AFTER CACHAGUA and Jamesburg residents insisted they didn’t receive adequate notice about traffic impacts that would be caused by the removal of San Clemente Dam, the Monterey County Planning Commission this week postponed making a decision on the $83 million project until at least Oct. 31.

Before voting unanimously Sept. 12 for the delay, the planning commission listened to more than three hours of testimony from the county’s staff and the project’s manager about its benefits, and from residents and business owners about its problems.

The project has been discussed at public meetings and in the media for years, but some residents complained at the hearing they only recently found out about its potential impact on their community — and they asked the planning commission for more time so they can study the details.

“I’m concerned about the haste with which this is being pushed through,” resident Fidela Schneider said. “We are going to be severely impacted. We haven’t had time to get advice. We’ve had to scramble.”

Heavy traffic, small roads

At the heart of the debate is why the project’s traffic would be routed along Cachagua Road and not San Clemente Drive through Sleepy Hollow.

According to the project’s staff report, three potential routes were considered, including two that utilized San Clemente Drive. But one San Clemente Drive route was determined to have safety issues, while the other would require the widening of 14,300 feet of existing dirt road, as well as the construction of another 3,300 feet of dirt road. Also, one bridge would need to be replaced, while two more would need to be constructed. And it’s unclear if Cal Am even has an easement along San Clemente Drive, which is a private road.

The Cachagua Road route, meanwhile, would require widening 11,500 feet of dirt road; building a 3,000-foot access road, and making improvements at six locations along Cachagua road — including one bridge — to allow large trucks to make sharp turns and to sustain the weight of heavy equipment.

The project’s manager, Jeff Szytel of Water Systems Consulting in San Luis Obispo, insisted the Cachagua Road route makes the most sense. “I believe it has the safest access, the least environmental impact, and is the most cost-effective,” Szytel said.

But a number of residents disagreed, particularly with the part about safe access. Doug Gardener told commissioners that “these roads are dangerous” and that “we average an accident a week.” David Schiffman, meanwhile, said “the daily dangers of commuting are a grim fact of life” in Upper Carmel Valley.

Winemaker Jack Galante said he’s worried construction traffic will make it difficult for harvesting crews to reach his vineyard. “It’s my understanding that some wineries haven’t been notified [about the project],” said Galante, who also asked if Cal Am is setting up a fund to cover any losses suffered by the local business community.

Others residents simply questioned the justification for so much work.

“The need for an 18-foot road is ridiculous,” resident Kevin Klein said. “You bring in what [heavy equipment] you can bring in.”

Residents testified they didn’t receive adequate notice about the project, but county counsel Wendy Strimling confirmed the water company has “fulfilled its legal requirements under CEQA and the county planning process.”

While residents urged the planning commission to postpone the start of the project, steelhead advocates warned that delays could jeopardize the work — and, ultimately, harm steelhead.

“Removing the dam is the best seismic and ecological solution,” said Loren Letendre, the president of the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy. “We’ve tried to reach out to residents as best as possible. If we wait too long, we’ll miss an entire year of work.”

Brian LeNeve, who serves on the board of the Carmel River Steelhead Association, also urged against delays, saying the local steelhead population “is at a tipping point.”

After listening to the public, Szytel offered an olive branch. “Our commitment to work with the Cachagua community does not end with the permit process.”

But he also said Cal Am has little wiggle room. “The scope of the project will not change,” he added.

Szytel also suggested delays to the project could be expensive.

“Grant sources have time constraints that could impact the project’s funding,” he said. “Rarely when a project is delayed does it cost less.”

Commissioner Keith Vandevere, though, was unmoved by pleas that the project can’t wait.

“I’ve been waiting for years for this project to come before us,” said Vandevere, a big supporter of removing the dam. “It rubs me the wrong way when I’m told we have to act urgently after so many years of foot-dragging.”

Vandevere also offered the applicant some advice: “The fastest way possible to move this project forward is to get the Cachagua community on board,” he added.

Constructed in 1921 and operated by Cal Am since 1966, the dam was designed to store 1,425 acre-feet of water. But it hasn’t been used since 2002 — in large part because 90 percent of its capacity is filled with debris and sediment. It is also considered a seismic safety hazard.

According to Cal Am’s website, the dam’s removal will not only alleviate a significant safety risk, but allow steelhead “unimpaired access to over 25 miles of natural spawning and rearing habitat.”

While most of the actual dismantling of the dam will occur from 2013 to 2015, the applicant had hoped to begin construction on an access road this month. But work can’t start until the planning commission approves the project’s permit.