UPDATE II:
Divided commission OK's 46 condos
By CHRIS COUNTS, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 2, 2011
Villas de No Agua
State water board says Carmel condo project might violate cease-and-desist order.
By Kera Abraham, Thursday, September 1, 2011
Carmel condo project gets OK from planners
Water, zoning issues unresolved
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 09/01/2011
UPDATE I:
“MINUTES”
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2011
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Brown, Vandevere, Roberts, Rochester, Salazar, Getzelman, Mendez, Diehl, Padilla, Hert
Absent: None
SCHEDULED ITEMS
1. 9:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I
Kevin Kane and Widewaters Group consultants gave a presentation on Traffic, LUP and CIP Amendments, Neighborhood Density, Moderate Income Housing and Water.
Public Comment: Nineteen speakers addressed the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, Mark McDonald, Carol Chapman, Tracy Manning, Wayne Iverson, Mark Bayne, Carol Stollorz, Fred Slautterback, Yoko Whitaker, Christine Jensen, Lucinda Lloyd, Jack Meehan, Barbara Warren, Richard Warren Barbara Rainer, Timothy Sanders and SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson; eighteen speakers spoke in opposition of the LCP Amendments and Villas de Carmelo project and one speaker spoke in support of the Villas de Carmelo project. Comments highlights, as follows: density as a three dimensional concept, not a two dimensional concept; other traffic studies concluded an existing level of service (LOC) of “F” for the Highway One segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road; EIR traffic study deficient due to no consideration of increased traffic as a result of proposed improvements/modifications to Highway One/Valley Way intersection; zoning precedent for area; State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) letters of August 10 and August 30, both by Barbara Evoy, Deputy Director, Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, and not contradictory.
Commission Deliberation Highlights:
Commissioner Diehl emphasized the Villas de Carmelo project being a “subdivision;” density issues; County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirement that the project supply compliance equal to 20% of the total number of units of which 6% very low, 6% low and 8% moderate income units (or 9.2 inclusionary units with 2 very low income level, 4 low income level and 4 moderate income level and payment of an in-lieu fee for 0.2 unit); Homeowner Association Fees (approximately $662/month ) for all condo owners as determined by the applicant, not sliding scale based on unit price to accommodate less than moderate income households.
Commissioner Brown characterized the project an infill development and supported the moderate income units due to the high land costs in the Carmel area.
Commissioner Vandevere emphasized 1995 decision by the State Water Resources Control Board that Cal-Am was illegally diverting water from the Carmel River and that since the County and Cities have not solved the illegal diversion of water issue for years and have continued to approve project permits for increased water use, the SWRCB has reason to believe the County and Cities do not take the Cease and Desist Order seriously.
After approximately three hours, it was moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Rochester, and passed by the following vote to recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards) and recommend certification by the California Coastal Commission; and consider the proposed condominium project, including nine moderate income units, and certify the Environmental Impact Report and conditionally approve (PLN070497) design and improvements for the Modified Design Alternative (alternative 4 in EIR), based on the findings and evidence and subject to the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.
AYES: Padilla, Salazar, Mendez, Rochester, Brown, Getzelman
NOES: Diehl, Vandevere, Hert, Roberts
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., the Monterey County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Rigoulette LLC (Villas de Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) - PLN070497, specifically “a project to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, including Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan & Combined Development Permit for design and improvements based on the Modified Design Alternative.” The text of the AGENDA is reproduced (minus SCHEDULED ITEMS 2, 3 and 4). The Staff Report and EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I are linked and/or embedded. The Staff’s Recommended Action: 1) consider proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards); 2) consider the proposed condominium project and related Environmental Impact Report; and 3) make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Monterey County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Monterey County Government Center – Board of Supervisors Chambers
168 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
9:00 a.m.
Chair: Paul Getzelman
Vice-Chair: Amy Roberts
Secretary: Mike Novo
Commissioners:
Paul C. Getzelman Cosme Padilla
Jay Brown Aurelio Salazar, Jr
Amy Roberts Jose Mendez
Luther Hert Martha Diehl
Don Rochester Keith Vandevere
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. ROLL CALL
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
C. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 26 and June 8, 2011
E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, REQUESTS AND REFERRALS
F. SCHEDULED ITEMS
1. 9:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I
Project Planner: Elizabeth Gonzales. Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report. Project Description: (Continued from August 10, 2011.) 1) Consider a project to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way, with a 46 unit condominium project called Villas de Carmelo, including:
1) Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards), subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors and certification by the California Coastal Commission; and
2) Combined Development Permit for design and improvements based on the Modified Design Alternative (identified as Alternative 4 in the EIR).
Required entitlements include:
1) Standard Subdivision for a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres in to 46 condominium parcels and common open space;
2) Coastal Development Permit to allow alterations to two historic structures including; a) converting the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; and b) converting an existing garage/shop building into three condominium units;
3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct eight new buildings consisting of 34 units for a total of 46 condominium units;
4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater;
5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of up to 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines);
6) Design Approval and approximately 13,500 cubic yards of grading. The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 009 061 002 000, 009 061 003 000, 009 061 005 000), Carmel Area Land Use Plan area, Coastal Zone.
Recommended Action: 1) consider proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards); 2) consider the proposed condominium project and related Environmental Impact Report; and 3) make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 31 2011
RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8-31-2011
EXHIBIT B: Rigoulette LLC (PLN070497) (Villas De Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits for the Hearing of (June 29, 2011)
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7-27-11
EXHIBIT C: MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7-29-2011
EXHIBIT D Villas de Carmelo
EXHIBIT D: Carmel Area Vacant Parcels Map
EXHIBIT E Villas de Carmelo
EXHIBIT E: Applicants’ Proposed Amendments to Local Coastal Program June 27, 2011
EXHIBIT F Villas de Carmelo
EXHIBIT F: Applicants’ Proposal to Housing Advisory Committee July 14, 2011 AND RMA Redevelopment & Housing Memo November 19, 2010
EXHIBIT G Villas de Carmelo
EXHIBIT G; WATER LETTERS:
MPWMD Letter dated June 29, 2011
Stamp Letter dated August 16, 2011
Stamp Letter dated July 8, 2011
SWRCB Letter dated August 10, 2011
J. Zischke Letter dated August 25, 2011
EXHIBIT H Villas de Carmelo
EXHIBIT H: Appendix A Monterey County Growth Management Policy
EXHIBIT I Villas de Carmelo
EXHIBIT I: Revised Site Plan with recommended changes previously discussed
G. OTHER MATTERS: NONE
H. DEPARTMENT REPORT
I. ADJOURNMENT
The Recommended Action indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared. That recommendation does not limit the Planning Commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.
BREAKS will be taken approximately at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION: Documents relating to agenda items that are distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Resource Management Agency – Planning and Building Services Departments, Monterey County Government Center , 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. Documents distributed by County staff at the meeting of the Planning Commission will be available at the meeting.
If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. For information regarding how, to whom and when a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting may make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation including auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions about any of the items listed on this agenda, please call the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department at (831) 755-5025.
Showing posts with label Monterey County Planning Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monterey County Planning Commission. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Monterey County Planning Commission, Villas de Carmelo: Consider a project to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, including Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan & Combined Development Permit for design and improvements based on the Modified Design Alternative
Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SOCNC) Attorney Molly Erickson: ‘Because the project would likely violate the State's Cease and Desist Order, the project would have significant unevaluated and unmitigated impacts with regard to water...The Commission should deny the project based on the lack of a legal water supply’
ABSTRACT: Based on a 10 August 2011 State Water Resources Control Board letter in response to Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SOCNC) attorney Molly Erickson’s 8 July 2011 letter requesting “an opinion from the State Water Board as to whether or not a proposed development project, namely the Villas de Carmelo, may be served by California American Water (Cal-Am),” attorney Molly Erickson wrote a letter dated 16 August 2011 to the Monterey County Planning Commissioners stating, in part, as follows: "The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the proposed Villas de Carmelo project. The State's August 10, 2011 letter states in key part as follows:
[T]his site is upzoning to a high density residential. There will undoubtedly be an increase in water use at the site since 2005 when the hospital closed. Although the Monterey County Planning Department concluded that the baseline water use for the property could be based on historic use in 1988, the effective date of its Ordinance 3310, the State Water Board's Cease and Desist Order was issued in 2009 and is not restricted by the 1988 Ordinance. Therefore, if Cal-Am were to serve the new 46-unit residential condominiums with water from the Carmel River. Cal-Am would likely violate Condition 2 of the [Cease and Desist] order.
This is significant new information that was not evaluated in the environmental impact report. Because the project would likely violate the State's Cease and Desist Order, the project would have significant unevaluated and unmitigated impacts with regard to water.
The Commission should deny the project based on the lack of a legal water supply, in addition to the other significant reasons identified by the public and by public agencies." HIGHLIGHTS and the aforementioned letters et cetera, and the State’s Cease and Desist Order are embedded.
HIGHLIGHTS of SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson’s August 16, 2011 letter to Paul Getzelman, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission:
Subject: SWRCB Position on Proposed Villas de Carmelo Subdivision Project
The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the proposed Villas de Carmelo project. The State's August 10, 2011 letter states in key part as follows:
[T]his site is upzoning to a high density residential. There will undoubtedly be an increase in water use at the site since 2005 when the hospital closed. Although the Monterey County Planning Department concluded that the baseline water use for the property could be based on historic use in 1988, the effective date of its Ordinance 3310, the State Water Board's Cease and Desist Order was issued in 2009 and is not restricted by the 1988 Ordinance. Therefore, if Cal-Am were to serve the new 46-unit residential condominiums with water from the Carmel River. Cal-Am would likely violate Condition 2 of the [Cease and Desist] order.
This is significant new information that was not evaluated in the environmental impact report. Because the project would likely violate the State's Cease and Desist Order, the project would have significant unevaluated and unmitigated impacts with regard to water.
The State's position is that Cal Am cannot legally provide Carmel River water to the project. Without a legal water supply, the project cannot be approved.
The Commission should deny the project based on the lack of a legal water supply, in addition to the other significant reasons identified by the public and by public agencies.
HIGHLIGHTS of State Water Resources Control Board 10 August 2011 response to SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson’s July 8, 2011 letter regarding State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Cease and Desist Order (Order) WR 2009-0060 as it pertains to Villas de Carmelo:
VILLAS DE CARMELO: A PROPOSED 46-CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITHIN THE CAL-AM SERVICE AREA SUBJECT TO ORDER WR 2009-0060 IN MONTEREY COUNTY.
...this site is upzoning to a.high density residential. There will undoubtedly be an increase in water use at the site since 2005 when the hospital closed. Although the Monterey County Planning Department concluded that the baseline water use for the property could be based on historic use in 1988, the effective date of its Ordinance 3310, the State Water Board's Cease and Desist Order was issued in 2009 and is not restricted by the 1988 Ordinance. Therefore, if Cal-Am were to serve the new 46-unit residential condominiums with water from the Carmel River, Cal-Am would likely violate Condition 2 of the order.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
2. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after October 20, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am's water system prior to that date.
SOCNC ltr to PC 11 08 16 re SWRCB position
SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson’s & State Water Resources Control Board Correspondence & Order Condition 2
HIGHLIGHTS of CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (INTRODUCTION, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER):
INTRODUCTION
The California American Water Company (Cal-Am or CAW) diverts water from the Carmel River in Monterey County. The water is used to supply the residential, municipal, and commercial needs of the Monterey Peninsula area (peninsula) communities. In 1995 the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Order WR 95-10 (WR 95-10 ). Among other matters, the order found that Cal-Am was diverting about 10,730 acre feet per annum (afa) of water from the Carmel River without a valid basis of right and directed that Cal-Am should diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversion. Alleging that 13 years after the adoption of Order 95-10 Cal-Am continues to divert about 7,150 afa from the river without a valid basis of right, the Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team or PT) seeks issuance of a cease and desist order under Water Code section 1831, subdivision (d). Cal-Am requested a hearing. This order (1) finds that Cal-Am: (a) failed to comply with the requirements of Order 95-10, and (b) is in violation of Water Code section 1052; and (2) issues a cease and desist order (CDO).
CONCLUSIONS
Order 95-10 does not authorize Cal-Am to divert water from the Carmel River in excess of its water rights, and Cal-Am is illegally diverting water from the Carmel River in violation of Order 95-10 and Water Code section 1052. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not a bar to the State Water Board’s adoption of a CDO.
Condition 2 of the Order 95-10 requires Cal-Am to diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions. Cal-Am has diverted an average of 7,602 afa from the river without a basis of right for the past 14 years, and in the roughly 10-year period since it achieved the 20 percent reduction required by Condition 3 of Order 95-10, Cal-Am has not made any meaningful progress toward reducing the amount of its unlawful diversions. Further, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented smaller water supply projects that could have enabled Cal-Am to reduce its illegal diversion from the river and to alleviate the serious condition affecting the survival of steelhead.
Thus, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented actions to terminate its unlawful diversions under Condition 2. Cal-Am’s only action reducing its illegal diversions has been the work done on two projects yielding small amounts of water: the ASR project and the Sand City Desalinization Plant. Significantly, these projects are in place due largely to the efforts made by other agencies, i.e., MPWMD and the City of Sand City.
The lower 6.5 miles of the riverbed are dry for five to six months of each year, due primarily to Cal-Am’s diversions.44 Cal-Am’s diversions from the river continue to have an adverse effect on the fish, wildlife and riparian habitat of the river, including the threatened steelhead. Since the adoption of Order 95-10, the California Central Coast steelhead has been declared as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the Carmel River has been declared as critical habitat for the survival of the steelhead.
The adjudication of the Seaside groundwater basin will decrease the supply of water available to supply Cal-Am’s customers by 417 af in 2009, or by about 2.8 percent of the available supply. Other projects or regulatory actions can make additional water available to Cal-Am, including: (1) the Phase I and II ASR project; (2) the City of Sand City Desalinization Project; (3) the development of temporary small water supply projects (4) the reduction of system losses within the Cal-Am distribution system; (5) the retrofit program; (6) reducing the use of potable water for outdoor irrigation; and (7) other measures to reduce consumer demand for potable water.
MPWMD's water allocation program sets aside water for growth within the limits of the supply of water available within its jurisdiction. MPWMD views water illegally diverted from the river by Cal-Am as available water supply for growth. Because water has been available for growth, the peninsula cities and their residents have had little incentive to support or pay for a project or projects to obtain a legal supply of water that can be substituted for the illegal diversions from the river.
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Cal-Am should be prohibited from further degrading conditions in the river by diverting water from the river for new service connections, and that Cal-Am should be required to reduce the amount of water being diverted from the river to serve existing service connections.45 In reaching this conclusion, we are particularly mindful that (a) the lower 6.5 miles of the Carmel River bed are dry for 5 to 6 months of each year, (b) the steelhead is a threatened species, (c) the river has been declared to be critical habitat for the steelhead, and (d) the earliest date which Cal-Am’s illegal diversions may be brought to an end is 2016, some 21 years after the adoption of Order 95-10.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
1. Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2016.
2. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after October 20, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am’s water system prior to that date.
3. At a minimum, Cal-Am shall adjust its diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the following:
a. Commencing on October 1, 2009,48 Cal-Am shall not divert more water from the river than the base of 10,978 afa,49 as adjusted by the following:
(1) Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2009, Cal-Am shall reduce diversions from the river by 5 percent, or 549 afa.
(2) Annual Reductions: Commencing on October 1, 2011, the base shall be further reduced by 121 afa per year through savings that will accrue from reduced system losses, the retrofit program, the reduction of potable water used for outdoor irrigation, demand reduction and similar measures. The 121 af reduction shall be cumulative. For example, 121 af shall be reduced in the first year and 242 af shall be reduced in the second year. Commencing on October 1, 2015, annual reductions shall increase to 242 af per year. The 242 af per year reduction shall also be cumulative. Annual reductions shall continue until all unlawful Cal-Am diversions from the river have been terminated.
(3) ASR Project: The amount of water diverted to underground storage under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) as of May 31 of each year and which will be supplied to Cal-Am customers after that date shall be subtracted from the base.50 On June 1 of each year, Cal-Am shall submit an operating plan to the Deputy Director for Water Rights specifying the quantity of water it intends to supply from ASR Project for its customers after May 1 of each year. Water pumped from the project for delivery to customers should be consistent with the requirements of paragraph “c” below.
(4) Sand City Desalination Plant: Once the Sand City Desalinization Plant becomes operational, 94 af shall be subtracted from the base. In addition, based on actual production from the plant, any other water that is produced and not served to persons residing within the City of Sand City shall be subtracted from the base amount for each water year.
(5) Small Projects: Water produced from new sources developed pursuant to Condition 4 of this order shall be subtracted from the base.
(6) Pebble Beach: Within 90 days following adoption of the order, the Pebble Beach Company shall certify, under penalty of perjury, the total quantity of water annually used under its water entitlement from MPWMD (for the funding assurances provided for the construction and expansion of the CAWD-PBCSD wastewater reclamation project).51 Ten percent (10%) of the amount reported shall be added to the adjusted base to allow Cal-Am to divert water from the river to supply water for PBC water entitlements initiated in the following 12 months. Thereafter, the PBC shall annually submit, on September 30, a report to the Deputy Director for Water Rights accounting for any additional water that is diverted from the Carmel River as the result of an increased use of its MPWMD water entitlement. Increased diversions from the river by Cal-Am to satisfy PBC entitlements from MPWMD shall be added to the adjusted base, and are not subject to section 2 of this order. Water Diverted from the river by Cal-Am for PBC entitlements can only be served to properties that have received a PBC entitlement from MPWMD and which are located in the Cal-Am’s service area. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River after December 31, 2016, to supply PBC’s water entitlement from MPWMD.
b. Either Cal-Am or the MPWMD may petition the State Water Board Deputy Director for Water Rights for relief from annual reductions imposed under condition 3., a (2). No relief shall be granted unless all of the following conditions are met: (a) Within 18 months of the adoption of this order, Cal-Am has imposed a moratorium on new service connections pursuant to Water Code section 350 or has obtained an order prohibiting new connections from the PUC pursuant to Public Utility Code section 2708 or MPWMD has imposed a moratorium on new service connections under its authority; (b) the demand for potable water by Cal-Am customers has been reduced by 13 percent;52 and (c) a showing is made that public health and safety will be threatened if relief is not granted. Any relief granted shall remain in effect only as long as (a) a prohibition on new service connections remains in effect, and (b) the 13 percent conservation requirement remains in effect.
c. ASR project water stored in the Seaside groundwater basin under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) should be used to mitigate the effect of Cal-Am’s illegal diversions from the river. ASR water should be supplied to Cal-Am customers only during months when water is most needed in the river to preserve steelhead
Commencing no later than June 1 of each year, Cal-Am should use stored groundwater to supply the needs of its customers and reduce diversions from the river. Consistent with Cal-Am’s operating plan, water should be pumped from the groundwater basin at the maximum practicable rate for as long as possible. This condition shall apply to both Phase I and Phase II of the ASR project. The river’s habitat and fish may receive greater benefits from a substitution regime that differs from that called for by this condition, a regime requiring that substitution commence at a different date, at a different rate or be coordinated with the level of flow in the river. In addition, it may be desirable to hold stored water from one year to the next to assure that more water is available for the steelhead and its habitat in years when the potential for steelhead survival may be greater. Several substitution trials may be necessary to determine which regime will have the greatest benefit. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are encouraged to negotiate different substitution regimes with Cal-Am. The State Water Board will honor such agreements, provided Cal-Am submits the written agreement to the Deputy Director for Water Rights no later than May 1 of each year and the written agreement is approved by the Deputy Director.
4.Cal-Am shall reduce its illegal diversions from the river at the same rate ASR Project water is pumped from the groundwater basin as long as stored water is available under the operating plan.
5.Cal-Am shall implement one or more small projects that, when taken together, total not less than 500 afa to reduce unlawful diversions from the river. Within 90 days of entry of this order, Cal-Am shall identify to the Deputy Director for Water Rights the projects that it will implement and shall implement the projects within 24 months of entry of this order. Cal-Am may petition the Deputy Director for additional time in which to implement the projects. However, no time extension shall be considered unless the petition is accompanied by detailed plans and time schedules for each project. Detailed justification shall be provided for additional time. Detailed justification shall be provided for any request for an extension to allow Cal-Am time to obtain prior approval from the PUC. To the maximum practicable extent, small projects shall be operated to reduce illegal diversions from the river during the months when surface flow in the river begins to go dry and through the months when surface flow in the river disappears below river mile 6.5.
6. Starting three months following adoption of this order, Cal-Am shall post quarterly reports on its website and file the quarterly reports with the Deputy Director for Water Rights. The quarterly reports shall include the following:
(a) Monthly summaries of the quantity of water it diverts from the river.
(b) Monthly summaries of the quantity of ASR project water diverted from the river under Permit 20808A and stored in the Seaside ground water basin. The monthly reporting shall also state the quantity of water beneficially used under Permit 20808A and the current balance of water in storage.
(c) Monthly summaries of the quantity of water being produced by the Sand City desalinization plant. The reporting shall identify new service connections within Sand City and thereafter report the quantity of water being delivered to the new connections. The monthly reports shall specify the quantity of water used to reduce diversions from the river during the reporting period.
(d) Monthly summaries of the quantity of water saved by reducing system losses.
(e) Monthly summaries of reductions in demand for potable water due to conservation actions such as increased water rates, MPWMD’s retrofit program, efforts to reduce potable water for outdoor water use and demand reduction initiatives.
(f) Monthly summaries identifying all new service connections. The report shall include the Cal-Am account number, the service address, the name of each authority granting any approval required for connecting to Cal-Am’s system and the name of each authority granting any approval required before commencing construction; the issuer of the each approval and the date of each approval shall be separately listed for each service address.
(g) Monthly summaries identifying existing service addresses that receive an increased supply of water due to a change in zoning or use. The report shall include Cal-Am account number, the service address and the name of each authority authorizing a change of use or of zoning and the date of such change.
(h) Each quarterly report submitted by Cal-Am shall be certified under penalty of perjury and shall include the following declaration: “I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all statements contained in this report and any accompanying documents are true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements make in this report are subject to investigation and that any false or dishonest statement may be grounds for prosecution.”
7.Starting six months after adoption of this order, Cal-Am shall file quarterly reports of its progress toward implementing Condition 3 (small project implementation) and note specifically any problems with its schedule of implementation.
8. The Deputy Director for Water Rights is authorized to modify the timing and the content of the reporting required by all of the provisions of this order to more effectively carry out the intent of this order.
9. Cal-Am shall comply with all requirements of Order 95-10, except as follows:
(a) Condition 1 of Order 95-10 is superseded by Condition 2 of this order.
(b) Condition 3(b) of Order 95-10 is superseded by Condition 2 of this order.
(c) The last sentence of Condition 4 is deleted because the Seaside groundwater basin watermaster will determine the manner in which water may be withdrawn from the groundwater basin.
(d) All other conditions of Order 95-10 shall remain in full force and effect until fully implemented.
10. The Deputy Director for Water Rights is directed to closely monitor Cal-Am’s compliance with Order 95-10 and this order. Appropriate action shall be taken to insure compliance with these orders including the issuance of additional cease and desist orders under Water Code section 1831, the imposition of administrative civil liability under Water Code section 1055, and referral to the Attorney General under Water Code section 1845 for injunctive relief and for civil liability. If additional enforcement action becomes necessary, the Deputy Director is directed to consider including in such actions all Cal-Am’s violations of Water Code section 1052 since the adoption of Order 95-10.
11. The conditions of this order and order 95-10 shall remain in effect until (a) Cal-Am certifies, with supporting documentation, that it has obtained a permanent supply of water that has been substituted for the water illegally diverted from the Carmel River and (b) the Deputy Director for Water Rights concurs, in writing, with the certification.
SWRCB CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WR 2009-0060
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water by the California American Water Company
Parties
Water Rights Prosecution Team1
California American Water Company
Interested Parties
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, City of Carmel by the Sea,
City of Seaside, Seaside Basin Watermaster, Pebble Beach Company,
Monterey County Hospitality Association, City of Monterey, City of Sand City, Division of Ratepayers Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission, Public Trust Alliance, Carmel River Steelhead Association, Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Planning and Conservation League, California Salmon and Steelhead Association, National Marine Fisheries Service
SOURCE: Carmel River
COUNTY: Monterey
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
[T]his site is upzoning to a high density residential. There will undoubtedly be an increase in water use at the site since 2005 when the hospital closed. Although the Monterey County Planning Department concluded that the baseline water use for the property could be based on historic use in 1988, the effective date of its Ordinance 3310, the State Water Board's Cease and Desist Order was issued in 2009 and is not restricted by the 1988 Ordinance. Therefore, if Cal-Am were to serve the new 46-unit residential condominiums with water from the Carmel River. Cal-Am would likely violate Condition 2 of the [Cease and Desist] order.
This is significant new information that was not evaluated in the environmental impact report. Because the project would likely violate the State's Cease and Desist Order, the project would have significant unevaluated and unmitigated impacts with regard to water.
The Commission should deny the project based on the lack of a legal water supply, in addition to the other significant reasons identified by the public and by public agencies." HIGHLIGHTS and the aforementioned letters et cetera, and the State’s Cease and Desist Order are embedded.
HIGHLIGHTS of SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson’s August 16, 2011 letter to Paul Getzelman, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission:
Subject: SWRCB Position on Proposed Villas de Carmelo Subdivision Project
The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the proposed Villas de Carmelo project. The State's August 10, 2011 letter states in key part as follows:
[T]his site is upzoning to a high density residential. There will undoubtedly be an increase in water use at the site since 2005 when the hospital closed. Although the Monterey County Planning Department concluded that the baseline water use for the property could be based on historic use in 1988, the effective date of its Ordinance 3310, the State Water Board's Cease and Desist Order was issued in 2009 and is not restricted by the 1988 Ordinance. Therefore, if Cal-Am were to serve the new 46-unit residential condominiums with water from the Carmel River. Cal-Am would likely violate Condition 2 of the [Cease and Desist] order.
This is significant new information that was not evaluated in the environmental impact report. Because the project would likely violate the State's Cease and Desist Order, the project would have significant unevaluated and unmitigated impacts with regard to water.
The State's position is that Cal Am cannot legally provide Carmel River water to the project. Without a legal water supply, the project cannot be approved.
The Commission should deny the project based on the lack of a legal water supply, in addition to the other significant reasons identified by the public and by public agencies.
HIGHLIGHTS of State Water Resources Control Board 10 August 2011 response to SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson’s July 8, 2011 letter regarding State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Cease and Desist Order (Order) WR 2009-0060 as it pertains to Villas de Carmelo:
VILLAS DE CARMELO: A PROPOSED 46-CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITHIN THE CAL-AM SERVICE AREA SUBJECT TO ORDER WR 2009-0060 IN MONTEREY COUNTY.
...this site is upzoning to a.high density residential. There will undoubtedly be an increase in water use at the site since 2005 when the hospital closed. Although the Monterey County Planning Department concluded that the baseline water use for the property could be based on historic use in 1988, the effective date of its Ordinance 3310, the State Water Board's Cease and Desist Order was issued in 2009 and is not restricted by the 1988 Ordinance. Therefore, if Cal-Am were to serve the new 46-unit residential condominiums with water from the Carmel River, Cal-Am would likely violate Condition 2 of the order.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
2. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after October 20, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am's water system prior to that date.
SOCNC ltr to PC 11 08 16 re SWRCB position
SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson’s & State Water Resources Control Board Correspondence & Order Condition 2
HIGHLIGHTS of CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (INTRODUCTION, CONCLUSIONS & ORDER):
INTRODUCTION
The California American Water Company (Cal-Am or CAW) diverts water from the Carmel River in Monterey County. The water is used to supply the residential, municipal, and commercial needs of the Monterey Peninsula area (peninsula) communities. In 1995 the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Order WR 95-10 (WR 95-10 ). Among other matters, the order found that Cal-Am was diverting about 10,730 acre feet per annum (afa) of water from the Carmel River without a valid basis of right and directed that Cal-Am should diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversion. Alleging that 13 years after the adoption of Order 95-10 Cal-Am continues to divert about 7,150 afa from the river without a valid basis of right, the Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team or PT) seeks issuance of a cease and desist order under Water Code section 1831, subdivision (d). Cal-Am requested a hearing. This order (1) finds that Cal-Am: (a) failed to comply with the requirements of Order 95-10, and (b) is in violation of Water Code section 1052; and (2) issues a cease and desist order (CDO).
CONCLUSIONS
Order 95-10 does not authorize Cal-Am to divert water from the Carmel River in excess of its water rights, and Cal-Am is illegally diverting water from the Carmel River in violation of Order 95-10 and Water Code section 1052. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not a bar to the State Water Board’s adoption of a CDO.
Condition 2 of the Order 95-10 requires Cal-Am to diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions. Cal-Am has diverted an average of 7,602 afa from the river without a basis of right for the past 14 years, and in the roughly 10-year period since it achieved the 20 percent reduction required by Condition 3 of Order 95-10, Cal-Am has not made any meaningful progress toward reducing the amount of its unlawful diversions. Further, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented smaller water supply projects that could have enabled Cal-Am to reduce its illegal diversion from the river and to alleviate the serious condition affecting the survival of steelhead.
Thus, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented actions to terminate its unlawful diversions under Condition 2. Cal-Am’s only action reducing its illegal diversions has been the work done on two projects yielding small amounts of water: the ASR project and the Sand City Desalinization Plant. Significantly, these projects are in place due largely to the efforts made by other agencies, i.e., MPWMD and the City of Sand City.
The lower 6.5 miles of the riverbed are dry for five to six months of each year, due primarily to Cal-Am’s diversions.44 Cal-Am’s diversions from the river continue to have an adverse effect on the fish, wildlife and riparian habitat of the river, including the threatened steelhead. Since the adoption of Order 95-10, the California Central Coast steelhead has been declared as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the Carmel River has been declared as critical habitat for the survival of the steelhead.
The adjudication of the Seaside groundwater basin will decrease the supply of water available to supply Cal-Am’s customers by 417 af in 2009, or by about 2.8 percent of the available supply. Other projects or regulatory actions can make additional water available to Cal-Am, including: (1) the Phase I and II ASR project; (2) the City of Sand City Desalinization Project; (3) the development of temporary small water supply projects (4) the reduction of system losses within the Cal-Am distribution system; (5) the retrofit program; (6) reducing the use of potable water for outdoor irrigation; and (7) other measures to reduce consumer demand for potable water.
MPWMD's water allocation program sets aside water for growth within the limits of the supply of water available within its jurisdiction. MPWMD views water illegally diverted from the river by Cal-Am as available water supply for growth. Because water has been available for growth, the peninsula cities and their residents have had little incentive to support or pay for a project or projects to obtain a legal supply of water that can be substituted for the illegal diversions from the river.
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Cal-Am should be prohibited from further degrading conditions in the river by diverting water from the river for new service connections, and that Cal-Am should be required to reduce the amount of water being diverted from the river to serve existing service connections.45 In reaching this conclusion, we are particularly mindful that (a) the lower 6.5 miles of the Carmel River bed are dry for 5 to 6 months of each year, (b) the steelhead is a threatened species, (c) the river has been declared to be critical habitat for the steelhead, and (d) the earliest date which Cal-Am’s illegal diversions may be brought to an end is 2016, some 21 years after the adoption of Order 95-10.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
1. Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2016.
2. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after October 20, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am’s water system prior to that date.
3. At a minimum, Cal-Am shall adjust its diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the following:
a. Commencing on October 1, 2009,48 Cal-Am shall not divert more water from the river than the base of 10,978 afa,49 as adjusted by the following:
(1) Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2009, Cal-Am shall reduce diversions from the river by 5 percent, or 549 afa.
(2) Annual Reductions: Commencing on October 1, 2011, the base shall be further reduced by 121 afa per year through savings that will accrue from reduced system losses, the retrofit program, the reduction of potable water used for outdoor irrigation, demand reduction and similar measures. The 121 af reduction shall be cumulative. For example, 121 af shall be reduced in the first year and 242 af shall be reduced in the second year. Commencing on October 1, 2015, annual reductions shall increase to 242 af per year. The 242 af per year reduction shall also be cumulative. Annual reductions shall continue until all unlawful Cal-Am diversions from the river have been terminated.
(3) ASR Project: The amount of water diverted to underground storage under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) as of May 31 of each year and which will be supplied to Cal-Am customers after that date shall be subtracted from the base.50 On June 1 of each year, Cal-Am shall submit an operating plan to the Deputy Director for Water Rights specifying the quantity of water it intends to supply from ASR Project for its customers after May 1 of each year. Water pumped from the project for delivery to customers should be consistent with the requirements of paragraph “c” below.
(4) Sand City Desalination Plant: Once the Sand City Desalinization Plant becomes operational, 94 af shall be subtracted from the base. In addition, based on actual production from the plant, any other water that is produced and not served to persons residing within the City of Sand City shall be subtracted from the base amount for each water year.
(5) Small Projects: Water produced from new sources developed pursuant to Condition 4 of this order shall be subtracted from the base.
(6) Pebble Beach: Within 90 days following adoption of the order, the Pebble Beach Company shall certify, under penalty of perjury, the total quantity of water annually used under its water entitlement from MPWMD (for the funding assurances provided for the construction and expansion of the CAWD-PBCSD wastewater reclamation project).51 Ten percent (10%) of the amount reported shall be added to the adjusted base to allow Cal-Am to divert water from the river to supply water for PBC water entitlements initiated in the following 12 months. Thereafter, the PBC shall annually submit, on September 30, a report to the Deputy Director for Water Rights accounting for any additional water that is diverted from the Carmel River as the result of an increased use of its MPWMD water entitlement. Increased diversions from the river by Cal-Am to satisfy PBC entitlements from MPWMD shall be added to the adjusted base, and are not subject to section 2 of this order. Water Diverted from the river by Cal-Am for PBC entitlements can only be served to properties that have received a PBC entitlement from MPWMD and which are located in the Cal-Am’s service area. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River after December 31, 2016, to supply PBC’s water entitlement from MPWMD.
b. Either Cal-Am or the MPWMD may petition the State Water Board Deputy Director for Water Rights for relief from annual reductions imposed under condition 3., a (2). No relief shall be granted unless all of the following conditions are met: (a) Within 18 months of the adoption of this order, Cal-Am has imposed a moratorium on new service connections pursuant to Water Code section 350 or has obtained an order prohibiting new connections from the PUC pursuant to Public Utility Code section 2708 or MPWMD has imposed a moratorium on new service connections under its authority; (b) the demand for potable water by Cal-Am customers has been reduced by 13 percent;52 and (c) a showing is made that public health and safety will be threatened if relief is not granted. Any relief granted shall remain in effect only as long as (a) a prohibition on new service connections remains in effect, and (b) the 13 percent conservation requirement remains in effect.
c. ASR project water stored in the Seaside groundwater basin under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) should be used to mitigate the effect of Cal-Am’s illegal diversions from the river. ASR water should be supplied to Cal-Am customers only during months when water is most needed in the river to preserve steelhead
Commencing no later than June 1 of each year, Cal-Am should use stored groundwater to supply the needs of its customers and reduce diversions from the river. Consistent with Cal-Am’s operating plan, water should be pumped from the groundwater basin at the maximum practicable rate for as long as possible. This condition shall apply to both Phase I and Phase II of the ASR project. The river’s habitat and fish may receive greater benefits from a substitution regime that differs from that called for by this condition, a regime requiring that substitution commence at a different date, at a different rate or be coordinated with the level of flow in the river. In addition, it may be desirable to hold stored water from one year to the next to assure that more water is available for the steelhead and its habitat in years when the potential for steelhead survival may be greater. Several substitution trials may be necessary to determine which regime will have the greatest benefit. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are encouraged to negotiate different substitution regimes with Cal-Am. The State Water Board will honor such agreements, provided Cal-Am submits the written agreement to the Deputy Director for Water Rights no later than May 1 of each year and the written agreement is approved by the Deputy Director.
4.Cal-Am shall reduce its illegal diversions from the river at the same rate ASR Project water is pumped from the groundwater basin as long as stored water is available under the operating plan.
5.Cal-Am shall implement one or more small projects that, when taken together, total not less than 500 afa to reduce unlawful diversions from the river. Within 90 days of entry of this order, Cal-Am shall identify to the Deputy Director for Water Rights the projects that it will implement and shall implement the projects within 24 months of entry of this order. Cal-Am may petition the Deputy Director for additional time in which to implement the projects. However, no time extension shall be considered unless the petition is accompanied by detailed plans and time schedules for each project. Detailed justification shall be provided for additional time. Detailed justification shall be provided for any request for an extension to allow Cal-Am time to obtain prior approval from the PUC. To the maximum practicable extent, small projects shall be operated to reduce illegal diversions from the river during the months when surface flow in the river begins to go dry and through the months when surface flow in the river disappears below river mile 6.5.
6. Starting three months following adoption of this order, Cal-Am shall post quarterly reports on its website and file the quarterly reports with the Deputy Director for Water Rights. The quarterly reports shall include the following:
(a) Monthly summaries of the quantity of water it diverts from the river.
(b) Monthly summaries of the quantity of ASR project water diverted from the river under Permit 20808A and stored in the Seaside ground water basin. The monthly reporting shall also state the quantity of water beneficially used under Permit 20808A and the current balance of water in storage.
(c) Monthly summaries of the quantity of water being produced by the Sand City desalinization plant. The reporting shall identify new service connections within Sand City and thereafter report the quantity of water being delivered to the new connections. The monthly reports shall specify the quantity of water used to reduce diversions from the river during the reporting period.
(d) Monthly summaries of the quantity of water saved by reducing system losses.
(e) Monthly summaries of reductions in demand for potable water due to conservation actions such as increased water rates, MPWMD’s retrofit program, efforts to reduce potable water for outdoor water use and demand reduction initiatives.
(f) Monthly summaries identifying all new service connections. The report shall include the Cal-Am account number, the service address, the name of each authority granting any approval required for connecting to Cal-Am’s system and the name of each authority granting any approval required before commencing construction; the issuer of the each approval and the date of each approval shall be separately listed for each service address.
(g) Monthly summaries identifying existing service addresses that receive an increased supply of water due to a change in zoning or use. The report shall include Cal-Am account number, the service address and the name of each authority authorizing a change of use or of zoning and the date of such change.
(h) Each quarterly report submitted by Cal-Am shall be certified under penalty of perjury and shall include the following declaration: “I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all statements contained in this report and any accompanying documents are true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements make in this report are subject to investigation and that any false or dishonest statement may be grounds for prosecution.”
7.Starting six months after adoption of this order, Cal-Am shall file quarterly reports of its progress toward implementing Condition 3 (small project implementation) and note specifically any problems with its schedule of implementation.
8. The Deputy Director for Water Rights is authorized to modify the timing and the content of the reporting required by all of the provisions of this order to more effectively carry out the intent of this order.
9. Cal-Am shall comply with all requirements of Order 95-10, except as follows:
(a) Condition 1 of Order 95-10 is superseded by Condition 2 of this order.
(b) Condition 3(b) of Order 95-10 is superseded by Condition 2 of this order.
(c) The last sentence of Condition 4 is deleted because the Seaside groundwater basin watermaster will determine the manner in which water may be withdrawn from the groundwater basin.
(d) All other conditions of Order 95-10 shall remain in full force and effect until fully implemented.
10. The Deputy Director for Water Rights is directed to closely monitor Cal-Am’s compliance with Order 95-10 and this order. Appropriate action shall be taken to insure compliance with these orders including the issuance of additional cease and desist orders under Water Code section 1831, the imposition of administrative civil liability under Water Code section 1055, and referral to the Attorney General under Water Code section 1845 for injunctive relief and for civil liability. If additional enforcement action becomes necessary, the Deputy Director is directed to consider including in such actions all Cal-Am’s violations of Water Code section 1052 since the adoption of Order 95-10.
11. The conditions of this order and order 95-10 shall remain in effect until (a) Cal-Am certifies, with supporting documentation, that it has obtained a permanent supply of water that has been substituted for the water illegally diverted from the Carmel River and (b) the Deputy Director for Water Rights concurs, in writing, with the certification.
SWRCB CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WR 2009-0060
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water by the California American Water Company
Parties
Water Rights Prosecution Team1
California American Water Company
Interested Parties
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, City of Carmel by the Sea,
City of Seaside, Seaside Basin Watermaster, Pebble Beach Company,
Monterey County Hospitality Association, City of Monterey, City of Sand City, Division of Ratepayers Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission, Public Trust Alliance, Carmel River Steelhead Association, Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Planning and Conservation League, California Salmon and Steelhead Association, National Marine Fisheries Service
SOURCE: Carmel River
COUNTY: Monterey
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
Friday, August 05, 2011
Monterey County Planning Commission, Villas de Carmelo: Consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments, Consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments & If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application
Commission schedules full hearing on hospital condos, CHRIS COUNTS, The Carmel Pine Cone, August 12, 2011
Carmel condo project to get review, after all
Planners won't consider zoning issue separately
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 08/11/2011
UPDATE:
Monterey County Planning Commission
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
3. 10:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
Public Comment: Jack Meehan, Tracy Manning, Wayne Iverson, Tom Leaver (read letter from Mark Bayne), Lois Roberts, Carol Stollorz, Myrna Hampton, Mark McDonald, Leslie Cooley, Amy White (Land Watch Executive Director) and attorney Molly Erickson (SOCNC) and Christine Williams.
All twelve public speakers spoke in support of the Planning Commission’s 29 June 2010 decision and against the rescinding of its 29 June 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments.
Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SOCNC) attorney Molly Erickson emphasized two paragraphs from a 7 October 2010 letter to the County from Mike Watson, Coastal Planner, California Coastal Commission, as follows:
“With regard to the necessary LCP amendments, we recommend that the County first submit any required LCP amendment requests, and wait until after the Commission has acted on them, before final consideration or action on a CDP for a project for the site. The project cannot be approved absent an LCP amendment, and the outcome of the LCP amendment deliberations will explicitly prescribe the appropriate form of development at this location (not the other way around), and thus the LCP amendment, including consideration of the broader planning context within which this project finds itself, must proceed ahead of project level CDP review.”
“Also as noted in the past, the Villas de Carmelo project is the largest to be proposed in the Carmel Area since certification of the LCP, and thus it requires careful and thoughtful consideration. In this respect, we continue to be concerned that some of the fundamental coastal resource issues raised by the project are not framed correctly in the RDEIR, and that this significantly compromises the utility of the document for purposes of LCP amendment and CDP analysis. Specifically, we do not believe that the DEIR accurately and appropriately analyzes the water supply, traffic, and land use issues associated with the project, and that the analysis of consistency with existing plans and policies is incorrect and incomplete.”
Erickson also emphasized a part of the 1982 Monterey County General Plan, Appendix A, Growth Management Policy, which states that residential densities can increase only with low and moderate housing provided; current Widewaters proposal includes only moderate income housing.
It was moved by Commissioner Padilla, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and passed by the following vote to rescind the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments.
AYES: Mendez, Salazar, Padilla, Rochester, Brown, Getzelman
NOES: Vandevere, Diehl, Hert, Roberts
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
It was moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Rochester, and passed by voice vote to conduct a public hearing on the LCP amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit and certification of the EIRs, provide direction to staff regarding findings and evidence and provide analysis and information on affordable housing options, consistency with the General Plan, water issues with regard to MPWMD, and continue the matter to 31 August 2011.
ADDENDUM:
District 1 (Urban Salinas including North, East, Central Salinas and parts of South Salinas): Jose Mendez and Aurelio Salazar, Jr.
District 2 (Aromas, Boronda, Castroville, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, North Salinas, Pajaro, Prunedale, and Royal Oaks): Don Rochester and Cosme Padilla
District 3 (East Salinas, Spreckels, Chualar, Greenfield, Gonzales, Ft. Hunter Liggett, King City, Soledad, Lake San Antonio, South County): Paul C. Getzelman (Chair) and Jay Brown
District 4 (Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Sand City, Seaside, Southwest Salinas): Amy Roberts and Luther Hert
District 5 (Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Monterey, Hwy 68, Las Palmas): Keith Vandevere and Martha Diehl
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, 10 August 2011, at 10:00 A.M., the Monterey County Planning Commission is scheduled to address Rigoulette LLC (Villas de Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) - PLN070497, specifically, consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments, consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments and if the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application. The Monterey County Planning Commission AGENDA is reproduced (minus F. SCHEDULED ITEMS 1. and 2.) and the AGENDA Packet of supporting documents is embedded. HIGHLIGHTS of the AGENDA Packet are presented. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
1) Consider rescinding the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments;
2a) If the continuance is not rescinded, conduct a hearing only on the LCP amendments; OR
2b) If the continuance is rescinded, conduct a public hearing on the LCP amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit, provide direction to staff, and continue the matter to a specific date.
Monterey County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Monterey County Government Center – Board of Supervisors Chambers
168 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
9:00 a.m.
Chair: Paul Getzelman
Vice-Chair: Amy Roberts
Secretary: Carl Holm
Commissioners:
Paul C. Getzelman Cosme Padilla
Jay Brown Aurelio Salazar, Jr
Amy Roberts Jose Mendez
Luther Hert Martha Diehl
Don Rochester Keith Vandevere
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. ROLL CALL
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
C. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, REQUESTS AND REFERRALS
F. SCHEDULED ITEMS
3. 10:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
Project Planner: Elizabeth Gonzales. Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report. Project Description: (Continued from July 27, 2011).
A) The Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way. The amendments generally consist of amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5) and amendments to the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan) (Chapter 20.146) to allow high-density residential development on the site;
B) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit (PLN070497/Rigoulette, LLC (Villas de Carmelo)) until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments. The Combined Development Permit includes: 1) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space; 2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; 3 units in garage shop; 3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 8 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units; 4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater; 5) Coastal Development permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and 6) Design Approval.
C) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission may conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application. The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 009 061 002 000, 009 061 003 000, 009 061 005 000), Carmel Area Land Use Plan area, Coastal Zone.
Recommended Action: 1) Consider rescinding the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments; 2A) If the continuance is not rescinded, conduct a hearing only on the LCP amendments OR 2B) If the continuance is rescinded, conduct a public hearing on the LCP Amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit, provide direction to staff, and continue the matter to a specific date.
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Villas de Carmelo 081011
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Villas de Carmelo 8 August 2011 Packet
HIGHLIGHTS OF AGENDA PACKET MATERIALS:
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMMISSION
Meeting: August 10, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Agenda Item No.: 3
Project Description:
A) The Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site...
B) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments...
C) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission may conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application...
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
2) Consider rescinding the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments;
2a) If the continuance is not rescinded, conduct a hearing only on the LCP amendments; OR
2b) If the continuance is rescinded, conduct a public hearing on the LCP amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit, provide direction to staff, and continue the matter to a specific date.
The report includes Exhibit A The Housing Advisory Committee’s (HAC) July 14, 2010 recommendation.
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOTES FROM HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
July 14, 2010
a) Consider a proposal from the Widewaters to comply with Inclusionary Ordinance for the Villas de Carmelo Project by paying an In-Lieu Fee: Ms. Noel provided background information related to the item. She noted that the HAC had reviewed several Inclusionary Housing Compliance proposals from the applicants on different occasions. Based on input received from the HAC and Staff, the applicants have decided to pursue compliance through a payment of an In-lieu fee of $2.5 Million. Ms. Noel provided an overview of challenges related to other forms of compliances for the project and noted that staff felt the in-lieu fee is the most appropriate for this type of project. Further, staff believes that the In-lieu fee of $2.5 million can be leveraged to assist a non-profit in constructing or rehabilitating affordable housing in the area. The applicants clarified that they would be providing 20% of the units actually approved as opposed to 9.2 units as mentioned at a previous HAC meeting. HAC members expressed their agreement in regard to using the in-lieu fee as leverage for affordable housing projects in the area. Mr. Ross asked about timing of the payment. Ms. Noel responded that the payment would need to be made or secured prior to the final map being recorded.
MOTION: Motion was made by Wayne Ross and seconded by Sarah Hardgrave to approve Widewaters’ proposal of paying an In-Lieu Fee as the form of Inclusionary Housing Compliance for the Villas de Carmelo Project.
VOTE:
AYES: English, Hardgrave, Ross, McShane and Cabatu
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Boardman, Orozco, Lopez, and Robbins
G. OTHER MATTERS: Appointment: Del Monte Forest LUAC – Joella M. Szabo
H. DEPARTMENT REPORT
I. ADJOURNMENT
The Recommended Action indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared. That recommendation does not limit the Planning Commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.
BREAKS will be taken approximately at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION: Documents relating to agenda items that are distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Resource Management Agency – Planning and Building Services Departments, Monterey County Government Center , 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. Documents distributed by County staff at the meeting of the Planning Commission will be available at the meeting.
If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. For information regarding how, to whom and when a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting may make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation including auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions about any of the items listed on this agenda, please call the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department at (831) 755-5025.
ADDENDUM:
Live & Archived Video & MP3 Audio, Monterey County Planning Department
Meetings
Carmel condo project to get review, after all
Planners won't consider zoning issue separately
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 08/11/2011
UPDATE:
Monterey County Planning Commission
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
3. 10:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
Public Comment: Jack Meehan, Tracy Manning, Wayne Iverson, Tom Leaver (read letter from Mark Bayne), Lois Roberts, Carol Stollorz, Myrna Hampton, Mark McDonald, Leslie Cooley, Amy White (Land Watch Executive Director) and attorney Molly Erickson (SOCNC) and Christine Williams.
All twelve public speakers spoke in support of the Planning Commission’s 29 June 2010 decision and against the rescinding of its 29 June 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments.
Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SOCNC) attorney Molly Erickson emphasized two paragraphs from a 7 October 2010 letter to the County from Mike Watson, Coastal Planner, California Coastal Commission, as follows:
“With regard to the necessary LCP amendments, we recommend that the County first submit any required LCP amendment requests, and wait until after the Commission has acted on them, before final consideration or action on a CDP for a project for the site. The project cannot be approved absent an LCP amendment, and the outcome of the LCP amendment deliberations will explicitly prescribe the appropriate form of development at this location (not the other way around), and thus the LCP amendment, including consideration of the broader planning context within which this project finds itself, must proceed ahead of project level CDP review.”
“Also as noted in the past, the Villas de Carmelo project is the largest to be proposed in the Carmel Area since certification of the LCP, and thus it requires careful and thoughtful consideration. In this respect, we continue to be concerned that some of the fundamental coastal resource issues raised by the project are not framed correctly in the RDEIR, and that this significantly compromises the utility of the document for purposes of LCP amendment and CDP analysis. Specifically, we do not believe that the DEIR accurately and appropriately analyzes the water supply, traffic, and land use issues associated with the project, and that the analysis of consistency with existing plans and policies is incorrect and incomplete.”
Erickson also emphasized a part of the 1982 Monterey County General Plan, Appendix A, Growth Management Policy, which states that residential densities can increase only with low and moderate housing provided; current Widewaters proposal includes only moderate income housing.
It was moved by Commissioner Padilla, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and passed by the following vote to rescind the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments.
AYES: Mendez, Salazar, Padilla, Rochester, Brown, Getzelman
NOES: Vandevere, Diehl, Hert, Roberts
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
It was moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Rochester, and passed by voice vote to conduct a public hearing on the LCP amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit and certification of the EIRs, provide direction to staff regarding findings and evidence and provide analysis and information on affordable housing options, consistency with the General Plan, water issues with regard to MPWMD, and continue the matter to 31 August 2011.
ADDENDUM:
District 1 (Urban Salinas including North, East, Central Salinas and parts of South Salinas): Jose Mendez and Aurelio Salazar, Jr.
District 2 (Aromas, Boronda, Castroville, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, North Salinas, Pajaro, Prunedale, and Royal Oaks): Don Rochester and Cosme Padilla
District 3 (East Salinas, Spreckels, Chualar, Greenfield, Gonzales, Ft. Hunter Liggett, King City, Soledad, Lake San Antonio, South County): Paul C. Getzelman (Chair) and Jay Brown
District 4 (Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Sand City, Seaside, Southwest Salinas): Amy Roberts and Luther Hert
District 5 (Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Monterey, Hwy 68, Las Palmas): Keith Vandevere and Martha Diehl
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, 10 August 2011, at 10:00 A.M., the Monterey County Planning Commission is scheduled to address Rigoulette LLC (Villas de Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) - PLN070497, specifically, consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments, consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments and if the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application. The Monterey County Planning Commission AGENDA is reproduced (minus F. SCHEDULED ITEMS 1. and 2.) and the AGENDA Packet of supporting documents is embedded. HIGHLIGHTS of the AGENDA Packet are presented. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
1) Consider rescinding the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments;
2a) If the continuance is not rescinded, conduct a hearing only on the LCP amendments; OR
2b) If the continuance is rescinded, conduct a public hearing on the LCP amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit, provide direction to staff, and continue the matter to a specific date.
Monterey County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Monterey County Government Center – Board of Supervisors Chambers
168 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
9:00 a.m.
Chair: Paul Getzelman
Vice-Chair: Amy Roberts
Secretary: Carl Holm
Commissioners:
Paul C. Getzelman Cosme Padilla
Jay Brown Aurelio Salazar, Jr
Amy Roberts Jose Mendez
Luther Hert Martha Diehl
Don Rochester Keith Vandevere
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. ROLL CALL
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
C. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, REQUESTS AND REFERRALS
F. SCHEDULED ITEMS
3. 10:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
Project Planner: Elizabeth Gonzales. Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report. Project Description: (Continued from July 27, 2011).
A) The Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way. The amendments generally consist of amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5) and amendments to the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan) (Chapter 20.146) to allow high-density residential development on the site;
B) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit (PLN070497/Rigoulette, LLC (Villas de Carmelo)) until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments. The Combined Development Permit includes: 1) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space; 2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; 3 units in garage shop; 3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 8 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units; 4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater; 5) Coastal Development permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and 6) Design Approval.
C) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission may conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application. The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 009 061 002 000, 009 061 003 000, 009 061 005 000), Carmel Area Land Use Plan area, Coastal Zone.
Recommended Action: 1) Consider rescinding the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments; 2A) If the continuance is not rescinded, conduct a hearing only on the LCP amendments OR 2B) If the continuance is rescinded, conduct a public hearing on the LCP Amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit, provide direction to staff, and continue the matter to a specific date.
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Villas de Carmelo 081011
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Villas de Carmelo 8 August 2011 Packet
HIGHLIGHTS OF AGENDA PACKET MATERIALS:
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMMISSION
Meeting: August 10, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Agenda Item No.: 3
Project Description:
A) The Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site...
B) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion which continued the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments...
C) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission may conduct a hearing on the Combined Development Permit application...
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
2) Consider rescinding the June 29, 2011 motion continuing the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments;
2a) If the continuance is not rescinded, conduct a hearing only on the LCP amendments; OR
2b) If the continuance is rescinded, conduct a public hearing on the LCP amendments and the application for the Combined Development Permit, provide direction to staff, and continue the matter to a specific date.
The report includes Exhibit A The Housing Advisory Committee’s (HAC) July 14, 2010 recommendation.
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOTES FROM HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
July 14, 2010
a) Consider a proposal from the Widewaters to comply with Inclusionary Ordinance for the Villas de Carmelo Project by paying an In-Lieu Fee: Ms. Noel provided background information related to the item. She noted that the HAC had reviewed several Inclusionary Housing Compliance proposals from the applicants on different occasions. Based on input received from the HAC and Staff, the applicants have decided to pursue compliance through a payment of an In-lieu fee of $2.5 Million. Ms. Noel provided an overview of challenges related to other forms of compliances for the project and noted that staff felt the in-lieu fee is the most appropriate for this type of project. Further, staff believes that the In-lieu fee of $2.5 million can be leveraged to assist a non-profit in constructing or rehabilitating affordable housing in the area. The applicants clarified that they would be providing 20% of the units actually approved as opposed to 9.2 units as mentioned at a previous HAC meeting. HAC members expressed their agreement in regard to using the in-lieu fee as leverage for affordable housing projects in the area. Mr. Ross asked about timing of the payment. Ms. Noel responded that the payment would need to be made or secured prior to the final map being recorded.
MOTION: Motion was made by Wayne Ross and seconded by Sarah Hardgrave to approve Widewaters’ proposal of paying an In-Lieu Fee as the form of Inclusionary Housing Compliance for the Villas de Carmelo Project.
VOTE:
AYES: English, Hardgrave, Ross, McShane and Cabatu
NAYS: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Boardman, Orozco, Lopez, and Robbins
G. OTHER MATTERS: Appointment: Del Monte Forest LUAC – Joella M. Szabo
H. DEPARTMENT REPORT
I. ADJOURNMENT
The Recommended Action indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared. That recommendation does not limit the Planning Commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.
BREAKS will be taken approximately at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION: Documents relating to agenda items that are distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Resource Management Agency – Planning and Building Services Departments, Monterey County Government Center , 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. Documents distributed by County staff at the meeting of the Planning Commission will be available at the meeting.
If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. For information regarding how, to whom and when a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting may make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation including auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions about any of the items listed on this agenda, please call the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department at (831) 755-5025.
ADDENDUM:
Live & Archived Video & MP3 Audio, Monterey County Planning Department
Meetings
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Monterey County Planning Commission, Villas de Carmelo: Planning Commission to Consider Rescinding its June 29, 2011 Motion to Continue Hearing on the Application for a Combined Development Permit and if Rescinded Consider Making a Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit
Carmel condos win back review
Plan to include moderate-income units passes muster with planners
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 08/04/2011
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 10:00 A.M., Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St., Salinas, the Monterey County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit and if rescinded consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit. The Notice of Public Hearing is reproduced.
Notice of Public Hearing
Monterey County Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Planning Commission, State of California will hold a Public Hearing to consider the actions described below. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St, Salinas, California, at which time and place any and all interested persons may appear and be heard thereon.
Owner: RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO)
Project File No: PLN070497
Project Location: Northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way
Permit Type: Local Coastal Program amendments and Combined Development Permit
Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report
Project Description:
1) The Planning commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way. The amendments generally consist of amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5) and amendments to the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan) (Chapter 20.146) to allow high-density residential development on the site;
2) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit (PLN070497/Rigoulete, LLC (Villas de Carmelo)). The Combined Development Permit includes:
1) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space;
2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; 3 units in garage shop;
3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 8 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units;
4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater;
5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and
6) Design Approval.
The June 29, 2011 motion continued the hearing on the Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments. The Planning Commission will consider rescinding that motion for continuance.
3) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit.
The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-111, 009-061-005-111), Carmel Area Land Use Plan Area, Coastal Zone.
An Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project identified potentially significant environmental impacts to the following resources: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, Water. Subsequently, the project was changed, or measures have been attached to the project that cause all identified impacts to be mitigated below a level of significance.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS MATTER IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS PUBLIC NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AT OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner
Monterey County Resource Management Agency-Planning Department
168 West Alisal St, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA, 93901
831-755-5102 or gonzalese@co.monterey.ca.us
Plan to include moderate-income units passes muster with planners
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 08/04/2011
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 10:00 A.M., Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St., Salinas, the Monterey County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit and if rescinded consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit. The Notice of Public Hearing is reproduced.
Notice of Public Hearing
Monterey County Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Planning Commission, State of California will hold a Public Hearing to consider the actions described below. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St, Salinas, California, at which time and place any and all interested persons may appear and be heard thereon.
Owner: RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO)
Project File No: PLN070497
Project Location: Northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way
Permit Type: Local Coastal Program amendments and Combined Development Permit
Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report
Project Description:
1) The Planning commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way. The amendments generally consist of amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5) and amendments to the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan) (Chapter 20.146) to allow high-density residential development on the site;
2) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit (PLN070497/Rigoulete, LLC (Villas de Carmelo)). The Combined Development Permit includes:
1) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space;
2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; 3 units in garage shop;
3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 8 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units;
4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater;
5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and
6) Design Approval.
The June 29, 2011 motion continued the hearing on the Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments. The Planning Commission will consider rescinding that motion for continuance.
3) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit.
The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-111, 009-061-005-111), Carmel Area Land Use Plan Area, Coastal Zone.
An Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project identified potentially significant environmental impacts to the following resources: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, Water. Subsequently, the project was changed, or measures have been attached to the project that cause all identified impacts to be mitigated below a level of significance.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS MATTER IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS PUBLIC NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AT OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner
Monterey County Resource Management Agency-Planning Department
168 West Alisal St, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA, 93901
831-755-5102 or gonzalese@co.monterey.ca.us
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Monterey County Planning Commission, Villas de Carmelo: Staff Recommends ‘Adopt a Resolution to Recommend Denial to the Board of Supervisors of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan’
UPDATE:
• ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Brown, Vandevere, Roberts, Salazar, Getzelman, Mendez, Diehl, Padilla, Hert
Absent: Commissioner Rochester
• Public Comment: Eleven speakers addressed the Planning Commission; all supported the resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors, including Wayne Iversen, Mark McDonald, Lynn Patton, Nelson French (SOCNC), Lois Roberts, Jon Blades, Michael LePage, Leslie Cooley, Mark Bayne (SOCNC), Amy White (LandWatch Executive Director) and Molly Erickson, attorney representing Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SOCNC).
• It was moved by Commissioner Diehl, seconded by Commissioner Vandevere, and failed by the following vote to adopt resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors, including changes such as deletion of paragraphs 12 and 14.
AYES: Roberts, Hert, Diehl, Vandevere
NOES: Brown, Padilla, Salazar, Mendez, Getzelman
ABSENT: Rochester
ABSTAIN: None
Note: Commissioner Padilla changed his vote from 29 June 2011 Planning Commission meeting; his rational was that since Widewaters was willing to include affordable housing in the project instead of the in-lieu fee of $2.5 million, even though the County’s policy mandates 20% of total units must be affordable housing, of which 6% very low income, 6% low income and 8% moderate. Applicant Widewaters intents all affordable units be moderate income.
• It was moved by Commissioner Padilla, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and passed by the following vote to place on the August 10, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda rescinding of the 29 June 2011 Planning Commission decision and continue to the August 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting agenda item on LCP Amendments, Combined Development Permit and EIRs.
AYES: Brown, Padilla, Salazar, Mendez, Getzelman
NOES: Roberts, Hert, Diehl, Vandevere
ABSENT: Rochester
ABSTAIN: None
• Monterey County Planning Department Meetings Video, MP3 Audio
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, 27 July 2011, at 10:00 A.M., the Monterey County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Agenda Item Rigoulette LLC (Villas de Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) - PLN070497. The Staff’s Recommended Action is to “Adopt resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors.” The AGENDA is reproduced minus three other SCHEDULED ITEMS scheduled for 9:00 A.M. County supporting materials are embedded. HIGHLIGHTS, including the text of the RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS OF COUNTY CODE, are presented.
Monterey County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Monterey County Government Center – Board of Supervisors Chambers
168 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
9:00 a.m.
Chair: Paul Getzelman
Vice-Chair: Amy Roberts
Secretary: Mike Novo
Commissioners:
Paul C. Getzelman Cosme Padilla
Jay Brown Aurelio Salazar, Jr
Amy Roberts Jose Mendez
Luther Hert Martha Diehl
Don Rochester Keith Vandevere
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. ROLL CALL
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
C. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, REQUESTS AND REFERRALS
F. SCHEDULED ITEMS
3. 10:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
Project Planner: Elizabeth Gonzales. Environmental Status: Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared. Project Description: (Continued from June 29, 2011) Adopt a Resolution to Recommend Denial to the Board of Supervisors of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards). The address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 009 061 002 000, 009 061 003 000, 009 061 005 000), Coastal Zone. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors.
G. OTHER MATTERS: NONE
H. DEPARTMENT REPORT
I. ADJOURNMENT
The Recommended Action indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared. That recommendation does not limit the Planning Commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.
BREAKS will be taken approximately at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION: Documents relating to agenda items that are distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Resource Management Agency – Planning and Building Services Departments, Monterey County Government Center , 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. Documents distributed by County staff at the meeting of the Planning Commission will be available at the meeting.
If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. For information regarding how, to whom and when a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting may make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation including auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions about any of the items listed on this agenda, please call the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department at (831) 755-5025.
Monterey County Planning Commission Villas de Carmelo 7-27-11
RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
HIGHLIGHTS:
• RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to Recommend Denial to the Board of Supervisors of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards).
• The in-lieu fee for Inclusionary housing for this project was an issue for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt a proposal for an LCP Amendment to allow higher density residential zoning in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan could create an opportunity to provide affordable on-site housing.
• Questions raised by the Commission were: 1) What would the projected forecast for growth in Monterey County be; and 2) How many vacant lots are located in Carmel Area Land Use Plan that could potentially provide the benefit of affordable housing with a higher density residential zoning.
• The Planning Commission continued the hearing to July 27, 2011 in order to adopt a resolution recommending denial of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Vandevere further recommended that the Commission would like to see a broader-based analysis of introducing High Density zoning into an LCP Amendment with a requirement of an affordable housing overlay that would ensure actual construction of affordable housing into those areas designated for high density zoning. There is currently no mechanism for ensuring affordable housing under a recommended increased zoning density.
• EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS OF COUNTY CODE
PLN070497/VILLAS DE CARMELO
Before the Planning Commission in and for the County of Monterey, State of California
Resolution of the Monterey County
Planning Commission recommending:
1) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendments to the Carmel Area Land use Plan; and
2) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the attached ordinance to amend the Coastal Implementation Plan.
(PLN070497, Rigoulette, LLC (Villas de Carmelo) 24945 Valley Way, Carmel Area land Use Plan (APN: 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000, 009-061-005-000)
Denials of Amendments to Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development) of the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4, (Title 20 of the Monterey County Code), to allow adaptive reuse of the historic Carmel Convalescent Hospital and infill residential development came on for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 27, 2011. Having considered all the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the amendments to the Carmel Area land Use Plan and coastal Implementation Plan with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
1. Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code requires each county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of each county.
2. On September 30, 1982, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey (“County”) adopted a county-wide General Plan (“General Plan”) pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development law.
3. Section 30500 of the public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction.
4. On October 19, 1982, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (“Land Use Plan”) as part of the Local Coastal Program in the Coastal Zone pursuant the California Coastal Act. This separate mandate replaces policy guidance for most policy topics found in the General Plan and is applied in the Coastal Zone. The primary policy topics of noise and housing (to include other minor Monterey County specific policies) are not addressed under the LCP-Coastal Act mandate, and therefore those aspects of the 1982 General Plan not covered by the Land Use Plan, are still applicable in the Coastal Zone under Planning and Zoning law.
5. On April 14, 1983, the California Coastal Commission acknowledged certification of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (“Land Use Plan”) as part of Monterey County’s Local Coastal Program.
6. On January 5, 2988, Monterey County adopted the Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) of the LCP to implement the Carmel Area Land Use Plan consistent with Section 30512.1 of the Public Resources Code.
7. Figure 1 (Land Use Plan) of the “Land Use Plan” in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan provides a graphic representation of the general distribution, location, extent and intensity and land uses and transportation routes in this planning area.
8. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq., the County may amend the adopted Local Coastal Program provided the County follows certain procedures, including that the County Planning Commission hold a noticed public hearing and make a written recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendment of the coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code provides for amendments to adopted LCPs. On October 23, 1984, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted procedures for amending the LCP-CIP.
9. On June 29, 2011, the Monterey County Planning Commission considered Combined Development Permit to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way, with a 46-unti condominium project. The Combined Development Permit consists of: 1) Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space; 2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; and convert existing garage/shop building into three condominium units; 3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct eight buildings for a total of 46 condominium units; 4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater; 5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and 6) Design Approval. The development of the property, as proposed, would require amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP), specifically the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP) and Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP). In order to accommodate the proposed density, the Carmel Area LUP and CIP must be amended to include a new land use classification that would allow high density residential uses. Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan included:
a. Specific Policies 2.2.4.6. The existing forested corridor along Highway 1 shall be maintained as a scenic resource and natural screen for existing and new development. New development along Highway 1 shall be sufficiently set back to preserve the forested corridor effect and minimize visual impact. All new development on the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site shall include landscaping to screen the development from Highway 1.
b. Policy 4.4.3.E.15
The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property may be developed for residential use. A maximum of 46 units may be approved. The units shall be screened from Highway 1 through implementation of a landscape plan along the entire Highway 1 property frontage.
c. Policy 4.4.3.E.2
E. Residential
2. Medium-density residential development shall be directed to existing residential areas where urban services – water, sewers, roads, public transit fire protection, etc. – are available. The density for new subdivision is two units per acre except for the Portola Corporation property in Carmel Meadows and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital property adjacent to Highway 1. The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property the only property that may be developed for high density residential use subject to Policy 4.4.3.E.15. As a condition of development of the Portola property, covenants must be recorded acknowledging agricultural use on the adjacent parcel and holding the owner (State) harmless for any nuisance due to the agricultural use.
d. Policy 4.5H
H. Medium/High – Density Residential
Medium-density residential development is the primary use. The density for new subdivision is 2 units per acre, except on the Mission Ranch property where a density of 4 units per acre may be allowed subject to section 4.4.3.F.1, Odello (162 units) subject to section 14.4.3.F.4 and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site where (a maximum of 46) residential units are allowed subject to Policy 4.4.3.E.15.
3) Amend 3.68 acres located at 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000, and 009-061-005-000) in the Carmel Area Land Use Map from the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre) to HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre).
10. The Planning Commission did not think the LCP Amendments should be considered with the proposed project. They did not want to see the project tied to the request for an LCP Amendment. They wanted to be able to discuss the merits of an LCP Amendment separately. They determined that taking the land use component forward to the Board first before getting into the project would be appropriate. Hence, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the Combined Development Permit until after a Resolution/determination was made on the LCP Amendments by the Coastal Commission. They also adopted a Resolution of Intent to recommend denial of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Board of Supervisors and continued the public hearing to July 27, 2011.
11. As part of the technical analysis to the LCP Amendments, the Final EIR for the Villas de Carmelo will be attached to the Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors deny the request to amend Monterey County’s Local Coastal Program.
12. All policies of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan have been review by the Planning Department staff to ensure that the proposed amendments maintain the compatibility and internal consistency of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan.
13. On June 29, 2011, the Monterey County Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan. At least 10 days before the first public hearing date, notices of the hearing before the Planning Commission were published in both the Monterey County Herald and The Californian and were posted on and near the property and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to recommend denial of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Board of Supervisors and continued the public hearing to July 27, 2011.
14. This amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519).
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby:
1) Recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use plan; and
2) Recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the attached Ordinance to amend the Coastal Implementation Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______day of_________upon motion of__________, seconded by________________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mike Novo, Secretary
• ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Brown, Vandevere, Roberts, Salazar, Getzelman, Mendez, Diehl, Padilla, Hert
Absent: Commissioner Rochester
• Public Comment: Eleven speakers addressed the Planning Commission; all supported the resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors, including Wayne Iversen, Mark McDonald, Lynn Patton, Nelson French (SOCNC), Lois Roberts, Jon Blades, Michael LePage, Leslie Cooley, Mark Bayne (SOCNC), Amy White (LandWatch Executive Director) and Molly Erickson, attorney representing Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition (SOCNC).
• It was moved by Commissioner Diehl, seconded by Commissioner Vandevere, and failed by the following vote to adopt resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors, including changes such as deletion of paragraphs 12 and 14.
AYES: Roberts, Hert, Diehl, Vandevere
NOES: Brown, Padilla, Salazar, Mendez, Getzelman
ABSENT: Rochester
ABSTAIN: None
Note: Commissioner Padilla changed his vote from 29 June 2011 Planning Commission meeting; his rational was that since Widewaters was willing to include affordable housing in the project instead of the in-lieu fee of $2.5 million, even though the County’s policy mandates 20% of total units must be affordable housing, of which 6% very low income, 6% low income and 8% moderate. Applicant Widewaters intents all affordable units be moderate income.
• It was moved by Commissioner Padilla, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and passed by the following vote to place on the August 10, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda rescinding of the 29 June 2011 Planning Commission decision and continue to the August 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting agenda item on LCP Amendments, Combined Development Permit and EIRs.
AYES: Brown, Padilla, Salazar, Mendez, Getzelman
NOES: Roberts, Hert, Diehl, Vandevere
ABSENT: Rochester
ABSTAIN: None
• Monterey County Planning Department Meetings Video, MP3 Audio
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, 27 July 2011, at 10:00 A.M., the Monterey County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Agenda Item Rigoulette LLC (Villas de Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) - PLN070497. The Staff’s Recommended Action is to “Adopt resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors.” The AGENDA is reproduced minus three other SCHEDULED ITEMS scheduled for 9:00 A.M. County supporting materials are embedded. HIGHLIGHTS, including the text of the RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS OF COUNTY CODE, are presented.
Monterey County Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Monterey County Government Center – Board of Supervisors Chambers
168 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
9:00 a.m.
Chair: Paul Getzelman
Vice-Chair: Amy Roberts
Secretary: Mike Novo
Commissioners:
Paul C. Getzelman Cosme Padilla
Jay Brown Aurelio Salazar, Jr
Amy Roberts Jose Mendez
Luther Hert Martha Diehl
Don Rochester Keith Vandevere
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. ROLL CALL
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
C. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, REQUESTS AND REFERRALS
F. SCHEDULED ITEMS
3. 10:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
Project Planner: Elizabeth Gonzales. Environmental Status: Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared. Project Description: (Continued from June 29, 2011) Adopt a Resolution to Recommend Denial to the Board of Supervisors of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards). The address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 009 061 002 000, 009 061 003 000, 009 061 005 000), Coastal Zone. Recommended Action: Adopt resolution recommending denial of Local Coastal Program Amendments to Board of Supervisors.
G. OTHER MATTERS: NONE
H. DEPARTMENT REPORT
I. ADJOURNMENT
The Recommended Action indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared. That recommendation does not limit the Planning Commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.
BREAKS will be taken approximately at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION: Documents relating to agenda items that are distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Resource Management Agency – Planning and Building Services Departments, Monterey County Government Center , 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. Documents distributed by County staff at the meeting of the Planning Commission will be available at the meeting.
If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. For information regarding how, to whom and when a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting may make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation including auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions about any of the items listed on this agenda, please call the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department at (831) 755-5025.
Monterey County Planning Commission Villas de Carmelo 7-27-11
RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
HIGHLIGHTS:
• RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to Recommend Denial to the Board of Supervisors of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards).
• The in-lieu fee for Inclusionary housing for this project was an issue for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission felt a proposal for an LCP Amendment to allow higher density residential zoning in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan could create an opportunity to provide affordable on-site housing.
• Questions raised by the Commission were: 1) What would the projected forecast for growth in Monterey County be; and 2) How many vacant lots are located in Carmel Area Land Use Plan that could potentially provide the benefit of affordable housing with a higher density residential zoning.
• The Planning Commission continued the hearing to July 27, 2011 in order to adopt a resolution recommending denial of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Vandevere further recommended that the Commission would like to see a broader-based analysis of introducing High Density zoning into an LCP Amendment with a requirement of an affordable housing overlay that would ensure actual construction of affordable housing into those areas designated for high density zoning. There is currently no mechanism for ensuring affordable housing under a recommended increased zoning density.
• EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS OF COUNTY CODE
PLN070497/VILLAS DE CARMELO
Before the Planning Commission in and for the County of Monterey, State of California
Resolution of the Monterey County
Planning Commission recommending:
1) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendments to the Carmel Area Land use Plan; and
2) the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the attached ordinance to amend the Coastal Implementation Plan.
(PLN070497, Rigoulette, LLC (Villas de Carmelo) 24945 Valley Way, Carmel Area land Use Plan (APN: 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000, 009-061-005-000)
Denials of Amendments to Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development) of the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4, (Title 20 of the Monterey County Code), to allow adaptive reuse of the historic Carmel Convalescent Hospital and infill residential development came on for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 27, 2011. Having considered all the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the amendments to the Carmel Area land Use Plan and coastal Implementation Plan with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
1. Section 65300 et seq. of the California Government Code requires each county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of each county.
2. On September 30, 1982, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey (“County”) adopted a county-wide General Plan (“General Plan”) pursuant to California Planning, Zoning and Development law.
3. Section 30500 of the public Resources Code requires each County and City to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction.
4. On October 19, 1982, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (“Land Use Plan”) as part of the Local Coastal Program in the Coastal Zone pursuant the California Coastal Act. This separate mandate replaces policy guidance for most policy topics found in the General Plan and is applied in the Coastal Zone. The primary policy topics of noise and housing (to include other minor Monterey County specific policies) are not addressed under the LCP-Coastal Act mandate, and therefore those aspects of the 1982 General Plan not covered by the Land Use Plan, are still applicable in the Coastal Zone under Planning and Zoning law.
5. On April 14, 1983, the California Coastal Commission acknowledged certification of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (“Land Use Plan”) as part of Monterey County’s Local Coastal Program.
6. On January 5, 2988, Monterey County adopted the Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) of the LCP to implement the Carmel Area Land Use Plan consistent with Section 30512.1 of the Public Resources Code.
7. Figure 1 (Land Use Plan) of the “Land Use Plan” in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan provides a graphic representation of the general distribution, location, extent and intensity and land uses and transportation routes in this planning area.
8. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq., the County may amend the adopted Local Coastal Program provided the County follows certain procedures, including that the County Planning Commission hold a noticed public hearing and make a written recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendment of the coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) portion of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Section 30514 of the Public Resources Code provides for amendments to adopted LCPs. On October 23, 1984, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted procedures for amending the LCP-CIP.
9. On June 29, 2011, the Monterey County Planning Commission considered Combined Development Permit to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way, with a 46-unti condominium project. The Combined Development Permit consists of: 1) Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space; 2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; and convert existing garage/shop building into three condominium units; 3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct eight buildings for a total of 46 condominium units; 4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater; 5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and 6) Design Approval. The development of the property, as proposed, would require amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP), specifically the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP) and Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP). In order to accommodate the proposed density, the Carmel Area LUP and CIP must be amended to include a new land use classification that would allow high density residential uses. Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan included:
a. Specific Policies 2.2.4.6. The existing forested corridor along Highway 1 shall be maintained as a scenic resource and natural screen for existing and new development. New development along Highway 1 shall be sufficiently set back to preserve the forested corridor effect and minimize visual impact. All new development on the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site shall include landscaping to screen the development from Highway 1.
b. Policy 4.4.3.E.15
The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property may be developed for residential use. A maximum of 46 units may be approved. The units shall be screened from Highway 1 through implementation of a landscape plan along the entire Highway 1 property frontage.
c. Policy 4.4.3.E.2
E. Residential
2. Medium-density residential development shall be directed to existing residential areas where urban services – water, sewers, roads, public transit fire protection, etc. – are available. The density for new subdivision is two units per acre except for the Portola Corporation property in Carmel Meadows and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital property adjacent to Highway 1. The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property the only property that may be developed for high density residential use subject to Policy 4.4.3.E.15. As a condition of development of the Portola property, covenants must be recorded acknowledging agricultural use on the adjacent parcel and holding the owner (State) harmless for any nuisance due to the agricultural use.
d. Policy 4.5H
H. Medium/High – Density Residential
Medium-density residential development is the primary use. The density for new subdivision is 2 units per acre, except on the Mission Ranch property where a density of 4 units per acre may be allowed subject to section 4.4.3.F.1, Odello (162 units) subject to section 14.4.3.F.4 and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site where (a maximum of 46) residential units are allowed subject to Policy 4.4.3.E.15.
3) Amend 3.68 acres located at 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000, and 009-061-005-000) in the Carmel Area Land Use Map from the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre) to HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre).
10. The Planning Commission did not think the LCP Amendments should be considered with the proposed project. They did not want to see the project tied to the request for an LCP Amendment. They wanted to be able to discuss the merits of an LCP Amendment separately. They determined that taking the land use component forward to the Board first before getting into the project would be appropriate. Hence, the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the Combined Development Permit until after a Resolution/determination was made on the LCP Amendments by the Coastal Commission. They also adopted a Resolution of Intent to recommend denial of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Board of Supervisors and continued the public hearing to July 27, 2011.
11. As part of the technical analysis to the LCP Amendments, the Final EIR for the Villas de Carmelo will be attached to the Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors deny the request to amend Monterey County’s Local Coastal Program.
12. All policies of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan have been review by the Planning Department staff to ensure that the proposed amendments maintain the compatibility and internal consistency of the General Plan and the Land Use Plan.
13. On June 29, 2011, the Monterey County Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider amending the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan. At least 10 days before the first public hearing date, notices of the hearing before the Planning Commission were published in both the Monterey County Herald and The Californian and were posted on and near the property and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to recommend denial of the proposed LCP Amendments to the Board of Supervisors and continued the public hearing to July 27, 2011.
14. This amendment is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513, and 30519).
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby:
1) Recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use plan; and
2) Recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, deny the attached Ordinance to amend the Coastal Implementation Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______day of_________upon motion of__________, seconded by________________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mike Novo, Secretary
Thursday, June 30, 2011
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Motion of Intent to Deny LCP Amendment for Villas de Carmelo Project Passes 5-4
ABSTRACT: At the Monterey County Planning Commission meeting on 29 June 2011, Planning Commissioners were scheduled to consider an LCP Amendment to change the existing zoning of the 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property (Villas de Carmelo proposed project site) from Medium Density Residential (MDR; 2 units/acre) to High Density Residential (HDR; 12.5 units/acre) to allow a maximum of 46 units to be approved and the Project, including the Environmental Impact Reports and Subdivision/Permits. The Planning Staff gave the Villas de Carmelo project presentation, including the Process involving the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, which will consider the LCP Amendment only, then onto the California Coastal Commission to consider the LCP Amendment, then only if the LCP Amendment is approved by the Coastal Commission to the Board of Supervisors for consideration of the Villas de Carmelo project. The Coastal Commission has appeal authority. Kevin Kane, Development Manager, Widewaters, then presented their Villas de Carmelo project; he emphasized the rehabilitation and restoration of the historic landmark hospital, smart growth principles, TAMC regional traffic improvements and the $2.5 million affordable housing in-lieu fee. Members of the public then addressed the project. During the pubic comment period, twenty –seven members addressed the Planning Commissioners, including, but not limited to, Myrna Hampton (SOCNC), David Armanasco, Barbara Livingston (President, Carmel Residents Association), Michael LePage, Liz Logan Rondelle, Mark Bayne (SOCNC), Mark McDonald, Nelson French (SOCNC), Bonnie Gillooly, Jack Meheen, Beverly Borgman, Lois Roberts, Mike Patton, Carol Stollorz, Wayne Iverson, Yoko Whitaker (Former Planning Commission Chair, Carmel-by-the-Sea), Barbara Rainer, Christine Jensen, Leslie Cooley, Richard Warren, Barbara Warren, Amy White (Executive Director, Land Watch) and Molly Erickson (attorney representing Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition SOCNC); twenty-five members of the public spoke against the project and two members of the public spoke in support of the project. Public speakers advocating for the denial of the project voiced concerns about the proposed zoning change from MDR (2 units/acre) to HDR (12.5 units/acre), the dangerous precedent set for future HDR projects, a “domino effect” of other HDR projects in the future; the mass and bulk of the three story, 30' high buildings and project buildings “out-of-scale” with the surrounding neighborhood residences; the project’s incompatibility with the character of the neighborhood; and safety issues related to increased traffic on Valley Way, et cetera. After over five hours of presentations, public comment and Planning Commission deliberation on the proposed Villas de Carmelo project, the Planning Commission voted 5-4 on a motion of intent by Commissioner Martha Diehl to deny the LCP Amendment for the Villas de Carmelo project (AYES Commissioners Diehl, Hert, Padilla, Roberts, Vandevere and NOES Commissioners Brown, Mendez, Salazar, Getzelman). Another motion to continue hearing on the combined development permit until the California Coastal Commission makes a determination on the proposed LCP Amendment passed unanimously. A final motion was unanimously approved to consider a Resolution to deny the LCP Amendment at the Planning Commission’s 27 July 2011 meeting.
ANALYSIS:
During Planning Commission deliberation, the issue of whether or not HDR (High Density Residential) zoning, which currently in not a zone in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, should be discussed as a separate issue or in the context of the proposed project was discussed. Additionally, the Commission was divided on on-site inclusionary housing versus in lieu fee for the affordable housing requirement. One of the most compelling arguments against the project was made by SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson; Erickson presented a part of Appendix A, Monterey County Growth Management Policy, Low and Moderate Income Housing, MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (1982) (the controlling General Plan for this project) and quoted the relevant section, as follows: The General Plan (the “Constitution”) policy allows increases in residential density “only where such increase is determined to provide for low and moderate income housing needs.” In other words, the General Plan contains the requirement for on-site affordable housing, but the project has no on-site inclusionary housing and that violation of the General Plan mandates that the Planning Commission deny the project as proposed. (Note: For this project, 9.2 inclusionary units require nine units on-site and .2 in lieu fee.) Whereas, one of the strongest arguments in support of the proposed project was made by Commissioner Brown; Brown stated that the existing MDR zoning did not fit with the surrounding area and MDR zoning was imposed on the County by the Coastal Commission. And Kevin Kane presented a visual outlay of densities (residences on lots in the vicinity) and stated that HDR (12.5 units/acre) was compatible with the surrounding county area and Carmel-by-the-Sea community which allows for densities of up to 11 units/acre. Other significant issues deliberated included whether the baseline is the amount of water used at the time of the Notice of Preparation (2008) or the historical record of water use by the hospital in 2005 and perceived traffic impacts versus real traffic impacts and traffic impacts compared to the time of hospital operation versus traffic impacts compared to the recent past and present.
REFERENCE:
MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (1982)
APPENDIX A
MONTEREY COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
Low and Moderate Income Housing
A managed growth program must consider, and provide for, the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Toward this goal, it is the County’s intent to increase residential densities in designated growth areas over those indicated as land use designations of the County General Plan. Residential densities may be increased only where such increase is determined to provide for low and moderate income housing needs and is in accord with environmental, health, and safety provisions, and where such increase in density is not unduly excessive and does not violate policies of the elements of the General Plan.
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
AFFORDABILITY: The ability of low and moderate income households to accommodate housing costs without having to pay a disproportionate share of their income. Those households occupying housing units whose housing costs are greater than 25% to 30% of their gross income are considered to be "overpaying."
ADDENDUM:
Archived Video & MP3 Audio
Monterey County Regular Planning Commission
Wednesday, July 29, 2011 9:00 A.M.
News Articles
Zoning change rejected for hospital condos, CHRIS COUNTS, The Carmel Pine Cone, July 1, 2011
Carmel condominium rezoning opposed by planners
Planning Commission recommends denial, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 06/30/2011
News Blog
Neighbors Balk as Villas de Carmelo Heads to Planning Commission By Kera.Abraham June 22, 2011
ANALYSIS:
During Planning Commission deliberation, the issue of whether or not HDR (High Density Residential) zoning, which currently in not a zone in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, should be discussed as a separate issue or in the context of the proposed project was discussed. Additionally, the Commission was divided on on-site inclusionary housing versus in lieu fee for the affordable housing requirement. One of the most compelling arguments against the project was made by SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson; Erickson presented a part of Appendix A, Monterey County Growth Management Policy, Low and Moderate Income Housing, MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (1982) (the controlling General Plan for this project) and quoted the relevant section, as follows: The General Plan (the “Constitution”) policy allows increases in residential density “only where such increase is determined to provide for low and moderate income housing needs.” In other words, the General Plan contains the requirement for on-site affordable housing, but the project has no on-site inclusionary housing and that violation of the General Plan mandates that the Planning Commission deny the project as proposed. (Note: For this project, 9.2 inclusionary units require nine units on-site and .2 in lieu fee.) Whereas, one of the strongest arguments in support of the proposed project was made by Commissioner Brown; Brown stated that the existing MDR zoning did not fit with the surrounding area and MDR zoning was imposed on the County by the Coastal Commission. And Kevin Kane presented a visual outlay of densities (residences on lots in the vicinity) and stated that HDR (12.5 units/acre) was compatible with the surrounding county area and Carmel-by-the-Sea community which allows for densities of up to 11 units/acre. Other significant issues deliberated included whether the baseline is the amount of water used at the time of the Notice of Preparation (2008) or the historical record of water use by the hospital in 2005 and perceived traffic impacts versus real traffic impacts and traffic impacts compared to the time of hospital operation versus traffic impacts compared to the recent past and present.
REFERENCE:
MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (1982)
APPENDIX A
MONTEREY COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
Low and Moderate Income Housing
A managed growth program must consider, and provide for, the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Toward this goal, it is the County’s intent to increase residential densities in designated growth areas over those indicated as land use designations of the County General Plan. Residential densities may be increased only where such increase is determined to provide for low and moderate income housing needs and is in accord with environmental, health, and safety provisions, and where such increase in density is not unduly excessive and does not violate policies of the elements of the General Plan.
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
AFFORDABILITY: The ability of low and moderate income households to accommodate housing costs without having to pay a disproportionate share of their income. Those households occupying housing units whose housing costs are greater than 25% to 30% of their gross income are considered to be "overpaying."
ADDENDUM:
Archived Video & MP3 Audio
Monterey County Regular Planning Commission
Wednesday, July 29, 2011 9:00 A.M.
News Articles
Zoning change rejected for hospital condos, CHRIS COUNTS, The Carmel Pine Cone, July 1, 2011
Carmel condominium rezoning opposed by planners
Planning Commission recommends denial, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 06/30/2011
News Blog
Neighbors Balk as Villas de Carmelo Heads to Planning Commission By Kera.Abraham June 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)