CARMEL VALLEY AIRPORT PROJECT

29 homes, 10 condos planned for airport

By CHRIS COUNTS
Published: January 5, 2007

IN ONE quick exchange at this week’s Carmel Valley Land Use Advisory Committee meeting, planning consultant Michael Groves and LUAC chair Janet Brennan managed to get to the heart of the valley’s land use debates.

Groves, the founder of the EMC Planning Group, was making a presentation about a plan to build 29 single-family homes and 10 multi-family units on the 30-acre former Carmel Valley Airport site when Brennan stopped him.

“There’s a moratorium on subdivisions in Carmel Valley, so why are we processing this project?” Brennan began. And then she asked the same question that has been used to try to stop the September Ranch project: “Do you have your own aquifer?”

“Doesn’t everybody?” responded the planner with a grin.

After the lighthearted exchange, Groves insisted the applicant, Alan Delfino, doesn’t need a separate aquifer and should be allowed to use water beneath the former airport.

“Under California law, you have the right to drill on your own property,” Groves said.

Brennan agreed but added, “as long as you don’t affect others.”

Committee makes no recommendation

The LUAC did not make any formal comment or recommendation on the proposal at the meeting. Meanwhile, local residents grilled Groves about the plans’ details. As he answered questions, the planner assured the audience the project would not be rushed. He even conceded an environmental impact report would likely be required.

“We won’t get an environmental document for 12 to 18 months, if we’re lucky,” Groves said.

Residents and LUAC members raised a variety of concerns about the project, including its effect on neighborhood traffic, its potential lack of adequate drainage, and the noise potentially generated by an onsite wastewater treatment plant.

As with all other property in the Monterey Peninsula, because of a 1995 state order curtailing pumping from the Carmel River, there is no new water available from Cal Am for the Carmel Valley airport project. According to Groves, the project’s water will come from two or three wells to be drilled in a section of the property that will become open space.

By using drought-tolerant landscaping and putting treated wastewater back into the ground, the net water use will be low, Groves maintained.

“We’re striving to put back into the ground almost as much water as we take out,” he insisted.

Groves said the project would have “less than significant” impacts on the property’s biological resources. In response, ecologist Nikki Nedeff said there is evidence the American badger and the California horned lizard — both “California species of concern” — exist on the site, and she asked Groves to simply be aware of their presence.

The meeting, which was attended by about 20 residents, had an informal tone to it, which pleased Groves.

“I thought it worked real well,” he said. “The open exchange allowed us to get a lot of issues out into the open.”

From airport to subdivision?

The project — which is called the Carmel Valley Village Park and Commons — would create single-family lots of about 13,500 square feet each, one .85-acre parcel for the multi-family units and two parcels of open space totaling 14.5 acres.

Located in the heart of Carmel Valley Village, the property was purchased by Peter Delfino in 1953 from the airport’s founder, Tirey Ford. The airport, which opened on Dec. 7, 1941, was the world’s first residential airpark development, according to the Carmel Valley Historic Airpark Society. Ford reputedly envisioned that one day small planes would become an affordable transportation option for the general public. After the war, when it became apparent to Ford that small planes had limited commercial potential, he shifted his focus to developing a “village” around the airport.

In 2000, the State Historical Resources Commission determined the airport was eligible for inclusion on the state register of historic places. The same year, about 1,700 Monterey Peninsula residents signed a petition supporting the preservation of the airport, which remained open until 2002.

General plans to compete on June ballot
By KELLY NIX
Published: January 5, 2007

AFTER AN entire day of listening to more than 40 speakers Wednesday, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors finally approved a new general plan, the county’s growth outline it’s worked on for more than seven years. But the long-awaited decision didn’t sit well with most.

Supervisors also voted to place the newly enacted general plan on the June ballot, and went further by deciding to allow a competing, slow-growth initiative, sponsored by LandWatch Monterey County, to join it. They also vowed the county’s general plan would be translated into Spanish.

“I think it’s a reasonable compromise,” said 1st District Supervisor Fernando Armenta. “Let the community tell us if they are interested in supporting this plan or not.”

The meeting, which drew a big crowd, lasted about six hours. Whichever general plan ends up being adopted, it will not have any effect in cities or the county’s coastal areas, which have their own general plans. The main impact will be in Carmel Valley, the Salinas Valley and North Monterey County — all regions with plenty of ag land and lots of people looking for housing and jobs.

Opponents of the supervisors’ general plan, including 5th District Supervisor Dave Potter — the lone dissenter in the vote to approve it — expressed concern supervisors might not be serious about putting their plan before the voters.

What guarantee is there that the future board “can’t change their minds” about the election, Potter asked. In two weeks, former assemblyman Simon Salinas will replace 3rd District Supervisor Butch Lindley, whose term expires.

Responding to Potter’s concerns, the board voted to require a unanimous vote before the election could be canceled, in effect giving Potter a veto.

Repeal vs. approval

Slow-growth groups praised the idea of having competing general plans on the June ballot so both could get a “fair shake” but criticized the supervisors’ decision to let their general plan go into effect in 30 days. That would put voters in the position of deciding whether to repeal the supervisors’ plan rather to approve it — a difference which seems trivial but could play a key role in election strategies by both sides.

“There is a huge difference between making sure this general plan is subject to the approval of the citizens or subject to repeal,” said Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County.

Potter agreed. “You will have all sorts of confusion [on the ballot],” he said.

Fitz and his allies said Thursday they would begin gathering thousands of signatures needed for a referendum, which would prevent the general plan from becoming law in 30 days and would make it subject to voter approval, instead of repeal, in June.

The LandWatch-led initiative, formally titled, Amendment of the Monterey County General Plan, including the North County Land Use Plan, would prevent more development than the supervisors’ plan and would restrict growth in most rural areas of the county.

Supporters of the county’s general plan weren’t completely satisfied with Thursday’s outcome, either. Many wanted approval of the document without having it go before voters.

“Your constituents elected you to make the tough decisions,” Bob Perkins, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, told supervisors before their decision. “You must take responsibility for the plan by making your decision final.”

Salinas Valley farmer Chris Bunn said although the supervisors’ plan isn’t perfect, it’s a representation of the democratic process. “Many farmers like myself aren’t excited by this plan,” he said. “But it’s something you developed and we were all participants in this process.”

En Español

The board also chose to have the initiative, the general plan and a portion of the environmental impact report translated into Spanish. The move will cost the county an estimated $80,000.

“It’s a very large document,” Alana Knaster, chief assistant director of the county’s planning and building inspection department, said of the general plan. “I believe it would take several months to do that.”

Included in the new general plan is an agricultural wine corridor, which would help draw small wineries. Monterey County has one winery for every 2,000 acres, compared to Napa, which has one for every 150 to 200 acres, according to industry experts.