4.6.5 Energy
Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to energy would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. 2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 24 months, and would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 228, Packet Page 231 fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the project site.
However, energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the area. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements such as California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11), the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of costefficiency, construction contractors would not be expected to utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction, and construction impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fuels. Electricity would be used for hotel cooling systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes. Natural gas would be used for heating systems, and gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips generated by guests and employees. The project would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24), which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. California’s CALGreen standards require installation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects.
Further, the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the California Energy Commission. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Monterey has not adopted a specific renewable energy or energy efficiency plan.
However, the Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan contains the following applicable policies related to energy (City of Monterey 2019):
Goal e. Encourage the effective and efficient use of energy in all its critical forms by public and private users alike.
Policy e.1. Encourage energy sources, which provide part or all of the energy needed for buildings.
Program e.2.2. Encourage the hotel, motel, and restaurant associations to maintain an energy conservation program on a continual basis.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 229, Packet Page 232 The project would meet the requirements of the latest iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Energy Code. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, including the above policies from the City’s General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.6.6 Geology and Soils
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to geology and soils would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
b. Strong seismic ground shaking.
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. d. Landslides.
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Impacts related to paleontological resource are addressed in Section 4.1, Cultural Resources.
Impact Analysis
This section is based in part on the Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation prepared by Soil Surveys Group, Inc., in December 2020. The report is included as Appendix G. 1) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
According to maps prepared by the DOC, the City of Monterey is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest potentially active fault in the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault, which extends generally northwest-southeast from the coast of the City of Seaside approximately
0.4 mile west of the project site (Appendix G). Surface rupture of a known earthquake fault occurs when movement of a fault deep within the earth breaks through the surface (United States
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 230, Packet Page 233 Geological Survey 2022a). Therefore, the project site would not directly experience rupture of a known earthquake fault, and there would be no impact.
1) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The project site is in a seismically active region of California and could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the region, and strong seismic ground shaking at the project site would vary based on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the causative fault from the project site, and the materials underlying the project site. While the project would not increase the risk of strong seismic shaking occurring, seismic ground shaking could cause damage to the proposed hotel structure, and collapse or partial collapse of the structure during seismic shaking could result in injury or death of occupants. Although nothing can ensure that the structure would not fail under seismic stress, proper engineering can minimize the risk to life and property. As such, building standards have been developed for construction in areas subject to seismic ground-shaking. The most recent California Building Code (CBC) requirements (2022) require that new habitable structures are engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration at a given location. Compliance with the CBC would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be minimized to the extent feasible. Impacts would be less than significant.
1) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Seismic-related ground failure, including lateral spreading and liquefaction, occurs when looselypacked sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength in response to strong ground shaking (United States Geological Survey 2022b). Lateral spreading and liquefaction tend to occur in loose, saturated sands where liquefied soils can move toward a free face, such as a cliff or ravine (Appendix G). According to the Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation prepared for the project, the deeper soils underlying the project site are typically dense to silty, fine to coarse grained sands.
Groundwater was also encountered at the project site at depths between 12 to 13 feet. Due to the sands underlying the project site and the presence of shallow groundwater, the potential risk of lateral spreading and liquefaction is low to moderate during a strong seismic event (Appendix G).
The geotechnical investigation includes design recommendations for subexcavation and recompaction of the loose upper soils that would reduce this potential risk. Pursuant to Monterey City Code Section 9-0.1, the City has adopted the 2022 CBC. Chapter 18 of the CBC states that the building department of each locality (in this case the City of Monterey Community Development Department) shall approve the soil investigation if it determines that the recommended action is likely to prevent structural damage. Further, as a condition of the building permit, the approved recommended action shall be incorporated in the construction of the building. Therefore, pursuant to Monterey City Code and the CBC, the recommendations from the Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation for subexcavation and recompaction would be incorporated into the construction of the hotel structure. With implementation of these recommendations, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects involving seismic related ground failure, and impacts would be less than significant.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 231, Packet Page 234 1) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
d. Landslides?
According to maps prepared by the DOC, the project site is not located in an area known to contain landslide sources or deposits (DOC 2020). Although the project site has a slope of approximately 10 percent, the project site is not adjacent to hillsides or steep slopes that would be susceptible to landslides. Therefore, no impact related to landslides would occur. 2) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction of the proposed project would require grading and excavation. Grading and excavation activities would temporarily expose bare soils, which could be removed from the project site and transported through wind shearing or stormwater runoff. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, individual projects that disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage under the California General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The project site is approximately 0.58 acre and would therefore not be subject to NPDES permit coverage. However, pursuant to Section 31.5-15 of Monterey City Code, construction activities of any size are required to incorporate BMPs that would reduce erosion and prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the extent feasible. BMPs could include but are not limited straw wattles or barriers, storm drain inlet protection, or watering of exposed soils.
Compliance with Monterey City Code and implementation of required BMPs would ensure that impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil during construction are less than significant.
During operation, the project site would be almost entirely hardscaped and developed with the hotel structure and surface parking, which are not subject to erosion. The project would include approximately 2,652 square feet of landscaped areas, most of which would be graded to retain water flows and minimize erosion. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil in operation, and overall impacts would be less than significant. 3) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? As discussed under Threshold 1d, above, although the project site is sloped, the project site is not adjacent to hillsides or steep slopes that would be susceptible to landslides. No impacts related to landslide would occur. Collapse and subsidence are types of ground failure that occur when the ground surface suddenly or gradually settles or sinks due to subsurface movement of earth materials (United States Geological Survey 2022c). Soil types encountered during geotechnical borings were loose, non-saturated, sandy soils that were identified to have low risk of ground failure from collapse or subsidence (Appendix G). As discussed in Threshold 1c, there is a low to moderate potential for lateral spreading or liquefaction to occur on the project site. However, impacts related to lateral spreading and liquefaction would be reduced to less than significant with compliance with the Monterey City Code and the CBC and the recommendations from the Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation. Therefore, impacts related unstable soils would be less than significant. 4) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils swell with increases in soil moisture and shrink as the soil moisture decreases.
Shrinking and swelling of soils can cause damage to the foundation of the proposed hotel. As part of
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 232, Packet Page 235 the Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation (Appendix G) prepared for the project, six plasticity tests were conducted at depths of two to nine feet to determine the expansiveness of soils on the project site. The tests indicated that the near surface, silty sandy soils of the project site are nonplastic and non-expansive. Therefore, the project would not be located on expansive soil, and there would be no impact.
5) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project would include a 6-inch sewer line to connect the project site to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main along Casa Verde Way. The project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and there would be no impact.
4.6.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Impact Analysis
GHG emissions from project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The model calculates emissions of the following GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4), reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, D, and E (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2021). CalEEMod output files for the project are included in Appendix E-2. The City of Monterey adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2016, which establishes GHG emissions reduction targets of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The CAP establishes strategies to reduce GHG emissions, including retrofit projects, installation of electric vehicle charging stations, adopting a green building ordinance, and vehicle miles traveled reduction measures (City of Monterey 2016a). CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 outlines requirements for tiering and streamlining analysis of GHG emissions; because the City’s CAP does not meet requirements established by Section 15183.5(b), the City’s CAP cannot be used for GHG emissions analysis. Further, MBARD has not adopted a CEQA-compliant GHG reduction plan.
In the absence of a CEQA-qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan, the state recommends determining whether a proposed development would align with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan by assessing if the project is consistent with all the key project attributes identified in Table 3 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Attributes identified by Table 3 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan and the project’s consistency with these attributes are shown in Table 4.6-4. According to the 2022 Scoping Plan “Projects that have all the key project attributes should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals” (CARB 2022). The 2022 Scoping Plan states that “Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 233, Packet Page 236 supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals” (CARB 2022). Therefore, the project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions will be determined by evaluating the project’s consistency with plans and polices adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are estimated below for informational purposes only.
1) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Substantial changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. Implementation of the project would result in the emission of GHGs associated with construction equipment, transportation of construction workers and future hotel employees and guests, and energy and natural gas consumed during operation of the project.
Project construction would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions through travel to and from the worksite and from the operation of construction equipment such as graders, backhoes, and generators. Excavation, grading, and trenching typically generate the most emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. Construction of the project would generate approximately 194 MT CO2e over the entire construction period. As there is no applicable construction GHG threshold, this calculation is included for informational purposes. As construction emissions occur for a limited period of a project’s lifetime, as a standard practice, GHG emissions from construction are amortized over a presumed project lifetime (30 years). As shown in Table 4.6- 4, the proposed project’s amortized construction-related emissions would be 6 MT CO2e.
Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with energy and water usage, vehicle trips, and wastewater and solid waste generation. Table 4.6-4 combines the estimated construction and operational GHG emissions associated with development of the project.
As shown therein, the project would generate approximately 429 MT of CO2e per year during operation.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 234, Packet Page 237 Table 4.6-4 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e per year)
Construction Year
2023 64
2024 86
2025 43
Total 194
Amortized over 30 years 6
Operational 429
Area <1
Energy 186
Mobile 229
Solid Waste 12
Water 2
Total Emissions 623
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix E-2 for modeling results.
Quantified project emissions are provided informational purposes only. As detailed under threshold (2) below, the project would not conflict with local and State GHG reduction plans, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP is discussed in the subsections below.
2022 Scoping Plan
There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as well as SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies plans and regulations and strategies that are to be implemented at the State and project level that will reduce GHG emissions consistent with State policies with a target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 which is the equivalent of carbon neutrality by 2045.
As described above, the state recommends determining whether a proposed residential or mixeduse residential development would align with the 2022 Scoping Plan by assessing if the project is consistent with all the key project attributes identified in Table 3 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. The project’s consistency with attributes identified in Table 3 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan is shown below in Table 4.6-5. As discussed therein, the proposed project would be generally consistent with these attributes and accordingly would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 235, Packet Page 238 Table 4.6-5 2022 Scoping Plan Consistency for GHG Emissions Key Project Attribute Consistency
Transportation Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary
standard of the California Green Building
Standards Code at the time of project
approval.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide electric vehicle charging stations as required by the California Green Building Code.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with this attribute.
VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by
existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops
previously undeveloped or underutilized land
that is presently serviced by existing utilities
and essential public services (e.g., transit,
streets, water, sewer)
Consistent. The project would involve demolition of the existing underutilized motel and restaurant structures and construction of a new hotel. The project is located in an urban area of Monterey and would be located on a site already served by transit, roadways, water, sewer, electricity, and other utilities. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this attribute.
Does not result in the loss or conversion of
natural and working lands
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.6.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, there are no agricultural or forestry uses within the project site and the project would not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this attribute.
Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per
acre), or
Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a
half mile,) or
Satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria
specified in the region’s SCS
Consistent. The project would be located along North Fremont Street in Monterey and would be served by an existing Monterey-Salinas Transit bus stop directly in front of the project site. North Fremont Street includes bus rapid transit service by the JAZZ A and B lines. In combination, these lines achieve a 15-minute headway in the peak hour, and therefore North Fremont is considered a high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this attribute.
Reduces parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or
including maximum allowable
parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of
parking spaces to residential units or
square feet); or
Providing residential parking supply
at a ratio of less than one parking
space per dwelling unit; or
For multi-family development,
requiring parking costs to be
unbundles from costs to rent or own
a residential unit
Not Applicable. This attribute pertains to residential parking supply, and the project would involve construction and operation of a new hotel.
At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower-income residents
Not Applicable. This attribute pertains to residential development, and the project would involve construction and operation of a new hotel.
Results in no net loss of existing affordable
units
Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.6.10, Population and Housing, there are no dwelling units currently located on the project site. Implementation of the project would not result in a loss of existing housing. Therefore, the project would be consistent with this attribute.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 236, Packet Page 239 Key Project Attribute Consistency
Building Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without any natural
gas connections and does not use propane or
other fossil fuels for space heating, water
heating, or indoor cooking
Inconsistent. Although the project would meet the requirements of the California Energy Code and would incorporate green building features such as energy and water efficient appliances and fixtures, the project would use natural gas for heating.
As shown above, the project would be consistent with all but one attribute included in Appendix D, Table 3 of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As stated above, the 2022 Scoping Plan states that “Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals” (CARB 2022).
The proposed project is consistent with nearly all of the key project attributes and is therefore considered consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
City of Monterey Climate Action Plan
The City’s CAP provides reduction measures to achieve the emissions reduction targets established by SB 32. Reduction measures applicable to the project include maintaining an increasing efficiency of new development, implementing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction measures, and implementing construction and demolition debris recycling and diversion (City of Monterey 2016a).
The project would be required to comply with the standards established by CALGreen, which includes specific regulations pertaining to planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and recycling 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. As discussed under Threshold 1, above, the project includes several green building features that would help reduce operational GHG emissions. As discussed further in Section 4.6.13, Transportation, the project would not exceed applicable VMT thresholds. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP.
Based on the above analysis, the project would not conflict with applicable state plans, policies, or regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions, and this impact would be less than significant.
4.6.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
a. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. b. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.
c. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 237, Packet Page 240 d. impede or redirect flood flows.
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. 5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Impact Analysis
Analysis in this section is based in part on the Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the project by Monterey Bay Engineers, Inc. The plan is included as Appendix F. 1) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Construction activities associated with the project would involve the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant structures and construction of a new hotel. Construction activities could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such as excavation, grading, soil compaction and moving, and soil stockpiling. The project site has a moderate upward slope (approximately 10 percent) to the south along Casa Verde Way, and runoff during storm events would follow the topography of the project site. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked. The types of pollutants contained in runoff from construction sites in the project site may include sediment and other existing contaminants such as nutrients, pesticides, herbicides, trace metals, and hydrocarbons that can attach to sediment and be transported downstream through erosion via overland flow, contributing to degradation of water quality.
During construction, the project would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction. As discussed under Section 4.6.6, Geology and Soils, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, individual projects that disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain NPDES permit coverage under the Construction General Permit. The project site is approximately 0.58 acre and would therefore not be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit. However, pursuant to Section 31.5- 15 of Monterey City Code, construction activities of any size are required to incorporate BMPs that would reduce erosion and prevent pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the extent feasible. BMPs could include but are not limited straw wattles or barriers, storm drain inlet protection, or watering of exposed soils. Compliance with Monterey City Code and implementation of required BMPs would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to construction activities. Because violations of water quality standards would be minimized through existing regulations, impacts would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts from construction activities under the proposed project would be less than significant.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) identifies groundwater basins within California. DWR designated groundwater basins are alluvial aquifers with reasonably well-defined boundaries. Although the project site is not within a groundwater basin designated by DWR (Department of Water Resources 2018), groundwater is still present beneath the project site.
According to the Geotechnical and Filtration Investigation performed for the project, groundwater was encountered during geotechnical borings at depths of 12 to 13 feet below the ground surface (Appendix G). Construction of the groundwater infiltration chamber would reach a depth of 14 to 15 feet; therefore, groundwater may be encountered during construction, and groundwater dewatering of the excavated portions of the project site may be necessary. Groundwater may
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 238, Packet Page 241 contain elevated levels of total dissolved solids, high or low pH, or other constituents that could affect surface water quality. Groundwater removed during construction dewatering is typically discharged into the municipal storm drain system or the sewer. If groundwater is discharged into the storm drain system, coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Low Threat Discharge Permit; Water Quality Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ) would be required. This order requires testing and treatment, as necessary, of groundwater encountered during groundwater dewatering prior to its release into surface waters to ensure that effluent limitations for constituents are not exceeded. If groundwater is discharged into the City’s sewer system, no impacts to downstream surface water would occur as sewage would be treated prior to its discharge into the environment; however, a permit would be required from Monterey One Water, the City’s sewer service provider, to ensure adequate conveyance and treatment capacity is available. Overall, compliance with the Low Threat Discharge Permit would ensure that groundwater dewatering during project construction would not introduce pollutants to receiving waters or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff on the project site during operation of the proposed hotel would be similar to that of the existing motel and restaurant. After construction of the proposed hotel, the project site would contain impervious surfaces, which can increase stormwater runoff, transport of pollutants to receiving waters, and degrade water quality. According to the proposed site plan (see Figure 2.3 in Section 2.0, Project Description), the project would result in a slight decrease in impervious surface area on the project site by increasing landscaping by 635 square feet of on the project site, which would result in an overall decrease in stormwater runoff.
However, impervious surfaces on the project site and the project site’s slope would contribute to stormwater flows which can transport pollutants to downstream receiving waters, similar to existing conditions.
Stormwater discharges to the City of Monterey stormwater system are regulated by the Phase II MS44 Permit (Waste Discharge Requirements [WDRs] for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems [MS4s] General Permit], Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000004). The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved Resolution R3-2013-0032, which specifies the stormwater management requirements for development projects within the Central Coast, including the City of Monterey, to ensure compliance with the Statewide Phase II Municipal General Permit. The proposed project is subject to the requirements of these existing regulations because it would involve the removal and replacement of more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface area. As such, the proposed project would be required to implement stormwater BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants and protect water quality.
The project would include several stormwater control measures to ensure that stormwater is conveyed, retained, and infiltrated on the project site. Stormwater from the impervious surfaces on the project site would flow to landscaped areas on the northern, downslope area of the project site (Appendix F). These areas would be graded to retain water flows and minimize erosion. Roof stormwater runoff would be collected by rain gutters and downspouts, then directed to an underground infiltration chamber. Other stormwater collected on the project site would flow to the 4 MS4 = municipal separate storm sewer systems. An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances designed or used to collect or convey stormwater (e.g., storm drains, pipes, ditches) that are that owned by a state, city, town, or other public entity and discharge to waters of the United States.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 239, Packet Page 242 underground infiltration chamber through a proposed four-inch trench drain located to the east of the hotel building, and a proposed concrete gutter which would traverse the northern portion of the parking lot in an east-west direction. Overflow from the infiltration chamber would surface flow to adjacent landscaping, and overflow from landscaping would be conveyed via a proposed four-inch storm drain overflow line to an existing curb drain along Casa Verde Way. The proposed landscape planters along North Fremont Street would be graded to retain water flows from portions of the adjacent sidewalk. Further, the project would include implementation of several source control BMPs such as inspecting and cleaning of storm drains, minimizing use of pesticides, and providing trash receptables. All source control BMPs are listed in Appendix F. Additionally, underground infiltration chambers would provide approximately 965 cubic feet of water retention, which would treat stormwater and facilitate groundwater recharge. During large storm events, overflow from the infiltrators would flow to adjacent landscaping, and overflow from landscaping would flow to sidewalk underdrains on Casa Verde Way (Appendix F). The proposed treatment BMPs would ensure that stormwater flows on the project site would be properly conveyed, retained, and infiltrated on the project site during operation.
Implementation of BMPs in compliance with the existing regulations governing water quality, as described above, would minimize impacts related to water quality and ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause or contribute to the degradation of water quality in receiving waters. Operation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Groundwater supplies could be directly impacted from pumping and use, or indirectly impacted from changes to infiltration patterns that impede groundwater recharge. The project would not directly pump groundwater, as all water would be obtained from the California-American Water Company (CalAm), which sources its water supply from several sources, including the Carmel River Aquifer, located approximately 3.5 miles south of the project site, and the Seaside Groundwater Basin, located northwest of the project site (CalAm 2021). The Seaside Groundwater Basin is adjudicated, and managed in accordance with an Adjudication Judgement to which CalAm is a party and therefore has legal rights to use water from the basin towards beneficial purposes, in amounts not exceeding the limits specified in the Adjudication Judgement. The Watermaster for the Seaside Groundwater Basin is responsible for overseeing compliance of all identified parties with the Adjudication Judgement, and consists of a nine-member Board of representatives from local jurisdictions. Due to this existing management structure, and oversight of the water supply provider by the Watermaster, direct impacts to groundwater supply would be less than significant.
Additionally, water demand during construction activities would be temporary and limited to the construction period, and water demand during operation would be less than previously assumed for the project site. Most temporary construction demand would result from dust suppression spraying, which would be required for exposed soil during certain construction activities and wind exposure conditions. As discussed in Threshold 1, above, groundwater dewatering may be required during construction. If necessary, groundwater dewatering would be conducted in accordance with permits and regulations as stated under Threshold 1. Overall, construction phase impacts to groundwater would be less than significant.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 240, Packet Page 243 The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) issued a water supply allocation for the project site in 2013 (Water Permit No. 32425; Appendix J), which was based on the existing 134- seat restaurant and the 18-room motel and included a water supply credit for removal of the previous swimming pool. The water supply allocation for the project site, based on the previous site uses and the pool credit, is 4.234 acre-feet per year (AFY) (City of Monterey 2021c). On May 17, 2021, a MPWMD Conservation Analyst documented that since the 2013 allocation was determined, the Water Use Factor for Hotels (“water demand factor”) changed from 0.1 AFY/room to 0.064 AFY/room; this changed the water supply allocation for the project site’s previous 18-room motel from 1.8 AFY to 1.152 AFY, while the project site’s total allocation for the restaurant, the motel, and the pool credit reduced to 3.676 AFY. In addition, the pool removal credit of 0.09 AFY expired 10 years after the 2013 permit issuance, which was in May 2023.
During operation, the project would require a water supply allocation of 2.688 AFY (City of Monterey 2021c), which would be supplied by CalAm from its existing supply sources. As described further in Section 4.6.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project’s required water supply allocation is nearly 1.0 AFY less than that the existing water supply allocation for the project site, which was based on the previous site uses (motel and restaurant). CalAm used the previous (higher) water supply allocation of 3.676 AFY to inform its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which determined that existing water sources are sufficient to meet existing and foreseeable water demands within CalAm’s service territory. Therefore, the project would require less water than anticipated by CalAm, and would not result in an increase in demand for groundwater supplies beyond that planned for by CalAm. Accordingly, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.
As mentioned above, changes to infiltration patterns could indirectly impact groundwater supply.
However, the project would result in a net increase of 635 square feet of pervious surface on the project site, thereby increasing the area available for infiltration and recharge to underlying groundwater. As described under Significance Threshold 1, stormwater on site would flow to landscaped areas on the northern, downslope area of the project site and an underground infiltration chamber, which would infiltrate stormwater to groundwater. Additionally, the groundwater beneath the project site is not part of a designated aquifer used for groundwater supplies or for recharge. Through implementation of stormwater measures, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Impacts would be less than significant.
3) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
a. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? b. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
c. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
As discussed above under Thresholds 1 and 2, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site during construction or operation. The project would involve demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new hotel on the project site. On-site drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during construction and there would be an
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 241, Packet Page 244 increased risk of erosion. As discussed in Threshold 1 above, pursuant to Section 31.5-15 of Monterey City Code, construction activities of any size are required to incorporate BMPs that would convey stormwater runoff and reduce erosion during construction.
Implementation of the project would not permanently affect the overall on-site runoff, which would continue to flow downslope to the north. However, development of the project site could alter localized on-site drainage patterns. As discussed under Threshold 1, stormwater discharges to the City of Monterey stormwater system are regulated by the Phase II MS4 permit. The Central Coast RWQCB approved Resolution R3-2013-0032, which specifies the stormwater management requirements for development projects within the Central Coast, including the City of Monterey, to ensure compliance with the Statewide Phase II Municipal General Permit. Further, the project would also be subject to the Central Coast RWQCB’s Post Construction Requirements. In compliance with these existing stormwater regulations, the project would be required to implement permanent stormwater BMPs to convey stormwater runoff on the project site and reduce the discharge of pollutants, including those from erosion, in stormwater from the project site. Stormwater from the project would be detained in underground infiltration chambers and infiltrated on-site. During large storm events, overflow from the infiltration chambers would flow to on-site landscaping, and overflow from landscaping would flow to sidewalk underdrains on Casa Verde Way to discharge into the City’s municipal storm drain system. Further, the project would result in a net decrease of 635 square feet of impervious surface area, which would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the project. The on-site infiltration of stormwater facilities would control off-site stormwater flows such that they do not exceed runoff rates compared existing conditions. Through implementation of the Central Coast RWQCB Post Construction Requirements, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems of provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
3) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
d. Impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a FEMA designated flood zone (FEMA 2021). The nearest flood zone is approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project site in the area surrounding Del Monte Lake.
Accordingly, development of the project would not impede or redirect flood flows.
The project site is approximately 0.7 mile south of the Pacific Ocean. According to maps prepared by the DOC, the project site is not within a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2021). A seiche occurs when strong winds or changes in atmospheric pressure push water from one end of an enclosed water body to the other, after which the water body oscillates for hours or days (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022). The nearest body of water in which a seiche could occur is Del Monte Lake, approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project site. Therefore, the project site is not in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Further, hotels do not typically use or store large quantities of pollutants other than cleaning supplies and landscaping supplies. Therefore, the
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 242, Packet Page 245 project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation, and no impacts would occur.
5) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB, which maintains the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan is to defines beneficial uses, established water quality objectives, and establishes programs to ensure the quality of surface water and groundwater in the Central Coast Region is managed in to provide the highest water quality reasonably possible for the region (Central Coast RWQCB 2019).
As discussed under Threshold 1, compliance with existing water quality regulations, which require implementation of BMPs, would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to project construction and operational activities. Further, most stormwater flowing on the project site would be infiltrated to prevent water quality impacts associated with stormwater runoff being discharged off-site to downstream receiving waters. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts to receiving waters protected by the Basin Plan and would not conflict with the Basin Plan during construction or operation. Impacts related to conflict with a Basin Plan would be less than significant As discussed further in Section 4.6.14, Utilities and Service Systems, water supply would be provided for the project by CalAm, which sources water for the City of Monterey from the Carmel River Aquifer and the Seaside Subbasin, both of which are closely managed by local agencies and stakeholders. Although CalAm owns the water supply infrastructure in the project area, it is subject to the management and oversight of the MPWMD, a special district responsible for water supply management and sustainability for residents of the Monterey Peninsula. There is no Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) applicable to the project site, and the water supply provided by CalAm, under the oversight of MPWMD, would not interfere with implementation of any GSP, and the project would be consistent with the goals of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
4.6.9 Mineral Resources
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to mineral resources would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? According to the City of Monterey General Plan, there are no mineral resources of economic value as classified under the Surface Mining and Geology Act within the city (City of Monterey 2019).
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 243, Packet Page 246 Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a regionally valuable mineral resource and there would be no impact.
2) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? As stated above, there are no mineral resources within the city. Further, the City of Monterey General Plan and Zoning Ordinance do not designate or zone any area within the city as a mineral resource recovery site (City of Monterey 2011; 2022). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource and there would be no impact.
4.6.10 Population and Housing
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to population and housing would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project would involve development of a 42-room hotel with a total floor area of approximately 25,000 square feet. Because the project would not involve development of permanent residential units, the project would not directly induce population growth. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project would generate approximately 45 jobs, with 5 on-site positions and 40 remote positions. It is likely that most of the employees would be filled by individuals already residing within Monterey or other nearby cities. However, assuming a conservative, maximum growth scenario in which every on-site employee relocates to the City of Monterey, the project could add approximately 5 residents to the city.
AMBAG, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Council of Governments for Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties, adopted their most recent regional growth forecast in 2020. The Final 2022 Regional Growth Forecast projects that the City of Monterey will have a population of 28,650 by 2030 (AMBAG 2020). The DOF estimated that as of January 2022, the City of Monterey had a population of 28,082 (DOF 2022). Accordingly, AMBAG estimates an increase of 568 people over the next eight years. Under a conservative, maximum growth scenario, the project’s 5 on-site employees would be well within AMBAG’s population projections; therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned growth. Impacts would be less than significant. 2) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site does not contain existing housing or permanent dwelling units. Therefore, the project would not displace existing people or housing, and there would be no impact.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 244, Packet Page 247
4.6.11 Public Services
Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to public services would be significant if the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection.
2) Police protection.
3) Schools.
4) Parks.
5) Other public facilities.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The project site would be served by the Monterey Fire Department, which operates three stations in the City of Monterey. The closest station to the project site is located at 401 Dela Vina Avenue, located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the project site. The project was reviewed to ensure the project design complies with the California Fire Code, Monterey City Code, and the Monterey Fire Department conditions and recommendations, including but not limited to fire clearances and the provision of fire sprinkler systems. The site plans for the project were reviewed in accordance with applicable fire codes and recommendations and were approved (CSG Consultants 2023).
Further, the project would not expand the service area of the Monterey Fire Department and would incrementally increase their service population by 5 residents and a varying number of hotel guests in a conservative, maximum growth scenario. Because vacant hotel rooms are currently available within the City (as discussed further in Section 4.6.13, Transportation), once the new hotel is constructed, guests would be anticipated to stay at the new hotel rather than a different hotel within the City. The new hotel would not attract additional visitors to the City, and would not substantially contribute to the Monterey Fire Department’s service population. Because the project would not include a significant increase to the population of the City and would be required to comply with the Monterey Fire Department building conditions, it would not result in substantial increased demand for fire services. Additionally, the project site is an urban area of the City where there are already existing buildings of similar size and height, which would not require additional specialized equipment such as new fire engines with taller ladders. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. 2) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 245, Packet Page 248 environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The project site would be served by the Monterey Police Department. The Monterey Police Department station is located at 580 Pacific Street, approximately two miles west of the project site.
The project would incrementally increase the Monterey Police Department’s service population by 5 residents and a varying number of hotel guests in a conservative, maximum growth scenario; however, the project would not introduce development outside of Monterey Police Department’s service area or substantially increase the Monterey Police Department’s service population that would necessitate new police protection facilities. Therefore, the project would not create the need for new or expanded police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause environmental impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. 3) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The project site would be within the area of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), which operates 10 elementary schools, four middle schools,5 four high schools, and one adult education school in the cities of Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, and Marina. The project would not introduce new, permanent residential units to the City of Monterey, and would therefore not directly result in an increase to MPUSD’s student population. However, as discussed in Section
4.6.10, Population and Housing, the project could add 5 residents to the area in a conservative, maximum growth scenario, some of whom may have children that would attend MPUSD schools.
The project would be required to pay MPUSD developer fees; pursuant to Government Code Section 65997, the payment of mandatory fees to the affected school districts would reduce potential school impacts to less than significant level under CEQA. Therefore, the project would not result in significant impacts, as the payment of impact fees is considered adequate mitigation for this impact. 4) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The project would not involve the provision of new parks or public recreational facilities. The project would include an on-site fitness center, which would only be available to hotel guests. The City of Monterey Parks and Recreation Department maintains 37 parks, including 256 acres of parks, 37 acres of beaches, 21 acres of public grounds, and 289 acres of greenbelt (City of Monterey 2016b).
While the City’s General Plan does not establish a target ratio of parkland available per resident, the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan determined that there are approximately seven acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the City of Monterey and does not anticipate the need for additional parks in the near future (City of Monterey 2016). As discussed in Section 4.6.10, Population and Housing, the project could add 5 residents to the area in a conservative, maximum growth scenario.
The potential 5 new residents and future hotel guests would negligibly increase use of existing parks in the city, and would not change the existing ratio of seven acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
As such, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered parks. Impacts would be less than significant.
5 One middle school, Walter Colton, serves 8th grade students only and is slated to close after the 2022-2023 school year.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 246, Packet Page 249 5) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered other public facilities, need for new or physically altered other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
In terms of other public facilities, the project site would be served by the Monterey Public Library, located at 625 Pacific Street approximately two miles west of the project site. The potential 5 new residents added to the City by the project in a conservative, maximum growth scenario would incrementally increase use of the Monterey Public Library, and future hotel guests associated with the project would be unlikely to use the library due to the temporary nature of staying at a hotel.
Further, Monterey Public Library is funded through property tax and Transient Occupancy Taxes that are incorporated into the General Fund, which would offset costs associated with potential additional demand. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the expansion or construction of new library facilities and impacts would be less than significant.
4.6.12 Recreation
Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to recreation would be significant if the project would:
1) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. 2) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed above in Threshold 4 in Section 4.6.11, Public Services, the project would not involve construction of public parks or recreational facilities. The project would include an on-site fitness center, which would only be available to hotel guests. Further, the City of Monterey currently maintains approximately seven acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and does not anticipate the need for additional parks in the near future (City of Monterey 2016b). As discussed above in Threshold 4 in Section 4.6.11, Public Services, the potential additional residents and future hotel guests associated with the project would negligibly increase use of parks and recreation facilities in the City of Monterey. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 247, Packet Page 250
4.6.13 Transportation
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to transportation would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b). 3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 4) Result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The proposed project would result in minor changes to the existing circulation system on the project site. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two access points: an existing curb cut along North Fremont Street, which would be improved as part of the project, and a proposed curb cut along Casa Verde Way. Circulation through the parking lot would be possible in both directions. Pedestrian and bicycle access would also be provided via the access points on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. As part of the proposed project, the applicant would provide an easement on the project site with hardscaping designed to provide improved pedestrian circulation. The project would also include eight bicycle parking spaces within the bicycle storage room for use by hotel guests and employees.
The City of Monterey has two policy documents governing transportation: the General Plan Circulation Element (City of Monterey 2019) and Move Monterey: Multimodal Plan for the City of Monterey (Multimodal Plan) (City of Monterey 2021a).
The following policies and programs from the General Plan Circulation Element are applicable to the proposed project:
Policy b.1. Use land-use policies to concentrate development within walking distance of the transit system to reduce the overall demand for travel and minimize the traffic impacts of development.
Policy d.4. Establish and maintain pedestrian-friendly environments in commercial areas.
Program d.8.1. Encourage bike lanes, bike racks, bike lockers, employee shower and changing facilities in new developments.
Policy e.5. Design attractive pedestrian ways through parking lots to enable pedestrians to reach their destinations in a safe manner.
Policy g.1. Provide pedestrian-friendly environments in the commercial business districts to extend the time spent in the commercial business districts and enhance the overall shopping experience.
Policy g.4. Improve pedestrian experience in commercial areas.
Policy g.6. Improve the pedestrian environment along North Fremont Street.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 248, Packet Page 251 The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a hotel within walking distance of the transit system. North Fremont Street features Class IV separated bike lanes through the center median, and Casa Verde Way features Class II bike lanes. Eight bicycle parking spaces would be provided for use by hotel guests and employees, which would encourage active transportation to and from the project site. The project site is also served by Monterey-Salinas Transit, with bus stops directly in front of the project site at North Fremont Street (one in each direction). North Fremont Street includes bus rapid transit service by the JAZZ A and B lines. In combination, these lines achieve a 15-minute headway in the peak hour, and therefore North Fremont is considered a highquality transit corridor.6 The project site is also walkable to nearby restaurants and the Monterey County Fairgrounds, which is an attraction to people visiting the area. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of an underutilized parcel, which would improve the pedestrian experience near the project site as compared to the existing condition. Landscaping would be installed at several locations adjacent to the sidewalk along North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. The building design would feature entryways and columns and would be oriented toward North Fremont Street.
Walkways would be provided through the proposed surface parking lot, providing safe connections for pedestrians. The sidewalk along North Fremont Street would also be widened, which would enhance the overall pedestrian experience. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable policies and programs in the General Plan Circulation Element.
The Multimodal Plan is a transportation plan with tools and guidance for implementing complete streets, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly infrastructure and facilities, and safe routes to schools. The Multimodal Plan promotes Vision Zero, which is a road safety movement aimed at designing the transportation system to reduce traffic-related fatalities and injuries to zero. As stated previously, the project site is well-connected to multimodal forms of transit, including bicycle lanes, bus stops, and pedestrian infrastructure. The proposed project would improve the pedestrian experience along North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way through expanded sidewalks, new walkways, and landscaping. The proposed project would not conflict with the intent of the Multimodal Plan, but instead would align with the plan’s vision by redeveloping an underutilized property in an area wellserved by multimodal transit.
For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, and would be compatible with the General Plan Circulation Element and the Multimodal Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
2) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
In December 2018, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was adopted, identifying VMT as the most appropriate metric for transportation impact analysis. VMT is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. This represents a shift away from the delay and congestion-based level of service (LOS) metric that historically has been used for evaluating traffic impacts. Compared to LOS, VMT better promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses (City of Monterey 2021a).
According to the City of Monterey’s VMT Policy (City of Monterey 2021b), the project would have a less than significant impact if trip generation is less than 110 trips per day. The Traffic Analysis 6 Per California Public Resources Code Section 21155, a high-quality transit corridor is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service that has service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 249, Packet Page 252 prepared by TJKM in 2023 (Appendix H-1) determined that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 351 daily trips with 20 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (12 inbound trips, 8 outbound trips) and 25 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (13 inbound trips, 12 outbound trips). As such, the project would not meet the small project screening criteria of less than 110 trips per day.
However, as stated previously, North Fremont Street is considered a high-quality transit corridor. As such, the project is assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact due to the project site location within a ½-mile of a high-quality transit corridor. Although a VMT analysis is not required, the below information is provided for informational purposes.
A primary trip to a hotel is expected to occur from travel to the City of Monterey for business or pleasure. However, it is the proximity of the hotel to local attractions that would influence the length of other trips during the stay at the hotel and the resulting impact to the overall transportation system. As such, the impact to the transportation system would be negligible or reduced by the introduction of a new hotel to an area where people are already traveling and planning overnight stays, unless that hotel would significantly affect the local supply, become a destination itself, or introduce a substantial new attraction. In this case, the proposed hotel would be not become a destination or be considered a new attraction, but rather would provide another lodging option near existing attractions for people traveling to the area. Further, the proposed 42- room hotel would not substantially affect local supply of available hotel rooms. Because vacant hotel rooms are currently available within the City (as discussed further below), once the new hotel is constructed, guests would be expected to stay at the new hotel rather than a different hotel within the City. The new hotel would not attract additional visitors to the City and would therefore not generate VMT as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, VMT generated by the project would be solely from employees.
Average hotel occupancy rates in City of Monterey vary by season and have varied over the last several years. Table 4.6-6 shows the average hotel occupancy rates by year for the time period from July 2018 to May 2022.
Table 4.6-6 Average Hotel Occupancy Rate by Year
Year1 Occupancy Rate
2018/2019 76.0%
2019/2020 57.6%
2020/2021 47.7%
2021/20222 67.8%
1 Refers to fiscal year from July to June.
2 Data provided through May 2022.
Source: City of Monterey 2022b
According to Table 4.6-6 the occupancy rate of hotels and motels in the area has ranged from 47.7 percent to 76 percent since July 2018. The most recent Transient Occupancy Tax Report for the May 2022 Reporting Period (City of Monterey 2022b) assumed that approximately 4,782 hotel rooms were available for rent in the City of Monterey. In order to provide a conservative analysis, applying the highest average occupancy rate of 76 percent would suggest that a minimum of approximately 1,148 hotel rooms are unoccupied on a typical night. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed 42- room hotel would attract additional visitors to the City or result in an increase in VMT associated with hotel guests from the creation of surplus rooms for visitors. Based on this analysis, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in the number of visitors to the City of
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 250, Packet Page 253 Monterey. As such, the analysis of VMT impacts is based on employee VMT generated by the proposed hotel.
According to the City of Monterey’s VMT Policy, the project would have a less than significant impact if VMT is 15 percent below the existing countywide average VMT per employee for similar land uses, or if the VMT attributable to hotel guests results in a net increase in total VMT. The analysis of net VMT takes into account that hotels attract guests already visiting Monterey County that would otherwise stay at another hotel, as well as “day trippers” already visiting the area that would otherwise not stay in the area overnight. The VMT Analysis prepared by TJKM in 2023 (Appendix H-2) includes the City’s VMT impact thresholds. The impact threshold applicable to hotel employees (service type employment) is 6.6 miles per employee (round-trip). The VMT Analysis concluded that the proposed project would generate VMT at a rate of 5.7 miles per employee, which is less than the City’s impact threshold of 6.6 miles per employee. As such, VMT generated by hotel employees would be below the City’s threshold of 6.6 miles per employee. In addition to the above analysis showing a less than significant VMT impact, impacts would be considered less than significant due to the project site location within a ½-mile of a high-quality transit corridor. No mitigation is required.
3) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would provide access to the surface parking lot from North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, which would comply with the City’s design requirements. The proposed project would not result in changes to the existing roadway or multimodal circulation system and would not include hazardous design features. The proposed hotel use would be consistent with the existing hotel use on the project site and uses in the surrounding area, and thus, would not introduce an incompatible use to the surrounding transportation system. The proposed project includes a loading space which, according to current Monterey City Code requirements, is substandard in size. The project would involve a reduction in the required number of loading zone spaces from two standard-size (12-foot by 25-foot by 14-foot) loading zone spaces to one substandard-sized (9-foot, 4-inches by 23-foot by 8-foot, 6-inches) loading zone space. However, the proposed project includes an amendment to the City’s off-street parking standards and loading zone requirement, which upon approval would clarify that a use permit can be approved for nonresidential uses, reducing the number of parking spaces or loading spaces to less than the number and size required in Section 38-115 of the City’s Zoning Code establish the City’s loading space dimension requirement of 10 feet deep by 20 feet long by 10 feet in height. As such, upon approval of a use permit, the proposed project would comply with these standards. Further, the proposed parking lot configuration was reviewed and approval by the City’s traffic engineers to ensure compliance with applicable design requirements and ensure that the loading space and parking configuration does create a hazard for delivery trucks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project would provide access to the surface parking lot from North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, which would comply with the City’s design requirements and Monterey Fire Department access requirements. The site plans for the project were reviewed in accordance with applicable fire codes and recommendations and were approved (CGS Consultants 2023). The proposed project would not impede emergency access to or around the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 251, Packet Page 254
4.6.14 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts to utilities and service systems would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. 5) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The following utility providers serve the project site: the California-American Water Company (CalAm) provides water, the City’s Public Works Department provides sanitary sewer and stormwater services, Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) provides electricity via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) electricity infrastructure, PG&E provides natural gas, and Monterey One Water provides wastewater services. Local phone, cable, and internet services are available through several providers, including AT&T, Xfinity, Spectrum, Verizon, among others. As part of the project, a proposed 3-inch water line and a 4-inch fire water line would connect the hotel to an existing water main along North Fremont Street, and a proposed 6-inch sanitary sewer line would connect the hotel to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main along Casa Verde Way.
The project site is within the Cal-Am service area. As discussed in Threshold 2, below, the proposed hotel would require a water allocation that is less than that allocated for the existing motel and restaurant. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water supply facilities, beyond those associated with the proposed on-site water and fire water lines. Wastewater from the project site would be conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant, which is located unincorporated Monterey County north of the City of Marina (Monterey One Water 2022). As further described under Threshold 3, below, the project would not exceed capacity of the Regional Treatment Plant and would not require new or expanded wastewater facilities. Connections to PG&E’s electricity and natural gas infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure would be installed during construction of the proposed project, with no facility upgrades required. Additionally, the project would include landscaped areas, most of which would be graded to retain stormwater flows, as well as an on-site infiltration chamber which would infiltrate stormwater flows. Stormwater flows would not exceed the rate or volume of existing stormwater flows on the project site, and no upgrade to off-site stormwater facilities would be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 252, Packet Page 255 construction of new or expanded water, stormwater, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 2) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As noted for Threshold 1, Cal-Am will provide water supply service to the project site, which is within the Monterey County District of CalAm’s service territory. CalAm owns the supply and conveyance infrastructure in this area, and delivers water it obtains from local sources including the Carmel River Aquifer, the Seaside Groundwater Basin (adjudicated), existing Aquifer Storage and Recovery supply, recycled water supply (developed through Pure Water Monterey [PWM] and the PWM Expansion), and existing desalination (Sand City Desalination), as well as the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and associated ocean desalination facilities that are currently under construction (CalAm 2021).
While CalAm has legal rights to local groundwater in this area, disputes over water supply have resulted in the groundwater being managed in accordance with land use-correlated allocations and court orders. CalAm is subject to the management and oversight of the MPWMD, a special district responsible for water supply management and sustainability for residents of the Monterey Peninsula. The MPWMD issued a water supply allocation for the project site in 2013 (Water Permit No. 32425; Appendix J), which was based on the existing 134-seat restaurant and the 18-room motel and included a water supply credit for removal of the previous swimming pool. The water supply allocation for the project site, based on the previous site uses and the pool credit, is 4.234 AFY (City of Monterey 2021c).
On May 17, 2021, a MPWMD Conservation Analyst documented that since the 2013 allocation was determined, the Water Use Factor for Hotels (“water demand factor”) changed from 0.1 AFY/room to 0.064 AFY/room; this changed the water supply allocation for the project site’s previous 18-room motel from 1.8 AFY to 1.152 AFY, while the project site’s total allocation for the restaurant, the motel, and the pool credit reduced to 3.676 AFY. In addition, the pool removal credit of 0.09 AFY expired 10 years after the 2013 permit issuance, which was in May 2023. Using the adjusted water demand factor, and accounting for removal of the existing motel and restaurant uses, the proposed project’s 42-room hotel would require a water allocation of 2.688 AFY. Overall, the proposed project’s water supply allocation would be nearly 1.0 AFY less than the previous site uses.
The project site’s previous allocation of 3.676 AFY is relevant to this discussion of supply availability for the proposed project’s required allocation of 2.688 AFY, because the former, larger amount, is the amount that would have been used to inform the water supply and demand projections prepared by CalAm as part of its UWMP Update, which is required to occur every five years. CalAm’s projections of water supply availability are informed by existing and anticipated water demands for land uses throughout its Monterey County District; in turn, land use analysis is informed by current zoning characteristics and coordination with local agencies including the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). As described in the UWMP under Section 3.5, Summary of Proposed Changes Compared to Existing Use, AMBAG developed its regional growth forecast in coordination with local land use jurisdictions to ensure that local land uses were considered (CalAm 2021). The proposed project would not change the land use zoning of the project site, and the zoning information and use characteristics provided by AMBAG for the previous site development would be consistent with the proposed site development.
CalAm projections indicate that the available water sources are sufficient to meet existing and anticipated water demands within the Monterey County District under normal-water years (nonEXHIBIT A Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 253, Packet Page 256 drought conditions), as well as under single-dry-year and multiple-dry-year (extended drought) conditions (CalAm 2021). The existing motel and restaurant on the project site had a higher water supply allocation than the required water allocation for the proposed hotel. Because CalAm projections are based on previous use on the project site, it therefore reasons that the supply availability calculations provided in the UWMP account for the amount of water that would be required for the proposed project. Therefore, although the proposed project would introduce new water uses to the project site, its overall water demands would be lower than for the previous site development, while CalAm’s supply availability projections were informed by the more waterintensive previous site development. In addition, under both the previous and the proposed site development, CalAm would only deliver as much water to the project site as would be authorized by MPWMD, in its authority as a special district responsible for water supply sustainability management. Therefore, sufficient water supply is available to meet the needs of the project, including under varying drought conditions, and potential impacts would be less than significant. 3) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? As discussed under Threshold 1, wastewater from the project site would be conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant, which is operated by Monterey One Water. The Regional Treatment Plant has a daily capacity of 29.6 million gallons per day (Monterey One Water 2022). Wastewater generated by the project can be estimated as 90 percent of water demand. According to the City of Monterey Community Development Department, the required water allocation for the proposed project is 2.688 acre-feet (AF) per year (City of Monterey 2021d). Assuming conservatively that the proposed project would use the entire 2.688 AF per year of water allocated, the proposed project would generate approximately 2.42 AF per year of wastewater (approximately 788,600 gallons per year or 2,161 gallons per day).7 The 2,162 gallons of wastewater generated daily by the proposed project would represent less than 0.01 percent of the Regional Treatment Plant’s maximum daily capacity.8 Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of existing wastewater treatment facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 4) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Solid waste in Monterey is disposed of at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, located in unincorporated Monterey County north of the City of Marina (ReGen 2022). The project involves demolition of the existing on-site motel and restaurant and construction of a new hotel, which would increase the generation of solid waste during construction. However, the increased generation of solid waste during construction would be short-term and temporary in nature and would cease upon project completion. Further, due to cost reduction, it is reasonable to assume that construction contractors would reuse or salvage materials where possible. Waste would be disposed of at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, which has a remaining capacity of 48,560,000 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2022a). Therefore, construction of the project would not result in the generation of solid waste in excess of the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure and would not impair solid waste reduction goals. 7 To convert acre-feet to gallons, multiple acre-feet by 325,900. 2.42 acre-feet x 325,900 = 788,559.3 gallons. 788,559.3 gallons per year / 365 days = 2,160.5 gallons per day.
8 2,161 / 29,600,000 = 0.007 percent
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 254, Packet Page 257 CalRecycle estimates that hotels generate approximately 1.74 tons of solid waste per employee (full time and part time) per year (CalRecycle 2022b). The proposed 42-room hotel would generate an estimated 45 jobs (5 on-site positions and 40 remote positions). As such, the 5 on-site employees associated with the project would generate approximately 8.7 tons of solid waste per year, or approximately 0.02 tons per day.9 The remaining capacities and maximum daily throughputs of the Monterey Peninsula Landfill are shown below in Table 4.6-7.
Table 4.6-7 Solid Waste Facilities Serving the Project
Facility
Maximum Daily
Throughput
Average Daily
Throughput Remaining Capacity
Estimated
Closure Year
Monterey Peninsula
Landfill
3,500 tons per day 1,300 tons per day 48,560,000 cubic yards 2107 Sources: CalRecycle 2022a, Monterey Regional Waste Management District 2016 The 0.02 tons of solid waste generated daily by the proposed project would represent less than 0.01 percent10 of the maximum daily throughput and approximately 0.02 percent11 of the average daily throughput of the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in the generation of solid waste in excess of the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure and would not impair solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
5) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Pursuant to Section 9.0-1 of the Monterey Municipal Code, the City has adopted the most recent version of CALGreen, which contains construction waste recycling requirements. The project would also comply with Assembly Bill 939, which requires the City to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills (including construction and demolition debris), and Senate Bill 1383, which requires a 75 percent reduction in statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025. Compliance with these regulations related to solid waste reduction would further reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of at Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and there would be no impact.
4.6.15 Wildfire
Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to wildfire would be significant if the project is located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and the project would:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
9 1.74 tons of solid waste per year x 5 employees = 8.7 tons of solid waste per year. 8.7 tons of solid waste per year / 365 days = 0.024. 10 0.02 / 3,500 = 0.0006 percent 11 0.02 / 1,300 = 0.0015 percent
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 255, Packet Page 258 3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Impact Analysis
1) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Monterey General Plan Safety Element identifies goals and policies related to emergency response and emergency evacuation and identifies emergency evacuation routes throughout the city. Map 15 of the City’s General Plan shows that North Fremont Street serves as access to major evacuation routes, including SR 1, SR 68, and Carmel Valley Road. Implementation of the project would involve demolition of the existing motel and restaurant structures and the construction of a new four-story, 42 guest room hotel. Demolition and construction may require temporary lane closures along westbound North Fremont Street. However, lane closures would be coordinated with the City prior to permit issuance, and lane closures would be temporary, lasting a few hours to a few days. Operationally, the project would not impair access to or alter North Fremont Street and would not impair implementation of the City’s evacuation plan. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
2) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
As shown on maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is in a local responsibility area and is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The nearest FHSZ is located along Josselyn Canyon Road, approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site (CAL FIRE 2007).
The project site is surrounded by existing development, and large tracts of wildland fuels, such as forest or brushland, do not occur on or near the project site. Consistent with typical California wildfire behavior, wildfire would spread most rapidly on sloped terrace areas. Although the project site is located on a moderate slope, the slope would not substantially facilitate extreme wildfire activity. The nearest slope that would facilitate spread of a wildfire is located along Josselyn Canyon Road to the southwest. Prevailing winds in the City of Monterey typically blow west to east in the summer, and north to south in the winter (WeatherSpark 2022). Accordingly, prevailing winds would typically spread fire and smoke to the south and west, away from the project site. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risk and expose project occupants to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant. 3) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The project site is currently developed with a motel and restaurant. The project would connect to existing water, electricity, and other utility connections present on the project site, would not
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 256, Packet Page 259 require the installation of additional infrastructure. Accordingly, wildfire impacts related to the installation of new infrastructure on site would be less than significant. 4) Would the project people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
As described above, the project site is currently developed and there are no wildfire fuels on or near the project site. These current conditions would not be expected to experience extreme wildfire behavior. Further, although the project site is moderately sloped, the project would not increase the risk of flooding or landslides, as site topography and designated flood zones would not be modified substantially from existing conditions. In addition, the project site is not located within a FEMA designated flood area (FEMA 2021). Therefore, any changes to the risk of wildfire impacts facilitated by the project regarding post-fire slope instability or drainage changes would be very low. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildfires, flooding, or landslides, nor exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 257, Packet Page 260 This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 258, Packet Page 261 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses other issues for which the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires analysis in addition to the specific issue areas discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR. These additional issues include the potential to induce population growth and/or economic growth; removal of obstacles to growth; significant unavoidable effects; significant irreversible effects, and mandatory findings.
5.1 Growth Inducement
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.
However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.
5.1.1 Population Growth
As discussed in Section 4.6.10, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not directly generate population growth because it does not include residential uses. However, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project would generate 45 jobs, with 5 on-site positions and 40 remote positions. It is likely that most of the employees would be filled by individuals already residing within Monterey or other nearby cities. However, the proposed hotel may indirectly increase the population if all new employees relocated to the City of Monterey. Assuming a conservative, maximum growth scenario in which every on-site employee relocates to Monterey, the project could add approximately 5 residents to the City of Monterey.
The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated that as of January 2022, the City of Monterey had a population of 28,082 (DOF 2022). The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) projects that the City of Monterey will have a population of 28,650 by 2030, or an increase of 568 people over the next eight years (AMBAG 2020). Under a conservative, maximum growth scenario, the project’s predicted 5 on-site employees would represent less than 1 percent of population growth by 2030 and would therefore be accommodated within the City’s growth projections.
5.1.2 Economic Growth
The proposed project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction.
Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of the project would not be growth-inducing from a temporary employment standpoint. However, the proposed project would also add long-term employment opportunities associated with operation of an office building. As stated above, the project would generate 45 jobs, with 5 on-site positions and 40 remote positions.
AMBAG forecasts that there will be 42,506 jobs in City of Monterey by 2030, an increase of 1,517 jobs from 2020 (AMBAG 2020). The 5 on-site positions and 40 remote positions (45 jobs total)
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 259, Packet Page 262 anticipated by the proposed project would represent 3 percent of job growth by 2030 and, therefore, would be well within AMBAG employment forecasts.
The proposed project would not be expected to induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result.
5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
The proposed project is in a fully urbanized area that is well served by existing infrastructure. As discussed in Section 4.6.13, Transportation, and Section 4.6.14, Utilities and Service Systems, existing infrastructure in the City of Monterey would be adequate to serve the project. The project would involve minor improvements to on-site water and sewer connection infrastructure, but these improvements would be sized specifically to serve the project and would connect to existing City infrastructure. The project would not require expansion of any off-site utilities. The project would not result in a significant change to existing circulation and would be intended to accommodate expected traffic volumes and project site access needs. No new roads would be required. Because the project would constitute redevelopment within an urbanized area and would not require the extension of new infrastructure through undeveloped areas, project implementation would not remove an obstacle to growth.
5.2 Significant Unavoidable Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires that an EIR identify those significant impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level with the application of mitigation measures. The implications and reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding, must be described.
As discussed throughout Sections 4.1 through 4.6 of this EIR, implementation of the project would not result in significant, unavoidable environmental effects.
5.3 Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be caused by the project should it be implemented. Such significant irreversible environmental changes may include the following:
Use of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project which would be irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use unlikely.
Primary impacts and, particularly secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) which generally commit future generations to similar uses.
Irreversible damage which may result from environmental accidents associated with the project.
This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed project.
The proposed project would involve redevelopment of a currently developed lot in the City of Monterey. Construction and operation of the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. Construction of the hotel would require the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources, to
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 260, Packet Page 263 construct the proposed hotel. During project construction, energy would also be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power construction vehicles and equipment.
Project operation would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of the project. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project’s design features would include energy efficient appliances and lighting; water efficient appliances, fixtures, and irrigation; and electric vehicle charging stations. In addition, the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial buildings constructed in California, and the Green Building Standards Code requires installation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects to reduce energy consumption. As discussed in Section 4.6.5, Energy, energy use for project construction and operation would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Although project construction and operation would involve the use of energy, energy usage would be negligible and would not result in irreversible environmental effects. In addition, consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and would not be unique to the proposed project.
Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, as discussed in Section 4.6.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.6.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, development and operation of the project would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact.
Additionally, Section 4.6.13, Transportation, concludes that transportation impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant based on City and regional thresholds.
The project would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 4.6.11, Public Services, and Section 4.6.14, Utilities and Service Systems, impacts to these service systems would not be significant.
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this EIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
5.4 Mandatory Findings
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 requires the following specific Mandatory Findings of Significance be addressed as part of the environmental review for the project:
The potential for the project to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory;
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 261, Packet Page 264 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
5-4
Project impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects); and
Environmental effects of the project which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Section 4.6.4, Biological Resources, describes the project’s potential effects on plant and animal species populations, habitats, communities, and migratory patterns and concluded that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, describe the project’s potential effects on important historical and prehistorical cultural and tribal cultural resources and concluded that impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation. Potential adverse environmental effects to human beings are discussed in Section 4.6.3, Air Quality, Section
4.6.6, Geology and Soils, Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.4, Noise.
Impacts related to air quality and geology and soils would be less than significant. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and noise would be less than significant with mitigation.
Furthermore, each environmental analysis section in Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of the EIR concludes with a discussion of the project’s contribution to cumulative effects. Additionally, cumulative net increases of criterial pollutants are discussed in Section 4.6.3, Air Quality. As discussed in Sections
4.1 and 4.5 through 4.5 and Section 4.6.3, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. the The project would not result in any other considerable contributions to cumulative impacts.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 262, Packet Page 265 6 Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts. As discussed in Section 2.6, Project Objectives, the objectives for the proposed project are as follows:
Revitalize the project site with a modern, high-quality designed hotel to attract new customers.
Remove urban decay and construct a new, economically viable hotel. Modernize the project site layout to be more functional and improve visual character for the existing and planned North Fremont Street commercial corridor.
Improve energy and utility efficiency relative to the existing motel.
Complement the City’s efforts to invest in the North Fremont Business District and adjacent public infrastructure (which includes new sidewalks, dedicated bicycle lanes, center medians, reconstruction of the street, and upgrades to transportation systems) with quality private investment resulting in redevelopment of the project site.
Support local businesses and economy by providing additional lodging to accommodate more visitors than the existing motel.
Catalyze investment by other surrounding properties by increasing the number of visitors to North Fremont Street, thereby creating other community benefits including increasing consumer demand for goods and services to the direct vicinity.
Create new employment opportunities.
Increased Transient Occupancy Tax revenue for the City to fund public infrastructure and services.
As discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, the proposed project would not have any significant and unavoidable impacts. The proposed project would require mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels with respect to cultural resources (including archaeological and paleontological resources), hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous building materials removal), noise (construction noise and vibration) and tribal cultural resources.
6.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process
The identification of alternatives to the proposed project focuses on changes to the project that are intended to reduce or avoid significant and unavoidable impacts, where the potential for impact reduction is feasible, while still attaining most of the objectives. This EIR also evaluates a No Project Alternative, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]). The no project analysis discusses the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project is not approved.
6.1.1 Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible and provide a brief explanation as to why such alternatives
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 263, Packet Page 266 were not fully considered in the EIR. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the selection of alternatives for this EIR included a screening process to determine a reasonable range of alternatives, which could reduce significant effects but also feasibly meet project objectives.
Alternatives that do not clearly provide any environmental advantages compared to the project, do not meet basic project objectives, or do not achieve overall lead agency policy goals, have been eliminated from further consideration. The factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][1]).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) also states that “an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.” The alternatives shall be limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Other alternatives may be considered but are not required to satisfy the requirements of CEQA.
For the project, characteristics used to reject alternatives from further consideration include:
Failure to meet basic project objectives;
Limited effectiveness in reducing project environmental impacts; Inconsistency with City policies;
Potential for inconsistency with adopted agency plans and policies; and Reasonableness of the alternative when compared to other alternatives under consideration.
The following alternative was considered but eliminated from further analysis by the City due to one or more of these factors.
Alternative Project Site Location
The first step in considering an off-site alternative is whether any of the significant impacts of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by the relocation. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). If it is determined that no feasible alternative locations exist, the EIR must disclose the reasons for this conclusion (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).
No alternative properties to undertake the proposed project are analyzed in this EIR. The proposed project involves development of a hotel on the subject property. Although there are other properties in the City that could support a development similar to the proposed project, the project applicant does not own or control any other property within the City or in the vicinity of the project site that would be suitable for development of the project. Moreover, the applicant cannot reasonably acquire or control an alternative property in a timely fashion that would allow for the implementation of a project with similar uses and square footage. There are currently eight commercial properties for sale within the City; however, only one is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed hotel and would require demolition of a currently occupied office building with an office park (Loopnet 2022). In addition, the City’s Charter would require a charter amendment to rezone an alternative site to a Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) district; charter
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 264, Packet Page 267 amendments require voter approval under State law (California Constitution Article XI, Section 3).
None of the properties are within the North Fremont Street commercial corridor, and would therefore not meet the project objectives to support the City’s efforts to invest in the North Fremont business district and increase the number of visitors to North Fremont Street. As a result of these considerations, alternative project site locations were considered and rejected, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
6.1.2 Project Alternatives
Included in this analysis are three alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project.
The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Motel and Restaurant to Remain Alternative 2: Three Story Hotel
Alternative 3: Different Location on Project Site
Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of the proposed project and each of the alternatives considered. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.2 through 6.4, below.
Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics Feature
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
Three Story Hotel
Alternative 3:
Different Location
on Project Site
Site Use Hotel Motel Restaurant Hotel Hotel
Number of Guest Rooms 42 18 28 42
Number of Parking Spaces 42 32 42 42
Number of Bicycle Spaces 8 0 8 8
Height 45 ft
(35 ft above grade)
20 ft
(12 ft above grade)
36 ft
(26 ft above grade)
45 feet
(35 ft above grade)
Total Stories 4 1 3 4
Stories Above Grade 3 1 1 3
Stories Below Grade 1 0 2 1
Building Footprint 7,076 sf 8,366 sf 7,076 sf 7,076 sf
Total Hotel Floor Area 25,000 sf 4,866 sf 17,200 sf 25,000 sf Total Commercial Floor
Area
None 3,500 sf (restaurant) None None
ft = feet
sf = square feet
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 265, Packet Page 268
6.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
6.2.1 Description
The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(C), the lead agency should analyze the impacts of the no project alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. This alternative assumes the project is not approved and none of the proposed components are implemented. This alternative assumes the existing one-story, 18-guest room motel and 134-seat restaurant are not demolished and the 42- guest room hotel is not developed on the project site. This alternative assumes that the existing motel and restaurant would not remain vacant. Rather, the site would once again operate as a motel and restaurant utilizing the existing on-site structures. Under this alternative, the existing vacant motel and restaurant could foreseeably be renovated prior to new occupancy; however, any future use would be limited to an 18-guest room motel and 134-seat restaurant. The project site would continue to be accessible from North Fremont Street. The available on-site parking would remain 32 spaces, with no available bicycle parking. No utility upgrades would occur as part of the No Project Alternative. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the characteristics of Alternative 1.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, the project site is recommended ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and as local historical resource. While there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources present on the project site, there is a potential for unknown archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains to be present. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing motel and restaurant would not be demolished and replaced with a new hotel. However, the No Project Alternative could include remodeling of the existing motel and restaurant. The remodeling of the existing building on the project site would not result in impacts to historical resources because the project site is recommended ineligible for listing as a historical resource.
Although the existing motel may be renovated prior to future occupancy, no ground disturbing activities would occur as part of the No Project Alternative. Therefore, no impacts to unknown archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains would occur, and mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would not be required or implemented. The No Project Alternative would result in reduced potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources when compared to the proposed project, as there is a potential for unknown archeological or paleontological resources or human remains to be encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project and the No Project Alternative would not impact these resources.
b. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the existing on-site building may contain hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) caulk. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing motel and restaurant would not be demolished and replaced with a new hotel. However, the No Project Alternative could include remodeling of the
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 266, Packet Page 269 existing motel and restaurant. Remodeling activities would be subject to all applicable local, State, and federal regulations related to hazardous materials. However, the remodeling of the existing building on the project site could result in the release of these hazardous materials into the environment, and therefore, impacts during remodeling of the existing motel would be similar or less as compared to construction of the proposed project.
Renovation activities under the No Project Alternative would temporarily increase the local transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials could potentially cause harm to construction workers or others in the area during an accidental release or mishandling. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during renovation would be subject to all applicable local, State, and federal regulations, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. These regulations prescribe measures for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of accidental spills.
Renovation would likely require less use of hazardous materials compared to construction of the proposed project. However, similar to the proposed project, impacts related to the transport, use, and storage of these hazardous materials would be less than significant under the No Project Alternative.
Similar to the proposed project, operation of the No Project Alternative would involve transport, use, and disposal of nominal amounts of hazardous materials or wastes associated with motel uses, but impacts would be less than significant because these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. Further, these operational impacts under the No Project Alternative would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project relative to the smaller size of the motel. Similar to the proposed project, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the No Project Alternative would comply with all existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan Safety Element and requirements imposed by the County of Monterey Environmental Health Department and impacts would be less than significant.
According to the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area, and specifically within Zone 3 - Inner Turning Zone (ITZ). Under the No Project Alternative, building height and configuration would remain the same as current conditions.
Because no new construction would occur, there would be no potential for the No Project Alternative to conflict with Monterey Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) policies, which are aimed at new development. Exterior lighting could be altered as part of future renovation activities, but it would likely remain in the same general locations as currently configurated and would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations. Therefore, no impacts related to safety hazards in proximity to the Monterey Regional Airport would occur under the No Project Alternative.
The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or planned school and is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Consequently, similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of a school and would have no impact with respect to hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Further, because the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical changes to the layout of the project site, this alternative would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 267, Packet Page 270 plan or emergency evacuation plan, and would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. These impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, and therefore, the same as the proposed project.
For the reasons stated above, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts to hazards and hazardous materials when compared to the proposed project. Overall, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for this alternative would be less than significant. c. Land Use and Planning
As discussed in Section 4.3, Land Use and Planning, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, is zoned Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), and is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area, which are consistent with existing uses on the project site. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing motel and restaurant would not be demolished and replaced with a new hotel. Additionally, the proposed text amendments to the North Fremont Specific Plan and amendment to the City’s off-street parking standards and loading zone requirement would not be approved under the No Project Alternative. Although the existing motel may be renovated prior to future occupancy, on- and off-site circulation and access to the project site and surrounding area would not change as part of the No Project Alternative. As such, similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not physically divide an established community. Further, because the existing uses on the project site are considered legal conforming uses, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to conflicts with the Monterey General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or the North Fremont Specific Plan. As a VAF-zoned property, the project site would be subject to development standards established by the VAF zone as opposed to development objectives, standards, and guidelines in the North Fremont Specific Plan; however, the No Project Alternative would represent a continuation of existing uses which, once legally established, are not typically required to demonstrate conformity with land use plans, policies, or regulations. The No Project Alternative would not result in impacts related to land use, and impacts to land use and planning would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project. d. Noise
It is assumed that the project site would once again operate as a motel and restaurant utilizing the existing on-site structures under the No Project Alternative. Because the motel and restaurant within the project site are currently non-operational, noise levels would increase compared to existing conditions under this alternative. Assuming the project site would again operate as a motel and a restaurant, noise from renovations or minor construction prior to new occupancy could occur, which would increase noise levels compared to existing conditions. Additionally, operation of a motel and restaurant under this alternative would result in greater noise levels than the existing vacant buildings. However, because excavation, grading, and substantial construction would not occur under this alternative, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would not be required.
Operation of the No Project Alternative would generate noise, but noise levels would be consistent with the former site use and would not exceed applicable City thresholds. Noise impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would be less than significant. e. Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, there are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site. However, there is a potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 268, Packet Page 271 present. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing motel and restaurant would not be demolished and replaced with a new hotel. Although the existing motel may be renovated prior to future occupancy, no ground disturbing activities would occur as part of the No Project Alternative.
Therefore, no impacts to tribal cultural resources would occur and mitigation identified for the proposed project would not be required or implemented. The No Project Alternative would result in reduced potential impacts to tribal cultural resources when compared to the proposed project, as there is a potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project and the No Project Alternative would not impact these resources.
6.3 Alternative 2: Three-Story Hotel
6.3.1 Description
Alternative 2 includes demolition of the existing one-story 18-guest room motel and 134-seat restaurant and construction of a three-story, 28-guest room branded hotel and a surface parking lot with 42 parking spaces. Alternative 2 would include construction of the hotel envisioned under the proposed project, but with the fourth floor (which contains 21 rooms) removed. Alternative 2 would include a total of 21 rooms on the third floor and 7 rooms on the second floor. On the second floor, the square footage of the lounge area, pantry, and fitness center would be reduced in size compared to the proposed project to accommodate seven guest rooms. Alternative 2 would be a maximum of 36 feet in height (26 feet above grade) and three stories, including a partial basement and two above grade stories, and would have a total floor area of 17,200 sf.
The basement (or first floor) would include the lower lobby, bicycle storage room, laundry room, storage, trash, and electrical and utilities rooms. The second floor would include the upper lobby and check-in area, housekeeping area, offices, employee breakrooms, restrooms, and various amenities for guests including a lounge area, pantry, fitness center, and guest rooms. The third floor would include guest rooms and housekeeping areas. Guest rooms would be comprised of 12 double queen rooms and 9 king rooms on the third floor and 7 queen rooms on the second floor. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be installed in two areas and would not exceed five feet in height.
Alternative 2 would provide 8 bicycle parking spaces within the bicycle storage room.
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two access points: an existing curb cut along North Fremont Street, which would be improved as part of the project, and a proposed curb cut along Casa Verde Way. A proposed 3-inch water line and a 4-inch fire water line would connect the project to an existing water main along North Fremont Street. A proposed 6-inch sanitary sewer line would connect the project to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main along Casa Verde Way.
Table 6-1 provides a summary of the characteristics of Alternative 2.
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, the project site is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and as local historical resource. While there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources present on the project site, there is a potential for unknown archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains to be present. Alternative 2 would include the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new three-story
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 269, Packet Page 272 hotel in the same footprint as the proposed project. The demolition of the existing motel and restaurant on the project site would not result in impacts to historical resources because the project site is recommended ineligible for listing as a historical resource. Although the project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed, it is possible that ground disturbance during construction of Alternative 2 could encounter unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, Alternative 2 has the potential to significantly impact archaeological resources through ground disturbance and subsequent damage. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and 2(b) would be implemented during construction of Alternative 2. CUL-2(a) requires the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. If unknown archeological resources are encountered, CUL-2(b) requires ground disturbance activities to halt within 50 feet of the find, as well as evaluation by a qualified archaeologist and implementation of a data recovery plan if necessary. Further, due to the depth of excavation required for groundwater infiltration tanks (15 feet below the surface), Alternative 2 has the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measure CUL-4(a) and 4(b) would be implemented during construction of Alternative 2. CUL-4(a) requires the project applicant to retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct WEAP training for paleontological resources for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. If unknown paleontological resources are encountered, CUL-4(b) requires ground disturbance activities to halt within 50 feet of the find, as well as evaluation by a qualified paleontologist and implementation of a data recovery plan if necessary. Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and 2(b) and CUL-4(a) and 4(b) would reduce impacts associated with Alternative 2 to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would result in the similar ground disturbing activities on the same site as the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the existing on-site building may contain hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury, and PCB caulk. Alternative 2 would include the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new three-story hotel. Similar to the proposed project, demolition of the existing building could result in the release of these hazardous materials into the environment and construction impacts would be potentially significant. However, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would reduce construction impacts related to the transport, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials that could be found in the existing building to a less than significant level.
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 2 would temporarily increase the local transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials could potentially cause harm to construction workers or others in the area during an accidental release or mishandling. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of Alternative 2 would be subject to all applicable local, State, and federal regulations, including the Hazardous Materials
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 270, Packet Page 273 Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. These regulations prescribe measures for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of accidental spills. In addition, Alternative 2 would comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires implementation of good housekeeping BMPs to reduce risk of spills or leaks of hazardous materials used during construction (refer to Section 4.6.8, Hydrology and Water Quality).
Impacts related to the transport, use, and storage of these hazardous materials would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project, operation of Alternative 2 would involve transport, use, and disposal of nominal amounts of hazardous materials or wastes associated with hotel uses, but impacts would be less than significant because these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would comply with all existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan Safety Element and requirements imposed by the County of Monterey Environmental Health Department.
Therefore, these impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar as compared to the proposed project and would be less than significant.
According to the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area, and specifically within Zone 3 - ITZ. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would require review by the ALUC, which would have the opportunity to provide recommendations based on the design of the project. Because building height is a major consideration of ALUC review, and Alternative 2 includes a reduced building height compared to the proposed project, impacts under Alternative 2 are expected to be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. Exterior lighting design would not change under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed project and would be required to comply with City and ALUC lighting requirements.
Similar to the proposed project, the project site would not be designated as a Noise Sensitive Institution and is not within Noise Contours in the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and therefore, the project would not result excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, impacts related to safety hazards in proximity to the Monterey Regional Airport would be less than the proposed project and would be less than significant.
The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or planned school and is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Consequently, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not result in hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0. 5-mile of a school and would have no impact with respect to hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Construction of Alternative 2 may require temporary lane closures along westbound North Fremont Street. However, as with the proposed project, lane closures would be coordinated with the City, the Monterey Fire Department, and the Monterey Police Department prior to permit issuance, and lane closures would be temporary, lasting a few hours to a few days. Further, because there would be no difference in the layout of the project site between Alternative 2 and the proposed project, impacts would be the same as the proposed project and this alternative would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Because the project site is surrounded by existing development, and large tracts of wildland fuels, such as forest or brushland, do not occur on or near the project site, Alternative 2 would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. These impacts under Alternative 2 would be the same as the proposed project.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 271, Packet Page 274 c. Land Use and Planning
As discussed in Section 4.3, Land Use and Planning, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, is zoned VAF, and is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area, which are consistent with existing uses on the project site. Alternative 2 would include the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new three-story hotel. Under Alternative 2, on- and off-site circulation and access to the project site and surrounding area would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not physically divide an established community. As a VAF-zoned property, the project site under Alternative 2 would be subject to development standards established by the VAF zone as opposed to development objectives, standards, and guidelines in the North Fremont Specific Plan.
Alternative 2 would conform to development standards established by the VAF zone, including adherence to minimum site area, minimum yard, and maximum lot coverage requirements.
Additionally, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include text amendments to the North Fremont Specific Plan, which would clarify existing language and would not result in a change in application of the specific plan by the City as compared to current practices. Because the proposed hotel use under Alternative 2 is similar, but scaled down, as compared the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have similar, less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with the Monterey General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the North Fremont Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to land use and planning as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. d. Noise
As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to the operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and mechanical equipment, increase in off-site traffic, and use of the on-site parking lot. This increase would not exceed applicable City noise standards. Because Alternative 2 would involve 14 fewer hotel rooms than the proposed project, increases in ambient noise associated with the operation of HVAC and mechanical equipment, off-site traffic, and parking lot use would be lower than the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 would be one story shorter than the proposed project. As a result, Alternative 2 would provide less screening of the adjacent apartments north of the project site from traffic noise originating from North Fremont Street. Therefore, weighing the reduced operational stationary noise against the increased roadway noise resulting from the reduced building height, operational noise impacts would be generally similar compared to the proposed project, and would remain less than significant, as they are for the project. Alternative 2 would involve construction of a smaller hotel than the proposed project, with one less floor and 14 fewer hotel rooms, which would involve a shorter construction period. However, construction of Alternative 2 would involve similar construction equipment as the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, construction noise could be as high as 91 dBA Leq(h) at the nearest sensitive receivers. Construction noise would exceed the significance threshold of 90 dBA Leq(h) and construction noise impacts would be potentially significant under Alternative 2. Similarly, construction activities generating vibration could exceed potential building damage thresholds or be perceptible at nearest sensitive receivers and construction vibration impacts would be potentially significant. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, Construction Noise Reduction, and Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Construction Vibration. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project due to the shorter construction period.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 272, Packet Page 275 As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, the project site is outside the 65, 70, or 75 CNEL dBA noise contours for the Monterey Regional Airport and the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations from the Monterey Regional Airport. Because Alternative 2 is on the same site as the proposed project, airport noise impacts would be similar and less than significant.
Overall, Noise impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
e. Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, there are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site. However, there is a potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be present. Alternative 2 would include the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new three-story hotel, which would involve ground disturbance on the project site. Although the project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed, it is possible that ground disturbance during construction of Alternative 2 could encounter unknown tribal cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 2 has the potential to significantly impact tribal cultural resources through ground disturbance and subsequent damage. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be implemented during construction of Alternative 2. TCR1 requires ground disturbance activities to halt in the event that unknown tribal cultural resources are encountered until the local Native American Tribe(s) can be consulted and a mitigation plan prepared and implemented.
Alternative 2 would result in the similar ground disturbing activities on the same site as the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
6.4 Alternative 3: Different Location on Project Site
6.4.1 Description
Alternative 3 includes demolition of the existing one-story 18-guest room motel and 134-seat restaurant and construction of a four-story, 42 guest room branded hotel within the northeastern portion of the project site and a surface parking lot with 42 parking spaces along the southern and western portion of the project site. For comparison, the proposed project included the hotel at the southwestern portion of the project site with the surface parking lot along the northern and eastern portions of the project site. Alternative 3 includes construction of the same hotel uses in the same configuration as the proposed project, but in a different location in the northwestern portion of the project site. Under Alternative 3, the proposed hotel would be positioned closer to the existing residential uses to the north, providing screening between the apartments and North Fremont Street. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be a maximum of 45 feet in height (35 feet above grade) and four stories, including a partial basement and three above grade stories, and would have a total floor area of 25,000 sf.
The basement (first floor) would include the lower lobby, bicycle storage room, laundry room, storage, trash, and electrical and utilities rooms. The second floor would include the upper lobby and check-in area, housekeeping area, offices, employee breakrooms, restrooms, and various amenities for guests including a lounge area, pantry, and fitness center. The third and fourth floors
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 273, Packet Page 276 would include guest rooms and housekeeping areas. Guest rooms would be comprised of 24 double queen rooms and 18 king rooms. Alternative 3 would provide 8 bicycle parking spaces within the bicycle storage room. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be installed in two areas and would not exceed five feet in height.
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two access points: an existing curb cut along North Fremont Street, which would be improved as part of the project, and a proposed curb cut along Casa Verde Way. A proposed 3-inch water line and a 4-inch fire water line would connect the project to an existing water main along North Fremont Street. A proposed 6-inch sanitary sewer line would connect the project to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main along Casa Verde Way.
Table 6-1 provides a summary of the characteristics of Alternative 3.
6.4.2 Impact Analysis
a. Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, the project site is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and as local historical resource. While there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources present on the project site, there is a potential for unknown archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains to be present. Alternative 3 includes construction of the same hotel uses in the same configuration as the proposed project, but in a different location in the northwestern portion of the project site. Alternative 3 would include the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new four-story hotel, which would involve ground disturbance on the project site. The demolition of the existing motel and restaurant on the project site would not result in impacts to historical resources because the project site is recommended ineligible for listing as a historical resource. Although the project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed, it is possible that ground disturbance during construction of Alternative 3 could encounter unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, Alternative 3 has the potential to significantly impact archaeological resources through ground disturbance and subsequent damage. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and 2(b) would be implemented during construction of Alternative 3. CUL-2(a) requires the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct WEAP training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. If unknown archeological resources are encountered, CUL-2(b) require ground disturbance activities to halt within 50 feet of the find, as well as evaluation by a qualified archaeologist and implementation of a data recovery plan if necessary. Further, due to the depth of excavation required for groundwater infiltration tanks (15 feet below the surface), Alternative 3 has the potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measure CUL-4(a) and 4(b) would be implemented during construction of Alternative 3.
CUL-4(a) requires the project applicant to retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct WEAP training for paleontological resources for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. If unknown paleontological resources are encountered, CUL-4(b) requires ground disturbance activities to halt within 50 feet of the find, as well as evaluation by a qualified paleontologist and implementation of a data recovery plan if necessary. Mitigation Measures CUL2(a) and 2(b) and CUL-4(a) and 4(b) would reduce impacts associated with Alternative 3 to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would result in similar ground disturbing activities on the same site as the proposed project. However, the hotel would be constructed on a different location of the project site under
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 274, Packet Page 277 Alternative 3 than for the proposed project. Although varying depths of excavation may be required at different portions of the project site under Alternative 3 as compared to the proposed project, grading limits and quantities would be approximately the same. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to cultural and paleontological resources as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the existing on-site building may contain hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury, and PCB caulk. Alternative 3 includes construction of the same hotel uses in the same configuration as the proposed project, but in a different location in the northwestern portion of the project site. Similar to the proposed project, demolition of the existing building could result in the release of these hazardous materials into the environment and construction impacts would be potentially significant. However, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would reduce construction impacts related to the transport, use, disposal, or release of hazardous materials that could be found in the existing building to a less-than-significant level.
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would temporarily increase the local transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials could potentially cause harm to construction workers or others in the area during an accidental release or mishandling. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction of Alternative 3 would be subject to all applicable local, State, and federal regulations, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. These regulations prescribe measures for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of accidental spills. In addition, Alternative 3 would comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires implementation of good housekeeping BMPs to reduce risk of spills or leaks of hazardous materials used during construction (refer to Section 4.6.8, Hydrology and Water Quality).
Impacts related to the transport, use, and storage of these hazardous materials would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project, operation of Alternative 3 would involve transport, use, and disposal of nominal amounts of hazardous materials or wastes associated with hotel uses, but impacts would be less than significant because these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would comply with all existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan Safety Element and requirements imposed by the County of Monterey Environmental Health Department.
Therefore, these impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar as compared to the proposed project and would be less than significant.
According to the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area, and specifically within Zone 3 - ITZ. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require review by the ALUC, which would have the opportunity to provide recommendations based on the design of the project. Because proposed building height and lighting design would be the same, impacts under Alternative 3 are expected to be similar to the proposed project. Exterior lighting design would not change under Alternative 3 as compared to the proposed project and would be required to comply with City and ALUC lighting requirements. Similar to the
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 275, Packet Page 278 proposed project, the project site would not be designated as a Noise Sensitive Institution and is not within Noise Contours in the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and therefore, the project would not result excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Therefore, impacts related to safety hazards in proximity to the Monterey Regional Airport would be similar under Alternative 3 and would be less than significant.
The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or planned school and is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Consequently, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not result in hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25- mile of a school and would have no impact with respect to hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Construction of Alternative 3 may require temporary lane closures along westbound North Fremont Street. However, as with the proposed project, lane closures would be coordinated with the City, the Monterey Fire Department, and the Monterey Police Department prior to permit issuance, and lane closures would be temporary, lasting a few hours to a few days. Although Alternative 3 would alter the site layout as compared to the proposed project, operation of Alternative 3 would not impair access to or alter North Fremont Street, and therefore, would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Because the project site is surrounded by existing development, and large tracts of wildland fuels, such as forest or brushland, do not occur on or near the project site, Alternative 3 would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. These impacts under Alternative 3 would be the same as the proposed project. c. Land Use and Planning
As discussed in Section 4.3, Land Use and Planning, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, is zoned VAF, and is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area, which are consistent with existing uses on the project site. Alternative 3 includes construction of the same hotel uses in the same configuration as the proposed project, but in a different location in the northwestern portion of the project site. Under Alternative 3, off-site circulation would not change, and therefore, would be the same as compared to the proposed project. On-site circulation and access to the project site would be shifted to the southeast to accommodate the surface parking lot along North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not physically divide an established community. However, the proposed parking lot location under Alternative 3 would conflict with General Plan Land Use Element policy b.1, which encourages hiding parking from street view. Although this would represent an inconsistency with policy b.1, situating the parking lot along North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way would not result in any additional, significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed throughout this EIR. As such, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have slightly increased, albeit less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts with the Monterey General Plan.
As a VAF-zoned property, the project site under Alternative 3 would be subject to development standards established by the VAF zone as opposed to development objectives, standards, and guidelines in the North Fremont Specific Plan. Alternative 3 would conform to development standards established by the VAF zone, including adherence to minimum site area, minimum yard, and maximum lot coverage requirements. Additionally, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include text amendments to the North Fremont Specific Plan, which would clarify existing language and would not result in a change in application of the specific plan by the City as compared
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 276, Packet Page 279 to current practices. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance and the North Fremont Specific Plan.
For the reasons stated above, Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Noise
As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise levels due to the operation of HVAC and mechanical equipment, increase in off-site traffic, and use of the on-site parking lot. This increase would not exceed applicable City noise standards. Under Alternative 3, similar increases in noise levels associated with HVAC and mechanical equipment and use of the on-site parking lot would occur. However, under this alternative, the hotel would be located adjacent to the apartments north of the project site. The hotel in this location would help screen off-site traffic noise from these nearby sensitive receivers, but would also locate HVAC and mechanical equipment closer to sensitive receivers. Overall, operational noise impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project would remain less than significant.
Under Alternative 3, the proposed hotel would be constructed in the northeastern portion of the project site rather than the southwestern portion. As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, construction noise was estimated using the FTA general assessment method which assumes construction equipment is operating at the center of the project site, or 62.5 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers. Because the hotel would be constructed in the northeastern portion of the project site, construction noise would be slightly higher at the nearest sensitive receivers during some construction periods under Alternative 3. However, construction equipment would still generally operate at the center of the site, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, would not exceed applicable City noise thresholds. Impacts related to construction noise under Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than the proposed project, but would remain less than significant with mitigation.
As discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, the project site is outside the 65, 70, or 75 CNEL dBA noise contours for the Monterey Regional Airport and the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations from the Monterey Regional Airport. Because Alternative 3 is on the same site as the proposed project, airport noise impacts would be similar and less than significant.
For reasons listed above, noise impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation and greater than the proposed project.
e. Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, there are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site. However, there is a potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be present. Alternative 3 includes construction of the same hotel uses in the same configuration as the proposed project, but in a different location in the northwestern portion of the project site.
Alternative 3 would include the demolition of the existing motel and restaurant and construction of a new four-story hotel, which would involve ground disturbance on the project site. Although the project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed, it is possible that ground disturbance during construction of Alternative 3 could encounter unknown tribal cultural resources.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 277, Packet Page 280 Therefore, Alternative has the potential to significantly impact tribal cultural resources through ground disturbance and subsequent damage. Similar to the proposed project, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be implemented during construction of Alternative 3. TCR-1 requires ground disturbance activities to halt in the event that unknown tribal cultural resources are encountered until the local Native American Tribe(s) can be consulted and a mitigation plan prepared and implemented.
Alternative 3 would result in the similar ground disturbing activities on the same site as the proposed project. However, the hotel would be constructed on a different location of the project site under Alternative than for the proposed project. Although varying depths of excavation may be required at different portions of the project site under Alternative 3 as compared to the proposed project, grading limits and quantities would be approximately the same. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
This discussion identifies the environmentally superior alternative by assessing the degree to which each alternative avoids significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In some cases, an alternative will avoid one or more significant and/or unavoidable impacts identified for the proposed project but then introduce one or more new significant impacts. Therefore, selection of the environmentally superior alternative requires an overall assessment of the changes in the number and type of significant impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines do not define a specific methodology for determining the environmentally superior alternative. For the purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives have been compared within each issue area to the proposed project, and a determination has been made as to whether the potential environmental effects of each alternative would be reduced, increased, or are similar in comparison to the proposed project (refer to Table 6-2). For this EIR, each impact is equally weighted. Decision makers and the community in general may choose to emphasize one issue or another, which could lead to differing conclusions regarding environmental superiority.
The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would result in the fewest adverse environmental effects, and therefore, would be considered environmentally superior. However, since this is the No Project Alternative, CEQA requires that a separate alternative also be identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Alternative 2 would result in slightly reduced environmental impacts compared to the proposed project and Alternative 3, which is attributed to reduced impacts to airport safety hazards due to the reduced height. Additionally, while Alternative 2 would meet all of the project objectives, it would be to a lesser extent than the proposed project because of the reduced size of the proposed hotel with fewer guest rooms. Accordingly, this evaluation concludes that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the proposed project.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 278, Packet Page 281 Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Impact
Proposed
Project Impact
Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Three Story
Hotel
Alternative 3:
Different Location
on Project Site
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5
NI <
(NI)
=
(NI)
=
(NI)
Impact CR-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
LTSM <
(NI)
=
(LTSM)
=
(LTSM)
Impact CR-3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries
LTS <
(NI)
=
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
Impact CR-4: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
LTSM <
(NI)
=
(LTSM)
=
(LTSM)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; and Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment LTSM <
(LTS)
=
(LTSM)
=
(LTSM)
Impact HAZ-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school NI =
(NI)
=
(NI)
=
(NI)
Impact HAZ-3: Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
NI =
(NI)
=
(NI)
=
(NI)
Impact HAZ-4: Result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport LTS <
(LTS)
<
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
Impact HAZ-5: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
LTS =
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
Impact HAZ-6: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires
LTS =
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 279, Packet Page 282 Impact
Proposed
Project Impact
Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Three Story
Hotel
Alternative 3:
Different Location
on Project Site
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1: Physically divide an established community NI = (NI)
=
(NI)
=
(NI)
Impact LU-2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect LTS <
(NI)
=
(LTS)
>
(LTS)
Noise
Impact NOI-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies LTSM <
(LTS)
<
(LTSM)
>
(LTSM)
Impact NOI-2: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels LTSM < (LTS)
<
(LTSM)
>
(LTSM)
Impact NOI-3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
LTS =
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
=
(LTS)
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); and Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 LTSM <
(NI)
=
(LTSM)
=
(LTSM)
Overall 10 <
0 >
6 =
3 <
0 >
13 =
0 <
3 >
13 =
> Impacts are greater than the proposed project
< Impacts are less than the proposed project
= Similar level of impact to the proposed project
LTS = Less than Significant Impact
LTSM = Less than Significant Impact After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact
NI = No Impact
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 280, Packet Page 283 7 Responses to Comments
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (proposed project, State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022060567) was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on July 7, 2023 and ended on August 21, 2023. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Monterey (City) reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR, and prepared written responses to the comments received. This section includes responses to comments received during the circulation of the Draft EIR.
The City received two written comment letters on the Draft EIR, which are included in this Response to Comments section. Responses to these comment letters were prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the Draft EIR was revised to address pertinent environmental issues.
Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR correcting information, other than minor typographical corrections or minor working changes, are noted in the Final EIR as changes from the Draft EIR. The changes that occurred between the Draft EIR and Final EIR are shown in underline for text additions and strikethrough for text deletions in the response to comments in this section and in applicable sections of the Final EIR.
The focus of the responses to comments is the disposition of environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c). Detailed responses are not provided to comments on the merits of the proposed project. However, when a comment is not directed to an environmental issue, the response indicates that the comment has been noted and forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration.
7.1 Written Comments and Responses
The City received two comment letters on the Draft EIR. The commenters and the page numbers on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed In Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 Comment Letters Received
Letter No. and Commenter Date Received Page Number
1 Derric G. Oliver, Fenton & Keller August 21, 2023 7-2 2 Julie A. Vance, California Department of Fish and Wildlife August 25, 2023 7-42
7.2 Responses to Public Comments
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1-2, for example, indicates that the response is for the second issue raised in comment Letter 1).
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 281, Packet Page 284 C H R I S T O P H E R E . P A N E T T A
S A R A B . B O Y N S
B R I A N D . C A L L
T R O Y A . K I N G S H A V E N
J O H N E . K E S E C K E R
E L I Z A B E T H R . L E I T Z I N G E R
A N D R E W B . K R E E F T
K E N N E T H S . K L E I N K O P F
A L E X J . L O R C A
D E R R I C G . O L I V E R
C A R O L S . H I L B U R N
M A R C O A . L U C I D O
G L A D Y S R O D R I G U E Z - M O R A L E S
B R A D L E Y J . L E V A N G
A S H L E Y E . C A M E R O N
C H R I S T O P H E R M . L O N G
C H R I S T O P H E R J . N A N N I N I
T A R A L . C L E M E N S
M A T T H E W D . F E R R Y
E M M A N U E L P E R E A J I M E N E Z
F E N T O N & K E L L E R
A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
2 8 0 1 M O N T E R E Y - S A L I N A S H I G H W A Y
P O S T O F F I C E B O X 7 9 1
M O N T E R E Y , C A L I F O R N I A 9 3 9 4 2 - 0 7 9 1 T E L E P H O N E ( 8 3 1 ) 3 7 3 - 1 2 4 1
F A C S I M I L E ( 8 3 1 ) 3 7 3 - 7 2 1 9
w w w . F e n t o n K e l l e r . c o m
L E W I S L . F E N T O N
1925 - 2005
O F C O U N S E L
C H A R L E S R . K E L L E R
{DGO-01452695;2}
DERRIC G. OLIVER August 21, [email protected] ext. 207
VIA EMAIL ONLY ([email protected])
Christopher Schmidt
City of Monterey
Community Development Department
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Comments on Draft EIR (SCH No. 2022060567)
Avid Hotel (2101 N. Fremont St.)
Our File: 32436.33400
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
As you know, this office represents the Mahroom family, the owners of the residential apartment buildings (“Apartments”) and real property located at 445 Casa Verde Way (“Mahroom Property”), immediately adjacent to and north of the proposed massive 42-guest room Avid Hotel (“Project”) at 2101 N. Fremont Street in the City of Monterey (“City”). The following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022060567) (“DEIR”) prepared for the Project are submitted on behalf of the Mahroom family.
Background
The Mahroom family has consistently and publicly expressed numerous objections to the Project and its potential impacts on the Apartments’ residents and the surrounding neighborhood, including objections relating to building height, noise, parking and traffic, safety and security, the Mahroom Property’s landscaping easement, insufficient public notice, and the Project’s overall lack of “sensitivity” required by the City’s North Fremont Specific Plan (“NFSP”). Those objections were expressed during public hearings and in writing, include the following correspondence, all of which is part of the City’s administrative record for the Project, and is incorporated herein by this reference, as these objections directly relate to the Mahroom family’s comments on the DEIR:
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 282, Packet Page 285 Mr. Christopher Schmidt
August 21, 2023
{DGO-01452695;2}
1. Fenton & Keller letter to City of Monterey Planning Commission, May 28, 2021, re:
Use Permit UP-20-0227, Planning Commission hearing June 8, 2021;
2. Fenton & Keller letter to City of Monterey Planning Commission, July 26, 2021, re:
Use Permit UP-20-0227, Planning Commission hearing June 8, 2021;
3. Wald Ruhnke & Dost Architects LLP letter to City of Monterey Planning Commission, July 27, 2021, re: Building Height and Landscape Easement;
4. Fenton & Keller letter to City of Monterey Planning Commission, August 10, 2021, re: Use Permit UP-20-0227, Planning Commission hearing August 24, 2021;
5. Fenton & Keller letter to Kim Cole, AICP, Community Development Director, City of Monterey, August 26, 2021, re: Use Permit UP-20-0227, Planning Commission hearing August 24, 2021;
6. Fenton & Keller letter to Christopher Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner, City of Monterey, September 20, 2021, re: Story poles;
7. Fenton & Keller letter to Monterey City Council, October 22, 2021, re: Appeal of Planning Commission final actions on October 12, 2021;
8. Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. letter to Derric Oliver, Esq., Fenton & Keller, December 13, 2021, re: Comments on the City of Monterey Planning Commission Resolution No. P21-023, Approval of the Use Permit UP-20-0227 and Resolution No.
P21-022 Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration;
9. Fenton & Keller letter to Monterey City Council, December 17, 2021, re: Appeal of Planning Commission final actions on October 12, 2021 (re: Public notice; story poles);
10. Wald Ruhnke & Dost Architects LLP letter to Mayor and City Council Members, December 17, 2021, Parking Lot Screening (the City’s off-street parking and loading regulations); and
11. Fenton & Keller letter to Monterey City Council, December 17, 2021, re: Appeal of Planning Commission final actions on October 12, 2021 (re: Off-street parking and loading zone requirements).
COMMENTS ON THE DEIR
The DEIR does not analyze, insufficiently analyses, and/or erroneously analyzes the Project’s potential significant impacts that continue to drive the Mahroom family’s concerns and objections. Numerous analytical deficiencies in the DEIR are summarized as follows.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 283, Packet Page 286 Mr. Christopher Schmidt
August 21, 2023
{DGO-01452695;2}
Noise Impacts
Comments on the Noise chapter of the DEIR are found in the enclosed comment letter from acoustical consultant, Jeffrey K. Pack (Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc.), dated August 16, 2023. In summary, the DEIR Noise chapter contains incomplete information and inaccurate and misleading statements. For example, as Mr. Pack explains in his letter (on page 1):
Note that the technical appendices D-1 and D-2 were not included. Thus, review of the noise studies prepared by the project acoustical consultant (Salter) could not be reviewed and compared to the noise chapter. …
This [Noise] section discusses the project’s potential noise impacts, but limits the analyses to temporary construction noise impacts and long term impacts associated with project operations. Construction and operational noise are not the only noise effects. There is no mention of the noise impacts to neighboring properties upon removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn, which is part of the project. The project will result in a change in the noise environment at noise sensitive receivers outside of the project site.
On page 11 of his comment letter, Mr. Pack further explains:
Our conclusion is that the Noise Chapter of the DEIR is significantly flawed in both technical aspects and presentation. There is too much incorrect or misleading information and pertinent and important aspects of the project’s effects on the noise environment have been omitted.
The Noise Chapter should be re-written by a qualified acoustician who can provide actual technical information, proper citations and present analyses and evaluations that are germane to the project, whether the document is designed to be CEQA based only or if the document shall include all noise standards applicable to the project. As it sits, the Noise Chapter is confusing, erroneous and misleading.
The Noise Chapter should also be reviewed by Salter to ensure that the information contained in the DEIR complies with the analyses, evaluations and recommendations prepared by the acoustician of record.
Landscaping Easement
The discussion in the DEIR regarding the 5-foot landscaping easement (“Landscaping Easement”) erroneously implies that the Landscaping Easement is for the use and benefit of the Project site owner/operator, explaining, in part, “The northern property boundary includes a 5- foot-wide easement, which would be landscaped with ornamental grasses and shrubs” “and would provide screening and a transition between uses.” (See DEIR pg. ES-4, Figure 2-3 (Site Plan), section 2.5.4, pgs. 4.3-9, 4.6-3.) As explained in the above referenced letters dated May
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 284, Packet Page 287 Mr. Christopher Schmidt
August 21, 2023
{DGO-01452695;2}
28, 2021 and July 27, 2021, the Landscaping Easement area (located within the northern-most portion of the Project site) is for the use and benefit of the Mahroom family, not the Project site owner/operator. As such, the DEIR’s analysis and proposed mitigations based upon the Project’s purported future use of the Landscape Easement is fundamentally flawed.
Off-Street Parking and Loading
The DEIR acknowledges that parking is among the “Areas of Known Controversy” relating to the Project. (DEIR, ES-6.) Despite that, oddly, the DEIR contains no analysis of the potential significant impacts resulting from the Project’s proposed insufficient off-street parking and loading zone spaces—a “known controversy.” Instead, the DEIR contains only a cursory explanation and misplaced legal conclusion that the Project’s proposed off-street parking and loading is “consistent with the City’s parking regulations established by the Zoning Code.” (DEIR, ES-3.) Significantly, as explained in the DEIR, that purported consistency relies upon various proposed amendments to the City’s “parking regulations.” (DEIR, ES-5.) In sum, the legal conclusions contained in the DEIR regarding off-street parking and loading for the Project are inaccurate and do not and cannot replace CEQA’s required environmental analysis.
The DEIR also contains no analysis of the Project’s potential significant impacts on traffic and/or off-street parking resulting from Project construction traffic.
The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough analysis of the potential significant impacts on parking and traffic (during construction and after) in the North Fremont neighborhood resulting from the Project’s proposed off-street parking and loading, without and with the proposed amendments to the City’s parking regulations. The North Fremont neighborhood already suffers badly from heavy traffic exacerbated by insufficient parking, which will undoubtedly worsen with insufficient provision of Project-related parking, whether under the current or putatively amended City code.
Building Height and Mass
The DEIR also acknowledges that the Project’s “Areas of Known Controversy” includes the Project’s proposed building height. (DEIR, ES-6.) Again, despite that acknowledgment, and that the Project “would represent an increase in height, number of guest rooms, and parking spaces compared to existing conditions” (DEIR, 2-11) and “would be built at a height that is taller than existing development in the area” (DEIR 4.2-12), the DEIR contains no analysis of the Project’s potential significant impacts, including those directly affecting the Apartments’ residents, resulting from the construction and use of the tallest and biggest building in the area… that would be located adjacent to, and would dwarf, the Apartments. Instead, the DEIR contains only a limited discussion of the potential safety impacts to aircraft and purported legal conclusions regarding what building height maximums, if any, apply to the Project site. (DEIR,
4.2-12.) To be clear, under CEQA, the purpose of the DEIR is to provide environmental impacts analysis, not legal conclusions.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 285, Packet Page 288 Mr. Christopher Schmidt
August 21, 2023
{DGO-01452695;2}
The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough analysis of the potential significant impacts resulting from the Project’s proposed building height and mass, including as to the resulting loss of privacy and sunlight with respect to the Apartments and the residents thereof, especially in light of the fact that the Project’s proposed building height, as defined in City code section 38-11, would exceed the permissible height limit by approximately 10 feet.
Narrow and Unsafe Sidewalk
The DEIR contains numerous representations regarding the Project’s purported improvements to pedestrian safety, access, and circulation. (See, e.g., DEIR, pgs. 2-4, 4.3-9, 4.6-
35.) However, neither the representations in the DEIR, nor the Project plans (e.g., DEIR, Figure 2-3, Site Plan) appear to address the safety issues relating to the narrow sidewalk starting at the northeast corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, and running north down Casa Verde Way. That area of sidewalk is narrow and contains additional hazards created by PG&E power poles and lines running nearly in the middle of the sidewalk, thereby further limiting the obstruction-free area for pedestrian usage. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the Project’s increased pedestrian usage of this dangerous section of sidewalk, and the Project should be redesigned to provide for at least a 48” wide sidewalk free from obstructions, such as by undergrounding the PG&E power poles, etc.
Water
The DEIR’s Hydrology and Water Quality discussion contains no qualified technical analysis or relevant evidence regarding the Project’s potential impacts on water supply, groundwater or otherwise. Neither the Stormwater Control Plan prepared by Monterey Bay Engineers, Inc. (DEIR, Appendix F) nor the Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation prepared by Soil Surveys Group, Inc. (DEIR, Appendix G)—the sole technical reports referenced in this section of the DEIR—address any water supply issues. Those reports relate only to the suitability of the Project site and on potential impacts to groundwater resulting from Project construction, not water consumption/usage.
Alternative 2: Three-Story Hotel
The DEIR concludes that Project “Alternative 2,” described as a three-story, 36-foot high, 28-guest room hotel with a 42-space parking lot, “is the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the proposed project.” (DEIR, section 6.5, Environmentally Superior Alternative, pg. 6-16.) The Mahroom family agrees that Alternative 2 is an environmentally superior alternative to the Project.
Ultimately, the Project should be redesigned to conform to the currently applicable rules (which, presumably, the City adopted to protect public health, safety, and welfare), not the other way around.
* * * * *
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 286, Packet Page 289 Mr. Christopher Schmidt
August 21, 2023
{DGO-01452695;2}
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR. Based on the foregoing, the DEIR must be revised accordingly and recirculated for further public comment.
Very truly yours,
FENTON & KELLER
A Professional Corporation
Derric G. Oliver
Enclosure
cc: The Mahroom family
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 287, Packet Page 290
ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS August 16, 2023
Project No. 53-032-4
Derric Oliver, Esq.
Fenton and Keller
P.O. Box 791
Monterey, CA 93942
Subject: Review of the Noise Chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2022060567, 2101 North Fremont Street, Monterey
Dear Mr. Oliver:
This report will provide you with our review of the noise chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project at 2101 North Fremont Street in Monterey. The noise chapter, Chapter 4.4 of the DEIR in on pages 104-123 of the document. Note that the technical appendices D-1 and D-2 were not included. Thus, review of the noise studies prepared by the project acoustical consultant (Salter) could not be reviewed and compared to the noise chapter. However, we have reviewed several documents previously, including the Salter noise study and have had a conversation with a Salter engineer regarding noise mitigation. These previous reviews are contained in Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. reports dated, June 17, 2021, September 23, 2021, October 12, 2021, November 19, 2021 and December 13, 2021.
Statements taken directly from the noise chapter are shown in italics.
Noise Chapter Review
4.4 Noise
This section discusses the project’s potential noise impacts, but limits the analyses to temporary construction noise impacts and long term impacts associated with project operations. Construction and operational noise are not the only noise effects. There is no mention of the noise impacts to neighboring properties upon removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn, which is part of the project. The project will result in a change in the noise environment at noise sensitive receivers outside of the project site.
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195 SUITE 26 MOB: 408-921-4886
SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 288, Packet Page 291 - 2 -
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (Hz) and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).
This statement is not true. The human ear is most sensitive at 2,500 Hz (1/3 octave band), we have “perfect” hearing at 1,000 Hz, deficiencies begin at 800 Hz and increase with decreasing frequency to 3 dB at 500 Hz, 11 dB at 200 Hz, 19 dB at 100 Hz and 51 dB at 20 Hz. Human ears also have increasing deficiencies with increasing frequency beginning at 6,300 Hz.
Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes.
This statement is not true and is misleading. Sound intensity is its own descriptor, which is sound pressure over a given surface area.
Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013).
There are no true line sources. Vehicular traffic is considered “moving point sources” and typically attenuates at 4.5 dB/doubling of the distance or 15log10(r1/r2). Railroads are very similar to vehicular traffic where the attenuation rate is commonly 16log10(r1/r2). A pipeline would need to be exactly straight, level and close to infinitely long in order to be considered a line source.
The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013).
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 289, Packet Page 292 - 3 -
Excess ground absorption rarely comes into play for project sites in close proximity to a ground based source such as vehicular traffic. The surface impedance of sound waves traveling over the ground at a low grazing incidence is low in comparison to sound waves that impinge the surface at steep angels. Thus, the portion of the sound that is just above the ground that does get absorbed is negligible in relation to the sound waves farther above the ground (>1 meter high). Excess ground absorption can be considered for receivers that are closer than 1 meter to the ground or for sources that are elevated, such as trailer truck exhaust stacks. The effect of ground absorption is very complicated so just stating a simplicity of an additional 1.5 dB/D.D. of attenuation would be mostly untrue.
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
California Building Code
CCR Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code codify the state noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (Vol. 1, Part 2, Section 1206.4) applies only to multi-family housing, such as apartments, condominiums, hotels/motels and dormitories, and includes remodels and conversions. The Code does not apply to schools or hospitals. Even attached housing where a property line separates the units and the units are no higher than 3 stories are no longer considered multi-family. Instead, this type of housing is now considered single-family attached and is under the regulations of the California Residential Code. The Building Code, as of 2013, also no longer requires an acoustical study when the project site is exposed to 60 dB DNL/CNEL or greater. For multi-family housing, the Building Code requires an interior noise exposure of 45 dB DNL/CNEL or lower in living spaces.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 290, Packet Page 293 - 4 -
The 2016 State of California’s Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for non-residential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within the noise contour of an airport, freeway, or railroad. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to an acceptable level of 45 dBA CNEL.
The California Non-Residential Mandatory Measures (CalGreen), Section 5.507 does not require acoustical studies. Rather, this standard states that certain building material specifications must be met or under certain conditions, an interior noise level standard shall be met. The 65 dB CNEL criterion applies only to sites affected by aircraft noise.
For all other projects, if the Performance Method of the Code is used, it requires an interior hourly average noise level of 50 dBA Leq during the hours of operation. The 45 dB DNL/CNEL limit is applicable only to multi-family housing. This latter sentence occurs in the same paragraph as the CalGreen Non-Residential Mandatory Measures information. Thus, the DEIR is mixing up different Code sections and applications.
4.4.3 Impact Analysis
Traffic Noise
This section begins to discuss project traffic noise increases and the quantitative methodologies. A fairly detailed discussion of the use of the CadnaA model is provided.
However, the Salter reports, including the CadnaA model parameters and inputs, have not been provided. Thus, we cannot confirm the accuracy of the inputs and the results of the modeling.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 291, Packet Page 294 - 5 -
On-Site Land Use Compatibility
The results of ambient noise monitoring indicate that a portion of the project site is within an ambient noise environment requiring sound insulation according to the City noise and land use compatibility standards from the General Plan (City of Monterey 2005). The Environmental Noise Study (Salter 2021) makes noise insulation recommendations for the proposed project. However, as a result of the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on projects (California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478) issued December 17, 2015), it is generally no longer the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on any given project. Generally, no determination of significance is required except for certain school projects, projects affected by airport noise, and projects that would exacerbate existing conditions (i.e., projects that would have a significant operational noise impact). As a result, while the noise from existing sources (e.g., adjacent roadways) is considered as part of the baseline condition, the direct effects of exterior noise from nearby noise sources relative to land use compatibility of the proposed project is not considered a CEQA impact and is not included in the impact analysis below.
The above paragraph is extremely important. Throughout the Noise Chapter of the DEIR, State and local standards are identified and discussed, whether they are part of the State Building Code, the City of Monterey General Plan or the City of Monterey Municipal Code. The document clearly indicates that all of these standards are applicable to the project in some form. The purposes of environmental noise analyses are to determine the existing and future noise environments not only for the project, but for receivers that could be affected by the project. The Salter reports quantified the noise environments for impacts to the project and for project-generated impacts to sensitive neighbors. They made recommendations for the project for compliance with Title 24 and the City of Monterey standards. The above paragraph admits this, however, it then goes on to disregard the Building Code and City standards claiming that only CEQA policy applies.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 292, Packet Page 295 - 6 -
We disagree with this stance on noise evaluation. If the DEIR is only for evaluating an environment per CEQA policy, that should be made clear at the beginning and any other standards should be left out to avoid confusion. We do not believe that that type of evaluation is reasonable. Many projects are not bound by CEQA but still need to conform to local and State standards. The DEIR should include not only analyses that fall under the purview of CEQA, but also analyses that are regulated by City and other State standards. When noise excesses occur, they must be identified and whether they are termed “Mitigation Measures” for CEQA purposes or “Noise Reduction Measures” for non-CEQA documents, they are still measures that need to be incorporated into the project to ensure noise excesses will be reduced to whatever noise goals are being applied.
This section should include the noise standards of the City of Monterey General Plan Noise Element and Title 24, as analyzed in the Salter Noise Assessment Study. The noise impacts to the project, per the City and State standards, identified earlier in the document, should be quantified and evaluated. Rather, this section omits the City and State standards and merely suggests that only CEQA policy is applicable to the project. If this is indeed the case, why does this documents go into extreme detail regarding the Noise Element and Title 24?
It is in this regard that the Noise Chapter of the DEIR is significantly flawed and misleading.
Significance Thresholds - Traffic Noise
The traffic noise section under the Significance Thresholds provides three various thresholds for noise impacts. These are listed as:
Greater than 5 dBA CNEL if existing ambient noise less than 60 dBA. Greater than 3 dBA CNEL if existing ambient noise is between 60 and 64 dBA. Greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL if existing ambient noise is greater than 65 dBA.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 293, Packet Page 296 - 7 -
These thresholds need to be cited, particularly as the DNL or CNEL is to be reported only in whole decibels. Thus, it is inappropriate to use 1.5 dB in the context of the DNL or CNEL.
In addition, the document states later on that 5 dB is a threshold of significance while the above indicates that greater than 5 dB (6 dB) is a threshold of significance. The DEIR noise chapter is confusing.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The second impact part (NOI-2) discusses on-site operational noise and increased traffic resulting from the project. This heading does not discuss increased traffic noise resulting from the project. This is a critical omission as the project will cause increased traffic noise at the Mahroom Apartments from the removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn. The increased traffic noise from the removal of the Casa Verde Inn will be at least 5 decibels as current blocked lines-of-sight will be become visible. And, as stated in the DEIR when a noise source’s view is blocked, a minimum of 5 decibels is reduced. The converse holds true such that if a blocked view becomes unblocked, the increase in noise will be at least 5 dB. This results in a significant noise impact regardless of the existing noise environment. The new hotel building and proposed barrier will not re-block all of the newly un-blocked lines-of-sight to the sensitive receiver locations.
Off-Site Traffic
The adjacent Mahroom Apartments are currently “shielded” from North Fremont Street traffic by the existing on-site motel building, as it is oriented directly in front of the Mahroom Apartments and blocks the Mahroom Apartments from having a direct line-ofsight to North Fremont Street. Removal of the existing motel would eliminate this existing noise attenuating feature, thereby potentially increasing traffic noise at the adjacent apartments. The proposed new hotel would have a different footprint and would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site, allowing the southeastern facade of the apartment building to be exposed to higher traffic noise levels. In this location, the proposed hotel would be 45 feet in height, approximately 25 feet taller than the existing motel. As such, in some locations along the Mahroom Apartments façade, the project
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 294, Packet Page 297 - 8 -
would provide noise reductions compared to existing conditions due to the increased height of the noise-attenuating structure.
This statement admits that the southeastern façade of the apartment will be exposed to higher noise levels with the removal of the Casa Verde Inn. Rather than expanding on this part of the project-generated noise impacts, the analysis changes direction to discuss increased noise shielding at a different façade of the apartments with the construction of the new hotel. The analysis then goes on to say that with the new hotel some areas of the apartments will be exposed to noise levels at or lower than the existing condition. This is a deflection of the real issue and there is no quantitative basis for this assertion. The new hotel building is narrow in width so only a few apartment units would be affected by the increase in structure height compared to the existing condition. The narrowness of the new building will result in increased flanking noise around the sides of the building thereby exposing more apartment units to increased noise.
There is an increased line-of-sight with the removal of the Casa Verde Inn at a large portion of the Mahroom Apartments. Thus, a 7 ft. high barrier on top of a 5 ft. high retaining wall has been proposed. However, there is no discussion of the top of the barrier elevation in relation to the apartment building pad and if a 12 high barrier is tall enough to shield the second floor of the apartment building. CEQA policy governs noise impacts to noise sensitive receivers. It does not limit the policy to first floor receivers only. People reside at the second floor of the apartments and they shall have the same treatment as first floor residents.
The proposed barrier extends only along the northern boundary of the site. With the removal of the Casa Verde Inn, a somewhat wide section of property line will remain to be exposed to increased traffic noise that will transmit between the easterly end of the wall and the State Farm Insurance building. Detailed discussions of the barrier effects of both the existing Casa Verde Inn building and the new hotel building have been left out of the DEIR.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 295, Packet Page 298 - 9 -
This issue was brought up previously and discussions between Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. and the Salter engineer ensued. It was agreed that the barrier should continue along the easterly property line to terminate past the rear façade of the State Farm building. The barrier that was discussed was also stipulated to be 15 ft. high in reference to the nearest Mahroom Apartments building pad.
The noise control barrier behind the proposed hotel to provide acoustical shielding for the Mahroom Apartments shall also extend down the easterly property line to terminate at the southerly edge of the parking space immediately to the south of the landscape area. The barrier shall, at minimum, extend past the rear façade of the adjacent two-story commercial building (State Farm office). The purpose of this barrier extension is to shield apartment units from significant noise increase (actually from a lack of noise reduction) caused by the gap between the stipulated 15 ft. high barrier and the adjacent commercial building.
If the barrier does not extend down the easterly property line, an opening between the northerly barrier and the office building will result in significant noise increases to remain resulting in the project not being able to mitigate this significant adverse impact. Table I, below provides the noise exposures at the most noise impacted apartment building façade (western tip of south wing) under existing and various barrier proposal scenarios. Also shown are the changes in the noise exposures compared to existing conditions.
TABLE I
Existing and Future Noise Exposures at the Mahroom Apartment Floor El. Existing 7 ft. N PL (on ret. wall) 15 ft. N PL 15 ft. N&E PL 2 59 dB CNEL 64 dB CNEL (+5) 61 dB CNEL (+2) 57 dB CNEL (-2) 1 50 dB CNEL 62 dB CNEL (+12) 61 dB CNEL (+11) 50 dB CNEL (+0)
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 296, Packet Page 299 - 10 -
Figure 4.4-2 of the Noise Chapter (existing and future 2nd floor apartment noise levels) shows that the existing noise levels at westerly facing apartments have noise levels 62-63 dB CNEL. However, the future noise levels for the same apartments will have noise levels of 52-61 dB CNEL. Note the colored dots on the graphic. Either the graphic was not completed correctly or the removal of the Casa Verde Inn and greater exposure of Fremont Street traffic will cause a noise reduction. The latter does not appear to be reasonable.
Our previous comment letter from December 13, 2021 provided graphics of the barrier proposed previously and the needed east property line extension. These graphics are included herein.
Figure 1 shows the locations of the proposed noise barrier, which was supposed to be 15 ft. high, and the apartment building façades that will remain to be significantly noise impacted due to the opening between the barrier and the commercial building.
Figure 2 provides the location of the recommended noise barrier extension necessary to adequately shield the noise impacted apartments. The minimum length of the extension is approximately 25 ft.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 297, Packet Page 300 - 11 -
Our conclusions are that the Noise Chapter of the DEIR is significantly flawed in both technical aspects and presentation. There is too much incorrect or misleading information and pertinent and important aspects of the project’s effects on the noise environment have been omitted. The significance of the noise impacts to the Mahroom Apartments from the removal of the Casa Verde Inn is not adequately addressed. A significant noise impact remains with the mitigation proposed in the DEIR.
The Noise Chapter should be re-written by a qualified acoustician who can provide actual technical information, proper citations and present analyses and evaluations that are germane to the project, whether the document is designed to be CEQA based only or if the document shall include all noise standards applicable to the project. As it sits, the Noise Chapter is confusing, erroneous and misleading.
The Noise Chapter should also be reviewed by Salter to ensure that the information contained in the DEIR complies with the analyses, evaluations and recommendations prepared by the acoustician of record.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 298, Packet Page 301 - 12 -
This report presents our review of the noise chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project at 2101 North Fremont Street in Monterey. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC.
Jeffrey K. Pack
President
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 299, Packet Page 302 Letter 1
COMMENTER: Derric G. Oliver, Fenton & Keller
DATE: August 21, 2023
Response 1-1
The commenter notes that the letter is submitted on behalf of the Mahroom family, owners of the residential apartment buildings adjacent to the project site. This comment is introductory and does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response 1-2
This commenter expresses opposition to the proposed project, and summarizes past comments submitted during public hearings and in written comment letters on the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration previously prepared for the project. The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the proposed project. The purpose of the response to comments is to address significant environmental issues raised on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088[a]). Because the prior comments incorporated by reference in the comment letter are not comments on the Draft EIR, these comments are not addressed in this response to comments. The comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. This comment will be provided to the decision-makers for their consideration.
Refer to Responses 1-5 through 1-30, below, for responses to the concerns raised in the comment letter.
Response 1-3
This commenter states the opinion that the Draft EIR analysis is deficient. The comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. Refer to Responses 1-5 through 1-30, below, for responses to the specific concerns raised in the comment letter. As described in Responses 1-5 through 1-30, the analysis contained in the Draft EIR is not deficient, as suggested by the commenter, but adequately meets the requirements of CEQA.
Response 1-4
The comment states that the noise chapter of the EIR contains incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information. The comment also states that technical appendices D-1 and D-2 were not included in the Draft EIR and could not be reviewed or compared against the noise chapter of the Draft EIR.
Appendices D-1 and D-2, comprised of the noise and vibration technical reports, were circulated with the Draft EIR for public review between July 7 and August 21, 2023. Specifically, the EIR and appendices were available during the public review period on the City’s website at the City of Monterey Planning Office and Monterey Public Library, on the City’s Website at www.monterey.org/planning as well as the State Office of Planning and Research’s CEQAnet website at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022060567.
Regarding the comment that the Noise chapter is incomplete and inaccurate, refer to Responses 1- 5, 1-6, and 1-15 through 1-30, below, for responses to the specific concerns on Section 4.4, Noise, raised in the comment letter.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 300, Packet Page 303 Response 1-5
The commenter states that noise impacts to neighboring properties associated with removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn was not considered.
The commenter’s statement is incorrect. As discussed in Impact NOI-1 under the “Off-Site Traffic” subheading in Section 4.4.3.c, of the Draft EIR, “the adjacent Mahroom Apartments are currently ‘shielded’ from North Fremont Street traffic by the existing on-site motel building, as it is oriented directly in front of the Mahroom Apartments and blocks the Mahroom Apartments from having a direct line-of-sight to North Fremont Street. Removal of the existing motel would eliminate this existing noise attenuating feature, thereby potentially increasing traffic noise at the adjacent apartments. The proposed new hotel would have a different footprint and would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site, allowing the southeastern façade of the apartment building to be exposed to higher traffic noise levels. In this location, the proposed hotel would be 45 feet in height, approximately 25 feet taller than the existing motel. As such, in some locations along the Mahroom Apartments façade, the project would provide noise reductions compared to existing conditions due to the increased height of the noise-attenuating structure.” This potential impact was directly addressed through the detailed traffic noise modeling conducted based on existing and future project conditions in the CadnaA 3D noise modeling program, as described in the Draft EIR.
Response 1-6
The commenter expresses the opinion that that the noise chapter of the Draft EIR is flawed and should be rewritten by a qualified acoustician.
The analysis presented in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR is based, in part, on the Environmental Noise Study prepared by Salter in August 2021 and the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by Salter in April 2023. The analysis is based on noise measurement data provided in the Environmental Noise Study; analytical modeling of project construction and operational noise contained in the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment; and comparison of modeling results against applicable noise and vibration thresholds. Although the commenter claims the section contains incorrect or misleading information and lacks proper citations or analysis germane to the project, these comments are broad and unsupported by evidence or specifics. The analysis presented in Section 4.4, Noise, is a thorough and technical consideration of project impacts in light of applicable thresholds, supported by modeling and accurate citations and references. Because the comment does not provide more specifics to explain how the analysis is flawed, a more detailed response is not possible. Refer to Responses 1-15 through 1-31 for specific responses to comments contained in the enclosed letter from Edward L.
Pack Associates, Inc., dated August 16, 2023, including specifically Response 1-24 for a more detailed response on the reasons why the noise analysis is not flawed.
Regarding whom should prepare the analysis, as listed in Section 7.2, List of Preparers, of the Draft EIR (Section 8.2 of the Final EIR), Josh Carman prepared the noise section of the Draft EIR. Mr.
Carman is a Noise Director with Rincon Consultants, Inc. and has over 20 years of experience in the field of acoustics and environmental noise and has participated in the environmental review and monitoring process for a wide variety of projects in California, Washington, Nevada, and New York.
Mr. Carman prepares noise and vibration assessments for environmental impact studies and technical studies in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using federal, state, and local guidelines and methodology. His experience includes complex project- and program- level analyses of general plan
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 301, Packet Page 304 updates; specific plans; mixed-use development; traffic, transit and rail; vibration-sensitive; industrial; infrastructure, utilities, and telecommunications; long-term and remote construction noise and vibration monitoring; and underwater construction (e.g., pile driving) projects. Mr.
Carman is a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and has participated in numerous third-party peer reviews of noise and acoustical studies over the years.
Response 1-7
The comment states that the Draft EIR erroneously states that the 5-foot landscaping easement along the northern property boundary is for the benefit of the owner/operator instead of the benefit of the apartments to the north. The Draft EIR states that the proposed project would include a five-foot-wide landscaped easement along the northern project site boundary, which is adjacent to existing residential uses and would provide screening and a transition between uses. The Draft EIR does not indicate that the easement is for the benefit of the owner/operator. The analysis throughout the Draft EIR is based on the project plans, which includes the provision of the five-footwide landscaped easement. The individuals using or benefiting from the landscaped easement is not relevant to the analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project disclosed in the Draft EIR. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-8
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not analyze parking, even though it is included under "Areas of Known Controversy” in the Draft EIR. The comment also states that the Draft EIR does not analyze traffic and off-street parking resulting from project construction and asserts that this should be included due to the existing condition of the North Fremont area. Finally, the comment states that the Draft EIR should analyze impacts with and without the proposed amendments to the City’s parking regulations. To provide an organized response to these comments, Response 1-8 is divided into three subheadings: Parking, Traffic, and Alternate Project Scenario.
Parking
As detailed below, the project includes the number of required parking spaces, but would involve a reduction in the required number of loading zone spaces from two to one and a reduction in the size of the loading zone space. Pursuant to Section 38-115, Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required, of the City’s Zoning Code, the proposed project would require 42 parking spaces (1 parking space per guest room) and two loading zone spaces. The proposed project would include 42 parking spaces, including 2 Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliant spaces, which is consistent with the City’s parking regulations established by the Zoning Code. The project also includes a request for a reduction in the required loading zone spaces. Specifically, the project includes one loading zone space, which would be a sub-standard size. To allow for the smaller loading zone space, a use permit is required. This information has been clarified in Section 2.5.3, Parking and Site Access, in Section 2.0, Project Description, as shown below. The amendments to Section 38-117 included as part of the project do not change the required number of parking or loading zone spaces; instead, these amendments clarify that the required number and size of parking and loading zone spaces can be reduced with approval of a use permit, as long as specific findings1 are made by the City. Therefore, as allowed by Section 38-117, the project would involve a reduction in the 1 Findings required for approval of a user permit include the following: (1) parking demand will be less than required; (2) the probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; or (3) there is significant public parking within a reasonable distance that has been provided or will be provided within a reasonable time.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 302, Packet Page 305 required number of loading zone spaces from two standard-size (12-foot by 25-foot by 14-foot) loading zone spaces to one substandard-sized (9-foot, 4-inches by 23-foot by 8-foot, 6-inches) loading zone space. Upon approval of the use permit, the project would comply with the City’s parking regulations.
The following revisions were made to Section 2.5.3, Parking and Site Access, in Section 2.0, Project Description, and Section 4.6.3, Transportation, to clarify that the project involves a reduction in the number and size of required loading zone spaces.
2.5.3 Parking and Site Access
Per Section 38-115, Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required, of the City’s Zoning Code, the proposed project would require 42 parking spaces (1 parking space per guest room). The proposed project would include 42 parking spaces, including 2 Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliant spaces, which is consistent with the City’s parking regulations. The lower lobby off Casa Verde Way would be ADA accessible. A covered loading space and ramp, which would be utilized for deliveries, is proposed on the eastern side of the building. As allowed by Section 38- 117, upon approval of a use permit, the project would involve a reduction in the required number of loading zone spaces from two standard-size (12-foot by 25-foot by 14-foot) loading zone spaces to one substandard-sized (9-foot, 4-inches by 23-foot by 8-foot, 6-inches) loading zone space. The loading zone space included as part of the project is intended for infrequent, short-term deliveries to the project site, and does not constitute a long-term or overnight parking space.
4.6.13 Transportation
3) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would provide access to the surface parking lot from North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, which would comply with the City’s design requirements. The proposed project would not result in changes to the existing roadway or multimodal circulation system and would not include hazardous design features. The proposed hotel use would be consistent with the existing hotel use on the project site and uses in the surrounding area, and thus, would not introduce an incompatible use to the surrounding transportation system. The proposed project includes a loading space which, according to current Monterey City Code requirements, is substandard in size. The project would involve a reduction in the required number of loading zone spaces from two standard-size (12-foot by 25-foot by 14-foot) loading zone spaces to one substandard-sized (9-foot, 4-inches by 23-foot by 8-foot, 6-inches) loading zone space. However, the proposed project includes an amendment to the City’s off-street parking standards and loading zone requirement, which upon approval would clarify that a use permit can be approved for nonresidential uses, reducing the number of parking spaces or loading spaces to less than the number and size required in Section 38-115 of the City’s Zoning Code. establish the City’s loading space dimension requirement of 10 feet deep by 20 feet long by 10 feet in height. As such, upon approval of a use permit, the proposed project would comply with these standards. Further, the proposed parking lot configuration was reviewed and approval by the City’s traffic engineers to ensure compliance with applicable design requirements and ensure that the loading space and parking configuration does create a hazard for delivery trucks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 303, Packet Page 306 The above revisions to the Draft EIR do not constitute “significant new information” because they do not result in a new avoidable significant effect, do not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, do not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and do not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
It is important to note that parking impacts, such as whether a project provides adequate parking, are exempt from CEQA review. As stated in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App. 656 at 697, “The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is. Under CEQA, a project's social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. An EIR need only address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social impact.” As such, parking scarcity alone does not constitute a significant impact on the environment. Instead, projects must be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there are secondary impacts related to scarcity of parking (See, Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 8). Secondary impacts were considered in Section 4.6.3, Air Quality, and the transportation impact analysis, as discussed further below under “Traffic”.
Regardless, the project includes the required number of on-site parking spaces. In addition, one loading zone space is sufficient for the proposed hotel and would not result in the loss of off-street parking. Service hotels do not typically require any off-street loading zone spaces because they do not include accessory uses, such as a restaurant, bar, events venue, or retail store, that would necessitate frequent loading and unloading of supplies and materials. Large or frequent deliveries are not anticipated to be required for the proposed project, based on standard hotel development and operational plans. Typical deliveries would include prepacked food/snacks and sundries, delivered by UPS and/or FedEx size trucks, not semi-trucks. Deliveries are anticipated to have a typical short-term duration of 15 minutes maximum time to deliver packages. The proposed hotel would not create demand for full sized loading zones, and the loading zone demands would be sufficiently accommodated by the one substandard loading zone space. Because delivery trucks would utilize the one on-site loading zone, the project would not result in the loss of off-site parking or result in secondary impacts.
Traffic
Regarding analysis of traffic impacts, because the commenter does not reference trip lengths but does mention “heavy traffic” in the North Fremont neighborhood, it is assumed that the commenter is referring to traffic congestion. CEQA requires analysis of impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and does not require analysis of traffic congestion. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (adopted December 2018) identifies VMT as the most appropriate metric for transportation impact analysis. VMT is a measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips. This represents a shift away from the delay and congestion-based level of service (LOS) metric that historically has been used for evaluating traffic impacts. As specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (a) “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” As such, an LOS analysis is not required under CEQA and therefore was not included in the Draft EIR.
While not required for CEQA, the Traffic Analysis prepared by TJKM in 2023 (Appendix H-1 of the Draft EIR) includes an LOS analysis that evaluates operational traffic impacts at the North Fremont
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 304, Packet Page 307 Street/Project Driveway intersection and the North Fremont Street/Casa Verde Way intersection. As described therein, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect at the study intersections during operation. Since LOS analysis is not required by CEQA, this information is being provided for informational purposes only, and no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Regarding the need to address construction-phase traffic impacts, the required VMT analysis did not quantify the project’s construction impacts. Construction phase transportation impacts were discussed qualitatively in Section 4.6.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, with a focus on emergency access, increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature or inconsistent use, or conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. As discussed in Section 4.6.13 of the Draft EIR and the VMT Analysis prepared by TJKM in 2023 (Appendix H-2 of the Draft EIR), the project’s operational impacts with respect to VMT were determined to be less than significant.
A quantitative VMT analysis for construction is not required by CEQA. Senate Bill (SB) 743 is focused on reducing long-term VMT to help achieve the State’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Even though one particular project may generate a large number of construction trips, the number of construction-generated VMT for an individual project is incidental and temporary when compared to the total VMT in a jurisdiction generated by residential, commercial, and office uses. The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA from the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is intended to provide guidance on addressing VMT in CEQA documents pursuant to SB 743, does not mention construction-phase VMT analysis (OPR 2018).
Although not expressly required under CEQA or SB 743, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(3) acknowledges that “a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.” Further, as discussed in Transportation Analysis Under CEQA, First Edition by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), “Impacts associated with construction of a project may also require VMT analysis, particularly for large projects or projects located a considerable distance from urbanized areas. Generally, a qualitative analysis of VMT impacts associated from the construction of the project would be appropriate” (Caltrans 2020; p. 20). Although the project site is located in an urbanized area, a qualitative analysis is provided below for informational purposes.
Section 15064.3(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines define VMT as the “amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” The OPR guidelines further state, “Here, the term ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks” (OPR 2018).
Therefore, truck trips are generally excluded from the requirements of CEQA as they pertain to transportation impacts and VMT. Analysis of temporary, construction related VMT from transporting of construction materials, which would occur via large truck, is therefore not required.
VMT from construction worker vehicles would be limited. As discussed in Section 5.1.2, Economic Growth, construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional workforce.
Because construction jobs would be filled by local workers, it is not anticipated that workers would be travelling long distances to get to and from the job site. Further, these trips would not be “new,” but rather a redistribution of existing trips. Depending on the route of redistribution, trip lengths could be reduced for some local construction workers. Any VMT generated during the construction phase would be temporary and cease upon construction completion. This is consistent with Caltrans’ Transportation Analysis Under CEQA, First Edition, which states that “[v]ehicle trips used for construction purposes would be temporary, and any generated VMT would generally be minor and limited to construction equipment and personnel and would not result in long-term trip generation” (Caltrans 2020; p. 20).
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 305, Packet Page 308 The LOS analysis provided in Appendix H-2 similarly did not assess the project’s construction-phase impacts. However, similar to the above, construction impacts would be temporary and cease upon construction completion. Further, LOS analysis is not required by CEQA.
As noted above under “Parking,” parking impacts are exempt from CEQA review. Therefore, the Draft EIR was not required to include an assessment of off-street parking impacts during project construction. However, off-street parking impacts are anticipated to be minimal because construction equipment would be staged on-site and would not impact off-street parking spaces.
Although temporary lane closures may be required during construction along westbound North Fremont Street and northbound Casa Verde Way, which could temporarily reduce off-street parking along short segments of these roadways, lane closures would range in duration from hours to a few days. As discussed above under “Parking,” parking impacts are exempt from CEQA review, and any secondary impacts resulting from project construction would be temporary and cease upon construction completion.
Alternate Project Scenario
The comment suggests that the Draft EIR should analyze impacts in two scenarios – with and without the proposed amendments to the City’s parking regulations. However, the proposed project includes the amendment to the City’s parking regulations, and the intent of the Draft EIR is to analyze the project as proposed. Since the applicant is proposing to include the amendment to the City’s parking regulations as part of the project, the Draft EIR is not required to analyze the alternate project scenario suggested by the commenter.
As discussed above, only minor revisions were made to the Draft EIR in response to Comment 1-8.
The revisions to the Draft EIR do not constitute “significant new information” because they do not result in a new avoidable significant effect, do not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, do not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and do not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
Response 1-9
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not analyze impacts related to building height, including loss of privacy and sunlight at the adjacent apartments. The comment also states that the project’s proposed building height would exceed the City’s allowable height limit (35 feet for the North Fremont Specific Plan) by approximately 10 feet.
Loss of privacy and shade/shadow, by themselves, are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA. Further, the City does not have any adopted regulations requiring analysis of these topics.
The aesthetics analysis in Section 4.6.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR assessed impacts based on the checklist questions listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which state that project impacts would be significant if the project would:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
3) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 306, Packet Page 309 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
As demonstrated by the absence of a significance threshold for loss of privacy or shade/shadow, CEQA does not address how a change in lighting or privacy may affect individual persons. Instead, under CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, and whether there is the possibility of significant adverse environmental impact. Such an impact is not raised simply from a desire for a different aesthetic (See, Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1042, addressing whether the increase of light in a neighborhood was a significant environmental impact). CEQA does not protect private views or the right to sunlight. Instead, it is presumed that most buildings in an urban setting will have some shadow effects on the surrounding environment (See, Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 586). There are no physical impacts that the commenter has identified which might create a secondary significant impact that would require additional study as a result of the shadows, nor are any likely based upon the surrounding area, which is characterized as an urban community. As discussed in Section 4.6.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses, which include a mix of hotel, commercial, and residential uses, and would not substantially alter views along North Fremont Street. Further, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality. These analyses and conclusions considered the proposed building height, among other project features.
Regarding height limits, the project site is zoned as Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), as defined by the City’s Zoning Map. The proposed project includes text amendments to the North Fremont Specific Plan clarifying that VAF zone requirements for VAF zoned properties apply as required by City of Monterey Charter, rather than the Specific Plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines. As such, the City’s Zoning Code, rather than the Specific Plan, establishes height limits applicable to the project. Section 38-36 of the City’s Zoning Code includes development standards for VAF zoned properties, including the project site; however, these standards do not specify a maximum allowable height. As such, VAF zoned properties do not have a maximum height limit.
Therefore, the project would not exceed allowable height limits as purported by the commenter.
While the Specific Plan standards and guidelines cannot be explicitly required due to the VAF zoning, the applicant has designed the project to be consistent with many of the plan requirements and recommendations, including height: the applicant has limited the building height to 35-feet on the North Fremont Street side, thus meeting the Specific Plan height standard as measured from the roadway. Overall, shade/shadow analysis is not required by CEQA, the project’s proposed building height would not exceed the City’s allowable height limit, and the proposed project would be consistent with development standards for the VAF zone. As such, no changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Although shade/shadow analysis is not required by CEQA, an exhibit was prepared by Arris Studio Architects (dated May 10, 2021) demonstrating shadows caused by the existing condition and the proposed project during the spring/fall, summer, and winter solstices, respectively. This exhibit is provided in this Final EIR for informational purposes only (see Attachment 1 immediately following Response 1-31). This exhibit was also previously included in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda dated October 12, 2021, which is a part of the public record for the project.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 307, Packet Page 310 Response 1-10
This commenter expresses disagreement with statements in the Draft EIR that the project would improve pedestrian safety, access, and circulation, and describes existing hazards associated with the sidewalk adjacent to the project site. The comment further recommends that the project should be redesigned to provide for at least a 48-inch-wide sidewalk free from obstructions and suggests undergrounding the power poles.
The commenter’s description of safety issues along Casa Verde Way, starting from the corner of North Fremont Street, are noted. These are existing conditions, and are not an anticipated impact of the proposed project. The proposed project would be oriented toward North Fremont Street, with a main pedestrian entrance lobby facing the project frontage. A second entrance lobby would be provided from the rear of the building, with direct access from the parking lot to the north, as shown in the rear (north) elevation in Figure 2-5 in Section 2.0, Project Description. Given primary pedestrian access would be via North Fremont Street or from the surface parking lot at the rear of the building, it is not anticipated that hotel guests or employees would regularly utilize the sidewalk along Casa Verde Way. The sidewalk along the North Fremont Street frontage, which would be utilized by project patrons, would be widened as part of the project. In addition, the sidewalk at the corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, adjacent to the project, is not currently ADA compliant and the underlying topography of the intersection makes compliance infeasible. As part of the proposed project, the applicant would provide an easement on the project site with hardscaping designed to provide an ADA-compliant slope, thus allowing wheelchair access from the sidewalk along the project’s Casa Verde Way frontage to the crosswalk at North Fremont Street. As such, as concluded in Section 4.6.13, Transportation, the project would enhance the overall pedestrian experience.
The following revisions were made to Section 2.5.1, Proposed Site Plan, in Section 2.0, Project Description, to clarify the two locations that pedestrians would use to access the proposed building.
2.5.1 Proposed Site Plan
The proposed hotel would include two main entrance lobbies: one on the south side of the hotel off adjacent to North Fremont Street, accessible from the public sidewalk, and the other on the north side of the hotel adjacent to the on-site parking lot, off Casa Verde Way, accessible from walkways leading from the parking lot and Casa Verde Way.
The above revision to the Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new information” because it does not result in a new avoidable significant effect, does not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, does not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and does not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
Expanding sidewalk widths to 48 inches and undergrounding of power lines on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way are outside the scope of the proposed project. The power poles are owned by PG&E, are not located on the project site, and are not the responsibility of the project applicant to underground. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, subsections (a)(4)(A)–(B), all lead agencies must ensure there is a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between mitigation measures and the significant impacts of the project. The City has determined that there is no nexus between the project’s impacts and these suggested design features since implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts to pedestrian circulation or utilities. In addition, the project’s
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 308, Packet Page 311 impact on pedestrian traffic would not necessitate the extensive sidewalk improvements and power line undergrounding requested by the commenter, as the increase would not be significant enough to warrant such measures in proportion to the project's scope.
It is worth noting that the proposed project would not preclude future improvements to the sidewalks on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, nor preclude the undergrounding of power lines. The City intends to utilize the State Rule 20 Undergrounding Program to convert overhead electric facilities to underground facilities citywide. This requires further coordination with utility providers to identify undergrounding projects that qualify for utility funding.
Response 1-11
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not include a “qualified” technical analysis or relevant evidence regarding water supply.
Water supply is addressed in Section 4.6.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.6.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. As described in these sections, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) issued a water supply allocation for the project site in 2013 (Water Permit No. 32425; Appendix J), which was based on the existing 134-seat restaurant and the 18-room motel and included a water supply credit for removal of the previous swimming pool. The water supply allocation for the project site, based on the previous site uses and the pool credit, is 4.234 acre-feet per year (AFY). On May 17, 2021, a MPWMD Conservation Analyst documented that since the 2013 allocation was determined, the Water Use Factor for Hotels changed from 0.1 AFY/room to 0.064 AFY/room; this changed the water supply allocation for the project site’s previous 18-room motel from 1.8 AFY to 1.152 AFY, while the project site’s total allocation for the restaurant, the motel, and the pool credit reduced to 3.676 AFY. In addition, the pool removal credit of 0.09 AFY expired 10 years after the 2013 permit issuance, which was in May 2023. Using the adjusted water demand factor, and accounting for removal of the existing motel and restaurant uses, the proposed project’s 42-room hotel would result in a water demand of 2.688 AFY, which is nearly 1.0 AFY less than the project site’s previous allocation of 3.676 AFY. In addition, the water supply analysis in Section 4.6.9 concluded that the water supply availability calculations included in the Urban Water Management Plan (California-American Water Company 2021) account for the amount of water that would be required for the proposed project. For these reasons, sufficient water supply would be available to meet the needs of the project, including under varying drought conditions, and water supply impacts would be less than significant.
A standalone technical study is not mandated to support any particular analysis under CEQA, including the assessment of water supply. Given the preceding summary, substantial evidence has been presented to support the Draft EIR analysis. As the commenter has not presented any evidence indicating deficiencies in this analysis, there is no basis for further response.
No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-12
This commenter expresses agreement that Alternative 2 (Three-Story Hotel) is the environmentally superior alternative. The City acknowledges the commenter’s agreement. The comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR and no further response is required. This comment will be provided to the decision-makers for their consideration.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 309, Packet Page 312 Response 1-13
The comment states that the proposed project should be redesigned to conform with current applicable rules. It is unclear what rules the commenter is referring to. The proposed project is designed to comply with all applicable standards. As discussed in Section 4.6.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality and development standards for the VAF zone. As discussed in Section 4.3, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element. Although the project site is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area, the specific plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to the project. The proposed project includes text amendments to the North Fremont Specific Plan clarifying that: (a) VAF zone requirements for VAF zoned properties apply as required by City of Monterey Charter, rather than the Specific Plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines; and (b) the Specific Plan is a tool to implement, but not a part of, the General Plan. The proposed text amendments are intended to clarify existing language in the North Fremont Specific Plan. Because the City currently applies VAF zone development standards to properties zoned VAF (as opposed to the specific plan standards), the text amendments would not result in a change in implementation of the specific plan by the City. Therefore, the proposed project, including the text amendments, would not conflict with the North Fremont Specific Plan. Further, the City Community Development Department reviews project plans and design to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. No changes to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-14
The commenter concludes their comment letter by stating that, based on their comments, the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated.
As described in Responses 1-5 through 1-30, the analysis contained in the Draft EIR is not deficient, as suggested by the commenter, but adequately meets the requirements of CEQA. Minor changes to the EIR have been made in response to comments 1-8 and 1-10, as shown above and in Sections
2.5.1, Proposed Site Plan, 2.5.3, Parking and Site Access, and 4.6.13, Transportation, of this Final EIR.
These changes do not constitute “significant new information” because they do not result in a new avoidable significant effect, do not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, do not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and do not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Response 1-15
The commenter introduces their letter and states that technical appendices D-1 and D-2 were not included in the Draft EIR and could not be reviewed or compared against the noise chapter of the Draft EIR.
Refer to Response 1-4. As discussed therein, Appendices D-1 and D-2, comprised of the noise and vibration technical reports, were available for the public to review during public circulation of the Draft EIR between July 7 and August 21, 2023.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 310, Packet Page 313 Response 1-16
The commenter states that noise impacts to neighboring properties associated with removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn was not considered.
Refer to Response 1-5. As discussed in Response 1-5, changes in existing noise levels, including offsite traffic noise, resulting from the removal of Casa Verde Inn were considered in the noise analysis in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR.
Response 1-17
This commenter states that the level of human hearing response noted in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR is not accurate.
Different references may cite slightly different human hearing sensitivity ranges and there is some variability between individuals as well. The comment about sensitivities to different frequencies is noted. The cited text in Section 4.4, Noise, provides a general overview of sound measurement for context. Any slight difference in human hearing sensitivity ranges is not material to the noise impact assessment and does not affect the finding and conclusions of the Draft EIR. No changes were made in response to this comment.
Response 1-18
The commenter states that the definition of decibels in Section 4.4, Noise, is misleading and that sound intensity is sound pressure over a given surface area.
The comment is acknowledged that sound intensity is a specific type of sound descriptor. The EIR has been revised in Section 4.4.1.a as follows to clarify the definition of decibels:
Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes.
This change is for clarification purposes and does not affect the findings or conclusion of the noise analysis in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The above revision to the Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new information” because it does not result in a new avoidable significant effect, does not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, does not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and does not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
Response 1-19
This commenter cites text from Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR and states that there are no true line sources. The commenter also states that line sources or “moving point sources” typically attenuate at 4.5 dB per doubling of distance.
The comment about there being no true line sources is noted. However, the quoted text provided by the commenter is incomplete. The full text from Section 4.4.4.a of the Draft EIR is provided below, for context:
Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 311, Packet Page 314 intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013). (emphasis added) The statement about an additional ground attenuation of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance which would equal the 4.5 dB cited in the comment. Refer also to Response 1-20, below.
Response 1-20
The commenter states that ground absorption is complicated and therefore the statement that additional ground attenuation of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft surface is mostly untrue.
The text referenced in the comment is from Section 4.4.1.a (Overview of Sound Measurement) in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR, and is supported by a Caltrans reference. As indicated in the title and by its very nature, this section is general to give the reader a basic overview of acoustical properties. Complicated nuances of ground absorption need not be divulged in this general overview as they are not material to the analysis nor affect the finding and conclusions of the Draft EIR. Further, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15410, the EIR must be written in plain language so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents. However, to provide clarity, the text in Section 4.4.1.a of the Final EIR has been revised as follows to explain that this is a general statement:
Generally, an additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013) The above revision to the Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new information” because it does not result in a new avoidable significant effect, does not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, does not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and does not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
Response 1-21
This commenter references the first paragraph of the California Building Code discussion in Section
4.4.2, Regulatory Setting, and states that Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Vol. 1, Part 2, Section 1206.4 applies only to multi-family housing and does not apply to schools or hospitals. The commenter further states that attached housing where a property line separates the units and the units are no higher than three stories are considered single-family attached, not multifamily, and are regulated under the California Residential Code. Finally, the commenter states that the California Building Code no longer requires an acoustical study when the site is exposed to 60 dB DNL/CNEL or greater.
The Title 24 Vol. 1, Part 2, Section 1206.4 requirement applies to habitable rooms, which could include hospitals if they are inpatient care. The commenter is correct that these standards would not apply to schools, and Section 4.4.2.b of the Final EIR has been revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 312, Packet Page 315 CCR Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code codify the state noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL/Ldn in any habitable room acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, hotels, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher.
This change is for clarification purposes and does not affect the findings or conclusion of the noise analysis in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The above revision to the Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new information” because it does not result in a new avoidable significant effect, does not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, does not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and does not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
It is noted that there are additional requirements for single-family housing regulated under the California Residential Code.
Response 1-22
The commenter references the second paragraph of the California Building Code discussion in Section 4.4.2, Regulatory Setting, and states that CALGreen Section 5.507 does not require acoustical studies but requires compliance with building material specifications and interior noise level standards. The CALGreen regulatory discussion has been updated in Section 4.4.2.b of the Final EIR, as follows:
The 2016 State of California’s Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for non-residential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within the noise contour of an airport, freeway, or railroad.
Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to an acceptable level of 45 dBA CNEL.
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for nonresidential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code. The CALGreen Code noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. Proposed Projects may use either the prescriptive method (CALGreen Code Section 5.507.4.1) or the performance method (CALGreen Code Section
5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies and exterior windows when located within a noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 313, Packet Page 316 This change is for clarification purposes and does not affect the findings or conclusion of the noise analysis in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The above revision to the Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new information” because it does not result in a new avoidable significant effect, does not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, does not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and does not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
Response 1-23
This commenter states that the noise technical reports and CadnaA model outputs were not available for public review.
Refer to Response 1-4. As discussed therein, Appendices D-1 and D-2, comprised of the noise and vibration technical reports, were available for the public to review during public circulation of the Draft EIR between July 7 and August 21, 2023. The CadnaA model outputs were included as Appendix B to the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, which was included in Appendix D-1 of the Draft EIR.
Response 1-24
The commenter references the On-Site Land Use Compatibility discussion in Section 4.4.3.a (Methodology) and questions the lack of an environmental analysis of noise impacts from existing noise sources on future users of the project in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The commenter further states that the Draft EIR is “flawed and misleading” because the Draft EIR performs an environmental analysis of the proposed project’s impacts on noise, but does not similarly conduct an environmental impact analysis of noise on the proposed project itself.
As a CEQA document, the CBIA v. BAAQMD ruling (California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478) issued December 17, 2015) confirmed that, for CEQA analyses, it is appropriate for the lead agency to examine the impacts of a project on the environment, but not appropriate for the lead agency to examine the effects the existing environment may have on a project. The Draft EIR does include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on noise. However, as discussed in Section 4.4.3.a of the Draft EIR, and in compliance with CEQA, “while the noise from existing sources (e.g., adjacent roadways) is considered as part of the baseline condition, the direct effects of exterior noise from nearby noise sources relative to land use compatibility of the proposed project is not considered a CEQA impact and is not included in the impact analysis...” As with other areas of the EIR, the City may choose to include further analysis or details for informational purposes. Thus, the City included a discussion of the Title 24 interior noise standards that are applicable to the proposed project, though the proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 interior noise standards is not a CEQA impact because Title 24 interior noise standards concern only the impacts of the existing environment on future users of the proposed hotel. Nevertheless, during design review and plan check the City of Monterey Building and Safety Division will review project plans to ensure that pertinent Title 24 standards are met. Likewise, if approved, the City will require the proposed project to comply with the mandatory policies of the General Plan Noise Element.
In summary, the Draft EIR’s discussion of the Title 24 interior requirement of 45 dB CNEL/Ldn is included for background and informational purposes. While the standards are relevant to the
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 314, Packet Page 317 proposed project, again, the potential impacts of the environment on the project are not considered under the purview of CEQA. Therefore, the noise analysis in the Draft EIR is not flawed, and no revisions are warranted.
Response 1-25
The commenter references the significance thresholds for traffic noise and requests that a source for the thresholds be provided. The commenter further notes that DNEL and CNEL can be reported only in whole decibels, suggesting a threshold of 1.5 dB is inappropriate. The commenter further questions whether one of the thresholds is 5 dB or “greater than” 5 dB (i.e., 6 dB).
The source of the traffic noise thresholds is cited in Section 4.4.3.b (Significance Thresholds), where, immediately prior to the list of three listed thresholds, it is explained that the thresholds are similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The full citation for this reference is FAA 2020. 1050.1F Desk Reference). For clarification, the citation was added to Section
4.4.3.b as follows:
The following thresholds of significance, similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2020), are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations.
In addition, the following reference was added to Section 8.0 of the Final EIR:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2020. 1050.1F Desk Reference.
The document states that for DNL/Ldn environments of 65 dB and higher, a change of 1.5 dB would be significant. As discussed in Section 4.4.4.a of the Draft EIR, “noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA” and are considered interchangeable.
Regarding the question about 5 dB or “greater than” 5 dB, the threshold list in Section 4.4.3.b of the Final EIR has been revised as follows:
The following thresholds of significance, similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2020), are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. Increases in traffic noise would be significant if they exceed the following thresholds:
Greater than 5 dBA CNEL or greater if existing ambient noise less than 60 dBA. Greater than 3 dBA CNEL or greater if existing ambient noise is between 60 and 64 dBA. Greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater if existing ambient noise is greater than 65 dBA.
This change is for clarification purposes and does not affect the findings or conclusion of the noise analysis in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR since project traffic noise increases did not equal or exceed the thresholds (i.e., 1.5 dBA CNEL, 3 dBA CNEL, or 5 dBA CNEL depending on existing ambient). The commenter states that it is inappropriate to use 1.5 dB in the context of DNL or CNEL and states that DNL and CNEL can only be reported in whole numbers. This is the commenter’s opinion. However, the FAA employs the 1.5 dB DNL threshold in the context of transportation noise and it is reasonable to apply the threshold here. In addition, it should be noted that applying a threshold of 1.5 CNEL or greater when existing ambient noise is greater than 65 dBA is conservative, since often 3 dBA is used as a significance threshold in EIRs and 1.5 dBA provides for a more conservative assessment of project impacts.
The above revisions to the Draft EIR do not constitute “significant new information” because they do not result in a new avoidable significant effect, do not substantially increase the severity of any
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 315, Packet Page 318 environmental impacts, do not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and do not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR. As such, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.
Response 1-26
The commenter states that traffic noise impacts to neighboring properties with removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn was not considered. The comment also states that the increased noise at the Mahroom Apartments would be 5 dBA from removal of the Casa Verde Inn.
As discussed in Response 1-5, changes in existing noise levels resulting from the removal of Casa Verde Inn were considered in the noise analysis in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR. Where existing ambient noise is between 60 and 64 dBA CNEL at the Mahroom Apartments, traffic noise level increases are calculated to be less than the 3 dBA CNEL threshold. Where existing ambient noise is less than 60 dBA CNEL at the Mahroom Apartments, traffic noise level increases are calculated to be less than the 5 dBA CNEL threshold. Traffic noise from implementation of the proposed project would not be at least 5 dBA as the commenter claims. The commenter’s statement that removal of the existing motel would increase noise at the Mahroom Apartments by 5 dBA is the opinion of the commenter and is not based on any calculations or modeling. Refer also to Response 1-27, below.
Response 1-27
The commenter references the On-Site Traffic discussion under Impact NOI-2 in Section 4.4, Noise, and states that there is no quantitative basis for the traffic noise modeling results, including the removal of the existing Casa Verde Inn. The comment states that the Mahroom Apartments would be exposed to increased “flanking” noise because the proposed hotel is narrower than the existing motel and there would be increased line-of-sight due to the removal of the existing motel. The comment also states that the Draft EIR does not discuss elevation of the top of the proposed noise barrier in relation to the second floor of the apartment building. The comment states that that a wide section of the property line would be exposed to increased traffic noise that would transmit between the eastly end of the soundwall and the State Farm Insurance building. Finally, the comment states that a significant noise increase would occur if the noise barrier does not extend to the easterly property line.
As discussed below, the noise analysis is supported by quantitative noise modeling, contrary to the commenter’s assertions. The On-Site Traffic discussion under Impact NOI-2 in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR states, “the adjacent Mahroom Apartments are currently ‘shielded’ from North Fremont Street traffic by the existing on-site motel building, as it is oriented directly in front of the Mahroom Apartments and blocks the Mahroom Apartments from having a direct line-of-sight to North Fremont Street. Removal of the existing motel would eliminate this existing noise attenuating feature, thereby potentially increasing traffic noise at the adjacent apartments. The proposed new hotel would have a different footprint and would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site, allowing the southeastern facade of the apartment building to be exposed to higher traffic noise levels. In this location, the proposed hotel would be 45 feet in height, approximately 25 feet taller than the existing motel. As such, in some locations along the Mahroom Apartments façade, the project would provide noise reductions compared to existing conditions due to the increased height of the noise-attenuating structure.” This potential impact was directly addressed
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 316, Packet Page 319 Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-37
through the detailed traffic noise modeling conducted based on existing and future project conditions in the CadnaA 3D noise modeling program, as described in the Draft EIR.
The Cadna/A Model Inputs/Outputs attachment (Appendix B) of Appendix D-2 to the Draft EIR includes the modeled retaining wall coordinates and heights up to 7 feet along with the coordinates of all other modeled features. As shown in Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 of the Draft EIR existing and future traffic noise levels were modeled at both first level and second level receptors of the Mahroom Apartments. The comment makes assertions without providing any substantial evidence or noise modeling; whereas, the findings of the Draft EIR are based on detailed 3D noise modeling of existing and future project conditions including the proposed retaining wall and barrier and first and second level receptors at the Mahroom Apartments.
The commenter states that a 15-foot noise barrier was required. The project includes construction of a retaining wall and a 7-foot tall stucco wall on top of the retaining wall on the northern site boundary. The combined height of the stucco wall and retaining wall from grade of the adjacent property to the north would range from approximately 8 to 12 feet in height. Based on the detailed 3D noise modeling of existing and future project conditions, it was determined that with the proposed retaining wall and barrier, project traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, a taller (i.e., 15-foot) noise barrier is not required.
Response 1-28
The commenter provides a summary of the modeled existing and future noise levels at the Mahroom Apartments to the north and states that Figure 4.4-2 of the Draft EIR shows the future noise levels at the apartments would range from 52 – 61 CNEL. The commenter then implies that the graphic was incorrect. However, the commenter has misinterpreted Figure 4.4-2. The range of future noise levels shown on Figure 4.4-2 of the Draft EIR is from 54 – 62 CNEL, not 52 – 61 CNEL.
Figure 4.4-2 in the Draft EIR accurately depicts the predicted future noise levels, and no revisions are warranted.
Response 1-29
The commenter references a previous comment letter dated December 13, 2021 and provides graphics showing the location of the proposed and recommended (by the commenter) noise barriers. The comment states that the proposed noise barrier was supposed to be 15-feet high and that the adjacent apartment buildings would be significantly impacted due to the opening between the barrier and the commercial building (easterly adjacent to the project site). The comment also states that the noise analysis is flawed because noise impacts from the removal of the Casa Verde Inn were not adequately addressed and that a significant noise impact remains after mitigation.
The purpose of the response to comments is to address significant environmental issues raised on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088[a]). Because the prior comment letter cited in the comment letter (dated December 13, 2021) is not a comment on the Draft EIR, this letter was not addressed in this response to comments. However, the comment letter is part of the administrative record for the project and will be provided to decision makers for their consideration.
Please refer to Response 1-27. As detailed in Impact NOI-2 in Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR, based on the detailed 3D noise modeling of existing and future project conditions, project operational noise and traffic noise impacts would be less than significant with the proposed retaining wall and 7-foot tall stucco wall on top of the retaining wall on the northern site boundary.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 317, Packet Page 320 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
7-38
The combined height of the stucco wall and retaining wall from grade of the adjacent property to the north would range from approximately 8 to 12 feet in height. Therefore, a taller (i.e., 15-foot) noise barrier is not required. Contrary to the statement made by the commenter, no significant unavoidable impacts would occur at the existing apartments to the north of the project site. Where existing ambient noise is between 60 and 64 dBA CNEL, traffic noise level increases are calculated to be less than the 3 dBA CNEL threshold. Where existing ambient noise is less than 60 dBA CNEL, traffic noise level increases are calculated to be less than the 5 dBA CNEL threshold. Therefore, traffic noise impacts at the Mahroom Apartments to the north would be less than significant.
Regarding the commenter’s recommended extension of the property line barrier along the eastern property boundary, the commenter provides no substantial basis (quantified or otherwise) for this recommendation to support the claim that an extension of the proposed sound barrier is needed.
The findings and conclusions of the noise analysis in the Draft EIR are supported by detailed 3D noise modeling of existing and future project conditions including the proposed retaining wall and barrier and first and second level receptors at the Mahroom Apartments. No revisions in response to this comment are required.
Response 1-30
The commenter states that the noise chapter of the Draft EIR is confusing, erroneous, and misleading and should be rewritten by a qualified acoustician. The commenter also suggests that Section 4.4, Noise, should be reviewed by Salter to ensure that the Draft EIR complies with the analyses, evaluations, and recommendations prepared by the acoustician of record.
Refer to Response 1-6. As discussed therein, a qualified noise specialist prepared Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR based on noise measurement data provided in the Environmental Noise Study (Salter 2021); analytical modeling of project construction and operational noise contained in the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Salter 2023); and comparison of modeling results against applicable noise and vibration thresholds. Salter has reviewed Section 4.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR and confirmed that the noise analysis in the EIR is consistent with these reports. The comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.
Response 1-31
This commenter concludes the comment letter. The comment does not contain a substantive comment on the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 318, Packet Page 321 Date
ScaleSheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401THOMAS E. JESSARCHITECT (CA) #C27068STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT (CA) #C33672ADDRESS805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMCONTACT A9.0
05/10/21 2101 N FREMONT
MONTEREY, CA
SHADING STUDY -
SPRING/FALL SOLSTICE
MARCH 21 AT 9 AMMARCH 21 AT NOONMARCH 21 AT 3 PM
PROPOSED SITE EXISTING SITE
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 319, Packet Page 322 Date
ScaleSheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401THOMAS E. JESSARCHITECT (CA) #C27068STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT (CA) #C33672ADDRESS805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMCONTACT A9.1
05/10/21 2101 N FREMONT
MONTEREY, CA
SHADING STUDY -
SUMMER SOLSTICE
JUNE 21 AT 9 AMJUNE 21 AT NOONJUNE 21 AT 3 PM
PROPOSED SITE EXISTING SITE
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 320, Packet Page 323 Date
ScaleSheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401THOMAS E. JESSARCHITECT (CA) #C27068STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT (CA) #C33672ADDRESS805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMCONTACT A9.2
05/10/21 2101 N FREMONT
MONTEREY, CA
SHADING STUDY - WINTER
SOLSTICE
DECEMBER 21 AT 9 AMDECEMBER 21 AT NOONDECEMBER 21 AT 3 PM
PROPOSED SITE EXISTING SITE
EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 321, Packet Page 324 ____________________________________ wildlife.ca.gov
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Charlton H. Bonham, Director
Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue | Fresno, California 93710 | (559) 243-4005 August 25, 2023
Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey Community Development Department
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, California 93940
[email protected]
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2101 North Fremont Hotel Project (Project)
SCH No.: 2022060567
Dear Chris Schmidt:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report from the City of Monterey Community Development Department for the above referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW would appreciate if you will still consider our comments.
After reviewing the provided CEQA document CDFW has determined that the mitigation measures as currently documented in the DEIR are sufficient for mitigation of impacts to biological resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
EXHIBIT A
Letter 2
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 322, Packet Page 325 Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey Community Development Department