SALINAS CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF AUGUST 29, 2006
JOINT MEETING WITH THE
MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS
The Salinas City Council and Monterey County Board of
Supervisors convened in joint session at 3:45 p.m. in the Monterey County Board
of Supervisors’ Chambers.
Salinas City
Councilmembers Present:
Councilmember Maria Giuriato
Councilmember Jyl Lutes
Councilmember Robert Ocampo
Councilmember Sergio Sanchez
Absent:
Monterey County
Board of Supervisors Present:
Chairperson Jerry Smith
Supervisor Fernando Armenta
Supervisor Lou Calcagno
Supervisor Dave Potter
Absent:
Supervisor Butch
Lindley
1. Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of
Understanding
Salinas City Manager Dave Mora reported that the City and
Monterey County announced the settlement of the Rancho San Juan litigation last
week. Both the City and County are
determined to go further by resolving current land use concerns and building a
framework for orderly planning for the Greater Salinas Area. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) would end the process of litigation and begin a collaborative effort long
overdue between Monterey County and the City of Salinas. Mr. Mora stated that the policies would
require follow up and approvals that would include community hearings.
Wayne Tanda, Resource Management Agency Director, outlined the provisions
of the proposed MOU.
The following audience
members spoke in support of the MOU:
Michael Talia, Salinas Valley Builders Exchange’s Chief
Executive Officer
Tom Carvey, Common Ground
Brian Finegan
Kurt Gollnick
The following audience members spoke in opposition to the
MOU:
Jan Mitchell, Vice Chair of Rancho San Juan Coalition
Chris Fitz, Landwatch Monterey County Executive Director,
stated that the MOU requires CEQA review and may be an impermissible surrender
of police power.
Annemarie Tresch, Concerned Citizens for Monterey County
Hans Jongens
Mr. Latham
Barbara Joysome, Castroville resident
Roberto Garcia introduced himself as a candidate for Salinas
City Council District 5.
Kurt Hunter, Carr Lake Coordinator of the CSUMB Watershed
Institute, expressed concern that proposal does not include Carr Lake, which is
an important resource to the City and County.
He would like the “work cooperatively” language in provision 13 to be
amended to “The City and County agree
to work in partnership to address the collective impact of current and
anticipated land uses in the Reclamation Ditch Watershed Area.”
Fire Chief Mike Urquides, Salinas Rural Fire Department,
requested that the City and County negotiate with them on their tax base loss.
Robin Lee stated that Monterey County should use the LID
design standards and cooperate with the City on Carr Lake development. There should be a formal growth boundary
around the City. Agreement for the
reclamation ditch should include a bike path between Salinas and Moss Landing.
Chris Orman, North Monterey County Fire Chief, stated that
the MOU should not result in detriment to fire protection.
In response to public comments, Curtis Weeks, Monterey
County Water Resources Agency, stated that Carr Lake is part of the
solution. He recommended that the
current MOU language regarding the reclamation ditch watershed area remain unchanged,
and he would work with Mr. Hunter and other parties.
Mr. Mora stated that the City Fire Department would continue
to work cooperatively with the Rural and North Monterey County Fire Departments
to ensure that there is adequate fire service for area residents.
Mr. Tanda stated that residents are traveling on County
roads and paramedic service would increase, which is a valid concern that would
be addressed.
County Counsel Charles McKee stated that the MOU is
framework and a set of principles, and not a project under CEQA. This is a tentative matter on how to go
forward. The LAFCO proposal would
require public hearings and CEQA review at that time.
Vanessa Vallarta, City Attorney, noted that the City’s
Petition and complaint that is presently on file does not contain a Boronda MOU
cause of action. She noted that the MOU
preface states that this is a tentative policy commitment of the bodies. Every aspect of the MOU is going to
contemplate numerous further actions, additional CEQA review, numerous public
hearings, and LAFCO review. Staff is
not proposing or recommending that the Board or Council annex anything
today. The MOU is a tentative policy
commitment, a preliminary framework for both parties to continue to work
together and dialogue on the issues.
Both jurisdictions' General Plans are on separate tracks. The City adopted its General Plan in 2002,
and it studied many of the areas that are part of the MOU today. She believes that there already has been
extensive environmental review of many pieces of this agreement that the Board
and Council are considering. The CEQA
review of the MOU is adequate, because the MOU is merely an expression of
intent to work cooperatively and is a tentative policy commitment only.
Supervisor Calgano, Councilmember Ocampo, Councilmember
Giuriato, Councilmember Sanchez, Councilmember Barnes, and Supervisor Armenta
highlighted the MOU benefits, including development of agriculture processing
facilities in proximity to the City; City-centered growth, and housing
opportunities.
Supervisor Potter stated that he likes the County-wide
traffic impact fees, reclamation ditch improvement collaboration, transfer of
the sanitation facilities, and agricultural easements. He thinks the proposed development magnitude
will exacerbate water, traffic, and infrastructure impacts, and this is more
horizontal rather than vertical growth.
Councilmember Lutes stated that she supports the Greater
Salinas Area MOU in concept in order to build a framework that would promote
collaboration and help avoid future lawsuits.
It will trigger LAFCO and CEQA reviews.
Points vital to Salinas include the County’s support of the City’s 2005
preliminary sphere of influence and annexation proposal to the north and east
of Salinas. She believes the western
bypass alignment is compact. She is
uncomfortable with provision 18 regarding not pursuing future litigation on
development that is consistent with the MOU.
She is frustrated with the lack of a school site and has concerns
relating to water. She will therefore
vote no, because she does not want to give up the right to sue if necessary.
Mayor Caballero stated that it is not in the public interest
for government to sue each other, and this helps to avoid future
litigation. The City-centered growth
principles are very important to Salinas.
We are all County residents.
This is a compromise, and it was not easy to accomplish. Many Salinas families already are living in
severely overcrowded situations. She
questioned why other cities are not increasing their densities. Salinas has remained compact, but the sphere
of influence has included the northeast for thirty years. Salinas wants to
avoid annexations that were not built to urban standards. The concerns that were raised regarding Carr
Lake and the Fire Districts should be worked on at the committee level, and the
MOU could be amended if necessary. She
agrees that Carr Lake should be included, and the City has always understood
the importance of the fire districts.
Chairperson Smith stated that litigation only hurts County
residents. This is a global economy,
and the area must remain flexible and have policies to preserve and
maximize resources. The agreement assists the parties in working
together to provide services.
Affordable housing is critical, and the MOU will help with traffic
impacts.
BOARD ACTION
Upon motion by Supervisor Smith and second by Supervisor
Armenta, the Board voted to adopt the Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of
Understanding. AYES: Supervisors Armenta, Calcagno, and
Chairperson Smith. NOES: Supervisor Potter. ABSENT: Supervisor
Lindley.
COUNCIL ACTION
Upon motion by Councilmember Giuriato and second by
Councilmember Barnes, Council voted to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 19059 approving the
Greater Salinas Area Memorandum of Understanding. AYES: Councilmembers
Barnes, Giuriato, Ocampo, Sanchez, and Mayor Caballero. NOES:
Councilmember Lutes.
ABSENT: Councilmember De La
Rosa.
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
HOME