![]() |
||||||||||
|
Carmel Valley Happenings Carmel Valley Voices Presentation Schedule
The
River Unites: Paola Berthoin presents stories from community members and paintings of the Carmel River Watershed Sunday,
August 29th, 2:00 May Waldroup Sunday,
October 10, 2:00 Our Annual Carmel Valley Association Picnic Celebrate Community - It Takes a Village! SUNDAY,
OCTOBER 3, 2010 11:30-3:00 Emergency Preparedness Coomunity Emergency Response Training is designed to prepare you to help yourself, your family and your neighbors in the event of a catastrophic disaster. NEXT CLASS SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 MID VALLEY FIRE STATION 8455 CARMEL VALLEY ROAD Each class is limited to 20 students. For additional information, class schedule and to pre-register, contact: Jeff
Frye (Capt Ret) |
How would you like your Carmel Valley
Road TRAFFIC cooked?
Grossly
overdone burned to a crisp? This
is what the County wants for you in the pending General 2010 Plan! §
According
to the EIR for the Plan, the two-lane segments of Carmel Valley Road
between Rancho San Carlos Road and the Village are currently over
capacity by the standards in effect for the rest of the County.
By those standards they are over capacity right now, by 106%, 51%, 47%,
12%, and 43%. (DEIR for GPU5, Table 4.6-21, page 4.6-81) §
Despite
this, the County proposes in the 2010 General Plan to encourage still
more traffic on Carmel Valley Road. §
The
pending County Plan would set new, much weaker standards applied only
to Carmel Valley Road; existing standards would be eliminated in the
proposed plan. (Current Carmel Valley Master Plan standards, implemented
consistently since 1991, include fixed average daily traffic data in
annual reports.) §
The
County would use a different, more permissive and much less understandable
method of determining traffic levels here than is used elsewhere
in the County. They would use a complicated mathematical model that
minimizes the effect of high traffic volumes. §
The
County has stated that its purpose is to allow development to
proceed in Carmel Valley. (DSEIR for Carmel Valley Traffic
Improvement Program, pp. ES-2, 2-9) §
The
County has also clearly indicated its unwillingness to preserve rural
character because to do so would postpone new development
[and cause]
deterrence of tourism industry growth [and of] business
expansion. (Public Works presentation to Carmel Valley
Road Committee, 7/23/09) §
In
other words, the County seeks to use weakened traffic standards to increase
the rate and extent of development in the Valley. §
The
Countys proposed weaker Carmel Valley traffic standards would o
Reduce
the threshold for mitigation of traffic required for new projects o
Reduce
the degree of mitigation required o
Minimize
local (Carmel Valley) participation in traffic decisions by reducing the requirement for public hearings on traffic growth o
Facilitate
future development, including subdivisions, in the Valley §
REMEMBER:
THE CARMEL VALLEY SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM ENDS WHEN COUNTY SUPERVISORS
ADOPT THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN! The Supervisors want to do this within
weeks. §
Carmel
Valley Road traffic standards in the General Plan must be rolled back
to the existing system, and this done before the Supervisors
act, or our future traffic may be frightfully fried! §
IMMEDIATE ACTION is NEEDED from those who value the rural character of Carmel
Valley. Medium,
or Medium-Overdone? This
is what continuing implementation of existing Carmel Valley Master Plan
(CVMP) standards could provide, using baseline methods and criteria applied during
the past 19 years. §
Our
best approach to preserving the rural character of Carmel Valley is
to retain the current average daily traffic (ADT) standards on Carmel
Valley Road. §
This
requires stopping adoption of the provisions in the 2010 General Plan
related to Carmel Valley Road (Policies CV-2.18 and CV-2.19)! §
Vociferous
objections, from Carmel Valley Residents, to the Countys proposed policies for Carmel Valley
Road is urgently needed. §
Key
phrases when writing to Supervisors: o
Support CVMP annual evaluations of traffic volume as per Policy 39.3.2.1
(CV), using ADT measurement, just as during 19 years of implementation o
Oppose 2010 General Plan Policies CV-2.18 and CV-2.18
PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO CARMEL VALLEY FRIENDS!!
|
|||||||||