Re: Monterey's LUP/LCP Must Be Rejected on its Face

Dear Mr. Douglas:

We respectfully request you return Monterey's LUP/LCP to the city as it is not -

a) "intended to be carried out in a manner FULLY in conformity with" our Coastal Act as required by section 30510; nor

b) does it contain "materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review."

We attended the adoption hearing. It was astonishing to hear the entire Council and staff pushing the faulty LCP forward in spite of fully knowing and understanding the huge inadequacies it has - many of which were gently pointed out by your staff. Although the Mayor was absent, the City's impetus to get rid of the LCP as a particularly bothersome hot potato could not have been clearer.

Their attitude was simply irresponsible. This was not a council saying "What a perfect Local Coastal Plan. It couldn't possibly be any better."

Their attitude was the exact opposite - in my opinion they were of one mind expecting it to come back.

One Councilwoman excused her support with "[If the Coastal Commission doesn't like it] it could come back with changes."

Another councilman's excuse was "We could wait until out General Plan is done." but "Let them take a shot at it and we'll work with them."

Their attitude in my opinion was - I don't like the Coastal Act restrictions, I'm tired of this, and I don't care if its inadequate. Lets just get rid of it because they might approve it anyway. They keep approving our projects so who cares?

This all goes to show they do not intend to carry out their LCP in a manner FULLY in conformity with our Coastal Act as required by 30510.

The public comments were diplomatic and courteous even though we were facing an outrageously inadequate LCP. Yet the hostility from another councilman was jaw-dropping. The Monterey Council has shown itself incapable of taking criticism on the LCP. To get the full negative tone of the meeting you would have hear the tape or see the video. I'm not sure you would want to experience it.

CARROT

Please allow me to suggest you consider pointing the City of Monterey to a relatively good LUP/LCP - perhaps San Mateo County's, so at least their staff can see a good model.

STICK

Secondly, because the City of Monterey's Housing Element is more than 5 years old (at least 10 years old) - its General Plan is now illegal and no finding of consistency with the General Plan is legally possible. Thus no development of any sort can be approved. Our Attorney General sent a letter to this effect last August to all California cities and counties where the General Plan is more than 10 years old.

In addition Monterey is in the midst of a newly officially declared Water supply emergency, has experienced numerous sewage spills in the past year and along with most of California, is at the mercy of officially declared electrical supply emergency. The General Plan, more than 20 years old, fails to recognize or anticipate any of these significant new circumstances.It is our opinion you have the authority, and we feel the duty, to deny any development where the General Plan is legally inadequate.

We respectfully urge the California Coastal Commission work with the Attorney General's office to insure the Monterey LCP is at least minimally legally adequate, and is entirely consistent with an up-to-date General Plan.

With sincere respect,

David Dilworth, Acting Secretary and Trustee 831/624-6500

Copy sent: Honorable Bill Lockyer, California Attorney General