Michael Brandman Associates 293 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report population and employment data was uploaded to a publicly accessible website. Roadway and network assumptions are also identified on page 4.6-27 as being based on the financially constrained network as identified in the 2005 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan, and the two scenarios with and without the proposed improvements identified in TAMC’s 14-Year Investment Plan. Specific descriptions of the roadway improvements in the 14-Year Investment Plan are included in Table 4.6-8. In addition to the roadway improvements described in the body of the Draft Program EIR, traffic projection data was provided via a website. The size of the electronic traffic projection data (in the form of multiple diagrams) would not be readable if included in the Draft Program EIR appendices.
Response 17-117 The cumulative impact of local general plans to the planning horizon (2030) is reflected in the land use projections used to evaluate the 2006 General Plan. Development of the AWCP to the year 2030 is also evaluated in the Draft Program EIR for typical weekday peak conditions. Also see Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-20. Weekend tourism conditions do not represent the worst traffic conditions. It is customary transportation planning practice to evaluate conditions anticipated to have the highest traffic volume. The PM peak hour represents these conditions both Countywide and within the AWCP. A examination of daily traffic counts indicates that the roadways within the AWCP experience traffic volumes that are 80 percent of weekday volumes on Saturdays (20% lower) and 60 percent of weekday volumes (40% lower) on Sundays (source: Monterey County Public Works Department). Therefore, the General Plan is conservative in its analysis of the wine corridor. Moreover, wine related traffic in the AWCP will not tax the capacity of existing roads. In addition, special events may require a permit under [add ordinance reference] which could mitigate traffic congestion at such events.
As noted in Master Response MR-1, programmatic environmental review of the 2006 General Plan consists of a broad-scoped evaluation of conceptual information, policies, and existing conditions. It discloses a range of potential environmental impacts anticipated from the project based on conceptual project plans, project description, and general survey of existing conditions for the entire county. The scope of the recommended mitigation measures, therefore, is also broad and reflects a wide range of strategies to reduce potential impacts. Detailed plans for specific and individual developments within the AWCP (or elsewhere in the County) will be subject to final project review and approval by the County. At that time, the County will prepare a subsequent project-level environmental document in accordance with CEQA to address the impacts from implementation of detailed project plans and special events.
Response 17-118 Existing road capacity deficiencies are addressed in the setting section of the Draft Program EIR. The setting section identifies the County roadways currently (year 2000) operating at level of service (LOS) E and F (Table 4.6-4) and shows the level of service for all county and regional roadways in Figure 4.6-2a using color coding. As a programmatic EIR it is not feasible to identify all safety deficiencies on a countywide basis. For a General Plan, safety deficiencies are addressed at the policy and design standard level.
Response 17-119 The funding of existing capacity and safety deficiencies is the responsibility on ongoing County programs including the County’s Capital Improvement Program and the TAMC Regional
294 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Transportation Plan. However, as it relates the 2006 General Plan, the Draft Program EIR’s mitigation measures states that any new development allowed under the General Plan that exacerbates an existing deficiency is considered a significant impact and required to fund improvements either through direct mitigation of localized impacts (tier 1 impacts). For example if a development project is found to exacerbate an existing safety deficiency it may be required to mitigate its impact though implementation of improvements (as opposed to paying a fee). This is supported through Policy C- 1.4, which requires direct on-site Adequate Public Facilities and Services (APFS) and direct off-site APFS circulation improvements to maintain or restore LOS D constructed concurrently with new development.
Assuring the ability to fund improvements is addressed in General Plan Policies C.1-1, C.1-3, C.1-8, and C.1-11 that establish performance measures and restrict development until transportation facilities can be mitigated to an acceptable level of service standard, thus protecting the transportation system from the adverse impacts.
C-1.8 Development proposed in cities and surrounding jurisdictions shall be carefully reviewed to assess the proposed development’s impact on the County’s circulation system and adequate mitigation shall be sought through LAFCO and other development review processes. The County, in consultation with TAMC and Monterey County cities, shall, within 18 months of adoption of the General Plan, develop a County Traffic Impact Fee that addresses impacts of development in cities and unincorporated areas on major County roads From the time of adoption of the General Plan until the time of adoption of a County Traffic Impact Fee, the County shall impose an ad hoc fee on its applicants based upon a fair share traffic impact fee study.
Response 17-120 Development in the AWCP, similar to the mitigation elsewhere in the County, is subject to performance measures that restrict development until transportation facilities can be mitigated to an acceptable level of service standard. The funding of these mitigation measures is proposed through a CIFP, direct on-site Adequate Public Facilities and Services (APFS) and direct off-site APFS circulation improvement, or other means such as development agreements. The potential impacts can be found to be less than significant because develop cannot be allowed until a funding mechanism is adopted.
Response 17-121 Comment noted.
Response 17-122 Refer to Master Response MR-20 and Response 17-128. The comment refers to the summary of Tier 1 impacts (direct impacts) described on page 4.6-1. Direct impacts are identified at the project- specific level of analysis for proposed development and are required to be fully mitigated by the project. As described in the Draft Program EIR, direct impacts of new development are localized impacts that affect the immediate surrounding transportation system, including access and circulation necessary for the development to function properly and safely. As such direct impacts are independent of regional traffic forecasts and are typically determined at the project-specific level of analysis (see Master Response MR-1 as to the programmatic nature of the Draft Program EIR) Cumulative impacts on County (Tier 2) and regional (Tier 3) roadways are mitigated through fair-
Michael Brandman Associates 295 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report share contributions when countywide and regional impact fees are adopted. However, Tier 2 and 3 impacts were identified in the Draft Program EIR as remaining significant and unavoidable.
Direct impacts occur where new development needs to gain access to county roadways and/or where traffic generated by new development causes project-specific deficiencies in roadway or intersection operations. Direct impacts may occur with the first phases of development. Under Policy C.1-4 new development may be fully responsible for the implementation of mitigation measures or may be responsible for its fair-share of the mitigation depending on the extent of the impact and the development’s contribution to the impact. Because mitigation is required of direct impacts at the project level and is not reliant on funding from fees or other sources the impact was found to be less than significant.
Response 17-123 Caltrans Annual Average Daily Truck Volumes were referenced on state highways where Caltrans collects data. Caltrans data only provides truck volumes on individual roads, not countywide. The AMBAG Study is the most recent and comprehensive data available on freight movement in Monterey County and presents total countywide truck movements and growth projections.
Response 17-124 The AMBAG base year model reflecting year 2000 was selected to report existing conditions because it was the best source of comprehensive existing travel demand and level of service data available. Use of the model allowed a comparison between existing and projected traffic volumes and levels of service on all county and state facilities, and on all segments of these facilities. There were limited traffic counts available (particularly for County roadways) and located sporadically around the County resulting in an inadequate data base for reporting existing conditions.
Response 17-125 The commentor is correct in stating that the 1982 General Plan policies do not directly state that the County has adopted a standard of level of service (LOS) C. However, the policy cited (Policy 37.2.1) in the 1982 General Plan does assert that a threshold of level of service acceptability exists. The County has historically used LOS C as its threshold, and this level of service threshold is supported in the Road and Highway Performance paragraph on page 125 of the 1982 General Plan.
Two 1982 General Plan policies reference acceptable roadway performance:
Policy 37.2.1: Transportation demands of proposed development shall not exceed an acceptable level of service for existing transportation facilities, unless appropriate increases in capacities are provided for.
Policy 39.1.4: New development shall be located where there is existing road and highway capacity or where adequate road and highway capacity will be provided.
In addition, in a transportation setting discussion on Page 129 of the 1982 General Plan the following statement is made: “The Monterey County Transportation Commission objective for optimum driving conditions is LOS “C” or better.”
No policies in the 1982 General Plan state that the Monterey County Transportation Commission objective of LOS C is the official roadway performance standard for County roadways. As such, the
296 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments commentor’s claim that LOS C is the adopted County standard is incorrect. Note that the Draft Program EIR incorrectly stated on Page 4.6-26 that the County’s adopted LOS standard was LOS D. This has been corrected and the change is noted in the Errata.
In regards to the commentor’s assertion that the Draft Program EIR needs to analyze the environmental impacts of establishing LOS D as the County roadway performance standard, impacts from growth contemplated by the 2006 General Plan, including necessary roadway improvements, are evaluated in the Draft Program EIR on a program-level. Specific improvements will be required to undergo separate project-level CEQA analysis.
Response 17-126 Refer to Master Response 20 and Response 17-115.
Response 17-127 The statement that AMBAG’s travel model reflects growth contemplated by the 2006 General Plan has been clarified to state that AMBAG’s travel model factored in regional population growth forecasts from the 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit and Employment forecasts.
Refer to Master Response MR-4 for more detailed discussion of how the AMBAG forecasts relate to the 2006 General Plan development potential.
Response 17-128 The Draft Program EIR acknowledges that growth allowed in the 2006 General Plan would cause Tier 2 impacts (County Roads) and Tier 3 impacts (Regional roads), and that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Tier 1, or direct impacts, occur where new development needs to gain access to county roadways and/or where traffic generated by new development causes project-specific deficiencies in roadway or intersection operations. Direct impacts may occur with the first phases of development. Under Policy C.1-4 new development may be fully responsible for the implementation of mitigation measures or may be responsible for its fair-share of the mitigation depending on the extent of the impact and the development’s contribution to the impact. Because mitigation is required of direct impacts at the project level and is not reliant on funding from fees or other sources the impact was found to be less than significant.
Response 17-129 The Draft Program EIR identifies, as significant and unavoidable, any impact that causes the County or regional roadway system to exceed the level of service D threshold, and that cannot be mitigated at the project-specific level. Only Tier 1 impacts (direct impacts) can be mitigated on a project-by- project basis. Tier 2 (County road) and Tier 3 (regional road) impacts will rely on implementation of a countywide and region wide traffic impact fee (TIF). Therefore, these impacts are significant and unavoidable.
Response 17-130 Exhibits 4.6-6a, 4.6-6b, and 4.6-6c are titled “Year 2030 (Without 14-Year Plan) Roadway Level of Service” and represent the same scenario at different scales. Exhibits 4.6-6b, and 4.6-6c are details of North County and Monterey Peninsula areas respectively.
Michael Brandman Associates 297 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-131 The Prunedale Improvement Project (PIP) is a funded project and included in the 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The PIP is not to be mistaken for the US 101 Prunedale Bypass project, which is a different project and was included in the Measure A list of improvements.
Response 17-132 The Westside Bypass was included in Scenario 2 (With 14-Year Plan) because it is an unfunded project. The project was identified by TAMC as being funded partially through revenues generated through Measure A, partially from a regional traffic impact fee revenue, and partially through local traffic impacts fee revenues (City of Salinas).
Response 17-133 The AMBAG base year model reflecting year 2000 was selected to report existing conditions because it was the best source of comprehensive existing travel demand and level of service data available. Use of the model allowed a comparison between existing and projected traffic volumes and levels of service on all county and state facilities, and on all segments of these facilities. There were limited traffic counts available (particularly for County roadways) and located sporadically around the County resulting in an inadequate data base for reporting existing conditions.
Response 17-134 The intent of impact analysis for Impact TRAN-2 was an evaluation of heavy vehicle traffic on County roadways as it relates to safety and design standards. This intent is summarized in the conclusion of Impact TRAN-2 on Page 4.6-55 which states (emphasis added):
Development of the land uses allowed under the 2006 General Plan by the year 2030 could potentially result in significant adverse impacts on the County’s roadway and highway system by increasing heavy vehicle demand on roadways that may not meet current County design standards. However, the 2006 General Plan and Area Plans contain policies that identify the types of improvements necessary to improve safety and operations for heavy vehicle travel and a means for new development to evaluate and fund these improvements. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant through implementation of the general plan policies.
Development that generates truck traffic, like those that generate automobile traffic, is subject to the performance measures established in the General Plan, and was included in the traffic projections uses in the Draft Program EIR analysis. The impact of goods movement on roadway capacity and level of service is addressed in Impact TRAN 1A-1C.
General Plan Policies C.1-1, C.1-3, C.1-8, and C.1-11 ensure that improvements are funded. In addition, the Draft Program EIR mitigation measures as amended by the County Planning Commission establish performance measures and restrict development until transportation facilities can be mitigated to an acceptable level of service standard, thus protecting the transportation system from the adverse impacts.
Additionally, commercial, industrial, and/or agricultural development that generates truck traffic which creates direct impacts at locations where new development needs to gain access to county
298 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments roadways and/or where traffic generated by new development causes project-specific deficiencies in roadway or intersection safety and operations, may be fully responsible for the implementation of mitigation measures.
Response 17-135 The finding of less than significant impact for the provision of adequate emergency access is predicated on the mitigation measures for Impacts TRAN 1A, TRAN 1-B, and TRAN-1C, which restrict development unless adequate roadway capacity can be provided through either direct mitigation of impacts or contribution to a countywide and region wide funding mechanism to provide capacity concurrent with development.
As a programmatic EIR, the Draft Program EIR does not address individual intersections, but provides policies that ensure new development allowed under the 2006 General Plan addresses impacts at the local level during project-specific environmental review.
Response 17-136 Mitigation Measure TRAN-1C is a feasible approach to mitigating for regional traffic impacts because it identifies a funding mechanism, implementation approach and timeline, and performance standard. The commentor asserts that this is not a financially feasible approach for private developers, but provides no evidence to support this assertion. Given the absence of evidence, no meaningful response to this claim can be provided.
Response 17-137 The Draft Program EIR acknowledges that there will be new development in rural areas. However, development, even in rural areas, is concentrated enough to support non-automobile modes of travel, particularly in combination with policies that ensure multi-modal design standards and support appropriate and safe designs for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
Response 17-138 The noise exposure standards established by the 1982 General Plan will serve as the basis for the Community Noise Ordinance. Hence, the 1982 General Plan standards are the de facto noise standards for the County. Therefore, there is no discrepancy with the Draft Program EIR’s reference to the standards in Table 4.8-2.Response 17-139
Response 17-139 As described in Master Response MR-4, the AMBAG 2004 Population, Housing Unit and Employment Forecasts is the best available estimate for growth that is likely to occur under the 2006 General Plan. The AMBAG Regional Travel Demand Model is based on the 2004 population, housing, and employment forecasts and is considered the best available traffic model for modeling 2030 and buildout conditions. Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Mitigation Measure N-1 requires that all proposed discretionary residential projects that are within roadway noise contours of 60 CNEL or greater shall include a finding of consistency of the Noise Hazards section of the Safety Element, and where appropriate, a project-specific noise impact analysis shall be conducted prior to final approval. If impacts are identified, “reasonable and feasible” mitigation analysis shall be conducted using Caltrans or Federal Highway Administration
Michael Brandman Associates 299 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
(FHWA) guidelines. Any mitigation measures meeting these test shall be concurrently funded and constructed as part of the roadway improvement.
This mitigation provides clear and unequivocal language requiring future discretionary residential projects to be consistent with the 2006 General Plan noise standards. These standards establish maximum exterior and interior noise levels for residential land uses. To be consistent with the 2006 General Plan noise standard, a discretionary project must demonstrate that these maximum exterior and interior noise levels will not be exceeded. This will ensure that noise impacts are less than significant.
In addition, Mitigation Measure N-1 requires project-specific noise impact analysis be conducted where appropriate. The clause “where appropriate” provides the County of Monterey with the ability to implement this requirement based on a case-by-case basis. The noise analysis must consistent with Caltrans or FHWA guidelines, which are the industry standard. Proposed mitigation must be “reasonable and feasible,” which is intended to ensure that standard noise mitigation (e.g., sound barriers, set backs, etc.) are not omitted unless that can be proven to be ineffective or cost prohibitive.
In summary, Mitigation Measure N-1 will reduce potential noise impacts on residential land uses by requiring consistency with the 2006 General Plan noise standards and by requiring that project- specific noise analysis and, if necessary, mitigation be incorporated into future projects. The finding in the Draft Program EIR that noise impacts are less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 is appropriate and does not require modification.
Response 17-140 The noise contours presented are all based on noise measurements or commonly accepted practices. Twenty-six (26) sites were measured in Monterey County and consisted of both stationary and transportation sources. Additional measurements were made of the Laguna Seca Raceway. Environmental studies that had previously been prepared were also reviewed and in some cases noise data from the documents were also used in the preparation of the noise contours. Some of the measurement sites were along roadways and these locations provided a check on the noise model that was utilized. The vast majority of roadways were not measured, but were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) “Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model,” (FHWA-RD-77- 108). The traffic volumes were based on the AMBAG projections. Speeds used in the modeling were either the posted speed limit or those observed by the noise consultant. Vehicle mixes (i.e., auto, medium truck and heavy truck percentages) were obtained from California Department of Transportation published data, based on actual short term counts conducted by the noise consultant, or in cases where the truck percentage was very low, a typical suburban vehicle mix was used.
The comments on the maps (placed there by the County) are intended to point out that the contours and other information presented are for General Plan level analysis. The development of a specific site, for example, would require a more detailed study that is beyond the scope of a General Plan level document.
Response 17-141 The noise contours for the Laguna Seca Raceway are based on two sets of measurements. The first set of measurements was presented in the “Environmental Noise Analysis, Bishop Ranch Subdivision,” (prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., October 27, 1994). The second set of the noise
300 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments measurements, and those given more weight in the noise contour generation, were completed by Mestre Greve Associates (MGA). Topography plays a significant role in containing the noise levels around the Laguna Seca Raceway. It is very likely that noise from the raceway can be heard in Carmel Valley, however, those noise levels are well below those limited by the noise ordinance and below those shown in the noise contour maps.
Response 17-142 The technical noise study for the Noise Element update built upon the previous General Plan Update Program and more specifically the “Noise Analysis of Monterey County,” by Earth Metrics, Inc., prepared for the Monterey County Planning Department, March 1981. This document provides a comprehensive list of noise sources throughout the County. Additionally, County staff and noise complaints were reviewed to identify any additional significant noise sources within the County. Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts were not identified by these resources as a significant noise source, and therefore, are not addressed in the Noise section.
Response 17-143 The Noise section does not address proposed projects that have not yet been approved. A project such as the New Pleyto Rural Center will have to undergo a separate environmental analysis and all applicable noise mitigation applied to bring the project into compliance with County noise ordinance requirements and to a level below significance thresholds.
Response 17-144 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-145 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-146 Refer to Master Response MR-21 and MR-23.
Response 17-147 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-148 Refer to Master Response MR-21 and Response 1a-12.
Response 17-149 As discussed in Master Response MR-21, any project that could potentially impact a wildlife movement corridor will be assessed and evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Where appropriate, proposed projects that may significantly affect wildlife movement will require site specific mitigation measures based on the specific conditions and species involved.
Response 17-150 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Michael Brandman Associates 301 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-151 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-152 Refer to Master Response MR-21 and MR-23.
Response 17-153 Refer to Master Response MR-21 and Master Response MR-23. The term special-status species includes federal and state-listed threatened, endangered, or rare species. See Response 1a-12.
Response 17-154 Cumulative impacts to biological resources are addressed in Section 6.4.1 of the Draft Program EIR. Individual projects will be subject to CEQA review, and may be required to provide detailed analysis of impacts on sensitive biological resources and proposed mitigation measures with regard to cumulative impacts within the local area as well as regional significance.
Response 17-155 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-156 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-157 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-158 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-159 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response 17-160 The Draft Program EIR analyzes the physical impacts on the environment caused by new or expanded public facilities. The CEQA Thresholds of Significance were used, albeit phrased in a different manner to focus analysis on the need for new or expanded public facilities and also specifically mention library and public health facilities. All of the impact analysis contained in Section 4.11 of the Draft Program EIR used the CEQA Thresholds of Significance as the basis for assessing the 2006 General Plan’s impacts on public services and utility systems.
Response 17-161 Refer to Master Response MR-11.
Response 17-162 Refer to Master Response MR-11.
302 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-163 Refer to Master Response MR-12.
Response 17-164 As noted on Page 4.11-52, 2006 General Plan Safety Element Policy S-6.1 requires that Sheriff’s services be considered prior to approval of new lots or the intensification of existing lots of record. This is commonly done through project-level CEQA analysis. As such, it is not necessary to analyze Sheriff’s services by geographic area at the General Plan program level.
Response 17-165 Modest growth, not “wholesale growth”, is projected in the unincorporated areas of the County as discussed in Master Response MR-4.
Response 17-166 The 2006 General Plan is a policy document, not a water supply planning study. Although a county- wide water balance has not been prepared, this information is available for large portions of the county from the three water management agencies. Although useful, a water balance or water budget is not a required element or component of a General Plan, and the lack of a countywide water budget is not a fatal flaw in the document. Water supply issues are addressed in the 2006 County General Plan by requiring subdivisions (five lots are larger) to complete a water supply assessment demonstrating proof of water availability.
Response 17-167 The commentor is requesting detailed information that is appropriate at a project level of review. As noted in Master Response 1, this is a Program EIR, an analysis of a policy document. The requested information will not materially add to the analysis and discussion.
Response 17-168 This typo has been corrected in the Errata.
Response 17-169 Blanco Road in Salinas is not in the coastal area.
Response 17-170 The commentor is requesting specific, project level information, including a progress update on the Salinas Valley Water Project. The commentor may obtain this information by contacting the Monterey County Water Agency.
Response 17-171 The Salinas Valley Water Project, when fully implemented in conjunction with the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project, have the goal of bringing the basin into balance. There are infrastructure and distribution issues and problems that need to be resolved to more effectively and efficiently utilize the available water supply in the basin.
Michael Brandman Associates 303 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-172 A detailed financial analysis was completed for the Salinas Valley Water Project, and details of public financing were disclosed along with the bond measure that was put before the voters that will be used to fund and pay for the Salinas Valley Water Project. The measure was approved by the voters in April 2003 and is currently in effect.
Implementation of County General Plan policies will occur through budgetary and resource priorities established by the Board of Supervisors. This process may include a discussion of identified overall county capital improvement infrastructure costs and related financing, along with other costs, such as GIS development, ordinance development, etc.
A General Plan is a general policy document, not a specific infrastructure plan that discusses project- level improvement needs, costs, and financing. See Response 17-74.
Response 17-173 The deep (900 foot) aquifer receives very little recharge from rainfall infiltration or stream bottom infiltration and heavy pumping over long periods cannot be sustained without declines in groundwater levels, or without an aquifer injection program.
Response 17-174 Any proposed development at San Lucas will need to provide proof of an available water supply, as currently required by the County.
Response 17-175 The commentor has misread or mis-interpreted the Draft Program EIR on this point. The 2006 General Plan is not proposing that, as a mitigation, to balance water supply and demand, or that land be purposely taken out of agriculture (which has a higher water demand than urban uses that conserve water). Quite the contrary, the 2006 General Plan notes the importance of agriculture to the County economy and many policies are supportive of agriculture.
Response 17-176 Excess winter flow from the Carmel River would be injected into the Carmel Valley aquifer as a part of the ASR. The winter flow contains urban and some agricultural runoff, as well as some flow from septic tank leach fields. Contaminants that could enter the aquifer from these sources include low levels of metals, pesticides and herbicides, nutrients, and salts.
Response 17-177 The proposed 2006 General Plan policies and County rules and regulations establish clear project approval procedures, including consideration of phasing. For instance, Public Services Element Policies PS-1.1 through PS-1.6 require that adequate public facilities and services be provided concurrently with new development.
Proof of water must be demonstrated for any development proposed for the Prunedale Rural Center, in accordance with water supply assessment guidelines that will be prepared as part of the general Plan implementation program.
304 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-178 Comment noted. It is unclear from the comment whether this is just a point of clarification or not.
Response 17-179 Properly treated wastewater actually has low e.coli levels, and in fact is more highly managed and more frequently tested than many public water sources and most individual well water. It is unlikely than any additional treatment would be needed prior to aquifer injection. It is very speculative, and in fact highly unlikely that the State will modify wastewater treatment standards for groundwater injection because of the referenced e.coli outbreak, especially since it is not attributable to wastewater.
Response 17-180 Comment noted. The City of Soledad is incorporated and not under County jurisdiction.
Response 17-181 Comment noted. This sentence pertains to a weakness in the historic water supply assessment law preceding SB610, which was SB901.
Response 17-182 The reference to the Monterey County Health Department has been corrected in the Draft Program EIR. This correction is noted in the Errata.
Response 17-183 The description of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has been amended. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response 17-184 Refer to Master Response MR-12
Response 17-185 Refer to Master Response MR-12.
Response 17-186 Agency staffing and funding levels are inherently political decisions and are outside the scope of the CEQA review process. As such, detailed analysis of Sheriff’s Office staffing is outside the purview of the Draft Program EIR.
Response 17-187 School district staffing levels are inherently a political decision made by independently elected school boards and does not result in physical impacts on the environment. The County does not have the ability to require school districts to provide certain levels of staffing, and therefore, this issue is outside the purview of the Draft Program EIR.
Response 17-188 AMBAG forecasts are one of the tools that have been utilized for determining reasonably foreseeable buildout. The County projected more growth than had been predicted by AMBAG and based its
Michael Brandman Associates 305 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report analysis of resource impacts, including water availability on the County’s projection. Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Response 17-189 Water budgets have been prepared for the major groundwater basins of the County by the responsible water management agencies. However, a collective water budget covering the entire County has not been prepared. Although desirable, this is not a requirement of a General Plan, and in fact very few General Plans in California have gone to this extent.
Each of the three water management agencies have prepared water budgets with the goal of achieving water supply sustainability for their individual areas of management responsibility.
Water Supply Contingency Plans are a requirement of an Urban Water Management Plan. These are prepared either individually or collectively by water providers per California Water Code requirements. A Contingency Plan is not a requirement of a General Plan or associated EIR.
Preparation of a water budget is not a requirement that is applicable to the Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan.
Response 17-190 The mention in the Draft Program EIR that the issue is complex and difficult to assess was stated to provide the reader an idea that there are differing degrees of certainty about the water supply issue, and that there are no easy answers or quick summaries that can be made of the issues, problems, and potential solutions. The statement was not meant to imply that because of the complexity and difficulty of understanding and explaining the situation, an analysis of potential impacts suitable in scope for the program level review of a General Plan would not be provided. The Draft Program EIR includes the required level of analysis to determine the significance of impacts and need for mitigation. Water supply impacts of infrastructure construction will be subsequently assessed at the Project level EIR for each Community Plan, as they are formalized, and/or by the responsible water provider (water district, municipal service district) for specific infrastructure improvement proposals. The Community Plans will also include cost estimates for infrastructure improvements.
With respect to questions about the growth potential of the 2006 General Plan, see Master Response MR-4.
Response 17-191 See Response 17-190.
Response 17-192 The water supply assessment, or proof of water requirement will apply to all major subdivisions, of 5 lots or greater. The infrastructure must be planned, engineered, and financed, or adequate infrastructure must be in place before a project of 5 lots or greater will be approved and receive grading and building permits.
Response 17-193 Comment noted. See Master Response MR-1 for a discussion of the scope of a Program EIR for a County General Plan, and see Response 17-74. for a discussion of the timeline and procedures that
306 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments will be used to implement final Board of Supervisors adopted General Plan policies. In some cases the final Policy language may be revised to reflect the degree of specificity that the Board elects to place on the policy, while in other cases the board may elect to leave the language less precise and certain, or in the opinion of the commentor, more vague, so as to allow the committee and county staff more flexibility in crafting the rules and regulations that will be prepared pursuant to the adopted Policy.
Response 17-194 See Response 17-193.
Response 17-195 See Response 17-193.
Response 17-196 In regards to the comment about General Plan buildout being “grossly underestimated” see Master Response MR-4.
The General Plan is a Policy document, not a wastewater infrastructure planning study, and an analysis of wastewater policies, which also serves as mitigation measures to any growth related impacts from the Land Use element, was completed at a Program EIR level. In most cases, wastewater infrastructure planning is not the responsibility of the county, but of a local or regional sanitary or municipal services district, which are not under direct county control. The 2006 General Plan can and does provide general policy guidelines regarding wastewater treatment and disposal.
A separate Capital Improvement Plan will be prepared, which will identify among other needs, regional water supply and wastewater infrastructure needs, along with their costs.
Each Community Plan will also include a detailed assessment of water supply and wastewater infrastructure needs and implementation costs. These will require separate detailed CEQA review and approval, consistent with a Project EIR.
Response 17-197 The commentor is correct in noting that some geographic areas of the County have a history of septic system failure, and/or have soil conditions that are unsuitable for use of conventional septic systems. These include areas of shallow soils over hard bedrock, areas of clayey soils with slow percolation rates, and areas of high groundwater. Some coastal areas on older sand dune deposits have excessive percolation rates. In addition to soils and site constraints to use of conventional septic tank and leachfield systems, some areas also have very high nitrate levels. This is discussed in the Geology and Soils section of the Draft Program EIR, pages 4.4-41 and 42.
Although these conditions can occur throughout Monterey County, portions of Monterey County, and large portions of the North County have the above constraints.
The proposed Geologic Hazards and Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS will map these areas, for use by County Environmental Health staff in project review and approval. As discussed on Page 4.4-42 of the Draft Program EIR, several General Plan policies are proposed that provide mitigation, including updating and revising the on-site wastewater disposal regulations to include use of
Michael Brandman Associates 307 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report alternative systems, and to include pre-treatment requirements in areas where nitrate contamination of the groundwater is a concern.
Response 17-198 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
As explained on Page 4.15-8, the 2006 General Plan’s population and housing projections would exceed the assumptions contained in the 2004 AMBAG forecast. This is not a significant impact because AMBAG bases its growth projections, in part, on the growth assumptions contained in each jurisdictions general plan. The next update to the AMBAG forecast will use the growth assumptions contained in the 2006 General Plan.
Response 17-199 Refer to Master Response MR-13.
Response 17-200 Refer to Master Response MR-13.
Response 17-201 Refer to Master Response MR-13.
Response 17-202 Refer to Master Response MR-13.
Response 17-203 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-5.
Response 17-204 Refer to Master Response MR-13 and Master Response MR-5.
Response 17-205 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-5.
Response 17-206 Refer to Master Response MR-5.
Response 17-207 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-208 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-209 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
308 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-210 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-211 Refer to Master Response MR-14 and Master Response MR-7.
Response 17-212 Refer to Master Response MR-15.
Response 17-213 Refer to Master Response MR-14
Response 17-214 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-215 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-5 and Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-216 Refer to Master Response MR-14
Response 17-217 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-218 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-219 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-220 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-14 and Master Response MR-20. Mitigation Measure TRAN-1C is a feasible approach to mitigating for regional traffic impacts because it identifies a funding mechanism, implementation approach and timeline, and performance standard.
Response 17-221 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-222 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-223 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-224 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Michael Brandman Associates 309 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-225 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-226 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-227 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-228 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-229 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-230 Refer to Master Response MR-14
Response 17-231 Refer to Master Response MR-15.
Response 17-232 Refer to Master Response MR-14 and Master Response MR-15.
Response 17-233 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-234 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-235 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-236 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-237 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-238 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-239 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
310 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-240 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-14 and Master Response MR-20. Mitigation Measure TRAN-1C as clarified in Master Response MR-20 is a feasible approach to mitigating for regional traffic impacts because it identifies a funding mechanism, implementation approach and timeline, and performance standard.
Response 17-241 Refer to Master Response (MR-14.
Response 17-242 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-243 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-244 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-245 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-246 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-247 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-24 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-249 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-250 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-251 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-252 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-253 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Michael Brandman Associates 311 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response 17-254 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-255 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-256 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-257 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-258 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-259 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-14 and Master Response MR-20. Mitigation Measure TRAN-1C as clarified in Master Response MR-20 is a feasible approach to mitigating for regional traffic impacts because it identifies a funding mechanism, implementation approach and timeline, and performance standard.
Response 17-260 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-261 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-262 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-263 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-264 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-265 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-266 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-267 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
312 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response 17-268 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-269 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-270 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-271 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-272 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-273 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-274 Refer to Master Response MR-16.
Response 17-275 Refer to Master Response MR-14.
Response 17-276 Refer to Master Response MR-18.
Response 17-277 Refer to Master Response MR-18.
Response 17-278 Refer to Master Response MR-18.
The transportation analysis in the Draft Program EIR provides an analysis of the entire county, including weekday PM peak hour traffic levels of service for all county and regional roadways, including roadways within the AWCP. Levels of service are presented in Exhibits 4.6-6a and 4.6-7a (which show the levels of service for the AWCP) as well as several tables, which identify impacted roadway segments. The AWCP is addressed at the same level of detail as other roadways within the County. While other traffic studies may evaluate individual intersections in more detail and may indicate specific localized level of service issues throughout the county, the programmatic level of analysis contained in the Draft Program EIR is sufficient to determine the general level of potential impact and necessary mitigation for the proposed AWCP. It is customary transportation planning practice to evaluate conditions anticipated to have the highest traffic volume. The PM peak hour represents these conditions both Countywide and within the AWCP. A examination of daily traffic counts indicates that the roadways within the AWCP experience traffic volumes that are 80 percent of weekday volumes on Saturdays (20% lower) and 60 percent of weekday volumes (40% lower) on
Michael Brandman Associates 313 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Sundays (source: Monterey County Public Works Department). Therefore, the General Plan is conservative in its analysis of the wine corridor.
Response 17-279 Refer to Master Response MR-18.
Response 17-280 Refer to Master Response MR-18.
Response 17-281 Refer to Master Response MR-18.
Response 17-282 Comment noted. No further response is necessary.
Response 17-283 Comment noted. No further response is necessary.
Response 17-284 Comment noted. No further response is necessary.
Response 17-285 The figures for employment and housing units in Table 6.3-3 have been corrected. This change is noted in the Errata
Response 17-286 Refer to Master Response MR-17.
Response 17-287 Refer to Master Response MR-17.
Response 17-288 Refer to Master Response MR-17.
314 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 18 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 315 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 18 (page 2 of 2)
316 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
California Native Plant Society, October 5, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 18)
Response to Comment 18-1 Refer to Master Response MR-21, Response 1a-3 and Response 17-153.
Michael Brandman Associates 317 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 19 (11 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 319 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Prunedale Preservation Alliance, October 5, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 19)
Response to Comment 19-1 Comment noted. See Master Response MR-4 for a quantitative description of the buildout potential of the 2006 General Plan.
Response to Comment 19-2 Comment noted.
Response to Comment 19-3 While the commentor provides information on the North County water supply situation, including some rhetorical questions and comments on the provisions of the 2006 General Plan, there are no direct comments on the Draft Program EIR requiring a response in comment 19-3 through comment 19-6.
As noted by the commentor, a separate Water Element of a General Plan is optional, and not required. The County is not aware of California General Plan law or a CEQA requirement to provide detailed or numerical county-wide hydrologic modeling of groundwater as a part of the General Plan revision or update process, and/or in the associated Draft Program EIR, and in fact it commonly is not done.
Detailed hydrologic modeling and the analysis of potential impacts of a specific development, including the completion of a water supply assessment would be performed associated with the review of the proposed development. New guidelines and regulations for determining long term supply, the completion of water supply assessments for projects of 500 units or more per SB610 and new well development guidelines and standards would be prepared as a part of the implementation of General Plan policies. Only developments that can demonstrate conclusively that a water supply is available to serve the development will be approved. Interested members of the public and the regulated community will be given the opportunity to provide input on proposed standards and regulations.
The reader seems to somehow be equating the Draft Program EIR with the 2006 General Plan. A Water Element is not part of a CEQA document. The CEQA document typically discusses impacts organized by topical area, in this case for water related issues, in hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, and public services and utilities sections.
All of the information on water related issues, including a summary of General Plan policies, the current regulatory and physical environmental setting, impacts, and recommended mitigation measures, such as recommended revisions and additions to General Plan Policy language are contained in these sections.
Response to Comment 19-4 See Response 19-3.
Response to Comment 19-5 See Response 19-3.
Michael Brandman Associates 331 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 19-6 See Response 19-3.
Response to Comment 19-7 Section 10912 of the California Water Code provides the specific criteria which defines a “project” subject to completion of a Water Supply Assessment. It is clear from a reading of the criteria that a County General Plan is not subject to this part of the Code, although a Specific Plan, which includes project specific information may be. SB610 and the applicable California Water Code are focused on proposed development projects, especially those of larger size.
The 2006 General Plan policies require that a project provide ‘proof of a long term water supply” irrespective of project size. Also, the assured water supply infrastructure must also be in place prior to final acceptance of the construction work and release for occupancy.
Response to Comment 19-8 Comments noted. The word “overdrafting” is another word that describes the phrase “extractions in excess of recharge”. Regardless of the terminology, the Draft Program EIR has analyzed the impact on water supply and groundwater from both urban and rural growth as noted in Master Response MR- 4.
Response to Comment 19-9 See Response 19-8.
Response to Comment 19-10 See Response 19-8.
Response to Comment 19-11 The Draft Program EIR follows the convention of the responsible water management agencies in subdividing groundwater bodies into smaller sub areas, some of which have varying hydrogeologic and water quality characteristics. In some cases the subdivisions may merely facilitate monitoring and groundwater assessment and hydrologic analysis, as the basins are large in size.
Response to Comment 19-12 This description was taken from information provided by the Monterey County Water Agency and has been reviewed by them for accuracy and consistency.
Response to Comment 19-13 Castroville and Pajaro are the only two areas of North County that are served by a wastewater disposal provider. As stated in the Municipal Services Review of the North County Area of Monterey County, dated October 2005, the Pajaro County Sanitation District serves Pajaro and Community Service Area #14 (CSA #14) serves Castroville. Both agencies are staffed by the Monterey County Public Works Department. Note that both agencies also serve areas located in the Coastal Zone. Wastewater collected by the Pajaro County Sanitation District is treated by the City of Watsonville at its wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater collected by CSA #14 is treated by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency at its wastewater treatment plant.
332 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Parcels in North County not served by a wastewater disposal provider utilize individual on-site wastewater disposal systems, including both septic tanks and leachfields, and in some cases septic pits. The commentor is correct that such systems, especially septic pits, can impact groundwater, including introducing nitrates, viruses, pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupters, and viruses and bacteria.
Response to Comment 19-14 See Response 19-13.
Response to Comment 19-15 The description of groundwater aquifers in the Draft Program EIR has been modified to indicate that impermeable layers can serve to subdivide aquifers. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 19-16 The commentor is correct, groundwater is also impaired by other contaminants. In addition to being sources of nitrate contamination of groundwater, septic tank and leachfields and septic pit effluent also contain salts, coliform bacteria, e-coli, viruses, endocrine disrupters, pharmaceuticals, and other substances that adversely impact water quality.
Draft Program EIR Mitigation Measure WR-4A addresses design and permit approval of new on-site waste water disposal systems. It is not expected that septic pits will be allowed under the new regulations.
Response to Comment 19-17 The information on the number of small water systems was provided by Monterey County Environmental Health Department, based on their review of their Drinking Water Protection Program. The information reflects the 2001 environmental baseline period of the Draft Program EIR.
Information is not readily available as to the number of individual domestic wells that exceed the 45 mg/l standard for nitrate, although it is acknowledged that this is a problem of increasing concern, especially in the North County area.
The commentor is probably correct in speculating that there are likely more individual domestic wells that have high nitrate levels than municipal or water district wells because many of these individual wells are typically relatively shallow, (compared to the municipal wells) and many are located in areas with a relatively high density of on-site wastewater disposal systems
Response to Comment 19-18 Comment noted. However the addition of a graphic as suggested does not materially add to the discussion or the ability of the Draft Program EIR to reach a determination on the potential impact to groundwater or saltwater intrusion as noted in Response 15-12 and since the other comment letters did not indicate a significant amount of confusion on this matter.
Response to Comment 19-19 The description of the age of the deep aquifer water was meant to help put the situation into perspective for the benefit of the non-technical reader by indicating water in the deep aquifer is not subject to rainfall and/or stream recharge within the lifetime of the 2006 General Plan. The
Michael Brandman Associates 333 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report commentor is correct in that extraction of groundwater well in excess of average annual recharge also can be considered a form groundwater mining, irrespective of the aquifer, shallow or deep, or age of the water.
Response to Comment 19-20 Known groundwater areas containing high levels of arsenic, nitrates, and salts, and possibly other constituents that exceed SDWA levels will be included in the proposed Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS. The County Environmental Health Dept. will require testing of all new domestic wells, including those for single family development on existing lots of record. Although the County does not currently have an Outreach Program to disseminate information on arsenic levels in groundwater in existing wells, the County will consider this, (apart from the 2006 General Plan review and approval process), as it is an existing condition and not a General Plan or CEQA issue.
In regards to the sale of an existing home or business served by an individual well with a known arsenic problem, this is a disclosure issue that is part of a real estate transaction, not a General Plan or CEQA issue. The County’s mapping of groundwater bodies contained in hard rock that likely have arsenic at levels that exceed SDWA standards will help facilitate the process, similar to disclosure of FEMA 100-year floodplain areas.
Response to Comment 19-21 As noted in Response 19-7, a General Plan is not subject to the Water Supply Assessment procedures of SB610.
Response to Comment 19-22 The information on potential water supply was developed by the County Water Resources Agency, based on technical studies completed associated with development of the Salinas Basin Water Supply project. Virtually all of this water is held in alluvial sediments below sea level, and not in upland bedrock areas.
Response to Comment 19-23 The commentor’s suggested language change from halting the rate of groundwater level decline to slowing the rate is more consistent with the state of groundwater management in the County.
The language has been clarified in the Errata to reflect the changes suggested by the commentor.
Again, as noted, a General Plan is not meant to address the Water Supply Assessment requirements of SB610, which is geared to specific development proposals and Specific Plans.
In regards to a detailed discussion of the progress the various water agencies have made with respect to overdraft and seawater intrusion, the reader is referred to the annual reports of the agencies. The Draft Program EIR is not the appropriate vehicle to provide a detailed account of such progress, other than to note that all of the agencies are acutely aware of the problem and are working diligently on developing integrated, multi-faceted solutions that include water conservation and re-use, development of additional storage, new supplies, and improved infra structure for delivery to water short areas.
334 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 19-24 See Response 19-23.
Response to Comment 19-25 The commentor is correct; Prunedale should be added to the list of Rural Centers. The Draft Program EIR has been revised to reflect the changes suggested by the commentor. The changes are noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 19-26 The population of the unincorporated areas of the county are expected to experience very modest growth, as noted in Master Response MR-4.
Overall the unincorporated areas may loose population, as some areas will be annexed into cities. The incorporated cities are expected to grow at a faster rate than the county unincorporated area, so urban water use projections may be higher than unincorporated population projections.
Michael Brandman Associates 335 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 20 (12 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 337 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Sierra Club Ventana Chapter, October 5, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 20)
Response to Comment 20-1 The Draft Program EIR analyzed the development potential of the seven Community Areas. The erroneous reference to six Community Areas on Page 4.9-15 of the Draft Program EIR has been corrected. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 20-2 Five of the seven Community Areas are existing unincorporated communities with existing development (Boronda, Castroville, Chualar, Pajaro, and San Lucas; refer to Draft Program EIR Exhibits 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15, and 3-17). The Fort Ord Community Area is a former military installation and the development proposed by the 2006 General Plan is designated to occur in the East Garrison portion of the base, which contains former military facilities. The Rancho San Juan Community Area is the only entirely undeveloped Community Area. Given that six of the seven Community Areas contain existing development, the statement on Page 4.9-15 of the Draft Program EIR that most of the Community Areas contain existing dwelling units is accurate and does not need to be revised.
The presence of development in Community Areas indicates that these areas have an existing urban footprint. Additional growth in these areas would not be as significant from a biological perspective relative to growth in undeveloped areas where no development currently exists. This condition is a significant factor in the Draft Program EIR’s analysis of biological resources because the incremental increase in the urban footprint as a result of the 2006 General Plan would mostly occur in areas that are adjacent to existing development and, therefore, have much less significance as biological resources.
Response to Comment 20-3 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-4 As noted in Master Response MR-21, Rural Centers and rural transition zones were considered when analyzing potential impacts to special status species. Moreover, the County has subsequently deleted policy LU-2.37 (August draft version) from the 2006 General Plan. Also refer to Master Response MR-4.
Response to Comment 20-5 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-6 Property Owner Requests (PORs) were considered when analyzing potential impacts to special status species. Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-7 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-21.
Michael Brandman Associates 349 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 20-8 Special Treatment Areas (STAs) were considered when analyzing potential impacts to special status species. Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-9 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-10 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-21, and Master Response MR 23.
Response to Comment 20-11 The sentence on Page 4.9-15 of the Draft Program EIR has been corrected in the Errata to state: “The Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, and Agricultural Element establish policies designed to discourage growth in sensitive natural areas, as well as ensure that urban and agricultural land uses to do not adversely impact the environment.”
Response to Comment 20-12 Refer to Master Response MR-1, Master Response MR-21, MR-22 and MR-23.
Response to Comment 20-13 Refer to Master Response MR-1, Master Response MR-21 and MR-22. With respect to the commentor’s question about the meaning of particular terms of General Plan policies, the 2006 General Plan will be subject to interpretation by the Board of Supervisors. Nevertheless, the Draft Program EIR analyzed these policies based on the reasonable assumption that these words will be afforded their ordinary plain meaning.
Response to Comment 20-14 Refer to Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-15 Refer to Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-16 Refer to Response 20-13. Policy LU-2.12 and LU-1.4 protect special status species by restricting development in areas outside of Community Areas and Rural Centers where adequate public services are not available, and wildlife habitat tends to be found.
Response to Comment 20-17 Refer to Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-18 Refer to Master Response MR-1, Master Response MR-22 and Response 20-13. All of the 2006 General Plan policies establish general objectives to guide growth in the unincorporated area of Monterey County. As explained on Pages 4.9-15 and 4.9-16 of the Draft Program EIR, these policies establish various requirements that are intended to manage growth in a manner that focuses most of the future development in appropriate areas (i.e., areas adjacent to existing development) and avoids
350 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments or reduces development in sensitive natural areas. Given that sensitive natural areas are far more likely to contain significant viewsheds and habitat that supports special status species than areas adjacent to urban development, these policies would contribute to reduction in the severity of impacts on viewsheds and special status species from growth contemplated by the 2006 General Plan. The provisions of these policies require that certain standards and procedures for reviewing development be formulated. Several commentors noted that no timeframe is attached to the development of the standards and procedures and stated that there may be a significant gap of time between adoption of the 2006 General Plan and the creation of standards and procedures. The commentors suggest that no development review will occur during this period of time. This statement is incorrect. The County does have existing development review standards and procedures in place and these will remain in effect until new standards and procedures are adopted. In addition, note that these policies alone do not reduce the significance of this impact; a number of other 2006 General Plan policies and Mitigations such as BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C (as revised in Master Response MR-21) also mitigate impacts to special status species.
Response to Comment 20-19 Refer to Master Response MR-1, Master Response MR-21 and MR-22.
Response to Comment 20-20 Refer to Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-21 Refer to Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-22 Refer to Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-23 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Response 1a-11, Response 15-8 and Response 1a-11, Response 20- 13.
Response to Comment 20-24 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Response 1a-11, Response 15-8 and Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-25 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Response 1a-11, Response 15-8 and Response 20-13.
Response to Comment 20-26 See Master Response MR-1, Master Response MR-21 and Master Response MR-22 and MR-23.
Response to Comment 20-27 Please see Master Response MR-19 regarding the exclusion of the LCP from the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR. In response to several comments on this matter, 2006 General Plan policies OS -4.4, OS-4.5, OS-4.6, OS-4.7, OS-4.8 and OS 4.9 are being deleted from further consideration in the 2006 County General Plan because they address policy issues that are specific to the Coastal Zone portion of the County.
Michael Brandman Associates 351 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 20-28 Refer to Master Response MR-21 and Response 1a-11.
Response to Comment 20-29 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-30 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-31 The 2006 General Plan is independent of the Local Coastal Program and does not govern land use within the Coastal Zone. As such, it is not necessary for the Draft Program EIR to analyze the 2006 General Plan policies in relation to the LCP.
Response to Comment 20-32 The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Quality Control Board) has primary authority for the protection of water quality, enforced through a number of mechanisms, including issuing waste discharge permits and associated requirements for point source discharges, non-point source and stormwater regulatory programs, and the TMDL and agricultural waiver program. The County provides additional regulatory support through its planning and building oversight, inspection, and permitting authority programs, including enforcement of grading, erosion control, and stormwater ordinances and related provisions. The County typically is involved in a more active fashion in site inspection for compliance with permit conditions, including compliance with NPDES stormwater requirements, related to their historic role in completing building permit inspections. County building inspectors are also now trained in stormwater and erosion control compliance review, including review of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs).
Response to Comment 20-33 The 2006 General Plan is independent of the Local Coastal Program and does not govern land use within the Coastal Zone. As such, it is not necessary for the Draft Program EIR to analyze the 2006 General Plan policies in relation to the Local Coastal Program.
Response to Comment 20-34 As noted in Master Response MR-19, the Coastal Zone portion of Monterey County is not included in the 2006 General Plan. As a result, several of the Open Space policies contained in the August 2006 draft version of the 2006 General Plan have been eliminated. However, Open Space polity OS-4.3 has been retained because, though pertaining to the protection of coastal waters, such protection is dependent in part on protection of upstream waters that are tributary to coastal waters:
OS-4.3 Estuaries, salt and fresh water marshes, tide pools, wetlands, sloughs, river and stream mouth areas, plus all waterways that drain and have impact on State designated Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) shall be protected, maintained, and preserved in accordance with state and federal water quality regulations.
The State of California Water Resources Control Board regulates water quality within ASBSs through the provisions of the California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan) as summarized with maps at this website:
352 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/docs/asbs/wrkshp102405/pres102405.pdf . The Ocean Plan states, in part, “Waste shall not be discharged to designated Areas of Special Biological Significance…” Because the Coastal Zone portion of Monterey County is not included in the 2006 General Plan, there are no areas covered by the 2006 General Plan that discharge waste directly to coastal waters or to a designated ASBS.
However, both the 2006 General Plan and the Draft Program EIR recognize the potential downstream water quality consequences of upstream land uses and have included policies, analysis and Mitigation Measures that specifically address this issue. Refer to Mitigation Measure PSU-7A in the Draft Program EIR, revised wording for Policy AG-3.3 in Master Response MR-10, revised wording for Mitigation Measures WR-2, WR-3A and WR-3B in Response 1a-11, Response 15-10, revised Policy S-3.7 in Response 15-12, Mitigation Measure WR-4A in Response 17-70, and Response 17-73 and Response 17-74 as examples. Implementation of these Mitigation Measures and policies will minimize upstream sources of potential adverse impacts to downstream waterbodies such as coastal waters and ASBSs.
Response to Comment 20-35 See Master Response MR-19. The 2006 General Plan is independent of the Local Coastal Program and does not govern land use within the Coastal Zone. As such, it is not necessary for the Draft Program EIR to analyze the 2006 General Plan policies in relation to the LCP.
Response to Comment 20-36 Policy OS-4.4 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-37 Please see Master Response MR-19 regarding the exclusion of the LCP from the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR. Policy OS-4.4 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-38 Policy OS-4.5 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-39 Please see Master Response MR-19 regarding the exclusion of the LCP from the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR. Policy OS-4.5 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-40 Policy OS-4.6 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-41 Please see Master Response MR-19 regarding the exclusion of the LCP from the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR. Policy OS-4.6 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-42 Policy OS-4.7 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Michael Brandman Associates 353 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 20-43 Please see Master Response MR-19 regarding the exclusion of the LCP from the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR. Policy OS-4.9 has been deleted from the 2006 General Plan. Refer to Response 20-27.
Response to Comment 20-44 Refer to Master Responses MR-21 and MR-22.
Response to Comment 20-45 Refer to Master Responses MR-21 and MR-22.
Response to Comment 20-46 Refer to Master Responses MR-21 and MR-22.
Response to Comment 20-47 Refer to Master Responses MR-21 and MR-22.
Response to Comment 20-48 Refer to Master Responses MR-21 and MR-22.
Response to Comment 20-49 Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OS-5.4 states:
OS-5.4 Landowners and developers shall be encouraged to preserve the integrity of existing terrain and native vegetation in visually sensitive areas such as hillsides, ridges, and watersheds. Routine and Ongoing Agriculture shall be exempt from this policy.
The commentor suggests that this policy should be reworded to remove the words “be encouraged,” which would result in a requirement that existing terrain and native vegetation in visually sensitive areas be preserved under all circumstances. The County is of the opinion that this policy provides adequate guidance to preserve terrain and natural vegetation during the application review process, while also providing flexibility to account for considerations such as economic feasibility, site constraints, and affordable housing requirements. The exemption for “Routine and Ongoing Agriculture” applies to a suggested list of activities described in Agricultural Element Policy AG-3.3, with the final list to be established by ordinance consistent with 2006 General Plan goals and State and federal law. The activities consist of typical daily agricultural activities (e.g., planting of crops, harvesting of crops) and construction of agricultural accessory structures that are allowed by the General Plan (e.g., corrals, darns, windmills, produce stands, etc.). All of the exempt items are minor land use activities on agricultural lands. They are exempt from certain 2006 General Plan policies because of the economic and technical infeasibility of mandating compliance and the lack of significant environmental effects associated with these activities. However, “Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities” are not exempt from 2006 General Plan policies if they would “create significant off-site erosion or violate water quality plans and standards”. This language has been added to Policy AG-3.3. See also MR-10.
Response to Comment 20-50 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
354 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 20-51 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-52 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-53 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-54 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-55 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-56 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-57 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-58 Refer to Master Response MR-21.
Response to Comment 20-59 The 2006 General Plan does not alter any restrictions of the Monterey County Municipal Code, including Title 21. Rather, the 2006 General Plan proposes amendments to the 1982 General Plan and will necessitate amendments to Title 21.
The 1982 General Plan did not explicitly prohibit steep slope conversions. It set forth policies requiring erosion control practices (Policies 3.1.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3) and established a slope density formula for residential uses (Policy 3.2.4). These policies then guided more explicit restrictions on slope conversions in the Monterey County Municipal Code (i.e., Title 21).
The 2006 General Plan provides far greater guidance for the regulation of slope conversions than the 1982 General Plan. A number of policies in the 2006 General Plan (e.g., OS-3.5, OS-3.6, S-1.1, S-1.2, S-1.3, S-1.5, S-1.6, S-1.7, and S-1.9) provide far greater detail about where slope development is allowed, what types of studies are required prior to development on slopes, and practices necessary to control erosion and slope instability. These policies will serve as the basis for any future updates to the Municipal Code and will result in stricter regulation of slopes, not less restrictive. Note that not all Routine and Ongoing Agriculture activities are only exempt from 2006 General Plan Policy OS- 3.5 and must comply with all other policies relating to slope.
2006 General Plan policy S-1.2 requires the County to create a GIS database of geologic constraints. When this database is complete, it will provide information about the location of geologic constraints. Until such time, no Countywide information is available regarding the precise locations of geologic constraints requested by the commentor.
Michael Brandman Associates 355 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
In summary, the commentor’s claims that the 2006 General Plan would remove limits on slope conversion are inaccurate and are not supported by any factual evidence.
Response to Comment 20-60 Comment noted. The pages of the Response to Comment document will be clearly numbered. Where directly applicable, the use of Master Responses is permitted and necessary in order to avoid the redundant listing of responses to identical or related comments.
356 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 21 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 357 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 21 (page 2 of 2)
358 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy, September 25, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 21)
Response to Comment 21-1 The Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy’s (MIRA) Bernard M. Oliver Observing Station is located on Chew’s Ridge in the Los Padres National Forest. This location is more than 15 miles southwest of Carmel Valley and 18 miles west of Greenfield. The nearest unincorporated communities to this observing station are Carmel Valley and Pine Canyon (King City), which are located approximately 15 miles and 25 miles away, respectively.
Given the observing station’s location in a remote portion of the County, it is doubtful that planned unincorporated and city growth would substantially impact nighttime views from the observing station. Nonetheless, the 2006 General Plan’s contribution to adverse regional light and glare impacts Draft Program EIR from development and land use activities contemplated by the 2006 General Plan, in conjunction with growth in cities, was identified as a cumulatively considerable impact on Page 6- 13 of the Draft Program EIR.
In addition, as noted on Page 4.14-19 of the Draft Program EIR, Land Use Element Policy LU-1.16 requires that all exterior lighting be unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only the intended areas in illuminated, long-range visibility is reduced, and offsite glare is fully controlled. Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Inland) also establishes development standards for each zoning district, including specific requirements for lighting. Future development proposals will be reviewed in accordance with these standards and, if necessary, mitigate for light and glare spillage. As such, adverse light and glare impacts will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
Response to Comment 21-2 As noted in Response 21-1, future development proposals will be required to demonstrate consistency with 2006 General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-1.16.
Response to Comment 21-3 Comment noted. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 21-4 Comment noted. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 21-5 The County is of the opinion that the use of certain types of lighting fixtures and hours of illumination is best addressed by ordinance rather than by policy. The MIRA is encouraged to work with the County by proposing specific lighting standards and criteria.
Michael Brandman Associates 359 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 22 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 361 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 22 (page 2 of 3)
362 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 22 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 363 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
LandWatch Monterey County, August 30, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 22)
Response to Comment 22-1 The Draft Program EIR describes the assumptions used in the AMBAG travel demand forecasting model to the extent it could reasonably be provided in the body of the Draft Program EIR. Land use assumptions are identified as the AMBAG 2030 projections (Page 4.6-27) and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level population and employment data was uploaded to a publicly accessible website pursuant to the commentor’s request. Roadway and network assumptions are also identified on page 4.6-27 as being based on the financially constrained network as identified in the 2005 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan, and the two scenarios with and without the proposed improvements identified in TAMC’s 14-Year Investment Plan. Specific descriptions of the roadway improvements in the 14-Year Investment Plan are included in Table 4.6-8. In addition to the roadway improvements described in the body of the Draft Program EIR, traffic projection and level of service data was provided via a website. The size of the electronic traffic projection data (in the form of multiple diagrams) would not be readable if included in the Draft Program EIR appendices. Additional assumptions used in the analysis (i.e., trip generation, trip distribution, etc.) are integral to the AMBAG model and cannot be summarized in a table or figure. AMBAG allows the model to be examined by someone with the appropriate software once a users agreement is signed. As noted in Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-20, the AMBAG model also contains assumptions for buildout of the County in accordance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations.
Response to Comment 22-2 The Draft Program EIR states on Page 4.6-27 that AMBAG 2030 land use projections were used in the traffic evaluation and goes on to state that these land use projections do not represent buildout of the 2006 General Plan. However it is important to note that while the 2030 AMBAG projections do not represent buildout of the County’s residential lands per the 2006 General Plan, the projections over-represent employment. The AMBAG 2030 forecasts project about 5,300 fewer housing units than buildout of the 2006 General Plan would allow, but reflect about 16,500 more employees than estimated for buildout of the 2006 General Plan.
The difference between the AMBAG 2030 and 2006 General Plan employment forecasts equates to about 54,900 average daily trips. This higher level of employment traffic is reflected in the analysis of the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, when compared to buildout, the 2030 analysis underestimates traffic generated by residential uses by about 42,700 trips and overestimates traffic generated by non- residential uses by about 54,900 trips, resulting in a net overestimation of about 12,200 average daily trips. This extrapolation of traffic generated at buildout indicates that the 2030 traffic analysis prepared for 2006 General Plan is evaluating traffic conditions nearly equal to conditions at buildout. See Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-20 for a more detailed discussion of assumptions for buildout of the County in accordance with existing zoning and General Plan land use designations.
Response to Comment 22-3 The requested data was provided on a publicly accessible website during the Draft Program EIR public review period with the exception of Item 4 and part of Item 5 in the request. Item 4 requested assumptions for major land development projects. Large scale development projects or plans (i.e., FORA, Butterfly Village, etc.) are included in the AMBAG 2030 projections which was provided by traffic analysis zone along with the other requested data. However, major development projects such
Michael Brandman Associates 365 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report as large commercial shopping centers, schools, etc. are not individually coded into the AMBAG model, but are represented by population and employment forecasts based on General Plan land use designations. Item 5 requested assumptions for allowable development and cumulative event uses for the wine corridor. Allowable development to 2030 is included in the AMBAG projections, but because the model forecasts traffic for a typical weekday, it does not represent weekend or event traffic. Additionally there is not enough information on events for individual wineries to project event traffic. Event traffic, specific to individual wineries, would be addressed in a project-level evaluation of any future proposed discretionary development. Such events would be held primarily on weekends and traffic generation/attraction would not occur during the weekday peak hour periods and significant adverse impacts are not anticipated as noted in the analysis in the Draft Program EIR.
Response to Comment 22-4 Land use, network, traffic projections, and level of service data was provided via a publicly accessible website. The size of the electronic traffic projection data (in the form of multiple large diagrams and spreadsheets) would not be readable due to difficulty in reproducing these large format documents in paper copies if they were to be included in the Draft Program EIR appendices.
Response to Comment 22-5 See Response 22-4. In addition, Caltrans District 5 staff were involved as part of the internal collaborative Technical Advisors utilized in the development of the traffic model and analysis assumptions and received traffic forecasts as they were developed.
Response to Comment 22-6 A full list of sources used in the preparation of the Draft Program EIR was provided in Section 11, References.
366 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 23 (page 1 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 367 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 23 (page 2 of 4)
368 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 23 (page 3 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 369 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 23 (page 4 of 4)
370 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
4.2.5 Individuals
Chris A. Bunn, October 5, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 23J)
Response to Comment 23-1 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 23-2 See Master Response MR-1, Response 1a-11 and Response 13-2. The Draft Program EIR analyzed the 2006 General Plan on a program level. Development and land use activities contemplated by the 2006 General Plan that may result in erosion were analyzed in Section 4.3, Water Resources and Section 4.4, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. This includes development and land use activities on slopes. Mitigation is proposed to address adverse impacts related to erosion. In addition, future discretionary development proposals on areas with slopes will be subject to separate CEQA review.
Response to Comment 23-3 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 23-4 See Master Response MR-10 and Response 1a-11. The intention of the Mitigation Measure is to conserve Important Farmland that is currently in production. The conversion of grazing land to Important Farmland was not considered in the Draft Program EIR because the potential for such conversion in the future cannot be quantified and is therefore speculative.
Response to Comment 23-5 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 23-6 See Response 1a-11. The commentor is correct that soil erosion is a complex phenomena and for its assessment to be technically precise should take into account a number of factors that vary throughout the County, including soils type and geologic parent material, slope gradient and slope length, vegetative cover and disturbance, and rainfall intensity.
It is necessary to simplify these factors to arrive at something that is workable for an administrative or ministerial permit approach, based on assessment criteria that can be readily obtained and measured in the field, and that do not require technical specialists to interpret, otherwise the purpose of a ministerial permit approach is not met. A much more complicated and probably unworkable approach would be to use the Universal Soil Loss Equation to determine an acceptable soil loss for each differing kind of soil and landscape situation.
Slope is the single most responsible or important factor used in determining soil erosion hazard, and is used as the sole determining factor where hillslope conversion to cultivated crops such as vineyards are in place as the trigger to enter a ministerial permit process.
As noted in Response 13-2, a slope of 15% was selected based in part on the land and soil capability mapping of the NRCS, which generally indicate that highly disturbed slopes above 15% (10% for extremely erosive soils) represent potentially significant soil erosion hazards.
Michael Brandman Associates 371 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 23-7 See Response 1a-11. Development on slopes over 15% is not prohibited. The Draft Program EIR requires the submittal of an erosion control plan that must follow stated Best Management Practices and criteria for preparing an acceptable plan for issuance of a ministerial permit. More importantly, pressure to convert addition agricultural lands for any reason are strictly controlled by the overall growth management framework of the 2006 General Plan as explained in Master Response MR-22.
Response to Comment 23-8 The proposed Ordinance that will create a permit system for hillside cultivation and erosion control will also address the issue of cumulative watershed impacts. The procedures that will be used in formulating the regulations are discussed in Response 17-74. In addition, Mitigation Measures WR- 3A and WR-3B have been modified to clarify their intent as noted in Response 1a-11. See also Response 13-2 for a discussion on the basis for determining the slopes mentioned in the Mitigation Measures.
Response to Comment 23-9 Refer to Response 23-8.
Response to Comment 23-10 Refer to Response 23-8.
Response to Comment 23-11 Refer to Response 23-8.
Response to Comment 23-12 Refer to Response 23-8.
Response to Comment 23-13 Refer to Response 23-8. Also see Master Response MR-10 for clarifications and minor modifications to Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities as they relate to water quality issues.
Response to Comment 23-14 Refer to Response 23-8.
Response to Comment 23-15 See Response 1-4, Response 15-12 and Response 17-84.
One of the goals of the 2006 General Plan is to achieve a sustainable water supply. This can be achieved in part may protecting important areas of groundwater recharge from urban development, for instance by limiting the amount of paving that prevents rainfall infiltration, or by using permeable paving.
One of the sources of information typically referenced in specifying what is termed “Low Impact Development” is a document called “Start at the Source”.
372 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Important and major groundwater areas will be defined and mapped as a part of the Hydrologic Resources and Constraints GIS, based on existing soil survey information showing areas of permeable soils, and other hydrogeologic and groundwater information.
As discussed in Response 17-74, the regulations, (including definitions, criteria, and procedures) that will be developed to implement this policy will be prepared by county staff in coordination with technical experts and stakeholders, and will be subject to public review before being adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The 2006 General Plan is, by nature general, and its policies are subject to County interpretation. In some cases, the County will need to adopt ordinances to implement and further flesh out the policies contained in the 2006 General Plan.
Since agricultural activities and land uses typically do not alter rainfall infiltration and groundwater recharge, they will not be subject to the provisions of this policy, and any follow up regulations.
Since the design of a project to maintain pre-development absorption of rainfall is similar for both protection of groundwater recharge and for maintaining pre-development runoff rates, the groundwater recharge protection regulations will need to be coordinated with the new Stormwater Ordinance that the county will need to prepare consistent with the regional Boards’ acceptance of the County’s NPDES Phase II Stormwater Plan (see also Response 15-10.).
Response to Comment 23-16 Refer to Response 23-15.
Response to Comment 23-17 Refer to Response 23-15.
Response to Comment 23-18 Refer to Response 23-15.
Response to Comment 23-19 Refer to Response 23-15.
Response to Comment 23-20 A General Plan represents the constitution that guides nearly all planning activities of the County and its agencies. The 2006 General Plan is, by nature general, and its policies are subject to County interpretation. In some cases, the County will need to adopt ordinances to implement and further flesh out the policies contained in the 2006 General Plan. All adopted County Ordinances and rules and regulations related to issues contained in the General Plan should be backed by a stated General Plan policy. The previous General Plan did not include any policies or implementing programs for water conservation, urban or agricultural, and therefore it is appropriate to include these in the Draft Program EIR, as a mitigation suggesting additions to or revisions of proposed General Plan policies. It would not be appropriate to conclude that nothing further needs to be done in terms of improving agricultural water conservation, for instance in the Salinas Valley. Many of the agricultural water conservation measures are currently voluntary.
Michael Brandman Associates 373 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 23-21 State water law actually gives underlying water rights for the reasonable and beneficial use of groundwater, in non-adjudicated basins. A new well that has a significant impact on existing adjacent wells, or that further contributes significantly to groundwater level decline and saltwater intrusion, probably does not represent a reasonable use of water. Without some additional policies and subsequent regulatory procedures at the County level regarding well development in problematic situations such as these, portions of Monterey, such as the Salinas Valley, may be headed towards adjudicated groundwater management because of serious declining groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion problems.
The intent of the mitigation measure was not to preclude well deepening or drilling replacement wells through the shallow aquifer to a deeper aquifer where groundwater extraction would not further effect saltwater intrusion. These would not be considered to be “new” wells within impacted areas. The replacement/deepened well in the deeper aquifer would need to be carefully finished and sealed to prevent salt affected water from overlying aquifers from entering unaffected lower aquifers. Any such well proposed in an area of saltwater intrusion would be subject to additional review, with the intent of the well regulations of avoiding situations such as these. The final adopted well development regulations could determine that new wells finished or cased only in the deep aquifer would not have an affect on saltwater intrusion, and may be permissible, following the careful review of the well proposal or well drilling application.
The mitigation measure lacks the degree of specificity regarding definitions and criteria requested by the commentor as it is intended to guide the subsequent specific development of well standards. In this case, the proposed well standards would provide the specific criteria defining what a high capacity well is, and what constitutes the term “vicinity”. For instance a high capacity well could be defined in the rules as one having a discharge capability of over 800 to 1,000 gallons per minute.
This sort of detailed rule making and Ordinance development is best completed by a committee representing all of the stakeholder interests in the regulations, in addition to technical specialists on groundwater and water law, acting under the authority of the County. The final rules would be subject to public review, and the County approval process.
Response to Comment 23-22 See Response 23-21.
Response to Comment 23-23 See response 23-21
Response to Comment 23-24 The proposed well standards would provide the specific criteria defining what a high capacity well is, and what constitutes the term “vicinity”. A high capacity well could likely be defined as one having a discharge capability of over 800 to 1,000 gallons per minute. These standards would be subject to public review and the County approval process.
Response to Comment 23-25 As noted in Master Response MR-21, Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B and BIO-1C are revised to clarify their intent in response to comments received on the Draft Program EIR.
374 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 23-26 See Response 23-25. As discussed, special status species have legal protection under environmental statutes other than FESA or CESA. These statutes (CEQA, MBTA, CFG Code 3503) have been put through due process similar to that of the ESA and CESA. Additional debate on property owner due process protections is beyond the scope of the 2006 General Plan or Draft Program EIR.
Response to Comment 23-27 See Response 23-25. The intent of the Draft Program EIR Biological Resources Section is to assess all potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the 2006 General Plan on the program level under CEQA. Accordingly, it was neither possible nor within the scope of the 2006 General Plan or Draft Program EIR Biological Resources section to analyze specific economic impacts.
Response to Comment 23-28 Protection of sensitive or critical habitat for special status species along riparian corridors does have implications for flood protection, in that preserving dense groves or thickets of willows and other riparian vegetation could lead to the increased risk of flooding because of increased flood flow retardance.
However, it is unlikely that this 2006 General Plan policy will have any real effects on needed vegetation management work along the creeks and rivers, as US Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the US fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, and the Calif. Department of Fish and Game have similar standards and requirements for riparian protection, and are the lead permitting agencies for flood control channel maintenance.
Response to Comment 23-29 See Response 1a-4 and Response 23-25. Specific mention of a mitigation ratio has been removed from the Mitigation Measure as ratios will be determined by State and federal regulatory agencies during the review of specific projects.
Response to Comment 23-30 See Response 23-25 and Response 23-26.
Response to Comment 23-31 See Response 23-27.
Response to Comment 23-32 See Response 1a-4 and Response 23-25. The statement that Mitigation Measure BIO-1B will have “severe environmental impacts” is a broad generalization and a contradiction in terms. In general and by definition, implementing a mitigation measure that requires creating or setting aside habitat for impacts to suitable habitat for special status species is expected to minimize environmental impacts of a particular project. In addition, this measure will be implemented on a project-by-project basis; therefore, to broadly state that it will have “severe environmental impacts” is purely speculative.
This applies to the hypothetical situation cited in the response. Critical habitat for steelhead has been federally designated within the Salinas River watershed. Any habitat that is created or set aside in the vicinity of the Salinas River will occur on a project-by-project basis and thus it is beyond the scope of
Michael Brandman Associates 375 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report the 2006 General Plan and Draft Program EIR, as well as not possible at this time, to determine that this type of mitigation might result in additional restrictions adjacent to existing critical habitat areas.
Response to Comment 23-33 Refer to Response 23-28, and Master Response MR-21 for revisions to the Mitigation Measures. CEQA does not require the review of economic impacts to be included in the Draft Program EIR.
376 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 24 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 377 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 24 (page 2 of 2)
378 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Marit P. Evans, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 24)
Response to Comment 24-1 The author asserts that CEQA requirements were not followed closely in the preparation of the Draft Program EIR, the 2006 General Plan is inconsistent as “a whole project,” and that there is “slippage in-between the Project Description and the ‘facts’ presented to properly analyze the project impacts.” However, no further details are provided to support these claims. As such, a meaningful response cannot be provided to address these comments.
Response to Comment 24-2 As stated on Pages 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 of the Draft Program EIR, the Growth Management Policy requires that managed growth be incorporated into the General Plan. This is a standing policy of the County of Monterey and is a principle that is incorporated into the 2006 General Plan. See Master Response MR-22.
Response to Comment 24-3 Numerous tables and exhibits were provided in Draft Program EIR that illustrated traffic impacts, air quality impacts, and noise impacts. The development potential of the 2006 General Plan is provided in Table 3-5 of the Project Description. The commentor’s statement that the Draft Program EIR is deficient is not supported by any factual evidence. See Master Response MR-4 and Master Response 22.
Response to Comment 24-4 Comment noted. The commentor provides additional opinion and perspective on of the nature of water management problems facing Monterey County and asks several rhetorical questions that need not be answered in the response to comment format in a Draft Program EIR.
Although a County wide water budget would be desirable for planning purposes, currently the County’s water supplies are managed by three distinct agencies (PVWMA, MCWMA and the MPWMD ) all of whom conduct independent technical studies of surface water and groundwater, including available supply and existing and projected demand, within their jurisdictions. The separate technical studies completed by the three agencies are not currently well integrated on a County-wide basis, due to the fact that they are separate legal entities with independent responsibilities focused on water resources management within their basins and areas of responsibly. Such an integration presents significant managerial and technical challenges to achieve, and is considered beyond the scope of what can be achieved in a County General Plan. Rather, the 2006 General Plan presents policies and programs for managing the county’s water resources, including enforcing state law requiring proof of water supply availability per SB610 prior to approval of certain types of projects such as residential subdivisions, and requiring further assurances that the water supply infrastructure be in-place prior to project approval.
Response to Comment 24-5 Refer to Master Response MR-13.
Response to Comment 24-6 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-13.
Michael Brandman Associates 379 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 24-7 Comment noted. There is no evidence to describe or support the opinion stated in the comment.
Response to Comment 24-8 Refer to Master Response MR-4, Master Response MR-14, Master Response MR-15, and Master Response MR-16.
380 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 25 (page 1 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 381 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 25 (page 2 of 6)
382 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 25 (page 3 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 383 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 25 (page 4 of 6)
384 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 25 (page 5 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 385 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 25 (page 6 of 6)
386 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Margaret Robbins, October 6, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 25)
Response to Comment 25-1 The items noted as 1-16 in the comment letter are actually comments on the 2006 General Plan rather than on the Draft Program EIR. Regarding the item noted as 17, please see Response 1a-11, Response 15-8, and Response 13-2. Regarding Comment 25-1, the author is commenting on the 21st Century General Plan EIR, not the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Response to Comment 25-2 The author is commenting on the 21st Century General Plan EIR, not the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Response to Comment 25-3 The author is commenting on the 21st Century General Plan EIR, not the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Response to Comment 25-4 The author is commenting on the 21st Century General Plan EIR, not the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Response to Comment 25-5 The author is commenting on the 21st Century General Plan EIR, not the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Michael Brandman Associates 387 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 26 (page 1 of 1)
Michael Brandman Associates 389 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Brad & Leanna Towle, October 5, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 26)
Response to Comment 26-1 As indicated in Table 4.6-9 and Table 4.6-10 of the Draft Program EIR (Pages 4.6-29 through 4.6- 33), a number of roadways in the County are projected to operate at a deficient level of service under two 2030 scenarios. Highway 1 between Carmel Valley Road and Ocean Avenue is projected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour under both scenarios. To mitigate this impact, as well as other impacts associated with deficient levels of service on roadways in the County, Draft Program EIR Mitigation TRAN-1B-a and TRAN -1B-b require that a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) be imposed on new development in cities and unincorporated areas and Draft Program EIR Mitigation TRAN-1C requires that the County not permit occupancy of new development until the TIF program is in place. In addition, individual development projects will be required to mitigate for adverse traffic impacts. Please see Master Response MR-20 for a description of revisions to these Mitigation Measures in response to comments received on the Draft Program EIR.
Michael Brandman Associates 391 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 27 (14 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 393 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Brian Finegan, October 3, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 27)
Response to Comment 27-1 The Draft Program EIR has been revised to clarify the definition of Urban Reserve. This change is noted in the Errata.
Response to Comment 27-2 The four property owner requests noted by the Commentor are comments on the Draft General Plan. The commenter has not raised any issues pertaining to the Draft Program EIR and therefore, no further response is necessary. Note: The County has decided not to include these requests in the General Plan.
Response to Comment 27-3 Comment noted. This project is noted on page 3-91, Table 3-22 - Property Owner Requests in the Errata. As the commentor noted, the subject parcel has already undergone separate CEQA review, which is available at the County Planning and Building Inspection offices. The property owner request would apply a Special Treatment Area overlay on the subject property, in accordance with what was analyzed in the CEQA review. Therefore, the addition of this property owner request to the 2006 General Plan would not require additional analysis.
Response to Comment 27-4 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 27-5 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 27-6 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 27-7 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 27-8 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 27-9 Refer to Master Response MR-9.
Response to Comment 27-10 Refer to Master Response MR-10.
Response to Comment 27-11 Refer to Master Response MR-10.
Response to Comment 27-12 Refer to Master Response MR-10.
Michael Brandman Associates 407 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comment 27-13 The commentor is correct that drilling of agricultural wells is no longer on the R&O list. However, the County’s current well regulation program with respect to proposed new agricultural wells is largely limited to well construction standards, and does not adequately address the potential adverse impacts that high capacity wells may have on existing adjacent wells, or on the issue of saltwater intrusion.
This is a significant area of concern in some portions of the county and because of the level of concern, the proposed revisions to the existing well regulatory program is not considered burdensome. In fact there is an urgent need to better manage groundwater and without some form of improved groundwater management as contained in the 2006 General Plan policies; the County may in the future be subject groundwater basin adjudication, which could truly be burdensome to agriculture.
Response to Comment 27-14 Refer to Master Response MR-10, Response 1a-11 and Response 15-8.
Response to Comment 27-15 Refer to Master Response MR-10, Response 1a-11 and Response 15-8.
Response to Comment 27-16 Please refer to Response 13-1.
Response to Comment 27-17 Please refer to Response to Comment 13-1.
Response to Comment 27-18 Comment noted. The Draft Program EIR Glossary has been modified to the extent that it can to reflect the terms provided in the 2006 General Plan. The term “ministerial” relates to a County permit process that has not yet been developed as noted in the Draft Program EIR. The intent is to differentiate between levels of permit review that require more discretion on the part of the County that may be necessary to carry out the intent of the permit process versus a lesser level of review for projects that meet identified criteria. See Master Response MR-1 for more information on the programmatic nature of the Draft Program EIR and implementation of the provisions of the 2006 General Plan..
408 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 28 (page 1 of 1)
Michael Brandman Associates 409 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
David Krueger, September 29, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 28)
Response to Comment 28-1 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Response to Comment 28-2 Refer to Master Response MR-3.
Response to Comment 28-3 Refer to Master Response MR-1.
Response to Comment 28-4 Refer to Master Response MR-4 and Master Response MR-3.
Response to Comment 28-5 The commentor’s assertion that the 2006 General Plan would allow hundreds of thousands of acres of steep slopes to be converted, creating adverse impacts on wildlife, oak forests, viewsheds, and water quality is not correct. As cited in the Draft Program EIR Water Resources and the Geology, Soils, and Seismicity sections, numerous policies of the 2006 General Plan place restrictions on slope development. In addition, Draft Program EIR Mitigation Measures WR-3A and WR-3B place additional restrictions on slope development. See Response 1a-11 for a discussion of changes to these Mitigation Measures. Moreover, the 2006 General Plan Policy S-1.2 establishes GIS mapping of geologic hazards and constraints, including steep slope. The purpose of the mapping is to identify hazard areas and limit development in these areas. For these reasons, the commentor’s claims are considered erroneous.
Response to Comment 28-6 Refer to Master Response MR-16.
Response to Comment 28-7 Refer to Master Response (MR-16.
Response to Comment 28-8 Comment noted.
Michael Brandman Associates 411 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 29 (page 1 of 2)
Michael Brandman Associates 413 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 29 (page 2 of 2)
414 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Darryl & Geri Kenyon, September 26, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 29)
Response to Comment 29-1 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Response to Comment 29-2 Refer to Master Response MR-3.
Response to Comment 29-3 Refer to Master Response MR-3 and Master Response MR-4.
Response to Comment 29-4 Refer to Master Response MR-16.
Michael Brandman Associates 415 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 30 (page 1 of 1)
Michael Brandman Associates 417 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
John Doering, September 25, 2006 (Comment Letter No. 30)
Response to Comment 30-1 Refer to Master Response MR-4.
Response to Comment 30-2 Refer to Master Response MR-16.
Response to Comment 30-3 Refer to Master Response MR-16.
Michael Brandman Associates 419 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 31 (page 1 of 1)
Michael Brandman Associates 421 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Manny & Pat Garcia (Comment Letter No. 31)
Response to Comment 31-1 Refer to Master Response MR-16. The Community General Plan mentioned in the comment appears to refer to the GPI.
Michael Brandman Associates 423 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 32 (15 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 425 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Jane Haines (Comment Letter No. 32)
Response to Comment 32-1 The commentor is correct that planning for the Chualar Community Area and the resultant Community Plan must be consistent with that certain Settlement Agreement between Chualar Area Concerned Citizens, et al and the County of Monterey in Chualar Area Concerned Citizens, et al v. County of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case no. 107519), executed on or about October 16, 2001 (“Settlement Agreement”), and consistent with the terms of any easements recorded on properties. The County agrees with commenter that it would be appropriate to clarify in the text of the General Plan that the any Community Plan ultimately adopted for the Chualar Community Area must be consistent with the Settlement Agreement. Consistency with the Settlement Agreement does not generate an additional environmental impact not previously identified, and therefore, the suggested added mitigation measure is not necessary. However, the following text will be added to policy LU-2.21(f):
Planning for the Chualar Community Area and any Community Plan ultimately adopted for Chualar shall be consistent with that certain Settlement Agreement between Chualar Area Concerned Citizens, et al and the County of Monterey in Chualar Area Concerned Citizens, et al v. County of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case no. 107519), executed on or about October 16, 2001.
Response to Comment 32-2 Comment noted
Response to Comment 32-3 As commentor notes, the Board of Supervisors discussed this matter at its February 14, 2006 meeting. See also Response 32-1.
Response to Comment 32-4 See Response 32-1.
Michael Brandman Associates 441 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 33 (10 pages)
WP CONFIRM PAGINATION WHEN FINALIZING
VERIFY START AT PAGE NUM IN THIS SECTION WHEN CONTENT IS COMPLETE
Michael Brandman Associates 443 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Robert C. Taylor, Jr. (Comment Letter No. 33)
Response to Comment 33-1 The comments provided are very specific to a single property as well as to the 2006 General Plan and policies of the City of Salinas, which is outside of the control of the County of Monterey. As noted in Master Response MR-1, the Draft Program EIR is a programmatic document and therefore did not examine direct impacts from or on specific properties. Cumulative impacts were likewise analyzed from a programmatic perspective consistent with CEQA as noted in Master Response MR-17.
The County has reviewed the proposed land use map for the Greater Salinas Area Plan (Figure 11). Figure 11 illustrates that there is no proposed land use changes in the unincorporated County that would affect the drainage into the Carr Lake area. The only area north of Salinas where land use changes have been proposed is the Rancho San Juan Community Area. The drainage from this property flows southwesterly. The approved Specific Plan for this area requires that all drainage from the property be controlled on-site, including drainage coming on to the property from off-site. In short, there is no change proposed in the 2006 General Plan that would affect the Carr Lake area and thus no potential impacts to that area caused by the 2006 General Plan. Therefore, the specific comments are not addressed to impacts caused by the 2006 General Plan and require no response. Where the comment letter makes general comments, the commentor may find responses in the following references:
See Master Response MR-17 for a discussion of the Cumulative Impact Analysis in the Draft Program EIR, as well as Response 17-86, Response 17-101 and Response 23-8 regarding cumulative watershed issues.
Last, the 2006 Greater Salinas Area MOU, which was adopted by both the City of Salinas and the County of Monterey, establishes a framework to address drainage impacts from development, including the adoption of a fee program to fund necessary future improvements.
Michael Brandman Associates 453 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 34 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 455 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 34 (page 2 of 3)
456 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 34 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 457 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Special Treatment Area (Comment Letter No. 34)
Response to Comment 34-1 This letter pertains to issues the commentor wishes to raise regarding a proposed change to the 2006 General Plan to add a Special Treatment Area. There are not any comments provided on the Draft Program EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Michael Brandman Associates 459 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 35 (page 1 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 461 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 35 (page 2 of 3)
462 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 35 (page 3 of 3)
Michael Brandman Associates 463 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Policy Ag-1.7 (Comment Letter No. 35)
Response to Comment 35-1 This letter pertains to issues the commentor wishes to raise regarding changes to the policies in the 2006 General Plan. There are not any comments provided on the Draft Program EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Michael Brandman Associates 465 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 36 (page 1 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 467 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 36 (page 2 of 6)
468 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 36 (page 3 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 469 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 36 (page 4 of 6)
470 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 36 (page 5 of 6)
Michael Brandman Associates 471 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 36 (page 6 of 6)
472 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Pleyto Rural Center (Comment Letter No. 36)
Response to Comment 36-1 This letter pertains to issues the commentor wishes to raise regarding a request to change the boundary of the Pleyto Rural Center. There are not any comments provided on the Draft Program EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Michael Brandman Associates 473 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 37 (page 1 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 475 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 37 (page 2 of 4)
476 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 37 (page 3 of 4)
Michael Brandman Associates 477 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Responses to Comments Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter No. 37 (page 4 of 4)
478 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments
John S. Bridges (Fenton & Keller) - Carmel Valley Rural Center (Comment Letter No. 37)
Response to Comment 37-1 This letter pertains to issues the commentor wishes to raise regarding a request to change the boundary of the Mouth of the Carmel Valley Rural Center. There are not any comments provided on the Draft Program EIR. Therefore, no response is necessary.
Michael Brandman Associates 479 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc
2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
SECTION 5 ERRATA TO THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR
The Errata in the Executive Summary Table below refer only to those mitigation measures that have been modified and addressed in the Response to Comments. The revised Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contains all of the changes from Draft Program EIR based upon public comments, recommendations from the Planning Commission and direction from the Board of Supervisors.
Table 1-2 - Executive Summary Table
Level of Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation 4.3 Water Resources Construction-Related Soil Erosion WR-2 - A permit process will be established Significant and Sedimentation as follows: Unavoidable ImpactLess Than Impact WR-2 Land uses and 1. A discretionary permit process for Signficant Impact development consistent with the development on slopes greater than 25- 2006 General Plan could result in percent (25%) or that contain geologic increased soil erosion and hazards and constraints on the County’s sedimentation during construction activities, thereby degrading water GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or quality in downstream waterways. Hydrologic ( Policy PS-2.7) Hazard Databases shall be established. The process shall be designed to: a. evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan. b. identify development and design techniques for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage and construction techniques. c. Minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety. 2. The conversion for agricultural purposes of previously uncultivated lands on slopes in excess of 25% shall require a grading permit. 3. A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development, including for purposes of this policy conversion of previously uncultivated lands, on slopes between 15
Michael Brandman Associates 481 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Level of Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation and 24 percent(15-24%) and 10 to 15% on highly erodible soils. The permit process shall be designed to require that an erosion control plan be developed and implemented that addresses slope stabilization, and drainage and flood hazards. 4. All Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities, except for conversion of previously uncultivated lands as described in this policy above, are exempt from the above permit requirements. A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development on existing lots of record with slopes greater than 15 percent (15%), or 10% or more on highly erodible soils, or that contain geologic hazards and constraints shown on the County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Hydrologic (Policy PS-2.8) Hazard Databases. The permit process shall be designed to: a. evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan. b. identify development and design techniques and implementation guidelines for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage, and construction techniques. c. minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, drainage, flood hazards or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety. 4.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Soil Erosion Hazards Mitigation Measures WR-3A has been Significant combined with WR-2. Unavoidable Impact GEO-5 Erosion from ImpactLess Than activities and land uses consistent WR-3B - The County will develop a Program Signficant Impact with the 2006 General Plan could that will address the potential cumulative result in erosion hazards. hydrologic impacts of the conversion of hillside rangeland areas to cultivated croplands. The Program will be designed to address off-site soil erosion, increased runoff- related stream stability impacts, and/or potential violations of adopted water quality standards. The County should convene a
482 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Level of Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation committee comprised of county staff, technical experts, and stake-holders to develop the Program, including implementation recommendations.A ministerial permit process shall be developed that shall require that any new large agricultural land conversion project or activity, or cumulative new activity from multiple projects within any five-year period that have a reasonable potential to create off- site soil erosion impacts or to violate adopted water quality standards, and that substantially alters land cover in an area that is 25 percent or more of a watershed (defined as a “named area” by the State Water Quality Control Board) develop a Watershed Management Plan in coordination with the applicable Resource Conservation District or other appropriate agency. A large land conversion project is defined a project over 100 acres in size. Watershed Management Plans shall include the following: a. An assessment of the condition and stability of all blue line streams downstream from proposed land conversion project areas where cumulative watershed disturbance effects may occur. b. A multi-year program to develop and implement soil erosion, sediment control, and stream stabilization measures. Within the affected areas. WR-3C - The County shall cooperate with the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, the NRCS, the University of California Cooperative Extension, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Agriculture Water Quality Alliance in continuing their public education/outreach and technical assistance programs that provide agricultural operators with information regarding erosion and sediment control, efficient water use, water conservation and re- use, and groundwater management. This cooperative effort shall be centered in the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. The Board of Supervisors would be responsible for adopting the revised policy and programs. The MCWRA and Agricultural Commissioners Office would be responsible for implementation.
Michael Brandman Associates 483 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Level of Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation 4.7 Air Quality Diesel Exposure Health Risk AIR-3 Applicants for discretionary projects Significant Unavoidable AIR-3 Increased diesel exposure shall work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air ImpactLess Than health risk may result from buildout Pollution Control District to incorporate Signficant Impact of the 2006 General Plan feasible measures that assure that health-based standards for diesel particulate emissions are met. AIR-3 The County of Monterey shall require that construction contracts be given to those contractors who show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and other diesel engine emission upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50 percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment. 4.9 Biological Resources Special Status Species BIO-1A - Any development project requiring Significant a discretionary permit that could potentially Unavoidable Impact BIO-1 Future development disturb a special status species or its critical ImpactLess Than anticipated by the 2006 General Plan habitat identified by the County requiring Signficant Impact may result in substantial loss or analysis under CEQA or identified for degradation of special status plan or protection under an adopted Area Plan shall animal species. be required to conduct a biological survey of the site. Based on the findings of this report, additional focused surveys for certain species may be required. This report, and any mitigation measures recommended in the report, shall be used as a basis for the CEQA documentation for the project except if the County, in the exercise of its independent judgment, requires additional analysis. If sensitive biological resources are found on the site, the project biologist shall recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These All feasible measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in any permit issued. An ordinance establishing minimum standards for a biological report shall be enacted.. BIO-1B - For every acre (or less) of habitat occupied by a federal or state listed (threatened or endangered) plant or wildlife species, the project proponent shall replace it at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Habitat may be created or set aside as onsite mitigation. If the project site does not contain sufficient habitat to fulfill the acreage requirement, offsite mitigation areas may need to set aside. The County shall prepare, adopt, and implement a
484 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Level of Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation program that allows projects to mitigate the loss of habitat occupied by a federal or state listed (threatened or endangered) plant of wildlife species. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of this habitat on an individual basis in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy. BIO-1C - Prior to disturbing any federal or state jurisdictional areas, the project proponent shall be required to satisfy the following all applicable federal and state permitting requirements shall be met, which includes including all mitigation measures for development of jurisdictional areas and associated riparian habitats. • Obtain verification from USACE certifying that the project is authorized under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; • Obtain certification (or waiver of certification) from the State Water Resources Control Board that the project complies with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act; and • Obtain verification that the project is authorized under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
AWCP - Special Status Species BIO-6“This Section includes a list of uses that Significant can be permitted with a permit for properties Unavoidable Impact BIO-6 Implementation of the within the designated AWCP. Projects ImpactLess Than AWCP could potentially result in deemed consistent within the criteria and Signficant Impact significant impacts on special status conditions of the AWCP and Zoning District species. Overlay would require no additional zoning review. However, County and Uniform Building Code requirements still apply relative to those activities that would require a grading and building permit. More intensive uses or uses not otherwise consistent with the AWCP and/or Williamson Act provisions may require the issuance of discretionary permits such as Administrative Permits. Development of the wine industry outside of the corridor requires a is allowed subject to processing
Michael Brandman Associates 485 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Level of Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation discretionary permits with separate environmental analysis.”
Page 3-6, Bullet Item “Urban Reserve” Urban Reserve: The Urban Reserve overlay identifies unincorporated islands that within incorporated cities areas the County anticipates being annexed and developed as part of cities in order to ensure the effective provision of urban services. Urban Reserve lines represent the Sphere of Influence area approved by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
Page 3-10, Footnote to Table 3-5 - General Plan Planning Area Population, Housing, and Employment Source: Bay Area Economics. Analysis of Monterey County General Plans & Quality of Life Initiative. February 2006; Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit & Employment Forecasts. Adopted April 14, 20042006.
Page 3-10, First Paragraph As of January 2006, there were 5,3506,586 undeveloped residential parcels in unincorporated Monterey County, including many large agricultural land holdings. Between 1999 and 2005, building permits for 1,848 dwelling units were issued for the entire unincorporated County.
Page 3-85, 3.3 Special Treatment Areas The 2006 General Plan would establish Special Treatment Areas (STAs) at designated locations in the County to promote specific types of development that are compatible with site constraints and surrounding land uses (see Exhibit 3-29). The 13 16 STAs are listed below with the associated Area Plan in parenthesis:
• Highway 68 / Foster Road (Greater Salinas) • Natividad / Rogge Road (Greater Salinas) • Spence/Potter/Encinal Roads (Greater Salinas / Central Salinas Valley) • Paraiso Hot Springs (Central Salinas Valley) • Old Mission Union School (Central Salinas Valley) • Lohr Property (Central Salinas Valley) • Whiterock Club (Greater Monterey Peninsula) • San Clemente Ranch (Greater Monterey Peninsula) • Jefferson (Greater Monterey Peninsula / Greater Salinas) • Rancho San Carlos (Greater Monterey Peninsula / Carmel Valley Master Plan) • Carmel Valley Ranch (Carmel Valley Master Plan) • Condon/Cugach Property (Carmel Valley Master Plan) • Greco (Toro)
486 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
• Merrill Property (Toro) • Syndicate Camp (Cachagua) • Mouth of Carmel Valley (Carmel Valley Master Plan). This changed from a Rural Center to a Special Treatment Area. In addition, the 2006 General Plan would establish six Study Areas that would be analyzed and subject to subsequent CEQA analysis to determine if they could support a Special Treatment Area designation. These three five Study Areas are listed below with the associated Area Plan in parenthesis:
• Spence/Potter Road (Central Salinas Valley) • Russell Road/Harrison Road/San Juan Grade Road (Greater Salinas) • Espinosa Road (Greater Salinas) • Delfino/Airport Site (Carmel Valley Master Plan) • Pristine Development Company (Carmel Valley Master Plan)
Page 3-91, Table 3-22 - Property Owner Requests
Table 3-22 - Property Owner Requests
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Property Owner Area Plan Acres Designation Designation Low Density Residential Greater Monterey 506.8 Jefferson Permanent Grazing Special Treatment Area- Peninsula 150 Limited Affordable Housing Mori Greater Salinas 41.2 Resource Conservation Study Area Banks North County 1.7 Light Commercial High Density Residential Culp North County 3.9 Resource Conservation Low Density Residential De campo North County 4.9 Farmland Low Density Residential Farmland, Resource Farmland, Resource Kall North County 3.7 Conservation Conservation Kershner North County 2.9 Low Density Residential Light Commercial Mortin North County 7.1 Rural Density Residential Light Commercial Perez North County 11.0 Resource Conservation Low Density Residential Stagecoach North County 29.0 Rural Density Residential Light Commercial Territory Greater Monterey Paquin 9.9 Rural Density Residential Rural Density Residential Peninsula Greater Monterey Rancho San Comprehensive Planned Special Treatment Area - Peninsula, Carmel Carlos Use Comprehensive Planned Use Valley Alvarez Greater Salinas 20.0 Resource Conservation Study Area Farmland, Heavy Ferrasci Greater Salinas 220.0 Farmland, Heavy Industrial Industrial
Michael Brandman Associates 487 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Property Owner Area Plan Acres Designation Designation Jordan North County 0.4 Low Density Residential High Density Residential Price Greater Salinas 4.0 Resource Conservation Study Area Sbrana & Nucci Greater Salinas Farmland Farmland Sconberg & Greater Salinas Farmland Farmland Bengard Bondesen-Smith Greater Salinas Farmland Farmland Farmland/ Resource Tavernetti Greater Salinas 2.8 Heavy Commercial Conservation Thompson Central Salinas Farmland, Permanent Special Treatment Area- 274.9 Holding Valley Grazing, Visitor Serving General Development Plan Wilson Greater Salinas 2.6 Farmland Study Area Amaral Toro 22.7 Farmland Medium Density Residential Special Treatment Area - Merrill & Gheen Toro 28.0 Farmland Mixed Use Anderson Greater Salinas 20.7 Farmland Agricultural Industrial Central Salinas Elliot 9.4 Farmland Agricultural Industrial Valley Central Salinas Harris 13.1 Farmland Heavy Industrial Valley Central Salinas Light Commercial Special Miller’s Lodge 2.0 40 Resource Conservation Valley Treatment Area Pristine Visitor Serving Development Carmel Valley 24.0 Study Area-Mixed Use Commercial/Office Company Salinas Land Central Salinas Farmland, Permanent 66.9 Medium Density Residential Co. Valley Grazing Central Salinas Suarez 40.1 Farmland Agricultural Industrial Valley Study Area - Affordable Delfino Carmel Valley 29.0 Low Density Residential Housing Resource Conservation, Special Treatment Area - Rancho Canada Carmel Valley 47.6 Public-Quasi-Public Affordable Housing Permanent Grazing, Brown South County 439.4 Rural Grazing Farmland Permanent Grazing, Burtness South County 474.6 Rural Grazing Farmland Central Salinas Giudiici 1.4 Farmland Heavy Commercial Valley Heinsen South County 160.2 Rural Grazing Low Density Residential Permanent Grazing, Orradre South County 0.3 High Density Residential Farmland Medium Density Varian South County 4.8 Light Commercial Residential Rodriguez North County 10.3 Resource Conservation Rural Density Residential
488 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Property Owner Area Plan Acres Designation Designation Hatton Carmel Valley 142.6 26 Public/Quasi-Public Public/Quasi-Public
Page 3-93, Last Paragraph Routine and ongoing agriculture activities are exempted from the goals and policies of the 2006 General Plan. Routine and Ongoing Agriculture Activities are exempted from the following goals and polices of the 2006 General Plan:
• Policy LU-1.6 • Policy C-5.3 • Policy C-5.4 • Policy OS-1.9 • Policy OS-1.12 • Policy OS-3.5 • Policy OS-3.6 • Policy OS-5.4 • Policy OS-6.3 • Policy OS-7.3 • Policy OS-8.3 • Goal 10 • Policy OS-10.8 • Policy S-2.3
Page 3-94, Fourth Paragraph, First Sentence AMBAG’s growth projections between 2000 and 2030 are considered the best available estimate of growth that will occur in unincorporated Monterey County by 2030 as a result of implementation of the 2006 General Plan.being used as the basis for the growth assumptions contained in the 2006 General Plan.
Page 3-94, Fourth Paragraph, Fourth Sentence Where projects are found to be consistent with the 2006 General Plan, the environmental impact would be less than significant. Where such constraints cannot be fully mitigated, the impacts must be considered potentially significant and a separate CEQA review shall be prepared. Note that separate CEQA review may not be required for development and land use activities that are consistent with the 2006 General Plan.
3-22 Page 4.2-18, Mitigation Measure AG-1.x AG-1: A policy shall be added the General Agriculture section of the Agricultural Element that states the following:
AG-1.12 Prior to the discretionary approval of any new non-agricultural or non-agricultural- related land use to be located on designated Important Farmland, The County shall prepare, adopt and implement a program that requires projects involving a change of land use designation or land to be annexed to an incorporated area resulting in the loss of Important Farmland (as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) to mitigate the loss of
Michael Brandman Associates 489 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
that acreage. by permanently protecting other Important Farmland in the County at a minimum 2:1 ratio. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of Important Farmland on an individual basis as feasible as determined by the Agricultural CommissionerBoard of Supervisors. The acreage in a project or annexation that is to be utilized for inclusionary housing shall not be subject to this mitigation policy. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy. This policy would not apply to annexations covered by the 2006 Greater Salinas Area MOU between the County of Monterey and the City of Salinas.
Page 4.3-18, Fourth Paragraph Groundwater basins are vertically divided into aquifers, which are comprised of the most permeable strata. This may be porous sandstone, coarse sandy or gravel alluvial deposits, or fractured rock. Such layers often form aquicludes or barriers to flow that divide aquifers. In some cases, impermeable and less permeable layers are present within an overall aquifer system. When impermeable layers are present over large areas, they can serve to subdivide the aquifer (e.g., into upper and lower or shallow and deep units).
Page 4.3-31, Sixth Paragraph PVWMA has an approved basin management plan intended to balance the groundwater, primarily by replacing coastal pumping with alternative supplies. The current phase of projects includes replacement of a significant portion of coastal groundwater pumping with deliveries of recycled water from the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project. Replacement water will be delivered via the concurrent construction of a series of pipelines, known as the Coastal Distribution System Project, to reduce seawater intrusion rates within coastal areas of the Pajaro Basin. PVWMA is also engaged in an integrated regional water management planning effort with the San Benito County Water District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Through this effort, water supply options to obtain the remainder of the replacement supplies will be identified and presumably will include a combination of conservation and supplemental water supplies from inland areas within the watershed or elsewhere as available.PVWMA, with a proposed plan to recharge groundwater with recycled water (the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project) and construction of a new 23-mile pipeline (Coastal Distribution System Project) manage seawater intrusion in the area of the Pajaro River. In April 2006, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning and coastal development permit to allow upgrade of Watsonville’s wastewater treatment plant, providing the final approval needed for the projects. The City of Watsonville and PVWMA planned to begin construction on the projects in late summer of 2006, with the first recycled water deliveries beginning at the start of the 2008 growing season.
Page 4.3-65 and 66 PVWMA has studied the issues of overdraft, storage depletion and seawater intrusion for many years. These studies were used to formulate a the first Basin Management Plan and program level EIR in 1993. According to these plans the preferred alternative to meet water supply demands are importation of water, limited extraction of local surface supplies, and water conservation elements that are identified in the 1998 Water Supply Project EIR. In 2002, PVWMA adopted a Revised Basin Management Plan and associated project level EIR/EIS. The five primary components to meet water supply demands set forth in the Basin Plan were:
490 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
• Piping of Pipeline Construction historical construction to import existing entitlement of water from the San Felipe Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP), with supplemental purchasing as deemed necessary of additional entitlements. Aquifer Storage and Recovery may also be used to “bank” larger wet year CVP deliveries and recover them in dry years. • Capture, recharge, and recovery of local surface supply from the Pajaro River, College Lake and the Watsonville and Harkins Sloughs Harkins Slough and deliver the recovered water via pipelines to coastal farms north of the Pajaro River. This project was completed in 2001.; • Construct the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project to treat wastewater flows from the Watsonville area and deliver the recycled water to farms in the coastal area of the basin. • construction Construction of a coastal distribution pipeline system to irrigate deliver irrigation water to approximately 8,000 8,500 acres of agricultural land with imported, or local supplies Harkins Slough, inland groundwater, and recycled water supplies; • delivery of imported and local water to irrigate approximately 8,000 acres of agricultural land an inland distribution system to in wet years; and • agricultural and urban water conservation programs.
This plan was modified since a 1997 voter referendum imposed a 10-year moratorium on the construction of the import pipeline and restricted PVWMA’s augmentation fees to $50. As a result local projects and conservation elements are now being prioritized. Agency projects are funded by a combination of “augmentation” fees of $160 per acre foot of groundwater pumped, delivery charges to users receiving water from PVWMA projects, and significant federal and state grants. Combined annual yield of the local projects and conservation will be less than 10,000 AFY of the 28,000 AFY shortfall in the Pajaro Valley.
Page 4.3-83, Impact WR-2 Construction-Related Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Impact WR-2 Land uses and development consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in increased soil erosion and sedimentation during construction activities, thereby degrading water quality in downstream waterways. Significant Unavoidable ImpactLess Than Signficant Impact With Mitigation.
Page 4.3-85, Fifth Paragraph, Last Sentence Therefore, additional mitigation is proposed that would reduce potential erosion impacts from General Plan build-out.to a level of less than significant. However, this mitigation would not fully reduce this impact to a level of less than significant and, therefore, construction-related soil erosion and sedimentation is a significant unavoidable impact of the 2006 General Plan.
Page 4.4-38, Impact GEO-5 Soil Erosion Hazards
Impact GEO-5 Erosion from activities and land uses consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in erosion hazards. Significant Unavoidable ImpactLess Than Signficant Impact With Mitigation.
Michael Brandman Associates 491 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Page 4.4-40, Second Paragraph, Last Sentence Therefore, additional mitigation is proposed that would reduce potential erosion impacts from General Plan build-out. to a level of less than significant. However, this mitigation would not fully reduce this impact to a level of less than significant and, therefore, erosion hazards are significant unavoidable impact of the 2006 General Plan.
Page 4.6-7, Second Paragraph, Last Sentence The County’s current standard for road performance is LOS C under the 1982 General Plan and is proposed to be LOS D under the 2006 General Plan. The 1982 General Plan did not explicitly establish a minimum performance standard for roadway performance. Rather, Policy 37.2.1 of the 1982 General Plan stated that “Transportation demands of proposed development shall not exceed an acceptable level of service for existing transportation facilities, unless appropriate increases in capacities are provided for.” Discussion of “Road and Highway Performance” in the 1982 General Plan states that the Monterey County Transportation Commission (now TAMC) objective for optimum driving conditions is LOS C or better. It also indicates that unacceptable levels are considered as LOS E or F. The County has historically used LOS C as its threshold, which is the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) standard for roadway performance. The 2006 General Plan would establish LOS D as the County’s roadway performance standard.
Page 4.6-8, Second Paragraph These two methods (construction and expansion) are most often selected and favored by past policy in Monterey County. Although this is a common response that reflects conventional policies, it also reflects the inherent difficulty of implementing demand management measures to reduce volumes after traffic has already been generated. Demand management is most effective in preventing increased traffic volumes by precluding the need for trips through a combination of prudent land use planning and, highly convenient transit services, and a highly connected bicycle and pedestrian pathway system. Policies in the 2006 General Plan are designed with the intent to address this issue ensure implementation of the necessary alternative mode facilities when new development occurs.
Page 4.6-8, Table 4.6-4
Table 4.6-4 - County Roadways Exceeding Level of Service Standard (Year 2000)
County Roadway Segments Operating at LOS E in PM Peak Hour
Roadway Segment Elkhorn Road Hall Road to Werner Road Highway 1 Northbound from Casa Verde Way on-ramp to Del Monte Avenue off-ramp Highway 1 Northbound from Highway 218 on-ramp to Light Fighear Drive off-ramp Highway 1 Salinas Road to Springfield Road Southbound Northbound from Highway 68 (East) on-ramp to Fremont Street Highway 1 off-ramp Highway 1 Ramp Fremont Street northbound on-ramp Highway 1 Ramp Fremont Boulevard northbound on-ramp U.S. 101 Northbound from Highway 156 on-ramp to Vierra Canyon Road off-ramp
492 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Roadway Segment U.S. 101 Northbound from Vierra Canyon Road on-ramp to San Miguel Canyon Road U.S. 101 Northbound from Crazy Horse Canyon Road to Dunbarton Road (south) U.S. 101 Northbound from Dunbarton Road (north) to Marilyn Lane Highway 218 Highway 68 to Ryan Ranch Road Highway 218 Del Rey Gardens Drive to General Jim Moore Boulevard Highway 68 Bit Road to Ragsdale Road Highway 68 Highway 1 southbound ramps to CHOMP Entrance Highway 68 Syida Drive to Adobe Lane County Roadway Segments Operating at LOS E in PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Highway 68 Bishop Avenue to Piedmont Avenue County Roadway Segments Operating at LOS F in PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Hall Road Las Lomas Drive to Willow Road Highway 1 Salinas Road to south of Trafton Road Highway 1 Jetty Road to Moss Landing Road (south) Highway 1 Northbound from Fremont Street on-ramp to Highway 68 Street off-ramp Highway 1 Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road U.S. 101 Northbound from Marilyn Lane to Ballantree Lane Highway 156 East of Castroville Boulevard to Highway 101 ramps Highway 183 Salinas Street to Palm Street Highway 68 Highway 218 to Ragsdale Road Highway 68 Laureles Grade Road to south of Portola Drive/north of Torero Drive Highway 68 El Bosque Drive to Scenic Drive Highway 68 Oxton Road to Olmsted Road San Miguel Canyon Langley Canyon Road to Highway 101 Road Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2006.
Page 4.6-18, Fifth Paragraph The Monterey Branch line from Castroville to Monterey passes through the cities of Marina and, Seaside and through Fort Ord, and Sand City and terminates at Cannery Row in Monterey. This 12.9- mile single-track branch line is inactive and is owned by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) from Castroville to Contra Costa in Seaside, and by the Cities of Seaside and Monterey from Contra Costa into the City of Monterey. TAMC has plans to open this section of track for a passenger service.
Michael Brandman Associates 493 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Page 4.6-18, Seventh Paragraph TAMC is planning to extend Caltrain service from Gilroy to Monterey County, including stops in Pajaro, Castroville, and Salinas. An Environmental Impact Report prepared by TAMC, dated April 26, 2006 certified August 23, 2006, indicates that initial plans for service include two weekday round trips between Salinas and San Francisco, with new intermediate stops at Pajaro and Castroville. The estimated cost of the extension of service is $75 million $90 million (year of expenditure dollars), with service beginning as early as 2009.
Page 4.6-19, Third Paragraph, First Sentence The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission is in the process of review the feasibility of acquiring and operating passenger rail service over the Union Pacific branch line between Pajaro and Davenport (Santa Cruz County).
Page 4.6-27, First Paragraph, First Sentence The transportation impact analysis evaluates travel demand projected to the year 2030, consistent with the travel demand land use projections development by AMBAG reflecting growth under the 2006 General Plan projected by the 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit, and Employment Forecasts.
Section 4.7, Air Quality, Global All references to “4.1” in Section 4.7, Air Quality are changed to “4.7.” This includes headings, tables, and page numbers.
Page 4.17-4 , Second Paragraph The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) North Central Coast Air Basin was designated a Federal Maintenance Area for ozone in March 1997 and is in attainment for the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. The MBUAPCD North Central Coast Air Basin is an in attainment area for the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. The North Central Coast Air Basin is classified as non-attainment for the State 1-hour ozone standard.
Page 4. 17-4 , Third Paragraph, Last Sentence The North Central Coast Air Basin is designated in attainment for both the Federal and State CO standards. as an attainment area for the Federal CO standards and a non-attainment area for the State CO standards.
Page 4. 17-5 , Fourth Paragraph 3 The Federal standard for PM10 is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m ) averaged over 24 hours. 3 The State standard for PM10 is 50 μg/m averaged over 24 hours. The North Central Coast Air Basin is classified as attainment for the federal standard and non-attainment for the State PM10 standard. The Federal PM2.5 standard is 15 μg/m3 averaged over 24 hours, while the State standard is 12 μg/m3 averaged over 24 hours. The North Central Coast Air Basin is in attainment for the Federal and State PM2.5 standards. At the time of this writing, there is no official State PM2.5 standard. However, CARB is in the process of establishing a State PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m3. In addition, an agency staff report recommends that the Basin be designated as non-attainment for State and Federal PM2.5 standards.
494 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Page 4. 17-6 , After Fourth Paragraph Acrolein Acrolein is a colorless or yellow liquid with piercing disagreeable odor. Acrolein is a federal hazardous air pollutant and was identified as a toxic air contaminant in California in April 1993 under AB 2728. Although acrolein’s production and use will result in its release to the environment, combustion of fossil fuels, tobacco smoke, and pyrolyzed animal and vegetable fats also contribute to the prevalence of acrolein in the atmosphere. In fact, the predominant route of environmental exposure is inhalation of smoke or automobile exhaust. The major anthropogenic release of this compound to the environment are into the air from combustion processes within stationary (e.g. waste incinerators, furnaces, fireplaces, power plants, etc.) and mobile (e.g. automobiles, trucks, buses, airplanes, construction equipment, etc.) sources. Acrolein is toxic following inhalation, oral, or dermal exposure primarily at the site of contact with tissues, causing irritation to the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts and eyes and skin. Inhalation exposure to acrolein can affect the entire respiratory system. Populations that might be unusually susceptible to acrolein include people whose respiratory function is compromised, such as individuals with emphysema or asthma, due to the strong respiratory irritant effects of the chemical.
Asbestos Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals that have been mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are: a) chrysotile, b) amosite, and c) crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90-95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States.
In addition asbestos is also found in it natural state. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally contains asbestos can result in the release of fibers to the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include: unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present.
To address some of the health concerns associated with exposure to asbestos from these activities, CARB has adopted two Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs). CARB has an ATCM for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestos-laden dust. This ATCM applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where NOA is likely to be found. Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the APCO or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or NOA on the site. The ATCM also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity.
Page 4. 17-10 , Second and Third Paragraphs Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
Michael Brandman Associates 495 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
MBUAPCD is one of 35 air pollution management districts that have prepared an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in an effort to accomplish a five percent annual reduction in emissions. The most recent AQMP for the North Central Coast Air Basin was adopted in 2004. The 2004 AQMP relies on a multi-level partnership of Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and proposes policies and measures to achieve Federal and State air quality standards for improved air quality in its jurisdictional area.
The 2004 AQMP also addresses several Federal and State planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2004 AQMP is consistent and builds upon the approaches taken in previous AQMPs for the attainment of the State O3 and PM10 standards.
Page 4. 17-12 , Second Paragraph, Second Sentence The traffic analysis for the various proposed improvements calculated the travel distances and levels of congestion for existing conditions, and for 2030 conditions without and with the improvements programmed into the 2006 General Plan Transportation Agency of Monterey County 14-Year Investment Plan.
Page 4.-17-12 , Third Paragraph Because of the direct linkage between transportation, growth, and air quality, all transportation projects with federal funding must demonstrate conformity with the basin-wide AQMP. Such conformity must be demonstrated at a plan level and then again at an individual project level. Plan level conformity has been demonstrated in findings that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) are consistent with conform to the approved AQMP for the basin. Consistency Conformity requires that the plan includes feasible transportation control measures (TCMs), and that the emissions budget in the approved AQMP will not be exceeded.
Page 4. 17-13 , Third Paragraph Construction projects may generate PM10 emissions during soil disturbance, and exhaust emissions from primarily diesel fueled equipment. Transportation projects are often linear and progressive for only a limited period of time. Localized emissions however may be substantial. The MBUAPCD has developed an extensive PM10 mitigation program for construction activities. MBUAPCD CEQA guidelines state that regional impacts from ozone precursor emissions in equipment exhaust (NOX and ROG) have been incorporated into the regional emissions budget. (Note that this covers emissions from standard construction equipment; emissions non-typical construction equipment is not factored into the emissions budget. The use of non-typical construction equipment requires consultation with MBUAPCD.) This is a potentially significant impact because PM10 emissions could violate air quality thresholds. Mitigation is required to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant (refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-2).
In addition, Monterey County has several areas identified as potential sites for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Construction activities could potentially occur in these areas and result in the spreading of asbestos fibers. All construction activity related to this project will be subject to CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure for asbestos that will minimize potential effects to less than significant.
496 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Page 4. 17-14 , Impact AIR-3 Diesel Particulate Health Risk
Impact AIR-3 Increased diesel exposure health risk may result from buildout of the 2006 General Plan. Significant Unavoidable ImpactLess Than Signficant Impact With Mitigation.
Page 4. 17-15 , Third Paragraph Sensitive receptors in Monterey County have a much lower likelihood of exposure to diesel emissions, including particulate matter and arcolein, because of the regional meteorology and lower levels of regional population and development. In addition, potential exposure to these pollutants depends on the number of diesel sources and the setback distance between the source and the nearest sensitive receptors. However, there is no safe exposure level to these pollutants and there is no mitigation available that would reduce potential exposure to a level of less than significant. Given that the 2006 General Plan encompasses a number of development and land use activities, many of which will involve heavy equipment that emits diesel pollutants, the County cannot guarantee with certainty that sensitive receptors will not be exposed to diesel pollutants. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of the 2006 General Plan.Diesel particulate matter exposure is, however, also a regional issue. Expsoure in Monterey County is much less than in heavily developed areas of the state with generally poorer disperson meterology. Nevertheless, pruduce avoidance to cumulative long-term regional diesel exhaust exposure is recommended because there is no absolute safe exposure level to this pollutant. This is a potentiall significant impact. Mitigation is required to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant (refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-3).
Recent court decisions on federal preemption indicate that the County may not have the power to enforce the Mitigation Measure beyond County contractors as originally written. As a result, the original Mitigation Measure is not feasible as proposed and if applied would have a much more limited scope than intended. Therefore, the original version of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 (2006 General Plan Policy OS-10.10) is eliminated from the Final Program EIR as shown below:
AIR-3 The County of Monterey shall require that contractors show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and other diesel engine emissions upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50-percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.
However, the original language of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 has been revised in response to comments in the Final Program EIR to capture its intent of reducing the potential for increased diesel exposure health risk. The language of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 has been included in response to comment to clarify the intent of the Mitigation Measure to endeavor to reduce potential diesel exposure health risk to the extent feasible in a programmatic environmental analysis. The revised wording is shown below, in the Errata and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
AIR-3 Applicants for discretionary projects shall work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District to incorporate feasible measures that assure that health- based standards for diesel particulate emissions are met.
Even with mitigation, the impact noted in the Draft Program EIR remains potentially significant and the conclusion of the Final Program EIR is that the impact is significant and unavoidable.
Michael Brandman Associates 497 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures
AIR-3 Applicants for discretionary projects shall work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District to incorporate feasible measures that assure that health-based standards for diesel particulate emissions are met.
AIR-3 The County of Monterey shall require that construction contracts be given to those contractors who show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfure fuels and other diesel engine emission upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50 percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.
Page 4. 17-15 , After Second Paragraph Local operational acrolein impacts around any individual construction source depend upon the number of diesel sources and the setback distance between the source and the nearest sensitive receptors. Exposure of sensitive receptors is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is required to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Otherwise, this is a significant unavoidable impact (refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-3).
Page 4. 17-15 , Mitigation Measure AIR-3 AIR-3 Applicants for discretionary projects shall work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District to incorporate feasible measures that assure that health-based standards for diesel particulate emissions are met.
The County of Monterey shall require that construction contracts be given to those contractors who show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and other diesel engine emission upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50 percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.
Page 4. 17-16 , Add New Last Paragraph Under Impact AIR-5 The total gallons of wine projected for each Artisan Winery is a maximum of 119,000 gallons per year. If all 40 Artisan Wineries were to operate at maximum production of 50,000 cases, they would cumulatively produce 4,760,000 gallons per year. While the AWCP assumes that the 40 Artisan Wineries would be built, the Cumulative Projected Growth of Wine Production shown in Table 4-1, indicates that even if all 40 Artisan Wineries were built out in the next five years (by the year 2012), they would meet the growth projection through 2012. However, these 40 Artisan Wineries only account for approximately 24% of the total projected growth of 20,082,195 gallons of fermented wine produces in Monterey County by the year 2030. Therefore, the cumulative VOC emissions estimated for all 40 Artisan Wineries are included in the estimated growth rate upon which the MBUAPCD’s AQAP is based, and the resulting cumulative impacts are considered less than significant.
Page 4. 17-17 , Last Paragraph The AWCP would allow the development of up to 60 wine-related facilities in agricultural areas through the Salinas Valley. As such, it is expected that many of the facilities would be located adjacent to or near agricultural operations that generate odors considered objectionable by substantial numbers of future visitors or employee. However, this is not considered significant because wine- related facilities are agriculture-supporting uses and agricultural odors are inherently associated with the land use activities on these lands. Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that visitors and employees of these AWCP wine-related facilities would be aware of agricultural odors and would not consider
498 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR such odors to be unduly objectionable. Note that the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance protects specified agricultural operations from nuisance lawsuits over farm-related odors. MBUAPCD’s Rule 402 also establishes odor regulations for those agricultural activities not covered by the Right to Farm Ordinance. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Page 4.9-2, Last Paragraph, Second Sentence The records of the CNDDB indicate that 37 more than 40 Federal and State special status plant and animal species occur in a wide range of habitat types in Monterey County. Of this figure, 1927 are classified as Federally Endangered and Federally Threatened by the USFWS.
Page 4.9-5, Table 4.9-1
Table 5-1 - Federal Endangered and Threatened Species in Monterey County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Santa Cruz long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum Endangered California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Threatened Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo californicus Endangered California red legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Threatened California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Endangered Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus Endangered Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered Steelhead - South-Central Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Threatened California Coast Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi Endangered San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Smith’s blue butterfly Euphilotes enoptes smithi Endangered Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis Threatened Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia Threatened Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens Endangered Beach layla Layia carnosa Endangered Menzies’ wallflower Erysimum menziesii ssp. menziesii Endangered Yadon’s wallflower Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii Endangered Coastal dunes milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener Endangered Tidestrom’s lupine Lupinus tidestromii Endangered Monterey clover Trifolium trichocalyx Endangered Monterey spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Threatened
Michael Brandman Associates 499 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Common Name Scientific Name Status Robust spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Endangered Sand gilia Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Endangered Hickman’s potentilla Potentilla hickmanii Endangered Gowen cypress Cupressus macrocarpa Threatened Chlorogalum purpureum var. Purple amole Threatened purpureum Yadon’s rein orchid Piperia yadonii Endangered Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis Threatened California least tern Sterna antillarum browni Endangered Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbeled murrelet Threatened marmoratus California condor Gymnogyps californianus Endangered Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Endangered Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio Endangered Longhorn fairy shrimp Branchinecta longiantenna Endangered San Joaquin woollythreads Monolopia congdonii Endangered Source: California Natural Diversity Database Rare Find Version 3.0.5. August 2006.
Page 4.9-15, First Paragraph The 2006 General Plan Land Use Element emphasizes compact city-centered growth and discourages the encroachment of urban uses into undeveloped areas. The bulk of the population growth contemplated by the 2006 General Plan would occur in the six seven Community Areas, most of which contain existing dwelling units.
Page 4.9-15, Sixth Paragraph “The Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, and Agricultural Element establish policies designed to emphasize discourage growth in sensitive natural areas, as well as ensure that urban and agricultural land uses to do not adversely impact the environment.”
Page 4.9-15, Impact BIO-1 Special Status Species
Impact BIO-1 Future development anticipated by the 2006 General Plan may result in substantial loss or degradation of special status plan or animal species. Significant Unavoidable ImpactLess Than Signficant Impact With Mitigation.
Page 4.9-20, Third Paragraph, Second Sentence Therefore, mitigation would be required. However, it would not fully reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant because the 2006 General Plan allows for a wide range of development and land use activities throughout the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and there is still a strong possibility that loss or degradation of special status species may occur in these areas during the
500 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR life of the General Plan. Accordingly, this is a significant unavoidable impact of the 2006 General Plan. to reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant. Requiring biological surveys and establishing a replacement ratio for areas where habitat is removed in consultation with appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies would ensure that adverse impacst on special status species would be less than significant.
Page 4.9-26, Impact BIO-6 AWCP - Special Status Species
Impact BIO-6 Implementation of the AWCP could potentially result in significant impacts on special status species. Significant Unavoidable ImpactLess Than Signficant Impact With Mitigation.
Page 4.9-21, Second Paragraph The AWCP is a component of the 2006 General Plan Update and is consistent with its proposed goals, policies, and mitigation measures including those that pertain to sensitive biological resources. These policies and mitigation measures are summarized under Impact BIO-1. However, because the AWCP as written proposes as a ministerial permit system to develop future wine-related facilities, proposals for future wine-related facilities in biological sensitive areas could be exempt from CEQA review, and therefore, avoid certain biological review processes. The avoidance of certain biological review processes could result in the unmitigated loss of sensitive species or habitats. Mitigation is proposed to address this potentially significant impact. However, because the AWCP would allow the development of new wine-related facilities in natural areas that may contain special status plants and animals, there is a possibility that adverse impacts may still occur. This is a significant unavoidable impact of the AWCP. This would be a significant impact and mitigation is proposed to reduce this impact to a level of significant (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-6A).
Page 4.11-11, Fourth Paragraph, First Sentence Current demand exceeds supply in the three major supply areas of the County, an issue also present at the time of the existing 1982 2006 General Plan preparation.
Page 4.11-11, Fourth Paragraph, Fourth Sentence While progress has been made by MCWRA and PVWMA in haltingslowing the rate of groundwater level decline and seawater intrusion, these issues remain a significant challenge to sustainable growth based on the goal of a sustainable groundwater supply.
Page 4.11-12, First Paragraph, Second Sentence Proposed Rural Centers include Bradley, Pleyto, Lockwood, San Ardo, Pine Canyon (King City), Prunedale, River Road-Las Palmas, San Benancio-Corral de Tierra, and Toro Park-Sera Village.
Page 4.11-42, Fourth Paragraph, Second Sentence Primary regulatory authority is within the MCWRA and the Environmental Health Division of the MarinMonterey County Health Department (MCHD), both of which enforce Monterey County Codes.
Page 4.11-45, First Paragraph, First Sentence The MPWMD was formed in 1978 to provide for integrated management of the water resources augment the water supply and manage water resources for the communities on the Monterey Peninsula, including Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Sand City,
Michael Brandman Associates 501 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Monterey Peninsula Airport District and portions of unincorporated Monterey County, including Pebble Beach and Carmel Valley.
Page 4.11-55 and 46 PVWMA has studied the issues of overdraft, storage depletion and seawater intrusion for many years. These studies were used to formulate a the first Basin Management Plan and program level EIR in 1993.According to these plans the preferred alternative to meet water supply demands are importation of water, limited extraction of local surface supplies, and water conservation elements that are identified in the 1998 Water Supply Project EIR. In 2002, PVWMA adopted a Revised Basin Management Plan and associated project level EIR/EIS. The five primary components to meet water supply demands set forth in the Basin Plan were:
• Piping of Pipeline Construction historical construction to import existing entitlement of water from the San Felipe Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP), with supplemental purchasing as deemed necessary of additional entitlements. Aquifer Storage and Recovery may also be used to “bank” larger wet year CVP deliveries and recover them in dry years. • Capture, recharge, and recovery of local surface supply from the Pajaro River, College Lake and the Watsonville and Harkins Sloughs Harkins Slough and deliver the recovered water via pipelines to coastal farms north of the Pajaro River. This project was completed in 2001.; • Construct the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project to treat wastewater flows from the Watsonville area and deliver the recycled water to farms in the coastal area of the basin. • construction Construction of a coastal distribution pipeline system to irrigate deliver irrigation water to approximately 8,000 8,500 acres of agricultural land with imported, or local supplies Harkins Slough, inland groundwater, and recycled water supplies; • delivery of imported and local water to irrigate approximately 8,000 acres of agricultural land an inland distribution system to in wet years; and • agricultural and urban water conservation programs.
This plan was modified since a 1997 voter referendum imposed a 10-year moratorium on the construction of the import pipeline and restricted PVWMA’s augmentation fees to $50. As a result local projects and conservation elements are now being prioritized. Agency projects are funded by a combination of “augmentation” fees of $160 per acre foot of groundwater pumped, delivery charges to users receiving water from PVWMA projects, and significant federal and state grants. Combined annual yield of the local projects and conservation will be less than 10,000 AFY of the 28,000 AFY shortfall in the Pajaro Valley.
Page 4.11-55, Mitigation Measure PS-3A PSU-3A: A new policy shall be added the Educational Facilities section of the Public Services Element that states the following Public Services Element Policy PS-7.8 shall be amended to state the following:
PS-7.x: The adequate provision of public school facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County and the affected school district(s) prior to the approval of new residential subdivision maps or zone changes.
PS-7.8 New development shall assist in land acquisition and financial support for school facilities as required by state law. Where school districts have adopted appropriate resolutions, written confirmation from the school district that applicable fees and contributions have been paid or are ensured to the satisfaction of the district shall be
502 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
required prior to the issuance of building permits. The County shall, as a condition of approval of development projects, require the project applicant to pay the fees required by statute (Government Code section 65996, as it may be periodically amended) to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school facilities.
Page 4.11-69, Mitigation Measure PS-6A PSU-6A: A new policy (PS-3.x) shall be added to the Long-Term Water Supply section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-3.15x To ensure accuracy and consistency in the evaluation of water supply availability, Monterey County Health Department, in coordination with the MCWRA, shall develop guidelines and procedures for conducting water supply assessments and making firm determinations regarding determining water supply availability. Adequate availability and provision of new water supply, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County prior to approval of new final subdivision maps or any changes in the 2006 General Plan Land Use or Zoning designations.
Section 4.13, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Global The page numbering in Section 4.13, Hazards and Hazardous Materials erroneously restarted at 4.13- 1 on the fourth page in the section. The page numbering has been corrected to be sequential throughout the entire section.
Page 4.13-1 (4.13-4), Before First Paragraph Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) are also hazardous materials. MEC consists of two types of military munitions that pose explosive safety risks: fired military munitions and unfired military munitions. The former Fort Ord contains a number of MEC sites and United States Army is the process of remediation of those sites.
Pages 4.15-7 and 4.15-8 AMBAG Forecast
Population growth in itself is not necessarily growth inducing if it does not exceed what has been projected in regional population forecasts. A comparison buildout potential of the proposed 2006 General Plan Update relative to the AMBAG projections for population, housing, and employment is summarized in Table 4.15 8.
Table 4.2-2 - Proposed General Plan Buildout Potential
Total General Plan Buildout AMBAG Projections for Existing Proposed 2006 Potential (2030 Undetermined Unincorporated Monterey Land Use (2000) General Plan Growth Point Beyond 2030) County (2030) 100,252 45,732 additional Population 145,984 135,375 persons persons 37,047 16,900 additional Housing 53,947 48,670 dwelling units dwelling units Employment 68,915 jobs 11,750 additional jobs 80,665 97,113
Michael Brandman Associates 503 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Total General Plan Buildout AMBAG Projections for Existing Proposed 2006 Land Use Potential (2030 Undetermined Unincorporated Monterey (2000) General Plan Growth Point Beyond 2030) County (2030) Note: Buildout potential is based on estimates; actual figures may vary Source: Bay Area Economics. Analysis of Monterey County General Plans & Quality of Life Initiative. February 2006; Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit & Employment Forecasts. Adopted April 14, 20042006.
The 2004 AMBAG growth projections stop at 2030, while the 2006 General Plan is expected to buildout at undetermined point beyond 2030. The 2004 AMBAG projections reflect the development potential of the 2006 General Plan because they factored in the 1982 General Plan land use map (which is effectively maintained by the 2006 General Plan), the 2003 Housing Element emphasis areas (i.e., high density residential development in Community Areas), the potential for subdivision on large residential parcels, and the higher-than-ultimately-approved development potential for the Rancho San Juan Community Areas. In addition, AMBAG considered historic growth rates and water availability constraints in Monterey County, which are significant factors that will limit growth. For these reasons the 2004 AMBAG growth forecast for 2030 reflect 2006 General Plan development potential at 2030. Therefore, the 2006 General Plan would not exceed the population growth contemplated by AMBAG and no conflicts with adopted population forecasts would occur. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.The proposed General Plan Update contemplates substantially greater growth in unincorporated Monterey County relative to the 2004 AMBAG forecast. This difference is attributed to the 2004 AMBAG forecast using the existing 1982 General Plan buildout potential as the basis of the AMBAG forecast.
Pages 4.15-8, Third Paragraph Conclusion
The population growth that would occur by 2030 as a result of implementation of the 2006 General Plan are consistent with the 2004 AMBAG growth projections for reasons described previously. Therefore, the 2006 General Plan would not induce population growth beyond what has been anticipated by regional population projections. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.The population growth that would occur as a result of buildout of the proposed 2006 General Plan would slightly exceed the projections contained AMBAG’s 2004 forecast. However, this would not be significant because the AMBAG growth projections are based upon the level of growth anticipated by each local city’s General Plan and the County’s 1982 General Plan. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Page 6-3 Add to List of Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided 6.1.10 Biology Impact BIO-1 Future development anticipated by the 2006 General Plan may result in substantial loss or degradation of special status plant or animal species.
6.1.11 Biology Impact BIO-6 Implementation of the AWCP could potentially result in significant impacts to special status species.
6.1.12 Water Resources Impact WR-2 Land uses and development consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in increased soil erosion and sedimentation during construction activities, thereby degrading water quality in downstream waterways.
504 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
6.1.13 Geology Impact GEO-5 Erosion from activities and land uses consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in erosion hazards.
6.1.14 Air Quality Impact AIR-3 Increased diesel exposure health risk may result from buildout of the 2006 General Plan.
Each of the above impacts is considered to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. This is because the mitigation measures, while designed to avoid significant impacts, establish a process of implementation but cannot ensure, in all instances, that impacts will be mitigated. Further, it will be some time until the mitigation measures can be implemented and development could be proposed before those measures become enforceable. Therefore, these impacts are determined to be significant as identified in the Draft Program EIR and unavoidable. As a result, impacts to cumulative biological resources, water quality, and soil erosion are also significant and unavoidable.
Page 6-5 Table 6.3-3 - Unincorporated Monterey County Growth Forecast (2000 - 2030)
2000 2030 Numeric Change Percent Change Population 100,252 135,375 35,123 35.0% Employment 37,047 68,915 48,670 97,113 11,623 28,198 31.4% 40.9% Housing Units 68,915 37,047 97,113 48,670 28,198 11,623 40.9% 31.4%
Page 6-6 Table 6.3-4 - Jobs/Housing Balance
2000 2030 AMBAG Region 1.60 1.78 Monterey County 1.72 1.79 Unincorporated Monterey County 0.54 1.86 0.41 2.00
Page 6-6, Second Paragraph The AMBAG region, Monterey County, and the unincorporated areas all had high jobs-housing ratios (i.e., jobs rich) as of 2000, and these ratios are projected to increase by 2030. This indicates that employment growth is outpacing the increase in the regional housing supply. The 2006 General Plan allows for additional dwelling units beyond the 2004 AMBAG Population, Housing Unit & Employment Forecasts and therefore, would partially reduce the imbalance between employment and housing. While the 2006 General Plan is not entirely consistent with the AMBAG forecast, this will be corrected when the AMBAG forecast is updated to reflect the new development potential envisioned by the 2006 General Plan. The AMBAG region and Monterey County have high jobs- housing ratios (i.e., jobs rich) while the unincorporated areas has a very low jobs-housing ratio (i.e., housing rich). The 2006 General Plan would maintain the existing land use patterns that emphasize city-centered growth, and accordingly, would be consistent with AMBAG’s job-housing balance forecast.
Michael Brandman Associates 505 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Page 6-9 and 6-10 Add to List of Cumulative Impacts Biology Impact BIO-1 Future development anticipated by the 2006 General Plan may result in substantial loss or degradation of special status plant or animal species.
Water Resources Impact WR-2 Land uses and development consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in increased soil erosion and sedimentation during construction activities, thereby degrading water quality in downstream waterways.
Geology Impact GEO-5 Erosion from activities and land uses consistent with the 2006 General Plan could result in erosion hazards.
Each of the above cumulative impacts is considered to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. This is because the mitigation measures, while designed to avoid significant impacts, establish a process of implementation but cannot ensure, in all instances, that impacts will be mitigated. Further, it will be some time until the mitigation measures can be implemented and development could be proposed before those measures become enforceable. Therefore, these cumulative impacts are determined to be significant as identified in the Draft Program EIR and unavoidable. As a result, impacts to cumulative biological resources, water quality, and soil erosion are also significant and unavoidable.
Page 6-13 6.4.2 Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan
Land Use Over the life of the AWCP, a maximum of sixty forty new wine-related facilities and associated onsite facilities would be developed.
Page 6-13 Add to List of Cumulative Impacts of AWCP Biology Impact BIO-6 Implementation of the AWCP could potentially result in significant impacts to special status species.
This cumulative impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable, even with mitigation. This is because the mitigation measure, while designed to avoid significant impacts, establishes a process of implementation but cannot ensure, in all instances, that impacts will be mitigated. Further, it will be some time until the mitigation measure can be implemented and development could be proposed before those measures become enforceable. Therefore, this impact is determined to be significant as identified in the Draft Program EIR and unavoidable. As a result, impacts to cumulative biological resources in the AWCP are also significant and unavoidable.
Page 10-1, 1st Item through 3rd Items Acres, Gross: A measure of total land area of any lot including streets, parks and other land dedications. The entire acreage of a lot prior to the dedication of land for public or private purposes.
Acres, Net: The gross area of a site excluding:
• All public and private streets, and streets which provide primary and direct access to a public street.
506 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
• Land within any existing or planned drainage easement. • Schools and parks or other facilities dedicated for public use.
The area of a lot after dedication of land for public or private purposes.
Affordable Housing: Housing that can be purchased or rented by a household with very low, low, or moderate income and based on a household’s ability to make monthly payments necessary to obtain housing. Housing is considered affordable when a household pays less than 30% of its gross monthly income (GMI) for housing, including utilities. Housing units affordable to persons and families whose income does not exceed 120-percent of area median income, adjusted for family size, and includes housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households as those terms are defined in State law.
Page 10-1, 6th and 7th Items Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, on natural prime or improved pasture land. The science, art, and business of cultivating the soil, harvesting of crops, rearing and management of livestock, tillage, husbandry, farming, horticulture, and forestry; the science and art of the production of plants and animals useful to man.
Air Pollution: Concentrations of substances found in the atmosphere which exceed naturally occurring quantities and are undesirable or harmful in some way. The presence of contaminants or pollutant substances in the air that interfere with human health or welfare, or produce other harmful environmental effects.
Page 10-2 7th Item Best Available Control Technology (BACT): The most stringent emission limit or control technique that has been achieved in practice that is applicable to a particular emission source. An emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction for each pollutant which would be emitted from any new or modified source, which on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, is achievable for such class or category of source or modification through an application of production processes or available methods, systems, and techniques. BACT shall not be less stringent than the emission control required by any applicable provision of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, California Air Resources Board, state or federal laws or regulations unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Air District that such limitations are not achievable.
Page 10-3, 4th Item Capital Improvement and Financing Plan: A plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the capital projects and expenditures needed to achieve the service levels specified in the General Plan.
Page 10-3, 10th Item Clustered Development/Subdivision: Development in which a number of dwelling units are placed in closer proximity than typically permitted, or are attached, with the purpose of minimizing grading and retaining open space areas. Development/subdivision design where the structures or lots or structures and lots are be located on a portion of the land to be developed rather than spread throughout the land.
Michael Brandman Associates 507 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Page 10-3, 13th Item Combined Sewer/Combination Sewer: A sewer system that carries both sanitary sewage and storm water runoff.
Page 10-4, 4th Item Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A 24-hour energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events with weighing factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these hours. (See “Ldn.”)Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A 24-hour energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single-noise events with weighing factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these hours. (See “Ldn.”) The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
Page 10-4, New Item Cultivated: To prepare or use the land for crops through the tillage of soil or planning of vines or trees. Cultivation includes periods of fallow rotation that are part of an agricultural production system.
Page 10-5, 8th Item Development Rights: The right to develop land by a landowner who maintains fee-simple ownership over the land or by a party other than the owner who has obtained the rights to develop. Such rights usually are expressed in terms of density allowed under existing zoning. For example, one development right may equal one unit of housing or may equal a specific number of square feet of gross floor area in one or more specified zone districts. Those rights, including but not limited, mineral rights and water rights, which are commonly associated with real property ownership.
10-6, 1st Item Erodible Soils: Soils types with K factors higher than 0.4, as defined by the Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS).
Erosion: The loosening and transportation of rock and soil debris by wind, rain, or running water. (a) The loosening and transportation of rock and soil debris by wind, rain, or running water or (b) the gradual wearing away of the upper layers of earth that presents a significant threat to public health or safety, impacts to adjacent properties or significant harm to resources.
Page 10-6, Item 9 Floodplain: The relatively level land area on either side of the banks of a stream regularly subject to flooding. That part of the flood plain subject to a one percent chance of flooding in any given year is designated as an area of special flood hazard by the Federal Insurance Administration. Land subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (e.g., 100 year floodplain).
Page 10-7, 3rd Item High Capacity Well: A well that has a flow over 1,000 gallons per minute.
508 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Page 10-8, 9th Item Level of Service (LOS): A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, as perceived by motorists. The conditions are generally described in terms of factors such as speed, delay, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined with letter designations from A to F, with A representing the optimal condition and F representing the worst. The rating of a road’s performance based on an evaluation of driving conditions ranging from “ideal” (LOS A) to “forced flow” (LOS F).
Page 10-8, 13th Item Long Term Water Supply: An available supply of water that can be extracted from a basin or hydrogeologic sub-area to service the existing and projected development in that basin or hydrogeologic sub-area for a twenty year period without degrading water quality, damaging the economical extraction of water, or causing significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
Lot: A unit of land which has been created under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or determined to be a legal lot of record under the Map Act. In the Coastal Zone, an existing parcel means a separate legal parcel recorded as of December 31, 1976, or later if approved under a coastal development permit where such permit was required by law prior to 1977. Parcels crossed by a public road or highway right-of-way will not be considered “subdivided” by such a road or highway. Except where a legal determination by the County (or by the Coastal Commission on appeal of a permit application) concludes otherwise for a particular ownership, contiguous lots conveyed by U.S. patent or aggregated under a single ownership will be considered as a single parcel for Subdivision Map Act purposes.
Page 10-8, 14th Item Mitigation: A specific action taken to reduce environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are required as a component of an environmental impact report (EIR) if significant measures are identified. Those actions taken to reduce the potential impacts of a project including:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Page 10-10, 7th Item Planning Area: The land area addressed by the Proposed General Plan Update, which is all the unincorporated land within the Monterey County limits. One of the eight geographic sub-areas of Monterey County established for the purposes of planning at a level that is more specific to that region than in the General Plan. Inland areas include Area Plans Area Plans are part of this General Plan. and the Coastal areas include Land Use Plans that carry equal policy level authority to the General Plan.
Page 10-10, New Item Previously Uncultivated Lands: those areas that have not been cultivated during the past 20 years.
Michael Brandman Associates 509 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Page 10, 13th Item Redevelopment: New or replacement development undertaken to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to encourage private investment in designated “redevelopment project areas.” In California, public redevelopment is funded largely through the sale of bonds, with the retirement of the bonded debt paid for by the increases in real property taxes on project area lands resulting from improvements prompted by the combination of public and private reinvestment in the area. Redevelopment can be financed completely independently of a local agency’s General Fund operating revenues, but cities and counties may allocate some operating revenues to assist redevelopment and/or target operating revenues to focus on redevelopment areas. Redevelopment may also be spurred by grants from Federal and State governments and sometimes private sources.
Page 10-12, 3rd Item Septic System: A sewage-treatment system that includes a settling tank through which liquid sewage flows and in which solid sewage settles and is decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen. Septic systems are often used for individual-home waste disposal where an urban sewer system is not available. (See “Sanitary Sewer.”) An on-site wastewater treatment system that includes a settling tank that provides for the primary treatment of the wastewater and that subsequently discharges the treated effluent to a subsurface dispersal field, or to another approved means of disposal.
Page 10-12, 10th Item Slope: Land gradient described as the vertical rise divided by the horizontal run, and expressed in percent. The natural or artificial incline of ground, with the degree of incline numerically expressed as “percent slope,” or the vertical rise divided by the horizontal run.
Page 10-12, 13th Item Special Treatment Area: A specific location identified in an area plan for focused development because of its unique location, site constrains, or surrounding land uses. The area plan policy establishes detailed policies to guide future land use activities at that location. An individual lot or a group of lots where unique conditions warrant a special studies and policies.
Page 10-14, 1st Item Urban Reserve: This is an overlay designation which may be used in conjunction with any of the County’s land use categories. It is used to denote areas which the County believes should be annexed and developed as part of an incorporated city in order to ensure effective provision of urban services. Until such time as annexation occurs, the County will allow those land uses which are shown on the land use plan and which will not compromise the future annexation plans of any city.
Page 10-14, 4th Item Subdivision: The division of a tract of land into defined lots, either improved or unimproved, which can be separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed. Subdivision includes a condominium project as defined in Section 1350 of the California Civil Code. The division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way. Subdivision includes a community apartment project or the conversion of five or more existing dwelling units to a stock cooperative.
510 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Errata to the Draft Program EIR
Page 10-14, 10th Item Winery: An agricultural processing plant used for the commercial purpose of processing grapes, other fruit products or vegetables, to produce wine or similar spirits. Processing includes crushing, fermenting, blending, aging, storage, bottling, warehousing, wine tasting facility, administrative office functions including wholesale and retail sales of associated wine and wine related items, and events. Winery Adjunct Uses may also be considered as accessory to a winery when specifically requested and addressed as part of the discretionary permit application for the winery or as a subsequent permit application process.
Winery, Artisan: A winery that produces between 2,000 and 50,000 cases per year, with a Winery Tasting Facility up to 2,500 square feet in size.
Winery, Full Scale: A winery that produces more than 50,000 cases per year
Winery Adjunct Uses: Uses not considered an inherent part of a Winery, but frequently associated with wineries and the agricultural tourism industry. Winery Adjunct Uses include, but are not limited to, restaurants, delicatessens, events, and concerts. Such uses may be considered as accessory to a Winery or Winery Tasting Facility when specifically requested and addressed as part of the discretionary permit application for the Winery or as a subsequent permit application process.
Winery Corridor: A corridor designated in this General Plan to help achieve a balance between the wine grape production and wine processing capacity within Monterey County, to enhance the marketing capabilities of the industry and to promote local Monterey County wines and enhance the overall economic development of the County. A number of wineries and agricultural visitor-serving uses are planned along three designated segments: 1) River Road, 2) Metz Road, and 3) Jolon Road.
Winery Tasting Facility: A bonded Winery Tasting Facility, also known as an “on or off winery premise,” as provided by Federal Law under the jurisdiction of the Tax and Trade Bureau. A Winery Tasting Facility shall accommodate wine tasting, an administrative office, retail sales of associated wine and wine related items, events, warehousing and storage. Winery Adjunct Uses may be considered as accessory to a Winery Tasting Facility when specifically requested and addressed as part of the discretionary permit application for the Winery Tasting Facility or as a subsequent permit application process.
Williamson Act: Officially titled the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, the Williamson Act was designed as an incentive to retain prime agricultural land and open space in agricultural use, thereby slowing its conversion to urban uses. The program entails a ten-year contract between an owner of land and (usually) a county whereby the land is taxed on the basis of its agricultural use rather than the market value. The land becomes subject to certain enforceable restrictions, and certain conditions need to be met prior to approval of an agreement. The body of State law that allows local government to enter into long-term contracts with agricultural land owners to lower property taxes as an incentive to continue agricultural use of the land.
ERRATA TO AGRICULTURAL WINERY CORRIDOR PLAN
The following provisions relating to the potential development of full-scale wineries have been removed from the AWCP: The Errata section will reflect this revision to the project description and the response below to Comment 10-4 reflects the AWCP without full-scale wineries.
Michael Brandman Associates 511 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Errata to the Draft Program EIR Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
• Projected number of artisan and full-scale wineries allowed within the next 20 years.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL According to data provided by the Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association, a two (2) million-case full-scale winery could cover a total of approximately 410,000 square feet of surface area with 300,000 square feet of building coverage. An artisan winery would cover approximately 58,000 square feet of surface area with 35,000 square feet of building coverage.
3.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.1 GENERAL REGULATIONS A. Full-Scale Winery: a maximum of 10 new full-scale wineries as follows: 1. River Road Segment; up to five (5); 2. Metz Road Segment; up to two (2); and 3. Jolon Road Segment; up to three (3).
3.4 PERMITTED USES, ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT REQUIRED IN EACH CASE Winery, Full-scale, including tasting facilities and a catering kitchen as part of the winery. Events included as part of the permit for a full-scale winery shall not be subject to other permit requirements of Sections 3.3.E or 3.6.
512 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
SECTION 6 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Monterey County Planning Commission held public hearings on the August 2006 draft version of the 2006 General Plan, and on October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a written resolution recommending certain revisions to the 2006 General Plan. The Planning Commission resolution incorporates by reference the draft version of the 2006 General Plan dated October 25, 2006, which sets forth all of the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. The resolution is reprinted in this Section. The October 25, 2006 draft version of the 2006 General Plan is available from the County for public review.
The Planning Commission recommendations include textual, clarifying changes that do not change the overall content of policies and have no environmental impacts. The Planning Commission recommendations also include proposed revisions to some of the Mitigation Measures suggested by the Draft Program EIR. This Final Program EIR has analyzed the proposed revisions to Mitigation Measures. As discussed more fully in the responses to comments, certain revisions do not affect the environmental conclusions in the Draft Program EIR. In other instances, as more fully described in the responses to comments, this Final Program EIR proposes additional revisions to ensure that the Mitigation Measures are as effective as the measures proposed in the Draft Program EIR.
EXCERPTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the draft 2006 General Plan on July 19, August 16, August 23, August 30, September 13, September 14, September 20, September 27, September 28, October 4, October 5, October 11, October 12, October 18, October 19, October 24, and October 25, 2006.
On October 24, and 25, 2006, the Commission held its final noticed public hearings at which the Planning Commission considered the draft EIR, considered all of the comments and testimony, and finalized its recommendations to the Board on the draft 2006 General Plan as provided under State law.
Prior to making recommendations on the draft 2006 General Plan, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Draft Program EIR, comment letters, and its proposed mitigation measures. Several policy modifications that the Commission finds are central to ensuring that the goals of the Plan are successfully implemented, for clarification, and to provide internal consistency (Exhibit A). In proposing these changes, the Commission maintained the central themes of the Board’s direction in 2005 to:
• maximize the development of affordable housing convenient to jobs; • enable the agricultural industry to remain viable into the future; • protect the natural beauty and unique resources of the County while being respectful of private property.
Michael Brandman Associates 513 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
The Planning Commission has considered the Draft Program EIR and hereby recommends the following amendments to the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft Program EIR:
NOTE: The entire mitigation measure as proposed in the Draft Program EIR is included below. New language recommended by the Planning Commission is underlined. Language recommended for deletion by the Planning Commission is identified with a strikethrough.
1. Mitigation Measure AG-1: A policy (AG-1.x) shall be added to the General Agricultural section of the Agricultural Element that states the following:
AG-1.12 Prior to the discretionary approval of any new non-agricultural or non-agricultural- related land use to be located on designated Important Farmland, The County shall prepare, adopt and implement a program that requires projects involving a change of land use designation resulting in the loss of Important Farmland (as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) to mitigate the loss of that acreage. by permanently protecting other Important Farmland in the County at a minimum 2:1 ratio. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of Important Farmland on an individual basis as feasible as determined by the Agricultural Commissioner. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy.
Finding A-1: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure, as modified, into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure AG-1 serves to mitigate Impact AG-1, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measure as proposed in the Draft Program EIR is not feasible because:
a. The Draft Program EIR proposed mitigation does not replace farmland b. According to the Department of Conservation and the 2005 Agricultural Commissioner’s report Monterey County has had an increase of Important Farmland in the last 10 years. c. The excessive cost of mitigating at a 2:1 ratio. d. The proposed measure does not provide the necessary flexibility for distinguishing among categories of agricultural land conversion nor the flexibility to establish and manage a viable program.
The recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measure because it provides mitigation that is comparable to the impacts incurred and provides mitigation in the interim until the program is established and operational. The mitigation programs in the Community Areas and Rural Centers will also be appropriately linked to the impacts that may occur.
2. Mitigation Measure AG-5: Section 3.5.A of the AWCP shall be amended to include limitation of subdivision on properties under Williamson Act to be no less than 10 acres. Subsection 2 shall be added to Section 3.5.A of the AWCP as follows:
514 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
2. Subdivision of parcels under Williamson Act contract shall be no less than 10-acres in accordance with the guidelines in Section 3.5.A.1 in conformance with Williamson Act regulations.
Finding A-2: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure serves to mitigate Impact AG-5 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. This modification to the Mitigation Measure recommended by the Planning Commission is substantially similar to the measure proposed in the Draft Program EIR, since it addresses consistency with the Williamson Act.
3. Mitigation Measure WR-2, WR-3A, and WR-3B:
WR-2: Open Space Element Policy OS-3.5 shall be amended to read as follows:
OS-3.5 A permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development on existing lots of record with slopes greater than 15 percent (15%), or 10% or more on highly erodible soils, or that contain geologic hazards and constraints shown on the County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Hydrologic (Policy PS-2.7) Hazard Databases. The permit process shall be designed to:
1) evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan. 2) identify development and design techniques and implementation guidelines for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage, and construction techniques. 3) minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, drainage, flood hazards or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety.
WR-3A: A new policy (OS-3.x) shall be added to the “Soils” section of the Open Space and Conservation Element that states the following:
OS-3.11 A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for agricultural conversion projects on slopes greater than 15 percent, or 10 percent or more on highly erodible soils. The permit process shall require that an erosion control plan be developed and implemented for all disturbed lands where new cultivation is proposed. Routine and on-going agricultural activities are exempt from this requirement.
WR-3B: A new policy (OS-3.x) shall be added to the “Soils” section of the Open Space and Conservation Element that states the following:
OS-3.10 A ministerial permit process shall be developed that shall require that any new large agricultural land conversion project or activity, or cumulative new activity from multiple projects within any five-year period that have a reasonable potential to create off-site soil erosion impacts or to violate adopted water quality standards, and that substantially alters land cover in an area that is 25 percent or more of a watershed (defined as a “named area” by the State Water Quality Control Board)
Michael Brandman Associates 515 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
develop a Watershed Management Plan in coordination with the applicable Resource Conservation District or other appropriate agency. A large land conversion project is defined as a project over 100 acres in size. Watershed Management Plans shall include the following:
1. An assessment of the condition and stability of all blue line streams downstream from proposed land conversion project areas where cumulative watershed disturbance effects may occur. 2. A multi-year program to develop and implement soil erosion, sediment control, and stream stabilization measures. Within the affected areas.
WR-2, WR-3A and WR-3B shall be replaced by the following:
OS-3.5 A permit process will be established as follows:
1. A discretionary permit process for development on slopes greater than 25-percent (25%) or that contain geologic hazards and constraints shown on the County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Hydrologic (Policy PS-2.7) Hazard Databases shall be established. The process shall be designed to: a. evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan. b. identify development and design techniques for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage, and construction techniques. c. minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety. 2. The conversion of previously uncultivated lands on slopes in excess of 25% shall require a grading permit. 3. In the North County (non-coastal), Central Salinas Valley, and Cachagua Area Plans, a ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development, including for purposes of this policy conversion of previously uncultivated lands, on slopes between 15 and 24 percent (15-24%), and 10 to 15% on highly erodible soils. The permit process shall be designed to require that an erosion control plan be developed and implemented that addresses slope stabilization, and drainage and flood hazards. 4. All Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities, except for conversion of previously uncultivated lands as described in this policy above, are exempt from the above permit requirements.
Finding A-3: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure, as modified, into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure WR-2 serves to mitigate Impacts WR-2, GEO-5 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measure as proposed in the Draft Program EIR was unclear because the areas identified as requiring a permit were not clearly delineated and therefore would be difficult to administer from both a temporal and spatial perspective. In addition, the measure did not appropriately distinguish gradation of slope with respect to the type of permit required for conversion of previously uncultivated lands. The recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation
516 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations measure because it retains comparable provisions for requiring a ministerial permit, appropriately encompasses requirements for conversion of previously uncultivated agricultural lands and requires mitigation in those areas of the County that are known to have highly erodible soils and are currently regulated.
4. Mitigation Measure WR-3C:
WR-3C: A new policy (OS-3.x) shall be added to the “Soils” section of the Open Space and Conservation Element that states the following:
OS-3.8 The County shall cooperate with the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, the NRCS, the University of California Cooperative Extension, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Agriculture Water Quality Alliance in continuing their appropriate regional, state and federal agencies to provide public education/outreach and technical assistance programs that provide agricultural operators with information regarding on erosion and sediment control, efficient water use, water conservation and re-use, and groundwater management. This cooperative effort shall be centered in the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office through the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
Finding A-4: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. The modifications to the measure are comparable to the original, since rather than designating specific agencies and organizations that will be included in the cooperative effort, a more generic and potentially more inclusive list is provided. The mitigation measure as modified serves equally well to mitigate Impact WR-3C to a less than significant level.
5. Mitigation Measure WR-4A: A new policy (PS-4.x) shall be added to the “Wastewater Treatment” section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-4.10 Prior to approval of any new alternative wastewater systems subsequent to adoption of the General Plan Update, the County shall develop an alternative wastewater system management program, consistent with the provisions of AB855 and required Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, to administer and monitor the use of alternative wastewater systems, pursuant to State law and regulations. Repairs to existing systems are exempt from this requirement.
Finding A-5: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure WR-4A serves to mitigate Impacts WR-4, GEO-7 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
6. Mitigation Measure WR-5A and WR-5B:
WR-5A A new policy (PS-2.x) shall be added to the “Water Quality and Supply” section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-2.9 The County shall require that all projects located within important or major groundwater recharge areas be designed to maintain or increase the site’s pre-
Michael Brandman Associates 517 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
development absorption of rainfall, (minimize runoff) to recharge groundwater following the guidelines contained in the proposed MCWRA Drainage Design Manual where appropriate. Implementation would include standards that could regulate impervious surfaces, vary by project type, land use, soils and area characteristics, and provide for water impoundments (retention/detention structures), protecting and planting vegetation, use of permeable paving materials, bioswales, water gardens, and cisterns, and other measures to increase runoff retention, protect water quality, and enhance groundwater recharge. The County shall develop voluntary guidelines for rural development that would accomplish the same purposes.
WR-5B In recognition of the important role that water conservation and re-use can play in helping achieve water resource sustainability, the following four policy revisions/additions shall be made to the Public Services Element:
Public Services Element Policy PS-3.12 shall be amended to read as follows:
PS-3.12 Maximize agricultural water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. The County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce agricultural water demand. Reduce agricultural water demand through conservation measures, including but no limited to, the following:
1) Recognizing that agricultural water conservation is an important component of agricultural water quality management, continue to aggressively work with representatives of the agricultural industry, such as the Agricultural Water Quality Alliance (AWQA), to develop and implement water conservation measures. 2) Continue to develop and expand the application of Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices. 3) Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement agricultural water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. 4) Enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful sues of water for agricultural irrigation.
New policies (PS-3.x and PS-3.x) shall be added to the “Long-Term Water Supply” section of the Public Services Element that state the following:
PS-3.13 Maximize urban water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. The County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce potable water demand. Reduce potable water demand through conservation measures, including but not limited to, the following:
1) Work cooperatively with all water providers and representatives of the building industry to continue to develop and implement Water Conservation Plans that incorporate conservation measures and the Best Management Practices developed by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Become an integral member of the California Urban Water conservation Council.
518 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
2) Continue to expand the application of Water Conservation Best Management Practices. 3) Coordinate with water providers to continue to develop and implement Water Drought Contingency Plans to assist citizens and businesses in reducing water use during periods of water shortages and emergencies. 4) Revise the County’s Ordinances to include a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance to encourage, or as appropriate, require the use of water-efficient landscaping consistent with AB-325 (1990). 5) Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. 6) Develop and enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful uses of water for urban irrigation. 7) Fully fund a countywide Water Conservation Education, Outreach, and Enforcement program.
PS-3.14 Maximize the use of recycled water as a potable water offset to manage water demands and meet regulatory requirements for wastewater discharge, by employing strategies including, but not limited to, the following:
1) Increase the use of treated water where the quality of recycled water is maintained, meets all applicable regulatory standards, is appropriate of the intended use, and re-use will not significantly impact beneficial uses of other water resources. 2) Work with the agricultural community to develop new uses for tertiary recycled water and increase the use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of lands currently being irrigated by groundwater pumping. 3) Work with urban water providers to emphasize use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of parks, playfields, schools, golf courses, and other landscape areas to reduce potable water demand. 4) Work with urban water providers to convert existing potable water customers to tertiary recycled water as infrastructure and water supply become available.
A new policy (PS-2.x) shall be added to the “Water Quality and Supply” section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-2.10 Protect and manage groundwater as a valuable and limited shared resource by protecting potential groundwater recharge areas and streamsides from urban encroachment within the Community Areas and Rural Centers. The County shall use discretionary permits to control manage construction of impervious surfaces in important groundwater recharge areas. Potential recharge area protection measures at sites in important groundwater recharge areas include, but are not limited to the following:
1) Restrict coverage by impervious materials. 2) Limit building or parking footprints.
Michael Brandman Associates 519 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
3) Require construction of percolation ponds detention/retention facilities on large- scale development project sites overlying identified important recharge areas as identified by Monterey County Water Resource Agency. 4) Recognize that percolation ponds detention/retention facilities on small sites may not be practical, feasible, and are may be difficult to maintain and manage
Finding A-6: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measures, as modified, into the General Plan. Mitigation Measures WR-5A and WR-5B serve to mitigate Impact WR-5, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures as proposed in the Draft Program EIR are difficult to administer because they lacked the flexibility that is necessary to successfully implement water conservation and groundwater management into the future as new approaches and mechanisms evolve. Furthermore, the recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measures because the measures require the establishment of ordinances that will incorporate comparable performance standards to the ones proposed in the originally proposed measure and identifies the appropriate Agency to provide oversight.
7. Mitigation Measure WR-6 and WR-7: Public Services Element Policy PS-3.4 shall be amended to read as follows:
PS-3.4 Specific criteria shall be developed for use in the evaluation and approval of adequacy of all new wells. Criteria shall assess both water quality and quantity including, but not limited to:
1) Water quality 2) Production capability 3) Recovery rates 4) Effect on wells in the immediate vicinity as required by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency 5) Existing groundwater conditions 6) Technical, managerial, and financial capability of the water purveyor of a water system.
PS-3.5 The County shall require that pump tests or hydrogeologic studies be conducted for all new high-capacity wells, including high-capacity urban and agricultural production wells, where there may be a potential to affect existing adjacent domestic or water system wells adversely as determined by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency. The County shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells for which pump tests or hydrogeologic studies show the potential for significant adverse well interference.
PS-3.6 The County and all applicable water management agencies shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells in known areas of saltwater intrusion as identified by Monterey County Water Resource Agency until such time as a program has been approved and funded which will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies in that area. This policy shall not apply to deepening or replacement of existing wells.
520 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
Finding A-7: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure WR-6 serves to mitigate Impact WR-6, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure WR-7 serves to mitigate Impact WR- 7 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the measure provide greater clarity regarding applicability of the measure, but do not change the effectiveness of the measure.
8. Mitigation Measure WR-12: A new policy (S-3.x) shall be added to the Drainage section of the Safety Element that states the following:
S-3.8 To assist planners in determining potential inundation hazards for existing and future development, the County shall coordinate the periodic review, completion, and filing (with appropriate State and County Offices of Emergency Services) of inundation maps for all dams and levees whose failure could cause loss of life or personal injury within Monterey County. Where inundation maps indicate dam or levee failure could cause loss of life or property or personal injury, the corresponding responsible party shall investigate levee or dam stability and management, identifying emergency alert, evacuation, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs as appropriate.
Finding A-8: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure WR-12 serves to mitigate Impact WR-12 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
9. Mitigation Measure MIN-2
OS-2.5 The County shall inventory, assess, and characterize the location and condition of identified pre-SMARA abandoned gold, mercury and coal mines and implement such measures as may be necessary to ensure that such mines do not contribute to a significant risk to public health or safety or non-compliance with water quality standards and criteria.
Finding A-9: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure MIN-2 serves to mitigate Impact MIN-2 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
10. Mitigation Measures TRAN-1B-a and TRAN-1B-b
TRAN-1B-a: Circulation Element Policy C-1.2 shall be amended to state:
C-1.2 The standard for the acceptable level of service (LOS) as noted in Policy C-1.1 is to be achieved by 2026. That LOS standard is to be achieved through the development and adoption of Capital Improvement and Financing Plans (CIFP) and implementing ordinances that:
a. Define benefit areas to be included in the CIFP. Benefit areas could include Planning Areas, Community Areas, or the County as a whole. b. Identify and prioritize the improvements to be completed in the benefit areas over the life of the General Plan. c. Estimate the cost of the improvements over the life of the General Plan.
Michael Brandman Associates 521 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
d. Identify the funding sources and mechanisms for the CIFP to include, but not limited to, a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). e. Provide an anticipated schedule for completion of the improvements. f. Coordinate with TAMC regional fee program. g. A TIF shall be implemented to ensure a funding mechanism for transportation improvements to county facilities in accordance with Policy C-1.8. The TIF shall be imposed on development in cities for the improvement of major County roads in accordance with the Monterey County 2006 General Plan.
The CIFP shall be reviewed every five (5) years in order to evaluate the effectiveness of meeting the LOS standard for County roads. Road segments or intersections identified to be approaching or below LOS D shall be a high priority for funding.
TRAN-1B-b: Circulation Element Policy C-1.8 shall be amended to state:
C-1.8 Development proposed in cities and surrounding jurisdictions shall be carefully reviewed to assess the proposed development’s impact on the County’s circulation system. The County, in consultation with TAMC and Monterey County cities, shall develop a Traffic Impact Fee that addresses impacts of development in cities and unincorporated areas on major County roads.
Finding A-10: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measures into the General Plan. Mitigation Measures TRAN-1B-a and TRAN-1B-b serve to mitigate Impact TRAN-1A, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed measure TRAN-1B-a was infeasible because it would inappropriately impose a fee on non-County jurisdictions and would be within the jurisdiction and responsibility of other public agencies. The revised mitigation measures include the same requirements for development of a fee program; however, the measure requires the County to play a proactive cooperative role with jurisdictions.
11. Mitigation Measure TRAN-1C: A new policy (C-1.x) shall be added to the Level of Service section of the Circulation Element that states:
C-1.11 In addition to the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee established in Policy C-1.8, the County shall require new development to pay a Regional Traffic Impact Fee (developed collaboratively between TAMC, the County, and other regional and state agencies) to ensure a funding mechanism for regional transportation improvements mitigating Tier 3 impacts. In conformance with Policy C-1.3, the County shall not permit occupancy of new development after adoption of this 2006 General Plan until a funding program is in place that maintains a minimum LOS D on the regional roadway system. The County shall adopt the Regional Traffic Impact Fee within 12 months of the adoption by TAMC of a Regional Traffic Impact Fee, the goal of which shall be to achieve LOS D on the regional roadway system. From the time of adoption of the General Plan until the time of adoption TAMC fee by the County, the County shall impose an ad hoc fee based upon the regional transportation fee developed by TAMC through its 2004 Nexus Study or as subsequently amended or replaced.
522 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
If the Regional Traffic Impact Fee program is not adopted by the County within one year of its adoption by TAMC, then the County shall not approve any development that would degrade the LOS on regional roads below LOS D, or contribute to the further degradation of regional roads already operating at LOS E or LOS F until the TAMC fee is adopted.
Finding A-11: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure, as modified, into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure C-1x serves to mitigate Impact TRAN-1C, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measure as proposed in the Draft Program EIR is not feasible because it relied upon actions that were outside of the County’s control and did not provide a mechanism for addressing impacts in the interim timeframe between adoption of the General Plan and implementation of a Regional Traffic Impact Fee program. Furthermore, the recommended revisions will not diminish the effectiveness of the mitigation measure because it provides a realistic approach for implementing the measure, provides an interim program that effectively mitigates impacts and provides incentives for timely compliance.
12. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: A new policy shall be added to the Air Quality section of the Conservation and Open Space Element that states the following:
OS-10.9 The County of Monterey shall require that future development in accordance with the 2006 General Plan implement applicable the following Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District PM10 control measures:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on type of operation, soil, and wind exposure; • Prohibit all grading activities occurring during periods of high winds (over 15 mph); • Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days); • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area; • Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet, 0 inches of freeboard; • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials; • Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land; • Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible; • Cover inactive storage piles; • Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks; • Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; • Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay
Michael Brandman Associates 523 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance), and • Limit the area under construction at any one time to as small as practical.
Finding A-12: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 serves to mitigate Impacts AIR-2 and AIR- 6 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the proposed measure delete examples that are duplicative of the reference to the overarching policy cited and allows for enhancements and changes over time.
13. Mitigation Measure AIR-3: A new policy shall be added to the Air Quality section of the Conservation and Open Space Element that states the following:
OS-10.10 The County of Monterey shall require that construction contracts be given to those contractors who show evidence of the use of soot traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and
other diesel engine emissions upgrades that reduce PM10 emissions to less than 50- percent of the statewide PM10 emissions average for comparable equipment.
Finding A-13: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure AIR-3 serves to mitigate Impact AIR-3 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications are corrections for clarity, rather than changes in substance.
14. Mitigation Measure N-1; A new policy (S-7.x) shall be added to the Noise Hazards section of the Safety Element that states the following:
S-7.7 All proposed discretionary residential projects that are within roadway noise contours of 60 CNEL or greater shall include a finding of consistency with the provisions of the Noise Hazards section of the Safety Element. and, where appropriate If found that roadway noise exceeds the 60 CNEL within the project site, a project-specific noise impact analysis shall be required conducted before final approval. If impacts are identified, a “reasonable and feasible” mitigation analysis shall be conducted using published Caltrans/Federal Highway Administration guidelines. Any mitigation measures meeting these tests shall be concurrently funded and constructed as part of the project-related roadway improvement. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to sound walls, adjacent roadway design, dual pane glass, building location or design etc. Any proposed mitigation measures must be concurrently implemented with the implementation of the project.
Finding A-14: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure N-1 serves to mitigate Impact N-1 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the measure are corrections to clarify how the measure would be applied with examples rather than changes in substance.
15. Mitigation Measure N-2: A new policy (S-7.x) shall be added to the Noise Hazards section of the Safety Element that states the following:
524 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
S-7.8 All discretionary projects which propose to use heavy construction equipment within 50 feet of a residence, or pile drivers or blasting within 100 feet of a residence (or similar sensitive use) shall be required to submit a pre-construction vibration study prior to project approval. Any feasible, specified mitigation and monitoring shall be incorporated into construction contracts.
Finding A-15: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure N-2 serves to mitigate Impact N-2 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
16. Mitigation Measures N-3A and N-3B: New policies (S-7.x and S-7.x) shall be added to the Noise Hazards section of the Safety Element that states the following:
S-7.9 No construction activities pursuant to a County permit that exceed levels listed in Policy S-7.1 shall be allowed within 500 feet of a noise sensitive land use during the evening hours of Monday through Saturday, or anytime on Sunday or holidays shall be allowed prior to completion of a noise mitigation study. Noise protection measures, in the event of any identified impact, may include but not be limited to:
• Constructing temporary barriers, or • Using quieter equipment than normal. or, • Temporarily relocating affected persons (hotel vouchers).
S-7.10 Standard noise protection measures shall be incorporated into all construction contracts. These measures shall include:
• Construction shall occur only during times allowed by ordinance/code unless such limits are waived for public convenience; • All equipment shall have properly operating mufflers; and • Lay-down yards and semi-stationary equipment such as pumps or generators shall be located as far from noise-sensitive land uses as practical.
Finding A-16: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measures into the General Plan. Mitigation Measures N-3A and N-3B serve to mitigate Impact N-3 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to S-7.9 are provided for clarity of applicability and do not result in any substantive change to the measure.
17. Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B and BIO-1C: New policies (OS-5.x, OS-5.x, and OS-5.x) shall be added to the Biological (Natural) resources section of the Conservation and Open Space Element that states the following:
OS-5.15 Prior to the approval of any development project that could potentially disturb a special status species, the County shall require the project applicant to conduct a biological survey of the site for Federal and State designated special status species and document the results in a Biological Report. Based upon the findings of this report, additional focused surveys for certain species may be required. If resources
Michael Brandman Associates 525 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
are found on the site, the project biologist shall recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Biologists may also be required to be present during initial grading and grubbing in habitats to protect certain sensitive species, including protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Further, biological monitors should be present during clearing or construction that is immediately adjacent to sensitive habitats (e.g., oak woodlands, riparian, and coastal dunes). If no sensitive resources are documented in the Biological Report as present or potentially present on the project site, the applicant may proceed with preparation of the CEQA documents for submittal. Any development project requiring a discretionary permit that could potentially disturb a special status species or its habitat identified by the County requiring analysis under CEQA or identified for protection under an adopted Area Plan shall be required to conduct a biological survey of the site. Based on the findings of this report, additional focused surveys for certain species may be required. This report, and any mitigation measures recommended in the report, shall be used as a basis for the CEQA documentation for the project except if the County, in the exercise of its independent judgment, requires additional analysis. If sensitive biological resources are found on the site, the project biologist shall recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. An ordinance establishing minimum standards for a biological report shall be enacted.
OS-5.16 For every acre (or less) of habitat occupied by a federal or state listed (threatened or endangered) plant or wildlife species, the project proponent shall replace it at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Habitat may be created or set aside as onsite mitigation. If the project site does not contain sufficient habitat to fulfill the acreage requirement, offsite mitigation areas may need to set aside. The County shall prepare, adopt, and implement a program that allows projects to mitigate the loss of . The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of critical habitat on an individual basis in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy.
OS-5.17 Prior to disturbing any federal or state jurisdictional areas, the project proponent shall be required to satisfy the following all applicable federal and state permitting requirements shall be met, which includes including all mitigation measures for development of jurisdictional areas and associated riparian habitats.
• Obtain verification from USACE certifying that the project is authorized under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; • Obtain certification (or waiver of certification) from the State Water Resources Control Board that the project complies with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act; and • Obtain verification that the project is authorized under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
526 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan County Planning Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Commission Recommendations
Finding A-17: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measures into the General Plan. Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B and/or BIO-1C, as amended, serve to mitigate Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-2 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the measures provide greater clarity regarding applicability of the measure, but do not change the effectiveness of the measure.
18. Mitigation Measures BIO-6: The introduction to Section 3.3 of the AWCP shall be amended to read as follows:
This Section includes a list of uses that can be permitted with a ministerial permit for properties within the designated Agricultural and Winery Corridor. These uses are subject to the General Regulations established in Section 3.1 and Development Standards established in Section 3.5 of this Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan. Projects deemed consistent within the criteria and conditions of the AWCP and Zoning District Overlay would require no additional zoning review. However, County and Uniform Building Code requirements still apply relative to those activities that would require a grading and building permit. More intensive uses or uses not otherwise consistent with the AWCP and/or Williamson Act provisions may require the issuance of discretionary permits such as Administrative Permits. Development of the wine industry outside of the corridor requires a is allowed subject to processing discretionary permits with separate environmental analysis (See Section 4.3).
Finding A-18: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 serves to mitigate Impact BIO-6 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The measure as modified provides greater clarity regarding applicability of the measure and strengthens the mitigation.
19 Mitigation Measure PSU-3A: A new policy (PS-7.x) shall be added to the Educational Facilities section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-7.9 The adequate provision of public school facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County and the affected school district(s) prior to the approval of new residential subdivision maps or zone changes.
PS-7.8 New development shall assist in land acquisition and financial support for school facilities as required by state law. Where school districts have adopted appropriate resolutions, written confirmation from the school district that applicable fees and contributions have been paid or are ensured to the satisfaction of the district shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. The County shall, as a condition of approval of development projects, require the project applicant to pay the fees required by statute (Government Code section 65996, as it may be periodically amended) to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school facilities.
Finding A-19: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Policy PS-7.9 is proposed to be eliminated and replaced with the additional sentence in Policy PS-7.8 because, under Government Code section 65996, payment of the statutory fee provides full and complete mitigation for the impact of proposed development on school
Michael Brandman Associates 527 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc County Planning 2006 General Plan Commission Recommendations Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report facilities. Mitigation Measure PSU-3A serves to mitigate Impact PSU-3 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
20. Mitigation Measure PSU-6A: A new policy (PS-3.x) shall be added to the Long-Term Water Supply section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-3.15 To ensure accuracy and consistency in the evaluation of water supply availability, Monterey County Health Department, in coordination with the MCWRA, shall develop guidelines and procedures for conducting water supply assessments and making firm determinations regarding determining water supply availability. Adequate availability and provision of new water supply, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County prior to approval of new final subdivision maps or any changes in the 2006 General Plan Land Use or Zoning designations.
Finding A-20: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure PSU-6A serves to mitigate Impact PSU-6 to a level of less than significant with mitigation. The modifications to the policy were intended to improve the clarity of the measure and did not result in a substantive change.
21. Mitigation Measure PSU-7A: A new policy (PS-4.x) shall be added to the Wastewater Treatment section of the Public Services Element that states the following:
PS-4.9 The adequate provision of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities that meet Regional Water Quality Control Board waste discharge requirements shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County and Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the approval of new residential subdivision maps or zone changes.
Finding A-21: The Planning Commission recommends incorporation of the above mitigation measure into the General Plan. Mitigation Measure PSU-7A serves to mitigate Impact PSU-7 to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
528 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
SECTION 7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As the Lead Agency under CEQA, the County of Monterey is required to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring regarding the implementation of mitigation measures for this project, if it is approved, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in the Final Program EIR. This Lead Agency responsibility originates in Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a) (Findings), and the CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(d) (Findings) and 15097 (Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting).
7.1 Monitoring Authority
The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program (MMCRP) is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts are implemented. A MMCRP can be a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the Project proponent, but also the monitoring, compliance and reporting activities of the County of Monterey and any monitors it may designate.
The County of Monterey may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring to other environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary, and some monitoring responsibilities may be assumed by responsible agencies, such as affected jurisdictions and cities, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The number of construction monitors assigned to the project will depend on the number of concurrent construction activities and their locations. The County of Monterey or its designee(s), however, will ensure that each person delegated any duties or responsibilities is qualified to monitor compliance.
Any mitigation measure study or plan that requires the approval of the County of Monterey must allow at least 60 days for adequate review time. When a mitigation measure requires that a mitigation program be developed during the design phase of the project, the Applicant must submit the final program to County of Monterey for review and approval for at least 60 days before construction begins. Other agencies and jurisdictions may require additional review time. It is the responsibility of the environmental monitor assigned to each spread to ensure that appropriate agency reviews and approvals are obtained.
The County of Monterey or its designee will also ensure that any deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program is approved by the County of Monterey. Any deviation and its correction shall be reported immediately to the County of Monterey or its designee by the environmental monitor assigned to the construction spread.
7.2 Enforcement Responsibility
The County of Monterey is responsible for enforcing the procedures adopted for monitoring through the environmental monitor assigned to each construction spread. Any assigned environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring, notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the County of Monterey or its designee.
Michael Brandman Associates 529 Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc Mitigation Monitoring and 2006 General Plan Reporting Program Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report
7.3 Mitigation Compliance Responsibility
The County of Monterey is responsible for successfully implementing all the mitigation measures in the MMCRP, and is responsible for assuring that these requirements are met by all of its construction contractors and field personnel. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as obtaining permits or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Other mitigation measures include detailed success criteria. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of specific plans for the implementation of mitigation measures.
530 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
*Monitoring or Reporting refers to projects with an EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration per Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted
1 AG-1 A policy shall be added to the General Agriculture The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy AG-1.12 section of the Agricultural Element that states the Agricultural Element regarding the County Board as part of the following: preparation, adoption, and of Supervisors General Plan implementation of a program to with on-going Update with Prior to the discretionary approval of any new mitigate the loss of Important monitoring by on-going non-agricultural or non-agricultural-related land Farmland the Monterey monitoring by use to be located on designated Important County the Monterey Farmland, AG-1 The County shall prepare, adopt Planning and County and implement a program that requires projects Building Planning and involving a change of land use designation or land Inspection Building to be annexed to an incorporated area resulting in Department Inspection the loss of Important Farmland (as mapped by the during life of Department California Department of Conservation Farmland General Plan during life of Mapping and Monitoring Program) to mitigate the the General loss of that acreage. by permanently protecting Plan other Important Farmland in the County at a minimum 2:1 ratio. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of Important Farmland on an individual basis as feasible as determined by the Agricultural Commissioner Board of Supervisors. The acreage in a project or annexation that is to be utilized for inclusionary housing shall not be subject to this mitigation policy. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy. This policy
531 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted would not apply to annexations covered by the 2006 Greater Salinas Area MOU between the County of Monterey and the City of Salinas.
2 AG-5 Section 3.5.A of the AWCP shall be amended to The amendment of the AWCP to Monterey To be adopted AWCP Section include limitation of subdivision on properties limit subdivision on Williamson County Board as part of the 3.5.A.2 under Williamson Act to be no less than 10 acres. Act lands to no less than 10 acres. of Supervisors General Plan Subsection 2 shall be added to Section 3.5.A of the with on-going Update with AWCP as follows: monitoring by on-going the Monterey monitoring by Parcels under Williamson Act contract shall be no County the Monterey less than 10-acres in accordance with the Planning and County guidelines in Section 3.5.A.1.” Building Planning and Inspection Building Department Inspection during life of Department General Plan during life of the General Plan
3 WR-2 Open Space Element Policy OS-3.5 shall be The amendment of Policy OS-3.5 Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-3.5 amended to read as follows: to establish a ministerial permit County Board as part of the process for development on of Supervisors General Plan OS-3.5 - A permit process will be established as existing lots of record on lands with with on-going Update with follows: specified slope conditions. monitoring by on-going A discretionary permit process for development on the Monterey monitoring by slopes greater than 25-percent (25%) or that County the Monterey contain geologic hazards and constraints on the Planning and County County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Building Planning and Hydrologic ( Policy PS-2.7) Hazard Databases Inspection Building shall be established. The process shall be designed Department Inspection to: during life of Department General Plan during life of evaluate possible building site alternatives that the General better meet the goals and policies of the general
532 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted plan. Plan identify development and design techniques for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage and construction techniques. Minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety. The conversion for agricultural purposes of previously uncultivated lands on slopes in excess of 25% shall require a grading permit. A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development, including for purposes of this policy conversion of previously uncultivated lands, on slopes between 15 and 24 percent(15-24%) and 10 to 15% on highly erodible soils. The permit process shall be designed to require that an erosion control plan be developed and implemented that addresses slope stabilization, and drainage and flood hazards. All Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities, except for conversion of previously uncultivated lands as described in this policy above, are exempt from the above permit requirements. A ministerial permit process shall be developed and implemented for proposed development on existing lots of record with slopes greater than 15
533 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted percent (15%), or 10% or more on highly erodible soils, or that contain geologic hazards and constraints shown on the County’s GIS Geologic (Policy S-1.2) or Hydrologic (Policy PS-2.8) Hazard Databases. The permit process shall be designed to: evaluate possible building site alternatives that better meet the goals and policies of the general plan. identify development and design techniques and implementation guidelines for erosion control, slope stabilization, visual mitigation, drainage, and construction techniques. minimize development in areas where potentially unstable slopes, soil and geologic conditions, drainage, flood hazards or sewage disposal pose substantial risk to public health or safety.
4 WR-3A A new policy shall be added to the “Soils” section The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-3.5 of the Open Space and Conservation Element that Open Space and Conservation County Board as part of the states the following: Element regarding the of Supervisors General Plan establishment of a ministerial with on-going Update with WR-3A is combined with WR-2 permit process for agricultural land monitoring by on-going OS-3.x - A ministerial permit process shall be conversion projects on lands with the Monterey monitoring by developed and implemented for agricultural land specified slope conditions County the Monterey conversion projects on slopes greater than 15 Planning and County percent, or 10 percent or more on highly erodible Building Planning and soils. The permit process shall require that an Inspection Building erosion control plan be developed and Department Inspection implemented for all disturbed lands where new during life of Department cultivation is proposed. Routine and on-going General Plan during life of agricultural activities are exempt from this the General requirement. Plan
534 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted
5 WR-3B A new policy shall be added to the “Soils” section The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-3.5 of the Open Space and Conservation Element that Open Space and Conservation County Board as part of the states the following: Element regarding the of Supervisors General Plan establishment of a ministerial with on-going Update with OS-3-5 - The County will develop a Program that permit process for erosion related monitoring by on-going will address the potential cumulative hydrologic to agricultural conversion projects. the Monterey monitoring by impacts of the conversion of hillside rangeland County the Monterey areas to cultivated croplands. The Program will be Planning and County designed to address off-site soil erosion, increased Building Planning and runoff-related stream stability impacts, and/or Inspection Building potential violations of adopted water quality Department Inspection standards. The County should convene a during life of Department committee comprised of county staff, technical General Plan during life of experts, and stake-holders to develop the Program, the General including implementation recommendations.A Plan ministerial permit process shall be developed that shall require that any new large agricultural land conversion project or activity, or cumulative new activity from multiple projects within any five- year period that have a reasonable potential to create off-site soil erosion impacts or to violate adopted water quality standards, and that substantially alters land cover in an area that is 25 percent or more of a watershed (defined as a “named area” by the State Water Quality Control Board) develop a Watershed Management Plan in coordination with the applicable Resource Conservation District or other appropriate agency. A large land conversion project is defined a project over 100 acres in size. Watershed
535 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted Management Plans shall include the following: An assessment of the condition and stability of all blue line streams downstream from proposed land conversion project areas where cumulative watershed disturbance effects may occur. A multi-year program to develop and implement soil erosion, sediment control, and stream stabilization measures. Within the affected areas.
6 WR-3C A new policy shall be added to the Soils section of The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-3.8 the Open Space and Conservation Element that Open Space and Conservation County Board as part of the states the following: Element regarding cooperation of Supervisors General Plan between the County and various with on-going Update with OS-3-8 - The County shall cooperate with the natural resource agencies to monitoring by on-going Resource Conservation District of Monterey provide assistance to agricultural the Agricultural monitoring by County, the NRCS, the University of California operations to reduce erosion Commissioner’ the Monterey Cooperative Extension, the Monterey County impacts. s Office County Water Resources Agency, the Regional Water Agricultural Quality Control Board, and the Agriculture Water Commissioner’ Quality Alliance in continuing their public s Office education/outreach and technical assistance programs that provide agricultural operators with information regarding erosion and sediment control, efficient water use, water conservation and re-use, and groundwater management. This cooperative effort shall be centered in the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. The Board of Supervisors would be responsible for adopting the revised policy and programs. The MCWRA and Agricultural Commissioners Office would be responsible for implementation.
7 WR-4 A new policy shall be added to the “Wastewater The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-4.10 Treatment” section of the Public Services Element Public Services Element regarding County Board as part of the the establishment of an alternative of Supervisors General Plan
536 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted that states the following: wastewater management system. with on-going Update with monitoring by on-going PS-4x - Prior to approval of any new alternative the Monterey monitoring by wastewater systems subsequent to adoption of the County Water the Monterey 2006 General Plan, the County shall develop an Resources County Water alternative wastewater system management Agency during Resources program, consistent with the regulations pursuant life of General Agency during to AB885 and required Regional Water Quality Plan life of the Control Board requirements, to administer and General Plan monitor the use of alternative wastewater systems, pursuant to State law and regulations. Repairs to existing systems are exempt from this requirement
8 WR-5A A new policy shall be added to the “Water Quality The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-2.8 and Supply” section of the Public Services Public Services Element requiring County Board as part of the and PS-2.9 Element that states the following: that project located in groundwater of Supervisors General Plan recharge areas to be designed to with on-going Update with PS-2.8 - The County shall require that all projects maintain or increase groundwater monitoring by on-going located within important or major groundwater recharge. the Monterey monitoring by recharge areas be designed to maintain or increase County Water the Monterey the site’s pre-development absorption of Resources County Water rainfall(minimize runoff) and to recharge Agency during Resources groundwater following the guidelines contained in life of General Agency during the proposed MCWRA Drainage Design Manual Plan life of the where appropriate. Implementation would include General Plan standards that could regulate impervious surfaces, vary by project type, land use, soils and area characteristics, and provide for water impoundments(retention/detention structures), protecting and planning vegetation, use of permeable paving materials, bioswales, water
537 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted gardens, and cisterns, and other measures to increase runoff retention, protect water quality and enhance groundwater recharge. The County shall development voluntary guidelines for rural development that would accomplish the same purposes. PS-2.9 Protect and manage groundwater as a valuable and limited shared resource by protecting potential groundwater recharge areas and streamsides from urban encroachment within the Community Areas and Rural Centers. The County shall use discretionary permits to control manage construction of impervious surfaces in important groundwater recharge areas. Potential recharge area protection measures at sites in important groundwater recharge areas include, but are not limited to the following: Restrict coverage by impervious materials. Limit building or parking footprints. Require construction of percolation ponds detention/retention facilities on large-scale development project sites overlying identified important recharge areas as identified by Monterey County Water Resource Agency. Recognize that percolation ponds detention/retention facilities on small sites may not be practical, feasible, and are may be difficult to maintain and manage The County shall require that all projects located within important or major groundwater recharge areas be designed to maintain or increase the site’s pre-development absorption of rainfall, (minimize
538 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted runoff) to recharge groundwater following the guidelines contained in the proposed MCWRA Drainage Design Manual. Implementation would include standards that could regulate impervious surfaces, vary by project type, land use, soils and area characteristics, and provide for water impoundments (retention/detention structures), protecting and planting vegetation, use of permeable paving materials, bioswales, water gardens, and cisterns, and other measures to increase runoff retention, protect water quality, and enhance groundwater recharge. The County shall develop voluntary guidelines for rural development that would accomplish the same purposes.
9 WR-5B In recognition of the important role that water The amendment of Policy PS-3.12 Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-3.12 conservation and re-use can play in helping to enhance water conservation County Board as part of the Policy PS-3.13 achieve water resource sustainability, the measures. of Supervisors General Plan following policy revisions and additions shall be with on-going Update with Policy PS-3.14 The addition of four new policies to made to the Public Services Element: monitoring by on-going the Public Services Element the Monterey monitoring by Policy PS-2.9 PS-3.12 Maximize agricultural water conservation expanding water conservation and County Water the Monterey measures to improve water use efficiency and water recycling programs. Resources County Water reduce overall water demand. The County shall Agency during Resources establish an ordinance identifying conservation life of General Agency during measures that reduce agricultural water demand. Plan life of the Reduce agricultural water demand through General Plan conservation measures, including but no limited to, the following:
539 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted Recognizing that agricultural water conservation is an important component of agricultural water quality management, continue to aggressively work with representatives of the agricultural industry, such as the Agricultural Water Quality Alliance (AWQA), to develop and implement water conservation measures. Continue to develop and expand the application of Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices. Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement agricultural water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. Enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful sues of water for agricultural irrigation. New policies (PS-3.13 and PS-3.14) shall be added to the “Long-Term Water Supply” section of the Public Services Element that state the following: PS-3.13 Maximize urban water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. The County shall establish an ordinance identifying conservation measures that reduce potable water demand. Reduce potable water demand through conservation measures, including but not limited to, the following: Work cooperatively with all water providers and representatives of the building industry to continue to develop and implement Water Conservation
540 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted Plans that incorporate conservation measures and the Best Management Practices developed by the California Urban Water Conservation Council. Become an integral member of the California Urban Water conservation Council. Continue to expand the application of Water Conservation Best Management Practices. Coordinate with water providers to continue to develop and implement Water Drought Contingency Plans to assist citizens and businesses in reducing water use during periods of water shortages and emergencies. Revise the County’s Ordinances to include a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance to encourage, or as appropriate, require the use of water-efficient landscaping consistent with AB- 325 (1990). Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. Develop and enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful uses of water for urban irrigation. Fully fund a countywide Water Conservation Education, Outreach, and Enforcement program. PS-3.14 Maximize the use of recycled water as a potable water offset to manage water demands and
541 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted meet regulatory requirements for wastewater discharge, by employing strategies including, but not limited to, the following: Increase the use of treated water where the quality of recycled water is maintained, meets all applicable regulatory standards, is appropriate for the intended use, and re-use will not significantly impact beneficial uses of other water resources. Work with the agricultural community to develop new uses for tertiary recycled water and increase the use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of lands currently being irrigated by groundwater pumping. Work with urban water providers to emphasize use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of parks, playfields, schools, golf courses, and other landscape areas to reduce potable water demand. Work with urban water providers to convert existing potable water customers to tertiary recycled water as infrastructure and water supply become available. Public Services Element Policy PS-3.12 shall be amended to read as follows: PS-3.12 - Maximize agricultural water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. Reduce agricultural water demand through conservation measures, including but not limited to, the following: Recognizing that agricultural water conservation is an important component of agricultural water
542 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted quality management, continue to aggressively work with representatives of the agricultural industry, such as the Agricultural Water Quality Alliance (AWQA), to develop and implement water conservation measures. Continue to develop and expand the application of Agricultural Water Conservation Best Management Practices. Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement agricultural water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. Enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful uses of water for agricultural irrigation. New policies shall be added to the “Long-Term Water Supply” section of the Public Services Element that state the following: PS-3.x - Maximize urban water conservation measures to improve water use efficiency and reduce overall water demand. Reduce potable water demand through conservation measures, including but not limited to, the following: Work cooperatively with all water providers and representatives of the building industry to continue to develop and implement Water Conservation Plans that incorporate conservation measures and the Best Management Practices developed by the
543 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted California Urban Water Conservation Council. Become an integral member of the California Urban Water conservation Council. Continue to expand the application of Water Conservation Best Management Practices. Coordinate with water providers to continue to develop and implement Water Drought Contingency Plans to assist citizens and businesses in reducing water use during periods of water shortages and emergencies. Revise the County’s Ordinances to include a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance to encourage, or as appropriate, require the use of water-efficient landscaping consistent with AB- 325 (1990). Regularly update regulations, codes, programs, and agreements to implement water conservation and discourage wasteful use of water. Develop and enforce conservation measures that eliminate or penalize wasteful uses of water for urban irrigation. Fully fund a countywide Water Conservation Education, Outreach, and Enforcement program. PS-3.x - Maximize the use of recycled water as a potable water offset to manage water demands and meet regulatory requirements for wastewater discharge, by employing strategies including, but not limited to, the following: Increase the use of treated water where the quality of recycled water is maintained, meets all
544 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted applicable regulatory standards, is appropriate of the intended use, and re-use will not significantly impact beneficial uses of other water resources. Work with the agricultural community to develop new uses for tertiary recycled water and increase the use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of lands currently being irrigated by groundwater pumping. Work with urban water providers to emphasize use of tertiary recycled water for irrigation of parks, playfields, schools, golf courses, and other landscape areas to reduce potable water demand. Work with urban water providers to convert existing potable water customers to tertiary recycled water as infrastructure and water supply become available. A new policy shall be added to the “Water Quality and Supply” section of the Public Services Element that states the following: PS-2.x - Manage groundwater as a valuable and limited shared resource by protecting potential groundwater recharge areas and streamsides from urban encroachment within the Community Areas and Rural Centers. The County shall use discretionary permits to control construction of impervious surfaces in important groundwater recharge areas. Potential recharge area protection measures at sites in important groundwater
545 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted recharge areas include, but are not limited to the following: Restrict coverage by impervious materials. Limit building or parking footprints. Require construction of percolation ponds on large-scale development project sites overlying identified important recharge areas. Recognize that percolation ponds on small sites may not be practical, feasible, and are difficult to maintain and manage.
10 WR-6 Public Services Element Policy PS-3.4 shall be The amendment of Policy PS-3.4 to Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-3.4, amended to read as follows: add specific criteria to well County Board as part of the PS-3.5 and PS- approval process. of Supervisors General Plan 3.6 PS-3.4 Specific criteria shall be developed for with on-going Update with use in the evaluation and approval of adequacy of monitoring by on-going all new wells. Criteria shall assess both water the Monterey monitoring by quality and quantity including, but not limited to: County Water the Monterey Water quality Resources County Water Production capability Agency during Resources Recovery rates life of General Agency during Effect on wells in the immediate vicinity as Plan life of the required by the Monterey County Water Resource General Plan Agency Existing groundwater conditions Technical, managerial, and financial capability of the water purveyor of a water system. PS-3.5 The County shall require that pump tests or hydrogeologic studies be conducted for all new high-capacity wells, including high-capacity urban and agricultural production wells, where there may be a potential to affect existing adjacent domestic
546 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted or water system wells adversely as determined by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency. The County shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells for which pump tests or hydrogeologic studies show the potential for significant adverse well interference. PS-3.6 The County and all applicable water management agencies shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells in known areas of saltwater intrusion as identified by Monterey County Water Resource Agency until such time as a program has been approved and funded which will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies in that area. This policy shall not apply to deepening or replacement of existing wells. PS-3.4 - Specific criteria shall be developed for use in the evaluation and approval of adequacy of all new wells. Criteria shall assess both water quality and quantity including, but not limited to: Water quality Production capability Recovery rates Effect on wells in the immediate vicinity Existing groundwater conditions Technical, managerial, and financial capability of
547 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted the water purveyor The County shall require that pump tests or hydrogeologic studies be conducted for all new high-capacity wells, including high-capacity agricultural production wells, where there may be a potential to affect existing adjacent domestic or water system wells adversely. The County shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells for which pump tests or hydrogeologic studies show the potential for significant adverse well interference. The County and all applicable water management agencies shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells in known areas of saltwater intrusion until such time as a program has been approved and funded which will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies. The Board of Supervisors would be responsible for adopting the revised policy as part of the 2006 General Plan. The MCWRA will be responsible for implementing the revised policy as outlined in this mitigation measure, in coordination with the MPWMD and the PVWMA where applicable. The MCWRA will also include specific information on the status of groundwater quality and saltwater intrusion in affected coastal areas in its annual reports, which will serve as the basis for determination for applicability of this mitigation measure.
11 WR-7 Public Services Element Policy PS-3.4 shall be The amendment of Policy PS-3.4 to Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-3.4 amended to read as follows: add specific criteria to well County Board as part of the approval process of Supervisors General Plan WR-7 is combined with WR-6
548 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted
PS-3.4 - Specific criteria shall be developed for with on-going Update with use in the evaluation and approval of adequacy of monitoring by on-going all new wells. Criteria shall assess both water the Monterey monitoring by quality and quantity including, but not limited to: County Water the Monterey Resources County Water Water quality Agency during Resources Production capability life of General Agency during Recovery rates Plan life of the General Plan Effect on wells in the immediate vicinity Existing groundwater conditions Technical, managerial, and financial capability of the water purveyor The County shall require that pump tests or hydrogeologic studies be conducted for all new high-capacity wells, including high-capacity agricultural production wells, where there may be a potential to affect existing adjacent domestic or water system wells adversely. The County shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells for which pump tests or hydrogeologic studies show the potential for significant adverse well interference. The County and all applicable water management agencies shall not allow the drilling or operation of any new wells in known areas of saltwater intrusion until such time as a program has been approved and funded which will minimize or avoid expansion of salt water intrusion into useable groundwater supplies.
549 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted
12 WR-12 A new policy shall be added to the Drainage The addition of a new policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy S-3.8 section of the Safety Element that states the Safety Element regarding the County Board as part of the following: preparation of inundation maps for of Supervisors General Plan dams and levees. with on-going Update with S-3.x - To assist planners in determining potential monitoring by on-going inundation hazards for existing and future the Monterey monitoring by development, the County shall coordinate the County Water the Monterey periodic review, completion, and filing (with Resources County Water appropriate State and County Offices of Agency during Resources Emergency Services) of inundation maps for all life of General Agency during dams and levees whose failure could cause loss of Plan life of the life or personal injury within Monterey County. General Plan Where inundation maps indicate dam or levee failure could cause loss of life or property or personal injury, the corresponding responsible party shall investigate levee or dam stability and management, identifying emergency alert, evacuation, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs as appropriate. The Board of Supervisors would be responsible for adopting the revised policy as part of the 2006General Plan. The MCWRA would be responsible for developing the information in coordination with dam owners/operators, and the County OES would be responsible for implementing the revised policy as part of the Monterey County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
13 MIN-2 The County shall inventory, assess, and The inventory, assessment, and Monterey Within one Policy OS-2.5 characterize the location and condition of characterization of pre-SMARA County year of identified pre-SMARA abandoned gold, mercury abandoned mines. Planning and adoption of the and coal mines and implement such measures as Building General Plan. may be necessary to ensure that such mines do not Inspection contribute to a significant risk to public health or Department
550 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted safety or non-compliance with water quality during life of standards and criteria. General Plan
14 TRAN- Circulation Element Policy C-1.2 shall be The amendment of Policy C-1.2 to Monterey To be adopted Policy C-1.2 1B-a amended to state: establish a Traffic Impact Fee County Board as part of the program for new development. of Supervisors General Plan C-1.2 - The standard for the acceptable level of with on-going Update with service (LOS) as noted in Policy C-1.1 is to be monitoring by on-going achieved by 2030. That LOS standard is to be the Monterey monitoring by achieved through the development and adoption of County Public the Monterey Capital Improvement and Financing Plans (CIFP) Works County Public and implementing ordinances that: Department Works Define benefit areas to be included in the CIFP. during life of Department Benefit areas could include Planning Areas, General Plan during life of Community Areas, or the County as a whole. the General Identify and prioritize the improvements to be Plan completed in the benefit areas over the life of the General Plan. Estimate the cost of the improvements over the life of the General Plan. Identify the funding sources and mechanisms for the CIFP to include, but not limited to, a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). Provide an anticipated schedule for completion of the improvements. Coordinate with TAMC regional fee program. A TIF shall be implemented to ensure a funding mechanism for transportation improvements to
551 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted county facilities in accordance with Policy C-1.8. The TIF shall be imposed on development in cities for the improvement of major County roads in accordance with the Monterey County 2006 General Plan. The CIFP shall be reviewed every five (5) years in order to evaluate the effectiveness of meeting the LOS standard for County roads. Road segments or intersections identified to be approaching or below LOS D shall be a high priority for funding.
15 TRAN- Circulation Element Policy C-1.8 shall be The amendment of Policy C-1.8 to Monterey To be adopted Policy C-1.8 1B-b amended to state: establish a Traffic Impact Fee County Board as part of the program for new development. of Supervisors General Plan C-1.8 - “Development proposed in the county, the with on-going Update with cities and surrounding jurisdictions shall be monitoring by on-going carefully reviewed to assess the proposed the Monterey monitoring by development’s impact on the County’s circulation County Public the Monterey system. The County, in consultation with TAMC Works County Public and Monterey County cities, shall within 18 Department Works months of the adoption of the General Plan, during life of Department develop a County Traffic Impact Fee that address General Plan during life of impacts of development in cities as well as in the General unincorporated areas on major County roads. Plan From the time of adoption of the General Plan until the time of adoption of a County Traffic Impact Fee, the County shall impose an ad hoc fee on its applicants based upon a fair share traffic impact fee study.
16 TRAN- A new policy shall be added to the Level of The addition of a new policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy C-1.11 1C Service section of the Circulation Element that Circulation Element establishing a County Board as part of the states: Regional Traffic Impact fee and of Supervisors General Plan
552 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted
C-1.11 In addition to the Countywide Traffic prohibiting the County from with on-going Update with Impact Fee established in Policy C-1.8, the County permitting occupancy of new monitoring by on-going shall require new development to pay a Regional development until that fee program the Monterey monitoring by Traffic Impact Fee (developed collaboratively is in place. County Public the Monterey between TAMC, the County, and other regional Works County Public and state agencies) to ensure a funding mechanism Department Works for regional transportation improvements during life of Department mitigating Tier 3 impacts. In conformance with General Plan during life of Policy C-1.3, the County shall not permit the General occupancy of new development after adoption of Plan this 2006 General Plan until a funding program is in place that maintains a minimum LOS D on the regional roadway system. The County shall adopt the Regional Traffic Impact Fee within 12 months of the adoption by TAMC of a Regional Traffic Impact Fee, the goal of which shall be to achieve LOS D on the regional roadway system. From the time of adoption of the General Plan until the time of adoption of the TAMC fee by the County, the County shall impose an ad hoc fee based upon the regional transportation fee developed by TAMC through its 2004 Nexus Study or as subsequently amended or replaced. If the Regional Traffic Impact Fee program is not adopted by the County within one year of its adoption by TAMC, then the County shall not approve any development that would degrade the LOS on regional roads below LOS D, or contribute to the further degradation of regional
553 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted roads already operating at LOS E or LOS F until the TAMC fee is adopted.
17 AIR-2 OS-10.9 The County of Monterey shall require The implementation of various Monterey Monterey Policy OS-10.9 that future development in accordance with the MBUAPCD control measures County County 2006 General Plan implement applicable the during future projects. Planning and Planning and following Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Building Building Control District PM10 control measures. Inspection Inspection Water all active construction areas at least twice Department Department daily. Frequency should be based on type of during life of during life of General Plan the General operation, soil, and wind exposure; Plan Prohibit all grading activities occurring during periods of high winds (over 15 mph); Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days); Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area; Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet, 0 inches of freeboard; Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials; Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land; Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible; Cover inactive storage piles; Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks; Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out
554 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted from the construction site; Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance), and Limit the area under construction at any one time to as small as practical. The County of Monterey shall require that future development in accordance with the 2006 General Plan implement the following Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District PM10 control measures: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on type of operation, soil, and wind exposure; Prohibit all grading activities occurring during periods of high winds (over 15 mph); Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days); Apply non-toxic binders (e.g. latex acrylic
555 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area; Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet, 0 inches of freeboard; Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials; Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land; Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible; Cover inactive storage piles; Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks; Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance), and Limit the area under construction at any one time to as small as practical.
18 AIR-3 AIR-3 Applicants for discretionary projects shall Ensure that applicants for Monterey Monterey OS-10.10 work with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution discretionary projects are required County County
556 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted Control District to incorporate feasible measures to show evidence that they have Planning and Planning and that assure that health-based standards for diesel worked with the MBUAPCD. Building Building particulate emissions are met. Inspection Inspection The issuance of construction Department Department The County of Monterey shall require that contracts to contractors that use during life of during life of construction contracts be given to those various pollution control devices. General Plan General Plan contractors who show evidence of the use of soot Monterey Monterey traps, ultra-low sulfur fuels and other diesel engine County Public County Public emissions upgrades that reduce PM emissions to 10 Works Works less than 50 percent of the statewide PM 10 Department Department emissions average for comparable equipment. during life of during life of General Plan the General Plan
19 N-1 A new policy shall be added to the Noise Hazards The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy S-7.7 section of the Safety Element that states the Safety Element requiring that a County Board as part of the following: finding of consistency with Noise of Supervisors General Plan Hazards section of the General Plan with on-going Update with S-7.x - All proposed discretionary residential for projects with the 60 CNEL monitoring by on-going projects that are within roadway noise contours of contour of a roadway. the Monterey monitoring by 60 CNEL or greater shall include a finding of County the Monterey consistency with the provisions of the Noise Planning and County Hazards section of the Safety Element and, where Building Planning and appropriate, a project-specific noise impact Inspection Building analysis conducted before final approval. If Department Inspection impacts are identified, a “reasonable and feasible” during life of Department mitigation analysis shall be conducted using General Plan during life of published Caltrans/Federal Highway the General Administration guidelines. Any mitigation Plan measures meeting these tests shall be concurrently
557 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted funded and constructed as part of the roadway improvement.
20 N-2 A new policy shall be added to the Noise Hazards The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy S-7.8 section of the Safety Element that states the Safety Element requiring that all County Board as part of the following: discretionary land use projects of Supervisors General Plan proposing the use of heavy with on-going Update with S-7.x - All discretionary projects which propose to equipment within 50 feet of a monitoring by on-going use heavy construction equipment within 50 feet residence submit a pre-construction the Monterey monitoring by of a residence, or pile drivers or blasting within vibration study. County the Monterey 100 feet of a residence (or similar sensitive use) Planning and County shall be required to submit a pre-construction Building Planning and vibration study prior to project approval. Any Inspection Building specified mitigation and monitoring shall be Department Inspection incorporated into construction contracts. during life of Department General Plan during life of the General Plan
21 N-3A A new policy shall be added to the Noise Hazards The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy S-7.9 section of the Safety Element that states the Safety Element prohibit County Board as part of the following: construction activities within 500 of Supervisors General Plan feet of a noise sensitive land use the with on-going Update with S-7.x - No construction activities 500 feet of a evening hours or on Sunday or monitoring by on-going noise sensitive land use during the evening hours Holidays prior to the completion of the Monterey monitoring by of Monday through Saturday, or anytime on noise mitigation study. County the Monterey Sunday or holidays shall be allowed prior to Planning and County completion of a noise mitigation study. Noise Building Planning and protection measures, in the event of any identified Inspection Building impact, may include: Department Inspection Constructing temporary barriers, during life of Department General Plan during life of Using quieter equipment than normal, or, the General Temporarily relocating affected persons (hotel Plan
558 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted vouchers).
22 N-3B A new policy shall be added to the Noise Hazards The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy S-7.10 section of the Safety Element that states the Safety Element requiring that County Board as part of the following: standard noise protection measure of Supervisors General Plan be incorporated into construction with on-going Update with S-7.x - Standard noise protection measures shall contracts. monitoring by on-going be incorporated into all construction contracts. the Monterey monitoring by These measures shall include: County the Monterey Construction shall occur only during times Planning and County allowed by ordinance/code unless such limits are Building Planning and waived for public convenience; Inspection Building Department Inspection All equipment shall have properly operating during life of Department mufflers; and General Plan during life of Lay-down yards and semi-stationary equipment the General such as pumps or generators shall be located as far Plan from noise-sensitive land uses as practical.
23 BIO-1A A policy shall be added to the “Biological The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-5.16 (Natural) Resources” section of the Conservation Conservation and Open Space County Board as part of the and Open Space Element that states the following: Element that requires biological of Supervisors General Plan surveys for new development that with on-going Update with OS-5.16 - Any development project requiring a could potentially disturb protected monitoring by on-going discretionary permit that could potentially disturb biological resources. the Monterey monitoring by a special status species or its critical habitat County the Monterey identified by the County requiring analysis under Planning and County CEQA or identified for protection under an Building Planning and adopted Area Plan shall be required to conduct a Inspection Building biological survey of the site. Based on the Department Inspection
559 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted findings of this report, additional focused surveys during life of Department for certain species may be required. This report, General Plan during life of and any mitigation measures recommended in the the General report, shall be used as a basis for the CEQA Plan documentation for the project except if the County, in the exercise of its independent judgment, requires additional analysis. If sensitive biological resources are found on the site, the project biologist shall recommend mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These All feasible measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in any permit issued. An ordinance establishing minimum standards for a biological report shall be enacted.
24 BIO-1B A policy shall be added to the “Biological The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-5.17 (Natural) Resources” section of the Conservation Conservation and Open Space County Board as part of the and Open Space Element that states the following: Element that requires the loss of of Supervisors General Plan critical habitat to be offset at a 2:1 with on-going Update with OS-5.17 - For every acre (or less) of habitat ratio. monitoring by on-going occupied by a federal or state listed (threatened or the Monterey monitoring by endangered) plant or wildlife species, the project County the Monterey proponent shall replace it at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Planning and County Habitat may be created or set aside as onsite Building Planning and mitigation. If the project site does not contain Inspection Building sufficient habitat to fulfill the acreage requirement, Department Inspection offsite mitigation areas may need to set aside. The during life of Department County shall prepare, adopt, and implement a General Plan during life of program that allows projects to mitigate the loss of the General habitat occupied by a federal or state listed Plan (threatened or endangered) plant of wildlife species. The program may include ratios, payment of fees, or some other mechanisms in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory
560 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted agencies. Until such time as the program has been established, projects shall mitigate the loss of this habitat on an individual basis in consultation with responsible state and/or federal regulatory agencies. A Community Plan or Rural Center Plan that includes a mitigation program shall not be subject to this policy.
25 BIO-1C A policy shall be added to the “Biological The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy OS-5.18 (Natural) Resources” section of the Conservation Conservation and Open Space County Board as part of the and Open Space Element that states the following: Element requiring projects that of Supervisors General Plan disturb federal or state with on-going Update with OS-5.18 - Prior to disturbing any federal or state jurisdictional areas to comply with monitoring by on-going jurisdictional areas, the project proponent shall be applicable requirements. the Monterey monitoring by required to satisfy the following all applicable County the Monterey federal and state permitting requirements shall be Planning and County met, which includes including all mitigation Building Planning and measures for development of jurisdictional areas Inspection Building and associated riparian habitats. Department Inspection • Obtain verification from USACE during life of Department certifying that the project is authorized under General Plan during life of Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; the General • Obtain certification (or waiver of Plan certification) from the State Water Resources Control Board that the project complies with Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act; and Obtain verification that the project is authorized under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
561 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted
26 BIO-6 Section 3.3 of the AWCP shall be amended as The amendment of the AWCP to Monterey To be adopted AWCP, follows: stipulate that some future wine- County Board as part of the Section 3.3 related facilities may be required to of Supervisors General Plan BIO-6 “This Section includes a list of uses that undergo CEQA review. with on-going Update with can be permitted with a permit for properties monitoring by on-going within the designated AWCP. Projects deemed the Monterey monitoring by consistent within the criteria and conditions of the County the Monterey AWCP and Zoning District Overlay would require Planning and County no additional zoning review. However, County Building Planning and and Uniform Building Code requirements still Inspection Building apply relative to those activities that would require Department Inspection a grading and building permit. More intensive uses during life of Department or uses not otherwise consistent with the AWCP General Plan during life of and/or Williamson Act provisions may require the the General issuance of discretionary permits such as Plan Administrative Permits. Development of the wine industry outside of the corridor requires a is allowed subject to processing discretionary permits with separate environmental analysis.”
27 PSU-3A A new policy shall be added to the Educational The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-7.8 Facilities section of the Public Services Element Public Services Element requiring County Board as part of the that states the following: the adequate provision of school of Supervisors General Plan facilities prior to approval of future with on-going Update with PS-7.x - New development shall assist in land residential projects. monitoring by on-going acquisition and financial support for school the Monterey monitoring by facilities as required by state law. Where school County the Monterey districts have adopted appropriate resolutions, Planning and County written confirmation from the school district that Building Planning and applicable fees and contributions have been paid Inspection Building or are ensured to the satisfaction of the district Department Inspection shall be required prior to the issuance of building during life of Department permits. The County shall, as a condition of General Plan during life of approval of development projects, require the the General project applicant to pay the fees required by statute
562 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Condition Project Name: 2006 Monterey County General Plan Update File No.: ______APNs: N/A Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan Approval by Board of Supervisors Date: ______
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted (Government Code section 65996, as it may be Plan periodically amended) to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school facilities.
28 PSU-6A A new policy shall be added to the Long-Term The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-3.15 Water Supply section of the Public Services Public Services Element regarding County Board as part of the Element that states the following: the development of guidelines and of Supervisors General Plan procedures for conducting water with on-going Update with PS-3.15 - To ensure accuracy and consistency in supply assessments and making monitoring by on-going the evaluation of water supply availability, firm determinations about water the Monterey monitoring by Monterey County Health Department, in supply availability. County Water the Monterey coordination with the MCWRA, shall develop Resources County Water guidelines and procedures for conducting water Agency during resources supply assessments and making firm life of General Agency during determinations regarding determining water Plan life of the supply availability. Adequate availability and General Plan provision of new water supply, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be assured to the satisfaction of the County prior to approval of new final subdivision maps or any changes in the 2006 General Plan Land Use or Zoning designations.To ensure accuracy and consistency in the evaluation of water supply availability, Monterey County Health Department, in coordination with the MCWRA, shall develop guidelines and procedures for conducting water supply assessments and making firm determinations regarding determining water supply availability. Adequate availability and provision of new water supply, treatment, and conveyance facilities shall be assured to the
563 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc 2006 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Response to Comments on Program Environmental Impact Report Reporting Program
Compliance or Monitoring Verification of Permit Mitigatio Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Actions to be performed. Responsible Compliance Condition n Measures and Responsible Land Use Where applicable, a certified Party for Timing (2006 General Number Number Department professional is required for Compliance Plan Policy) action to be accepted satisfaction of the County prior to approval of new final subdivision maps or any changes in the 2006 General Plan Land Use or Zoning designations.
29 PSU-6B To improve water conservation, require Mitigation Require Mitigation Measures WR- Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-2.8 Measures WR-5A and WR-5B in Section 4.3, 5A and WR-5B. County Board as part of the Policy PS-2.9 Water Resources. of Supervisors General Plan with on-going Update with Policy PS-3.12 monitoring by on-going the Monterey monitoring by Policy PS-3.13 County Public the Monterey Policy PS-3.14 Works County Public Department Works during life of Department General Plan during life of the General Plan
30 PSU-7A A new policy shall be added to the Wastewater The addition of a policy to the Monterey To be adopted Policy PS-4.9 Treatment section of the Public Services Element Public Services Element requiring County Board as part of the that states the following: the adequate provision of of Supervisors General Plan wastewater treatment facilities that with on-going Update with PS-4.x - The adequate provision of new or meet Regional Water Quality monitoring by on-going expanded wastewater treatment facilities that meet Control Board standards prior to the Monterey monitoring by Regional Water Quality Control Board waste the approval of future development County the Monterey discharge requirements shall be assured to the projects. Planning and County satisfaction of the County and Regional Water Building Planning and Quality Control Board prior to the approval of new Inspection Building residential subdivision maps or zone changes. Department Inspection during life of Department General Plan during life of the General Plan
564 Michael Brandman Associates Y:\GPU\121806\21370014 FEIR-Monterey County.doc