Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, December 15, 2023 (part 1 of 5)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
Monterey City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
Council Special Meeting

AMENDED AGENDA
Friday, December 15, 2023
2:00 PM
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember,
District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember,
District 2
City Manager
Hans Uslar
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
 Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and public at https://monterey.org/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
 In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. Wearing a mask is recommended and encouraged.
 Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.  Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand,” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF)  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay).

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

The total amount of time allocated for public comment on a particular issue and for each individual speaker is generally as follows:

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

2. For regular City Council meetings, there are two 15-minute public comment periods, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Speakers may only comment during one session.

3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. Items pulled from the consent agenda – 15 minutes each item b. Public Appearance items – 30 minutes each item
c. Public Hearing items – 30 minutes each item
d. Closed session items – 15 minutes each item
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker. 12/15/2023 2:00:00 PM
2 CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

1. Consider Planning Commission Decisions on 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel to Approve (1) Use Permit UP-20-0227 to Demolish an Existing 18-Room Hotel, Restaurant and Parking Lot; and Construct a New 42-Room Hotel and Parking Lot, and Off-Street Loading Space; (2) 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38 Related to Visitor Accommodation Facility Parking Standards (38-36A), Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards (38-115) and Reduced Parking for Other Uses (38-117); (3) Adopt a Resolution Amending the North Fremont Specific Plan with Clarifying Applicability Language; (4) Certify Environmental Impact Report prepared for project in accordance with CEQA Article 7, Section 15090; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District, Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; and any appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission thereto.

CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under Consent Agenda are routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

Award of Construction Contracts

2. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $970,600 to Global Diversified Voltage Services, Inc. for the Main Switchgear Upgrade Project in Camp Roberts (Categorically Excluded from NEPA 32 CFR, Part 651, Section II(e)(2) and II(g)(1) and CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1)) ***IGSA***
Ordinances
An ordinance is a law adopted by the City Council and codified in the City Code. Through the adoption of an ordinance, the City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other laws not in conflict with state or federal law. An ordinance generally becomes effective 30 days after approval at a second reading.

3. 1st Reading by Title Only to Update Cannabis Business Ordinance (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Resolutions
RESOLUTIONS are passed to express the policy of the Council on certain items or programs, or are passed to direct certain types of administrative action. A resolution may be changed by adoption of a subsequent resolution. Resolutions only require one reading and are approved when "passed and adopted."
12/15/2023 2:00:00 PM
3 4. Appoint Andrew Miller as Interim Fire Chief and Approve Employment Contract (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
***End of Consent Agenda***

ADJOURNMENT
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.org/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours.

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record.

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

Voicemail: (831) 646-3799 Fax: (831) 646-3793
Email: [email protected] WebPage: http://www.monterey.org INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings. Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance. Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Upcoming city meetings are listed at http://isearchmonterey.org More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consider Planning Commission Decisions on 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel to Approve (1) Use Permit UP-20-0227 to Demolish an Existing 18-Room Hotel, Restaurant and Parking Lot; and Construct a New 42-Room Hotel and Parking Lot, and Off-Street Loading Space; (2) 1st Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 38 Related to Visitor Accommodation Facility Parking Standards (38-36A), Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards (38-115) and Reduced Parking for Other Uses (38-117); (3) Adopt a Resolution Amending the North Fremont Specific Plan with Clarifying Applicability Language; (4) Certify Environmental Impact Report prepared for project in accordance with CEQA Article 7, Section 15090; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District, Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; and any appeals of decisions of the Planning Commission thereto.

RECOMMENDATION:
(1) That the City Council adopt a resolution to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
(2) That the City Council Introduce by title only, waive full reading, and pass a first reading of an ordinance to amend Monterey City Code (MCC) Chapter 38 modifying Visitor Accommodation Facility parking standards and Off-street Parking and Loading standards.
(3) That the City Council adopt a resolution to amend the North Fremont Specific Plan to provide clarifying applicability language.
(4) That the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Use Permit (UP) for the hotel use and reduced loading space requirements.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposal is consistent with General Plan policies to support the hospitality industry.

General Plan Economic Element:

Date: 12/15/2023
Item No.: 1.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 4  Program b.5.2. Encourage added hotel rooms within the limits of VAF zoning in order to increase Transient Occupancy Tax revenues.
 Program b.5.3. Encourage hotel owners to upgrade their facilities.

The Monterey City Charter regulates Visitor Accommodation Facilities (VAF), and establishes the VAF zoning district.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is expected to be a positive fiscal impact to the City resulting from increased Transient Occupancy Tax, Property Tax, and Sales Tax.

On May 17, 2022, the City Council adopted resolution 22-062 to enter into an Incentive Agreement with Lakshmi Hotel Partners Inc. This agreement is yet to be executed; however, the approved terms provide that the economic development subsidy will start on the first day of business operation and terminate seven years after the first day of business operation. During the first year of the Hotel’s operation, the City shall credit back to the Owner up to $100,000 of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) remitted to the City. For years two (2) through seven (7) of the Property’s operation, the City shall credit back to Owner up to $75,000 annually of TOT remitted to the City. The credit back to Owner shall only apply to TOT collected by Owner and remitted to City over $125,000. The total credit received by the Owner over the first seven (7) years of operation of the Property, which is the duration of the economic development subsidy, shall not exceed $550,000 or two percent (2%) of the total project cost, whichever is lesser. Before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Owner shall notify the City in writing of the total project cost to calculate and administer the TOT credit obligations.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office has prepared an EIR for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132. The EIR identified that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. All impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the associated mitigation measures. The EIR is discussed in further detail later in this report.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may continue consideration of the application, deny the application and associated specific plan and zoning text amendments, or modify the project subject to conditions of approval.

DISCUSSION:

Project Background
In 2020, Adriana Cook of Arris Studio Architects submitted a use permit application on behalf of Lakshmi Hotel Partners to redevelop the project site, which currently contains an 18-guest room motel, restaurant, and surface parking lot. The existing motel and restaurant are not currently open for business.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 5 An Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared for the proposed project and was circulated for public review between March 17 and April 16, 2021. Comments received on the project were primarily related to building design (style, height, and massing), parking, noise, and water supply. The project and IS-MND were approved by the City of Monterey Planning Commission on October 12, 2021. Subsequently, appeal application AP-21-0194 was filed by an adjacent property owner (the Mahroom family) on October 22, 2021. As a result of the appeal, the City determined that further environmental analysis was warranted and an EIR should be prepared. The EIR is discussed in further detail later in this report.

On November 28, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the project along with the associated Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending the City Council approve the project and certify the EIR. The Planning Commission received written public comment, as well as heard comments, from the Mahroom family and their representatives.

Project Site
The 0.58-acre project site is located at 2101 North Fremont Street in the City of Monterey, California. The project site is located on the northeast corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way and is identified by Assessor Parcel Number 013-112-045-000. The project site is currently developed with a one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The existing motel and restaurant are not currently operating.

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, which allows retail, visitor commercial, and professional office uses. The project site is zoned as Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), as defined by the City’s Zoning Map. Uses permitted in the VAF zoning district include commercial uses, VAFs and limited-occupancy VAFs, and accessory uses. Examples of accessory uses include limited retail, such as for the sale of candy, magazines, and sundries; beauty and barber shops; recreation facilities to serve the public, guests, and employees; living accommodations for a manager or caretaker; facilities for conferences and meetings; commercial restaurant businesses; clothes and cleaning pick up agencies; and other visitor sales and services when related to and developed as an accessory use to a VAF. The project site is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area and zoned VAF. When VAF zoned properties are located within the physical boundaries of a Specific Plan area, the VAF zone requirements shall apply to VAF zoned properties as required by City of Monterey Charter, rather than the Specific Plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines.

Project Description
The proposed project includes demolition of the existing one-story, 18-guest room motel, 134- seat restaurant, and surface parking lot. As depicted in Figure 1 below, the proposed project involves construction of a new four-story, 42 guest room branded hotel and an associated surface parking lot with 42 parking spaces. The proposed project requires approval of a Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed hotel use. Table 1 summarizes the project characteristics.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 6 Figure 1: Site Plan
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 7 Table 1 Project Characteristics
Address 2101 North Fremont Street
APN 013-112-045-000
Proposed Use Hotel
Number of Guest Rooms 42
Number of Parking Spaces 42
Height/Stories 45 feet (35 feet above grade)
3 stories above grade
1 story partially below grade for basement
Lot Area 25,258 sf; 0.58 acre
Building Footprint 7,076 sf
Total Floor Area 25,000 sf
Basement (1st Floor) 2,600 sf
Ground Floor (2nd Floor) 6,800 sf
3 nd Floor 7,800 sf
4 th Floor 7,800 sf
sf = square feet
The proposed project 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 square feet (sf). From the on-site parking lot located in the northern portion of the project site, which is below grade compared to North Fremont Street, the hotel would appear to be four stories and 45 feet in height. Due to the 10 percent slope on the project site, the proposed hotel would appear to be three stories and 35 feet in height from North Fremont Street.

The proposed hotel would include two main entrance lobbies: one on the south side of the hotel 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, accessible from walkways leading from the parking lot and Casa Verde Way. Two elevators would be provided at the center of the building; two sets of stairs would be provided at the northwestern and southeastern corners of the building, respectively. The basement (first floor) would include the lower lobby, bicycle storage room, laundry room, storage, trash, and electrical and utilities rooms. The first story 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 second and third stories would include guest rooms and housekeeping areas. Guest rooms would be comprised of 24 double queen rooms and 18 king rooms. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be installed in two areas and would not exceed five feet in height.

The building design would be characterized by a contemporary architectural style with various aesthetic elements, including multi-level roof lines, building articulation, entryways, columns, a tower element, and canopies and awnings. The building would feature a variety of materials, including wood-like cement siding, aluminum siding and windows, painted stucco, stone veneer, and metal fixtures. The color palette would include earth-tones and red and light blue accents.

The final project design will require approval through the City’s Architectural Review Committee.

Figures 2-5 show the proposed elevations, and Figures 6 and 7 show project renderings.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 8 Figure 2: Elevation (West)
Figure 3: Elevation (South)
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 9 Figure 4: Elevation (East)
Figure 5: Elevation (North)
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 10 №08/22
Figure 6: Rendering Facing Northeast at North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way Figure 7: Rendering: Facing Southeast on Casa Verde Way Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 11 Property line setbacks would be a minimum of 10 feet, as required by development standards for the VAF zone (City Charter section 8.1; City’s Zoning Code Section 38-36, Property Development Standards).

Table 2 compares the project characteristics to existing conditions.

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Changes Compared to Existing Uses Existing Conditions Proposed Project Change
Lot Coverage 8,366 sf (33 percent) 7,069 sf (28 percent) -1,297 sf Height 20 feet (12 feet above
grade)
45 feet (35 feet above
grade)
+23 feet above
grade
Guest Rooms 18 rooms 42 rooms +24 rooms
Parking 32 spaces 42 spaces +10 spaces
Impervious Surface Area 23,241 sf (92 percent) 22,606 sf (89.5 percent) -635 sf Landscape Area 2,017 sf (8 percent) 2,652 sf (10.5 percent) +635 sf sf = square feet
As shown in Table 2, the proposed building footprint and lot coverage would decrease (from 8,366 sf and 33 percent to 7,069 sf and 28 percent, respectively) compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would also result in a slight decrease in impervious surface area (from 92 percent to 89.5 percent) and an increase in landscape area (from 8 percent to

10.5 percent) as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would represent an increase in height, number of guest rooms, and parking spaces and elimination of the existing restaurant compared to existing conditions.

Specific Plan and Zoning Code Text Amendments
The North Fremont Specific Plan and Zoning Code text amendments included as part of the project are provided below. 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 (b) The Specific Plan is a tool to implement, but not a part of, the General Plan. The proposed project also includes an amendment to the City’s Zoning Code to clarify the parking and loading space requirements for hotels and motels and clarifying the allowable reductions in parking and loading spaces. The proposed amendments (text additions) are shown below in underline format.

Proposed Amendments to Section 38-36.A and Section 38-115 A. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required.

Hotels and
Motels
One per guest room; plus two for every 50 rooms for hotels and motels with over 49 rooms; plus parking, as required for accessory uses.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 9, Packet Page 12 Proposed Amendments to Section 38-117
Monterey City (MCC) Code Section 38-117, titled “Reduced Parking Requirements,” allows a use permit to be approved to reduce the number of parking spaces provided to less than the number required (for nonresidential uses), however Section 38-117 is not clear if the reduction applies to required loading spaces and reductions to the dimensional requirements for the subject spaces.

The proposed project proposes the following text amendment to MCC Code Section 38-117 to clarify that the use permit for parking reduction applies to loading zones and dimensional requirements shown below in underline format:

A use permit may be approved for nonresidential uses, reducing the number of parking spaces or loading spaces to less than the number and size specified in the schedules in Section 38-115, provided that the following findings are made:

A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A or B; and B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; or
C. There is significant public parking within a reasonable distance that has been provided or will be provided within a reasonable time.

In reaching a decision, the Planning Commission shall consider survey data submitted by an applicant or collected at the applicant’s request and expense.

Analysis

1. Use Permit
The proposed project requires approval of a Use Permit (UP) for the proposed hotel use and reduced loading space requirements (number and size). MCC Sec. 38-161 establishes the general findings required for a Use Permit and MCC Sec 38-117 establishes additional findings required to allow reduced parking or loading space requirements related to number and size of spaces.

MCC Sec. 38-161 (Use Permit Findings):

1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone;
Staff Response: The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purposes of the VAF zone. The zoning ordinance and VAF zone are intended to guide the physical development of overnight visitor accommodation facilities within the city.

The proposal would meet the City Charter and VAF zone development standard requirements in terms of the allowed number of guest rooms (maximum allowed is 42 guest rooms for site), number of stories, required parking (including the above allowed finding under MCC 38 – 115), lot coverage, required setbacks and overall siting.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 10, Packet Page 13 The project site is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area and the specific development standards for VAF properties are contained in the City’s zoning code. No VAF zone or charter amendment has been brought forth which would allow the North Fremont Specific Plan policies to be applicable to VAF zoned sites. The VAF zone remains unchanged and does not include the height, neighborhood sensitivity, or other restrictions cited in the North Fremont Specific Plan. The only exception is for the overall density standard for hotels, which the VAF states in 38-151A(a)1. “may be those standards which are specified in and adopted area or … plan” such as the North Fremont Specific Plan.

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 specific plan requirements and recommendations. For example, the applicant has provided a 12-foot sidewalk along North Fremont Street and limited the building height to 35’ on the North Fremont side.

2. That the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city;
Staff response: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding development. Economic Element program b.5.2. states, “Encourage added hotel rooms within the limits of VAF zoning in order to increase Transient Occupancy Tax revenues.”
Program b.5.2 further states “Encourage hotel owners to upgrade their facilities.” The project proposes to redevelop the 18-guest room motel site with a new 42-guest room hotel that will provide an attractive opportunity for visitors and additional TOT revenues due to the increased number of rooms. Furthermore, the General Plan designates the site for commercial use and the proposed hotel is consistent with this land use designation. The applicant has explained that given the substantial costs to demolish the existing motel and restaurant along with the construction of new infrastructure required for the new hotel, a minimum 42-guest room hotel is necessary to economically justify the proposed upgrade of the property.

The landscaping area has been increased at the back of the lot to create a visual buffer, retaining walls have been reduced in height as compared to the existing development, and stucco walls have been incorporated to further separate the development from adjacent apartments. Business operations are anticipated to be professional and upgraded with the new, “branded” hotel. The proposed loading space would be adequate for the limited services provided by the hotel. This is the first upgraded hotel along North Fremont Street in decades and past economic development experience indicates that it will encourage additional reinvestment along the corridor.

3. That the proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use.

Staff response: The proposed use will be required to comply with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures required for the development. Due to input from neighborhood residents and nearby business operators, the project includes an easement of a portion of private property to the City for pedestrian sidewalk use.

MCC Sec. 38-117 (Reduced Loading Zone Findings)
MCC Code Section 38-117 establishes the required findings to allow for a reduction in the size of parking spaces or loading zones. In order to approve the proposed reduction of loading spaces finding A, and finding B or C shall be made:

A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A or B.

Staff Response: Schedule B (MCC 38-115) requires two 12’ (W) x 25’ (L) x 14’ (H) loading spaces for hotels and motels with a gross floor area greater than 15,001 square feet and less than 50,000 square feet. The applicant has indicated that select service hotels do not require off-street loading 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. The hotel brand owner IHG has confirmed that large or frequent deliveries are not anticipated, based on standard brand hotel development and operational plans. Typical deliveries would include prepacked food/snacks and sundries, delivered by local UPS and/or FedEx size trucks. Deliveries are anticipated to have a typical short-term duration of 15 minutes maximum time to deliver packages.

The project architect has also cited similar select service hotels in California that have been approved without loading spaces, due to the limited service provided. The architect cites four IHG brand hotels: Mountain View Hampton Inn (153 guestrooms), Daly City Home2 Suites (142 guestrooms), Petaluma Hampton Inn (75 guestrooms), and Sunnyvale Hyatt Place (90 guestrooms). These hotels were approved with either no loading space or loading space requirements had been waived because large or frequent deliveries were not anticipated. The supporting evidence noted above indicates that the loading zone demand will be much less than required by MCC 38-115 Schedule B. Additionally, Staff research concurs that the proposed hotel will not create a demand for any full sized (12’ X 25’ X 14’) loading spaces. The proposed loading space of 9’ 4” (W) x 23’ (L) x 10’ (H) would be adequate for the typical small delivery van servicing the site.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 12, Packet Page 15 B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand.

Staff Response: The floor plan layout is designed for the specific purpose of a limited service hotel. No other uses that will generate additional parking demand, such as restaurant, bar, event venue space or retail store, are part of the scope of the project. If, in the future, the applicant proposes new accessory uses or building modifications, additional parking and loading spaces will be required as applicable.

The probable long-term occupancy of the proposal will not generate additional loading zone space demand based on its design.

C. There is significant public parking within a reasonable distance that has been provided or will be provided within a reasonable time.

Staff Response: There is not sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding because there are no nearby loading spaces that could be reasonably utilized by the proposed project. This finding is not required to be made in the event that finding B is made.

2. Specific Plan Amendment
Chapter 9, Administration, of the North Fremont Specific Plan states that amendments to the Specific Plan require approval by the Planning Commission and City Council per Government Code procedures; Sections 65453, 65454, and 65456.

Government Code Section 65453(a): A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.

Staff Response: The proposed specific plan amendment has been reviewed and processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Government Code Section 65350 et seq; Preparation, Adoption, and Amendment of the General Plan.

Government Code Section 65454: No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan.

Staff Response: The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the general plan in that the amendment proposes clarifying language to existing provisions of the specific plan. The proposed amendments pertain to the relationship of the North Fremont Specific Plan and the Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) zoning established by the City Charter, in that the provisions of the North Fremont Specific Plan shall not apply to VAF zoned properties. Changes to VAF zoned properties shall occur by amendment to the City Charter in addition to the City’s Zoning Map. The proposed amendment provides consistency with both the City Charter and various policies of the General Plan including the following Economic policies:

Policy b.5 - Provide for orderly growth of the visitor sector of the Monterey economy.

Policy c.3 - Support the visitor industry as the primary economic base of the community.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 13, Packet Page 16 Government Code Section 65456: (a) The legislative body, after adopting a specific plan, may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan. (b) Notwithstanding Section 66016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan, amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning agency.
(c) Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan, including the diagrams and text, shall be made available to local agencies, and shall be made available to the general public as follows:
(1) Within one working day following the date of adoption, the clerk of the legislative body shall make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection. (2) Within two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying, the clerk shall furnish the requested copy to the person making the request.
(d) A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of a specific plan or amendments to a specific plan in an amount that is reasonably related to the cost of providing that document.

Staff Response: The applicable provisions of Government Code Section 65456 have been met. The applicable administration fees associated with the specific plan amendment have been collected and copies of the amended specific plan will be made available as required once adopted.

3. Monterey City Code Amendment
MCC Section 38-198 states that the Planning Commission shall make specific findings as to whether the proposed zoning regulation or zoning map amendment is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the purposes of this ordinance.

Staff Response: The proposed amendments to the City Code are consistent with the policies of the General Plan in that the proposed amendments provide additional clarification to existing sections of the Zoning Code. Section 38-36.A and Section 38-115 are being revised to add clarification to the parking requirement for hotel and motel uses and will not represent a substantive change to the existing parking requirement for those uses. Section 38-117 is being revised to further clarify that the provisions allowing for reductions in parking spaces shall also apply to loading space requirements with reductions applying to both the number of spaces and dimensional requirements. The amendment does not propose Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 14, Packet Page 17 changes to any required findings associated with this section and will not represent a substantive change to the existing section of the City Code. With the proposed amendments being minor in nature and proposing no substantive changes to the existing sections of the City Code, the amendments are consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the purposes of the Monterey City Code.

4. Environmental Impact Report
The City of Monterey Planning Office has prepared an EIR for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132.

Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15082, the City distributed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on June 24, 2022 and ending on July 25, 2022. During the 30-day review period, the NOP was available on the City’s website at: www.monterey.org/planning. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit agency and public input on the scope and content of the EIR. The City received letters from the following five agencies and one Native American Tribe in response to the NOP during the public review period: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Native American Heritage Commission, Transportation Agency for Monterey County, and KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria. NOP comments were primarily related to nesting birds, hazardous materials (including in demolished materials and imported soils), tribal consultation, traffic impacts, and cultural monitoring during construction.

Comments and responses received on the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR.

Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15087, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between July 7, 2023 and August 21, 2023 to solicit comments regarding the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. During the public review period, the Draft EIR was available on the City’s website at: www.monterey.org/planning. Two comment letters on the Draft EIR were received: from Fenton & Keller (on behalf of the Mahroom family who owns the apartment building located to the north of the project site) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The comments from Fenton & Keller expressed opposition to the project and were primarily related to noise, building height, parking, safety, traffic, and water supply. The comments from CDFW stated that the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR are sufficient for mitigation of impacts to biological resources (no mitigation measures for biological resources were identified as required in the Draft EIR). The comment letters and responses were addressed in Section 7.0, Response to Comments, of the Final EIR.

The EIR identified that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been required that would reduce all of these potential impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are as follows:
 Impacts associated with discovery of previously unidentified cultural resources would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b):

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 15, Packet Page 18 CUL-2(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Cultural Resources: The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. A Native American representative should be allowed to participate in the training if requested. Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).
 Impacts associated with discovery of paleontological resources would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and CUL-4(b):

CUL-4(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Paleontological Resources: The project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]) to conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for paleontological resources for all construction personnel prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. Paleontological resources training shall include information regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP training document Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 16, Packet Page 19 shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

CUL-4(b) Unanticipated Fossil Discovery: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]). The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant, the applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist to prepare and implement a data recovery plan for paleontological resources. The data recovery plan shall include measures to reduce any significant impacts to the paleontological resources by ensuring the fossil is appropriately recovered and curated. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, excavation and salvaging, identification, preparation, and curation of the fossil at a scientific institution. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the SVP (2010) standards. The City shall review and approve the data recovery plan, as appropriate, prior to excavation and salvaging of the fossil.
 Impacts associated with hazardous materials during demolition would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:

HAZ-1 Asbestos, Lead, Mercury, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Caulk Abatement: Prior to issuance of the first demolition permit, the applicant shall contract with a City-approved abatement specialist to conduct surveys that screen for the presence of asbestos, lead (especially lead-based paint), mercury, and PCB caulk in the existing on-site building materials. If the surveys do not identify hazardous building materials, then additional mitigation is not required. If hazardous building materials are identified, the abatement specialist shall prepare an Abatement Report, which shall summarize the site-specific surveys and outline required abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials. The Abatement Report shall outline abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials to ensure that hazardous building materials are removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal standards including, but not limited to, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 424 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS]), the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Evaluation Program, the Toxic Substances Control Act (United States Code Title 15, Chapter 53, Section 2601, et seq. and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter R), and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal OSHA’s) asbestos and lead standards (Title 8 Section 1529 and 1532 of the Cal OSHA Regulations). Abatement measures may include, but would not be limited to, hazardous materials containment, disposal at permitted facilities, segregation of hazardous materials from other waste, use of certified contractors for abatement, use of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration or other engineering controls to prevent airborne dispersal of hazardous materials, and use of personal protective equipment during abatement. The Abatement Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 17, Packet Page 20 of Monterey Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first demolition permit. Recommendations in the approved Abatement Report shall be undertaken by abatement contractors that utilize safe work practices and shall be completed in accordance with timing requirements set forth in the Abatement Report.

The applicant shall require contractors to include compliance with the Abatement Report in their demolition and/or construction contracts.  Impacts associated with construction noise would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1:

NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction: The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels do not exceed 90 dBA1 Leq(h) at nearby sensitive receivers to the north.

The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures:
o Erect a temporary sound barrier at the northern property line until the stucco wall on top of the retaining wall that would be constructed as part of the project has been built. The sound barrier shall be a solid fence constructed of minimum 7- foot-tall sheets of 5/8-inch thick plywood with appropriate supports. The plywood shall overlap at vertical joints by a few inches and be fastened together. Avoid any gaps at the ground level. Construction noise reduction blankets with a solid layer (e.g., 1-psf vinyl) shall also be used. The sound barrier is calculated to reduce construction noise levels by 4 dBA1 (Salter 2023). o Limit construction to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Saturday, and no construction on Sundays or holidays.
o Require posted signs at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of problems. o Notify the City and neighbors within 100 feet in advance of the schedule for each major phase of construction and expected loud activities. o When feasible, locate high noise generating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, compressors) and material unloading and staging areas away from the sensitive adjacent uses (residences).
o Require that all construction equipment be in good working order and that mufflers are inspected to be functioning properly. If feasible, impact tools shall be shrouded or shielded with intake and exhaust port mufflers when used near noise-sensitive receptors.
o Avoid unnecessary idling of equipment and engines. Limit idling to a maximum of five minutes near noise-sensitive receivers.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 18, Packet Page 21 o The general contractor shall designate a noise and vibration disturbance coordinator responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise or vibration. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise or vibration complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, equipment type/location) and shall ensure that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.
 Impacts associated with construction vibration would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3:

NOI-3 Construction Vibration: The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Vibration Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels do not exceed 0.25 in/sec PPV3 at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures:

1. Earth-moving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not to occur at the same time along the same property line to reduce cumulative vibration impacts.

2. Minimize discontinuities in roadway pavement where trucks will travel.

3. Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers within 25 feet of adjacent structures.

Non-vibratory sheepsfoot rollers or static rollers could be used instead.

4. Grading and earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent structures shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less.

5. Avoid use of a hoe ram within 15 feet of adjacent structures. Use of an excavator with reach arm could be used instead.

6. Avoid routing heavily loaded trucks through residential streets.

7. Notify adjacent properties of the construction schedule (in particular, prior to days of high-vibration activity, such as demolition) and provide the name and contact information of the project disturbance coordinator.
 Impacts associated with discovery of previously unidentified tribal cultural resources would be mitigated by implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1:

TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources: In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 19, Packet Page 22 American tribes, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. The plan shall include measures to ensure the find is treated in a manner that respectfully retains, to the degree feasible, the qualities that render the resource of significance to the local Native American group(s). Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

Although impacts related to airport hazards would be less than significant, the Monterey County ALUC recommended the following measures which would be implemented by the applicant and would be included as conditions of approval for the proposed project to minimize potential safety hazards for project occupants and employees:
 ALUC Recommendation 1: Aviation and Hazard Easement. Prior to finalization of the first construction permit for the project, the developer/owner shall grant an aviation and hazard easement to the appropriate airport authority. The easement shall be recorded at the Monterey County Recorder’s Office. The easement shall include the following, as applicable:
o Right-of-flight at any altitude above the acquired easement surfaces. o Right to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, dust and fuel particle emissions. o Right to prevent construction or growth of all structures, objects or natural growth above the acquired easement surfaces.
o Right-of-entry to remove, mark or light any structures or growth above the acquired easement surfaces, or right to require the owner to remove, mark or light.
o Right to prohibit creation of electrical interference, unusual light sources and other hazards to aircraft flight.
o Any other limitation the appropriate airport authority may recommend to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.
 ALUC Recommendation 2: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The project shall conform to FAR, Part 77 – Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The developer shall submit a FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction of Alteration). The developer shall notify the staff of the Monterey Regional Airport when the form is submitted and when a determination is provided by the FAA.  ALUC Recommendation 3: Exterior Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, an Exterior Lighting Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the applicable airport manager prior to the issuance of any construction permits. All exterior lighting Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 20, Packet Page 23 shall be unobtrusive, down-lit, harmonious with the local area, and constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.  ALUC Recommendation 4: Towers – Marking and Lighting. When not specifically required by FAA Advisory Circular 70/7640-IF (Obstruction Marking and Lighting), the following ALUC recommendations shall be applied to towers:
o A flashing red beacon shall be installed at the highest point of the structure.  ALUC Recommendation 5: Change of Use. In the future, if new development or a change of building use is proposed on the subject parcel that would potentially intensify the occupancy level, then the proposed change(s) shall be submitted to the ALUC for a subsequent, project-specific consistency determination.

Although construction and operational air emissions would be less than significant, Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) provided the following recommended measures which the project applicant would implement and would be included as conditions of approval for the proposed project to minimize impacts to air pollutant emissions:
 MBARD Recommendation 1: The applicant shall implement Dust Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction. Dust Control BMPs include, but are not limited to:
o Stabilize storage, vehicle movement, and parking areas by installing gravel over geotextile fabric.
o Install or maintain vegetative or structural barriers. o Sweep or vacuum paved surfaces to remove tracked soil. o Apply mulch to exposed soil.
o Use tarps to cover stockpiles.
o Load trucks carrying excavated material so that the material does not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed. Wet the surface of each load and tightly cover before the haul truck leaves the loading area. o Continuous water spraying during dust generation activities. Commercial Stabilizers may also be considered.
 MBARD Recommendation 2: During construction, the applicant shall use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to CARB’s Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards.

Whenever feasible, construction equipment should use alternative fuels such as electricity, compressed natural gas or propane.
 MBARD Recommendation 3: The applicant shall register portable equipment when required by MBARD or CARB. Contact MBARD Engineering Division at (831) 647-9411 to discuss if an MBARD or CARB portable equipment registration is necessary for any portable equipment planned to be utilized for this project.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 21, Packet Page 24  MBARD Recommendation 4: The applicant shall ensure the buildings slotted for demolition are surveyed by a certified asbestos inspector. In addition, notification to MBARD is required 10 days in advance of any building demolition. During demolition/retrofitting, grading and/or trenching activities other MBARD rules may apply.

Rule 424 contains the investigation and reporting requirements for asbestos which includes surveys and advanced notification on structures being renovated or demolished.

The City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A in Attachment 4) that will be implemented to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and conditions of approval and ensure compliance with the critical timing of these measures. City staff will complete the last column, Compliance Verification, of the MMRP to verify that the mitigation measure has been completed.

Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulate the findings required for a public agency to approve or carryout a project for which an EIR is certified. The required findings are provided in Exhibit A to Attachment 4.

Summary:

In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Use Permit (UP) for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project, approve the Specific Plan and Zoning Code text amendments, and certify the Environmental Impact Report.

Attachments:

1. Resolution Approving Use Permit UP-20-0227 For the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project to Demolish an Existing 18-Room Hotel, Restaurant, and Parking Lot and Construct a New 42 Room Hotel and Parking Lot and Off Street Loading Space

2. Resolution Amending the North Fremont Specific Plan to Clarify that the Specific Plan is not the General Plan, Specific Plan Policies Do Not Apply to Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) Zoned Lots, and VAF-Zoned Lots are Subject to the City Charter Requirements

3. Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the City of Monterey City Code Related to Visitor Accommodation Facility Parking Standards (38-36A), Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards (38-115) and Reduced Parking for Other Uses (38-117)

4. Resolution 1) Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, 2) Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and 3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
e: Applicant
Tony Lombardo
Derrick Oliver, Fenton and Keller
Mahroom Family
Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association
Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Association
North Fremont Business Association
Isaac Bojorquez and Lydia Bojorquez, KKTR
Fionna Jensen, Monterey County ALUC
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 22, Packet Page 25 Brian McAloon, Department of Toxic Substances Control
Aaron Hernandez, TAMC
Jim Vang, CDFW
David Frisbey, MBARD
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 23, Packet Page 26 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23
APPROVING USE PERMIT UP-20-0227 FOR THE 2101 NORTH FREMONT STREET HOTEL PROJECT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 18-ROOM HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND PARKING LOT AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 42-ROOM HOTEL AND PARKING LOT,

AND OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE
WHEREAS, Adriana Cook of Arris Studio Architects submitted a use permit application on behalf of Lakshmi Hotel Partners to redevelop the project site, which currently contains an existing 18 guest room hotel, restaurant, and parking;
WHEREAS, the project proposes the demolition of an existing 1-story, 18 guest room hotel and 134-seat restaurant and the construction of a new 25,000 square-foot, 4-story, 42 guest room branded hotel and 42-space surface parking lot. The project will require approximately 1,010 cubic yards of exported material (e.g. cut) during grading. Driveways along both North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way are proposed for vehicular access to the site.

New landscaping is proposed throughout the site (Exhibit A); WHEREAS, the project site is zoned Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area, and has a Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation;
WHEREAS, the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the project parking lot layout and stall dimensions;
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which identify potentially significant environmental impacts relating to airport hazards and construction noise; and, Mitigation Measures are required that will reduce the potential impacts to a lessthan-significant level; WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the CEQA Section 15072 and a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from March 17, 2021, to April 16, 2021 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available on the City’s website; WHEREAS, the project and IS-MND were approved by the City of Monterey Planning Commission on October 12, 2021;
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by an adjacent property owner (the Mahroom family) on October 22, 2021 raising concerns regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Review performed for the project;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office has prepared an EIR for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 24, Packet Page 27 2 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15082, the City distributed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on June 24, 2022 and ending on July 25, 2022. During the 30-day review period, the NOP was available on the City’s website at: www.monterey.org/planning. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit agency and public input on the scope and content of the EIR.

The City received letters from the following five agencies and one Native American Tribe in response to the NOP during the public review period: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Native American Heritage Commission, Transportation Agency for Monterey County, and KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria. NOP comments were primarily related to nesting birds, hazardous materials (including in demolished materials and imported soils), tribal consultation, traffic impacts, and cultural monitoring during construction. Comments and responses received on the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15087, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between July 7, 2023 and August 21, 2023 to solicit comments regarding the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. During the public review period, the Draft EIR was available on the City’s website at: www.monterey.org/planning.

WHEREAS, the EIR identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been required that would reduce all of these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony, and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Use Permit application UP-20-0227;
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct, are adopted, and have served together with the supporting documents as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts a resolution approving Use Permit UP-20-0227 for the hotel development project at 2101 North Fremont Street attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Use Permit:

1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone;
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 25, Packet Page 28 3 The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and purposes of the zone. The broad purposes of the zone are to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to implement the policies of the City of Monterey General Plan. The zoning ordinance and VAF zone are intended to guide the physical development of overnight visitor accommodation facilities within the city.

The proposal would meet the City Charter and VAF zone development standard requirements in terms of the allowed number of guest rooms (maximum allowed is 42 guest rooms for site), number of stories, required parking (including the finding made in accordance with MCC 38-115 and 38-117), lot coverage, required setbacks and overall siting.

The project site is located within the NFSP area, however the specific development standards for VAF properties are contained in the City’s zoning code. No VAF zone or charter amendment has ever been brought forth which would allow the NFSP policies to be applicable to VAF zoned sites. The VAF zone remains unchanged and does not include the height, neighborhood sensitivity, or other restrictions found in the NFSP. The only exception is for the overall density standard for hotels, which the VAF states in 38-151A(a)1 “may be those standards which are specified in and adopted area or … plan” such as the NFSP.

While the specific plan standards and guidelines cannot be explicitly required due to the VAF zoning, the applicant has designed the project to be generally consistent with many of the plan requirements and recommendations. For example, the applicant has provided a 12-foot sidewalk along North Fremont Street and limited the building height to 35’ on the North Fremont side.

2. That the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city;
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding development. Economic Element program b.5.2. states, “Encourage added hotel rooms within the limits of VAF zoning in order to increase Transient Occupancy Tax revenues.” Program b.5.2 states “Encourage hotel owners to upgrade their facilities.” The project proposes to redevelop the 18 guest room hotel site with a new 42 guest room hotel that will provide an attractive opportunity for visitors and additional TOT revenues due to the increased number of rooms. Furthermore, the General Plan designates the site for commercial use and the proposed hotel is consistent with this land use designation.

The proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The project is consistent with the General Plan as described above. The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because the hotel will replace an existing hotel that is declining. The new commercial building will substantially upgrade the site. The proposed building complies with all development standards of the Visitor Accommodation Facility District for hotel development. Furthermore, the building has been located near Fremont Street, moving the development 85‘ from the uses to the rear of the property and 62‘ from the property to the side (existing hotel is ~10’ from nearby uses). By moving the structure closer to Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 26, Packet Page 29 4 the street, the building impacts to the adjacent properties are reduced versus placing the multistory building directly on the rear on the rear or side property lines. The landscaping area has been increased at the back of the lot to create a visual buffer, retaining walls reduced in height as compared to the existing development, and stucco walls have been incorporated to further separate the development. Business operations are anticipated to be professional and upgraded with the new, “branded” hotel. The proposed loading space would be adequate for the limited services provided by the hotel. This is the first upgraded hotel along North Fremont Street in decades and past economic development experience demonstrates that it will encourage other property owners to do the same. Further, the General Plan states that there will be a specific plan; this does not transform the specific plan into and make it “a part” of the General Plan, and therefore the adoption of the NFSP could not have changed the zoning to the VAF zoned property because such changes would require an amendment to the City’s Charter.

3. That the proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use.

The proposed use will be required to comply with all conditions and mitigation measures required for the development. Due to input from neighborhood residents and nearby business operators, staff recommends a condition to grant an easement of a portion of private property to the City for pedestrian sidewalk use.

Reduced Loading Zone Findings (MCC Sec. 38-117)
A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A or B; and Schedule B (MCC 38-115) requires two 12’ (W) x 25’ (L) x 14’ (H) loading spaces for Hotels and Motels with a gross floor area greater than 15,001 square feet and less than 50,000 square feet.

The applicant has indicated that select service hotels do not require off-street loading 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. The hotel brand owner IHG has confirmed that large or frequent deliveries are not anticipated, based on standard brand hotel development and operational plans. Typical deliveries would include prepacked food/snacks and sundries, delivered by UPS and/or FedEx size trucks. Deliveries are anticipated to have a typical short-term duration of 15 minutes maximum time to deliver packages.

B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand;
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 27, Packet Page 30 5 The floor plan layout is designed for the specific purpose of a limited service hotel. No other uses that will generate additional parking demand, such as restaurant, bar, event venue space or retail store, are part of the scope of the project. If, in the future, the applicant proposes new accessory uses or building modifications, staff will require the appropriate parking and loading spaces.

The probable long-term occupancy of the proposal will not generate additional loading zone space demand based on its design.

Conditions of Approval:

1. Wall Extension. The applicant shall extend the proposed privacy and sound wall from the northeast corner of the project site, 25 feet southward along the east property line.

2. ALUC Recommendation 1: Aviation and Hazard Easement. Prior to finalization of the first construction permit for the project, the developer/owner shall grant an aviation and hazard easement to the appropriate airport authority. The easement shall be recorded at the Monterey County Recorder’s Office. The easement shall include the following, as applicable:
o Right-of-flight at any altitude above the acquired easement surfaces. o Right to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, dust and fuel particle emissions. o Right to prevent construction or growth of all structures, objects or natural growth above the acquired easement surfaces.
o Right-of-entry to remove, mark or light any structures or growth above the acquired easement surfaces, or right to require the owner to remove, mark or light. o Right to prohibit creation of electrical interference, unusual light sources and other hazards to aircraft flight.
o Any other limitation the appropriate airport authority may recommend to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.

3. ALUC Recommendation 2: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The project shall conform to FAR, Part 77 – Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The developer shall submit a FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction of Alteration). The developer shall notify the staff of the Monterey Regional Airport when the form is submitted and when a determination is provided by the FAA.

4. ALUC Recommendation 3: Exterior Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, an Exterior Lighting Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the applicable airport manager prior to the issuance of any construction permits. All exterior lighting shall be Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 28, Packet Page 31 6 unobtrusive, down-lit, harmonious with the local area, and constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.

5. ALUC Recommendation 4: Towers – Marking and Lighting. When not specifically required by FAA Advisory Circular 70/7640-IF (Obstruction Marking and Lighting), the following ALUC recommendations shall be applied to towers:
o A flashing red beacon shall be installed at the highest point of the structure.

6. ALUC Recommendation 5: Change of Use. In the future, if new development or a change of building use is proposed on the subject parcel that would potentially intensify the occupancy level, then the proposed change(s) shall be submitted to the ALUC for a subsequent, project-specific consistency determination.

7. MBARD Recommendation 1: The applicant shall implement Dust Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction. Dust Control BMPs include, but are not limited to:
o Stabilize storage, vehicle movement, and parking areas by installing gravel over geotextile fabric.
o Install or maintain vegetative or structural barriers. o Sweep or vacuum paved surfaces to remove tracked soil. o Apply mulch to exposed soil.
o Use tarps to cover stockpiles.
o Load trucks carrying excavated material so that the material does not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed. Wet the surface of each load and tightly cover before the haul truck leaves the loading area.
o Continuous water spraying during dust generation activities. Commercial Stabilizers may also be considered.

8. MBARD Recommendation 2: During construction, the applicant shall use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to CARB’s Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards.

Whenever feasible, construction equipment should use alternative fuels such as electricity, compressed natural gas or propane.

9. MBARD Recommendation 3: The applicant shall register portable equipment when required by MBARD or CARB. Contact MBARD Engineering Division at (831) 647-9411 to discuss if an MBARD or CARB portable equipment registration is necessary for any portable equipment planned to be utilized for this project.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 29, Packet Page 32 7 10. MBARD Recommendation 4: The applicant shall ensure the buildings slotted for demolition are surveyed by a certified asbestos inspector. In addition, notification to MBARD is required 10 days in advance of any building demolition. During demolition/retrofitting, grading and/or trenching activities other MBARD rules may apply.

Rule 424 contains the investigation and reporting requirements for asbestos which includes surveys and advanced notification on structures being renovated or demolished.

11. Right-of-Way Easement. In consideration of the project approval, Owner will cause an escrow to be opened with a Title Company, and will grant to the City a permanent rightof-way easement over a portion of the property, as determined by staff. This right-of-way easement is to accommodate the expansion of the sidewalk width, the relocation of utility poles, and other public improvements that are needed as a result of the project. The owner agrees to perform, construct, and complete, at the Owner’s expense, the improvements, and the owner offers said public improvements to the City for public use.

The right-of-way easement shall be free and clear of all liens, leases, encumbrances, recorded or unrecorded, assessments and taxes and all restrictions of record that would interfere with the City's use and enjoyment of the right-of-way. The clearing of any title exceptions not acceptable to the City, in the City's sole discretion, shall be the responsibility of the Owner. This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, securing releases, deeds, affidavits, or any other form of release determined by the Title Company performing the escrow to be necessary to clear title, and shall be a condition precedent to the close of escrow. Owner shall pay all escrow, recording, and title insurance charges, if any, incurred in this transaction. Owner shall be responsible for securing the Easement Grant Deed;

12. That, prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall provide a copy of these Conditions of Approval on the front page of any plans to be included in the Building Permit submittal.

13. That any modification to the approved plans requires review and approval by Planning staff or the Planning Commission, as determined necessary by the Community Development Director.

14. That this approval will expire 24 months from the date of approval by the City of Monterey unless the required building permits are issued for the project. It is the applicant’s responsibility to track the expiration date and any request for extension must be made a minimum of 60 days prior to expiration. No renewal notice will be sent to the applicant or property owner.

15. Permitted hours of construction are limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturday and 10:00 am to 5:00 pm Sunday

16. The site design shall adhere to post-construction storm water management design requirements for development projects per City Code Sections 31.5-15(b) and (d), City Storm Water Permit, and Low Impact Development (LID) Program to address site runoff volume and peak flow reduction, as well as water quality treatment for pollutants of concern. Post-construction LID storm water plans and calculations for storm water management shall be submitted to the City and subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Building Official prior to issuance of a grading and building permit.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 30, Packet Page 33 8 17. Prior to finalization of the Building Permit, the developer shall enter into a legal agreement or covenant with the City to provide verification of maintenance of any necessary storm water facilities. The legal agreement or covenant shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City Attorney. The provisions in the agreement shall run with the land and the document shall be recorded with the County Recorder.

18. During construction, the developer shall employ temporary best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, prevention of non-storm water discharges, and implement good housekeeping and waste management practices to protect the storm drainage system and water quality as required by the City’s Storm Water Permit and City Code Section 31.5-15 (c) and (d), and the State Construction General Permit, as applicable. Plans for during-construction storm water management and BMP implementation shall be submitted to the City with the construction plans and subject to review and approval of the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading and building permit.

19. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the design of the project or improvements will not be in conflict with any easement on the property, and shall resolve any conflicts in title with the approved project plans prior to issuance of a construction permit.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 31, Packet Page 34 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A1.0
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

COVER SHEET

AVID HOTEL
2101 N. FREMONT STREET MONTEREY, CA

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 32, Packet Page 35 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 A1.1
10/14/2020 2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

PROJECT DATA

PROJECT DATA PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX

VICINITY MAP
ARCHITECTURALA1.0 COVER SHEETA1.1 PROJECT DATAA1.3 EXISTING SITE PLANA2.0 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANA2.1 SITE SECTIONSA3.0 BASEMENT FLOOR PLANA3.1 FIRST FLOOR PLANA3.2 SECOND FLOOR PLANA3.3 THIRD FLOOR PLANA3.4 ROOF PLANA4.0 PERSPECTIVESA4.1 PERSPECTIVESA5.0 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA5.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA6.0 BUILDING SECTIONSA7.0 COLORS & MATERIALSA8.0 DETAILSA8.1 DETAILSA9.0 SHADING STUDY - SPRING/FALL SOLSTICEA9.1 SHADING STUDY - SUMMER SOLSTICEA9.2 SHADING STUDY - WINTER SOLSTICEE1 SITE LIGHTING PLANE2 SITE LIGHTINGCIVILC1 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND KEY MAPC2 EXISTING SITE AND DEMOLITION PLANC3 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC4 UTILITY PLANLANDSCAPEL1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN ADDRESS: 2101 N. FREMONT STREETAPN: 013-112-045-000SITE AREA: 25,258 SF (0.58 ACRES)SPECIFIC PLAN: NORTH FREMONT SPECIFIC PLANZONING: VISITOR ACCOMODATION FACILITY (VAF)ADJACENT ZONING: RESIDENTIAL-3 (NORTH) PLANNED COMMUNITY (WEST,EAST)RESIDENTIAL-1 (NORTHWEST)
USE / OCCUPANCY:

EXISTING USE: HOTEL AND RESTAURANT / A-3 & R-1PROPOSED USE: HOTEL / A-2 & R-1 FLOOR AREA RATIO:

EXISTING: 0.33PROPOSED: 0.99
NUMBER OF GUESTROOMS:

EXISTING: 18 GUEST ROOMSPROPOSED: 42 GUEST ROOMS
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-ASPRINKLERS: YES (NFPA-13)EXISTING BUILDING AREA:

EXISTING RESTAURANT: 3,500 SF EXISTING HOTEL: 4,866 SF 1ST FLOOR (TOTAL): 8,366 SF (ALL TO BE DEMOLISHED) PROPOSED BUILDING AREA:

BASEMENT: 2,600 SF1ST FLOOR: 6,800 SF2ND FLOOR: 7,800 SF3RD FLOOR: 7,800 SFTOTAL 25,000 SF

DENSITY
ALLOWED: 42.1 (600 PER SF)PROPOSED: 42
BUILDING HEIGHT:

ALLOWED: 35 FEETEXISTING: 12 FEETPROPOSED: 35 FEET
LOT COVERAGE:
(BUILDING FOOTPRINT)
ALLOWED: 30% EXISTING: 33% (8,366 SF/25,258 SF)PROPOSED: 28% (7,060 SF/25,258 SF) IMPERVIOUS SURFACES:
(PARKING AND WALKWAYS)
EXISTING: 14,875 S.F. (59%)PROPOSED: 15,546 S.F. (61.5%) LANDSCAPED AREA:

EXISTING: 2,017 S.F. (8%)PROPOSED: 2,652 S.F. (10.5%)
SETBACKS ALLOWED:

FRONT: 10 FEETSIDE: 10 FEETREAR: 10 FEET
SETBACKS PROPOSED:

FRONT: 10 FEET SIDE: 10 FEETREAR: 10 FEET
PARKING REQUIRED: 42 SPACES (1 PER HOTEL ROOM)PARKING PROVIDED: 42 SPACES THIS PROJECT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1-STORY, 18 GUEST ROOM HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3-STORY, 42 GUEST ROOM BRANDED HOTEL.THE SITE IS WITHIN THE NORTH FREMONT SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE PARCEL IS ZONED AS VISITOR ACCOMMODATION FACILITY. WE ARE SEEKING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USE OF A HOTEL.THE SITE WILL HAVE ALL SURFACE PARKING IN THE REAR OF THE SITE, HIDDEN FROM THE CORNER INTERSECTION, AND TWO PARKING SPACES TUCKED UNDER THE BUILDING. THE SITE WILL HAVE TWO MAIN ENTRANCE LOBBIES; ONE OFF OF NORTH FREMONT STREET AND THE OTHER OFF OF CASA VERDE WAY. THE SITE HAS A STEEP SLOPE AND A PARTIAL BASEMENT IS BEING USED TO ACCOMMODATE AN ACCESSIBLE ENTRY AND TO KEEP THE PARKING LOT IN THE REAR OF THE SITE.BASED ON SITE CONSTRAINTS OF A STEEP SLOPING LOT AND THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS, THE PROJECT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE ON THE NORTH FREMONT STREET SETBACK, FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO THE PROPOSED 6 FEET. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH FREMONT PLAN; KEEPING THE 12 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH SIDEWALK, WITH BUILDING AT BACK OF SIDEWALK.

PROJECT DIRECTORY

PROJECT APPLICANT

LAKSHMI HOTEL PARTNERS
2113 N FREMONT
MONTEREY, CA 93490ATTN: VIN PATELPHONE: (831) 444-5420EMAIL: [email protected]

ARCHITECT
ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS1327 ARCHER STREET, SUITE 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ATTN: ADRIANA COOKPHONE: (805) 547-2240EMAIL: [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
MONTEREY BAY ENGINEERS, INC.607 CHARLES AVENUE, SUITE BSEASIDE, CA 93955ATTN: SAL HARI PHONE: (831) 899-7899EMAIL: [email protected]

PROJECT SITE
NORTH

AVID HOTEL
2101 N. FREMONT STREET MONTEREY, CA
ALUCP SAFETY ZONE: INNER TURNING (ZONE 3-ITZ)MAXIMUM NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ALLOWED: 100 PERSONS PER ACREREQUIRED OPEN LAND : 20%

ALUC NOTES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 33, Packet Page 36

OVERALL BUILDING STATISTICS
OCCUPANCY GROUP: CBC SECTION 302: S-2 (A-2)* B R-1
ACCESSORY USE?: NO YES NO NO
SPRINKLERED?: YES YES YES YES
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-A V-A V-A V-A
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT (CBC TABLE 504.3): 70 FT 70 FT 70 FT 70 FT ACTUAL HEIGHT: 40 FT 40 FT 40 FT 40 FT
ALLOWABLE STORIES (CBC TABLE 504.4): 5 STORY 3 STORY 4 STORY 4 STORY ACTUAL STORIES: 3 STORY 3 STORY* 2 STORY 3 STORY
ALLOWABLE AREA (CBC TABLE 506.2): 63,000 SF 36,000 SF* 54,000 SF 36,000 SF BUILDING AREA MODIFICATIONS:

NS ALLOWABLE AREA (NS) (CBC 506.2): 21,000 SF 12,000 SF* 18,000 SF 12,000 SF FRONTAGE INCREASE (If) (CBC 506.3): 0 0 0 0
ALLOWABLE AREA (Aa) (CBC 506.2.4 EQ. 5-3): 63,000 SF 36,000 SF* 54,000 SF 36,000 SF ACTUAL AREA PER FLOOR: TOTAL SF
LOWER FLOOR (0)
NEW: 25,990 SF 0 SF 1,205 SF 0 SF 27,195 SF
EXISTING: 11,110 SF 0 SF 4,177 SF 0 SF 15,287 SF
TOTAL: 37,100 SF 0 SF 5,382 SF 0 SF 42,482 SF
GROUND FLOOR (1)
NEW: 12,096 SF 3,738 SF 1,085 SF 3,235 SF 20,154 SF
EXISTING: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 14,640 SF 14,640 SF
TOTAL: 12,096 SF 3,738 SF 1,085 SF 17,875 SF 34,794 SF
SECOND FLOOR (2)
NEW: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 18,100 SF 18,100 SF
EXISTING: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 14,594 SF 14,594 SF
TOTAL: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 33,054 SF 33,094 SF
THIRD FLOOR (3)
NEW: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 13,943 SF 13,943 SF
EXISTING: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF
TOTAL: 0 SF 0 SF 0 SF 13,943 SF 13,943 SF

BUILDING TOTALS
NEW: 38,086 SF 3,738 SF 2,290 SF 35,278 SF 79,392 SF
EXISTING: 11,110 SF 0 SF 4,177 SF 29,594 SF 44,881 SF
TOTAL: 49,196 SF 3,738 SF 6,467 SF 64,872 SF 124,273 SF MIXED OCCUPANCY AREA RATIO:

LOWER FLOOR (0) 37,100 SF + 0 SF + 5,382 SF + 0 SF = 0.69<1 63,000 SF 36,000 SF 54,000 SF 36,000 SF
GROUND FLOOR (1) 12,096 SF + 3,738 SF + 1,085 SF + 17,875 SF = 0.81<1 63,000 SF 36,000 SF 54,000 SF 36,000 SF
SECOND FLOOR (2) 0 SF + 0 SF + 0 SF + 33,054 SF = 0.92<1 63,000 SF 36,000 SF 54,000 SF 36,000 SF
THIRD FLOOR (3) 0 SF + 0 SF + 0 SF + 13,943 SF = 0.39<1 63,000 SF 36,000 SF 54,000 SF 36,000 SF
MAXIMUM AREA OF OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION (CBC TABLE 705.8)

FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE PROTECTED ALLOWABLE AREA
O TO LESS THAN 3' YES/NO NOT PERMITTED
3' TO LESS THAN 5' NO 15%
3' TO LESS THAN 5' YES 15%
5' TO LESS THAN 10' NO 25%
5' TO LESS THAN 10' YES 25%
10' TO LESS THAN 15' NO 45%
10' TO LESS THAN 15' YES 45%
15' TO LESS THAN 20' NO 75%
15' TO LESS THAN 20' YES 75%
20' OR GREATER YES/NO NO LIMIT
BUILDING COMPONENT PROTECTION (CBC TABLES 601 & 602)
NOTE: INCIDENTAL ACCESSORY OCCUPANCIES PER CBC 509 ARE MITIGATED BY PROPOSED AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM.

TYPE V-A CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME: 1 HOUR
BEARING WALLS - EXTERIOR: 1 HOUR
BEARING WALLS - INTERIOR: 1 HOUR

NONBEARING WALLS - EXTERIOR
(<10' SEPARATION): 1 HOUR
(>= 10' SEPARATION): 1 HOUR
NONBEARING WALLS - INTERIOR (GENERAL): NONRATED
STAIR EXIT ENCLOSURE WALLS: 2 HOUR FIRE BARRIER-NONCOMBUSTIBLE SHAFT ENCLOSURE WALLS: 2 HOUR FIRE BARRIER-NONCOMBUSTIBLE LAUNDRY ROOM WALLS: NONRATED
FLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES: 1 HOUR
ROOF/CLG ASSEMBLY: NONRATED
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A1.2
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

CODE ANALYSIS

BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 34, Packet Page 37

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CASA VERDE WAY

ADJACENT

COMMERCIAL

PROPERTY

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL

PROPERTY

ADJACENT

PARKING LOT
(NOT A PART)
(NOT A PART) (NOT A PART)

ADJACENT

CARPORT
(NOT A PART)

EXISTING RESTAURANT

TO BE DEMOLISH
EXISTING 18 GUEST

ROOM HOTEL TO BE

DEMOLISH

EXISTING FENCE AND

RETAINING WALL TO

BE REMOVED

EXISTING PARKING

LOT TO BE REMOVED
(32 STALLS)
N 79°07'50" E 141.04'
N 79°07'50" E 22.42'
S 10°52'10" E 1.90'
S 10°57'15" E 125.19'
S 79°02'45" W 171.51'
N 10°57'15" W 113.47'
N 78°36'05" E 39.83'
N 11°35'10" W 12.55'
S 79°02'45" W 31.64'
N 10°57'15" W

1.00'

EXISTING CURB CUT,

TO BE MODIFIED

EXISTING CURB CUT,

TO BE REMOVED

EXISTING

TRASH AREA

EXISTING CURB CUT

TO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING BUS STOP,

TO BE REMAIN

EXISTING

LANDSCAPE TO

BE REVISED

EXISTING INFILLED POOL,

TO BE REMOVED
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A1.3
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/8" = 1' - 0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/16" = 1' - 0"

EXISTING SITE PLAN

PROJECT
NORTH

EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
TRUE
NORTH

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 35, Packet Page 38 UP
DN
UP

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CASA VERDE WAY
15 11
14 42 TOTAL PARKING SPACES
BASEMENT FF: 53.44'
FIRST FLOOR FF: 63.44'
5'-2" 18'-0" 25'-0" 18'-0" LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE

DESIGNATED PARKING DROP-OFF
18'-7"
16'-4"
TRASH

MAIN ENTRY FROM NORTH FREMONT

MAIN ENTRY FROM CASA VERDE WAY (BASEMENT LEVEL)

ADJACENT

COMMERCIAL

PROPERTY

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL

PROPERTY

PROPERTY LINE

LANDSCAPE

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
N 79°07'50" E 141.04'
N 79°07'50" E 22.42'
S 10°52'10" E 1.90'
S 10°57'15" E 125.19'
S 79°02'45" W 171.51'
N 10°57'15" W 113.47'
N 78°36'05" E 39.83'
N 11°35'10" W 12.55'
S 79°02'45" W 31.64'
N 10°57'15" W 1.00'

TYPICAL
9'-0"
18'-0"

LANDSCAPE
RAMP

EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE UPDATED PER CITY STANDARDS

PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY APRON

ADJACENT

PARKING LOT

ADJACENT

PARKING LOT
(NOT A PART)
(NOT A PART)
(NOT A PART)
(NOT A PART)

ADJACENT

CARPORT
(NOT A PART)
STAIR #2
STAIR #1
RAMP

ROLL UP DOOR
10'-0"

LINE OF AWNING ABOVE(SHOWN DASHED) VAN ACCESSIBLE

PARKING STALL

STANDARD ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
9'-0" 26'-0"

COVERED PARKING SPACEBUILDING ABOVE (SHOWN DASHED)

TYPICAL
9'-0"
4'-0"
10" 4'-7" 16'-4"
1 0' MIN
.

S
E
T
B
A
C
K
1 0'-
1 "

RETAINING WALL

LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE
T
Y
P
CI A
L
9'-
0 "

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL

LANDSCAPE

MIN SETBACK
10'-0"
24'-0" 18'-0"
MIN.

S
E
T
B
A
C
K
6'-
0 "
12'-5"
1 3'-
5 "
1 1'-
5 "
MIN. SETBACK
10'-0"
1 1'-
5 "
42'-9"

PLANTER

DRIVEWAY FIRE TURN RADIUS
16'-0"
R 25'-0"
RAMP
RAMP
RAMP
3'-11"
4'-
4 "
4'-
1 1
"

LANDSCAPE
5'-
7 "
10'-0" 10'-0"

LANDSCAPE
3 A2.1
1 A2.1
2 A2.1
STUCCO WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL TO REACH 7' IN HEIGHT FROM TOP OF RETAINING WALL 4 A2.1
8'-
5 "
2 4'-
0 "
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5'-
0 "
L
A
ND
S
C
A
P
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5'-
0 "
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
1 2'-
0 "
1 2'-
0 "
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
5'-
0 "
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E

EASEMENT
5'-0" LANDSCAPE
9'-0"

COMPACT
1 6'-
0 8'-6" "
9'-
0 "
1 0'-
0 "
8'-
6 "
3'-9" 18'-0"

COVERED PARKING SPACECOVERED LOADING SPACE

COMPACT
25'-6"

LOADING
23'-1"
STUCCO WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL TO REACH 6' IN HEIGHT FROM ADJACENT GRADE(FIRST SIX STALLS THIS ROW) 5 A2.1
8'-0"
R 23'-3"
R 29'-0"

DELIVERY TRUCK TURN RADIUS
DateScaleSheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401THOMAS E. JESSARCHITECT (CA) #C27068STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT (CA) #C33672ADDRESS805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMCONTACT A2.0
10/14/2020 2101 N FREMONT
1/8" = 1' - 0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/16" = 1' - 0"

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN

PROJECT
NORTH

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
TRUE
NORTH

ALUC NOTES
APN: 013-112-045-000SITE AREA: 25,258 SF (0.58 ACRES)LOCATION TO AIRPORT: 1.10 MILESLOCATION TO RUNWAY: ZONE 3 (ITZ)PROPOSED USE: HOTEL / A-2 & R-1EXISTING OCCUPANCY= 176*PROPOSED OCCUPANCY= 108***134 RESTAURANT+(18 ROOMS X 2)+6 STAFF = 176** (24 KING ROOMS X 2)+(18 DBL QUEEN X 3)+6 STAFF = 108
SITE

MONTEREY

REGIONAL

AIRPORT

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 36, Packet Page 39 7'-0" 3'-11"

PROPERTY LINEEXISTING CURB TO REMAIN

PLANTER

PARKING
LOT

PARKING
LOT
LINE OF 5' LANDSCAPE EASEMENTRETAINING WALLSOLID STUCCO WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL 5'-0"
FROM ADJ. GRADE
10'-0"
8'-0"
1'-0"
RETAINING WALLPLANTING STRIP ON ADJ. PROPERTY

PARKING
LOT

NEIGHBORING

BUILDING PLANTER

PARKING
LOT

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN
LINE OF 5' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT

SOLID STUCCO WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL
5'-0"
FROM ADJ. GRADE
11'-10"
7'-0" 4'-10" PLANTER
7'-0" 2'-0"

PROPERTY LINE

RETAINING WALLPLANTER

PARKING
LOT

LINE OF LANDSCAPE EASMENT
5'-0"

EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN

SOLID STUCCO WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL
8'-0"
FROM ADJ. GRADE
8'-6"
5'-2" 9"

PROPERTY LINE

RETAINING WALLPLANTER

PARKING
LOT

LINE OF LANDSCAPE EASMENT
5'-0"

EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN

SOLID STUCCO WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL

TO ADJACENT GRADE
6'-0"
DateScaleSheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401THOMAS E. JESSARCHITECT (CA) #C27068STEPHEN A. RIGORARCHITECT (CA) #C33672ADDRESS805.547.2240ARRIS-STUDIO.COMCONTACT A2.1
05/06/21 2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

SITE SECTIONS
SITE SECTION - 3
SITE SECTION - 2 SITE SECTION - 1
SITE SECTION - 4
SITE SECTION - 5

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 37, Packet Page 40 UP
UP

LAUNDRY
LOWER
LOBBY
STAIR 1
BIKE
ROOM

UTILITIES
LINEN
STAIR 2

STORAGE

ELEVATOR
2 BOH

CORRIDOR

EMPLOYEE
RR
LINEN
CHUTE

CASA VERDE WAY

BACK OF HOUSE

CIRCULATION
PUBLIC

LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE
28'-11" 19'-7" 11'-6"
21'-11" 6'-11"
11 2
2 4
8 3
3 3
3 3
3 1
A6.0
2 2 A6.0
131'-1"
50'-0" 65'-1" 16'-1"
3 ELEVATOR
1 PLANTER

FIRE CURTAINS

ELECTRICAL
4'-0"
4'-4"
3 STORAGE
3 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A3.0
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/4" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT
NORTH

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

COLOR LEGEND

DOOR SCHEDULE
Type Mark Width Height Operations
1 3'-0" 6'-8"
2 3'-0" 8'-0" SWING
3 3'-0" 6'-8" SWING
4 6'-0" 6'-8" SWING
5 6'-0" 7'-8" SWING
6 11'-0" 7'-0" ROLL UP
7 6'-0" 8'-0" HOLD-OPEN
8 3'-6" 7'-0" HOLD-OPEN
11 12'-2" 6'-11"
21 3'-6" 8'-0" SWING
6'-0" 8'-0" STOREFRONT
NOTE: PUBLIC AREAS ARE INTENDED FOR HOTEL GUESTS ONLY.
6'-0" 8'-0" AUTO SLIDER STOREFRONT
NOTE: DOORS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 38, Packet Page 41 DN
UP
DN
UP
OPEN
TO
BELOW

FITNESS
PANTRY
STAIR 1
STAIR 2
WORK
AREA
OFFICE
FIRE
RISER
OFFICE
BREAK
ROOM
LOBBY
MARKET
CHECK
IN
LOUNGE
MENS

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CASA VERDE WAY

BACK OF HOUSE

CIRCULATION
PUBLIC

LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE
(SHOWN DASHED)

LINE OF AWNING

ABOVE (SHOWN DASH)

LINE OF

AWNING BELOW

LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE
(SHOWN DASHED)
149'-3"
60'-6"
131'-7"
11'-1" 20'-10" 28'-1"
2 2
3 3 3
3 6
5 3
1 A6.0
2 A6.0
8 3
BACK
OF
HOUSE
TRASH
2 3

UTILITY
2'-10"
B
B A
B
G G
WOMENS

ELEVATOR
1 HOUSE

KEEPING
BOH

CORRIDOR

EMPLOYEE
RR

ELEVATOR
2 3 3
3 3
3 2
21 5'-7"
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A3.1
05/15/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/4" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT
NORTH

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

COLOR LEGEND

WINDOW SCHEDULE
Type Mark
SIZE

W H WINDOW STYLE
A 3'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
B 6'-0" 5'-0"
C 8'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
G 6'-0" 5'-0"
NOTE: PUBLIC AREAS ARE INTENDED FOR HOTEL GUESTS ONLY.
6'-0" 8'-0" AUTO SLIDER STOREFRONT
NOTE:ALL GUESTROOM WINDOWS TO BE OPERABLE SLIDER
WINDOWS AND COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS.

NOTE: DOORS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 39, Packet Page 42 DN
UP
DN
UP

DBL QUEEN
201
STAIR 1

DBL QUEEN
202

DBL QUEEN
203

DBL QUEEN
204
KING
205
KING
207
KING
209
KING
211
KING
213
KING
215
KING
217
STAIR 2
KING
219
KING
221

DBL QUEEN
220

DBL QUEEN
218

DBL QUEEN
216

DBL QUEEN
214

DBL QUEEN
212

DBL QUEEN
210

HOUSEKEEPING

DBL QUEEN
206

DBL QUEEN
208
151'-6"

BACK OF HOUSE

CIRCULATION

DOUBLE QUEEN
KING

ELEVATOR
1 21'-0" 5'-10" 26'-2"
53'-0"

TYPICAL
12'-3"

G G G G G
G
B
A
B
G G
A
G G
G G G
G
G
G
G
B
C
G G
A
A
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
A6.0
2 A6.0
1 ELEVATOR LOBBY
21'-3"
7'-11"
2'-0"

ELEVATOR
2 B
G G

CORRIDOR
7 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A3.2
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/4" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

PROJECT
NORTH

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

COLOR LEGEND

GUESTROOM MIX

FLOOR LEVEL

SECOND FLOOR
KING
12 DOUBLE QUEEN
THIRD FLOOR 12
TOTAL 24 (57%)

UNIT TYPE
TOTAL

GUESTROOMS
TUB
1 4

ACCESSIBLE ROOMS

ROLL IN SHOWER

AUDIO HEARING IMPARED
9 9
42 18 (43%)
2 WINDOW SCHEDULE

W H WINDOW STYLE
A 3'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
B 6'-0" 5'-0"
C 8'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
G 6'-0" 5'-0"
6'-0" 8'-0" AUTO SLIDER STOREFRONT
NOTE:ALL GUESTROOM WINDOWS TO BE OPERABLE SLIDER
WINDOWS AND COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS.

NOTE: DOORS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 40, Packet Page 43 DN
DN
1 A6.0
2 A6.0

BACK OF HOUSE

CIRCULATION

DOUBLE QUEEN
KING

G G G G G G
B
A
B
G G
A
G G
G
G G
G
G
G
A
G
B
C
G G
B
A
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

DBL QUEEN
301

DBL QUEEN
302

DBL QUEEN
303

DBL QUEEN
304
KING
305
KING
307
KING
309
KING
311
KING
313
KING
315
KING
317
KING
319

DBL QUEEN
320

DBL QUEEN
318

DBL QUEEN
316

DBL QUEEN
314

DBL QUEEN
312

DBL QUEEN
310

DBL QUEEN
306

DBL QUEEN
308 STAIR 1
STAIR 2

HOUSEKEEPING

CORRIDOR

ELEVATOR
1 ELEVATOR LOBBY

ELEVATOR
2 7
151'-6"
21'-0" 5'-10" 26'-2"
53'-0"

TYPICAL
12'-3"
21'-3"
KING
321
G
G
A
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A3.3
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/4" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

COLOR LEGEND

GUESTROOM MIX

FLOOR LEVEL

SECOND FLOOR
KING
12 DOUBLE QUEEN
THIRD FLOOR 12
TOTAL 24 (57%)

UNIT TYPE
TOTAL

GUESTROOMS
TUB
1 4

ACCESSIBLE ROOMS

ROLL IN SHOWER

AUDIO HEARING IMPARED
9 9
42 18 (43%)
2 WINDOW SCHEDULE
NOTE:ALL GUESTROOM WINDOWS TO BE OPERABLE SLIDER
WINDOWS AND COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS.

Type Mark
SIZE

W H WINDOW STYLE
A 3'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
B 6'-0" 5'-0"
C 8'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
G 6'-0" 5'-0"

PROJECT
NORTH

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
6'-0" 8'-0" STOREFRONT
6'-0" 8'-0" AUTO SLIDER STOREFRONT
NOTE: DOORS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 41, Packet Page 44

ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE
VALLEY
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY

ROODF ACCESS HATCH

LAUNDRY
CHUTE

TERMINATION

PROPOSED LOCATION

OF MECHANICAL UNIT,
APPROX. 5' TALL ROOF DRAIN ROOF
DRAIN
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"

TPO ROOF MATERIAL
1 A6.0
2 A6.0

PROPOSED

LOCATION OF

MECHANICAL UNIT,
APPROX. 5' TALL
1/4" / 12"

ROOF DRAIN
VALLEY
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
VALLEY
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
1/4" / 12"

A FLASHING RED BEACON SHALL BE

INSTALLED AT THE TALLEST STRUCTURE,
PER ALUC REQUIREMENT.

Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A3.4
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/4" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/8" = 1'-0"

ROOF PLAN

PROJECT
NORTH

ROOF PLAN

COLOR & MATERIAL
ROOFING: SINGLE PLY TOP

TAN COLOR

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 42, Packet Page 45 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A4.0
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
N.T.S.

MONTEREY, CA N.T.S.

PERSPECTIVES

PERSPECTIVE (CORNER OF NORTH FREMONT STREET & CASA VERDE WAY)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 43, Packet Page 46 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A4.1
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
N.T.S.

MONTEREY, CA N.T.S.

PERSPECTIVES

PERSPECTIVE (REAR ENTRY OFF CASA VERDE WAY)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 44, Packet Page 47

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 45, Packet Page 48

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 46, Packet Page 49

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 47, Packet Page 50

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 48, Packet Page 51 ROOF

95.50'

FIRST FLOOR

63.44'

SECOND FLOOR

74.83'

THIRD FLOOR

85.17'
MAX

98.50'
35'-1"

RED STUCCO AND

CONTROL JOINT

PATTERN AT VERTICAL

CIRCULATION

STUCCO FRAME AT

CORNER ELEMENT

WALL MOUNTED

TRELLIS WITH

CLIMBING VINES

STOREFRONT METAL CANOPY

SMOOTH FIBER

CENEMENT

PANEL TO
GROUP

WINDOWS

SMOOTH STUCCO

WITH CONTROL
JOINTS

HORIZONTAL

WOOD-LIKE SIDING

METAL CANOPY
STONE
VENEER

ALUMINUM

SLIDING WINDOW

WITH INTEGRAL

PTAC LOUVER
G
TYP.

TYP.
2 A6.0
A
3'-0"
PLATE HT.
9'-7"
PLATE HT.
9'-7"

PLATE HEIGHT
10'-7"
ROOF

95.50'

FIRST FLOOR

63.44'

SECOND FLOOR

74.83'

THIRD FLOOR

85.17'
MAX

98.50'

STUCCO FRAME

AT CORNER

ELEMENT

ALUMINUM SLIDING

WINDOW WITH

INTEGRAL PTAC
LOUVER

METAL 'L'

AWNING AT

TOWER ELEMENT
METAL
CANOPY

ENTRY TO LOBBY

OFF NORTH

FREMONT

STOREFRONT

WALL MOUNTED

TRELLIS WITH

CLIMBING VINES

PLANTER AT

SIDEWALK
EDGE

RED STUCCO AND

CONTROL JOINT

PATTERN AT VERTICAL

CIRCULATION

SMOOTH FIBER

CEMENT PANEL

TO GROUP

WINDOWS

VERTICAL

WOOD -LIKE
SIDING
SMOOTH

STUCCO WITH

CONTROL JOINTS

HORIZONTAL

WOOD-LIKE
SIDING

HORIZONTAL

WOOD-LIKE
SIDING
G
TYP.

TYP. A
C TYP.
2 5
1 A6.0
35'-1"

PROPOSED SIGNAGE

LOCATION

STOREFRONT STONE
VENEER

PLANTER AT

SIDEWALK EDGE

SMOOTH FIBER

CEMENT PANEL TO

GROUP WINDOWS

SMOOTH FIBER

CEMENT PANEL TO

GROUP WINDOWS

PLATE HEIGHT
10'-1"
PLATE HT.
9'-1"
PLATE HT.
9'-1" 3'-0"

BUILDING ADDRESS

TO COMPLY W/

THE MONTEREY

CITY ORDINANCE,
MIN. 4" TALL. Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A5.0
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/8" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/16" = 1'-0"

BUILDING ELEVATIONS

LEFT (WEST) ELEVATION - CASA VERDE WAY

FRONT (SOUTH) ELEVATION - N FREMONT

WINDOW SCHEDULE
NOTE:ALL GUESTROOM WINDOWS TO BE OPERABLE SLIDER
WINDOWS AND COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS.

Type Mark
SIZE

W H WINDOW STYLE
A 3'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
B 6'-0" 5'-0"
C 8'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
G 6'-0" 5'-0"

ALUC NOTES

SITE ELEVATION AT CORNER
(FREMONT AND CASA VERDE): 63’ MSL
AIRPORT RUNWAY EAST END: 257.1’ MSL
AIRPORT RUNWAY WEST END: 158’ MSL
SMALLER RUNWAY : 197.9’ MSL

ROOF APARATUS HEIGHT
ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE: 102'
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: 101.5
6'-0" 8'-0" AUTO SLIDER STOREFRONT
NOTE: DOORS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 49, Packet Page 52

BASEMENT

53.44'
ROOF

95.50'

FIRST FLOOR

63.44'

SECOND FLOOR

74.83'

THIRD FLOOR

85.17'
MAX

98.50'

SMOOTH FIBER

CEMENT PANEL

TO GROUP

WINDOWS

VERTICAL

WOOD -LIKE
SIDING

SMOOTH STUCCO

WITH CONTROL
JOINTS

HORIZONTAL

WOOD-LIKE SIDING

ALUMINUM SLIDING

WINDOW WITH

INTEGRAL PTAC LOUVER

METAL 'L'

AWNING AT
TOWER

ELEMENT

RED STUCCO AND

CONTROL JOINT PATTERN

AT VERTICAL CIRCULATION

ALUMINUM
WINDOW

STONE STOREFRONT AT ENTRY
VEENER
METAL
CANOPY
G TYP. B TYP.
11 1
A6.0

PROPOSED

SIGNAGE

LOCATION
PLATE HT.
9'-1"

PLATE HEIGHT
10'-1"
PLATE HT.
9'-1"
PLATE HT.
9'-1" 3'-0"

COVERED

PARKING
8'-2"
ROOF

95.50'

FIRST FLOOR

63.44'

SECOND FLOOR

74.83'

THIRD FLOOR

85.17'
MAX

98.50'

TRASH DOOR

PAINTED TO BLEND

WITH STONE VENEER

SMOOTH FIBER

CEMENT PANEL TO

GROUP WINDOWS
SMOOTH

STUCCO WITH

CONTROL JOINTS

HORIZONTAL

WOOD-LIKE
SIDING

STONE VENEER

ALUMINUM
WINDOW
35'-1"
A
TYP.

TYP.
6 2
A6.0
B

COVERED PARKING

PLATE HEIGHT
10'-1"
PLATE HT.
9'-1"
PLATE HT.
9'-1" 3'-0"
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A5.1
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/8" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/16" = 1'-0"

BUILDING ELEVATIONS

WINDOW SCHEDULE
Type Mark
SIZE

W H WINDOW STYLE
A 3'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
B 6'-0" 5'-0"
C 8'-0" 5'-0" FIXED
G 6'-0" 5'-0"

REAR (NORTH) ELEVATION

RIGHT (EAST) ELEVATION

ALUC NOTES

SITE ELEVATION AT CORNER
(FREMONT AND CASA VERDE): 63’ MSL
AIRPORT RUNWAY EAST END: 257.1’ MSL
AIRPORT RUNWAY WEST END: 158’ MSL
SMALLER RUNWAY : 197.9’ MSL

ROOF APARATUS HEIGHT
ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE: 102'
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: 101.5
6'-0" 8'-0" AUTO SLIDER STOREFRONT
NOTE:ALL GUESTROOM WINDOWS TO BE OPERABLE SLIDER
WINDOWS AND COMPLY WITH EGRESS REQUIREMENTS.

NOTE: DOORS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE

MANEUVERING CLEARANCES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 50, Packet Page 53 DN
UP
DN
UP

BASEMENT

53.44'
ROOF

95.50'

FIRST FLOOR

63.44'

SECOND FLOOR

74.83'

THIRD FLOOR

85.17'
MAX

98.50'

FREMONT

65.00'

CASA VERDE

53.44'
OPEN
TO
BELOW
LOBBY
LOWER
LOBBY
DBL

QUEEN KING

SECOND FLOOR PLATE

83.92'

THIRD FLOOR PLATE

94.25'

FIRST FLOOR PLATE

73.58'
35'-1"
2 A6.0
DBL

QUEEN KING CORRIDOR

NORTH FREMONT STREET

PARKING LOT

OFF OF CASA

VERDE WAY
10'-2" 9'-1" 9'-1" 3'-0"

PROPOSED LOCATION

OF MECHANICAL UNIT,
APPROX. 5' TALL

ELEVATOR

PENTHOUSE
5'-0"
6'-6"

METAL AWNING

ALONG STOREFRONT

METAL AWNING

AT ENTRANCE

CORRIDOR

BASEMENT

53.44'
ROOF

95.50'

FIRST FLOOR

63.44'

SECOND FLOOR

74.83'

THIRD FLOOR

85.17'
MAX

98.50'

FREMONT

65.00'

CASA VERDE

53.44'
1 A6.0

SECOND FLOOR PLATE

83.92'

THIRD FLOOR PLATE

94.25'

FIRST FLOOR PLATE

73.58'

BREAK OFFICE
ROOM

UTILITIES LAUNDRY
MENS
LOWER
LOBBY
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL

QUEEN HOUSEKEEPING
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
STAIR 1
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN
DBL

QUEEN HOUSEKEEPING
DBL
QUEEN
DBL
QUEEN

CORRIDOR
6'-6"
5'-0"5'-0"

PROPOSED LOCATION

OF MECHANICAL UNIT,
APPROX. 5' TALL

PROPOSED LOCATION

OF MECHANICAL UNIT,
APPROX. 5' TALL
10'-0" 10'-2" 9'-1" 9'-1" 3'-0"

COVERED PARKING
1 A6.0
2 A6.0

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CASA VERDE WAY
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A6.0
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
1/8" = 1' -0"
MONTEREY, CA 1/16" = 1' -0"

BUILDING SECTIONS
KEY
SECTION 2
SECTION 1

COLOR LEGEND

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 51, Packet Page 54 P1 P3 P5 P4
P1 (UNDERSIDE OF AWNING) P1 S1
F2
F1 P2 F1 P2 A1
A1
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A7.0
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT
N.T.S.

MONTEREY, CA N.T.S.

COLORS & MATERIALS
F1
FIBER CEMENT "WOOD" SIDING

NEWTECHWOOD

ULTRASHIELD NATURALE

ROMAN ANTIQUE
P4

SHERWIN WILLAMS
SW6864 "CHERRY TOMATO"
F2
FIBER CEMENT "WOOD" SIDING

NEWTECHWOOD

ULTRASHIELD NATURALE

SPANISH WALNUT
P1

SHERWIN WILLAMS
SW9045 "BORABORA
SHORE"
P3

SHERWIN WILLAMS
SW7014 "EIDER WHITE"
P2

SHERWIN WILLAMS
SW7505 "MANOR HOUSE"
P5

SHERWIN WILLAMS
SW7020 "BLACK FOX"
S1

CULTURED STONE VENEER

PRO-FIT LEDGESTONE
"GRAY"
A1

ALUMINUM WINDOWS
& STOREFRONT

DARK BRONZE

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 52, Packet Page 55 3'-3" 3'-0"

ALUMINUM WINDOWS

W/INTEGRAL PTAC LOUVER

METAL CANOPY

STOREFRONT ENTRY

OFF FREMONT

PAINTED METAL PARAPET CAP

STONE VENEER

SMOOTH STUCCO

WITH CONTROL JOINTS
10'-3"
8'-0"
9'-2"
8'-0"

COLORED METAL

CLADDING AT UNDERSIDE

OF CANOPY

ALUMINUM

WINDOWS

W/INTEGRAL

PTAC LOUVER

METAL AWNING

ALUMINUM

STOREFRONT

DECORATIVE

PARAPET CAP

RECESSED

SMOOTH FIBER

CEMENT PANEL

WOODLIKE

VERTICAL SIDING
1'-6"
3'-8"
10'-3"
8'-0"
9'-2"
7'-6"
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A8.0
10/20/20
2101 N FREMONT
3/8" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 3/16" = 1'-0"

DETAILS
3/8" = 1'-0"
WALL SECTION AND AXON @ LOBBY ENTRY ON FREMONT 1 3/8" = 1'-0"WALL SECTION AND AXON @ VERICAL SIDING 2

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 53, Packet Page 56

ALUMINUM WINDOW WITH

INTEGRAL PTAC LOUVER

HORIZONTAL FIBER CEMENT SIDING

SMOOTH STUCCO AT RECESS
2'-1"
1'-6"
1'-0"

WIDE PARAPET CAP

STONE VENEER

METAL CANOPY

FIBER CEMENT TRIM
7'-1" 11"
9'-2"
8'-0"
2'-1"
6'-0" 2'-0"

ALUMINUM WINDOW WITH

INTEGRAL PTAC LOUVER

SMOOTH STUCCO WITH

CONTROL JOINTS

PAINTED PARAPET CAP

STONE VENEER

ALUMINUMN

STOREFRONT

LANDSCAPING AT

PEDESTRIAN LEVEL
10'-3"
9'-2"
8'-0"
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A8.1
10/21/20
2101 N FREMONT
3/8" = 1'-0"
MONTEREY, CA 3/16" = 1'-0"

DETAILS
3/8" = 1'-0"
WALL SECTION AND AXON @ CORNER TOWER ON CASA VERDE 1 3/8" = 1'-0"WALL SECTION AND AXON @ STONE TO STUCCO TRANSITION 2

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 54, Packet Page 57 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A9.0
05/10/21
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

SHADING STUDY -

SPRING/FALL SOLSTICE

SPRING SOLSTICE
MARCH 20 AT NOON
MARCH 20 AT 3 PM

PROPOSED SITE EXISTING SITE
MARCH 20 AT 9 AM

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 55, Packet Page 58 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A9.1
05/10/21
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

SHADING STUDY -

SUMMER SOLSTICE

PROPOSED SITE EXISTING SITE

SUMMER SOLSTICE
JUNE 20 AT NOON
JUNE 20 AT 3 PM
JUNE 20 AT 9 AM

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 56, Packet Page 59 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
A9.2
05/10/21
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

SHADING STUDY - WINTER

SOLSTICE

PROPOSED SITE EXISTING SITE

WINTER SOLSTICE
DECEMBER 20 AT NOON
DECEMBER 20 AT 3 PM
DECEMBER 20 AT 9 AM

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 57, Packet Page 60 UP
DN
UP

LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CASA VERDE WAY
BASEMENT FF: 53.50'
FIRST FLOOR FF: 63.50'

LANDSCAPE

SIDEWALK

1.00'

LANDSCAPE
RAMP

CONCRETE WALKWAY

LANDSCAPE

COMPACT

LANDSCAPE

BOLLARD LIGHTING FIXTURE

WALL MOUNTED LIGHTING FIXTURE

RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE AT SOFFIT ABOVE

POLE LIGHTING FIXTURE
*FIXTURES DRAWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, NOT TO SCALE
LIGMAN ULW-10873: LIGHTWAVE 2

STRAIGHT BOLLARD
LIGMAN UTA-31881: TANGO 31

DOWNLIGHT
LIGMAN URO-80496: ROBUST 3 SQUARE

CEILING DOWNLIGHT
LITHONIA D SERIES SIZE 0
Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
E1
10/14/2020
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

SITE LIGHTING PLAN

LIGHTING LEGEND

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 58, Packet Page 61 Date
Scale
Sheet
24x36:
11x17:
1327 ARCHER STREET, STE. 220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
THOMAS E. JESS
ARCHITECT (CA) #C27068
STEPHEN A. RIGOR
ARCHITECT (CA) #C33672

ADDRESS
805.547.2240
ARRIS-STUDIO.COM

CONTACT
E2
10/20/20
2101 N FREMONT

MONTEREY, CA

SITE LIGHTING

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 59, Packet Page 62

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 60, Packet Page 63

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 61, Packet Page 64

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 62, Packet Page 65

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 63, Packet Page 66 Monterey Avid Hotel
Schematic Landscape Plan SHEET
2101 N. Fremont Street
L1
Monterey, CA
firma
JOB NO: 22021 MODIFIED: 11/2/20
LEGEND
Landscape Area
Concrete
Asphalt

PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS
Final plans will select plants from this list.

Existing (2) trees noted on tree protection plan to be removed.

TREES
Cedrus deodara / deodar cedar
Cercis occidentalis / western redbud
Laburnum x watereri 'Vossii' / goldenchain tree
Maytenus boaria / mayten tree
Olea europaea ‘Swan Hill’ / fruitless olive
SHRUBS
Aeonium ‘Sunburst’ / aeonium sunburst
Agave attenuata / foxtail agave
Arctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ / pacific mist manzanita
Cotyledon orbiculata 'Blue Waves' / pig ears
Dianella caerulea ‘Cassa Blue’ / blue flax lily
Pittosporum crassifolium nana / dwarf karo
Romneya coulterii / matilija poppy
Salvia leucantha / mexican sage
Senna artemisioides / silver cassia
Olea europaea ‘Little Ollie’ / little ollie dwarf olive Westringia fruticosa / coast rosemary

ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
Bouteloua / grama grass
Carex pansa / dune sedge
Chondropetalum 'El Campo' / small cape rush
Festuca mairei / atlas fescue
Leymus condensatus / giant wild rye
Pennisetum spathiolatum / slender veldt grass
Sesleria ‘Greenlee’ / greenlee’s moor grass
VINES
Trachelospermum Jasminoides / star jasmine

GROUNDCOVERS
Arctostaphylos ‘Carmel Sur’ / carmel sur manzanita
Campanula / bellflower
Iris ‘Nada’ / butterfly iris
Thymus pseudolanuginosus

WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:

1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either low-precipitation spray heads, bubblers, or drip emitters, or a combination thereof. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.

2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather conditions change.

3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.

4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.

5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants with similar water needs.

6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) prepared by the University of California Cooperative extension, February 1992. All plant materials proposed are selected for low to moderate water needs in this climate.

NORTH
10' 0
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
5' 10' 20' 30'
UP
DN
UP
BASEMENT FF: 53.50'
FIRST FLOOR FF: 63.50'
TRASH

LANDSCAPE
FIRE
RISER
STAIR #2
STAIR #1

ELECTRICAL

BUILDING ABOVE
(SHOWN DASHED)
PODIUM

DRIVEWAY

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

NOT A PART

LIMIT OF BALCONY, SEE

ARCH SITE PLAN
BASEMENT FF: 53.50'
FIRST FLOOR FF: 63.50'

METAL MOUNTED

TRELLIS W/

CLIMBING VINES
Gold Chain Tree Deodar Cedar Mayten Tree

METAL MOUNTED TRELLIS

W/ CLIMBING VINES

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 64, Packet Page 67 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

AMENDING THE NORTH FREMONT SPECIFIC PLAN TO CLARIFY THAT THE SPECIFIC

PLAN IS NOT THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES DO NOT APPLY TO

VISITOR ACCOMODATION FACILITY (VAF) -ZONED LOTS, AND VAF-ZONED LOTS ARE

SUBJECT TO THE CITY CHARTER REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the amendments to the North Fremont Specific Plan are intended to clarify the applicability of the plan policies to Visitor Accommodation Facility zoned lots, in response to comments received for the 2101 North Fremont Street infill development project, involving the demolition of an existing 1-story, 18 guest room hotel and 134-seat restaurant and the construction of a new 25,000 square-foot, 4-story, 42 guest room branded hotel and 42-space surface parking lot;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Community Development Department has prepared an EIR for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (including the proposed text amendment) pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15082, the City distributed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on June 24, 2022 and ending on July 25, 2022. During the 30-day review period, the NOP was available on the City’s website at:
www.monterey.org/planning. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit agency and public input on the scope and content of the EIR. The City received letters from the following five agencies and one Native American Tribe in response to the NOP during the public review period: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Native American Heritage Commission, Transportation Agency for Monterey County, and KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria. NOP comments were primarily related to nesting birds, hazardous materials (including in demolished materials and imported soils), tribal consultation, traffic impacts, and cultural monitoring during construction. Comments and responses received on the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 65, Packet Page 68 2 WHEREAS, the EIR identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been required that would reduce all of these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the Planning Commission found that the amendments are consistent with the purposes of the General Plan, the purposes of the Municipal Code, and other applicable City ordinances; and, held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony, and recommended that the City Council adopt the specific plan amendments;
WHEREAS, Chapter 9, Administration, of the North Fremont Specific Plan states that amendments to the Specific Plan require approval by the Planning Commission and City Council per Government Code procedures; Sections 65453, 65454, and 65456.

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony;
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65453(a) states: “A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.” The proposed specific plan amendment has been reviewed and processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Government Code Section 65350; Preparation, Adoption, and Amendment of the General Plan.

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65454 states: “No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan.” The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the general plan in that the amendment proposes clarifying language to existing provisions of the specific plan. The proposed amendments pertain to the relationship of the North Fremont Specific Plan and the Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) zoning established by the City Charter, in that the provisions of the North Fremont Specific Plan shall not apply to VAF zoned properties. Changes to VAF zoned properties shall occur by amendment to the City Charter in addition to the City’s Zoning Map. The proposed amendment provides consistency with both the City Charter and various policies of the General Plan including the following Economic policies:

Policy b.5 - Provide for orderly growth of the visitor sector of the Monterey economy.

Policy c.3 - Support the visitor industry as the primary economic base of the community.

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65456 states: “(a) The legislative body, after adopting a specific plan, may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 66, Packet Page 69 3 (b) Notwithstanding Section 66016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan, amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning agency.
(c) Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan, including the diagrams and text, shall be made available to local agencies, and shall be made available to the general public as follows:
(1) Within one working day following the date of adoption, the clerk of the legislative body shall make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection. (2) Within two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying, the clerk shall furnish the requested copy to the person making the request.
(d) A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of a specific plan or amendments to a specific plan in an amount that is reasonably related to the cost of providing that document.”
The applicable provisions of Government Code Section 65456 have been met. The applicable administration fees associated with the specific plan amendment have been collected and copies of the amended specific plan will be made available as required once adopted.

WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated by reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter and, together with the staff report, other written reports, public testimony and other information contained in the record, are an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the actions taken in this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby City Council adopts a resolution amending the North Fremont Specific Plan to clarify that the specific plan is not the general plan, the specific plan does not apply to VAF-zoned lots, and that VAF-zoned lots are subject to the requirements of the City Charter, as attached hereto as Exhibit A and as follows:

North Fremont Specific Plan Amendments

Page 9 ends

The Specific Plan is not part of the General Plan; rather, it is a tool used to implement the General Plan

Page 26 ends

Until then, the Specific Plan development objectives, standards and guidelines do not apply to VAF-zoned properties.

Page 47 ends

and Guidelines):

Project sites located within the Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District shall comply with the land use and development standards contained in the City of Monterey Charter, except as otherwise stated therein.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 67, Packet Page 70 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 68, Packet Page 71 north fremont specific plan 9 April 1, 2014
Goal c. Provide a safe, efficient, well-maintained,
and environmentally sound roadway system that supports an equality of choice among all modes of transportation.

Goal f. Provide an attractive and convenient transit
service for Monterey citizens, especially those in the community who cannot or choose not to own a private automobile.

Goal g. Provide a transportation system that supports the local economy. 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.2. Do not allow auto-oriented level-ofservice standards to negatively affect the shopping experience in commercial business districts.Policy g.6. Improve the pedestrian environment along North Fremont Street.This Specific Plan replaces the North Fremont Area Plan with a more comprehensive strategy for the enhancement of this commercial corridor as mixeduse neighborhood. The Specific Plan provides tools beyond the capabilities of the Area Plan, such as area-specific development standards and design guidelines, and an inventory of existing and proposed improvements to the neighborhood’s infrastructure.

The Financing and Implementation chapter identifies potential funding sources for proposed rights-ofway improvements. Funding may include grants, assessment districts, or a combination thereof .This chapter also recommends a strategy for obtaining the necessary funding to meet the project recommendations.Under California law, local governments can use Specific Plans as tools to plan for needed revitalization and change, both in existing neighborhoods and new development areas. Specific Plans provide greater planning and design guidance than can be included in a General Plan, and they allow local governments the ability to address complex land ownership patterns and infrastructure needs. The Specific Plan is not part of the General Plan; rather, it is a tool used to implement the General Plan.Specific Plans can jump-start new development in depressed areas, and can ensure that the public gets the quality it desires in any new development.The planning process for the North Fremont Specific Plan included several community meetings within the North Fremont business district as well as the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The community meeting participants were led through various exercises to define planning issues, identify opportunities, and solicit input on draft plan concepts. A Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee also reviewed and commented on the plan at each stage of its development. introduction

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 69, Packet Page 72 26 April 1, 2014
challenges & opportunities
An objective of the Specific Plan is to allow greater
use and development flexibility within the VAF zoning districts. Therefore, before the Specific Plan can befully implemented, a ballot measure and successful vote of the people lifting the City Charter restrictions on uses and development standards within the VAFzoned properties on North Fremont will be required.Until then, the Specific Plan development objectives, standards and guidelines do not apply to VAF-zoned properties.The quantity of residential development within the City’s Mixed-Use neighborhoods is defined by the General Plan, which allows 130 dwelling units along the North Fremont Corridor. Residential development that exceeds these thresholds would require a General Plan Amendment and associated environmental analysis. The Specific Plan encourages residential development as a part of a mixed-use project, which is a key ingredient to establishing a vibrant, pedestrian rich neighborhood. While the design of new development shall be oriented to the pedestrian, population must also be added to the planning area to create the vibrancy necessary to fulfill the North Fremont Specific Plan Vision.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 70, Packet Page 73 north fremont specific plan 47 April 1, 2014
05 land use &
development
Land Use and Development - Objectives, Standards and GuidelinesThe purpose of this section is to provide objectives, standards and guidelines for new land uses and development within the Planning Area. While the Specific Plan goals define the Specific Plan vision at varying levels of specificity, the purpose of the land use and development objectives is to provide a measurement for how adequately a project implements the Specific Plan vision and goals. When a project is analyzed for consistency with the Specific Plan, the objectives will serve as findings for approval. A citation of how the project meets a specific guideline or guidelines could serve as support for the findings.Project sites located within the Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District shall comply with the land use and development standards contained in the City of Monterey Charter, except as otherwise stated therein. What’s the Difference Between a Standard and a Guideline?A standard is a requirement for all new development. However, a guideline suggests how a development might achieve a particular design objective. If a project incorporates features that are inconsistent with a particular guideline, the features may be deemed appropriate if adequate support is provided that the features achieve the particular objective.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 71, Packet Page 74 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AMENDING CHAPTER 38 OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY CODE RELATED TO VISITOR ACCOMMODATION FACILITY PARKING STANDARDS (38-36A), OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES (38-115), OFFSTREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS (38-115) AND REDUCED PARKING FOR OTHER USES (38-117)
WHEREAS, the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are intended to clarify the applicability of the parking standards, in response to comments received for the 2101 North Fremont Street infill development project, involving the demolition of an existing 1-story, 18 guest room hotel, and 134-seat restaurant and the construction of a new 25,000 square-foot, 4- story, 42 guest room branded hotel and 42-space surface parking lot; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Community Development Department has prepared an EIR for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (including the proposed text amendment) pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15082, the City distributed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on June 24, 2022 and ending on July 25, 2022. During the 30-day review period, the NOP was available on the City’s website at:
www.monterey.org/planning. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit agency and public input on the scope and content of the EIR. The City received letters from the following five agencies and one Native American Tribe in response to the NOP during the public review period: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Native American Heritage Commission, Transportation Agency for Monterey County, and KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria. NOP comments were primarily related to nesting birds, hazardous materials (including in demolished materials and imported soils), tribal consultation, traffic impacts, and cultural monitoring during construction. Comments and responses received on the NOP were incorporated into the Draft EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR.;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15087, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between July 7, 2023 and August 21, 2023 to solicit comments regarding the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. During the public review period, the Draft EIR was available on the City’s website at: www.monterey.org/planning.

Two comment letters on the Draft EIR were received: from Fenton & Keller (on behalf of the Mahroom family who own the apartment building located to the north of the project site) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The comments from Fenton & Keller expressed opposition to the project and were primarily related to noise, building height, parking, safety, traffic, and water supply. The comments from CDFW stated that the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR are sufficient for mitigation of impacts to biological resources (no mitigation measures for biological resources were identified as required in the Draft EIR). The comment letters and responses were addressed in Section 7.0, Response to Comments, of the Final EIR;
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 72, Packet Page 75 2 WHEREAS, the EIR identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been required that would reduce all of these potential impacts to a less than significant level; WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony, and recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance amendments;
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amendment is consistent with the purposes of the General Plan, the purposes of the Municipal Code, and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals in this Ordinance are true and correct and incorporated by reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter and, together with the staff report, other written reports, public testimony, and other information contained in the record, are an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the actions taken in this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Monterey City Code, Section 38-36(A), Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required is hereby amended to read as follows:

Hotels and Motels One per guest room; plus two for every 50 rooms for hotels and motels with over 49 rooms; plus parking, as required for accessory uses.

SECTION 2 Monterey City Code, Section 38-115, Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required Schedule A table is hereby amended to read as follows:

Hotels and Motels One per guest room; plus two for every 50 rooms for hotels and motels with over 49 rooms; plus parking, as required for accessory uses.

SECTION 3 Monterey City Code, Section 38-117, Reduced Parking for Other Uses is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A or B; and B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; or
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 73, Packet Page 76 3 C. There is significant public parking within a reasonable distance that has been provided or will be provided within a reasonable time. In reaching a decision, the Planning Commission shall consider survey data submitted by an applicant or collected at the applicant’s request and expense.

SECTION 4. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

SECTION 7. Publication. Pursuant to Charter section 4.4, this ordinance shall be published in the Monterey County Herald, a newspaper printed and published in the County of Monterey, at least three days before its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ____ day of _____, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 74, Packet Page 77 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND

ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 2101 NORTH FREMONT STREET HOTEL PROJECT
WHEREAS, in 2020, Adriana Cook of Arris Studio Architects submitted a use permit application on behalf of Lakshmi Hotel Partners to redevelop the project site located at 2101 North Fremont Street in the City of Monterey, which contains an existing 18 guest room motel, restaurant, and parking, with a 42 guest room hotel. The project site is zoned Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) and has a Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation. The 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; WHERAS, the project requires approval of a Use Permit and approval of a reduction in the number of loading zone spaces from 2 to 1 spaces and a reduction in the loading zone size to 9’4” (W) x 23’ (L) x 10’ (H). The project includes amendments to the Zoning Code to clarify the parking and loading space requirements for hotels and motels and clarify the allowable reductions in parking and loading spaces.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.), the City of Monterey is the lead agency for the project; WHEREAS, an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared for the project and a Draft IS-MND and a Notice of Intent to Adopt an IS-MND was circulated for public review between March 17 and April 16, 2021. The IS-MND was adopted, and the project approved by the City of Monterey Planning Commission on October 12, 2021. An appeal to the project and IS-MND approval was filed by an adjacent property owner (the Mahroom family). In response to the appeal, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared;
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, on June 24, 2022, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research, Monterey County Clerk, and each responsible and trustee agency and posted on the City website (www.monterey.org/planning) a Notice of Preparation (NOP) stating that an EIR (State Clearinghouse #2022060567) would be prepared and soliciting input on the scope and content of the EIR; WHEREAS, six comment letters were received in response to the NOP; WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on July 7, 2023; Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 75, Packet Page 78 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15087, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review between July 7, 2023 and August 21, 2023 to solicit comments regarding the environmental issues associated with the proposed project. During the public review period, the Draft EIR was available on the City’s website at: www.monterey.org/planning.

WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts relating to cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and vibration, and tribal cultural resources where mitigation measures are required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level (Exhibit A); WHEREAS, during the Draft EIR public review and comment period, the City requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086;
WHEREAS, two comment letters were received during the Draft EIR public review and comment period;
WHEREAS, the City responded to comments received on the Draft EIR in the Final EIR (Section 7.0 of the Final EIR);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on November 17, 2023;
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2023, the City released the proposed Final EIR, which was made available on the City website (www.monterey.org/planning). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and technical appendices, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR and technical appendices;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Commission commenced review of the project and requested public comments regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR and the merits of the project on November 17, 2023;
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the project;
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated;
WHEREAS, the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives to address whether these effects can be reduced to a level of less than significant; WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the project, which are incorporated herein by this reference;
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 76, Packet Page 79 3 WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the project identified in the EIR, and set forth herein, are described in Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, the irreversible environmental changes and growth-inducing impacts that would result from the project identified in the EIR, and set forth herein, are described in Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, findings of fact are set forth in Exhibit B;
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that are necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 to Exhibit B of this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the City of Monterey Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard; WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the Planning Commission, on a 6-0 vote, recommended that the City Council adopt environmental findings pursuant to the CEQA, certify the Final EIR, adopt the MMRP, and adopt Findings of Fact; WHEREAS, on December 15, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony;
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings;
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the project; WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby that the above Recitals are true and correct, are adopted, and have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below and the City Council certifies the EIR, adopts the environmental findings of fact, and adopts the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the hotel redevelopment project at 2101 North Fremont Street attached hereto as Exhibits A and B based on the following Findings and Conditions of Approval:

1. The City Council determines that each of the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 77, Packet Page 80 4 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

3. The City Council adopts the CEQA “Findings of Fact” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.

4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the MMRP, attached hereto as Attachment 1 to Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, and make implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP a condition of approval of the project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.

5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Monterey, and are located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California 93940. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

6. The City Council directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Monterey County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the certification of the EIR.

Conditions of Approval:

1. CUL-2(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Cultural Resources: The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. A Native American representative should be allowed to participate in the training if requested. Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

2. CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 78, Packet Page 81 5 resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource.

Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

3. CUL-4(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Paleontological Resources: The project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]) to conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for paleontological resources for all construction personnel prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. Paleontological resources training shall include information regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

4. CUL-4(b) Unanticipated Fossil Discovery: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]). The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant, the applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist to prepare and implement a data recovery plan for paleontological resources. The data recovery plan shall include measures to reduce any significant impacts to the paleontological resources by ensuring the fossil is appropriately recovered and curated.

These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, excavation and salvaging, identification, preparation, and curation of the fossil at a scientific institution. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the SVP (2010) standards. The City shall review and approve the data recovery plan, as appropriate, prior to excavation and salvaging of the fossil.

5. HAZ-1 Asbestos, Lead, Mercury, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Caulk Abatement:

Prior to issuance of the first demolition permit, the applicant shall contract with a Cityapproved abatement specialist to conduct surveys that screen for the presence of asbestos, lead (especially lead-based paint), mercury, and PCB caulk in the existing onsite building materials. If the surveys do not identify hazardous building materials, then Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 79, Packet Page 82 6 additional mitigation is not required. If hazardous building materials are identified, the abatement specialist shall prepare an Abatement Report, which shall summarize the site-specific surveys and outline required abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials. The Abatement Report shall outline abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials to ensure that hazardous building materials are removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal standards including, but not limited to, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 424 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS]), the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Evaluation Program, the Toxic Substances Control Act (United States Code Title 15, Chapter 53, Section 2601, et seq. and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter R), and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal OSHA’s) asbestos and lead standards (Title 8 Section 1529 and 1532 of the Cal OSHA Regulations). Abatement measures may include, but would not be limited to, hazardous materials containment, disposal at permitted facilities, segregation of hazardous materials from other waste, use of certified contractors for abatement, use of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration or other engineering controls to prevent airborne dispersal of hazardous materials, and use of personal protective equipment during abatement. The Abatement Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Monterey Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first demolition permit. Recommendations in the approved Abatement Report shall be undertaken by abatement contractors that utilize safe work practices and shall be completed in accordance with timing requirements set forth in the Abatement Report. The applicant shall require contractors to include compliance with the Abatement Report in their demolition and/or construction contracts.

6. NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction: The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels do not exceed 90 dBA1 Leq(h)2 at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures:
o Erect a temporary sound barrier at the northern property line until the stucco wall on top of the retaining wall that would be constructed as part of the project has been built. The sound barrier shall be a solid fence constructed of minimum 7-foot-tall sheets of 5/8-inch thick plywood with appropriate supports. The plywood shall overlap at vertical joints by a few inches and be fastened together. Avoid any gaps at the ground level. Construction noise reduction blankets with a solid layer (e.g., 1-psf vinyl) shall also be used. If the sound barrier is calculated to reduce construction noise levels by 4 dBA1 (Salter 2023).
o Limit construction to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Saturday, and no construction on Sundays or holidays.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 80, Packet Page 83 7 o Require posted signs at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of problems.
o Notify the City and neighbors within 100 feet in advance of the schedule for each major phase of construction and expected loud activities. o When feasible, locate high noise generating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, compressors) and material unloading and staging areas away from the sensitive adjacent uses (residences).
o Require that all construction equipment be in good working order and that mufflers are inspected to be functioning properly. If feasible, impact tools shall be shrouded or shielded with intake and exhaust port mufflers when used near noise-sensitive receptors.
o Avoid unnecessary idling of equipment and engines and to a maximum of five minutes near noise-sensitive receivers.
o The general contractor shall designate a noise and vibration disturbance coordinator responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise or vibration. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise or vibration complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, equipment type/location) and shall ensure that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.

7. NOI-3 Construction Vibration: The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Vibration Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels do not exceed 0.25 in/sec PPV3 at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures:

1. Earth-moving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not to occur at the same time along the same property line to reduce cumulative vibration impacts.

2. Minimize discontinuities in roadway pavement where trucks will travel.

3. Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers within 25 feet of adjacent structures. Nonvibratory sheepsfoot rollers or static rollers could be used instead.

4. Grading and earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent structures shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less.

Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 81, Packet Page 84 8 5. Avoid use of a hoe ram within 15 feet of adjacent structures. Use of an excavator with reach arm could be used instead.

6. Avoid routing heavily loaded trucks through residential streets.

8. TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources: In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native American tribes, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. The plan shall include measures to ensure the find is treated in a manner that respectfully retains, to the degree feasible, the qualities that render the resource of significance to the local Native American group(s). Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 82, Packet Page 85 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse (SCH) Number 2022060567
prepared by
City of Monterey
Community Development Department
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, California 93940
Contact: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
November 2023

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 83, Packet Page 86 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 84, Packet Page 87 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1 Public Review Process ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Project Synopsis ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 Required Approvals ................................................................................................................... ES-6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ ES-6 Areas of Known Controversy ..................................................................................................... ES-7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ ES-8 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Public Review of the Draft EIR ........................................................................................ 1-3

1.4 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-5 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Applicant ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Existing Site Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning ..................................................... 2-4

2.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.3 Site Access ...................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5.1 Proposed Site Plan .......................................................................................... 2-4

2.5.2 Employees ..................................................................................................... 2-11

2.5.3 Parking and Site Access ................................................................................ 2-12

2.5.4 Landscaping .................................................................................................. 2-12

2.5.5 Retaining Walls ............................................................................................. 2-14

2.5.6 Exterior Lighting ............................................................................................ 2-14

2.5.7 Utilities .......................................................................................................... 2-14

2.5.8 Construction and Grading ............................................................................. 2-14

2.5.9 Green Building Features ............................................................................... 2-15

2.5.10 Specific Plan and Zoning Code Text Amendments ....................................... 2-15

2.6 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2-16

2.7 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-16 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 85, Packet Page 88 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ii

3.2 Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-1 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-9

4.1.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.1-12

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-17

4.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-3

4.2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-7

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-14

4.3 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-4

4.3.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.3-6

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.3-10

4.4 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.4-1

4.4.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-4

4.4.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.4-7

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.4-19

4.5 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-2

4.5.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.5-3

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.5-6

4.6 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................................. 4.6-1

4.6.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................ 4.6-4

4.6.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 4.6-5

4.6.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................. 4.6-12

4.6.5 Energy ........................................................................................................ 4.6-14

4.6.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 4.6-16

4.6.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................ 4.6-19

4.6.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................... 4.6-23

4.6.9 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... 4.6-29

4.6.10 Population and Housing............................................................................. 4.6-30

4.6.11 Public Services ........................................................................................... 4.6-30

4.6.12 Recreation .................................................................................................. 4.6-33

4.6.13 Transportation ........................................................................................... 4.6-33

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 86, Packet Page 89 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report iii

4.6.14 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................... 4.6-37

4.6.15 Wildfire ...................................................................................................... 4.6-41 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Economic Growth ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Significant Unavoidable Effects ....................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................................. 5-2

5.4 Mandatory Findings ........................................................................................................ 5-3 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process ......................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Alternatives Considered But Rejected ............................................................ 6-1

6.1.2 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................ 6-3

6.2 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .............................................................................. 6-4

6.2.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-4

6.3 Alternative 2: Three-Story Hotel ..................................................................................... 6-7

6.3.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-7

6.3.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-7

6.4 Alternative 3: Different Location on Project Site .......................................................... 6-11

6.4.1 Description .................................................................................................... 6-11

6.4.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 6-12

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-16 7 Response to Comments .............................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Written Comments and Responses ................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Responses to Public Comments ...................................................................................... 7-1 Letter 1 ...................................................................................................................... 7-20 Letter 2 ...................................................................................................................... 7-44 8 References .................................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 List of Preparers .............................................................................................................. 8-8 Tables
Table ES-1 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................ ES-2 Table ES-2 Summary of Proposed Changes .................................................................................. ES-3 Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts .....................................................................................................................ES-11 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response .............................................................................. 1-2 Table 2-1 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................. 2-6 Table 2-2 Summary of Proposed Changes Compared to Existing Use ...................................... 2-11

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 87, Packet Page 90 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
iv
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List............................................................................................... 3-2 Table 4.3-1 General Plan Land Use Consistency Table ................................................................ 4.3-8 Table 4.4-1 Project Site Noise Monitoring Results – Short Term ................................................ 4.4-4 Table 4.4-2 Project Site Noise Monitoring Results – Long Term ................................................. 4.4-4 Table 4.4-3 Noise Exposure Standards ........................................................................................ 4.4-6 Table 4.4-4 Maximum Noise Standards by Zoning District.......................................................... 4.4-6 Table 4.4-5 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities ...................................... 4.4-8 Table 4.4-6 Vibration Thresholds for Potential Damage to Structures ..................................... 4.4-10 Table 4.4-7 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase ...................................................... 4.4-11 Table 4.4-8 Mitigated Noise Levels by Construction Phase ....................................................... 4.4-13 Table 4.4-9 Expected Construction Vibration Levels ................................................................. 4.4-17 Table 4.6-1 Scenic Quality Policy Consistency Analysis ............................................................... 4.6-3 Table 4.6-2 Project Construction Emissions ................................................................................ 4.6-7 Table 4.6-3 Estimated Maximum Operational Emissions ............................................................ 4.6-8 Table 4.6-4 Combined Annual GHG Emissions .......................................................................... 4.6-20 Table 4.6-5 2022 Scoping Plan Consistency for GHG Emissions ................................................ 4.6-21 Table 4.6-6 Average Hotel Occupancy Rate by Year ................................................................. 4.6-36 Table 4.6-7 Solid Waste Facilities Serving the Project ............................................................... 4.6-40 Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics .................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................... 6-17 Table 7-1 Comment Letters Received.......................................................................................... 7-1 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1 Regional Location......................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4 Elevations ..................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-5 Elevations ..................................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-6 Rendering: Facing Northeast at Intersection of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way ................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-7 Rendering: Facing Southeast on Casa Verde Way ..................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-8 Planting Plan .............................................................................................................. 2-13 Figure 4.3-1 General Plan Land Use Map of Project Site and Surrounding Area .......................... 4.3-2 Figure 4.3-2 Zoning Map of Project Site and Surrounding Area ................................................... 4.3-3 Figure 4.4-1 Existing (Left) and Future (Right) Noise Levels at the First Level of the Mahroom Apartments ............................................................................................................. 4.4-15 Figure 4.4-2 Existing (Left) and Future (Right) Noise Levels at the Second Level of the Mahroom Apartments ............................................................................................ 4.4-16

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 88, Packet Page 91 Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report v
Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation
Appendix B North Fremont Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D-1 Environmental Noise Study
Appendix D-2 Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Appendix E-1 Air Quality Emissions Study
Appendix E-2 California Emissions Estimator Model Updated Results Appendix F Stormwater Control Plan
Appendix G Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation
Appendix H-1 Traffic Analysis
Appendix H-2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Appendix I Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Approval Appendix J Water Allocation

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 89, Packet Page 92 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
vi
This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 90, Packet Page 93 Acronyms
Final Environmental Impact Report vii
Acronyms
3CE Central Coast Community Energy
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
AFY acre-feet per year
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CBIA California Building Industry Association
BCE before common era
BMP best management practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CAO Cleanup and Abatement
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDO Cease and Desist Orders
CE common era
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 91, Packet Page 94 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
viii
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz Hertz
in/sec inches per second
ITZ Inner Turning Zone
MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District
MLD most likely descendant
MPUSD Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
MT metric ton
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 92, Packet Page 95 Acronyms
Final Environmental Impact Report ix
NIMS National Incident Management System
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or fewer PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or fewer PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PTAC Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner
PWM Pure Water Monterey
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SLF Sacred Lands File
SOx oxides of sulfur
SR State Route
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAMC Transportation Agency for Monterey County
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VAF Visitor Accommodation Facility
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 93, Packet Page 96 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
x
This page intentionally left blank

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 94, Packet Page 97 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (proposed project, State Clearinghouse No. 2022060567). It is composed of a revised version of the Draft EIR (with strikethrough and underline showing changes from the original text), technical appendices, comments received during the public review period, and responses to those comments. This section summarizes the details of the EIR public review process and the characteristics of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project.

Public Review Process
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was circulated to potentially interested parties from June 24, 2022 to July 25, 2022. The City received six responses to the NOP. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A. As detailed in Table 1-1 of this EIR, the responses to the NOP comment letters are addressed, as appropriate, in the analysis contained in the various subsections of the EIR.

The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on July 7, 2023 and ended on August 21, 2023. Two comment letters were received on the Draft EIR. Responses to the public comments are detailed in Section 7.0 of this EIR. New text added to the Draft EIR is shown in underline format; deletions are shown in strikethrough format. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a lead agency recirculate a Draft EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR prior to certification. The revisions in the Final 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. Because the revisions clarify or strengthen the analysis of impacts in the EIR and do not constitute significant new information, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Project Synopsis
Project Applicant Lead Agency Contact Person
Lakshmi Hotel Partners Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner 2113 North Fremont Street City of Monterey
Monterey, California 93490 Community Development Department 570 Pacific Street
Monterey, California 93940
[email protected]
(831) 646-3910

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 95, Packet Page 98 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-2
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project. The following is a summary of the project; a full project description can be found in Section 2.0, Project Description.

The project site is a 0.58-acre lot located at 2101 North Fremont Street in the City of Monterey (City), California, on the northeast corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, which allows retail, visitor commercial, and professional office uses. The project site is zoned as Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), as defined by the City’s Zoning Map. Uses permitted in the VAF zoning district include commercial uses, VAFs and limited-occupancy VAFs, and accessory uses. The project site is currently developed with an existing one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot.

The existing motel and restaurant are not currently open for business.

Project Characteristics
The project would involve demolition of the existing uses on site, including the one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The project would involve construction of a new four-story, 42-guest room branded hotel and a surface parking lot with 42 parking spaces.

Table ES-1 summarizes the project characteristics.

Table ES-1 Project Characteristics
Address 2101 North Fremont Street
APN 013-112-045-000
Proposed Use Hotel
Number of Guest Rooms 42
Number of Parking Spaces 42
Height/Stories 45 feet (35 feet above grade)
3 stories above grade
1 story partially below grade for basement
Lot Area 25,258 sf; 0.58 acre
Building Footprint 7,076 sf
Total Floor Area 25,000 sf
Basement 2,600 sf
Ground Floor 6,800 sf
2 nd Floor 7,800 sf
3 rd Floor 7,800 sf
sf = square feet

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 96, Packet Page 99 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-3
The proposed project 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 square feet. From the on-site parking lot located in the northern portion of the project site, which is below grade compared to North Fremont Street, the hotel would appear to be four stories and 45 feet in height. Due to the 10 percent slope on the project site, the proposed hotel would appear to be three stories and 35 feet in height from North Fremont Avenue.

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. Two elevators would be provided at the center of the building; two sets of stairs would be provided at the northwestern and southeastern corners of the building, respectively. The basement would include the lower lobby, bicycle storage room, laundry room, storage, trash, and electrical and utilities rooms. The first story 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 second and third stories would include guest rooms and housekeeping areas. Guest rooms would be comprised of 24 double queen rooms and 18 king rooms. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be installed in two areas and would not exceed five feet in height.

Table ES-2 compares existing conditions to the proposed project with respect to building footprint and height.

Table ES-2 Summary of Proposed Changes
Existing Conditions Proposed Project Change
Lot Coverage 8,366 sf (33 percent) 7,069 sf (28 percent) -1,297 sf Height 20 feet (12 feet above grade) 45 feet (35 feet above grade) +23 feet above grade Guest Rooms 18 rooms 42 rooms +24 rooms
Restaurant Seats 134 seats 0 seats -134 seats
Parking 32 spaces 42 spaces +10 spaces
Impervious Surface Area 23,241 sf (92 percent) 22,606 sf (89.5 percent) -635 sf Landscape Area 2,017 sf (8 percent) 2,652 sf (10.5 percent) +635 sf sf = square feet
Parking and Site Access
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). 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. In addition, one loading space is proposed. The lower lobby on the north side of the hotel adjacent to the on-site parking lot 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

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 97, Packet Page 100 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-4
infrequent, short-term deliveries to the project site, and does not constitute a long-term or overnight parking space.

Per Section 38-120, Bicycle Parking, the proposed project would require one bicycle parking space (two percent of the required amount of automobile parking spaces); the proposed project would provide 8 bicycle parking spaces within the bicycle storage room, which is consistent with the City’s bicycle parking regulations. The bicycle storage room would be available for use by guests and employees.

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.

Utilities
The following utility providers currently provide service to the project site and would continue to serve the proposed project: the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) would supply water, the City’s Public Works Department would provide sanitary sewer and stormwater services, and Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) would supply electricity via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) electricity infrastructure.

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.

A proposed underground infiltration chamber, located at the northwestern portion of the project site, would provide approximately 965 cubic feet of stormwater retention. Roof stormwater would be collected by rain gutters and downspouts, then directed to the underground infiltration chamber. Other stormwater collected on the project site would flow to the underground infiltration chamber through a proposed 4-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 eastwest direction. Overflow from the infiltration chamber would surface flow to adjacent landscaping, and overflow from landscaping would be conveyed via a proposed 4-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.

Construction and Grading
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over approximately 24 months.

Construction activities would be separated into several phases, including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction equipment for the proposed project would include earthwork equipment such as tractors, backhoes, cranes, bulldozers, forklifts, graders, pavers, and loaders, among others. Grading would require 1,483 cubic yards of cut and 134 cubic yards of fill, with 1,349 cubic yards to be exported off site.

Construction equipment would be staged on-site. Temporary lane closures may be required during construction along westbound North Fremont Street and northbound Casa Verde Way. Lane closures would range in duration from hours to a few days.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 98, Packet Page 101 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Landscaping
The proposed project would install approximately 2,652 sf of landscaping, which is an increase of

31.5 percent as compared to existing conditions. The northern property boundary includes a 5-footwide easement, which would be landscaped with ornamental grasses and shrubs. Ornamental grasses and shrubs would also be planted along portions of the hotel façade on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way and throughout the surface parking lot. Several trees, including deodar cedar, western redbud, goldenchain, mayten, and olive, would be planted at the project site’s corners. Green wall plantings with climbing vines would be located along portions of the hotel façade on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way.

Retaining Walls
Due to the slope of the project site, retaining walls would be constructed along the northern and eastern site boundaries. To visually screen the adjacent residential uses to the north, a stucco wall ranging from approximately 5 feet to 7 feet in height would be constructed 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 6 feet to 12 feet in height. No wall would be constructed on top of the retaining wall along the eastern site boundary, which would be approximately two feet in height from grade of the adjacent property to the east.

Green Building Features
The proposed project would meet the requirements of the 2022 California Energy Code and would include energy-efficient appliances and lighting, water-efficient appliances and fixtures, and waterefficient irrigation. Additionally, the project would include the following additional green building features:
▪ Energy-efficient appliances and lighting
▪ Water-efficient appliances, fixtures, and irrigation
▪ Electric vehicle charging stations
Specific Plan and Zoning Code Text Amendments
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 project also includes an amendment to the City’s off-street parking standards and loading zone requirement, and readoption of the parking calculation in Section 38-36(A) of the City Zoning Code.

The amendment to the VAF zoning parking requirement would clarify that an additional 2 parking spaces per 50 rooms are required for visitor accommodation facilities with 50 or more rooms. The amendment to the City’s loading zone requirement would apply City-wide and would give the City discretion to reduce the current required loading space size in recognition of the emerging industry standard of last mile deliveries to be made by limited size trucks or vans, not semi-trailer trucks, for most businesses, and update the number of required loading spaces for hotels and motels.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 99, Packet Page 102 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-6
Required Approvals
The project would require the following ministerial permits from the City:
▪ Demolition permit
▪ Building permits
The proposed project would require the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City:
▪ Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
▪ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
▪ Architectural Review Committee Approval
▪ Specific Plan Text Amendments
▪ Zoning Code Text Amendments
The proposed project would also be required to obtain a water permit from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. ▪ Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Motel and Restaurant to Remain. This alternative assumes that 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. 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 buildings 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.
▪ Alternative 2: Three Story Hotel. This alternative would include demolition of the existing onestory 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, fitness center would be reduced in size compared to the proposed project in order to accommodate 7 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. 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

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 100, Packet Page 103 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-7
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. ▪ Alternative 3: Different Location on Project Site. This alternative would include demolition of the existing one-story 18-guest room motel and 134-seat restaurant and construction of a fourstory, 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. 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.

Refer to Section 6.0, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
An Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared for the proposed project and was circulated for public review between March 17 and April 16, 2021. Comments received on the project were primarily related to building design (style, height, and massing), parking, noise, and water supply. The IS-MND was approved by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2021, following which an appeal was filed by an adjacent property owner on October 22, 2021. As a result of the public controversy, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared.

The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on June 24, 2022 and ending on July 25, 2022. The City received letters from the following five agencies and one Native American Tribe in response to the NOP during the public review period: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Native American Heritage Commission, Transportation Agency for Monterey County, and KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria. Refer to Section 1.0, Introduction, for a complete summary of the comments received on the NOP.

Public comments raised on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments are detailed in Section

7.0 of this EIR. The comment letters raised concerns about environmental topics including aesthetics, noise, transportation, and water supply.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 101, Packet Page 104 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-8
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the project. Impacts are categorized as follows:
▪ Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
▪ Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. ▪ Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. ▪ No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Based on the analysis in the previous IS-MND and public comments received, the City determined the following environmental topics would have no impact or less than significant impacts. These topics are briefly addressed in Section 4.6, Effects Found not to be Significant:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Agricultural and Forestry Resources
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Transportation
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
▪ Wildfire
The City determined that the following issues could have potentially significant impacts, which have been studied in detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of the EIR:
▪ Cultural Resources (including Paleontological Resources) ▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Noise
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
Table ES-3 summarizes the potentially significant impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required) for the five issue areas listed above.

In addition to the mitigation measures detailed in Table ES-3, the applicant would implement the following measures that were recommended by the Monterey County ALUC and Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) to be implemented as part of the project:

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 102, Packet Page 105 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-9
▪ ALUC Recommendation 1: Aviation and Hazard Easement. Prior to finalization of the first construction permit for the project, the developer/owner shall grant an aviation and hazard easement to the appropriate airport authority. The easement shall be recorded at the Monterey County Recorder’s Office. The easement shall include the following, as applicable:
 Right-of-flight at any altitude above the acquired easement surfaces.  Right to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, dust and fuel particle emissions.  Right to prevent construction or growth of all structures, objects or natural growth above the acquired easement surfaces.
 Right-of-entry to remove, mark or light any structures or growth above the acquired easement surfaces, or right to require the owner to remove, mark or light.  Right to prohibit creation of electrical interference, unusual light sources and other hazards to aircraft flight.
 Any other limitation the appropriate airport authority may recommend to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.
▪ ALUC Recommendation 2: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The project shall conform to FAR, Part 77 – Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The developer shall submit a FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction of Alteration). The developer shall notify the staff of the Monterey Regional Airport when the form is submitted and when a determination is provided by the FAA.
▪ ALUC Recommendation 3: Exterior Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, an Exterior Lighting Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the applicable airport manager prior to the issuance of any construction permits. All exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive, down-lit, harmonious with the local area, and constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.
▪ ALUC Recommendation 4: Towers – Marking and Lighting. When not specifically required by FAA Advisory Circular 70/7640-IF (Obstruction Marking and Lighting), the following ALUC recommendations shall be applied to towers:
 A flashing red beacon shall be installed at the highest point of the structure. ▪ ALUC Recommendation 5: Change of Use. In the future, if new development or a change of building use is proposed on the subject parcel that would potentially intensify the occupancy level, then the proposed change(s) shall be submitted to the ALUC for a subsequent, projectspecific consistency determination. ▪ MBARD Recommendation 1: The applicant shall implement Dust Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction. Dust Control BMPs include, but are not limited to:
 Stabilize storage, vehicle movement, and parking areas by installing gravel over geotextile fabric.
 Install or maintain vegetative or structural barriers.  Sweep or vacuum paved surfaces to remove tracked soil.  Apply mulch to exposed soil.
 Use tarps to cover stockpiles.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 103, Packet Page 106 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-10
 Load trucks carrying excavated material so that the material does not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed. Wet the surface of each load and tightly cover before the haul truck leaves the loading area.
 Continuous water spraying during dust generation activities. Commercial Stabilizers may also be considered.
▪ MBARD Recommendation 2: During construction, the applicant shall use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to CARB’s Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards. Whenever feasible, construction equipment should use alternative fuels such as electricity, compressed natural gas or propane.
▪ MBARD Recommendation 3: The applicant shall register portable equipment when required by MBARD or CARB. Contact MBARD Engineering Division at (831) 647-9411 to discuss if an MBARD or CARB portable equipment registration is necessary for any portable equipment planned to be utilized for this project.
▪ MBARD Recommendation 4: The applicant shall ensure the buildings planned for demolition are surveyed by a certified asbestos inspector. In addition, notification to MBARD is required 10 days in advance of any building demolition. During demolition/retrofitting, grading and/or trenching activities other MBARD rules may apply. Rule 424 contains the investigation and reporting requirements for asbestos which includes surveys and advanced notification on structures being renovated or demolished.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 104, Packet Page 107 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. The project would result in the
demolition and removal of the existing motel
and restaurant. Due to a lack of significance
and integrity, the existing motel and
restaurant do not meet the eligibility criteria
for listing in the California Register of Historic
Places or otherwise constitute historical
resources for the purposes of CEQA. Thus, no
impact to historic resources would occur.

None required No Impact
Impact CUL-2. Project grading and other
ground-disturbing activities could result in
impacts to previously unidentified
archaeological resources. This impact would
be less than significant with mitigation.

CUL-2(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Cultural Resources The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. A Native American representative should be allowed to participate in the training if requested. Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 105, Packet Page 108 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Impact CUL-3. Ground-disturbing activities
during construction would have the potential
to disturb unidentified human remains.

Compliance with existing regulations would
ensure impacts remain less than significant.

None required Less than Significant
Impact CUL-4. Ground-disturbing activities
during construction would have the potential
to significantly impact paleontological
resources. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.

CUL-4(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Paleontological Resources
The project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]) to conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for paleontological resources for all construction personnel prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. Paleontological resources training shall include information regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 106, Packet Page 109 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant, the applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist to prepare and implement a data recovery plan for paleontological resources. The data recovery plan shall include measures to reduce any significant impacts to the paleontological resources by ensuring the fossil is appropriately recovered and curated. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, excavation and salvaging, identification, preparation, and curation of the fossil at a scientific institution. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the SVP (2010) standards. The City shall review and approve the data recovery plan, as appropriate, prior to excavation and salvaging of the fossil.

Cumulative Impacts. The project would not
result in a considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts to historical resources or,
archaeological resources, human remains, or
paleontological resources. The project, in
conjunction with other cumulative projects,
could result in significant cumulative impacts
to archaeological and paleontological
resources. In the event that future
cumulative projects would result in impacts
to archaeological and paleontological
resources, impacts to such resources would
be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and
would likely be subject to mitigation
measures similar to those imposed for the
project. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation. With mitigation,
the project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts would not be considerable.

None required. Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a), CUL-2(b), CUL-4(a), and CUL-4(b), above
Less than Significant Not a
Considerable Contribution
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ- 1. The existing on-site motel and
restaurant, which may contain asbestos, lead,
mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk
(PCB), would be demolished as part of the
proposed project which could result in the
release of hazardous materials if not handled,
transported, and disposed of properly. Such
HAZ-1 Asbestos, Lead, Mercury, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Caulk Abatement Prior to issuance of the first demolition permit, the applicant shall contract with a City-approved abatement specialist to conduct surveys that screen for the presence of asbestos, lead (especially lead-based paint), mercury, and PCB caulk in the existing on-site building materials. If the surveys do not identify hazardous building materials, then additional mitigation is not required. If hazardous building materials are identified, the abatement specialist shall prepare an Abatement Report, which shall Less than Significant with Mitigation

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 107, Packet Page 110 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
impacts would be potentially significant. This
impact would be less than significant with
mitigation.
summarize the site-specific surveys and outline required abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials. The Abatement Report shall outline abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials to ensure that hazardous building materials are removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal standards including, but not limited to, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 424 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS]), the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s LeadBased Paint Abatement and Evaluation Program, the Toxic Substances Control Act (United States Code Title 15, Chapter 53, Section 2601, et seq. and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter R), and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal OSHA’s) asbestos and lead standards (Title 8 Section 1529 and 1532 of the Cal OSHA Regulations). Abatement measures may include, but would not be limited to, hazardous materials containment, disposal at permitted facilities, segregation of hazardous materials from other waste, use of certified contractors for abatement, use of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration or other engineering controls to prevent airborne dispersal of hazardous materials, and use of personal protective equipment during abatement. The Abatement Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Monterey Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first demolition permit. Recommendations in the approved Abatement Report shall be undertaken by abatement contractors that utilize safe work practices and shall be completed in accordance with timing requirements set forth in the Abatement Report. The applicant shall require contractors to include compliance with the Abatement Report in their demolition and/or construction contracts.

Impact HAZ-2. The project site is not located
within 0.25-miles of a school. No impact
would occur.

None required No Impact
Impact HAZ-3. The project site is not located
on any list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. Therefore, the construction
and operation of the project would not create
a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. No impact would occur.

None required No Impact

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 108, Packet Page 111 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact HAZ-4. There is the potential for the
proposed project to result in safety hazards
associated with building height and exterior
lighting due to proximity to the Monterey
Regional Airport. However, project design
and compliance with existing FAA regulations
and ALUC recommendations related to
airport hazards and safety would ensure the
proposed project would not result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing
or working in the project area. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None required Less than Significant
Impact HAZ-5. North Fremont Street provides
access to major evacuation routes identified
in the General Plan Safety Element.

Demolition, construction, and operation of
the project would not impair access to or
alter North Fremont Street, and therefore
would not conflict with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

None required Less than Significant
Impact HAZ-6. The project site is located in
an urbanized area and is not adjacent to any
wildland areas. The project would not expose
people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
and impacts would be less than significant.

None required Less than Significant
Cumulative Impacts. The project would not
result in a considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None required Less than Significant Not a
Considerable Contribution

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 109, Packet Page 112 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The proposed project involves
the redevelopment of the project site with a
42-room hotel and would not alter the
existing public street layout or access to any
existing adjacent land uses. The proposed
project would not physically divide an
established community and no impact would
occur.

None required No Impact
Impact LU-2. The proposed project would not
result in a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with the Monterey General
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or the North
Fremont Specific Plan. This impact would be
less than significant.

None required Less than Significant
Cumulative Impacts. The project would not
result in a considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts to the division of an
established community or environmental
effects due to a conflict with Monterey
General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or the
North Fremont Specific Plan. Impacts would
be less than significant.

None required Less than Significant Not a
Considerable Contribution
Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction of the project
would temporarily increase ambient noise
levels, which could exceed applicable
standards. Such impacts would be potentially
significant. However, this impact would be
less than significant with mitigation.

NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction
The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels do not exceed 90 dBA1 Leq(h)2 at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures:

Less than Significant with Mitigation

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 110, Packet Page 113 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
 Erect a temporary sound barrier at the northern property line until the stucco wall on top of the retaining wall that would be constructed as part of the project has been built. The sound barrier shall be a solid fence constructed of minimum 7- foot-tall sheets of 5/8-inch thick plywood with appropriate supports. The plywood shall overlap at vertical joints by a few inches and be fastened together. Avoid any gaps at the ground level. Construction noise reduction blankets with a solid layer (e.g., 1-psf vinyl) shall also be used. The sound barrier is calculated to reduce construction noise levels by 4 dBA1 (Salter 2023).
 Limit construction to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Saturday, and no construction on Sunday or holidays.
 Require posted signs at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of problems.  Notify the City and neighbors within 100 feet in advance of the schedule for each major phase of construction and expected loud activities.  When feasible, locate high noise generating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, compressors) and material unloading and staging areas away from the sensitive adjacent uses (residences).
 Require that all construction equipment be in good working order and that mufflers are inspected to be functioning properly. If feasible, impact tools shall be shrouded or shielded with intake and exhaust port mufflers when used near noise-sensitive receptors.
 Avoid unnecessary idling of equipment and engines and to a maximum of five minutes near noise-sensitive receivers.
 The general contractor shall designate a noise and vibration disturbance coordinator responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise or vibration. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise or vibration complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, equipment type/location) and shall ensure that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.

Impact NOI-2. Although ambient noise in the
project vicinity would increase from on-site
operational activities and increased traffic
resulting from the project, operational noise
increases would not exceed applicable
standards. This impact would be less than
significant.

None required Less than Significant

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 111, Packet Page 114 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact NOI-3. Project construction would
intermittently generate groundbourne
vibration on site, which may affect nearby
sensitive receivers that could cause
architectural damage or annoyance if
unmitigated. Such impacts would be
potentially significant. However, this impact
would be less than significant with mitigation.

NOI-3 Construction Vibration
The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Vibration Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels do not exceed

0.25 in/sec PPV3 at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures:

1. Earth-moving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not to occur at the same time along the same property line to reduce cumulative vibration impacts.

2. Minimize discontinuities in roadway pavement where trucks will travel.

3. Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers within 25 feet of adjacent structures.

Non-vibratory sheepsfoot rollers or static rollers could be used instead.

4. Grading and earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent structures shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less.

5. Avoid use of a hoe ram within 15 feet of adjacent structures. Use of an excavator with reach arm could be used instead.

6. Avoid routing heavily loaded trucks through residential streets.

Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact NOI-4. The project site is located
within the Monterey Regional Airport Sphere
of Influence but is outside the 65, 70, and 75
dBA1 Community Noise Equivalent Level noise
contours for the Monterey Regional Airport.

Therefore, 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 and impacts from airport noise would
be less than significant.

None required Less than Significant

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 112, Packet Page 115 Executive Summary
Final Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Cumulative Impacts. The project would not
result in a considerable contribution to
cumulative impacts to construction-related
noise and vibration, stationary (non-traffic)
operational noise, or traffic noise. Impacts
would be less than significant.

None required Less than Significant Not a
Considerable Contribution
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1. Grading and excavation
required for the proposed project would have
the potential to adversely impact tribal
cultural resources. Impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.

TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native American tribes, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. The plan shall include measures to ensure the find is treated in a manner that respectfully retains, to the degree feasible, the qualities that render the resource of significance to the local Native American group(s). Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

Also, refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-2(a) in Cultural Resources, above.

Less than Significant with Mitigation
Cumulative Impacts. The project, in
conjunction with other cumulative project,
would not could result in a considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts
to the significance of a tribal cultural
resource. If future cumulative projects would
result in impacts to known or unknown tribal
cultural resources, impacts to such resources
would be addressed on a case-by-case basis
and would likely be subject to mitigation
None required Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and CUL-2(a) in Cultural Resources, above Less than Significant Not a Considerable Contribution

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 113, Packet Page 116 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project
ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
measures similar to those imposed for the
proposed project as a result of the CEQA
process. This impact would be less than
significant with mitigation. With mitigation,
the project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts would not be considerable.
1 Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). 2 Project construction noise is evaluated using the FTA’s general assessment noise analysis threshold of 90 dBA Leq over 1 hour (Leq(h)) 3 Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV). The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 114, Packet Page 117 Introduction
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed hotel redevelopment project located at 2101 North Fremont Street, City of Monterey, California. The 2101 North Fremont Hotel Project (hereafter referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”) would be constructed on a site currently occupied by an existing one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant and surface parking lot. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing uses on site and construction of a new four-story, 42 guest room branded hotel and a surface parking lot with 42 parking spaces.

The proposed project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed hotel use.

The Final EIR includes the text of the original Draft EIR (circulated for public review in 2023), responses to comments on the Draft EIR (Section 7.0), and various technical appendices. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has also been prepared for the Final EIR, as a separate document. New text added to the Draft EIR is shown in underline format. Deleted text from the Draft EIR is shown in strikethrough format. Where changes do not involve new facts or information (i.e., they involve editorial or format changes), the text was revised but not shown in underline or strikethrough in order the make the Final EIR more readable.

This section discusses (1) the project and EIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) the scope and content of the EIR; (4) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (5) the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is described in detail in Section 2.0, Project Description.

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
An Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared for the proposed project and was circulated for public review between March 17 and April 16, 2021. Comments received on the project were primarily related to building design (style, height, and massing), parking, noise, and water supply. The IS-MND was approved by the City of Monterey (City) Planning Commission on October 12, 2021, following which an appeal was filed by an adjacent property owner. As a result of the public controversy, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared.

The NOP and comment letters are presented in Appendix A of this EIR. Table 1-1 on the following page summarizes the content of the letters and where the issues raised are addressed in the EIR.

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the City of Monterey Planning Commission; therefore, the project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 115, Packet Page 118 “...will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines:
“This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.”
This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Monterey decision makers. The process will include public hearings before the Planning Commission to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the proposed project.

Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Agency Comments
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)
Encourages construction activities to
occur during the bird non-nesting season.

If ground disturbing activities must occur
during the breeding season (February
through mid-September), CDFW
recommends pre-construction surveys.

Potential project impacts to nesting birds and
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is
discussed in Section 4.6.4, Biological Resources.

Notes that the project applicant is
responsible for ensuring that the project
would not result in a violation to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

States that CEQA requires information
developed in EIRs to be incorporated into
the California Natural Diversity Database.

The EIR analysis did not uncover information that
would be required to be incorporated into the
California Natural Diversity Database.

Anticipates that the project will be
required to pay CDFW filing fees.

Appropriate CDFW filing fees shall be paid upon
completion of the EIR.

California Department
of Toxic Substances
Control
Recommends that the EIR acknowledge
the potential for historic or future
activities on or near the project site to
result in the release of hazardous wastes
or substances.

Potential impacts related to the release of
hazardous substances into the environment are
discussed in Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.

Recommends that surveys for lead-based
paints, mercury, asbestos-containing
materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl
caulk be conducted prior to demolition
activities.

Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
includes Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2,
which would require abatement of asbestoscontaining materials, lead, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk prior to and
during project demolition and construction
activities.

Recommends sampling of imported
backfill soils, if necessary, to ensure that
imported soil is free of contamination.

As described in Section 2.0, Project Description,
cut soils during grading would be used as fill.

Therefore, the project would not involve
importing backfill soils.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 116, Packet Page 119 Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Monterey County
Airport Land Use
Commission
States that the Commission has no
comments on the NOP. The Commission
previously considered the project on
September 28, 2020 and voted to find
that the proposed development would be
consistent with the Monterey Regional
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

The City acknowledges that the Commission has
no comments the NOP. No response is required.

Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC)
States that the project is subject to the
requirements and provisions under
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52
(AB 52) for tribal cultural resources.

Consultation required by SB 18 and AB 52 was
carried out by the City of Monterey. Related
topics relevant to CEQA are discussed in Section

4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

Transportation
Agency for Monterey
County
Supports the development of a detailed
traffic impact analysis that considers
impacts to road networks, existing transit
service, and traffic demand management
and alternative transportation.

Section 4.6.13, Transportation, evaluates impacts
to road networks around the project site,
considers existing transit service, and impacts
related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This
section is supported by Traffic Analysis and VMT
Analysis prepared by TJKM (Appendix H-1 and H2).

Native American Tribe Comments
KaKoon Ta Ruk Band
of Ohlone-Costanoan
Indians of the Big Sur
Rancheria
Recommends cultural sensitivity training
for pre-project personnel and including a
cultural monitor during development and
ground disturbing activities.

Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, includes
Mitigation Measure CUL-2(a) which requires
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity,
including for tribal cultural resources, for all
construction personnel prior to the
commencement of ground disturbing activities.

Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, includes
Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which outlines
procedures for the event that tribal cultural
resources are discovered during project
construction. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would
include consultation with and involvement of the
KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan
Indians.

Requests that the Draft EIR be provided
to the Tribe.

The Tribe will be provided a copy of the Draft EIR
during the public review period.

Requests that KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of
Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur
Rancheria’s Treatment Protocol are
incorporated into the project.

Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, includes
Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which outlines
procedures for the event that tribal cultural
resources are discovered during project
construction. In the event tribal cultural
resources are encountered during project
construction, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would
involve development of a mitigation plan which
would identify appropriate treatment of the
resource in coordination with the appropriate
local Native American tribal representative.

1.3 Public Review of the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on July 7, 2023 and ended on August 21, 2023. Two comment letters were received on the Draft EIR. Responses to the public

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 117, Packet Page 120 comments are detailed in Section 7.0 of this EIR. Changes to the Draft EIR in response to public comments are shown in underline format. Deleted text from the Draft EIR is shown in strikethrough format. Non-substantive changes to formatting and appendix lettering are not shown in underline and strikethrough.

Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a lead agency recirculate a Draft EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR prior to certification. The revisions in the Final 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. Because the revisions clarify or strengthen the analysis of impacts in the EIR and do not constitute significant new information, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

1.4 Scope and Content
This EIR addresses impacts identified by the City to be potentially significant. The following issues were found to include potentially significant impacts and have been studied in detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of the EIR:
 Cultural Resources
 Paleontological Resources
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Tribal Cultural Resources
The remaining issue areas are analyzed in Section 4.6, Effects Found Not to Be Significant.

In preparing the EIR, use was made of pertinent City policies and guidelines, the previous IS-MND and technical studies for the project, and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in Section 8.0, References and Preparers.

The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6.0) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and focuses on alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and four alternative development scenarios for the proposed project.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 118, Packet Page 121 should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”

1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Monterey is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the project. The proposed project would also be required to obtain a water permit from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The EIR will be submitted to this agency for review and comment.

A trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. CDFW is a trustee agency for the proposed project.

1.6 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (City of Monterey) must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days.

Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability. The lead agency must file a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the NOA in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the NOA to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The public review period must be 45 days if a state agency is lead, responsible, or trustee agency or has jurisdiction by law, or the project is of statewide, regional, or areawide significance (Public Resources Code 21091 and Assembly Bill 819).

Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision making body

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 119, Packet Page 122 reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 120, Packet Page 123 Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 121, Packet Page 124 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 122, Packet Page 125 2 Project Description
This section describes the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project (proposed project, State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022060567), including the project applicant, lead agency, the project site and surrounding land uses, major project characteristics, project objectives, and discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Project Applicant
Lakshmi Hotel Partners
2113 North Fremont Street
Monterey, California 93490

2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person
Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey
Community Development Department
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, California 93940
[email protected]
(831) 646-3910

2.3 Project Location
The 0.58-acre project site is located at 2101 North Fremont Street in the City of Monterey, California. The project site is located on the northeast corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way and is denoted by Assessor Parcel Number 013-112-045-000. The project site has an upward slope (approximately 10 percent) to the southwest along Casa Verde Way. The project site is currently developed with an existing one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The existing motel and restaurant are not currently open for business.

The project site is regionally accessible from the following nearby State highways: State Route (SR) 1, located approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the project site; SR 68, located approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project site; and SR 218 (also known as Canyon del Rey Boulevard), located approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site.

Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of the project site, while Figure 2-2 shows the project site and surrounding land uses.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 123, Packet Page 126 Figure 2-1 Regional Location

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 124, Packet Page 127 Figure 2-2 Project Site Location and Surrounding Land Uses

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 125, Packet Page 128

2.4 Existing Site Characteristics

2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, which allows retail, visitor commercial, and professional office uses. The project site is zoned as Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), as defined by the City’s Zoning Map. Uses permitted in the VAF zoning district include commercial uses, VAFs and limited-occupancy VAFs, and accessory uses. Examples of accessory uses include limited retail, such as for the sale of candy, magazines, and sundries; beauty and barber shops; recreation facilities to serve the public, guests, and employees; living accommodations for a manager or caretaker; facilities for conferences and meetings; commercial restaurant businesses; clothes and cleaning pick up agencies; and other visitor sales and services when related to and developed as an accessory use to a VAF. The project site is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area. However, as discussed further in Section 2.5.10, the VAF zone requirements apply to VAF zoned properties as required by City of Monterey Charter, rather than the Specific Plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines.

2.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses near the project site are generally characterized by residential and commercial uses, with several hotels nearby. As depicted in Figure 2-2, the project site is bounded by residential uses to the north, northwest, and northeast; a gas station, florist, and hotel to the west; an office building, restaurant, and hotel to the east; hotels and commercial uses to the southwest and southeast; and hotels, a night club, and an adult theatre/bookstore to the south with the Monterey County Fairgrounds beyond. Casa Verde Way is directly west of the project site and North Fremont Street is directly south of the project site.

2.4.3 Site Access
The project site is locally accessible from North Fremont Street. North Fremont Street features Class IV separated bike lanes through the center median which begin at the intersection with Casa Verde Way and travel eastbound. Casa Verde Way features Class II bike lanes in each direction. 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). Pedestrian infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site includes sidewalks and benches associated with bus stops.

2.5 Project Characteristics

2.5.1 Proposed Site Plan
The proposed project includes demolition of the existing uses on site, including a one-story, 18- guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. As depicted in Figure 2-3, the proposed project involves construction of a new four-story, 42 guest room branded hotel and a surface parking lot with 42 parking spaces. The proposed project requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed hotel use. Table 2-1 summarizes the project characteristics.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 126, Packet Page 129 Figure 2-3 Site Plan

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 127, Packet Page 130 Table 2-1 Project Characteristics
Address 2101 North Fremont Street
APN 013-112-045-000
Proposed Use Hotel
Number of Guest Rooms 42
Number of Parking Spaces 42
Height/Stories 45 feet (35 feet above grade)
3 stories above grade
1 story partially below grade for basement
Lot Area 25,258 sf; 0.58 acre
Building Footprint 7,076 sf
Total Floor Area 25,000 sf
Basement (1st Floor) 2,600 sf
Ground Floor (2nd Floor) 6,800 sf
3nd Floor 7,800 sf
4th Floor 7,800 sf
sf = square feet
The proposed project 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 square feet (sf). From the on-site parking lot located in the northern portion of the project site, which is below grade compared to North Fremont Street, the hotel would appear to be four stories and 45 feet in height. Due to the 10 percent slope on the project site, the proposed hotel would appear to be three stories and 35 feet in height from North Fremont Street.

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. Two elevators would be provided at the center of the building; two sets of stairs would be provided at the northwestern and southeastern corners of the building, respectively. The basement (first floor) would include the lower lobby, bicycle storage room, laundry room, storage, trash, and electrical and utilities rooms. The first story 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 second and third stories would include guest rooms and housekeeping areas. Guest rooms would be comprised of 24 double queen rooms and 18 king rooms. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be installed in two areas and would not exceed five feet in height.

Project design requires approval through the City’s Architectural Review Committee. Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 show the proposed elevations, and Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 show project renderings.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 128, Packet Page 131 Figure 2-4 Elevations

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 129, Packet Page 132 Figure 2-5 Elevations

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 130, Packet Page 133 Figure 2-6 Rendering: Facing Northeast at Intersection of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 131, Packet Page 134 Figure 2-7 Rendering: Facing Southeast on Casa Verde Way

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 132, Packet Page 135 Property line setbacks would be a minimum of 10 feet, as required by development standards for the VAF zone (City’s Zoning Code Section 38-36, Property Development Standards).

Table 2-2 compares the project characteristics to existing conditions.

Table 2-2 Summary of Proposed Changes Compared to Existing Use Existing Conditions Proposed Project Change
Lot Coverage 8,366 sf (33 percent) 7,069 sf (28 percent) -1,297 sf Height 20 feet (12 feet above grade) 45 feet (35 feet above grade) +23 feet above grade Guest Rooms 18 rooms 42 rooms +24 rooms
Parking 32 spaces 42 spaces +10 spaces
Impervious Surface Area 23,241 sf (92 percent) 22,606 sf (89.5 percent) -635 sf Landscape Area 2,017 sf (8 percent) 2,652 sf (10.5 percent) +635 sf sf = square feet
As shown in Table 2-2, the proposed building footprint and lot coverage would decrease (from 8,366 sf and 33 percent to 7,069 sf and 28 percent, respectively) compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would also result in a slight decrease in impervious surface area (from 92 percent to 89.5 percent) and an increase in landscape area (from 8 percent to 10.5 percent) as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would represent an increase in height, number of guest rooms, and parking spaces compared to existing conditions.

2.5.2 Employees
The proposed 42 room hotel would generate an estimated 45 jobs, with 5 on-site positions and 40 remote positions. The 45 total jobs would comprise the following positions:
 Full Time:
 General Manager
 Assistant Manager
 Front Desk Manager
 Front Desk Staff (8 persons)
 Night Auditor
 Housekeeping Manger
 Laundry Attendant
 Housekeepers (12 persons)
 Houseman (2 persons)
 Accountant
 Controller
 Maintenance (2 persons)
 Revenue Manager
 Director of Sales

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 133, Packet Page 136  Part Time:
 Front Desk Manager
 Front Desk Staff (4 persons)
 Night Auditors (2 persons)
 Housekeepers (2 persons)
 Maintenance (2 persons)

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 on the north side of the hotel adjacent to the on-site parking lot 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.

Per Section 38-120, Bicycle Parking, the proposed project would require one bicycle parking space (two percent of the required amount of automobile parking spaces); the proposed project would provide eight bicycle parking spaces within the bicycle storage room, which is consistent with the City’s bicycle parking regulations. The bicycle storage room would be available for use by guests and employees.

2.5.4 Landscaping
As depicted in Figure 2-8, landscaping would be integrated throughout the project site. The proposed project would install approximately 2,652 sf of landscaping, which is an increase of 31.5 percent as compared to existing conditions. The northern property boundary includes a 5-foot-wide easement, which would be landscaped with ornamental grasses and shrubs. Ornamental grasses and shrubs would also be planted along portions of the hotel façade on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way and throughout the surface parking lot. Several trees, including deodar cedar, western redbud, goldenchain, mayten, and olive, would be planted at the project site’s corners.

Green wall plantings with climbing vines would be located along portions of the hotel façade on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 134, Packet Page 137 Figure 2-8 Planting Plan

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 135, Packet Page 138

2.5.5 Retaining Walls
Due to the slope of the project site, retaining walls would be constructed along the northern and eastern site boundaries. To visually screen the adjacent residential uses to the north, a 7-foot high stucco wall would be constructed 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 feet to 12 feet in height. No wall would be constructed on top of the retaining wall along the eastern site boundary, which would be approximately two feet in height from grade of the adjacent property to the east.

2.5.6 Exterior Lighting
The proposed project would include a variety of exterior lighting fixtures. Wall-mounted light fixtures would be located at several locations on the building’s façade. Two bollard light fixtures would be located in landscaping along Casa Verde Way. Recessed lights providing downlighting would be located along walkways and at doorways. Five pole-mounted lights providing downlighting would be located throughout the surface parking lot.

2.5.7 Utilities
The following utility providers currently provide service to the project site and would continue to serve the proposed project: the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) would supply water, the City’s Public Works Department would provide sanitary sewer and stormwater services, and Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) would supply electricity via Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) electricity infrastructure.

2.5.8 Construction and Grading
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over approximately 24 months.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 136, Packet Page 139 Construction equipment would be staged on-site. Temporary lane closures may be required during construction along westbound North Fremont Street and northbound Casa Verde Way. Lane closures would range in duration from hours to a few days.

2.5.9 Green Building Features
The proposed project would meet the requirements of the 2022 California Energy Code and would include energy-efficient appliances and lighting, water-efficient appliances and fixtures, and waterefficient irrigation. Additionally, the project would include the following additional green building features:
 Energy-efficient appliances and lighting
 Water-efficient appliances, fixtures, and irrigation
 Electric vehicle charging stations.

The project would also comply with new “green” building requirements effective January 2023, California Energy Code 2022, California Green Building Standards Code 2022, California Building Code 2022, California Electric Code 2022, California Plumbing Code 2022 and California Mechanical Code 2022.

2.5.10 Specific Plan and Zoning Code Text Amendments
The North Fremont Specific Plan and Zoning Code text amendments included as part of the project are provided in Appendix B and below. 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 project also includes an amendment to the City’s Zoning Code, as follows. Amendments (text additions) are shown in underline.

Section 38-36.A
A. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required.

Hotels and
Motels
One per guest room; plus two for every 50 rooms for hotels and motels with over 49 rooms; plus parking, as required for accessory uses.

Section 38-117
A use permit may be approved for nonresidential uses, reducing the number of parking spaces or loading spaces to less than the number and size specified in the schedules in Section 38-115, provided that the following findings are made:

A. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Schedule A or B; and B. The probable long-term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; or
C. 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 137, Packet Page 140 In reaching a decision, the Planning Commission shall consider survey data submitted by an applicant or collected at the applicant’s request and expense.

2.6 Project Objectives
The City and the project applicant have established the following objectives for the proposed project:

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.

2.7 Required Approvals
The proposed project would require the following ministerial permits from the City:
 Demolition permit
 Building permits
The proposed project would require the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City:
 Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
 CUP
 Architectural Review Committee Approval
 Specific Plan Text Amendments
 Zoning Code Text Amendments
The proposed project would also be required to obtain a water permit from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 138, Packet Page 141 3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The project site in within the City of Monterey, approximately 0.75 mile south of Monterey Bay. The City of Monterey is located on the southern end of the Monterey Bay along the Central Coast of California, and is surrounded by the City of Pacific Grove to the west, unincorporated Monterey County to the south and southwest, Sand City and the City of Seaside to the east and northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the north. Monterey encompasses approximately 12.3 square miles and as of January 2022 had a population of 28,082 (California Department of Finance 2022).

A grid system of roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets, are oriented parallel and perpendicular along the coast and provide vehicular access throughout the City. The major roadways in the City include Del Monte Avenue, Pacific Street, Lighthouse Avenue, and Fremont Street. The closest highways providing regional access include State Route 1 (SR 1), SR 68, and SR 218 (also known as Canyon del Rey Boulevard). SR 1 is located approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the project site, SR 68 is located approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project site, and SR 218 is located approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site.

The City of Monterey and the surrounding region experience a Mediterranean, coastal climate with moderate temperatures year-round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Summers are typically foggy and dry while winters are colder with rainfall and fog.

3.2 Project Site Setting
As shown in Figure 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project site is bordered by residential uses to the north, northwest, and northeast; a gas station, florist, and hotel to the west; an office building, restaurant, and hotel to the east; hotels and commercial uses to the southwest and southeast; and hotels, a night club, and an adult theatre/bookstore to the south with the Monterey County Fairgrounds beyond.

The project site is currently developed with an existing one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The existing motel and restaurant are not currently open for business. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, which allows retail, visitor commercial, and professional office uses. The project site is zoned as Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), as defined by the City’s Zoning Map. Uses permitted in the VAF zoning district include commercial uses, VAFs and limited-occupancy VAFs, and accessory uses.

3.3 Cumulative Development
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 139, Packet Page 142 substantial or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential.

Currently planned and pending projects in Monterey are listed in Table 3-1. In particular, the 2200 North Fremont project and the Garden Road projects are either located near the project site or along the same major arterial as the project site. These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses and the end of each section in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List
Project Location1 Proximity to Project Site Description Status 449 Alvarado Street 1.7 miles west Demolish existing structure and construct a four-story mixed-use
building with 34 new apartment units
and 2,376 square feet of retail space.

EIR preparation in
process
300 Cannery Row 2.2 miles northwest Conversion of existing building to create eight new residential
condominium units and 8,500 square
feet of retail and coastal commercial
with parking offsite
Planning permit
approved; currently in
review with Coastal
Commission
480 Cannery Row 2.3 miles northwest Construct a combination of buildings to include 51 residential units, 87,362
square feet of commercial use, 30,000
square feet of restaurant space, and
8,408 square feet of coastal/community
use.

Has not received
planning permits;
coastal permit for
small-scale desal
denied
704 Foam Street 2.5 miles northwest Demolish existing structure and construct four new stand-alone
residential units with detached garages.

Planning permits in
review; environmental
review pending
2000 Garden Road 0.7 mile south Convert existing commercial building to Construct a multi-family building with
34 30 apartment units.

Architectural Review
Committee preliminary
review approved; final
review pending
Concept review in
progress
2300 Garden Road 0.8 mile south Convert existing office building into 64 apartment units.

Architectural Review
Committee permit in
review; environmental
review approved
Construction
underway
2560 Garden Road 1 mile southwest Demolish existing structure and construct a three-story multi-family
building with 63 apartment units.

Planning permit
incomplete

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 140, Packet Page 143 Project Location1 Proximity to Project Site Description Status 2600 Garden Road 1 mile southwest Demolish existing structures and construct five 18 three two-story multifamily duplex buildings with 57 apartment 36 condominium units.

Architectural Review
Committee preliminary
review approved; final
review pending
Concept review in
progress
200 Glenwood Circle 1.6 southwest Construct a new building to provide 40 independent living apartment units.

Building permit issued
600 Irving Avenue 2.8 miles northwest Construct an addition to existing structure to create five new residential
units.

Planning permits
approved; water
allocation pending
601 Lighthouse
Avenue

2.5 miles northwest Conversion of existing building to
create four new apartment units, 3,345
square feet of retail space and one 914
office space (sic)
Building permit
pending
6 Lower Ragsdale 2.8 miles southeast Construct a 60,000 square-foot building to include 16 residential psychiatric
health facility beds, a partial
hospitalization program, an intensive
outpatient program, and an outpatient
clinic.

Construction
underway
2200 North Fremont 1,100 feet east Construct a three-story mixed-use building with 40 apartment units and
6,000 square feet of commercial space.

Building permits
pending
2 Upper Ragsdale
Drive, Bldg. A

2.8 miles southeast Construct a 66,173 square-foot medical office building.

Environmental review
pending Planning
permits approved;
building permits
pending
457 Wave Street 2.3 miles northwest Construct two new three-story buildings totaling four residential
condominium units.

Building permit
incomplete
Cumulative Project Summary
Residential Units Commercial Square Feet Medical Square Feet 293 21,135 126,173
1 Cumulative project details were sourced from the City of Monterey’s website, last updated in February 2022 (City of Monterey 2022).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 141, Packet Page 144 This page intentionally left blank

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 142, Packet Page 145 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the 2101 North Fremont Hotel Project for the specific issue areas that were identified by the City as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines §15382 as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.” The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting.

The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 143, Packet Page 146 This page intentionally left blank

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 144, Packet Page 147

4.1 Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the proposed project’s potential impacts related to cultural resources including historical and archeological resources, as well as human remains. This section also analyzes impacts related to paleontological resources. Tribal cultural resources are addressed in Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on a Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in July 2022. The full analysis is provided in Appendix C of this EIR.

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The cultural setting of the project site is summarized below. A more detailed discussion of the project site’s cultural resources setting is included in the Cultural Resources Technical Report in Appendix C.
a. Pre-Contact Setting
Indigenous History
The project site lies in the Central Coast archaeological region, which has been defined as extending from south of San Francisco Bay to the northern edge of the California Bight. The prehistoric cultural chronology for the Central Coast can be generally divided into six periods: Paleo-Indian (ca. 10000– 8000 before common era [BCE]), Millingstone/Early Archaic (8000-3500 BCE), Early (3500-600 BCE), Middle (600 BCE- 1000 common era [CE]), Middle-Late Transition (1000-1250 CE), and Late (1250 CE-contact [ca. 1769 CE]).

Paleo-Indian Period
When the Early Man horizon (referred to herein as the Paleo-Indian Period) was developed in the 1950s, little evidence of human presence along the California coast prior to 6000 BCE existed.

Archaeological work in the intervening years has identified numerous sites older than this date, and it is likely that more Paleo-Indian coastal sites are presently under water as it is estimated that 10,000 years ago sea levels were 15 – 20 meters lower than sea levels are today. This estimate places the central California shoreline during this period at approximately 10 kilometers farther west than today’s coastline.

Most of the earliest accepted dates for occupation within the Central Coast are located in San Luis Obispo County, which have produced radiocarbon dates from approximately 9,000 years ago. One occupation site located in the Monterey Bay area and one occupation site located in southern Santa Clara Valley have produced debated radiocarbon dates more than 9,000 years ago, ranging from 7,180 to 10,080 years ago.

Typically, artifact assemblages from the Paleo-Indian Period lack groundstone implements and an abundance of faunal remains; however, assemblages indicate early use of millingstone technology alongside flaked stone artifacts. Flaked stone tools are common in this period, such as the eccentric crescent, which is thus far exclusive to the Paleo-Indian period. Furthermore, this period shows use of large side-notched points of the Central Coast Stemmed series which date to as early as 8,000 years ago. Points of this type have been recovered at Diablo Canyon, Cross Creek, and Little Pico Creek. Additionally, a fluted point was reportedly found on the surface in Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 145, Packet Page 148 Millingstone Period (8000–3500 BCE)
The Millingstone Period is characterized by an ecological adaptation to collecting suggested by the appearance and abundance of well-made milling implements. Millingstones occur in large numbers for the first time in the region’s archaeological record and are even more numerous near the end of this period. Aside from millingstones, typical artifacts during this period include crude core and cobble-core tools, flake tools, large side-notched projectile points, and pitted stones.

The Cross Creek site in San Luis Obispo County is a Millingstone occupation site that returned radiocarbon dates ranging between 9,500 – 4,700 years ago. This site represents one of the oldest expressions of the Millingstone pattern. Within the Elkhorn Slough of the Monterey Bay Area radiocarbon dates of 6,200-4,000 BCE have been produced, and younger expressions of the pattern can be found in the Monterey Bay area.

No less than 42 sites dating to this period have been identified in various settings, including rocky coasts, estuaries, and nearshore interior valleys. The larger sites usually contain extensive midden deposits, possible subterranean house pits, and cemeteries. Most of these sites probably reflect intermittent use over many years of local cultural habitation and resource exploitation, with an emphasis on marine resources. Evidence at Elkhorn Slough confirms an early preference for estuarine and lacustrine settings. A lack of shell beads and flaked obsidian tools suggests low intensity inter-regional exchange.

Early Period (3500–600 BCE)
An extensive series of shoreline midden deposits within the Central Coast region date to the Early Period, suggesting an increase in occupation of the open coast. These include estuarine sites in San Luis Obispo County and open-coast sites in the Monterey Bay area. Sites dating to this period are marked by large lithic artifact assemblages consisting of Central Coast Stemmed Series and sidenotched projectile points. Square-stemmed and side-notched points have also been found in deposits at Willow Creek in Big Sur, and Little Pico II on the San Luis Obispo coast. This trend has since become apparent at numerous sites throughout the Central Coast. In many cases, manifestations of this trend are associated with the establishment of new settlements.

The material culture recovered from Early Period sites within the Central Coast region provides evidence for continued exploitation of inland plant and coastal marine resources. Artifacts include milling slabs and handstones, as well as mortars and pestles, which were used for processing a variety of plant resources. Bipointed bone gorge hooks were used for fishing. Assemblages also include a suite of Olivella beads, bone tools, and pendants made from talc schist. Square abalone shell (Haliotis spp.) beads have been found in Monterey Bay, but not in the Big Sur or San Luis Obispo areas.

Shell beads and obsidian are hallmarks of the trade and exchange networks of the central and southern California coasts. The archaeological record indicates a substantial increase in the abundance of obsidian at Early period sites in the Monterey Bay and San Luis Obispo areas. Obsidian trade continued to increase during the following the Middle period.

The Early Period shows an increase in hunting and fishing over the Millingstone Period, with rabbits and fish remains present in greater concentrations.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 146, Packet Page 149 Middle Period (600 BCE–1000 CE)
The Middle Period saw a population increase as evidenced by the increased number of new settlements spanning throughout the Central Coast. During this period, there was a preference for burials in a flexed position and associated burial items, including projectile points and bone gorges.

Olivella shell beads are found in abundance associated with burials dating to the Middle Period.

The Middle-Period is generally characterized by a shift in subsistence patterns, including more abundant use of mortars and pestles as well as higher use of larger stemmed and notched projectile points. Additionally, the first appearance of circular shell and bone fishhooks and notched net sinkers were observed within sites dating to this period. Evidence shows that marine resources were still abundantly utilized, with an increase in pinniped faunal remains, such as fur seals. Faunal assemblages show that marine diets were supplemented with small mammals, such as rabbits.

Additionally, evidence from macro botanical analysis indicates a shift from small seeds to a heavy reliance on acorns.

Middle-Late Transition Period (1000–1250 CE)
The Middle-Late Transition period is marked by relative instability and change, with major changes in diet, settlement patterns, and interregional exchange. The relatively ubiquitous Middle period shell midden sites found along the Central Coast were abandoned by the end of the Middle-Late Transition period; therefore, most Transition period and Late period sites were first occupied at this time. Instead of large year-round habitation patterns, Middle-Late and Late period sites show smaller seasonal settlements.

During the Middle-Late Transition period within the Central Coast region, projectile points diagnostic of both the Middle and Late periods are found. The points include large, contractingstemmed types typical of the Middle Period, as well as Late Period small, leaf-shaped points, which likely reflect the introduction of the bow and arrow.

Late Period (1250 CE–Historic Contact)
Late period sites are marked by small, finely worked projectile points, such as Desert side-notched and Cottonwood points, as well as temporally diagnostic shell beads. Although shell beads were typical of coastal sites, trade brought many of these maritime artifacts to inland locations, especially during the latter part of the Late period.

Common artifacts identified at Late Period sites include bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, lipped and cupped Olivella shell beads, and steatite disk beads. The presence of beads and bead drills suggest that low-level bead production was widespread throughout the Central Coast region.

Unlike the large Middle period shell middens, Late period sites are more frequently singlecomponent deposits. There are also more inland sites, with fewer and less visible sites along the Pacific shore during the Late period. However, one Late Period shell midden has been identified on the coast in Morro Bay. The settlement pattern and dietary reconstructions indicate a lesser reliance on marine resources than observed for the Middle and Middle-Late Transition periods, as well as an increased preference for deer and rabbit. An increase in sites with bedrock mortars during the Late period further suggests that nuts and seeds began to take on a more significant dietary role.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 147, Packet Page 150 Ethnographic Setting
The project site lies in an area traditionally occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people. Ohlone territory extends along the California coast from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers merge into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur. Their inland boundary was limited to the interior Coast Ranges. The Ohlone language belongs to the Penutian family, with several distinct dialects throughout the region. It is divided into eight regional dialects: Karkin, Chochenyo, Ramaytush, Awaswas, Taymen, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon.

Seven Franciscan missions were built in Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system. After the establishment of the missions, Ohlone population dwindled from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 by 1814. In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300. The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize aspects of their culture. Refer to Section 4.5.1.a in Section 4.5, Tribal Cultural Resources, for additional discussion of the Ohlone people. b. Post-Contact Setting
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

Spanish Period (1769-1822)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542 led the first European expedition to observe what was known by the Spanish as Alta (upper) California. For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements. The Spanish crown laid claim to Alta California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno.

By the 18th century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The presidio at Monterey and Mission San Carlos Borromeo were established in 1770, although the mission was moved a year later to present-day Carmel. Monterey served as the capital of Baja and Alta California in 1776 until 1803. The pueblo of Monterey grew as residents expanded outside the royal presidio with Spanish soldiers marrying, raising families, or retiring.

Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise.

Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns; just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 148, Packet Page 151 Spain began making land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king.

Mexican Period (1822-1848)
Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants.

In 1822, residents of Alta California received word that Mexico had won its war for independence from Spain. At this time, the pueblo of Monterey had a population of several hundred and the newly established Mexican government decreed the California ports open to increased trade with foreigners under the constitution of 1824.

Hallmarks of the Mexican Period in California are the secularization of mission lands, which was fully accomplished by 1836, the issuance of large land grants, and cattle ranching for the hide and tallow trade. Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. Commonly, former soldiers and well-connected Mexican families were the recipients of these land grants, which now included the title to the land. As Mexico opened California to international trade, Monterey became the primary port of entry, and the exportation of hide and tallow was one of the most important parts of the economy.

American Period (1848 - Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. During the first year of the war, John C.

Fremont traveled from Monterey to Los Angeles with reinforcements for Commodore Stockton, and evaded Californian soldiers in Santa Barbara’s Gaviota Pass by taking the route over the San Marcos grade instead. The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

The Gold Rush brought a multitude of new settlers to California beginning in 1848, and in 1850 Monterey became one of the first counties in the newly-established state, with the City of Monterey serving as the original county seat until 1872.
c. Local History
Although it was no longer the capital of Baja and Alta California, in 1850, Monterey was established as the county seat and supplied early miners for the first couple of years of the Gold Rush before new boom towns grew around the southern mines of Gold Country. Gold was not the only attraction for those who settled in Monterey. The wealth of sea life around the Monterey Peninsula, from migrating whales to abalone and squid, supported a community of Chinese fisherman. By 1853, they had established a vibrant fishing village and were soon joined by Portuguese whalers from the Azores Islands who made their livelihoods in shore whaling.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 149, Packet Page 152 By the mid-1850s, the Gold Rush had ended for Monterey, the army installment in Monterey had moved to San Francisco, and former Rancho lands that made up large portions of the area were being sold off. In 1872, Monterey lost its county seat to the City of Salinas.

The area, however, slowly started to develop following the establishment of the first railroad in 1874. Shortly thereafter, Charles Crocker, one of California’s railroad barons, took over the railroad.

He had a vision to create a destination for his railroad, with a luxury resort at the center. Hotel Del Monte was established in 1880, and spanned several acres, and included gardens, parkland, polo grounds, and a racetrack. The hotel land was vast, spanning over 7,000 acres. The opening of the hotel marked the beginning of Monterey’s international tourism industry. Tourism in the area continued following the opening of the hotel. In addition to the luxury hotel, Monterey attracted people for being a quaint town with charming adobes as well as its desirable seaside location.

In addition to fishing and tourism, Monterey also attracted artists. In 1874 Jules Tavernier opened a studio in the area and invited his friends, initiating an art colony that included Fannie Osborne and Robert Louis Stevenson. At the turn of the twentieth century, the military also returned to Monterey, making the city’s continued expansion. Following the Spanish-American War, the need for more presence on the west coast prompted the Army to establish the Monterey Military Reservation on the same site as the 1846 Army installation. In 1904 it was renamed the Presidio of Monterey in honor of the original presidio at Monterey. The presidio continues to provide instruction and training today.

The local economy was further transformed in 1902 when the first fish packing and canning operation opened on Ocean View (present day Cannery Row). In the following years fishery experts introduced the boat and net system increasing salmon and sardine catches. Canning expert Knut Hovden arrived in Monterey and introduced methods to mechanize the canning operation, further spurring the local economy. By 1940, nineteen canneries harvested over 250,000 tons per season on Cannery Row, making Monterey the “Sardine Capital of the World.” By the late 1940s, however, sardine harvests diminished signaling the end of the signature industry.

Beginning in the 1920s, with increased automobile ownership and the expansion of local roads, more Americans were able to travel, including to Monterey. In order to accommodate a variety of travelers, motor courts and autocamps were developed along commonly traveled routes outside downtowns, allowing families to stay in small cottages or tents including along North Fremont Street though Monterey.

In 1919, the Del Monte Properties Company acquired the Hotel Del Monte and the first incarnation of the Monterey County Fair took place on the racetrack and polo grounds in 1930. The County Fair lapsed for several years during the great depression, but newly legalized horse racing in 1936 spurred the return of the fair, offering another tourism attraction for the area.

Monterey’s tourism continued to flourish through the war years. Following the end of World War II, the city continued to expand and adapt for growing tourism. In the 1960s, a national movement to revitalize downtowns through renewal projects arrived in Monterey. Swaths of older parts of Old Town Monterey were demolished while nearby Fort Ord was expanded. The result was a new plaza near the foot of Fisherman’s Wharf that connected to Cannery Row, which included the adaptive reuse of old industrial canning buildings for new commercial uses.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium opened in 1984. In 1992, Monterey Bay was designated a National Marine Sanctuary. Fort Ord closed in 1994, and a portion was quickly redeveloped for the creation of the California State University Monterey Bay. The Presidio of Monterey also began to house the Defense Language Institute, specializing in graduate degrees in international studies and a center for

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 150, Packet Page 153 foreign languages. The former Hotel Del Monte now houses the Naval Postgraduate School. Today, the ecological and environmental sectors, and educational facilities along with tourism are the primary drivers for the local economy.
d. Project Site Historical Setting
Developed between 1945-1949, the project site is typical of the commercial development of Monterey during this period. Following the establishment of the Monterey County Fairgrounds in 1936 and subsequent increase in tourism after World War II, the property was one of several motels constructed along North Fremont Street during this era. The existing motel served motoring families vacationing in Monterey or attending the Monterey County Fairgrounds south of the property, which was bringing in record crowds by 1947. By 1956, the surrounding area developed further with residential developments south and west of the project area and greater commercial development along North Fremont Street. Approximately ten motor courts and motels were constructed, including the project site, and the older motor courts expanded into motels. Since 1968, the area has seen very little changes and development. Some of the older motels were torn down for new commercial uses, and the fairgrounds racetrack was converted to a golf course.

Research conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix C) did not reveal that the project site has historical significance. As such, the project site is recommended ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The NRHP and the CRHR are described further in Section 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting.

Research did not reveal that the project site was individually significant within this context or any other historic trend important to the region, state, or nation. The property is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR under Criterion A/1, listed below.

NRHP Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
CRHR Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage The property has had a number of owners and operators since its construction. Research conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Technical Report did not identify any individual connected with the property has made significant historical contributions; therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP and the CRHR under Criterion B/2, listed below.

NRHP Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past CRHR Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past 2101 Fremont Street was constructed between 1945 and 1949 as motel. Built with elements of the Minimal Traditional and Revival Styles, it was one of many properties designed with the same characteristics during this period. It does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Furthermore, the property has been substantially altered since its construction between 1945 and 1949 with the addition of a two-story section at the rear of the manager living quarters in 1959, a complete alteration of the façade of the living quarters and dining area into a restaurant in 1966 and 1984, the addition of the office in 1981, and the replacement of all windows in 1996. As a result, the existing motel and restaurant have diminished integrity of material and design. The existing motel and restaurant have undergone several

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 151, Packet Page 154 alterations throughout its history each designed and constructed by various architects and building contractors. The original architect and contractor of the motel were not identified during research.

The additions and alterations from the other architects and contractors are minor additions and not representative of their respective works. It also is not the work of a master, nor does it possess high artistic value. Therefore, 2021 North Fremont Street is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion C/3, listed below.

NRHP Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
CRHR Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Finally, a review of available evidence and records search results did not indicate the property may yield important information about prehistory or history. The property is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion D/4, listed below.

NRHP Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
CRHR Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Because the project site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, it is also ineligible for listing as a local historic resource under the City’s Historic Properties Ordinance, described further in Section

4.1.2, Regulatory Setting.
e. Paleontological Setting
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.

The project site is in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, one of the eleven geomorphic provinces of California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Coast Ranges extend along the majority of California’s coast from the California-Oregon border to Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County in the south and consist of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys. The Coast Ranges are composed of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic strata.

The eastern side is characterized by strike-ridges and valleys in the Upper Mesozoic strata. The

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 152, Packet Page 155 Coast Ranges province runs parallel to and overlaps the San Andreas Fault in some areas (California Geological Survey 2002). Locally, the project site is in the City of Monterey, which lies on the coast of Monterey Bay at the northern end of the Sierra de Salinas.

The regional geology was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 by Clark et al. (1997), who identified a single geologic unit, Pleistocene-aged coastal terrace deposits, underlying the project site. The project site is located on the border of two named coastal terraces, the Lighthouse and Peninsula College coastal terraces, but the lithology and paleontological sensitivity of these terraces are identical, so they will be considered together herein. Coastal terrace deposits consist of semiconsolidated, moderately well-sorted sand with thin, discontinuous gravel layers (Clark et al. 1997). Coastal terrace deposits have produced vertebrate and invertebrate fossils throughout California, including near Monterey Bay (Bradley and Addicott 1968, Jefferson 2010, Paleobiology Database 2022; Powell et al. 2004, University of California Museum of Paleontology 2022; Wright 1972). Therefore, coastal terrace deposits have high paleontological sensitivity.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 CFR Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 153, Packet Page 156 Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance (National Park Service 1997:41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing. b. State Regulations
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5024.1 and 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance. Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility.

A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history California Environmental Quality Act
California PRC Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 154, Packet Page 157 historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or cultural significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA. Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information, 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.

According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).

California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code §7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative,

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 155, Packet Page 158 the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
c. Local Regulations
City of Monterey Historic Properties Ordinance
The City of Monterey Historic Properties Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3472 [2012]) authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to designate historic resources as H-1 Landmark Overlay Zoning, H-2 City Historic Resource Overlay Zoning, or H-D Historic District Overlay Zoning, as approved by the City Council, by the procedures outlined in the ordinances. An eligible property may be nominated and zoned in the Landmark Overlay Zoning (H-1), City Historic Resource Overlay Zoning (H-2), or Historic District Overlay Zoning (H-D).

City of Monterey General Plan Historic Preservation Element The City’s General Plan Historic Preservation Element recognizes that the City contains historic resources with international, national, and statewide significance. Accordingly, the City has developed a comprehensive Historic Preservation Program for the protection of historic resources.

The program consists of the Historic Preservation Element itself, the City’s Historic Master Plan and historic survey program, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, city ownership and maintenance of historic buildings, and coordination with and incentive for historic property owners (City of Monterey 2019).

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Cultural Resources
Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the project area, assessing the

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 156, Packet Page 159 significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation.

Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can permanently impact the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic district.

The State Legislature, in enacting the California Register, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered significantly adverse. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have significant effect on the environment (Section 150645[b]). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (Section 150645[b][1]).

The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[t]he significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register … local register of historic resources… or its identification in an historic resources survey.”
As such, the test for determining whether the project will have a significant impact on identified historic resources is whether it will materially impair physical integrity of the historic resource such that it could no longer be listed in the NRHP or CRHR or the local landmark program.

As described in Section 4.1.2 of the Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in July 2022 (Appendix C), Rincon cultural resource specialists conducted a cultural resources records search at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University on June 17, 2022. The NWIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records and reports for the county in which the project falls. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.25-mile radius surrounding it. Rincon cultural resources specialists also reviewed the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory., Additionally, Rincon archeologists reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

Paleontological Resources
Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the project site. According to the SVP (2010) classification system, geologic units can be assigned a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Following the literature review, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to each geologic unit mapped within the project site. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. b. Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact to cultural resources is considered significant if the project would:

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 157, Packet Page 160 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

An impact to paleontological resources is considered significant if the project would:

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN THE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING MOTEL AND RESTAURANT. DUE TO A LACK OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY, THE EXISTING MOTEL AND RESTAURANT

DO NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LISTING IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES OR OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE HISTORICAL RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA. THUS, NO IMPACT TO HISTORIC RESOURCES WOULD OCCUR.

As described under Section 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting, a property is eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR if it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past; embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

As described under Section 4.1.1, Environmental Setting, the project site is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and as local historical resource, under any applicable significance criteria. Therefore, the project, which would include demolition of the existing motel and restaurant, would not adversely affect a historical resource. As such, no impact to historical resources would occur as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because no impact would occur.

Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 PROJECT GRADING AND OTHER GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES COULD RESULT IN IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Monterey and is developed with a single-story restaurant, an 18-guest room motel, and a surface parking lot. The CHRIS records search and background research identified 15 cultural resources studies within 0.25 mile of the project site Of these studies, none include a portion of the project site and three include areas directly adjacent

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 158, Packet Page 161 to the project site. None of the three studies adjacent to the project site identified cultural resources within the project area. Refer to Appendix C for further detail regarding the CHRIS record search results.

The proposed project would include grading and excavation. The project site has been previously graded and disturbed during construction of the existing motel, restaurant, and surface parking lot.

This Cultural Resources Technical Study conducted for the project did not identify any archaeological resources or archaeological deposits in the project site. The absence of substantial prehistoric or historic-period archaeological remains within the immediate vicinity, along with the existing level of disturbance in the project site, suggest there is a low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits. Despite this low potential, there is always a possibility that unknown buried archaeological resources could be encountered during project ground disturbance that may be considered important examples of California history or prehistory. Impacts are potentially significant and Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) are required.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-2(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Cultural Resources The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff. A Native American representative should be allowed to participate in the training if requested.

Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

CUL-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 159, Packet Page 162 documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB UNIDENTIFIED HUMAN REMAINS. COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS WOULD ENSURE IMPACTS REMAIN LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

No human remains are known to be present within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a MLD. The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.

With adherence to existing regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 4: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
IMPACT CUL-4 GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Ground disturbance for the proposed project is anticipated to consist primarily of surface grading; however, excavations for groundwater infiltration chambers and utilities would be expected to reach up to 15 feet below the surface. The project site is currently developed, so surficial grading is unlikely to disturb previously undisturbed sediments. However, given their depth, excavation for the groundwater infiltration tanks has the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources.

Impacts are potentially significant and Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and CUL-4(b) are required.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 160, Packet Page 163 Mitigation Measures
CUL-4(a) Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for Paleontological Resources
The project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]) to conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for paleontological resources for all construction personnel prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. Paleontological resources training shall include information regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP training document shall include materials which convey the information noted above and shall be maintained in an area accessible to all construction personnel so it may be reviewed regularly by construction staff.

Evidence that the WEAP training has been completed shall be provided to the City of Monterey prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.

CUL-4(b) Unanticipated Fossil Discovery
In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP 2010]). The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant, the applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist to prepare and implement a data recovery plan for paleontological resources. The data recovery plan shall include measures to reduce any significant impacts to the paleontological resources by ensuring the fossil is appropriately recovered and curated. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, excavation and salvaging, identification, preparation, and curation of the fossil at a scientific institution. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the SVP (2010) standards. The City shall review and approve the data recovery plan, as appropriate, prior to excavation and salvaging of the fossil.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and CUL-4(b) would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would not result in impacts to historical resources. Further, the project is not nearby historic resources, and is not within a historic district; therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to historical resources.

The proposed project, in conjunction with other nearby planned, pending, and potential future projects in the City of Monterey (Table 3-1 of Section 3.0, Environmental Setting), could result in significant cumulative impacts to archaeological resources. Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain archaeological resources. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, above, Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would be implemented to ensure that unanticipated archaeological resources identified during construction are adequately mitigated. Similarly, cumulative projects are reviewed separately by the appropriate jurisdiction and undergo environmental review when it is determined that the potential for significant impacts

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 161, Packet Page 164 exists. In the event that future cumulative projects would result in impacts to known or unknown cultural resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for the proposed project. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. After implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

The project would involve ground disturbing activities which could encounter human remains. If human remains are found, the proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. With adherence to existing regulations relating to human remains, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the proposed project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative development could result in significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources.

Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas known to have high paleontological sensitivity. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, above, Mitigation Measure CUL-4(a) and CUL-4(b) would be implanted to ensure that impacts to potential paleontological resources would be less than significant. Further, as described above, in the event that future cumulative projects would result in impacts to paleontological resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for the proposed project. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

After implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-4(a) and CUL-4(b), the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 162, Packet Page 165

4.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section discusses the existing environmental setting, regulatory setting, and potential project impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. The background information and analysis in this section is based upon the City of Monterey General Plan Safety Element (City of Monterey 2005) and the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County of Monterey 2019). Databases queried include the following: the Hazardous Waste and Substances site “Cortese” list (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] 2022); the GeoTracker List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2022); a list of solid waste disposal sides identified by the SWRCB (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] 2022a); and a list of “active” Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement (CAO) sites (CalEPA 2022b).

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
a. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. The term “hazardous materials” is used in this section to generally describe chemical materials, such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated chemical materials. Additionally, the term “release” as used in this section includes known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of release of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk associated with planned development disturbing the release area. As discussed further below in Section 4.2.3.a, Methodology, several databases were searched to determine whether the project site is included on any list of known hazardous sites. Based on the database search results, it was determined that the project site is not listed on any lists of hazardous materials sites. b. Existing On-Site Structures
The project site is currently developed with a one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The existing motel and restaurant were constructed between 1945 and 1949. The motel has undergone several alterations throughout its history. In 1949 and 1952, the motel was renovated. In 1959, a two-story addition and kidney bean-shaped pool were constructed to the rear of the manager living quarters. In 1966 the living quarters, office, and dining area were converted to a restaurant. Between 1981 and 1982, the current office and living quarters were constructed at the southeast corner of the property. In 1984, the restaurant was altered again with a new storefront. Aerial images indicate that the pool was infilled in the early 2000s. Since then, the buildings have remained largely unchanged. The motel and restaurant are vacant and no longer in use.
c. Asbestos
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), asbestos is used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire retardant due to its durability and heat resistance. Most uses of asbestos are not banned in the United States (USEPA 2022a).

However, in 1973, the USEPA banned spray-applied surfacing asbestos-containing material for fireproofing/insulating purposes (USEPA 2022b). Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the disturbance of asbestos-containing material during product use and demolition work. Exposure to

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 163, Packet Page 166 asbestos could lead to harmful health effects and increased risk of developing lung disease (USEPA 2022a). As discussed above, the existing building was constructed between 1945 and 1949, with several improvements and alterations taking place through the early 2000s. Due to the age of the existing building, it is likely that the building includes asbestos-containing materials. d. Lead
Lead is a naturally occurring element that can be toxic to humans and animals, and lead exposure can result in health effects, especially in children. Lead and lead compounds have been used in a variety of consumer products, including paint, ceramics, pipes and plumbing materials, solders, gasoline, batteries, ammunition and cosmetics (USEPA 2022c). In 1978, consumer uses of leadbased paint were banned (USEPA 2022d). Since the existing motel and restaurant were constructed prior to 1978, there is potential for lead-based paints to be present. e. Mercury
Mercury exists in various forms, and potential for exposure occurs in different ways. According to the USEPA, the most common way people in the United States are exposed to mercury is by eating fish containing methylmercury. However, other exposures may result from using or breaking products containing mercury, such as fever thermometers. Potential sources of mercury on the project site include thermostats and electrical switches (USEPA 2022e). f. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Caulk containing potentially harmful polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB caulk) was commonly used in buildings constructed in the 1950s through the 1970s to seal the joints of brick, masonry, stone, and metal window frames (USEPA 2022f). Since the existing motel and restaurant were renovated and altered during that time period, there is potential for PCB caulk to be present in building materials. g. Airport Safety Hazards
The Monterey Regional Airport is located approximately 0.4-mile southeast of the project site. The Monterey Regional Airport provides commercial and general aviation access to the national air transportation system in support of business and leisure travel (Monterey Regional Airport 2022).

Aircraft flight operations specifications are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2022).

The primary hazard associated with land uses near the airport is the risk of aircraft incidents on approach and takeoff. According to the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is located with the Airport Influence Area, and specifically within Zone 3 - Inner Turning Zone (ITZ). The ITZ includes locations where aircraft are typically turning to the final approach leg and are descending. The ITZ also includes the area where departing aircraft normally complete the transition from takeoff power to a climb mode to get to their route. The accident risk level is considered moderate to high within the ITZ zones, comprising approximately seven percent of general aviation aircraft accidents. According to the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is not designated as a Noise Sensitive Institution and is not within Noise Contours (County of Monterey 2019).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 164, Packet Page 167

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the federal agency responsible for ensuring worker safety. OSHA regulations provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including those relating to hazardous materials handling (OSHA 2022a).

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (United States Code Section 2601, et seq) was passed by the United States Congress in 1976 and is administered by the USEPA to regulate the introduction of new or already existing chemicals. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the USEPA evaluates potential risks from new and existing chemicals and acts to address any unreasonable risks chemicals may have on human health and the environment (USEPA 2022g). The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act provides the USEPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures (USEPA 2022h).

The USEPA enforces the Toxic Substances Control Act through inspections of places in which asbestos-containing materials are manufactured, processed, and stored and through the assessment of administrative and civil penalties and fines, as well as injunctions against violators.

The Toxic Substances Control Act establishes a process by which public exposure to hazards may be reduced through manufacturing, distribution, use and disposal restrictions or labeling of products.

PCBs are hazardous materials regulated by the USEPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act. These regulations ban the manufacture of PCBs although the continued use of existing PCB-containing equipment is allowed. PCBs were formerly used in such applications as hydraulic fluids, plasticizers, adhesives, fire retardants, and electrical transformers, among others. The Toxic Substances Control Act also contains provisions controlling the continued use and disposal of existing PCB-containing equipment. The disposal of PCB wastes is also regulated by Toxic Substances Control Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 761), which contains life cycle provisions.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, USEPA has enacted strict requirements on the use, handling, and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. These regulations include the phasing out of friable asbestos and asbestos-containing materials in new construction materials beginning in 1979. In 1989, the USEPA banned most uses of asbestos in the country. Although most of the ban was overturned in 1991, the current banned product categories include corrugated paper, rollboard, commercial paper, specialty paper, flooring felt, and any new uses.

The Toxic Substances Control Act also establishes USEPA’s Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Evaluation Program regulations, which provide a framework for lead abatement, risk assessment, and inspections. Those performing these services are required to be trained and certified by USEPA.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 165, Packet Page 168 affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. Among other things, the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (USEPA 2022i).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted in 1980 and amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986. This law provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Among other things, CERCLA established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. CERCLA also enabled revision of the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

The National Contingency Plan also established the National Priorities List (USEPA 2022j).

Process Safety Management Standard
The OSHA Process Safety Management Standard includes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals for general industry and construction. Requirements of this standard include providing employees with information pertaining to hazardous chemicals, training employees on the operation of equipment with hazardous materials, and employer requirements to perform a process hazard analysis (OSHA 2022b).

National Incident Management System
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together to prevent, report to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property harm to the environment. The City participates in NIMS, which improves its ability to prepare for and respond to potential incidents and hazard scenarios (FEMA 2022).

Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
The United States Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads pursuant to its authority under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990. In California, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol enforce federal law. Together, these agencies determine driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications (OSHA 2022c).

Federal Air Regulations Part 77
Federal Air Regulations Part 77 states that all applicants proposing any construction or alterations that may affect navigable airspace must file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This notice allows the FAA to conduct an initial screening determination for applicable projects. The initial screening determination from the FAA may state one of the following:
 The project is not identified as an obstruction and would not be a hazard to air navigation; or

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 166, Packet Page 169  The project would be an obstruction unless reduced to a specified height and is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation pending further study.

If a proposed development is identified as a presumed hazard, the FAA may require further aeronautical study or allow the project to be revised to include a reduction in the height of the proposed improvements. After the FAA completes the additional aeronautical study, it will normally issue a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation or a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
b. State Regulations
Hazardous Waste Control Law
The DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law to regulate hazardous wastes. While the Hazardous Waste Control Law is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the USEPA approves the California program, both State and federal laws apply in California. The Hazardous Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

Government Code Section 65962.5
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, SWRCB, and CalEPA to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an application for any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included. If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceeded specific criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority. Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.

Cal/OSHA Title 8
Pursuant to the requirements of Cal/OSHA Title 8, employers must develop site-specific Health and Safety Plans. Workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in their workplace must be trained so that they are aware of the hazards and provided necessary protection from the hazardous materials.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 167, Packet Page 170 Hazardous Waste Management
Waste that is toxic, corrosive, flammable, or reactive must be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the regulations in California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, which are more stringent than federal regulations. c. Local Regulations
Monterey County Environmental Health Division
The Monterey County Environmental Health Division is responsible for managing the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in amounts over a specific threshold (the threshold varies among uses and types of materials). The Environmental Health Division keeps an inventory of hazardous materials users and is responsible for working with users to develop plans that ensure the materials are safely used, stored, transported, and disposed.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 424
The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) Rule 424, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) incorporates Title 40 CFR, Chapter I, Parts 61 and 63. Rule 424 regulates asbestos as a toxic material and controls the emissions of asbestos from demolition and renovation activities by specifying agency notifications, appropriate removal procedures, and handling and clean up procedures. Rule 424 applies to demolition or renovation of structures with asbestos-containing materials.

Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission
The Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is a seven-member commission created under the authority of California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utility Code Section 21670). The purpose of the commission is to ensure that new land uses near public use airports do not create excessive noise and safety hazards for the public. Development proposals in the vicinity of local airports are referred to the ALUC by governing jurisdictions for their input (ALUC 2022).

Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Development near the Monterey Regional Airport has the potential to create land use conflicts related to the safe operation of approaching and departing aircraft. The Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan provides polices and regulations aimed at reducing potential conflicts between the airport and surrounding uses. The plan establishes an Airport Influence Area, which includes portions of the cities of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Sand City, and unincorporated areas in Monterey County (County of Monterey 2019). The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area in the City. The plan includes the safety, noise, and height restriction policies and criteria to be used when considering land use developments within the vicinity of the Airport Influence Area. The Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is an update to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Monterey Regional Airport (County of Monterey 1987) and supersedes the CLUP in its entirety.

General Plan Safety Element
The City’s General Plan Safety Element identifies and describes the nature of potential seismic, geologic, flood, fire, aircraft, criminal, and emergency preparedness hazards within Monterey. The Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to aircraft hazards and hazardous

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 168, Packet Page 171 materials that are applicable to the proposed project. Goal and policy consistency related to other relevant hazard areas are discussed in Section 4.6, Effects Found Not to be Significant.

Goal e. Maximize aviation safety on and adjacent to the Monterey Airport.

Policy e.1. Support safety improvements to the Monterey Peninsula Airport and adjacent areas.

Program e.1.1. Review proposed buildings to ensure compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.

Policy e.4. In collaboration with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, review projects that may pose risks to the safe operation of the Monterey Peninsula Airport and mitigate such impacts through the development review process.

Policy e.5. Develop airport compatibility policies.

Policy e.6. Promote compatible land uses around the airport consistent with the airport safety zones.

Goal g. Review all applications for discretionary projects to evaluate proposed uses of hazardous materials. Require that projects which propose the use, handling, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous material incorporate actions to minimize hazards to public health and safety from such use and conform to the County of Monterey Environmental Health Department requirements for reporting and management of such materials.

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Project impacts are based upon the presence or potential presence of hazardous materials on or near the project site. The City of Monterey General Plan Safety Element (City of Monterey 2005) and the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County of Monterey 2019) were referenced for information related to hazards planning.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the following databases were queried to determine whether the project site is included on any list of known hazardous sites:
 Hazardous Waste and Substances site “Cortese” list (DTSC 2022) pursuant to Section 65962.5(a)(4)
 GeoTracker List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (SWRCB 2022) pursuant to Section 65962.5(c)(1)
 List of solid waste disposal sides identified by the SWRCB (CalEPA 2022a) pursuant to Section 65962.5(c)(2)
 List of “active” CDO and CAO sites (CalEPA 2022b) pursuant to Section 65962.5(c)(3) Lists are no longer compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(b) or (d); therefore, the search was limited to the databases listed above.
b. Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact to hazards and hazardous materials is considered significant if the project would:

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 169, Packet Page 172

1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;

2. 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;

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;

4. 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;

5. 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;

6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or

7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
a. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold 2: Would the project 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?
Impact HAZ-1 THE EXISTING ON-SITE MOTEL AND RESTAURANT, WHICH MAY CONTAIN ASBESTOS, LEAD,

MERCURY, AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CAULK, WOULD BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THE PROPOSED

PROJECT WHICH COULD RESULT IN THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IF NOT HANDLED, TRANSPORTED, AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Construction of the proposed hotel 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 the project 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, compliance with the Construction General Permit requires implementation of good housekeeping Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce risk of spills or leaks of hazardous materials used during construction (refer to Section 4.6.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with Goal g in the General Plan Safety Element, which requires City review of all applications for discretionary projects to evaluate proposed use, handling, storage, transportation, and/or disposal of hazardous material to minimize hazards to public health and

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 170, Packet Page 173 safety from such use. The project would also conform to the County of Monterey Environmental Health Department requirements related to reporting and management of hazardous materials.

Existing uses on the project site include a motel and restaurant, which are currently vacant and closed for business. The existing motel and restaurant, which was constructed between 1945 and 1949, would be demolished as part of the project. Hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury, and PCB caulk could be present in the existing on-site motel and restaurant and could be released into the environment if not handled, transported, and disposed of properly. If released, these hazardous materials could impact construction workers or others in the surrounding area, including nearby residential uses immediately north of the project site. Construction impacts associated with building demolition are potentially significant and mitigation is required. Although not required to reduce impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials, MBARD has provided a recommended measure pertaining to asbestos which the project applicant will implement to reduce air quality impacts related to asbestos (refer to MBARD Recommendation 4 in Section 4.6.3, Air Quality).

Operation of the project would involve transport, use, and disposal of nominal amounts of hazardous materials or wastes associated with hotel uses, such as commercial cleaning supplies (e.g., bleach, detergent) and landscaping products (e.g., fertilizer, pesticides) that could be potentially hazardous if handled improperly or ingested. However, these products are not considered acutely hazardous and are not generally considered unsafe. All storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during project operation would comply with applicable standards and instructions related to usage. Project compliance with the General Plan Safety Element and requirements imposed by the County of Monterey Environmental Health Department would further minimize impacts. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 Asbestos, Lead, Mercury, and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Caulk Abatement Prior to issuance of the first demolition permit, the applicant shall contract with a City-approved abatement specialist to conduct surveys that screen for the presence of asbestos, lead (especially lead-based paint), mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) caulk in the existing on-site building materials. If the surveys do not identify hazardous building materials, then additional mitigation is not required. If hazardous building materials are identified, the abatement specialist shall prepare an Abatement Report, which shall summarize the site-specific surveys and outline required abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials. The Abatement Report shall outline abatement measures for identified hazardous building materials to ensure that hazardous building materials are removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal standards including, but not limited to, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District Rule 424 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS]), the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Evaluation Program, the Toxic Substances Control Act (United States Code Title 15, Chapter 53, Section 2601, et seq. and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter R), and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal OSHA’s) asbestos and lead standards (Title 8 Section 1529 and 1532 of the Cal OSHA Regulations). Abatement measures may include but would not be limited to, hazardous materials containment, disposal at permitted facilities, segregation of hazardous materials from other waste, use of certified contractors for abatement, use of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 171, Packet Page 174 filtration or other engineering controls to prevent airborne dispersal of hazardous materials, and use of personal protective equipment during abatement. The Abatement Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Monterey Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first demolition permit. Recommendations in the approved Abatement Report shall be undertaken by abatement contractors that utilize safe work practices and shall be completed in accordance with timing requirements set forth in the Abatement Report. The applicant shall require contractors to include compliance with the Abatement Report in their demolition and/or construction contracts.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold 3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact HAZ-2 THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITH 0.25-MILE OF A SCHOOL. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of a school. The nearest schools are the Bay View Academy, which is located approximately 0.35 mile northwest of the project site, and the Santa Catalina School, which is located approximately 0.40 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because there would be no impact.

Threshold 4: Would the project 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? Impact HAZ-3 THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED ON ANY LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65962.5. THEREFORE, THE CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

As discussed above in Section 4.2.3.a, several databases were searched to determine whether the project site is included on any list of known hazardous sites. No listed hazardous material sites/facilities or active clean ups were identified on the project site (DTSC 2022, SWRCB 2022, CalEPA 2022a, CalEPA 2022b). Therefore, the project site is not listed on any lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and construction and operation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because there would be no impact.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 172, Packet Page 175 Threshold 5: 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, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact HAZ-4 THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO RESULT IN SAFETY HAZARDS

ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING HEIGHT AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING DUE TO PROXIMITY TO THE MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT. HOWEVER, PROJECT DESIGN AND COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING FAA REGULATIONS AND ALUC

RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO AIRPORT HAZARDS AND SAFETY WOULD ENSURE THE PROPOSED PROJECT

WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SAFETY HAZARD OR EXCESSIVE NOISE FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The Monterey Regional Airport is located approximately 0.4 mile southeast of the project site.

However, the project would not result in excessive noise that would pose a hazard for people residing or working in the project area due to proximity to the Monterey Regional Airport. As a proposed hotel development, the project would not be considered a sensitive receptor for noise.

Additionally, the project site is not designated as a Noise Sensitive Institution and is not within Noise Contours in the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County of Monterey 2019). Further, as discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts related to airport noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not result excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact related to noise hazards would occur.

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. The accident risk level is considered moderate to high within the ITZ zones, comprising approximately seven percent of general aviation aircraft accidents (County of Monterey 2019). Potential safety hazards associated with the proposed project include building height and exterior lighting. Due to the proximity of the project site to the Monterey Regional Airport, building height exceeding established regulations and bright exterior lighting could pose risks resulting in aircraft accidents. The existing motel and restaurant are one- to two-stories and have a maximum height of approximately 12 feet above grade. The proposed hotel development would be a maximum of four stories (three stores above grade and one story partially below grade) and would have a maximum height of 35 feet above grade. Although the proposed project would increase the building height on the project site by approximately 23 feet, the project would not be substantially taller than other development in the area. Surrounding development in the vicinity of the project site consists predominantly of one -story development. A few two-story developments exist in the vicinity of the project site, including the adjacent office building immediately to the east, a commercial building at the southwest corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, and a motel approximately 350 feet to the southeast. An existing three-story hotel is located approximately 200 feet east of the project site, which is developed at a similar scale and height as the proposed project. Additionally, existing telephone and electrical wires traversing North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way are a maximum height of approximately 35 feet, about the same height as the proposed hotel. Although the project would be built at a height that is taller than existing development in the area, the project would be similar in height as the surrounding telephone and electrical wires. Although not applicable to the project (which is required to comply with VAF zone development standards), the proposed hotel would be consistent with the North Fremont Specific Plan maximum height requirement of 35 feet for buildings located along North Fremont Street because the hotel would be 35 feet above grade as viewed from Fremont Street.

There are no maximum height requirements established by the VAF zone and therefore no maximum height requirement for the proposed hotel. Because the proposed hotel would be similar

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 173, Packet Page 176 in height as existing surrounding structures, the project would not result in safety hazards associated with height.

The proposed project would include a variety of exterior lighting fixtures, including wall-mounted light fixtures on the building’s façade, two bollard light fixtures in landscaping along Casa Verde Way, recessed lights providing downlighting along walkways and at doorways, and five polemounted lights providing downlighting throughout the surface parking lot. The project would result in new lighting sources associated with the proposed hotel and surface parking lot. However, the proposed lighting would be similar to existing lighting on the project site due to the existing uses, as well as in the surrounding area due to adjacent development. Pursuant to Section 38-124 of the Monterey City Code, proposed exterior lighting would either be hooded or recessed and directed downward so that the light source would not be visible off-site. Further, as discussed below in ALUC Recommendation 3, project lighting would be reviewed by the Monterey Regional Airport for compliance with lighting requirements and would be required to be approved prior to project implementation. As such, the project would not result in airport safety hazards associated with lighting.

The proposed project would comply with existing FAA and ALUC regulations related to airport hazards and safety. As discussed further in ALUC Recommendation 2, the project applicant would be required to file a Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA regional office at least 30 days prior to construction; based on project design, the FAA would then determine whether the project poses a hazard to air navigation and could request changes to project design to minimize those hazards, if any. The project has been reviewed by the ALUC, which found the proposed redevelopment of the project site with a new 25,000 square foot four-story hotel is consistent with Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Appendix I).

For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not result in excessive noise or a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although project impacts would be less than significant, the ALUC recommended the following measures which would be implemented by the applicant and would be conditions of approval for the proposed project, which would further minimize potential safety hazards for project occupants and employees:
 ALUC Recommendation 1: Aviation and Hazard Easement. Prior to finalization of the first construction permit for the project, the developer/owner shall grant an aviation and hazard easement to the appropriate airport authority. The easement shall be recorded at the Monterey County Recorder’s Office. The easement shall include the following, as applicable:
 Right-of-flight at any altitude above the acquired easement surfaces.  Right to cause noise, vibrations, fumes, dust and fuel particle emissions.  Right to prevent construction or growth of all structures, objects or natural growth above the acquired easement surfaces.
 Right-of-entry to remove, mark or light any structures or growth above the acquired easement surfaces, or right to require the owner to remove, mark or light.  Right to prohibit creation of electrical interference, unusual light sources and other hazards to aircraft flight.
 Any other limitation the appropriate airport authority may recommend to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 174, Packet Page 177  ALUC Recommendation 2: Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The project shall conform to FAR, Part 77 – Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The developer shall submit a FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction of Alteration). The developer shall notify the staff of the Monterey Regional Airport when the form is submitted and when a determination is provided by the FAA.
 ALUC Recommendation 3: Exterior Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a construction permit, an Exterior Lighting Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the applicable airport manager prior to the issuance of any construction permits. All exterior lighting shall be unobtrusive, down-lit, harmonious with the local area, and constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.
 ALUC Recommendation 4: Towers – Marking and Lighting. When not specifically required by FAA Advisory Circular 70/7640-IF (Obstruction Marking and Lighting), the following ALUC recommendations shall be applied to towers:
 A flashing red beacon shall be installed at the highest point of the structure.  ALUC Recommendation 5: Change of Use. In the future, if new development or a change of building use is proposed on the subject parcel that would potentially intensify the occupancy level, then the proposed change(s) shall be submitted to the ALUC for a subsequent, projectspecific consistency determination.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-5 NORTH FREMONT STREET PROVIDES ACCESS TO MAJOR EVACUATION ROUTES IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT. DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT

WOULD NOT IMPAIR ACCESS TO OR ALTER NORTH FREMONT STREET, AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE OR EVACUATION PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The City of Monterey General Plan Safety Element identifies emergency evacuation routes throughout the city. Map 15 of the City’s General Plan shows that North Fremont Street, along which the project site is located, serves as access to major evacuation routes, including State Route 1, State Route 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, 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. 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 impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 175, Packet Page 178 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold 7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Impact HAZ-6 THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN AN URBANIZED AREA AND IS NOT ADJACENT TO ANY WILDLAND AREAS. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES, AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

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 in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to any wildland areas. 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 has a slope of approximately 10 percent, 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. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.

Refer to Section 4.6, Effects Found Not to be Significant, under “Wildfire” for further discussion related to wildfire impacts.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Generally, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with individual developments are site specific in nature and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As such, the geographic scope for hazardous materials impacts is the project site and immediately surrounding parcels. Since hazards and hazardous materials are required to be examined as part of the permit application and environmental review process, potential impacts associated with individual projects will be adequately addressed prior to permit approval. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant. The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts because hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead, mercury, and PCB caulk, could be present in the existing on-site motel and restaurant and could be released into the environment if not handled, transported, and disposed of properly. However, with adherence to existing regulatory standards for hazardous materials, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, project-specific impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

The geographic scope for cumulative safety hazards impacts is inclusive of projects within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area. Several cumulative projects listed within Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, are within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area,

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 176, Packet Page 179 thereby potentially exposing persons to risk of airport safety hazards. However, these projects are subject to review of airport-related hazards during the environmental review process and by the FAA and ALUC, which would ensure that development does not impose an aviation-related hazard on structures or people. Therefore, cumulative airport safety impacts would be less than significant.

Potential safety hazards associated with the proposed project include building height and exterior lighting. However, the proposed project would be reviewed by the FAA and ALUC to ensure building design would not pose significant safety hazards; project lighting would be required to be approved prior to project implementation, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the incremental increase in airport safety hazards at the project site would be negligible and would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to safety hazards.

The geographic scope for cumulative wildland fire hazard impacts is inclusive of projects within the City. As shown in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, several projects are located with

2.8 miles of the project site and are comprised of residential, commercial, medical, and mixed-use developments. None of the cumulative projects fall within a FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007). Therefore, cumulative wildland fire hazard impacts would be less than significant. The project site is in an urbanized area, is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and is surrounded by existing development; large tracts of wildland fuels, such as forest or brushland, do not occur on or near the project site.

As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to wildland fire hazards.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 177, Packet Page 180 This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 178, Packet Page 181

4.3 Land Use and Planning
This section identifies existing land uses on the project site and in its vicinity and analyzes the consistency of the proposed project with surrounding land uses and relevant policy and planning documents. Information presented in this section is based on the Monterey General Plan Land Use Element (City of Monterey 2005), the Zoning Ordinance (Monterey City Code Chapter 38), and the North Fremont Specific Plan (City of Monterey 2014). Land use compatibility conflicts associated with the proposed project are discussed in other sections of this EIR, including Section 4.2, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.4, Noise, and Section 4.6, Effects Found Not to be Significant.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
a. Land Uses Within the City
The City of Monterey (City) is an urbanized, coastal community located along the Pacific Ocean in the northernmost portion of the County of Monterey. The largest land use category in the City is residential, with single-family homes occupying the majority of residential land. In 1994, the City’s zoning standards were amended to encourage mixed commercial and residential use in commercial zones. Commercial areas are now a primary site for new housing, featuring mixed and multi-family residential uses. Commercial areas in the City have a variety of amenities, access to services, jobs, and transportation, and public infrastructure which are compatible with residential use. The main commercial areas in the City include the following: the Downtown area, focused around three blocks of Alvarado Street; the Del Monte Regional Shopping Center; commercial development along Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, and North Fremont Street; visitor commercial areas, including Downtown, Cannery Row, Fisherman's Wharf, and Munras Avenue; and medical offices concentrated near Pacific Street, El Dorado Street, and Cass Street. b. Project Site and Surround Land Uses
The project site is currently developed with a one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The existing motel and restaurant are not currently open for business. Surrounding land uses near the project site are generally characterized by residential and commercial uses, with several hotels nearby. As depicted in Figure 2-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project site is bounded by residential uses to the north, northwest, and northeast; a gas station, florist, and hotel to the west; an office building, restaurant, and hotel to the east; hotels and commercial uses to the southwest and southeast; and hotels, a night club, and an adult theatre/bookstore to the south with the Monterey County Fairgrounds beyond. Casa Verde Way is directly west of the project site and North Fremont Street is directly south of the project site.

As shown in Figure 4.3-1, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, which allows retail, visitor commercial, and professional office uses. Surrounding General Plan Land Use designations in the vicinity of the project site include Commercial, Low and Medium Density Residential, and Public. As shown in Figure 4.3-2, the project site is zoned Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), as defined by the City’s Zoning Map. Surrounding zoning designations in the vicinity of the project site include VAF, Planned Community, and Single-Family and Multifamily Medium Density Residential.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 179, Packet Page 182 Figure 4.3-1 General Plan Land Use Map of Project Site and Surrounding Area

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 180, Packet Page 183 Figure 4.3-2 Zoning Map of Project Site and Surrounding Area

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 181, Packet Page 184

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
Planning and Zoning Law
State law requires each city and county in California to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the land within its planning area (Government Code Sections 65300-65404). The general plan must contain land use, housing, circulation, open space, conservation, noise, and safety elements, as well as any other elements that the city or county may wish to adopt. The circulation element of a local general plan must be correlated with the land use element.

Zoning authority originates from city and county police power and from the State’s Planning and Zoning Law, which sets minimum requirements for local zoning ordinances. The city or county zoning code is the set of detailed requirements that implement the general plan policies at the level of the individual parcel. The zoning code presents standards for different uses and identifies which uses are allowed in the various zoning districts of the jurisdiction. b. Local Regulations
Monterey General Plan
The Monterey General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term plan for physical development of the City, and was adopted by the City Council in January 2005, with the exception of the Housing Element, which was most recently updated and adopted by the City Council in March 2016. The Monterey General Plan includes the following elements: Urban Design; Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Conservation; Open Space; Safety; Noise; Economic; Social; Historic Preservation; and Public Facilities. The Land Use and Housing Elements, which contain goals, objectives, and policies that are applicable to the project, are discussed in further detail below. Project consistency with other General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to the other resource areas considered in this EIR is addressed throughout the various subsections of Section 4.0, as applicable.

LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element is a summary of the expected future land use in Monterey, consistent with the goals, policies, and programs in the other elements of the City’s General Plan. The main component of the Land Use Element is the Land Use Plan Map, which illustrates the land use implications of all elements of the General Plan. The plan is divided into five land use categories:

Residential; Public/Semi-public; Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; Industrial; and Commercial.

According to Monterey’s Land Use Plan Map, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, which allows hotel uses.

The Land Use Element supports mixed-use neighborhoods, which are areas designed to be well served by transit and bicycle routes and have a welcoming pedestrian environment. North Fremont Street, including the project site, is considered a mixed-use neighborhood. The Land Use Element includes the following goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project.

Goal a. Maintain a Land Use Plan Map to guide future development and land use.

Policy a.1. Implement the Land Use Plan using the Land Use Plan Map (Figure 3) and the following land use categories:

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 182, Packet Page 185 Commercial. This category applies to all types of commercial areas and allows the full range of commercial uses, including retail, office, visitor commercial and professional offices.

Commercial areas are also a primary resource for new housing in mixed use or apartment developments. The maximum allowed residential density in the commercial designations is 30 dwelling units per acre. However, higher density projects may be allowed under certain circumstances as defined in the zoning ordinance, specific plans, or area plans.

Note: Goal b-4, b-5, and b-7, above, are not applicable to the proposed project.

Policy b.1. Create implementation tools, such as specific plans, to include design concepts, development guidelines, and capital improvement programs for mixed use neighborhoods.

Emphasize attractive pedestrian, bicycle and transit access, which may require improved sidewalks, crosswalks, and various public way improvements. The City encourages owner occupied units, innovative site planning and tailoring the design and density to fit with the neighborhood. Mixed use developments are encouraged to be attractive in design, hide parking from the street, share parking, create a pleasant pedestrian environment, and provide a transition into the residential zones through good site planning and design.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The primary role of the Circulation Element is to provide policy guidance for planning and implementing the transportation system needed to serve proposed development as defined in the land-use element of the General Plan. The transportation system affects the growth patterns, environment, and quality of life of Monterey’s residents and workers. Much of Monterey’s charm for both residents and visitors springs from its historic buildings, irregular street pattern, old plazas, and waterfront views. Trying to solve traffic problems by simply widening roads will negatively impact the quality of life that residents enjoy. Building expensive parking improvements to serve peak seasonal demand will lead to facilities being underutilized most of the year when demand is not at peak. This element’s policies and programs are intended to reduce the overall duration and frequency of traffic congestion and parking shortages without relying on expansive infrastructure projects.

The primary role of the Circulation Element is to provide policy guidance for planning and implementing the transportation system needed to serve proposed development as defined in the land-use element of the General Plan. The transportation system affects the growth patterns, environment, and quality of life of Monterey’s residents and workers. As noted in the Element, much of Monterey’s charm for both residents and visitors stems from its historic buildings, irregular street pattern, old plazas, and waterfront views. Solving traffic problems by widening roads would

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 183, Packet Page 186 negatively impact the quality of life that residents enjoy, and building expensive parking improvements to serve peak seasonal demand would lead to facilities being underutilized most of the year when demand is not at peak (City of Monterey 2005). This element’s policies and programs are intended to reduce the overall duration and frequency of traffic congestion and parking shortages without relying on expansive infrastructure projects. The Circulation Element includes the following program that is applicable to the proposed project.

Program j.2.1. Define the traffic impact study area to be analyzed as all roadway segments where project traffic is expected to increase the existing traffic by two percent (2%) or more.

Monterey Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance (Monterey City Code Chapter 38) is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare. All property within Monterey City limits, both public and private, is subject to zoning regulations. According to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the project site is zoned VAF. Uses permitted in the VAF zoning district include commercial uses, VAFs and limited-occupancy VAFs, and accessory uses. Examples of accessory uses include limited retail, such as for the sale of candy, magazines, and sundries; beauty and barber shops; recreation facilities to serve the public, guests, and employees; living accommodations for a manager or caretaker; facilities for conferences and meetings; commercial restaurant businesses; clothes and cleaning pick up agencies; and other visitor sales and services when related to and developed as an accessory use to a VAF. As required by Section 8.1 of the City of Monterey Charter, VAF zone requirements apply to VAF zoned properties rather than specific plan requirements.

North Fremont Specific Plan
The North Fremont Specific Plan serves as a guide for future development along North Fremont Street, an area designated by the City’s General Plan for mixed-use. The North Fremont Specific Plan assumes new development of up to 130 dwelling units and 50,000 square feet of commercial use in the plan area. Although the project site is located within the plan area, the specific plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines do not apply to the project. Instead, as required by Section 8.1 of the City of Monterey Charter, the project is regulated by VAF zone requirements, as discussed above.

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Land use impacts were evaluated based upon the consistency of the proposed project with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations included in the Monterey General Plan Land Use Element (City of Monterey 2005), the Zoning Ordinance (Monterey City Code Chapter 38), and the North Fremont Specific Plan (City of Monterey 2014).
b. Significance Thresholds
Significance criteria found in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provide the means to identify where potentially significant impacts might occur. In accordance with the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a significant impact if it would:

Physically divide an established community; or

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 184, Packet Page 187 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. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact LU-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE WITH A 42-ROOM HOTEL AND WOULD NOT ALTER THE EXISTING PUBLIC STREET LAYOUT OR ACCESS TO ANY EXISTING ADJACENT LAND USES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY AND NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

The project site is currently developed with an existing one-story, 18-room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. Surrounding land uses near the project site are generally characterized by residential and commercial uses, with several hotels nearby. North Fremont Street is an urbanized, commercial corridor.

The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an airport, roadway, or railroad track) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility. The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing on-site motel and restaurant and construction of a 42-room hotel and surface parking lot. 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, at the corner of North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way, with hardscaping designed to provide improved pedestrian circulation near the intersection. All improvements proposed as part of the project would be restricted within the boundaries of the project site.

Implementation of the proposed project would not alter the existing public street layout or access to any existing adjacent land uses. The project would improve circulation on and through the project site and would not introduce any physical barriers, such as high-capacity roadways or other major infrastructure, that could divide an established community. Further, the proposed project would not involve the removal of any means of access that could impair mobility within the existing local community or between the community and adjacent areas. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to the physical division of an established community, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because there would be no impact.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 185, Packet Page 188 Threshold 2: Would the project 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?
Impact LU-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

DUE TO A CONFLICT WITH THE MONTEREY GENERAL PLAN, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OR THE NORTH FREMONT SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The Monterey General Plan includes goals and policies which apply to the project. Table 4.3-1 considers the project’s consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element. Only goals and policies relevant and applicable to the project are included. The project is determined to be either “consistent” or “inconsistent” with the identified goals and policies. The project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified plans if it meets the general intent of the applicable plans and does not conflict with any directly applicable policies. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy nor does State law require precise conformity of a proposed project with every policy or land use designation. Courts have also acknowledged that general and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests, and that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. For an impact to be considered significant, any inconsistency would also have to result in a significant adverse change in the environment not already addressed in the other resource chapters of this EIR. As discussed in Table 4.3-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element.

Table 4.3-1 General Plan Land Use Consistency Table
Goals and Policies Consistency Determination
Land Use Element
Goal a. Maintain a Land Use Plan Map to guide future
development and land use.

Policy a.1. Implement the Land Use Plan using the
Land Use Plan Map (Figure 3) and the following
land use categories:

Commercial. This category applies to all types of
commercial areas and allows the full range of
commercial uses, including retail, office, visitor
commercial and professional offices. Commercial
areas are also a primary resource for new housing
in mixed use or apartment developments. The
maximum allowed residential density in the
commercial designations is 30 dwelling units per
acre. However, higher density projects may be
allowed under certain circumstances as defined in
the zoning ordinance, specific plans, or area plans.

Consistent. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of the project site with a new, 42-room hotel development that would replace the existing 18-room motel and 134-seat restaurant. The proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Commercial, and no General Plan amendment would be
necessary. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Goal a and Policy a.1.

Goal b. Direct future population growth into mixed use
neighborhoods. The City's goal is to create and nurture mixed use neighborhoods that:
1) Reduce automobile trips;
2) Improve the quality of the pedestrian
experience;
3) Create walkable neighborhoods;
4) Provide more ownership opportunities;
Consistent. North Fremont Street, including the project site, is considered a mixed-use neighborhood. The project site’s location along a high-quality transit corridor1 and near Class II and Class IV bicycle lanes2 would encourage alternative forms of transportation among hotel guests and employees and could reduce automobile trips (Goal b-1). The proposed project involves the redevelopment of an underutilized
parcel, which would improve the existing pedestrian
experience of the project site as compared to the existing condition. Landscaping would be installed at several

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 186, Packet Page 189 Goals and Policies Consistency Determination
5) Increase the stock of housing affordable to
Monterey's work force;
6) Require high-quality design to complement
Monterey's image; and
7) Improve neighborhood-oriented services.

Note: Goal b-4, b-5, and b-7, above, are not applicable to the proposed project.
locations adjacent to the sidewalk along 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 building design would feature entryways and columns and would be oriented toward pedestrians on
North Fremont Street (Goals b-2 and b-3).

The building design would be characterized by a
contemporary architectural style with various aesthetic elements, including multi-level roof lines, building
articulation, entryways, columns, a tower element, and
canopies and awnings. The building would feature a variety of materials, including wood-like cement siding, aluminum siding and windows, painted stucco, stone veneer, and metal fixtures. Project design requires approval through the City’s Architectural Review Committee, which would promote the incorporation of high-quality design elements, as deemed appropriate (Goal b-6).

For the reasons stated above, the proposed project is
consistent with Goal b.

Policy b.1. Create implementation tools, such as
specific plans, to include design concepts, development guidelines, and capital improvement programs for
mixed use neighborhoods. Emphasize attractive
pedestrian, bicycle and transit access, which may
require improved sidewalks, crosswalks, and various
public way improvements. The City encourages owner
occupied units, innovative site planning and tailoring
the design and density to fit with the neighborhood.

Mixed use developments are encouraged to be
attractive in design, hide parking from the street, share parking, create a pleasant pedestrian environment, and
provide a transition into the residential zones through good site planning and design.

Consistent. 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. However, the proposed project would comply with the VAF zone development standards in the
City’s Zoning ordinance. Although the proposed project is not mixed-use, it complies with many of the policies related to mixed-use projects. The project site is located along a high-quality transit corridor and near Class II and Class IV bicycle lanes, providing nearby transit access for visitors to and employees of the hotel. As discussed above, the
proposed project would incorporate attractive, high-quality design and would improve the pedestrian experience along North Fremont Street. The proposed surface parking lot
would be located behind the proposed hotel building and would be generally situated away from North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. The project would also include a fivefoot-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.

Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policy b-1.

Circulation Element
Program j.2.1. Define the traffic impact study area to
be analyzed as all roadway segments where project
traffic is expected to increase the existing traffic by two percent (2%) or more.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.6.3, the project would increase vehicle trips on nearby roadway segments by
approximately 1.8 percent, which is less than the threshold requiring preparation of a traffic study. Regardless, a Traffic Analysis (Appendix H-1) was prepared for the project which analyzes Level of Service for roadways within the traffic impact study area.

Source: Monterey 2005
1 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. 2 Class II bicycle lanes are established along streets and are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a lane for bicycle travel. Class IV bicycle lanes, often referred to as protected bicycle lanes, are lanes physically separated from motor traffic for the exclusive use of bicycles (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2017).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 187, Packet Page 190 The Monterey Zoning Ordinance includes development standards for properties zoned VAF, including requirements related to minimum site area, minimum yards, and maximum lot coverage.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Effects Found Not to be Significant, under “Aesthetics”, the proposed project would comply with the VAF zone development standards.

As discussed previously, 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 (Appendix B). 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.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the Monterey General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or the North Fremont Specific Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because this impact would be less than significant.

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative land use and planning impacts is Monterey. This geographic scope is appropriate because the City limits represent the planning area for the Monterey General Plan.

Cumulative development projects would be required to meet current applicable design standards and would undergo environmental review, including consideration of whether future projects would physically divide an established community. With these considerations prior to project approval, cumulative impacts related to dividing an established community would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact LU-1, the project would result in no impact related to the physical division of an established community. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to division of an established community.

Cumulative projects would be required to adhere to applicable General Plan policies and zoning regulations in order to mitigate environmental impacts where feasible. In addition, all future projects would be reviewed for consistency with General Plan policies and zoning regulations prior to approval. Therefore, it is anticipated that cumulative projects would be found consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations prior to approval, such that the projects would not cause a significant cumulative environmental impact due to a conflict. Cumulative impacts related to land use conflicts would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact LU-2, the project would be consistent with the applicable local goals, objectives, and policies in Monterey General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project’s contribution to this less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 188, Packet Page 191

4.4 Noise
This section analyzes the project’s potential noise impacts. The analysis contains a description of the existing noise setting, and a discussion of both the temporary noise impacts related to construction activity and long-term impacts associated with project operations.

The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Environmental Noise Study prepared for the project by Salter in August 2021 and the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared for the project by Salter in April 2023 (see Appendices D-1 and D-2, respectively). 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.

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
a. Overview of Sound Measurement
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). 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).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; reducing the energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease (Crocker 2007).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Crocker 2007).

Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). 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 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

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 189, Packet Page 192 the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric spreading of the source. 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). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can substantially alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours; it is also measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA. The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night.

Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60-plus CNEL range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65- dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).
b. Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 190, Packet Page 193 environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is impacted by vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.

However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may actually amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV). The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020). c. Existing Noise Setting
Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Sensitive receivers are defined as places where noise could interfere with regular activities such as sleeping, talking, and recreating, which include hospitals, residences, convalescent homes, schools, churches, libraries, and religious institutions. Noise sensitive receivers near the project site include multi-family residences, the Mahroom Apartments adjacent to the project site boundary to the north, multi-family and single-family residences to the north, multi-family residences to the northeast, and single-family residences to the west.

Vibration sensitive receivers are similar to noise sensitive receivers, such as residences, and institutional uses, such as schools, churches, and hospitals. However, vibration sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment, affected by levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance. The closest vibrationsensitive receivers are the Mahroom Apartments adjacent to the project site boundary to the north.

Project Noise Setting
The most common source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic from North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. To characterize ambient noise levels at and near the project site, two continuous long-term noise measurements and one short-term (15 minute) noise measurement were conducted between August 2 and 4, 2021 as part of the Environmental Noise Study (Salter 2021). Short-term noise measurement-1 (ST-1) was taken at the center of the project site in front of the existing on-site motel building, Long-term noise measurement-1 (LT-1) was taken along Casa Verde Way at the driveway entrance to the Mahroom Apartments, and LT-2 was taken along North Fremont Boulevard at the driveway entrance to the State Farm Insurance building east of the project site. Table 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-2 summarize the results of the noise measurements. Based on the results in Table 4.4-1 and Table 4.4-2, ambient noise levels at the project site range from 60 to 72 dBA CNEL.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 191, Packet Page 194 Table 4.4-1 Project Site Noise Monitoring Results – Short Term Measurement
Location Measurement Location
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source Leq (dBA)
CNEL
(dBA)
ST 1 Center of the project site in front of
the existing on-site motel building
Approximately 130 feet to centerline
of North Fremont Boulevard
57 60
Source: Salter 2021 (Appendix D-1)
Table 4.4-2 Project Site Noise Monitoring Results – Long Term Measuremen
t Location Measurement Location
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source Leq (dBA)
CNEL
(dBA)
LT 1 Along Casa Verde Way at the driveway
entrance to Mahroom Apartments
Approximately 20 feet from the
centerline of Casa Verde Way
68 68
LT-2 Along North Fremont Boulevard at the
driveway entrance to the State Farm
Insurance building east of the project
site
Approximately 50 feet from the
centerline of North Fremont Street
69 72
Source: Salter 2021 (Appendix D-1)

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no applicable federal regulations related to noise or vibration. b. State Regulations
California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. California law requires each county and city to adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element prepared based on guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. CEQA requires known environmental effects of a project to be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

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 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.

The 2016 State of California’s Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for nonresidential 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 nonEXHIBIT A Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 192, Packet Page 195 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).

California General Plan Guidelines
The California General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicate acceptable, specific land use types in areas with specific noise exposure. The guidelines also offer adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. These guidelines are advisory, and local jurisdictions have the responsibility to set specific noise standards based on local conditions. Please refer to the discussion below, under the City of Monterey General Plan, for the compatibility guidelines adopted by the City. c. Local Regulations
City of Monterey General Plan
The City of Monterey General Plan Noise Element was adopted in January 2005. The goals and policies of the General Plan Noise Element are intended to provide information concerning noise that may be effectively considered in the land use planning process, develop strategies for abating excessive noise exposures to avoid incompatible land uses, and to protect the quality of life in neighborhoods by limiting intrusive noise. The General Plan Noise Element contains a noise exposure standards table (Table 4.4-3) and a land use and noise compatibility standards table adopted from 1998 State of California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements. The noise standards table specifies maximum noise exposures up to specified levels to be “normally acceptable” for various land uses, as shown in Table 4.4-3. The land use and noise compatibility table provides normally acceptable, conditionally unacceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise standards for land use categories. The following goal and policy are applicable to the proposed project and impacts related to noise:

GOAL d. Allow new construction only where existing or projected noise levels are acceptable or can [be] mitigated.

Policy d.12. Limit hours of noise generating construction activities. Include this requirement as a condition of project approval.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 193, Packet Page 196 Table 4.4-3 Noise Exposure Standards
Noise Exposure Land Use Standard
Above 75 CNEL All land in this category should be under airport ownership and control.

CNEL 64-74 Soundproof (insulate) existing residences, schools, and other noise sensitive development to achieve interior noise levels of CNEL 45 or below.

Require adequate sound insulation for all new residential and other noise sensitive development in areas exposed to noise levels from CNEL 65-69. Avoid areas exposed to noise levels above CNEL 70 for new residential or noise sensitive development unless abated.

CNEL 60-64 Require acoustical studies of proposed new residential and other noise sensitive development. Require sound insulation as necessary to achieve interior noise levels of CNEL 45 or below.

Source: Adopted from Table 8: Noise Exposure Standards, City of Monterey General Plan Noise Element.

Monterey North Fremont Specific Plan
The North Fremont Specific Plan (Specific Plan) was adopted on April 1, 2014, and was last amended on August 17, 2016. The Specific Plan serves as a guide for future development along North Fremont Street. Chapter 4, Figure 3 of the Specific Plan identifies nearby residential land uses as noisesensitive and specifies that these are to receive “special consideration during site and building designs for new development along North Fremont.” While the Specific Plan policies do not apply to VAF-zoned sites, the City continues to consider project-related noise for all projects within its jurisdiction.

City of Monterey Municipal Code
The City of Monterey Municipal Code provides the following noise, vibration, and construction standards that are relevant to the analysis:

Section 38-111. Performance Standards.

A. Noise. All uses and activities shall comply with the provisions of the Monterey Noise Regulations (Sections 22 17 and 22 18). Decibel levels shall be compatible with neighboring uses, and no use shall create ambient noise levels which exceed the following standards in Table 4.4-4:

Table 4.4-4 Maximum Noise Standards by Zoning District
Zone of Property Receiving Noise Maximum Decibel Noise Level (dBA) OS Open Space District 60
R Residential Districts 60
PS Public and Semi Public District 60
C Commercial District 65
I Industrial Districts 70
PD Planned Development Study Required
Source: City of Monterey Municipal Code Section 38-111.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 194, Packet Page 197

1. Duration and Timing. The noise standards above shall be modified as follows to account for the effects of time and duration on the impact of noise levels:
a. In R districts, the noise standard shall be 5 dB lower between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of five minutes in any hour may exceed the standards above by 5 dB.
c. Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of one minute in any hour may exceed the standards above by 10 dB.

2. Director May Require Acoustic Study. The Community Development Director may require an acoustic study for any proposed projects which could have, or create, a noise exposure greater than that deemed acceptable. (Ord. 3472 § 1, 2012).

3. Noise Measurement. Noise shall be measured at an appropriate distance from the source with a sound level meter, which meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section S1.4 1979, Type 1 or Type 2). Noise levels shall be measured in decibels. The unit of measurement shall be designated as dB. A calibration check shall be made of the instrument at the time any noise measurement is made.

4. Noise Attenuation Measures. The Community Development Director may require the incorporation into a project of any noise attenuation measures deemed necessary to ensure that noise standards are not exceeded. (Ord. 3653 § 19, 2022; Ord. 3472 § 1, 2012).

B. Vibration. No use, activity, or process shall produce vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of a site.

For the purposes of CEQA, the City is using a vibration threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for continuous construction sources and 0.5 in/sec PPV for transient construction sources per Caltrans 2020 recommendations.

Section 38-112.2 Limitation on Construction Hours.

A. Construction Hours. The hours for all construction, alteration, remodeling, demolition and repair activities which are authorized by a valid City Building Permit, as well as the delivery and removal of materials and equipment associated with these activities, are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday.

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction noise was estimated using the FTA general assessment method and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The FTA general assessment method assumes that all equipment is operating at the center of the project. The site is approximately 125 feet wide (north to south property lines). Therefore, 62.5 feet (125 divided by 2) was used as the distance to calculate noise transfer to the north property line (abutting the Mahroom Apartments).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 195, Packet Page 198 Groundborne Vibration
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Thus, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate ground-borne vibration affecting nearby receptors, especially during grading and paving of the project site. The greatest vibratory source during construction in the project vicinity would be a roller used during grading. Neither blasting nor pile driving would be required for construction of the project. Construction vibration estimates are based on vibration levels reported by the FTA (FTA 2018). Table 4.4-5 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).

Table 4.4-5 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.21
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003
PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: FTA 2018
Operational Noise Sources
The noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of hotel projects, such as heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) equipment, landscape maintenance, and parking lot noise.

The primary on-site operational noise sources from the project would originate from HVAC units and parking lot noise. The hotel HVAC systems will include Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) units for the guestrooms, rooftop exhaust fans for the bathrooms, and split system rooftop condensing units for the public spaces. A typical HVAC system for a hotel project typically generates noise levels ranging up to 75 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (Salter 2023). The HVAC units would be rooftop-mounted units that would be screened by a parapet wall. Parking lot activity noise (e.g., car doors, driving vehicles, engine starting) could generate noise levels between approximately 55 dBA and 70 dBA at a distance of five feet (Salter 2023).

Traffic Noise
Existing noise affecting the project site is primarily from traffic on North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way. Project traffic noise increases were estimated using the average daily traffic (ADT) data provided in the Traffic Analysis (see Appendix H) prepared by TJKM for the project (TJKM 2023) and CadnaA 3D noise modeling conducted as part of the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Salter 2023). CadnaA noise modeling involved digitizing roadways, buildings, receivers, and the proposed wall along the northern property line. An existing model run was conducted based on the existing site layout without the proposed wall and existing traffic conditions. A future model run was conducted with future traffic volumes and the proposed project building layout which would reduce traffic noise shielding compared with existing conditions. The future model run also included the proposed stucco wall on top of the retaining wall along the north property line, as described in Section 2.5.5, Retaining Walls, in Chapter 2, Project Description. The estimated traffic

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 196, Packet Page 199 noise increase is the difference between the future model run and the existing model run at the modeled receiver points. See Appendix D-2 for additional details on CadnaA modeling methodology and Appendix B of the Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Salter 2023) for CadnaA modeling coordinates and inputs.

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. b. Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines considers a project to have a significant noise impact if the project would result in:

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;
Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; and/or 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.

Construction Noise
Project construction noise is evaluated using the FTA’s general assessment noise analysis threshold of 90 dBA Leq over 1 hour (Leq(h)).

Construction Vibration
Construction vibration is to be compared to the thresholds for potential building damage to historic and some old buildings, as shown in Table 4.4-6. To assess potential annoyance to sensitive receivers, the Caltrans-recommended limit of 0.04 in/sec PPV is used, which is the vibration level considered to be distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2020).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 197, Packet Page 200 Table 4.4-6 Vibration Thresholds for Potential Damage to Structures Maximum PPV (inches/second)
Structure and Condition Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Caltrans 2020
On-site Stationary Operational Noise
The City has adopted maximum noise levels by zoning district in the Municipal Code regulating operational noise sources in the City. The project would result in a significant impact if noise from project HVAC equipment and parking lot activities (primary project stationary operational noise source) exceeds the maximum noise levels shown in Table 4.4-4.

Traffic Noise
A project would have a significant effect on the environment related to traffic noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels in the area around the project. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually undetectable. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment. 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. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in 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?
Impact NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WOULD TEMPORARILY INCREASE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS, WHICH COULD EXCEED APPLICABLE STANDARDS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Construction activities such as demolition, grading, utilities installation, foundation construction, and building construction on the project site would temporarily increase noise levels at noisesensitive receivers in the project site vicinity. Exposure to construction noise would depend on the

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 198, Packet Page 201 type of construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction would involve the use of mobile equipment (e.g., backhoes and loaders) and stationary equipment (e.g., pumps). As described under Section

4.4.3a, Methodology, the FTA general assessment method assumes that all equipment is operating at the center of the project site and construction noise was calculated at a distance of 62.5 feet to the north property line (abutting the Mahroom Apartments). Table 4.4-7 identifies the expected noise levels measured from the center of the project site based on the two noisiest pieces of equipment during each phase of construction.

Table 4.4-7 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase Construction Phase Equipment
1 hour Leq at Project Center
(62.5 feet) dBA
Demolition, Excavation,
and Grading
Excavator, hoe ram, dump truck, saw cutter, loader,
sheep’s foot compactor, backhoe,10-wheel truck, delivery truck
91 Utilities Excavator, loader, sheep’s foot compactor, backhoe, 10- wheel truck, concrete truck, delivery truck, boom pump, line pump, compactor
85 Foundation Excavator, backhoe, loader, 10-wheel truck, concrete truck, boom pump, line pump, compactor, gradall forklift, truss crane, delivery truck
86 Building Exterior Rooftop crane, boomlift, stucco pump, delivery truck 86 Building Interior Gypcrete pump, gradall forklift, delivery truck 83 Hardscape and
Landscape
Skid steer loader, 10-wheel truck, paving machine, roller, concrete truck, line pump, delivery truck
86 Source: Salter 2023 (Appendix D-2)
As shown in Table 4.4-7, construction noise could be as high as 91 dBA Leq(h) at the nearest sensitive receivers, the Mahroom Apartments to the north of the project site.

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. The proposed retaining wall would provide some noise attenuation. However, the wall is unlikely to be installed prior to demolition and construction. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the retaining wall and stucco wall would not be in place to provide construction-phase noise attenuation. Therefore, project construction activity would exceed the significance threshold of 90 dBA Leq(h) and construction noise impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation is required. Construction noise levels would be less at sensitive receivers further away.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction
The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels do

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 199, Packet Page 202 City of Monterey
2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project

4.4-12
not exceed 90 dBA Leq(h) at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures:
 Erect a temporary sound barrier at the northern property line until the stucco wall on top of the retaining wall that would be constructed as part of the project has been built. The sound barrier shall be a solid fence constructed of minimum 7-foot-tall sheets of 5/8-inch thick plywood with appropriate supports. The plywood shall overlap at vertical joints by a few inches and be fastened together. Avoid any gaps at the ground level. Construction noise reduction blankets with a solid layer (e.g., 1-psf vinyl) shall also be used. The sound barrier is calculated to reduce construction noise levels by 4 dBA (Salter 2023).
 Limit construction to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, and no construction on Sunday or holidays.
 Require posted signs at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City in the event of problems.
 Notify the City and neighbors within 100 feet in advance of the schedule for each major phase of construction and expected loud activities.
 When feasible, locate high noise generating stationary equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, compressors) and material unloading and staging areas away from the sensitive adjacent uses (residences).
 Require that all construction equipment be in good working order and that mufflers are inspected to be functioning properly. If feasible, impact tools shall be shrouded or shielded with intake and exhaust port mufflers when used near noise-sensitive receptors.  Avoid unnecessary idling of equipment and engines and to a maximum of five minutes near noise-sensitive receivers.
 The general contractor shall designate a noise and vibration disturbance coordinator responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise or vibration. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise or vibration complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, equipment type/location) and shall ensure that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.

Significance After Mitigation
Table 4.4-8 presents the mitigated construction noise levels. As shown in Table 4.4-8, mitigated construction noise could be as high as 87 dBA Leq(h) at the nearest sensitive receivers, the Mahroom Apartments to the north of the project site. Therefore, project construction activity would not exceed the significance threshold of 90 dBA Leq(h). Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce the potential impact from construction noise to less than significant. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 200, Packet Page 203 Table 4.4-8 Mitigated Noise Levels by Construction Phase Construction Phase Equipment
1 hour Leq at Project
Center (62.5 feet)
dBA1
Demolition, Excavation,
and Grading
Excavator, hoe ram, dump truck, saw cutter, loader, sheep’s foot compactor, backhoe,10-wheel truck, delivery truck
87 Utilities Excavator, loader, sheep’s foot compactor, backhoe, 10-wheel truck, concrete truck, delivery truck, boom pump, line pump, compactor
81 Foundation Excavator, backhoe, loader, 10-wheel truck, concrete truck, boom pump, line pump, compactor, gradall forklift, truss crane, delivery truck
82 Building Exterior Rooftop crane, boomlift, stucco pump, delivery truck 82 Building Interior Gypcrete pump, gradall forklift, delivery truck 79 Hardscape and
Landscape
Skid steer loader, 10-wheel truck, paving machine, roller, concrete truck, line pump, delivery truck
82 1 The 1 hour Leq at the project center accounts for the 4 dBA reduction provided by the sound barrier that would be erected prior to project construction.

Source: Salter 2023 (Appendix D-2)
Threshold 1: Would the project result in 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?
Impact NOI-2 ALTHOUGH AMBIENT NOISE IN THE PROJECT VICINITY WOULD INCREASE FROM ON-SITE

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED TRAFFIC RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT, OPERATIONAL NOISE INCREASES WOULD NOT EXCEED APPLICABLE STANDARDS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Stationary Sources
Project operation would generate on-site noise compared to existing conditions, since the current on-site motel is vacant. On-site noise is anticipated to be generated from mechanical equipment and parking lot noise.

Mechanical Equipment
The orientation of the proposed hotel places it equal to or farther from adjacent property lines than the existing on-site motel. The proposed HVAC systems would generate noise levels of up to approximately 52 dBA at the north property line (Mahroom Apartments) and 56 dBA at the east property line (State Farm office). Furthermore, natural “shielding” of rooftop equipment by the edge of the roof and parapet would provide further noise reduction. HVAC noise levels would be less at sensitive receivers further away. Therefore, noise generated by mechanical equipment would not exceed the threshold of 60 dBA for residential districts and 65 dBA for commercial districts and operational noise impacts from mechanical equipment would be less than significant.

Parking Lot
Parking lot activity noise (e.g., car doors, driving vehicles, engine starting) would be intermittent, typically occurring for less than 1 to 5 minutes per occasion. Parking lot noise could generate noise

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 201, Packet Page 204 levels between approximately 55 dBA and 70 dBA at a distance of five feet (Salter 2023). At a distance of 15 feet, those noise levels would be reduced to approximately 45 dBA to 60 dBA. These levels are similar to existing noise levels in the project vicinity based on ambient noise monitoring (Salter 2021) Furthermore, parking activity noise levels are expected to be reduced even further by the proposed retaining wall at the property line to the north shared with the nearest residential receiver, the Mahroom Apartments. Parking lot noise levels would be less at sensitive receivers further away. Parking lot noise levels are below City Municipal Code standards of 60 dBA to 65 dBA for short-term activity noise (that occurs for less than 1 or 5 minutes, daytime and nighttime at residential receivers, see Table 4.4-4). Therefore, operational noise from parking lot activity would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic
The project would generate new vehicle trips that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways.

The project is anticipated to generate 351 new daily vehicle trips (TJKM 2023).

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 noiseattenuating structure.

Figure 4.4-1 shows existing noise conditions (left figure) and future noise conditions at the first level of the Mahroom Apartments (right figure). As shown in Figure 4.4-1, with the addition of the proposed stucco barrier, traffic noise levels at the first floor facade of the Mahroom Apartments would be within 4 dBA CNEL of existing noise levels. Figure 4.4-2 shows existing noise conditions (left figure) and future noise conditions at the second level of the Mahroom Apartments (right figure). As shown in Figure 4.4-2, traffic noise levels at the second floor façade of the Mahroom Apartments would be within 2 dBA CNEL of existing noise levels, and in some locations noise would be reduced compared with existing conditions due to the height of the proposed structure.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 202, Packet Page 205 Figure 4.4-1 Existing (Left) and Future (Right) Noise Levels at the First Level of the Mahroom Apartments Source: Salter 2023 (Appendix D-2).

Note: Circled numbers represent modeled noise levels (dBA CNEL).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 203, Packet Page 206 Figure 4.4-2 Existing (Left) and Future (Right) Noise Levels at the Second Level of the Mahroom Apartments Source: Salter 2023 (Appendix D-2).

Note: Circled numbers represent modeled noise levels (dBA CNEL).

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 204, Packet Page 207 As shown in Figure 4.4-1 and Figure 4.4-2, existing ambient noise levels are between 49 and 63 dBA CNEL along the facades of the Mahroom Apartments. Therefore, the 3 dBA and 5 dBA significance thresholds for traffic noise are applicable depending on the existing ambient noise level (see Section

4.4.3.b, Significance Thresholds). 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. At other sensitive receptor locations that are not shielded by the existing on-site building or the proposed project building, traffic noise increases would be minimal.

The existing average daily traffic (ADT) volume on North Fremont Street is 18,100 (TJKM 2023). The estimated increase in traffic noise levels is based on the following formula: 10 x LOG(future traffic volume/existing traffic volume). Using this formula, the addition of 351 new daily vehicle trips is estimated to increase traffic noise levels by approximately 0.08 dBA CNEL, which would not exceed the most stringent threshold of 1.5 dBA CNEL.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WOULD INTERMITTENTLY GENERATE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION

ON SITE, WHICH MAY AFFECT NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEIVERS THAT COULD CAUSE ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE OR ANNOYANCE IF UNMITIGATED. HOWEVER, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be utilized to construct the project. Construction equipment such as vibratory rollers, hoe rams, and earthmoving equipment would temporarily increase vibration levels in the project vicinity. Based on Caltrans recommendations, limiting vibration levels to below 0.25 in/sec PPV for transient sources and below 0.5 in/sec PPV for continuous sources would prevent architectural damage regardless of building construction type. Table 4.4-9 presents typical vibration levels that would be generated by construction equipment at nearby property lines. Exact vibration levels will vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used at the site.

Table 4.4-9 Expected Construction Vibration Levels
Property Line
North & East (Mahroom
Apartments and State Farm) South (El Castell Motel) West (Alliance Mart) Equipment PPV at 10 feet (in/sec) PPV at 130 feet (in/sec) PPV at 50 feet (in/sec) Vibratory Roller 0.83 0.02 0.10
Hoe Ram 0.35 0.01 0.04
Large bulldozer 0.35 0.01 0.04
Loaded trucks 0.30 0.01 0.04
Jackhammer 0.14 0.00 0.02
Small bulldozer 0.01 0.00 0.00
Source: Salter 2023 (Appendix D-2)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 205, Packet Page 208 As shown in Table 4.4-9, maximum construction vibration levels could reach 0.83 in/sec PPV, which would exceed the threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for continuous sources at older buildings. If uncontrolled, vibration levels could also exceed the Caltrans threshold of 0.04 in/sec PPV for distinctly perceptible vibration levels. Thus, some construction activities could be perceptible or exceed potential building damage thresholds when located close to neighboring receivers and construction vibration impacts would be potentially significant.

The project does not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation, such as rail or subway operation. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-3 Construction Vibration
The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Vibration Control Plan to the City of Monterey Community Development Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition and grading permits. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels do not exceed 0.25 in/sec PPV at nearby sensitive receivers to the north. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the demolition, grading, and building plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures:

Earth-moving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not to occur at the same time along the same property line to reduce cumulative vibration impacts.

Minimize discontinuities in roadway pavement where trucks will travel.

Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers within 25 feet of adjacent structures. Non-vibratory sheepsfoot rollers or static rollers could be used instead.

Grading and earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent structures shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less.

Avoid use of a hoe ram within 15 feet of adjacent structures. Use of an excavator with reach arm could be used instead.

Avoid routing heavily loaded trucks through residential streets.

Notify adjacent properties of the construction schedule (in particular, prior to days of highvibration activity, such as demolition) and provide the name and contact information of the project disturbance coordinator.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-3 would reduce the potential impact from construction vibration to less than significant. Specifically, use of a static roller through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is predicted to generate vibration levels of approximately 0.20 in/sec PPV at a distance of 10 feet, which would not exceed the 0.25 in/sec PPV potential damage threshold. Use of a small bulldozer or other small earthmoving equipment is predicted to generate vibration levels of approximately 0.01 in/sec PPV at a distance of 10 feet, which would not exceed the 0.25 in/sec PPV potential damage threshold. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would include designation of a noise and vibration disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 206, Packet Page 209 vibration. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of any vibration and the construction contractor would be required to take reasonable measures to correct the problem. In combination, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-3 would reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold 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?
Impact NOI-4 THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BUT IS OUTSIDE THE 65, 70, AND 75 dBA CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR THE MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT. THEREFORE, 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, AND IMPACTS FROM AIRPORT NOISE WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The closest airport is the Monterey Regional Airport, which is approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project site. The project site is located within the Monterey Regional Airport Sphere of Influence but is not located within the 65, 70, or 75 CNEL dBA noise contours for the Monterey Regional Airport (Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission 2019). Therefore, 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required because impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative noise assessment considers development of the project in combination with other planned and approved development projects within the vicinity of the project site (see Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting). The other cumulative projects in the area could generate temporary noise and vibration impacts during construction, the nature of which would be similar to the proposed project (i.e., construction noise generated during site preparation and grading, hardscaping). Construction schedules for some of the cumulative projects may align with the proposed project’s construction schedule. However, construction noise and vibration are localized impacts that rapidly attenuate as distance from the source increases, especially within an urban environment. There are no cumulative projects within 1,000 feet of the project site. Therefore, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant and the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative development could also result in stationary (non-traffic) operational noise increases in the project vicinity. These sources may combine with other nearby cumulative projects to result in higher noise levels. However, operational noise from these sources is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urbanized setting due to the effects of intervening structures and topography that block the line of sight and due to other noise sources closer to receivers that obscure projectrelated noise. The closest cumulative project is a three-story mixed-use building with 40 apartment units and 6,000 square feet of commercial space that is currently awaiting building permits and would be located 1,100 feet east of the project. This cumulative project is not close enough to combine with stationary operational noise from the project to result in a cumulative impact.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 207, Packet Page 210 Further, implementation of City Municipal Code noise standards would ensure that noise from new stationary sources as part of the cumulative projects would be within acceptable levels. Therefore, the cumulative impact related to operational stationary noise would be less than significant.

Cumulative development in the project area would increase noise levels along local roadways as a result of additional vehicular trips. Cumulative traffic noise impacts could be significant. However, the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact of 351 new daily trips would be negligible. As discussed under Impact NOI-2, the addition of 351 new daily vehicle trips is estimated to increase traffic noise levels by approximately 0.08 dBA CNEL, which would not exceed the most stringent threshold of 1.5 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 208, Packet Page 211

4.5 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section analyzes the proposed project’s potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources.

Tribal cultural resources are those resources identified by California Native American tribes in consultation with lead agencies during tribal consultation [also referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation]. The analysis in this section is based on the results of the City’s AB 52 consultation as well as the Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) in July 2022. The full report is provided in Appendix C of this EIR.

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
The setting of the project site related to tribal cultural resources is summarized below. A complete discussion of the project site’s environmental setting related to tribal cultural resources is included in the Cultural Resources Technical Report, included as Appendix C. Also refer to Section 4.5.1 in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for additional discussion of the pre-contact setting.

The project site lies in an area traditionally occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people. Ohlone territory extends along the California coast from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers merge into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur. Their inland boundary was limited to the interior Coast Ranges. The Ohlone language belongs to the Penutian family, with several distinct dialects throughout the region. It is divided into eight regional dialects: Karkin, Chochenyo, Ramaytush, Awaswas, Taymen, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon.

The pre-contact Ohlone were semi-sedentary, with a settlement system characterized by base camps and seasonal reserve camps composed of tule reed houses with thatched roofs made of matted grass. Just outside base camps, large sweat houses were built into the ground near stream banks used for spiritual ceremonies and possibly hygiene. Villages were divided into small polities, each of which was governed by a chief responsible for settling disputes, acting as a war leader during times of conflict, and supervising economic and ceremonial activities. Social organization appeared flexible to ethnographers and any sort of social hierarchy was not apparent to mission priests.

Archaeological investigations inform Ohlone mortuary rituals. Cemeteries were set away from villages and visited during the annual Mourning Anniversary. Ceremonial human grave offerings might include Olivella beads, as well as tools like drills, mortars, pestles, hammerstones, bone awls, and utilized flakes. Ohlone mythology included animal characterization and animism, which was the basis for several creation narratives. Ritually burying animals, such as a wolf, squirrel, deer, mountain lion, gray fox, elk, badger, grizzly bear, blue goose, and bat ray, was commonly practiced.

Similar to human burials, ceremonial offerings were added to ritual animal graves like shell beads, ornaments, and exotic goods.

Ohlone subsistence strategies were based on hunting, gathering, and fishing. Larger animals, like bears, might be avoided, but smaller game was hunted and snared on a regular basis. Like the rest of California, the acorn was an important staple and was prepared by leaching acorn meal in openwork baskets and in holes dug into the sand. The Ohlone also practiced controlled burning to facilitate plant growth. During specific seasons or in times of drought, the reserve camps would be utilized for gathering seasonal food and accessing food storage. Using nets and gorge hooks, the Ohlone fished from tule reed canoes. Mussels were a particularly important food resource. Sea mammals such as sea lions and seals were hunted, and beached whales were exploited.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 209, Packet Page 212 Seven Franciscan missions were built in Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system. After the establishment of the missions, Ohlone population dwindled from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 by 1814. In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300. The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize aspects of their culture.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to tribal cultural resources. b. State Regulations
California Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “the intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as:
 A Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9)
 A Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).

Assembly Bill 52 of 2014
AB 52 expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes, “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). It further states the CEQA lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and that meets at least one of the following criteria, as summarized in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 210, Packet Page 213 2) 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 PRC Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process with California Native American tribes that must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” California Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California PRC states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code §7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
c. Local Regulations
The City of Monterey does not have an existing regulatory process or local regulations pertaining to tribal cultural resources.

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Rincon cultural resource specialists contacted the NAHC on June 20, 2022, to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF), as well as a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area. In accordance with AB 52, the City conducted consultation as the lead agency for the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the 2101 North Fremont Street Hotel Project in 2020 to 2021. The City informed Ms. Louise J. Miranda Ramirez, Chairwoman of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, via mail of the project as the NAHC designated Ms. Ramirez as the most likely descendent of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation tribe.

The City received a letter dated July 20, 2022 in response to the Notice of Preparation for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians. The

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 211, Packet Page 214 letter recommended cultural sensitivity training for pre-project personnel and including a cultural monitor during development and ground disturbing activities. The letter also requests that the Draft EIR be provided to the Tribe and that the Tribe’s Treatment Protocols are incorporated into the project.

The City reinitiated AB 52 consultation and initiated SB 18 consultation in July 2022. On July 26, 2022, the City sent letters to ten Native American contacts in the area to request information on potential cultural resources in the project vicinity that may be impacted by the proposed project’s development. Other than the aforementioned letter, an NOP response from the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians, the City did not receive any responses from Tribes contacted for AB 52 and SB 18 consultation.

On July 25, 2022, the NAHC responded to Rincon’s AB 52 and SB 18 request and SLF request, stating that the results of the SLF search were positive. See Appendix C for the NAHC response, including Tribal contacts list(s).
a. Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources would be significant if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and 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); or 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. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 212, Packet Page 215 b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project 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)?
Threshold 2: Would the project 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?
Impact TCR-1 GRADING AND EXCAVATION REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

The SLF search results were received from the NAHC on July 25, 2022; those results were positive for known sacred sites within the project vicinity. Additionally, as part of its tribal cultural resources identification process under AB 52, the City sent letters via certified mail to the Native American contacts that had previously requested to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribes. As discussed in Section 4.5.3.a, Methodology, the City received one response from The KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians noting that the project could impact previously unknown cultural resources. The City followed up twice with the Tribe via email (on August 23 and September 2, 2022) regarding details on their Treatment Protocol, but they did not receive a response. As such, tribal consultation is closed.

Although the project site is currently developed and has been previously disturbed, it is possible that ground disturbance during project construction could encounter unknown tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the project has the potential to significantly impact tribal cultural resources through ground disturbance and subsequent damage. Impacts would be potentially significant, and Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and TCR-1 are required.

Mitigation Measures
TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native American tribes, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist.

The plan shall include measures to ensure the find is treated in a manner that respectfully retains, to

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 213, Packet Page 216 the degree feasible, the qualities that render the resource of significance to the local Native American group(s). Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

Refer to Section 4.1.3 in Section 4.1, Cultural Resources, for Mitigation Measure CUL-2(a).

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and TCR-1 would reduce the potential impact to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the region as listed in Table 3-1 of Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, would have the potential result in significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources. As described under Impact TCR-1, the proposed project would result in a significant impact without mitigation to unknown tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and TCR-1 would reduce project-level impacts to less than significant. Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain tribal cultural resources. Cumulative projects are reviewed separately by the appropriate jurisdiction and undergo environmental review when it is determined that the potential for significant impacts exists. If future cumulative projects would result in impacts to known or unknown tribal cultural resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for the proposed project as a result of the CEQA process. Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would therefore be potentially significant but mitigable. After implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and TCR-1, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 214, Packet Page 217

4.6 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to briefly describe any possible effects that were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. The sections below include the checklist questions listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and a brief discussion of environmental impacts that were determined to be less than significant. The project would not result in significant impacts to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. These topics are discussed below in this section.

Cultural Resources (including Paleontological Resources), Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this EIR.

4.6.1 Aesthetics
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to aesthetics would be significant if implementation of 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 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.

Impact Analysis
1) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is usually defined as a panoramic view from an elevated position or a long-range view from a public vantage point. The City of Monterey (City) is an urbanized community, and scenic vistas primarily include the Monterey Bay, the Pacific Ocean, and a central ridge of wooded hills.

The General Plan Urban Design Element identifies “Special Places,” which are characterized by scenic resources and include wooded hills, canyons, lakes, the waterfront, and the Pacific Ocean (City of Monterey 2019).

The project site is developed with an existing motel, restaurant, and surface parking lot. The surrounding area is characterized as an urban setting, with land uses comprised of hotel, commercial, and residential uses. The nearest designated Special Places include Del Monte Lake (approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project site), the waterfront area (approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site), and the wooded hill area (approximately 1.0 mile south of the project site). Given the distance and intervening land uses between the project site and these scenic

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 215, Packet Page 218 resources, the proposed project would not result in impacts to scenic quality, and there would be no impact to scenic vistas.
2) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program, officially designated State Scenic Highways near the project site include a segment of State Route (SR) 1 between the Carmel River and SR 68, and a segment of SR 68 between SR 1 and the Salinas River. A segment of SR 1 between SR 68 and Santa Cruz is an eligible scenic highway but is not officially designated (Caltrans 2022). The General Plan Urban Design Element also identifies these highways as “Designated Scenic Roads,” and North Fremont Street is identified as a “Proposed Scenic Road” (City of Monterey 2019).

The segments of SR 1 and SR 68 that are officially designated are located approximately 0.3 mile east of the project site. Due to distance and intervening land uses, the project site is not visible from SR 1 or SR 68. As such, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources visible from SR 1 or SR 68. The project site is located along North Fremont Street, which is considered a Proposed Scenic Road in the General Plan Urban Design Element. However, the proposed project involves the redevelopment of an underutilized parcel, which would improve the visual character on the project site as compared to the existing condition. In the existing condition, the project site contains a motel and restaurant, both of which are closed for business. According to the Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix C), the existing motel and restaurant are recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a local resource, and therefore, is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Due to substantial alteration since its construction, the existing motel and restaurant has diminished integrity of material and design. As such, demolition of the outdated, vacant existing motel and restaurant and redevelopment of the project site with a new hotel featuring high-quality building materials, contemporary architecture, and an enhanced site design would improve the project site as compared to the existing condition. Additionally, 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, North Fremont Street is not an officially designated scenic road. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources from within a state scenic highway, and there would be no impact.
3) In nonurbanized areas, would the project 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 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?
The project site is in an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by a mix of hotel, commercial, and residential uses. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial, is zoned as Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF), and is located within the North Fremont Specific Plan area. As discussed further in Section 2.0, Project Description, the VAF zone requirements apply to VAF zoned properties as required by City of Monterey Charter, rather than the Specific Plan development objectives, standards, and guidelines. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the proposed project would be consistent with development standards for the VAF zone, as specified in Section 38-36 of the Monterey City Code, as well as applicable General Plan policies governing scenic quality.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 216, Packet Page 219 Table 4.6-1 Scenic Quality Policy Consistency Analysis
Regulations/Policies Consistency Determination
Visitor Accommodation Facility Development Standards
Minimum Site Area: 600 square feet per guest room Consistent. The proposed project would include 42 guest rooms, and as such, requires a minimum site area of 25,200 square feet. The 25,258-square-foot project site exceeds the minimum site area required. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this development standard.

Minimum Yards:
 Front: 10 feet
 Side: 10 feet
 Rear: 10 feet
Consistent. Property line setbacks would be a minimum of 10 feet on all sides. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this development standard.

Maximum Lot Coverage: 30 percent Consistent. The proposed lot coverage would be approximately 28 percent, which is below the maximum of 30 percent.

Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this development standard.

Urban Design Element
Policy f.10. Encourage parking to be placed
underground or away from the street to improve the
pedestrian experience.

Consistent. The proposed project includes a surface parking lot with 42 spaces. The surface parking lot would be located behind the proposed hotel building and would be generally situated away from North Fremont Street and Casa Verde Way.

Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Policy g.6. Improve the pedestrian environment
along North Fremont Street.

Consistent. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of an underutilized parcel, which would improve the existing visual character of 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.

In addition, as part of the proposed project, the applicant would provide an easement on the project site with
hardscaping designed to provide improved pedestrian
circulation. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Policy g.7. Use landscaping to screen parking where
appropriate.

Consistent. As part of the proposed project, landscaping would be installed along the perimeter of and planters within the surface parking lot, and at the corners of the project site, which would help to visually screen on-site parking. Additionally, the northern property boundary includes a 5-foot-wide easement which would be landscaped with ornamental grasses and
shrubs. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Policy g.8. Encourage planting of trees on public and
private land throughout the City of Monterey.

Consistent. As part of the proposed project, several trees, including deodar cedar, western redbud, goldenchain, mayten, and olive, would be planted at the project site’s corners.

Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Source: City of Monterey 2019
The proposed project involves the redevelopment of an underutilized parcel, which would improve the existing visual character of the project site as compared to the existing condition and would serve to provide increased visual cohesion between the project site and the surrounding area.

Further, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 217, Packet Page 220 not conflict with General Plan policies governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
In the current condition, the existing motel and restaurant provide sources of exterior lighting on the project site. Additionally, the project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by development with levels of existing lighting typical of an urbanized, commercial corridor.

Streetlights are located along North Fremont Street, which provide exterior lighting along the frontage of the project site.

The proposed project would include a variety of exterior lighting fixtures, including wall-mounted light fixtures on the building’s façade, two bollard light fixtures in landscaping along Casa Verde Way, recessed lights providing downlighting along walkways and at doorways, and five polemounted lights providing downlighting throughout the surface parking lot. The project would result in new lighting sources associated with the proposed hotel and surface parking lot. However, the proposed lighting would be similar to existing lighting on the project site due to the existing uses, as well as in the surrounding area due to adjacent development. Pursuant to Section 38-124 of the Monterey City Code, proposed exterior lighting would either be hooded or recessed and directed downward so that the light source would not be visible off-site. Further, the proposed project would not be constructed with reflective materials or substantially contribute to existing sources of glare.

Compliance with lighting regulations in the Monterey City Code would ensure that impacts to daytime and nighttime views would be less than significant.

4.6.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Significance Thresholds
Impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). 4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use.

Impact Analysis
1) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 218, Packet Page 221 According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC)’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2016a). The project site is in an urbanized and developed area, and there is no agricultural land on or adjacent to the project site.

Therefore, the project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact.
2) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The City of Monterey General Plan, adopted in January 2005 and amended most recently in June 2019, does not designate any agricultural land uses within the city (City of Monterey 2011).

Additionally, the City of Monterey Zoning Map shows that no lands within the city are zoned for agricultural use and the project site is zoned as VAF (City of Monterey 2022a). According to DOC’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2016b). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact.
3) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).

The City of Monterey General Plan does not designate forest land or timberland within the city (City of Monterey 2011). Further, the City of Monterey Zoning Map shows that no lands within the city are zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production and the project site is zoned as VAF (City of Monterey 2022). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland production zones, and there would be no impact.
4) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As stated above, there are not forest lands within the project site or the City of Monterey.

Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use, and there would be no impact. 5) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project would not involve off site modifications or other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact.

4.6.3 Air Quality
Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to air quality would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 219, Packet Page 222 3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Impact Analysis
Analysis in this section is based on an Air Quality Emissions Study prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in October 2020. The study is included as Appendix E-1. The Air Quality Emissions Study includes air quality modeling performed with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). In May 2023, Rincon updated the modeling to reflect the most current project design details for use in this EIR. The 2023 modeling output is included in Appendix E-2. The updated modeling results do not change the conclusions of the October 2020 Air Quality Emissions Study. 1) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan?
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) coordinates and oversees both state and federal air quality control programs in California. CARB has established 14 air basins statewide and the project site is in the North Central Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). The North Central Coast Air Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the state PM10 standard (particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or fewer) and nonattainment-transitional for the state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards. The North Central Coast Air Basin is designated as attainment for all federal standards and other state standards (MBARD 2017). MBARD is responsible for enforcing the state and federal air quality standards and regulating stationary sources through the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Monterey Bay region, adopted on March 15, 2017.

The project would conflict with MBARD’s AQMP if the project would cause an exceedance of the population growth projections included in the AQMP. The project would involve construction and operation of a hotel, and accordingly would not add permanent residential units or residents to the City of Monterey. However, 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.

MBARD’s AQMP uses population projections produced by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). As discussed further in Section 4.6.10, Population and Housing, AMBAG estimates an increase of 568 residents in the City of Monterey by 2030. Additionally, under AMBAG’s Final 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2023-2031, the City has a regional housing needs allocation of 3,654 housing units, which would need to be realized by 2031 (AMBAG 2022). Under a conservative, maximum growth scenario, the project’s 5 on-site employees would be well within AMBAG’s population and housing projections; therefore, the project would not conflict with MBARD’s AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant. 2) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
As discussed above, the North Central Coast Air Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the state PM10 standard and nonattainment-transitional for the state one-hour and eight-hour

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 220, Packet Page 223 ozone standards. MBARD has established a threshold of 82 pounds per day of PM10 emissions for construction. MBARD has not established construction thresholds for any other air quality pollutant.

Project construction would involve demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities that have the potential to generate air pollutant emissions. Table 4.6-2 summarizes the estimated maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions during project construction.

Table 4.6-2 Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)

VOC NOX CO
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust) SOX
Maximum Daily Emissions 1 9 12 <1 <1 <1
MBARD Thresholds N/A N/A N/A 82 N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded?1 N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A
VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of sulfur; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; N/A = not applicable Notes: All numbers have been rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1 MBARD has not adopted a threshold for evaluating construction VOC, NOX, CO, PM2.5, or SOX emissions.

Source: Appendix E-2.

As shown in Table 4.6-2, construction of the project would generate maximum daily emissions of approximately 1 pound of PM10 per day, which is 98.7 percent below the MBARD threshold of 82 pounds per day. Furthermore, MBARD guidelines state that ozone precursor emissions from construction projects using typical equipment were accounted for in the emission inventories of the 2015 AQMP. The proposed project would use typical construction equipment; thus, ozone precursor emissions from project construction were accounted for in the emission inventories and would not have a significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of state or federal ozone ambient air quality standards. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and impacts would be less than significant.

Required compliance with MBARD Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) and Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt) would further reduce emissions of dust particulates during project construction.

The project would result in long-term air pollutant emissions over the course of operation.

Emissions include area sources, energy sources, and mobile emissions. Area sources include use of consumer products, use of gas-powered landscaping equipment, and re-application of architectural coating (re-painting). Energy sources include natural gas for uses such heating/air conditioning, appliances, lighting, and water heating. Mobile emissions include vehicle trips by residents, employees, and visitors. If a project’s operational emissions do not exceed MBARD thresholds, the proposed project impacts to regional air quality are considered individually less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable.

Table 4.6-3 summarizes the total estimated emissions associated with operation of the proposed project by emission source. As shown therein, emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, SO2 and PM10 are 92.7 to

99.7 percent below MBARD thresholds. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under the applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard, and impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 221, Packet Page 224 Table 4.6-3 Estimated Maximum Operational Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Emissions 2 <1 <1 0 0 0
Energy Emissions <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Emissions <1 <1 7 <1 <1 <1
Project Emissions 3 1 7 <1 <1 <1
MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A1
N/A = not applicable
Notes: All source emissions have been rounded to the nearest tenth and all project emissions have been rounded up to the nearest whole number, to be conservative. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 1 MBARD does not have a significance threshold for operational PM2.5 emissions.

Source: Appendix E-2
Although construction and operational emissions of VOC, NOX, and PM10 would be less than significant, MBARD provided recommended measures which the project applicant will implement, which would further reduce impacts to air pollutant emissions:
 MBARD Recommendation 1: The applicant shall implement Dust Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction. Dust Control BMPs include, but are not limited to:
 Stabilize storage, vehicle movement, and parking areas by installing gravel over geotextile fabric.
 Install or maintain vegetative or structural barriers.  Sweep or vacuum paved surfaces to remove tracked soil.  Apply mulch to exposed soil.
 Use tarps to cover stockpiles.
 Load trucks carrying excavated material so that the material does not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed. Wet the surface of each load and tightly cover before the haul truck leaves the loading area.

Continuous water spraying during dust generation activities. Commercial Stabilizers may also be considered.
 MBARD Recommendation 2: During construction, the applicant shall use cleaner construction equipment that conforms to CARB’s Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards. Whenever feasible, construction equipment should use alternative fuels such as electricity, compressed natural gas or propane.
 MBARD Recommendation 3: The applicant shall register portable equipment when required by MBARD or CARB. Contact MBARD Engineering Division at (831) 647-9411 to discuss if an MBARD or CARB portable equipment registration is necessary for any portable equipment planned to be utilized for this project.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 222, Packet Page 225  MBARD Recommendation 4: The applicant shall ensure the buildings slotted for demolition are surveyed by a certified asbestos inspector. In addition, notification to MBARD is required 10 days in advance of any building demolition. During demolition/retrofitting, grading and/or trenching activities other MBARD rules may apply. Rule 424 contains the investigation and reporting requirements for asbestos which includes surveys and advanced notification on structures being renovated or demolished.

Regardless of implementation of MBARD recommendations, project impacts related to increases in criteria pollutants would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. 3) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor is defined as any residence, including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade twelve (k-12) schools; daycare centers; and health care facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes. The project site is bounded by residential uses to the north, northwest, and northeast. The sensitive receptor nearest to the project site is the apartment buildings 75 feet to the north of the project site. Localized air quality impacts on sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are discussed in the following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

CONSTRUCTION
Construction-generated emissions are temporary and short-term but could expose nearby sensitive receptors to construction-related pollutants, including CO. Construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel to and from the project site, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris to and from the project site, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate CO. MBARD has not established a specific CO threshold for construction emissions; however, as shown in Table 4.6-2, the project would result in the emission of no more than 12 pounds of CO per day, an amount that would not substantially contribute to a CO hotspot. Therefore, the impact of localized CO emissions during construction would be less than significant.

OPERATION
Buildout of the proposed project would result redevelopment the vacant motel and restaurant with a new hotel on the project site that would generate additional vehicle trips on area roadways. Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections, have the potential to create concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO or “CO hotspots”) and could potentially expose sensitive receptors to harmful levels of pollution. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO is 35.0 parts per million (ppm) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO is 20.0 ppm (CARB 2016). MBARD provides screening thresholds for CO hotspot impacts but does not have a standard for assessing whether a project’s CO hotspot impacts would be significant. Therefore, the CO threshold from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which is the air district immediately adjacent to MBARD to the north, is utilized in this analysis. BAAQMD established screening criteria to evaluate whether a project would result in the generation of CO concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of significance thresholds. According to BAAQMD, the project would result in a less than significant impact to localized CO concentrations if:

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 223, Packet Page 226

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans

2. The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour

3. Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at the affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage).

The Traffic Analysis prepared by TJKM in 2023 (Appendix H-1) determined that the proposed project would 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).

The Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) monitors regional traffic counts on North Fremont Street. The most recent traffic counts were taken in 2019 at North Fremont Street between Palo Verde Avenue and Dela Rosa Avenue, approximately 560 feet west of the proposed project.

These counts estimated peak average daily trips (ADT) of 19,085 and off-peak ADT of 18,858 (Appendix E-1). As a result, the proposed project's 351 daily trips would result in an approximately

1.8 percent increase in ADT, to 19,436 ADT. Considering the small size of the surrounding roadways in the project vicinity, this increase in project trip generation would not exceed the screening thresholds listed above. Therefore, the impact of localized CO emissions would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants

CONSTRUCTION
Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous toxic air contaminants (TACs) identified by CARB include distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. MBARD also identifies additional common sources of TACs including diesel-fueled internal combustion engines and parking areas for diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks and buses (Appendix E-1). Construction-related activities would result in temporary projectgenerated diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities.

DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 24 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual.1 The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 24 months) is approximately 2 percent of the total exposure period used 1 The Maximally Exposed Individual is a hypothetical individual who, because of realistically assumed proximity, activities, and living habits, would receive the highest air pollution dose. (USEPA 2022)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 224, Packet Page 227 for health risk calculation. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk for short durations of exposure (Appendix E-1). Therefore, this analysis qualitatively discusses potential health risks associated with construction-related emissions of TACs, focusing on construction activities most likely to generate substantial TAC emissions and the duration of such activities relative to established, longer-term health risk exposure periods.

The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

These activities would last for approximately five months. DPM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with site preparation and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the maximum exposure condition for the total construction period. The duration of site preparation and grading activities would represent less than one percent of the total exposure period for a 70-year health risk calculation.2 Therefore,
DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual.3 This impact would be less than significant.

OPERATION
The proposed hotel would not include sources of substantial operational TAC emissions and would therefore not expose nearby sensitive residential uses to substantial TAC emissions. It is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs used on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the types of proposed land use (hotel) would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program, which regulates stationary sources of hazardous substances used annually in quantities ranging from 500 to 20,000 pounds (Appendix E-1). Because the project would not include stationary sources of TACs that would expose off-site receptors to substantial TAC concentrations and because the project is consistent with the CARB and MBARD guidelines, the project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Therefore, impacts related to TACs would be less than significant.
4) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. Construction-related odors would be short-term and would cease upon completion. Land uses typically producing objectionable odors include landfills, rendering plants, chemical plants, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, and refineries (Appendix E-1 As a result, hotel uses are not typically associated with substantial numbers of odor complaints according to MBARD’s guidance. In addition, MBARD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials which would cause a nuisance or detriment to a considerable number of persons or 2 (5 months / [12 months x 70 years]) x 100 = 0.60 percent 3 MBARD Rule 1003 states the Hazard Index is an indicator of the potential health hazard of a substance with regard to its non-cancer effects. The underlying assumption is that there is a threshold for these effects and they will not occur if exposure remains below a reference exposure limit. An exposure equal to the reference exposure limit equates to a hazard index score of 1.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 225, Packet Page 228 to the public, with the exception of odors from agricultural activities. Therefore, given the nature of proposed land use (hotel) and required compliance with MBARD Rule 402, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people during construction and operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.4 Biological Resources
Significance Thresholds
Impacts related to biological resources would be significant if implementation of the project would:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Impact Analysis
1) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is currently occupied with a one-story, 18-guest room motel, a 134-seat restaurant, and a surface parking lot. The project site is entirely developed, with a small amount of ornamental vegetation in the form of small shrubs. Information contained in this section comes from background literature, biological resources databases, aerial imagery, and site map reviews conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc.

The following sources were reviewed:
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022a) and Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2022b)  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2022)
 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (USFWS 2022a)

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 226, Packet Page 229  USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2022b)
 GoogleEarth Aerial Imagery (Google 2022)
Rincon biologists conducted a review of the CNDDB (CDFW 2022a) for recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife taxa in the region. For this review, the search included all occurrences within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle encompassing the project site (Seaside) and two adjacent quadrangles (Monterey and Marina).

Strictly marine, estuarine, and aquatic species were excluded from further analysis given the upland terrestrial nature of the project site.

A review of biological resources databases for known special-status plant occurrences within the three USGS quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site identified 69 special-status plant species (CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022; USFWS 2022a). All of the reported species have specific habitat requirements (e.g., soil type, elevation, aspect) and the project site is completely developed without any terrestrial vegetation communities. Therefore, there is no potential for any specialstatus plants to occur on the project site and the project would not result in impacts to specialstatus plant species.

A review of the biological resources databases for known special-status wildlife occurrences within the three USGS quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site identified 31 special-status animal species (CDFW 2022a; USFWS 2022a). The project site is entirely developed and includes existing structures and parking areas. Vegetation on site is limited to a few ornamental plantings.

The project site has no natural or native vegetation communities that could support special-status wildlife and is surrounded with urban residential and commercial development. Due to lack of habitat, the project site is not considered viable to support any federally or State listed species or other special-status wildlife. Special-status birds and bats may occur rarely or occasionally when foraging but are not expected to roost or nest at the project site. Project construction could disrupt the occasional foraging that could occur on the project site, but disruptions would be temporary.

Therefore, impacts to special-status species would be less than significant. 2) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is developed and is in a highly urbanized area. Vegetation occurring in the project site and vicinity are primarily non-native, ornamental, and/or disturbed, and no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present. According to a search of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation database, the project site does not contain critical habitat (USFWS 2022a). Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and there would be no impact. 3) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Rincon reviewed the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2022b) for potential aquatic resources, including jurisdictional waters of the United States or waters of the State. No wetlands or drainages are mapped or occur on the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands, and there would be no impact.

EXHIBIT A
Council Special Meeting, 12/15/2023, Item No. 1., Item Page 227, Packet Page 230 4) Would the project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As discussed in Threshold 1, above, vegetation occurring in the project site and vicinity are primarily non-native, ornamental, and/or disturbed and are not expected to support nesting of special-status wildlife species. However, the project site could be used by other migratory bird species that utilize ornamental shrubs and landscaping as nesting habitat. Given the level of disturbance from human presences and landscape maintenance, the potential for migratory birds to utilize the project site would be low. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game code, both of which prohibit disturbance and take of protected migratory bird species or their nests. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 5) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Chapter 37 of Monterey City Code regulates protection of trees in the city. Protected trees are classified as trees located on a vacant parcel more than two inches in diameter and trees located on developed parcels more than six inches in diameter. The project site does not contain trees; therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s tree protection ordinance. There would be no impact.
6) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
As discussed in Threshold 1, above, vegetation occurring in the project site and vicinity are primarily non-native, ornamental, and/or disturbed. The project site is not subject to any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans. Per the City’s General Plan Conservation Element, the project site is not located within a designated Habitat Management Area (City of Monterey 2019). Therefore, the project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and there would be no impact.

Monterey City CouncilDecember 15, 2023

Monterey City Council
December 15, 2023