Strong letter from the LWV on the ridiculous Ferrini Ranch proposal. Not needed, not there, not now, not ever, not in any form. --- The League of Women Voters of Monterey County: The LWV of Monterey County opposes the Ferrini Ranch Project. It is inconsistent with most of the land use planning principles the League supports. These include preservation of open space; planning to perpetuate scenic assets; protection of the physical environment including water quality and supply; and development that is within the limits of water supply and road capacity. Additionally, we believe that the public need for development should be demonstrated and services required by existing population should be assured; development should be within well-defined and compact urban areas and designed to support higher density. We believe that priority should be given to infill projects and that development should be contiguous to existing communities rather than leapfrogging. Finally, the League is a strong advocate for development of housing for low and moderate income persons including the dispersal of affordable housing throughout the community including on-site inclusionary housing. The project does not have a long-term sustainable water supply as required by the 1982 General Plan. It would rely on water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin which is already severely overdrafted. Additionally, the already over-extended Salinas Valley Water Project did not plan for water for this project. The project would exacerbate an already overtaxed transportation system with no mitigation in the foreseeable future. While widening a segment of Highway 68 to four lanes is identified as potential mitigation, the feasibility of the developer financing this mitigation measure has not been addressed. Additionally, the project violates the 1982 General Plan policy on transportation. Policy 37.2.1 provides: “Transportation demands of proposed development shall not exceed an acceptable level of service for existing transportation facilities, unless appropriate increases in capacities are provided for.” The project is in a high fire hazard area, further intensifying the problems of an urban/forest interface. County regulations would require extensive vegetation removal further degrading visual impacts and damaging biological resources including wildlife corridors. Further, the EIR failed to address the impacts of vegetation clearing on biological resources. The project is an extension of urban sprawl requiring use of single family vehicles for shopping, work and recreation. It is the antithesis of policies supporting compact communities. Sprawl further contributes to climate change impacts by increasing GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The project would have a significant impact on climate change and fails to include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions. There is no need for the project. There are over 10,000 residential units that have been approved countywide but remain unconstructed. Further, where there is a need for affordable housing, the preferred alternative actually reduces the total number of dwelling units at the expense of low and very low housing units. They would be replaced with workforce housing and a contribution of in-lieu fees. As noted previously by County Planning staff, there is no assurance that in- lieu fees will actually result in the construction of housing. Because we see no mitigation measures available to offset the project’s significant impacts and no public need for the proposed development, we urge the Board of Supervisors to deny the project.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 03:30:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015