|
June
8, 2004
Supervisor
Lou Calcagno, Chair
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
240 Church Street
Salinas, CA 93901
RE:
Parcel Legality Determination – Spreckels [PLN040121]
Board
of Supervisors Agenda, June 8, 2004 – Agenda Item # S-17
[Hand Delivered at the Hearing, and Sent By Email and FAX to 831-755-5888]
Dear
Chairperson Calcagno and Board Members:
LandWatch
Monterey County makes two requests of the Board of Supervisors:
- First,
we urge the Board to grant the appeal presented to you by the
Association of Spreckels Residents, and to decline to issue an
Unconditional Certificate of Compliance recognizing as “legal
lots of record” the 73 “lots” owned by the Tanimura
Land Company as a single parcel, which “lots” are located
on farmland adjacent to the Town of Spreckels, and which are specifically
designated in the Monterey County General Plan as “farmland.”
By taking this action, the Board will ensure that such “lots”
are not individually sold or developed without further action
by the Board of Supervisors, unless a court decision specifically
finds that such “lots” are, in fact, legal lots of record.
-
Second, we urge the Board to issue and record a Conditional Certificate
of Compliance, determining that the “lots” in question
may be sold, financed, or developed as individual lots or parcels
only when, and if, such lots are created pursuant to a subdivision
approved under the current Subdivision Map Act and the County’s
own regulations, and when and if the Board of Supervisors of Monterey
County has adopted a General Plan Amendment that would permit
such a subdivision and development.
Background
and Introduction
The
Tanimura Land Company has applied for a “Parcel Legality Status
Determination,” asking the County to declare 73 “lots”
located on farmland adjacent to the Town of Spreckels (and owned
by the Tanimura Land Company as a single parcel) to be “legal
lots of record.” The “lots” that are the subject
of this request are Lots 1-8 and 13-20 of Blocks K and L; Lots 1-8
and 16-20 of Block M; Lots 1-5 and 13-20 of Block N; and Lots 1-8
and 13-20 of Block O, as designated on a map of Spreckels dated
December 1906, and recorded on January 8, 1907.
In
essence, the claim of the Tanimura Land Company is that the filing
of the Map “created” all the lots shown on the map. LandWatch,
the appellants, and an overwhelming majority of the residents of
Spreckels strongly disagree. If the Board were to accept such 100
year old maps as the equivalent of a modern subdivision map, and
were to deem all the “lots” shown on such maps to have
been “created” when the maps were filed, then the objectives
of the County General Plan would be completely defeated, and alarming
and irresponsible precedents would be set throughout the entirety
of Monterey County, and not just in Spreckels.
Despite
the very adverse impacts that this decision would have, both in
Spreckels and countywide, the Director of Planning and Building
Inspection made a determination on January 29, 2004 that the subject
“lots” were “legal lots of record,” and that
they qualified for an Unconditional Certificate of Compliance pursuant
to Monterey County Code Section 19.14.050. If this determination
were ultimately upheld, it would mean, as a practical matter, that
each of these so-called “lots” could be individually sold
and developed, without any further discretionary review by the County.
On appeal, the Planning Commission agreed with the Director of Planning
and Building Inspection (by a 6-4 vote). The matter is before you
on another appeal.
As
you will see from the remainder of this letter, and as is evident
from the letters filed by attorneys Mike Meuter and Jonathan Wittwer
on behalf of the appellants, very complex legal issues are raised
by the current application. The “facts” are really not
contested here. What is at issue is their legal significance, and
the Board is being asked by the Tanimura Land Company to “act
like a court,” and to make the kind of legal decision that
is normally handled by the judicial branch of government.
LandWatch
thinks that the law is strongly on the side of “non-recognition”
of the 73 so-called “lots” shown on the Map of Spreckels.
We do admit, however, that this area of the law is highly contested—and
of course, it’s highly contested because the real world stakes
are so high. The value of the 73 so-called “lots,” if
they were ultimately found to be legal lots of record, is on the
order of $18,000,000. The value of preserving and protecting the
historic Town of Spreckels, and the farmland that would be paved
over if the “lots” were recognized, is beyond price—it’s
“priceless.”
Our
point is that when complex legal issues are at question, and the
public interest in protecting the current General Plan policies
is so high, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors should be standing
up for its own policies!
Those policies clearly state that the affected property, which the
Monterey County Planning Commission called the “best farmland
in the County,” (see the Planning Department Report to the
Board of Supervisors for the Board Meeting date of August 26, 1986)
should be preserved and protected for agricultural use.
In
addition, the effect of recognizing the so-called “lots”
as legal lots of record is to approve what amounts to a major subdivision
right next door to the historic Town of Spreckels, with no opportunity
for public or environmental review. Why would a Board of Supervisors
treat the people it represents in this way? Shouldn’t the Board
be insisting that before new subdivisions are approved, the full
public process is required? In fact, fundamental concepts of due
process absolutely require that the adjacent property owners
and residents have an opportunity to appear and be heard on
a decision that that could so profoundly affect their own properties,
and lives. See Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 605. The
decision on appeal to you here was made, in the first instance,
by a member of the County staff, with no public hearing or opportunity
to be heard. This is fundamentally unfair to the public, and shows
the lack of due process involved in making the current decision.
The
“leading case” on the topics at issue here is Gardner
v. County of Sonoma, (2003), 29 Cal.4th 990. The California
State Association of Counties (CSAC), of which Monterey County is
a member, filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing exactly what
LandWatch is arguing in this letter. A copy of that brief will be
submitted to the Board. We urge the Board to review the CSAC arguments,
which are as persuasive now as then. LandWatch would like to point
out that in the Gardner case, as in almost all of the cases involving
these older maps, the county stuck up for the public interest,
against the landowner’s claim. We urge Monterey County
to do the same in this case.
If
the Board adopts LandWatch’s recommendation, and does stand
up for the County’s own policies, due process, and the public
interest, then it will tell the Tanimura Land Company to do one
of two things:
- 1.
Follow the regular County procedures, and apply for the necessary
General Plan Amendment and subdivision approval, so that due process
is honored, and so that the public can fully participate; or
- 2.
Get a Court Order telling the County that the contested “lots”
are, in fact, legal lots of record, and that the Tanimura Land
Company doesn’t have to follow normal planning procedures
or the County General Plan.
That’s
the effect of denying the application for Unconditional Certificates
of Compliance. That course of action, in a complex legal arena,
puts the County on the side of its own laws and regulations, and
on the side of the public, and it satisfies the legal requirements
of due process. It puts the burden of moving forward to resolve
the legal issues on the party who will benefit from a determination
that the so-called “lots” are legal lots of record.
Not
to take this action is to put the County in the position of denying
its own General Plan policies. It denies due process to the public,
and puts the legal burden on the citizens and residents of Spreckels,
who are not seeking to make millions of dollars, but simply to continue
to live in their community as they traditionally have, without having
a new, major development imposed on them without any chance to be
involved in a public approval process first.
Why
The Tanimura Land Company Legal Claim Is Wrong
As
previously stated, the essence of the claim made by the Tanimura
Land Company (and the argument of the County staff) is that the
filing of the Map of Spreckels “created” all of the lots
shown on the Map, that the County “approved” those lots,
and that these “lots” were, from January 8, 1907 until
the present moment “legal lots of record.” This claim
is fundamentally wrong, as a matter of law.
The
Subdivision Map Acts vests the “[r]egulation and control of
the design and improvement of subdivisions” in the legislative
bodies of local agencies—here, in the County of Monterey. The
Act generally requires all subdividers to design their subdivisions
in conformity with the applicable General Plan, and to comply with
all the conditions of applicable local ordinances. (See Hill v.
City of Clovis, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at 445.) A local agency can
approve a tentative and final map, and hence create a subdivision,
only after an extensive review of the proposed subdivision, and
after full environmental analysis under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
None
of that has occurred here, and the construction of residential structures
on the 73 “lots” that the Tanimura Land Company now claims
already exist would be fundamentally contrary to the Monterey County
General Plan, which designates the property for agricultural use.
There
is no legal validity to the Tanimura Land Company claim that they
don’t need to follow the normal process, because the 73 so-called
“lots” were “created” by the Map, and so already
exist. The Board has in its possession materials documenting the
changing state laws relating to “subdivisions,” beginning
with the first such law, in 1893, and continuing to the 1929 law.
1929 is the year when the State Legislature first gave local government
agencies control over the “design and improvement” of
subdivisions. Only after the 1929 changes to state law did the filing
of a map “create” the parcels shown on the map. From 1893
until 1929, the subdivision maps filed with local agencies did not
“create” parcels, they simply provided an easy way to
describe specific real property, so that it would be easy to convey
the described property by reference to a map, and without the need
to use a “metes and bounds” description.
The
Spreckels Map, created subsequent to the 1901 law, does describe
various “lots,” but the fact that these lots are described
on the map does not mean that they have been “created”
as legal parcels. Prior to the 1929 Map Act, new parcels had
to be created by a conveyance. The conveyance could be by metes
and bounds, or by reference to a map, but “conveyance”
was the key. Maps filed prior to the 1929 laws did not “create”
parcels. While the Map of Spreckels did describe various “lots,”
these “lots” were not “legal parcels” unless
and until they were separately conveyed on an individual basis.
As the materials before the Board demonstrate, none of the 73 “lots”
at issue here were ever conveyed separately, into different ownerships.
Hence, they are not separately existing “legal” lots.
The Map did not “create” them.
Many
lots in the Town of Spreckels were conveyed as separate parcels—and
they exist as legal lots of record today. However, the 73 so-called
“lots” owned by the Tanimura Land Company were never
conveyed as separate parcels into separate ownerships. The owners
of that land have never “relied” on the ownership of 73
separate parcels. The subject property has always been conveyed
as only one parcel, and because the 73 so-called “lots”
that the Tanimura Land Company wants the County to recognize were
never conveyed as individual parcels, they do not “exist”
as separate parcels now. The Tanimura Land Company has to go
through the normal process, if they want to create those lots. That
is the only way that they can make them “legal” parcels
that can be individually sold and individually developed.
The
letters filed by attorney Jonathan Wittwer, and attorney Mike Meuter,
on behalf of the appellants, outline many of the legal arguments
in more detail. LandWatch agrees with the legal analysis presented
by the appellants, and incorporates it here. In addition, LandWatch
wants to highlight the following:
- Even
if a map filed pursuant to the 1893 Act, as amended in 1901, did
“create” legal parcels (which is not the law), the
Spreckels Map did not comply with the requirements of the 1893
Act. The Planning Commission said that the Map of Spreckels
“meets and exceeds the requirements of …the Act of 1893.”
This is demonstrably not true. The Act of 1893 requires that if
a map is filed by an incorporated company, the map “shall
be acknowledged …by the chief officer thereof…”
The Spreckels Map was not acknowledged by the “chief officer”
of the Spreckels Sugar Company, since it was signed by the “Vice
President” and the “Secretary” of the corporation,
not by the “President.” The current landowner is asking
for the County to recognize a subdivision that is totally inconsistent
with the County General Plan, and that the County should be trying
to “bring under the umbrella” of the current Subdivision
Map Act. In these circumstances, the County is not permitted to
“waive” the technical requirements established by the
1893 law, and to say that the signatures of the Spreckels Map
are “close enough.” The Spreckels Map does not conform
to the requirements of the 1893 state law, and is not entitled
to any deference.
- The
staff argues, and the Planning Commission made a finding, that
the Spreckels Map was “approved” by the Board of Supervisors.
That is not true. In fact, under the law, the Board of Supervisors
had no authority to “approve” the Map, because the Board
had no authority to “disapprove” it. No public hearing
was held, and no discretionary decision was made. In 1906, the
law did not allow the Board to use any discretion. Under the 1893
Act, if a map were presented that met the requirements of the
law then county officials had a ministerial duty to file it. Suppose
the Board had wanted fewer “lots,” or more “lots,”
or had wanted things reconfigured in some way? Could the Board
have told the Spreckels Sugar Company that they would “approve”
the Map if the Company made those changes, and that if the changes
weren’t made the Board would refuse to “approve”
it? No! Until the 1929 amendments, the Board had no discretion
to review the design and improvements shown on the Map, and thus
had no authority either to “approve” or “disapprove”
it. That’s why the Spreckels Map didn’t “create”
parcels, because the government in fact made no discretionary
decision about it. The Minutes of the January 8, 1907 meeting
of the Board of Supervisors use the word accepted,” not “approved,”
and the endorsement on the Map makes clear exactly what was “accepted.”
The endorsement notes that the Board of Supervisors has “accepted…all
the streets, roads, alleys and thoroughfares…shown upon the
map…” State law and the courts are clear that a map
will “create” parcels only when the design and improvements
depicted on the map are “approved” by the local agency.
In other words, if a local agency doesn’t exercise a discretionary
review over the manner in which the subdivision is created, and
essentially “bless” the “design and improvements”
made part of the subdivision, the map depicting the subdivision
does not “create” the lots it identifies. That is exactly
the case here.
- The
Spreckels Map is titled “Official Map of the Town
of Spreckels.” That’s what the maker of the map called
it. However, this map is most emphatically not an “official
map,” as that term is used in the Subdivision Map Act [Government
Code Section 66499.52]. That section makes clear that an “official”
map is a map made by the “city engineer or the county surveyor,
under the direction and with the approval of the city council
or board of supervisors….” Genuine “official”
maps may be given more deference than other maps. The Spreckels
Map is not such an “official map.”
LandWatch
believes it is very clear that the 73 so-called “lots”
owned by the Tanimura Land Company (and always described in the
deeds as being part of a single parcel) are not separately existing
“legal parcels of record.” At the very least, however,
everyone must agree that highly complex legal issues are involved
in making a determination about the “legality” of these
lots. In such a situation, the County Board of Supervisors is obligated
to argue for the public interest, not for the interests of the private
property owners who would like to convert their farmland into highly
salable parcels of real estate.
The
courts have consistently held that the Map Act is to be “liberally
construed” to implement high standards for orderly community
development, and to “bring under its umbrella as many transfers
or conveyances of land as possible, in order to facilitate local
regulation of the design and improvement of subdivisions.”
[See John Taft Corp. v. Advisory Agency, 161 Cal.App.3d 749,
755]. As outlined in an attachment to this letter, the County’s
current General Plan and other policies would not allow the creation
of the 73 lots. This means that the County should be trying to “bring
under the umbrella” of the Subdivision Map Act as many transfers
or conveyances of land as possible. This means that the Board should
issue a “conditional,” not an “unconditional”
Certificate of Compliance for the 73 so-called “lots,”
and place the burden upon the Tanimura Land Company to obtain a
court order directing otherwise, should the Company be able to persuade
a court of its position.
“The
Trade” And How The Board Can Enforce Its Terms
As
shown by materials submitted to the Board, there was great deal
of debate before the Board of Supervisors in 1986, when the Greater
Salinas Area Plan was adopted. At that time, the Board specifically
rejected the idea that 73 residential lots should be recognized,
and the County General Plan amended to allow development. Accordingly,
the Board designated this area as “farmland” in the Greater
Salinas Area Plan, which is incorporated into the Monterey County
General Plan.
This
Board decision is known in the Spreckels community as “the
trade,” since the decision that eliminated any claim for subsequent
residential development of the property where the 73 so-called “lots”
are located “gave” the Tanimura Family something they
wanted, at the same time. As an examination of the materials submitted
shows, the County Board of Supervisors changed the then land
use designation on other property in the Spreckels area, owned by
the Tanimuras, to allow the construction of a “cooler”
facility (which has been built and now exists), but it specifically
rejected the request to allow residential development of the 73
so-called “lots.” That’s why the decision was
called a “trade,” and at the time, the Tanimura Family
was apparently in agreement with this decision. They have only now
resurrected a claim to be able to do residential development on
the so-called “lots,” without the benefit of going through
the normal subdivision and General Plan Amendment process. Because
they have apparently “reneged” on what the community understood
was a “trade” (however imperfectly it may have been memorialized
and enforced), members of the Spreckels community, particularly
those who personally participated in the 1986 deliberations, are
understandably upset.
If
the Board of Supervisors accepts the LandWatch recommendation, and
issues a Conditional Certificate of Compliance, this would,
in fact, require the Tanimura Land Company either to get a Court
to determine that normal procedures don’t have to be followed,
or would require the Company to go through those normal procedures,
giving both the County and the public the right to subject the proposal
to a thorough analysis and review.
Approving
Unconditional Certificates of Compliance Would Set Terrible Precedents
What
the Board does with this application will be a precedent
for other applications that may be forthcoming. The Tanimura
Land Company is asking the Board to take the position that a hundred
year old map, in and of itself, “creates” the lots shown
on the map as “legal parcels of record.” This means, as
a practical matter, that any such legal parcel of record may be
independently sold and developed.
If
the Board were to adopt this rule, it would decimate good planning
throughout Monterey County, and would not only vastly damage the
environment, but would countenance exactly the kind of discontinuous
rural development that recent studies have shown is fiscally detrimental
to the county. LandWatch is submitting some of these materials with
this letter. Other materials demonstrating the same point are well
known by the Board, and are found within the materials submitted
in connection with the General Plan Update that the County has been
working on since 1999. By this reference, those records are hereby
incorporated.
A
number of vintage maps (other than the Spreckels Map) have also
been submitted to the Board in connection with its consideration
of this item. The “rules” applicable to these maps and
the “rules” applicable to the Spreckels Map are essentially
identical. To approve the application by the Tanimura Land Company
is also to approve the recognition of the various “lots”
depicted on these other maps—and all the maps recorded in Monterey
County prior to 1929 that have similar features. LandWatch does
not believe that all such maps have been drawn to the Board’s
attention, but enough of them have to make the point. The effect
of the ruling requested by the Tanimura Land Company would be devastating
to Monterey County’s planning policies, and would have massively
detrimental fiscal and environmental effects.
There
is also another kind of precedent at issue here. The Tanimura
Land Company is not just asking for the right to “finish off
the Town of Spreckels according to its original plan.” That
certainly is the way they present their current application (though,
as we have shown, the application has no viable legal basis). What
is really at stake is the future of the whole Spreckels Area!
In connection with the General Plan Update process already mentioned,
the Tanimura Land Company submitted a “Property Owner Request,”
showing what they want to do with their family lands in the Spreckels
Area. These lands not only include the single parcel that contains
the 73 so-called “lots,” it also includes lands that run
from the current Town of Spreckels to Highway 68—about a mile
away. As indicated by the materials submitted with this letter,
the Tanimura Family in fact proposes to develop this entire area
(about one square mile of the “best farmland in the County”)
with residential and commercial developments.
Saying
“yes” to this application is, in a very real way, a precedential
“first step” towards this ultimate plan for development
by the Tanimuras. LandWatch urges you to reject this concept.
Conclusion
Your decision in this matter will either put the burden on the applicant
to establish the claimed “legality” of its lots by going
to court and getting an order finding them “legal,” or
you will put the burden on local residents, to contest a finding
of “legality” that the applicant is asking you to make.
We
hope you agree that there is no legal justification for the issuance
of Unconditional Certificates of Compliance for the 73 so-called
“lots,” which are claimed as “legal parcels of record”
by the Tanimura Land Company. If you are unsure, however—and
the legal issues are certainly complex—then we urge the Board
to decline to make a finding that Unconditional Certificates of
Compliance are justified. This will place the burden on the Tanimura
Land Company to get a court ruling telling the County that these
“lots” are in fact legal parcels of record—if in
fact the Company can get such a court order. This puts the burden
where it ought to be, since the Tanimura Land Company is trying
to change the status quo, and stands to make more than $18,000,000
if their claim is ultimately upheld.
By
putting the legal burden on the applicant, instead of local residents,
your Board will be standing up for the County’s own General
Plan and its other planning policies and procedures. You will be
insisting that private developers will not be allowed to make radical
changes in a local community (in this case, by expanding the size
of the community by about 40% overnight) without going through the
normal planning and environmental review process.
This
application truly presents the question clearly: “Which Side
Are You On?” We hope that you are on the side of the public
interest. If so, we urge you to adopt the recommendations that LandWatch
made at the beginning of this letter.
| cc: |
County
Counsel
Planning Director
Association of Spreckels Residents
Other Interested Persons |
1982
Monterey County General Plan Policies Violated by Subdividing Prime
Farmland in the Town of Spreckels
1982
General Plan
4
GOAL: TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ALL VIABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Objective
4.1
Identify the extent and locations of important agricultural lands
in the County and devise regulations and techniques which will be
effective in preserving and enhancing these lands.
Policies
4.1.3
All farmlands designated as prime, of statewide importance, unique,
or of local importance shall be protected from incompatible uses
on adjacent lands.
25
GOAL: TO COORDINATE ECONOMIC PLANNING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE ENTIRE
GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORK.
Objective
25.1
Ensure that the County General Plan and area general plans reflect
the interrelationships between land uses, employment needs, housing
demand, and the provision of public services and facilities.
Policies
25.1.1
The County shall establish the preservation, enhancement, and expansion
of viable or potentially viable prime farmlands, farmlands of statewide
importance, unique farmlands, and farmlands of local importance
as the top land use priority for guiding further economic development
unless there is a satisfactory showing that such farmlands are not
viable or potentially viable.
25.1.2
The County shall promote economic development which is consistent
with General Plan goals such as environmental, scenic, natural resource
conservation, and growth management.
25.1.3
The County shall evaluate and respond to long-range infrastructure
needs for existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial
development.
GENERAL
LAND USE
26
GOAL: TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE AND ORDERLY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
WHILE PROTECTING DESIRABLE EXISTING LAND USES.
Objective
26.1
Direct development and conservation efforts in the County through
use of the planning process.
Policies
26.1.2
The County shall discourage premature and scattered development.
26.1.4
The County shall designate growth areas only where there is provision
for an adequate level of services and facilities such as water,
sewerage, fire and police protection, transportation, and schools.
Phasing of development shall be required as necessary in growth
areas in order to provide a basis for long-range services and facilities
planning.
26.1.5
The County shall designate future land uses in a manner which will
achieve compatibility with adjacent uses.
RESIDENTIAL
27
GOAL: TO ENCOURAGE VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT
ARE ACCESSIBLE TO MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND AT LOCATIONS AND
DENSITIES WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR PROVISION OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES
AND FACILITIES.
27.1.2
The County shall limit residential development in areas which are
unsuited for more intensive development due to the presence of physical
hazards and development constraints, the necessity to protect natural
resources, and/or the lack of public services and facilities.
27.1.3
Residential development should be concentrated in growth areas.
Objective
27.3
Ensure compatibility between residential development and surrounding
land uses.
Policies
27.3.4
In areas designated for agricultural uses where development of legally
subdivided land would promote incompatible residential development,
the County shall solicit and encourage the voluntary donation of
conservation easements or other development restrictions to the
County or to a qualified private nonprofit organization in order
to preserve the agricultural use of the land.
AGRICULTURAL
30
GOAL: TO PROTECT ALL VIABLE FARMLANDS DESIGNATED AS PRIME, OF STATEWIDE
IMPORTANCE, UNIQUE, OR OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE FROM CONVERSION TO AND
ENCROACHMENT OF NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.
Policies
30.0.1
The County shall prevent non-agricultural uses which could interfere
with the potential of normal agricultural operations on viable farmlands
designated as prime, of statewide importance, unique, or of local
importance.
30.0.3
The County shall allow division of viable farmland designated as
prime, of statewide importance, unique, or of local importance only
for exclusive agricultural purposes, when demonstrated not to be
detrimental to the agricultural viability of adjoining parcels.
30.0.4
The County shall make every effort to preserve, enhance, and expand
viable agricultural land uses on farmland designated as prime, of
statewide importance, unique, or of local importance through application
of "agricultural" land use designations and encouragement
of large lot agricultural zoning.
GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR CURRENT HOLDING CAPACITY AND ZONING
36
GOAL: TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTING
REGULATIONS.
36.0.1
As soon as possible after adoption of the updated General Plan,
the County shall revise its zoning, subdivision, and other ordinances
related to implementation of the plan to ensure their consistency
with the General Plan's goals, objectives, policies, and standards
for population density and building intensity.
GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR TRANSPORTATION
37
GOAL: TO PROMOTE A SAFE, EFFECTIVE, AND ECONOMICAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WILL SERVICE THE EXISTING AND FUTURE
LAND USES OF THE COUNTY.
Objective
37.4
Reduce the number of miles traveled per person.
Policies
37.4.1
The County shall encourage overall land use patterns which reduce
the need to travel.
Greater
Salinas Area Plan, As Part of the 1982 General Plan*
Residential
Land Use
27.1.5 (GS) Development in the town of Spreckels shall be allowed
only under the following conditions:
a.
that the development occurs within the land use boundary shown
in the 1982 General Plan;
*see
also packet of maps
General
Plan Policies Violated if Garrapatos Redwood Tract Subdivision (AND
Point Lobos City) Were Developed1982 General Plan
7
GOAL: TO PRESERVE THE DIVERSITY AND CONSERVE THE EXTENT OF THE COUNTY'S
NATIVE VEGETATION.
Policies
7.2.1
Landowners and developers shall be encouraged to preserve the integrity
of existing terrain and natural vegetation in visually sensitive
areas such as hillsides and ridges.
WATERSHED
AREAS
35
GOAL: TO RECOGNIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WATERSHED AREAS IN PROTECTING
AND MAINTAINING THE COUNTY'S NATURAL RESOURCES AND RURAL CHARACTER.
Objective
35.1
Ensure protection of the County's critical watershed.
Policies
35.1.1
The County shall ensure that land uses in and surrounding critical
watershed areas will not compromise the important resource value
of these areas.
35.1.2
Any development in critical watershed areas shall be designed, sited,
and constructed in a manner which minimizes negative effects on
the watershed.
BIG
SUR COAST LAND USE PLAN
PARK
AND RECREATION FACILITIES
51
GOAL: TO PROVIDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, PRESERVE NATURAL SCENIC
RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITATS, AND SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC
RESOURCES BY ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS
AND TRAILS SYSTEM.
3.2.1
Key Policy
Recognizing
the Big Sur coast's outstanding beauty and its great benefit to
the people of the State and Nation, it is the County's objective
to preserve these scenic resources in perpetuity and to promote
the restoration of the natural beauty of visually degraded areas
wherever possible. To this end, it is the County's policy to prohibit
all future public or private development visible from Highway 1
and major public viewing areas (the critical viewshed), and to condition
all new development in areas not visible from Highway 1 or major
public viewing areas on the siting and design criteria set forth
in Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.5 of this plan. This applies to
all structures, the construction of public and private roads, utilities,
lighting, grading and removal or extraction of natural materials.
3.2.2
Definitions
1.
Critical viewshed: everything within sight of Highway 1 and major
public viewing areas including turnouts, beaches and the following
specific locations Soberanes Point, Garrapata Beach, Abalone Cove
Vista Point, Bixby Creek Turnout, Hurricane Point Overlook, upper
Sycamore Canyon Road (Highway 1 to Pais Road), Pfeiffer Beach/Cooper
Beach, and specific views from Old Coast Road as defined by policy
3.8.4.4.
3.2.3
Critical Viewshed
A.
Policies
-
In order to avoid creating further commitment to development within
the critical viewshed all new parcels must contain building sites
outside the critical viewshed.
3.2.4
Land Not in the Critical Viewshed
A.
Policies
- So
that the visual continuity may remain undisturbed, the design
and siting of structures, whether residential, commercial, agricultural,
or public, and access thereto, shall not detract from the natural
beauty of the undeveloped skylines, ridgelines, and the shoreline.
General
Plan Policies Violated by Subdividing Land
For Clark Colony near Arroyo Seco
1982
Monterey County General Plan
4
GOAL: TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ALL VIABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Objective
4.1
Identify the extent and locations of important agricultural lands
in the County and devise regulations and techniques which will be
effective in preserving and enhancing these lands.
25
GOAL: TO COORDINATE ECONOMIC PLANNING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE ENTIRE
GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORK.
Objective
25.1
Ensure that the County General Plan and area general plans reflect
the interrelationships between land uses, employment needs, housing
demand, and the provision of public services and facilities.
Policies
25.1.1
The County shall establish the preservation, enhancement, and expansion
of viable or potentially viable prime farmlands, farmlands of statewide
importance, unique farmlands, and farmlands of local importance
as the top land use priority for guiding further economic development
unless there is a satisfactory showing that such farmlands are not
viable or potentially viable.
25.1.2
The County shall promote economic development which is consistent
with General Plan goals such as environmental, scenic, natural resource
conservation, and growth management.
25.1.3
The County shall evaluate and respond to long-range infrastructure
needs for existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial
development.
GENERAL
LAND USE
26
GOAL: TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE AND ORDERLY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
WHILE PROTECTING DESIRABLE EXISTING LAND USES.
Objective
26.1
Direct development and conservation efforts in the County through
use of the planning process.
Policies
26.1.2
The County shall discourage premature and scattered development.
RESIDENTIAL
27
GOAL: TO ENCOURAGE VARIOUS TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT
ARE ACCESSIBLE TO MAJOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND AT LOCATIONS AND
DENSITIES WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR PROVISION OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES
AND FACILITIES.
27.1.2
The County shall limit residential development in areas which are
unsuited for more intensive development due to the presence of physical
hazards and development constraints, the necessity to protect natural
resources, and/or the lack of public services and facilities.
27.1.3
Residential development should be concentrated in growth areas.
Objective
27.3
Ensure compatibility between residential development and surrounding
land uses.
Policies
27.3.4
In areas designated for agricultural uses where development of legally
subdivided land would promote incompatible residential development,
the County shall solicit and encourage the voluntary donation of
conservation easements or other development restrictions to the
County or to a qualified private nonprofit organization in order
to preserve the agricultural use of the land.
AGRICULTURAL
30
GOAL: TO PROTECT ALL VIABLE FARMLANDS DESIGNATED AS PRIME, OF STATEWIDE
IMPORTANCE, UNIQUE, OR OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE FROM CONVERSION TO AND
ENCROACHMENT OF NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.
Policies
30.0.1
The County shall prevent non-agricultural uses which could interfere
with the potential of normal agricultural operations on viable farmlands
designated as prime, of statewide importance, unique, or of local
importance.
30.0.4
The County shall make every effort to preserve, enhance, and expand
viable agricultural land uses on farmland designated as prime, of
statewide importance, unique, or of local importance through application
of "agricultural" land use designations and encouragement
of large lot agricultural zoning.
GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES FOR TRANSPORTATION
37
GOAL: TO PROMOTE A SAFE, EFFECTIVE, AND ECONOMICAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM THAT WILL SERVICE THE EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USES OF THE
COUNTY.
Objective
37.4
Reduce the number of miles traveled per person.
Policies
37.4.1
The County shall encourage overall land use patterns which reduce
the need to travel.
37.4.2
The County shall encourage the provision, where feasible, of bicycle
and automobile storage facilities to be used in conjunction with
public transportation.
CENTRAL
SALINAS VALLEY AREA PLAN, A PART OF THE MONTEREY COUNTY GENERAL
PLAN
30.0.3.1
(CSV) Divisions of farmland shall be permitted only when such division
does not adversely affect the land's long-term agricultural financial
viability and shall be conditioned to ensure continued long-term
agricultural use.26.1.4.3 (CSV) A standard tentative subdivision
map and/or vesting tentative and/or
Preliminary
Project Review Subdivision map application for either a standard
or minor subdivision shall not be approved until:
(1)
The applicant provides evidence of an assured long term water
supply in terms of yield and quality for all lots which are to
be created through subdivision. A recommendation on the water
supply shall be made to the decision making body by the County’s
Health Officer and the General Manager of the Water Resources
Agency, or their respective 89 designees.
(2)
The applicant provides proof that the water supply to serve the
lots meets both the water quality and quantity standards as set
forth in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, and Chapters
15.04 and 15.08 of the Monterey County Code subject to the review
and recommendation by the County’s Health Officer to the
decision making body
[Return
to Spreckels Issues and Actions]
posted
06.15.04
|
