|
|
April 9, 2001
Dave Van Etten
Director of Planning and Building Inspection
City of King City
City Hall
212 South Vanderhurst Avenue
King City, CA 93930 [Sent By FAX:
831-385-6887]
RE: Meyer & Mills Ranch Pre-Zoning and
Annexation
Comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Dear Mr. Van Etten:
Thank you for sending LandWatch a copy of the
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report on the
proposed Meyer & Mills Ranch Pre-Zoning and
Annexation. Incidentally, you mailed the Revised
Draft EIR to an outdated address in Pacific Grove.
I would appreciate it if you would be sure that
your files reflect our current address in Salinas,
as shown above.
LandWatch has the following comments on the
Revised Draft EIR:
- Because this Revised Draft EIR is intended
to provide CEQA compliance for a proposed
pre-zoning and annexation, it should explicitly
consider the provisions of the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000, beginning at
California Government Code Section 56000.
Specific focus should be placed on a discussion
of the factors mentioned in Section 56301:
"Among the purposes of a commission are
discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space
and prime agricultural lands, efficiently
providing government services, and encouraging
the orderly formation and development of local
agencies based upon local conditions and
circumstances." In addition, the final EIR
should specifically consider the requirements
contained in the written policies and procedures
adopted by the Monterey County Local Agency
Formation Commission, pursuant to the Act. We do
not believe that the project description and
CEQA analysis contained in the Revised Draft EIR
fully describes and considers these important
matters.
- On pages S-1 to S-2, the Revised Draft EIR
claims that the project is partially generated
by "the involvement of the Monterey County
Agricultural and Historic Land
Conservancy…together with the American
Farmland Trust." The final EIR should indicate
that the redesignation of the affected parcels
for non-agricultural uses, their annexation to
the city and subsequent development are in no
way necessary to allow the creation of an
agricultural greenbelt on the north side of King
City. In fact, the proposed project will make
the establishment of such a greenbelt more
problematic, because it will place uses
incompatible with continued agricultural use in
immediate proximity to agricultural land.
Conservation easements for the permanent
protection of agriculture can occur on lands
designated for agriculture, and there is no need
to rezone and annex such lands, to allow
conservation-directed activities to take place.
The final EIR must consider alternatives that
would achieve this part of the described reason
for the project without the need for conversion,
annexation, and development of prime
agricultural lands.
- On page S-2, the project description
indicates that a 77-acre parcel (part of the
Meyer Ranch) would be designated "Agriculture."
The description should indicate that the
project, in fact, is not only to designate the
parcel "Agriculture," but also to restrict
future uses on the property, by the creation of
an agricultural conservation easement on the
property, to be effective in perpetuity. As
noted above, the redesignation, annexation, and
proposed redevelopment of the lands indicated
for non-agricultural use in no way facilitate
continued agricultural productivity&emdash;and
the final EIR ought explicitly to require that
any approval for the project as proposed include
the creation of an appropriate agricultural
easement, held by a third party, and not the
city, and granted in perpetuity.
- On page S-3, the project description
indicates that a 300-acre parcel (part of the
Mills Ranch) would be designated "Agriculture."
The description should indicate that the
project, in fact, is not only to designate the
parcel "Agriculture," but also to restrict
future uses on the property, by the creation of
an agricultural conservation easement on the
property, to be effective in perpetuity. As
noted above, the redesignation, annexation, and
proposed redevelopment of the lands indicated
for non-agricultural use in no way facilitate
continued agricultural productivity&emdash;and
the final EIR ought explicitly to require that
any approval for the project as proposed include
the creation of an appropriate agricultural
easement, held by a third party, and not the
city, and granted in perpetuity.
- On page S-3, the Revised Draft EIR indicates
that a 377-acre "agricultural reserve" would be
created beyond the edge of the community. Again,
the final EIR should make explicit (either as
part of an accurate project description or as a
required mitigation measure) that the 377 acres
must be permanently protected for agricultural
use by the creation of an appropriate
agricultural easement, held by a third party,
and not the city, and granted in perpetuity.
- On pages S-3 and S-4, the project
description indicates that the 800 housing units
proposed as part of the project would be "spread
over both the Meyer and the Mills
properties…." This suggests that the
project is not proposing the most efficient use
of the lands to be converted to non-agricultural
use. Because the conversion of viable and
productive agricultural land is a major adverse
impact, the final EIR must examine every
possible way to eliminate or mitigate the
negative impacts, and to achieve the purposes
spelled out in state law. The Revised Draft EIR
fails to consider alternatives that could reduce
the amount of agricultural land necessary to be
converted to non-agricultural use, by using the
lands proposed for conversion more efficiently.
Again, the language on pages S-3 and S-4 seem to
indicate that the proposal is to go in exactly
the opposite direction. The final EIR must
address this proposal much more seriously, and
with a much more thorough analysis of
alternatives and possible mitigation
measures.
- The Revised Draft EIR does not consider how
the establishment of required buffers could help
mitigate or eliminate impacts on the land to
remain in agriculture. A thorough analysis of
how to structure required buffers needs to be
part of the final EIR.
- On pages S-7 and S-8, the Revised Draft EIR
again indicates that the project includes a
General Plan amendment that would lead to the
less efficient use of agricultural lands that
are proposed to be converted to non-agricultural
uses. The Final EIR must fully analyze and
describe ways to eliminate such negative
impacts.
- In its discussion of "Agricultural Lands,"
on pages S-7 and S-8, the Revised Draft EIR does
not undertake any kind of economic analysis,
outlining the expected effects of the
elimination commercial agriculture on
approximately 193 acres of highly productive
agricultural land, accompanied by new
residential and other development that will
create a new demand for city services, and that
will increase city costs. Prior to any
annexation (and this EIR is supposed to cover
that part of the proposed project) it must be
demonstrated that the project complies with
state law and local LAFCO requirements.
Furthermore, significant physical and
environmental effects can be expected as a
result of the economic changes that the proposed
project would cause. Generally speaking, Salinas
Valley agricultural land produces gross revenue
of approximately $10,000 per acre per
year&emdash;or approximately $2 million per year
in this case. This is the amount of gross
revenue that would be lost to the local economy.
Urban development, particularly residential
development as contemplated in this project,
usually results in increased local costs. The
final EIR should analyze these economic factors,
and should specifically investigate whether the
new net costs that will undoubtedly be placed on
King City if the project goes forward will
result in negative environmental impacts within
the City&emdash;as, for instance, in reduced
street maintenance or parks maintenance, because
of new demands on the city's treasury caused by
the net new costs for the city generated by the
proposed project.
- On Page S-8, the Revised Draft EIR refers to
an "agricultural easement" that the Revised
Draft EIR states is "anticipated" to be applied
to assure continued crop production on the 377
acres of remaining farmland. Again, as indicated
earlier, the final EIR must either correct the
project description, to include the creation of
such a permanent agricultural easement as part
of the project, or must recommend a mitigation
measure that would mandate the creation of an
agricultural easement, held by a third party,
and not the city, and granted in perpetuity, as
a requirement to mitigate the obvious negative
environmental impacts of the proposed
project.
- On page S-8, the Revised Draft EIR says that
lost agricultural production "might" be replaced
by production from other similarly situated
cropland. The final EIR must eliminate
speculation on this matter, and specifically
identify "similarly situated cropland," if any,
that could replace the lost production. In fact,
LandWatch is not aware of any such "similarly
situated" cropland that is not now in
production&emdash;and therefore the Revised
Draft EIR is in error, we believe, in stating
that such land "might" replace the production
lost from the lands proposed to be converted to
non-agricultural uses. If there are any lands
that can replace the lost production, the final
EIR must specifically identify them. Otherwise,
this statement should be stricken from the final
EIR.
- On page S-8, it is suggested that "the City
and the property owners" should agree on the
terms of a conservation easement to retain the
remaining agricultural lands in agricultural
use. We believe that the final EIR must examine
a different alternative, that would require the
establishment of a permanent conservation
easement, negotiated with and held by a third
party, and not the city, because only in this
way could it be possible actually to provide the
kind of permanent protection for continued
agricultural production that CEQA and state law
would require, as a mitigation for the obvious
negative impacts of the project as proposed.
- The "buffer" conditions discussed on page
S-9 are not adequate, in our opinion. The final
EIR should examine (and we believe require) the
creation of a buffer of 200 feet&emdash;not 75
feet&emdash;and whatever buffer width is
prescribed, the final EIR should require as a
mitigation measure that the future subdivision
proposed as part of the project must be designed
to provide the maximum possible distance between
homes and agricultural land. This means that the
final EIR should analyze the effectiveness of a
buffer design that would use a perimeter street
to keep the back fences of homes away from areas
that will continue to be used for
agriculture.
- We believe that the Revised Draft EIR is
significantly inadequate in its failure fully to
analyze, the growth-inducing impacts that the
proposed project will have on adjacent lands.
Specifically, a parcel of approximately 179.82
acres, immediately to the west of the 106-acre
parcel proposed to be converted to
non-agricultural use (part of the Meyer Ranch),
is not protected by a conservation easement, and
would be immediately adjacent to residential and
other urban uses. The final EIR must
specifically analyze possible ways to eliminate
growth inducing impacts on this parcel, and on
the area generally. With respect to the parcel
identified in this comment, the final EIR should
consider a requirement that the project
proponents either acquire a conservation
easement over the parcel, as a condition of the
annexation and development proposed, or
reconfigure the proposed annexation, to allow
the creation of a permanent agricultural
easement along the western boundary of the
106-acre Meyer Ranch parcel to be developed, to
insulate the adjacent lands from future
development pressure.
- Figure GPA-9 outlines "agricultural
constraints" in the King City area. This map
indicates that the area proposed for annexation
and development is on Class I soil, the highest
value and most productive agricultural land in
the vicinity. Areas with Class III and Class IV
soils are also part of or contiguous to the
city, and the final EIR should fully analyze the
alternative of directing future growth to those
lands. In this regard, while the city may not be
able to direct the School District where to
build its future facilities, it is emphatically
not obliged to direct future residential areas
where the school district decides to locate its
school. In fact, if the city told the school
district that it would not direct future
residential growth into the area that the school
district has picked, the school district might
change its own plans. The final EIR should
analyze the possibilities of minimizing or
eliminating impacts on agricultural land by
directing future urban growth onto lower value
lands.
- We do not believe that the Revised Draft EIR
has fully analyzed or considered the various
alternatives outlined in the Smart Growth Study
mentioned on page 5-9, in response to the
comments of Nick Chiulos. (Incidentally, the top
of that page says that the page is part of a
"final" Environmental Impact Report. This is not
in fact true. The Revised Draft EIR under
circulation has the status of a "draft"
EIR&emdash;albeit a "revised" draft EIR.
LandWatch believes that the current revised
draft is not adequate, particularly in its
consideration of alternatives. Full
consideration of the alternatives in the Smart
Growth Study is definitely necessary. This
consideration must consider economic factors,
since alternatives that may have slightly higher
initial infrastructure costs could still be the
"best" alternatives from both an environmental
and cost-benefit point of view.
- We note that page 5-9 indicates, in
paragraph 4, that the city proposes either to
determine or negotiate the "duration (if other
than in perpetuity)" of the agricultural
easement that is either part of the project or a
required mitigation measure. The fact that the
city could consider any easement other than in
perpetuity is one reason that there must be some
third-party that holds the conservation
easement. It is clear that only an "in
perpetuity" easement will at all mitigate the
significant adverse impacts of the project as
proposed. Anything less would not meet the
requirements of CEQA, or state law.
In conclusion, LandWatch Monterey County
believes that King City should do everything it
can, as growth and development proceeds, to
eliminate (and to minimize where it is not possible
to eliminate) the use of commercially viable
agricultural land for non-agricultural uses. This
is not only in the best interests of the
"environment," though that is certainly true. It is
also in the long-term economic and financial
interest of King City&emdash;and of the entire
local economy.
Unfortunately, we do not believe that the
Revised Draft EIR meets the requirements of CEQA in
examining the possible ways to achieve the above
objective. We hope that the city will prepare a
final EIR that complies with CEQA, and that fully
responds to the points made in this letter.
|
