…Department of Defense-Defense Manpower Data Center Monterey Bay, and former Fort Ord land; and is bounded to the south by Gigling Road, and Ord Military Community housing and the United States Department of Defense Army Hospital….
The former U.S. Army buildings are currently the property of the City of Seaside, with the exception of those within Surplus II, which are the property of the Successor Agency to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency.
In December 2018 the Army FORA began demolition of these buildings…
During preparation of this EIR, FORA has removed most buildings in the Plan Area that had been identified for demolition (including Surplus II buildings: ten rolling-pin buildings between Malmedy Road and 6th Avenue, two mess halls one cafeteria, five administrative buildings, one gymnasium, and four two armory buildings); the eight hammerhead buildings have not been demolished (FORA 2019b).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 explains that where the lead agency could describe the Proposed Project as either the adoption of a particular regulation or as a development proposal, the lead agency shall describe the Proposed Project as the development proposal for the purpose of the environmental analysis. To ensure a conservative approach in analyzing environmental effects under CEQA, the Proposed Project assumes maximum buildout projections of new housing units, new commercial development, and related uses. See Table 2-
2. The actual rate and amount of development (up to the maximums) could differ; buildout is dependent on market conditions, birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, availability of resources, and regulatory processes from Federal, State and local regulations. Nevertheless, a conceptual layout for buildout of the Specific Plan is shown by conceptual horizontal construction3 phase in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 (see Specific Plan Section 4.5, Land Use Standards and Guidelines, for detailed discussion of uses). New development will be required to conform to the Private Realm Standards and Guidelines, Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1216, Packet Page 1544
There are two proposed basins at the General Jim Moore Boulevard and Lightfighter Drive intersection; one is within the Plan Area at the southeast corner of this intersection and one is outside the Plan Area and within the CSUMB campus boundaries at the northeast corner of this intersection.
Bicycle lanes would be provided on key streets including Lightfighter Drive, Malmedy Road, 6th Avenue, Gigling Road (under the Pacific Gas and Electric easement on the north side of the roadway), and General Jim Moore Boulevard, to connect existing and planned bicycle routes in the surrounding area.
Other approvals from other agencies may include:
Disposition and Development Agreement
FORA Consistency Determination
Infrastructure Agreement with MCWD
MCWD Water Supply Verification Report
MCWD Annexation
Approvals from California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) for any off-site improvements on CSUMB property
Approvals from the United States Department of the Army for any off-site improvements on Army property and applicable NEPA review
Section 3 Environmental Setting
The Plan Area is mostly developed with former U.S. Army buildings that are mostly vacant and severely dilapidated and currently the property of the City of Seaside, with the exception of those within Surplus II, which are the property of the Successor Agency to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1217, Packet Page 1545 Section 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
Pages 4-3 through 4-5, Table 4-1 (revised rows only):
Cumulative Project Description Project Status
Cypress Knolls Senior
Residential1
Senior residential community with active-adult housing, care services, senior community center, and supportive amenities and services on 188 acres.
Approved, not
built
East Garrison Construction of 40,000 sf of retail and 1,470 total residential units, including single-family homes, apartments, and
townhomes, as well as recreational and community areas, an artist live-and-work “downtown” residential and visitor-serving area. Approximately 2.7 miles east of the Plan Area.
Approved,
partially
constructed
(869 units)
Sea Haven (formerly
Marina Heights)
Removes 828 Fort Ord housing units and constructs 1,050 residential units, including single-family homes and townhomes.
Approximately 1 mile north of the Plan Area. Cypress Marina Heights, LLC., the developer of the project made an application for the “Marina Heights Specific Plan” in October of 2002 and the Marina City Council approved the project in 2003.
Approved,
partially
constructed
(201 units)
The Dunes at Monterey
Bay (formerly University
Villages)
Retail, commercial, and residential project, including 1,237 residential units, 500 hotel rooms, 760,000 sf office, and 570,000 sf retail. Located approximately 0.5 miles north of the Plan Area.
Approved,
partially
constructed
Seaside Resort Development of 125 residential units, 330 hotel units, and 170 timeshare units on two former Army golf courses. Located approximately 1 mile south within the Black Horse Golf Course.
Approved,
partially
constructed (3
units)
Seaside Senior Living
Project
This project would construct an assisted living facility, memory care facility, and co-housing assisted living facility, with a total of 144 multi-family units (70 studio units and 74 total onebedroom, two-bedroom, and co-housing units). Located approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the Plan Area.
Proposed
sf = square feet
The infill site has been was previously developedment with structures and uses associated with Fort Ord, which included 18 barracks buildings (totaling approximately 702,200 sf), five administration buildings (totaling approximately 33,300 sf), two armories (approximately 12,200 sf each), one cafeteria (approximately 11,400 sf), and one gymnasium (approximately 21,000 sf) with an adjacent small metal structure. Of these, only eight barracks buildings remain.
Section 4.1 Aesthetics
The Plan Area is mostly developed with former two- to three-story U.S. Army buildings, which are now City property.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1218, Packet Page 1546 Section 4.2 Air Quality
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix E: The air quality modeling was revised as follows, which resulted in a decrease in air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project during construction and an incremental increase (between 0.1 to 3.5 pounds per day, depending on the pollutant, which did not result in an exceedance of any Monterey Bay Air Resources District [MBARD] thresholds) in air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project during operation:
▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would utilize a construction equipment mix consistent with the statewide average. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume use of Tier 4 Final certified engines for all large construction equipment, which decreased construction-related air pollutant emissions.
▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would not include woodburning or natural gas fireplaces. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume that 10 percent of single-family residences would include natural gas fireplaces, which resulted in increased air pollutant emissions associated with area sources.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 75 percent reduction in the lighting energy intensity factor for the residential land uses of the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to remove this reduction, which had no impact on air pollutant emissions associated with electricity usage.1
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 70 percent reduction, rather than a 30 percent reduction, in the Title 24 natural gas energy intensity factor for the Proposed Project to account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The modeling was revised to include a 30 percent reduction, which resulted in increased air pollutant emissions related to natural gas consumption.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not include the City’s average solid waste diversion rate of 35 percent. The modeling was revised to include this reduction, which had no impact on air pollutant emissions associated with solid waste.2 ▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not account for the use of reclaimed water in the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to account for this project feature, which had no impact on air pollutant emissions associated with water usage.3
Clean Water Act Section 402
In California, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBs) and requires municipalities to obtain permits that outline programs and activities to control wastewater and stormwater pollution. The federal 1 CalEEMod does not calculate or attribute emissions of criteria pollutants from electricity generation to individual projects because fossil fuel power plants are existing stationary sources permitted by air districts and/or the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and they are subject to local, state and federal control measures. Criteria pollutant emissions from power plants are associated with the power plants themselves, and not individual projects or electricity users. 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1219, Packet Page 1547 Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of stormwater from construction projects unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The SWRCB is the permitting authority in California and adopted an As part of compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order 2009-0009, as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ; SWRCB 2009, 2010, 2012). The Order applies to construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance. Construction activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal or replacement. The Construction General Permit requires that the landowner and/or contractor of construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance must prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). file permit registration documents prior to commencing construction, then pay an annual fee through the duration of construction. These documents include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and signed certification statement.
The SWPPP must include site Best Management Practices (BMPs) measures to ensure that all pollutants and their sources are controlled.; non-stormwater discharges are identified and eliminated, controlled, or treated; site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges; and BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed and maintained. The Construction General Permit specifies minimum BMP requirements for stormwater control based on the risk level of the site. The Permit also specifies minimum qualifications for a qualified SWPPP developer and qualified SWPPP practitioner. The Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program is an entity that has developed BMPs for Construction Site Best Management Practices within the City of Seaside (MRSWMP 2014). Construction BMPs include material storage including covering of stockpiles during the day, and particularly during rain and wind events, silt fencing, straw wattles, stabilized construction entrances, routine cleaning, equipment lubricant drip pans, dust control measures including watering trucks to stabilize soil. Although intended to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, these Construction BMPs also serve to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction activities.4
Construction equipment that would generate criteria pollutants includes excavators, graders, haul trucks, and loaders. Some of this equipment would be used during both grading and construction. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered.
Construction equipment for each phase was based on CalEEMod defaults, which are shown in Section 3, Construction Detail, of the modeling outputs in Appendix E. The project applicant would require its construction contractor(s) to utilize large construction equipment (i.e., cranes, dozers, excavators, graders, pavers, rollers, scrapers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes) equipped with Tier 4 Final certified engines; therefore, modeling assumes use of Tier 4 Final certified 4 More details on SWRCB Order 2009-0009 are available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf More details on SWRCB Order 2010-0014-DWQ are available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2010/wqo2010_0014dwq.pdf More details on SWRCB Order 2012-006-DWQ are available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2012/wqo2012_0006_dwq.pdf ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1220, Packet Page 1548 engines for all large construction equipment. This requirement will be included in the Development Agreement.
Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. The Proposed Project would not include wood-burning fireplaces; therefore, this analysis assumes that only natural gas fireplaces would be utilized.
Based on similar projects constructed by the project applicant, it was assumed that approximately 10 percent of single-family residences would have gas fireplaces. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption for space and water heating. The lighting energy intensity factor for the residential uses was reduced by 75 percent to account for the lighting requirements of the latest iterations of Title 24, which are not included in CalEEMod. Furthermore, energy usage from single-family residential usage was reduced by 7 percent and non-residential energy usage was reduced by 30 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title 24 standards (California Energy Commission 2019). Indoor and outdoor water use rates were based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project, which is discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, and is included as Appendix M. The Water Supply Assessment also indicates that all outdoor water use (approximately 9.4 percent of total water use) would be supplied by reclaimed water; therefore, the Reclaimed Water input in CalEEMod was adjusted to reflect this design feature. Solid waste generation rates were based on CalRecycle rates, consistent with those used in the solid waste impact analysis in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems (CalRecycle 2018). Based on the City’s solid waste collection data from 2018 to 2019, the City has an average diversion rate of 35 percent, which was included in CalEEMod (Overmeyer 2020).
Table 4.2-5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2021 7.8
2.0 88.6
18.9 55.7
59.3 0.1 10.3
8.3 6.4
4.6 2022 31.1
25.8 160.2
96.1 154.3
161.7
0.5 31.7
28.8 11.8
9.1 2023 29.1
24.5 136.4
81.4 143.4
152.8
0.5 32.7
31.2 12.6
11.2 2024 25.2
22.5 98.9
67.6 106.0
109.5
0.4 32.6
31.1 12.4
11.1 2025 24.4
21.9 94.3
65.5 100.1
104.1
0.4 32.3
31.1 12.2
11.1 2026 13.9
13.4 74.3
63.4 82.2
84.8 0.3 22.9
22.7 6.7
6.5 2027 13.4
13.0 66.4
60.8 73.0
74.0 0.3 22.9
22.7 6.7
6.5 2028 13.0
12.5 65.3
59.7 69.4
70.5 0.3 22.9
22.7 6.7
6.5 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1221, Packet Page 1549 Emissions (pounds per day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2029 12.5
12.1 64.3
58.8 66.0
67.1 0.3 22.9
22.7 6.7
6.5 2030 12.0
11.4 58.7
55.9 63.1
64.2 0.3 22.5
22.4 6.3
6.2 2031 11.5
10.9 57.9
55.1 60.3
61.3 0.3 22.5
22.4 6.3
6.2 2032 11.0
10.5 57.2
54.4 57.8
58.9 0.3 22.5
22.4 6.3
6.2 2033 10.7
10.2 56.6
53.9 55.7
56.8 0.3 22.5
22.4 6.3
6.2 2034 10.4
9.9 56.1
53.4 53.8
54.9 0.3 22.5
22.4 6.3
6.2 Maximum Daily Emissions for Off-Site
Improvements (year unknown)
7.0 24.8 19.2 < 0.1 4.2 2.6
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)1 38.1
32.8 185.0
120.9
173.5
180.9
0.5 36.9
35.4 15.2
13.8 MBARD Thresholds n/a n/a n/a n/a 822 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? n/a n/a n/a n/a No n/a
N/A = not applicable
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
1 Because it is unknown at this time when off-site improvements would be constructed, maximum daily construction emissions were calculated by adding the highest modeled daily construction emissions from off-site improvements to the highest modeled daily construction emissions from construction of the Proposed Project. 2 This threshold only applies if construction is located nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors. In addition, a significant air quality impact related to PM10 emissions may occur if a project uses equipment that is not “typical construction equipment” as specified in Section 5.3 of the MBARD CEQA Guidelines.
Source: See Appendix E for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1222, Packet Page 1550
Table 4.2-1 Estimated Maximum Operational Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Emissions 75.7
75.9 1.4
2.9 122.1
122.8
< 0.1
0.1 0.7
0.8 0.7
0.8 Energy Emissions 1.4
1.6 12.5
14.5 7.4
9.1 0.1 1.01.1
1.0 1.1
Mobile Emissions1 11.0 68.9 111.7 0.5 51.5 14.0
Project Emissions
88.1 88.5
82.8 86.3
241.3
243.6
0.6 0.7
53.2 53.4
15.6 15.9
MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A1
N/A = not applicable
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
1 Default trip generation rates for each land use in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the forecast VMT of approximately 22,738,405 net new annual VMT, as closely as possible (Burgett 2019). However, this analysis is conservative because the CalEEMod model assumes 23,739,210 net new annual VMT, which is slightly greater than the annual net new VMT forecasted by TJKM.2 The MBARD does not have a significance threshold for operational PM2.5 emissions.
Source: See Appendix E for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions.
Therefore, the Proposed Project’s construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. This conclusion is confirmed by the Construction Health Risk Assessment (Appendix Q of the Final EIR).
Section 4.3 Biological Resources
Section 4.3.1(a), page 4.3-3:
In total, approximately 14.14 acres of coast live oak woodland occur within the Plan Area.
Tree Survey
An Arborist Report was prepared by HMH, dated October 4, 2019; which included an inventory of 891 trees within the Plan Area. The following trees were observed: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia, 619 total trees), Monterey Cypress (Cupressus marcocarpa, 86 total trees), Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus, 62 total trees), Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata, 61 total trees), Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana, 35 total trees), Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon, 9 total trees), Red Gum (Eucalyptus ficifolia, 9 total trees), Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera, 7 total trees), Myoporum (Myoporum laetum, 2 total trees), and Indian Laurel Fig (Ficus microcarpa, 1 total tree).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1223, Packet Page 1551
Given that the HCP has not yet been finalized, USFWS has generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to Federally listed species within previously developed footprint within designated development areas of the former Fort Ord.
CDFW has generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to non-listed sensitive species within previously developed footprint within designated development areas.
The Proposed Project retains a portion of one of the areas with coast live oak trees within the Plan Area (approximately 1.5 acres), located directly west of General Jim Moore Boulevard, and designates this location as a “tree save” park. However, the Proposed Project includes the removal of approximately 12.64 acres of oak trees, which as noted above under the environmental setting are degraded and fragmented. While the Proposed Project includes the removal of existing trees in the Plan Area, the Proposed Project also provides for the incorporation of new trees in its thoroughfare regulations (Specific Plan Section 3.3), its parking standards (Specific Plan Section 4.7.14), and its landscape regulations, which include coast live oak, and requires replacement of coast live oak and Monterey Cypress trees, and requires replacement of coast live oak trees and Monterey Cypress trees at a ratios described below of 1:1.5 (Specific Plan Section 3.5). Specific Plan Figures 2.2, 2.10, and 3.25 provide plans for new trees within the Plan Area as well as Arborist Report, Exhibit B.
Existing Coast Live Oak trees recommended for preservation (as identified by the criteria in the Arborist Report) that have a height of 10 feet or more, or a circumference of 20 inches or more measured 24 inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced (i) at a ratio of 1:1 within the Plan Area or (ii) at a ratio of 1:5.0 at an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger Coast Live Oak tree meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/4” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base. Trees replaced off-site shall be planted in open space areas for oak forest naturalization from tree pots that have been propagated from the Fort Ord / Marina area.
Existing Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation that have a circumference of 20 inches or more measured 24 inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.2 within the Specific Plan Area or at an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger Monterey Cypress tree, meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/2” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base.
Up to 619 Coast Live Oak trees recommended for preservation would be removed.
Approximately 335 replacement Coast Live Oak Trees could be planted on site, on locations ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1224, Packet Page 1552 within the Plan Area designated as public open space. Assuming that none of the trees to be removed are found infeasible to preserve due to health,5the remaining 284 Coast Live Oak trees to be removed which cannot be replaced on-site would be replaced off site at the 1:5 replacement ratio, for a total of 1,420 off-site replacement Coast Live Oak trees. It is anticipated that off-site tree replacement would occur on the 72-acre City-owned property located south of the Plan Area (bounded by Parker Flats Cut Off Road to the south and west, existing development to the northwest and north, and Gigling Road to the north) or another location approved by the City that can accommodate the required number of trees to be planted, has soil characteristics conducive to tree growth, and does not contain excessive amounts of utility lines that would interfere with root development, in order to ensure the replanted trees have a high success rate. Up to 86 Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation would be removed, and all replacement Monterey Cypress trees could be planted on site as street trees or at an off-site location at a ratio of 1:1.2. The actual number of Coast Live Oak and Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation that need to be removed and replaced, the actual number that can be replaced on-site, and the location of off-site replacement, will be determined at the time of each Development Application.
While the Proposed Project includes replacement trees…
Section 4.4 Cultural Resources
No resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks list, or the California Points of Historical Interest list are located within the Plan Area (OHP 2018). The FORA EIR determined the 1991 baseline contained a limited number of historic resources in Fort Ord as a whole, including “Stilwell Hall and 35 structures in the East Garrison area” (FORA 1997b, p. 4-194.). All of these buildings are located outside of the Plan Area. The East Garrison area is located approximately three miles northeast of the Plan Area. Stilwell Hall was located west of the Plan Area and was torn down in 2003. An additional study was conducted on November 4, 2019 of the Hammerhead Barracks at the project site. The subject Hammerhead-style barracks at Fort Ord were constructed circa 1955, during the Cold War period of growth. This study concluded that the barracks are ineligible for federal, state, or local designation under any applicable designation criteria and is therefore not considered a historical resource under CEQA. The entire study, including its methodology and photographs of the buildings at issue, are attached to the Final EIR as Appendix N.
Section 4.5 Energy
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix E: The energy modeling was revised as follows, which resulted in an overall increase in electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the Proposed Project but did not change the significance of the impact determinations related to energy:
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 75 percent reduction in the lighting energy intensity factor for the residential land uses of the Proposed Project. The 5 Preservation of trees in poor health is not required; therefore, the removal of any trees in poor health do not require replacement trees be planted elsewhere.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1225, Packet Page 1553 modeling was revised to remove this reduction, which had increased energy consumption related to electricity usage, although all energy consumed by residential land uses would continue to be supplied by renewable energy.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 70 percent reduction, rather than a 30 percent reduction, in the Title 24 natural gas energy intensity factor for the Proposed Project to account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The modeling was revised to include a 30 percent reduction, which resulted in increased natural gas consumption. ▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not account for the use of reclaimed water in the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to account for this project feature, which reduced electricity consumption associated with water usage.
As shown in Table 4.5-2, in addition to transportation energy use, the Proposed Project would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas. The Proposed Project would consume approximately 14,559,605 15,953,375 kWh, or 49,677 54,433 MMBtu per year of electricity for lighting and large appliances, and approximately 48,217,178 55,682,598 kBtu, or 48,217 55,683 MMBtu per year of natural gas for heating and cooking (see Appendix E for CalEEMod results). Electricity would be supplied by on-site solar generation, MBCP (the default electricity provider in the Plan Area), or PG&E. Natural gas would be supplied by PG&E. As discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multifamily buildings of three stories and less, which would supply much of the on-site electricity demand. Furthermore, on-site electricity demand would be substantially less than historic usage within the former Fort Ord, as described in detail in Section 3, Environmental Setting. Given historic electricity usage, CEC’s and CPUC’s long range planning efforts, and on-site solar generation, there would be adequate capacity to meet demand for electricity. Furthermore, California natural gas demand, including volumes not served by utility systems, is expected to decrease at a rate of 0.5 percent per year from 2018 to 2035; therefore, the incremental increase in natural gas consumption from the Proposed Project would not indirectly result in the need to secure additional natural gas supplies or construct new or expanded natural gas processing plants (CGEU 2018).
Table 4.5-2 Proposed Project Operational Energy Usage
Source Energy Consumption
Vehicle Trips
Gasoline 982,978 gallons 107,917 MMBtu
Diesel 264,866 gallons 33,760 MMBtu
Built Environment
Electricity 14,559,605
15,953,375 kWh
49,677
54,433 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 48,217,178
55,682,598 kBtu
48,217
55,683 MMBtu
See Appendix E for CalEEMod default values for fleet mix and average distance of travel and energy calculation sheets.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1226, Packet Page 1554 Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix E: The greenhouse gas (GHG) modeling was revised as follows, which resulted in an overall decrease in GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Project:
▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would utilize a construction equipment mix consistent with the statewide average. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume use of Tier 4 Final certified engines for all large construction equipment, which had no impact on constructionrelated GHG emissions because Tier 4 certification is primarily intended to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. ▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would not include woodburning or natural gas fireplaces. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume that 10 percent of single-family residences would include natural gas fireplaces, which resulted in increased GHG emissions associated with area sources. ▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 75 percent reduction in the lighting energy intensity factor for the residential land uses of the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to remove this reduction, which had no impact on GHG emissions related to electricity usage because modeling assumed that all energy consumed by residential land uses would be supplied by renewable energy.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 70 percent reduction, rather than a 30 percent reduction, in the Title 24 natural gas energy intensity factor for the Proposed Project to account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The modeling was revised to include a 30 percent reduction, which resulted in increased GHG emissions related to natural gas consumption.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not include the City’s average solid waste diversion rate of 35 percent. The modeling was revised to include this reduction, which reduced GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not account for the use of reclaimed water in the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to account for this project feature, which reduced GHG emissions associated with water usage.
Area Source Emissions
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from the CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2017).
Based on similar projects constructed by the project applicant, it was assumed that approximately 10 percent of single-family residences would have gas fireplaces.
In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and shown in Appendix E the lighting energy intensity factor for Proposed Project residential uses was reduced by 75 percent to account for the lighting requirements of the latest iterations of Title 24, which are not included in CalEEMod. Furthermore, e Energy usage from single-family residential usage was ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1227, Packet Page 1555 reduced by 7 percent and non-residential energy usage was reduced by 30 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title 24 standards (California Energy Commission 2019).
Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CAPCOA 2017). Based on the City’s solid waste collection data from 2018 to 2019, the City has an average diversion rate of 35 percent, which was included in CalEEMod (Overmeyer 2020).
Pages 4.7-11 to 4.7-12:
Emissions from water usage and wastewater generation calculated in CalEEMod were based on indoor and outdoor water use rates from the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project, which is discussed in detail in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, and is included as Appendix M. The Water Supply Assessment also indicates that all outdoor water use (approximately 9.4 percent of total water use) would be supplied by reclaimed water; therefore, the Reclaimed Water input in CalEEMod was adjusted to reflect this design feature.
For mobile sources, CO2 and CH4 emissions were quantified in CalEEMod based on forecast VMT provided by TJKM, which was calculated based upon AMBAG 2018 Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM).
6 As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, T the Proposed Project would result in approximately 62,297 net new daily VMT, or 22,738,405 net new annual VMT; however, this number is conservative because it does not fully account for displaced growth/redistributed population (Burgett 2019). The default trip generation rates for each land use in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the forecast annual VMT. The GHG analysis uses the inputs from Section 4.14, Transportation, under the Plan’s effect on VMT estimation method (Fehr & Peers 2019, Appendix K).
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions from the Proposed Project would include consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. As shown in Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3, area source emissions would be approximately 26 96 MT of CO2e.
Energy Use Emissions
Operation of the Proposed Project would consume both electricity and natural gas. The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels typically yields CO2, and to a smaller extent, N2O and CH4. As discussed above, annual electricity and natural gas emissions can be calculated using default values from the CEC-sponsored CEUS and RASS studies, which are built into CalEEMod, as well as adjustments for the most recent iterations of Title 24 standards. As shown in Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3, electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the Proposed Project would generate an estimated 2,615 3,016 MT of CO2e per year with 6 Detailed information in the 2018 AMBAG Travel Demand Model is available online: https://ambag.org/programs-services/modeling.
Including the AMBAG 2018 RTDM technical documentation:
http://ambag.org/programs/Modeling/AMBAG_2018RTDM_TechnicalReport.pdf ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1228, Packet Page 1556 approximately 2,588 2,989 MT of CO2e generated by natural gas usage and approximately 27 MT of CO2e generated by electricity usage.
Solid Waste Emissions
As shown in Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3, solid waste associated with the Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,814 1,179 MT of CO2e per year.
Water Use Emissions
Based on the amount of electricity used to supply and convey water, operation of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 293 277 MT of CO2e per year (Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3).
Pages 4.7-15 through 4.7-16:
Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3 combines the construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project. Construction emissions associated with construction activities (approximately 1,999 MT of CO2e) are amortized over 25 years (the anticipated life of the Proposed Project). Combined annual emissions generated by the Proposed Project would total approximately 15,054 14,873 MT of CO2e per year.
Table 4.7-3 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Project Emissions
(MT of CO2e per year)
Construction 1,999.0
Operational
Area
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste
Water
25.6 95.7
26.9 2,588.3
2,989.1
1,814.2
1,179.3
293.5
276.5
Mobile
CO2 and CH4
1 N2O
8,174.6
131.9
Total Emissions 15,054.0
14,873.0
See Appendix E for CalEEMod results and N2O mobile emissions data sheets. 1 Default trip generation rates for each land use in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the forecast VMT of approximately 22,738,405 net new annual VMT, as closely as possible (Burgett 2019). However, this analysis is conservative because the CalEEMod model assumes 23,739,210 net new annual VMT, which is slightly greater than the annual net new VMT forecasted by TJKM.
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the Plan Area currently contains abandoned U.S.
Army buildings (currently City property), a fire station… ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1229, Packet Page 1557
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, baseline GHG emissions from the Plan Area are functionally 0 MT of CO2e per year. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from the Plan Area of approximately 14,873 15,248 MT of CO2e per year. As discussed in Section 4.7.3(a), Methodology and Significance Thresholds, this analysis considers any increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions to be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from the Plan Area of approximately 14,873 15,248 MT of CO2e per year, impacts under this baseline analysis would be cumulatively considerable.
The 1992 Air Quality Baseline Study prepared for the former Fort Ord quantified criteria and toxic air pollutant emissions from base operations but did not quantify GHG emissions (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992). Therefore, in the absence of quantitative data, this analysis qualitatively discusses the magnitude of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions in comparison to the magnitude of GHG emissions generated by the former Ford Ord base.
Therefore, operational GHG emissions generated by the former Fort Ord base in 1991 were quantified and compared to those emissions generated by existing, entitled, and planned Fort Ord base reuse development and the Proposed Project. The full supplementary analysis of GHG emissions under the former Fort Ord 1991 baseline, which is incorporated into the following discussion, is provided as Appendix R.
The former Fort Ord accommodated single-family housing, barracks, commercial retail, a hospital, an elementary school, general light industry and stationary combustion sources, a general aviation airport, recreational uses, and a sports/fitness complex (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992). The former Fort Ord’s resident population was 31,270 persons in 1991, which was accommodated in 23,716 housing units. The former Fort Ord base generated approximately 401,028 MT of CO2e per year (Appendix R).
As discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, since 1991, there has been a total of 1,282 dwelling units, 1,766 existing/replacement dwelling units, and 988,200 square feet of nonresidential space built on the former Fort Ord. In addition, CSUMB has removed 274 military buildings from its campus, reused 66 military buildings, constructed 7 new buildings, constructed recreational facilities, and improved the infrastructure on the campus. Additional residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development is entitled and planned for the former Ford Ord through 2030. New development, including the Proposed Project, is substantially more efficient than prior base development constructed from the 1950s to the 1970s due to increasingly stringent building codes and vehicle efficiency standards that have increased energy, water, and fuel use efficiency since that time, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Existing, entitled, planned, and reasonably foreseeable future base reuse development through 2030 would generate approximately 292,687 MT of CO2e per year.
Therefore, base reuse development plus the Proposed Project would generate approximately 307,560 MT of CO2e per year, which would be approximately 93,468 MT of CO2e per year less than former Fort Ord 1991 baseline conditions (Appendix R). As a result, given that post-1991 development in conjunction with the Proposed Project is less intensive in terms of density and types of uses and more efficient than the former Fort Ord development, it is unlikely that the magnitude of Proposed Project-related GHG emissions combined with GHG emissions generated by all post-1991 development exceeds the magnitude of GHG emissions generated by ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1230, Packet Page 1558 former Fort Ord operations. As such, it is likely that the Proposed Project in combination with other post-1991 development on the former Fort Ord base generate fewer overall GHG emissions than under the 1991 baseline conditions. Therefore, based upon the 1991 former Fort Ord baseline analysis, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
GHG-1(d) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for Operational Emissions In addition to Mitigation Measures GHG-1(b) and GHG-1(c), the project applicant shall prepare and implement a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) that reduces GHG emissions to net zero over the operational life of the Proposed Project. To meet the net zero requirement the Proposed Project must reduce its operational GHG emissions by 13,055 12,874 MT of CO2e per year, or otherwise demonstrate that GHG emissions are at or below Plan Area baseline. Table
4.7-4 proposes a menu of measures that either singularly or in combination would accomplish the required numeric reductions.
Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Plan Area has remnant hazardous materials from historic military uses at the former Fort Ord base. Between 1917 and closure of the Fort Ord base in 1994, various areas of the Plan area was Fort Ord base were operated as infantry, artillery, and cavalry training grounds. The Plan Area was utilized for a fire training center, housing, training, and recreation.
The 1995 Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Fort Ord (Harding Law Associates [HLA] 1995) indicates that there is one Hazard Investigation Site/Operable Unit (OU10) present within the Plan Area which includes a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU14).
In December 2001, the Army published a FOSET (U.S. Army 2001) for four parcels located within the Plan Area which makes these required findings for early property transfer. The four parcels are shown in Figure 4.8-1 and described as follows:
▪ Parcels L2.4.3.1 and L2.4.3.2 include an approximately 1.3-acre site located in the Plan Area, southwest of Colonel Durham Street and 7th Avenue.
▪ Parcel L32.4.1.2 (formerly a portion of L32.4.1) includes an irregularly shaped approximately 16-acre site in the Plan Area, north of Gigling Road, at Malmedy Road. ▪ Parcel L37 includes an approximately 5-acre site in the Plan Area located northwest of Gigling Road and 6th Avenue.
These parcels are shown on Figure 4.8-1. As shown therein, not all portions of the Plan Area have been approved for early transfer. It should be noted that Parcel L2.4.2 was also included for early transfer; however, this parcel is located to the east, outside of the Plan Area.
In May 2003, the Army published FOST Track 0 (U.S. Army 2003) for numerous parcels located within the Plan Area which makes findings for property transfer. Nine of these parcels are present in the Plan Area and are shown in Figure 4.8-1, they include: L19.3, L19.2, L1.1, L23.6, L15.1, L19.4, L32.4.1.1, L7.8, and L7.9 (U.S. Army 2003). It should be noted that Parcels L36, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1231, Packet Page 1559 L32.2.2, and L32.3 were also included for transfer with FOST Track 0; however, these parcels are not a part of the Plan Area.
One of these parcels was identified as ECP Category 1, a parcel where no release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred: L19.3. Eight of these parcels were identified as ECP Category 4, a parcel where a release, migration or disposal of hazardous substances has occurred, and all removal or remedial actions have been taken. ECP Category 4 parcels include: L19.2, L1.1, L23.6, L15.1, L19.4, L32.4.1.1, L7.8, and L7.9.
Plate 12 of FOST Track 0 also indicates that USTs and /or ASTs were formerly present of the following parcels: L32.4.1.1 (2 USTs), L37 (2 ASTs), and IRP 10 (2 ASTs and 2 USTs) as shown in Figure 4.8-1 and described below.
▪ One UST at Parcel L32.4.1.1 is identified as UST 4430 and was utilized to store diesel fuel from 1954-1992. This 3,000-gallon UST was reportedly closed in place in April 1992 and closure was approved by Monterey County Department of Health in January 1994 (U.S.
Army 2003).
▪ The second UST at Parcel L32.4.1.1 is identified as UST 4440 and was utilized to store diesel fuel since 1954. This 3,000-gallon UST was reportedly closed and closure was approved by Monterey County Department of Health April 1994 (MCDH 1994). It is not known if this tank was closed in place or removed.
▪ Two ASTs (4460.1 and 4460.2) at parcel L37 were located near building 4460, and as of 2001 the ASTs were empty and inactive (U.S. Army 2001). No additional information regarding the previous use of these tanks or assessment/remediation action in the area was located in the FOST Track 0 or FOSET 2 documents.
▪ Two ASTs at parcel F2.3.3 (IRP 10) were identified further in a 1990 document discussed later in this report. No additional information regarding the previous use of these tanks or assessment/remediation action in the area was located in the FOST Track 0 or FOSET 2 documents.
▪ Two USTs at parcel F2.3.3 (IRP 10) were identified further in a 1990 document discussed later in this report. The USTs (4400.1 and 4400.2) were closed by Monterey County Department of Health on December 1995 (MCDH 1995). It is not known if these tanks were closed in place or removed.
▪ Parcels F2.3.2, F2.3.3, and F2.3.4 Plan Area parcels, located along General Jim Moore Boulevard could not be located in the baseline, FOST Track 0, or FOSET 2 documents.
However, these parcels were deeded to the City of Seaside as follows: The 2008 quitclaim deed (DACA05-9-07-512) for parcel F2.3.3 (Site 1/burn pit) indicates that the burn pit area was remediated to EPA satisfaction in 1996 (U.S. Army 2012). However, the deed does not indicate if the USTs at this location were removed or if the area in the vicinity of the USTs and ASTS was assessed for potential fuel impacts.
▪ The 2008 quitclaim deed (DACA05-9-08-526) for parcels F2.3.2 and F2.3.4 (east of General Jim Moore Boulevard) indicates that the nearby burn pit area was remediated to EPA satisfaction in 1996 (U.S. Army 2012). However, the deed does not indicate if assessments were ever completed onsite.
In December 2018 the Army FORA began demolition of these buildings and remediation of the Surplus II Area…
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1232, Packet Page 1560
In the Plan Area, the Army is responsible for the cleanup at the Site 10 hazardous investigation site identified in Figure 4.8-1, to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road.
In the Plan Area, FORA is also responsible for cleaning up hazardous materials at military buildings on the Surplus II site, as well as at the hazardous investigation site and soil excavation area identified in Figure 4.8-1 to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road.
Removal and off-site disposal of hazardous wastes by the Army FORA is required prior to demolition of existing contaminated buildings….
Groundwater in and near the Plan Area is tested periodically for contaminants resulting from former military use. One groundwater testing well (MW-10-04-180) is located in the Plan Area, to the north of Gigling Road and west of Malmedy Road. The most recent groundwater testing at this well, on September 14, 2011in 2010 and 2011, identified carbon tetrachloride as the only detectable volatile organic chemical (VOC) contaminant (up to 0.18 0.14 micrograms milligram per liter [µmg/L]) (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2011 2019). This volatile organic chemical (VOC) was produced “to make refrigerants and propellants for aerosol cans, as a solvent for oils, fats, lacquers, varnishes, rubber waxes, and resins, and as a grain fumigant and a dry cleaning agent” (USEPA 2016). For reference, California’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) for carbon tetrachloride in drinking water is 0.0005 mg/L (or 0.5 µg/L). This groundwater monitoring well, and other wells formerly located at Site 10, have been abandoned (Ahtna Environmental 2019a).
The remaining existing structures in the Plan Area contain hazardous materials such as leadbased paint, ACMs, universal waste, and PCBs. Existing structures include non-building structures, such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines which may contain ACM. Exposure to lead can cause adverse health effects, including disturbance of the gastrointestinal system, anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases)…
Friable ACMs are regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a worker safety hazard, they are also regulated under the authority of Cal/OSHA and by MBARD. In structures slated for demolition, any ACMs would be abated in accordance with State and Federal regulations prior to the start of demolition or renovation activities and in compliance with all applicable existing rules and regulations, including MBARD. This includes removal of non-building structures and facility components, such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines which may contain ACM. (40 CFR Parts 61.141 and
61.145). The Army is required to remediate and safely dispose of hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, universal waste, and PCBs as part of the Superfund cleanup process, even though the land has already been transferred for future Campus Town development (FORA 1997b). As discussed above in the Regulatory Setting, many existing structures in the Plan Area ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1233, Packet Page 1561 have been safely removed by an industrial hygienist service retained by FORA, which included general assessments to identify toxic and hazardous substances, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, underground storage tank leaks, molds, other hazardous materials, wastes, report preparation, site assessments, preliminary plans, working drawings, remediation, and disposal.
The MBARD Asbestos Program regulates the handling of asbestos and operates as a cradle to grave basis through the regulation of all aspects related to the handling of asbestos materials from discovery through removal, through transportation and disposal. These programs would ensure that asbestos removal would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment that could impair human health. Therefore, the impact related to ACMs would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following Condition of Approval has been added to ensure implementation of ACM regulations.
COA HAZ-1: If non-building related ACMs, baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines, proposed for removal are encountered during demolition or grading, the applicant shall survey the materials for ACMs, and contaminants of concern prior to disturbing and removing the materials. If discovered onsite, ACMs will be handled in compliance with applicable regulations.
Although hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, universal waste, and PCBs are currently present in the remaining hammerhead buildings in the Plan Area, the Army FORA is required to remediate and safely dispose of them as part of the Superfund cleanup process, even though the land has already been transferred for future Campus Town development (FORA 1997b). This type of demolition and remediation activity in the Surplus II Area has been previously approved pursuant to the FORA Capital Improvements Program.
For soil and groundwater impacts, the USEPA oversees the remediation process, and the Army must also submit findings to the CalEPA. Remediation of hazardous materials will occur in accordance with the RA-ROD. Although the former Fort Ord base is a listed Superfund site, concentrations of contaminants in the Plan Area would not exceed State regulatory limits after this remediation process. Therefore, under implementation of the Proposed Project, residents, employees, visitors, and other people in the Plan Area would not be exposed to hazardous concentrations of remnant materials from the Fort Ord site.
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Seawater intrusion is an ongoing problem in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR 2004).
The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer which is North of the Monterey Subbasin) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion.1 The Draft EIR incorporated by reference the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the Monterey sub-basin 400-foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1234, Packet Page 1562 not substantially progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section 4.2.5). MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.
According to the 2019 Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan, current ‘seawater intrusion extends approximately 7 miles inland within the 180-foot aquifer and 4 miles inland in the 400- foot Aquifer. (Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan 3-41, 3-42, available at http://www.salinasrivermanagementprogram.org/ltmp_doc.html.)
Onsite groundwater monitoring wells screened in the upper 180-foot aquifer were tested up until approximately 2011 when the wells were deemed unnecessary and abandoned. It appears that onsite wells were not screened or tested in the A-Aquifer, Lower 180-Foot Aquifer, and 400-Foot Aquifer. The wells were utilized initially to determine if groundwater at Site 10 was impacted from the historic use at the burn pit. The groundwater wells were also utilized for a time as upgradient monitoring wells as part of the OU2 groundwater monitoring.
The remediation system at OU2 has been operating since 1995 to remediate the OU2-Aquifer, the OU2 Upper 180-Foot Aquifer, and the OU Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Upper 180-Foot Foot Aquifer (Ahtna 2019b). Deep aquifer groundwater assessment documents were not readily available at the Fort Ord Cleanup website. Assessments have been completed by the Army at the A-Aquifer, Upper 180-Foot Aquifer, and the Lower 180-Foot Aquifer and are available online at the Fort Ord Cleanup website.
Studies by the United States Geological Survey indicate that Deep Aquifer water in the vicinity of Marina is not of recent origin. Uncorrected Carbon 14 dating of water from a test well in the vicinity of Marina’s Deep Aquifer wells indicates the water is between 22,000 and 31,000 years old. The ancient nature of this water raises the possibility that recharge to this aquifer may be insufficient to sustain current pumping, but monitoring well data at the Marina Airport indicates the aquifer is subject to seasonal variations similar to the upper aquifers. Recent stratigraphic analyses have indicated that these aquifers are connected hydraulically at certain locations with the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, which may be recharging the Deep Aquifer. (MCWD Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, at p. 37, available at https://www.mcwd.org/docs/agenda_minutes/2016-06-06_board/Item%2011-A%20- %20MCWD%20Draft%202015%20UWMP%20v20160520.pdf.)
The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion (MCWRA 2019).5 The Draft EIR incorporated by reference, the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the Monterey sub-basin 400- foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has not substantially ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1235, Packet Page 1563 progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section 4.2.5).
MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.
If groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in overdraft and lowered groundwater levels which would lead to seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium, etc.). To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to secure water supplies for the Proposed Project by offsetting potable water demands. Because the potable water demands of the Proposed Project would be offset by the City, the Proposed Project would not result in seawater intrusion.
Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Consequently, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
As discussed in detail under Impact HWQ-2, mandatory compliance with the Seaside Municipal Code, FORA Stormwater Master Plan, and Central Coast RWQCB post-construction requirements for stormwater management would minimize the Proposed Project’s interference with groundwater recharge of the underlying Monterey Subbasin.
The Proposed Project would increase the demand for water, most of which would derive from groundwater sources. As discussed in detail in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, within the Ord Community, 6,600 AFY of existing Salinas Valley groundwater supply has been allocated among the land use jurisdictions by FORA. The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well. The City has an existing potable water allocation of Salinas Valley Groundwater of 1,012.5 AFY (from the 6,600 AFY regional allocation), and has previously sub-allocated 831.2 831.9 AFY to other projects, leaving 181.3 180.6 AFY available. Based on the calculations in the WSA, the available water supply of 181.3 180.6 AFY is not sufficient to meet the Proposed Project’s potable water demand of 441.6 AFY. To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to secure water supplies for the Proposed Project by offsetting potable water demands with in-lieu storage and offset programs. With implementation of these programs, total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection would meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to the MCWD’s existing and planned future uses.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1236, Packet Page 1564
As discussed under Impacts HWQ-2 and HWQ-5, the Proposed Project would increase the demand for water, most of which would be derived from groundwater sources. Cumulative development would also increase demands for groundwater supplies. Compliance with applicable regulations and the impending development of groundwater sustainability plans for the Monterey Subbasin would ensure the long-term sustainability of groundwater supplies.
Therefore, cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact. To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to secure water supplies for the Proposed Project by offsetting potable water demands.
Consequently, the Proposed Project’s impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater management efforts would be less than significant and the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to groundwater.
Section 4.10 Land Use Planning
Table 4.10-1, page 4.10-32 and page 4.10-35 (revised rows only):
General Plan Policy Discussion
Land Use Element
Goal LU-5: Collaborate with local and regional water suppliers to continue to provide quality water supply and treatment capacity to meet community needs.
Policy LU-5.4: Promote the use of recycled water
for irrigation of parks, golf courses, and public
landscaped areas in the community.
Consistent. Chapter 5, Infrastructure, of the Specific Plan requires the installation of a recycled water main in
Lightfighter Drive from 1st Avenue to General Jim Moore Boulevard and adjacent to Gigling Road from General Jim Moore Boulevard to 7th Avenue. Following installation of this recycled water main, recycled water could Would be used to irrigate public street landscape medians, public parks, opens space, and landscaping for commercial/flex sites and residential front yards. Recycled water may also be provided for domestic (toilets, floor sinks, and other applicable uses allowed under the California Building
Code) use by multi-family residential units. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with Policy LU-5.4.
Circulation Element
Goal C-3: Promote the increased use of multi-modal transportation.
Policy C-3.4: Support alternative modes of
transportation that encourage physical
activity, such as biking and walking.
Consistent. The Specific Plan includes policies to implement a multi-modal transportation network on-site through the design of complete streets for all forms of mobility and the consideration of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicle occupants. The Specific Plan also includes goals and policies to develop well-designed, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and create a walkable community by restricting providing motorized intersection density at to a minimum of 235 238 intersections per square mile. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the provisions of Policy C-3.4.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1237, Packet Page 1565 Table 4.10-2, page 4.10-42, page 4.10-56 (revised rows only):
General Plan Policy Discussion
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal LUD-9. A safe environment oriented and scaled to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy. Streetscape design. Create
pedestrian-oriented streetscapes by
establishing a unified approach to
street tree planting, sidewalk
dimensions and maintenance,
pedestrian amenities, and high-quality
building frontages.
Consistent. The Specific Plan also includes goals and policies to develop well-designed, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and to create a walkable community by providing motorized
intersection density of 238 intersections per square mile. The Specific Plan includes development standards to encourage a unified approach. Chapter 4, Private Realm Standards and Guidelines, of the Specific Plan would ensure new development in the private realm exhibits to have high standards of urban design, architecture, and landscaping. These private standards are intended to maintain a consistent street frontage
throughout the subareas with uniform building placement and frontage along the street, to create a built environment that emphasizes pedestrian scale and variety by using Ffenestration, awnings, and frequent building entries. In the Specific Plan Section 3.5, Landscape Standards and Guidelines, specific, allowable street trees and landscape planting types would be determined by their location and function. Section 3.6, Streetscape Guidelines, of the Specific Plan would require streetscape design elements, such as specific paving palette, street furniture, street lighting, and public art as a function of street type.
Goal M-1. A citywide network of “complete streets” that meets the needs of all users, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors.
Policy: Roundabouts. Consider
installation of roundabouts as shown
on Figure 23, provided the cost of
roundabouts does not result in
overspending on motor vehicle traffic
improvements at the expense of other
modes.
Consistent. Implementation of the Proposed Project would in the installation of two roundabouts along General Jim Moore Boulevard, one at the intersection with Gigling Road and the other at Lightfighter Drive.
Section 4.12 Population and Housing
Pages 4.12-7 and 4.12-11 have been revised:
[T]he City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element Technical Appendix identifies available sites for residential development, which include the Plan Area. (HE-App-11958.) According to the 2009- 2014 Housing Element, “[r]ecent acquisition of land in the former Fort Ord area has given the City new opportunities for residential and nonresidential development.” (HE-4.) Also, the “former Fort Ord site could accommodate a large number of high density residential units and is available for development.” (HE-App-83.)
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1238, Packet Page 1566 Section 4.14 Transportation
Students, staff, and faculty of CSUMB receive free unlimited access on all MST regular bus routes with their CSUMB Otter ID card. Additionally, all transit users with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may have access to the MST paratransit program service known as (RIDES).
This service operates on a point-to-point basis. Appointments are and eligibility is required to guarantee for service, and service is not available on weekends or holidays.
Table 4.14-3 Existing Transit Route Headways
Route Description (to/from) Hours of Operation Average Weekday Headway 12 The Dunes - NPS 6:45am to 5:38pm Varies between one and four hours
18 Monterey - Marina 6:07am to 10:45pm Every 60 minutes 67 Presidio - Marina Friday from 2:15 pm
to 10:10 pm
Weekends from
10:15am to 10:10 pm
Every 120 minutes on Fridays
Every 60 minutes on weekends
74 Presidio – Toro Park 6:30am to 6:00 pm One route in each direction in the morning and one evening
route towards Toro Park
75 Presidio – Marshall Park
Express
5:55 am to 9:56 pm Varies between 60 to 120
minutes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2019; transit information dated November 2018.
Section 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix M: Monterey Peninsula College water allocation is hereby revised from 9.0 to 9.7 AFY. Therefore, all references in the Draft EIR and the WSA to the City of Seaside unallocated amount of water from its FORA allocation should be read as changing from 181.3 to 180.6. The City of Seaside’s existing water sub-allocation is also revised from 831.2 to 831.9 AFY. Relatedly, the Project’s demand for water that cannot be met using the FORA allocation is revised from 260.3 to 261.0 AFY, and Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is revised to require a water offset of 261.0 AFY.
The 6,600 acre-feet per year amount includes 5,200 acre-feet from the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, along with 1,400 acre-feet per year from the 900-foot or Deep Aquifer.
The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin has a large storage volume and is recharged by the Salinas River, which is augmented by upstream reservoirs. Consequently, the aquifer does not ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1239, Packet Page 1567 experience wide level variations due to climatic conditions. Water levels vary by 20 to 30 feet seasonally, and decline an additional 10 to 20 feet during drought periods. MCWD’s demands accounted for less than one percent of the total groundwater pumped from the Salinas groundwater basin in 2015, the latest year reported. Therefore, the MCWD’s supply is considered reliable on a quantity basis.
The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion (MCWRA 2019).6 The Draft EIR incorporated by reference, the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the Monterey sub-basin 400- foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has not substantially progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section 4.2.5).
MCWD’s wells in Central Marina (MCWD wells 10, 11, and 12), although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.
Within the Ord Community, 6,600 AFY of existing Salinas Valley groundwater supply has been allocated among the land use jurisdictions by FORA. The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well.
The City has an existing potable water allocation of Salinas Valley Groundwater of 1,012.5 AFY (from the 6,600 AFY regional allocation), and has previously sub-allocated 831.2 831.9 AFY to other projects, leaving 181.3 180.6 AFY available. Based on the calculations in the WSA, the available water supply of 181.3 180.6 AFY is not sufficient to meet the Proposed Project’s potable water demand of 441.6 AFY. If groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in overdraft and lowered groundwater levels which would lead to seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium...
The Proposed Project is projected to use up to 45.83 AFY of recycled water. The City of Seaside has an allocation of 453 AFY from the Phase 1 Recycled Water Project, which will be available in 2019. Once the recycled water distribution system is operational, potable water use that is replaced with recycled water may be reallocated to new projects. Therefore, impacts associated with potable water supply, including groundwater are considered significant.
To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, several in-lieu storage and offset programs have been identified. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been proposed to address the 260.03 261 AFY potable water supply shortfall which includes:
UTIL-1 Water Offset Programs
To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 AFY of available potable water supply, the City shall secure the additional water ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1240, Packet Page 1568 supplies needed for the Proposed Project. To do so, the City shall implement programs to supply a minimum of 260.3 261 AFY. Programs to achieve this include, but would not be limited to:
▪ Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses in-lieu storage and recovery program, which would replace a minimum of 311.08 AFY of existing potable water use with recycled water (up to 450 AFY, as outlined in Court’s October 25, 2019 Order and Motion for Approval of In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program. as recycled water supplies increase). If implemented, this program alone could address the remaining potable water supply needed for the Proposed Project.
▪ Seaside Highlands and Soper Field recycled water substitution program to offset 53.1 AFY of potable water use. The Seaside Highlands development was constructed with recycled water mains to supply the landscape irrigation systems. This system is currently fed with potable water, but recycled water will be available within the next few years. Providing recycled water for irrigation of that project would make up to 43.1 AFY of potable supply available for reallocation from Seaside Highlands. An additional 10 AFY may be made available by converting the City’s Soper Field sports complex (adjacent to Seaside Highlands) to recycled water.
▪ Main-Gate offset program, which would require the previously approved Main-Gate project to utilize 42.99 AFY of recycled water in-lieu of previously allocated potable water supply. ▪ The City may also require dual-plumbing of buildings to use recycled water for sanitary fixtures (flushing toilets and urinals), which will offset potable water demand with recycled water.
Prior to issuance of a final map, the City shall demonstrate the offset of 260.3 261 AFY of potable water based upon available programs, and the applicant shall obtain written verification from MCWD that sufficient water supplies have been secured.
Cumulative development in the MCWD service area will continue to increase demands on water supplies. Table 3-3 in the WSA (Appendix M1) shows projected water demands for MCWD through 2035. By 2040, MCWD anticipates a total demand of 10,881 AFY, an increase of 6,677 AFY from the 2015 demands (MCWD 2019). As discussed above under Impact UTIL-1, due to water demands from the project in combination with projected growth, there are insufficient existing water supplies to accommodate cumulative development and achieve full buildout of the Proposed Project, which is projected to demand 441.6 AFY of potable water. This results in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As discussed under Impact UTIL-1, if groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in overdraft and lowered groundwater levels which would lead to seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium). To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require the City to implement programs to offset potable supply, thereby making potable supplies available for the demands of the Proposed Project. The City would be required to demonstrate that sufficient water supplies have been secured prior to issuance of final map. With mitigation, impacts related to water supply sufficiency would be less than significant. Therefore, after mitigation, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding water supply services.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1241, Packet Page 1569 Section 5.4 Urban Decay
The Proposed Project would therefore house a variety of commercial business types in a variety of sizes, but no individual store would exceed 40,000 square feet.... Additionally, the new residential units incorporated into the Proposed Project would generate on-site demand for retail/commercial uses, and are not expected to take away demand from any centralized location in the AMBAG region such that it would induce urban decay at other locations. An Urban Decay study was conducted by ALH Urban & Regional Economics in November 2019. This study found that “there would... be no Campus Town-induced risk of existing retail business closures,” and concluded that the Project would not result in urban decay (Urban Decay Study page 30). The study found that in the Seaside market area, “the commercial properties... are moderately to well-maintained,” and that the retail vacancy rate as a whole is within typical retail industry standards of 5% to 10%” (Urban Decay Study pages 5–6). The Project will generate a significant portion of the demand of the support for its own commercial spaces, and although some sales within the Plan Area may be diverted from existing market area retailers, there will be new sources of retail demand generated in the market area to offset these potential diverted sales (Urban Decay Study page 6).
Section 7 References
Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP). 2014. SWPPP construction provisions. May 26, 2014.
http://montereysea.org/docs/brochures/2014%20Construction%20Site%20BMP.pdf (accessed August 2018).
Overmeyer, Kurt. 2020. Economic Development Director, City of Seaside. Personal communication via email regarding City solid waste diversion rates with Megan Jones, Principal, Rincon Consultants, Inc. January 24, 2020.
Overmeyer, Kurt. 2020. Economic Development Director, City of Seaside. Personal communication via email regarding City solid waste diversion rates with Megan Jones, Principal, Rincon Consultants, Inc. January 24, 2020.
Ahtna Environmental. 2019a. Operable Unit 2, Second Quarter 2019 Groundwater Monitoring and Treatment System Report, Former Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 23, 2019.
_____. 2019b. Technical Summary Report – Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctanic Sulfonate Basewide Review of Historical Activities and Groundwater Monitoring at Operable Unit 2, Former Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
September 27, 2019.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Western Division. 1990. Final Site Investigation Report, Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett, California, Part 1- Text. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1242, Packet Page 1570 of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha Nebraska and Directorate of Engineering and Housing Fort Ord, California. February 8, 1990.
Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1992. Sampling and Analysis Plan Modification, Site 10 – Burn Pit, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord, California. Available at:
http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar_pdfs/AR-BW-0241//BW-0241_text.pdf (accessed February 2018)
_____. 1995. Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord, California, Volume I – Background and Executive Summary. Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. October 18, 1995.
_____. 1996. Interim Action Confirmation Report Site 10 - Burn Pit, Fort Ord, California.
Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. August 30, 1996.
Monterey County Department of Health (MCDH). 1994. NFA Letter. From Robert J Melton, Director (Monterey County Department of Health) to James Willison, Chief (Environmental and Natural Resources Management Division). April 6, 1994. _____. 1995. Re: Underground Storage Tank Closures. From Robert J Melton, Director (Monterey County Department of Health) to Barbara Schmitt, Commander (Presidio of Monterey). December 13, 1995.
_____Monterey County Health Department. 2018. Hazardous Materials Management Services. http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/health/environmentalhealth/hazardous-material-management (accessed September 2018).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. GeoTracker Database. Fort Ord - * BW (DOD100196700), Analytical Results - MW-10-04-180. 2019. Geotracker Database: Fort Ord – Basinwide Information (DOD100196700). Analytical Results – MW-10-04-180. http://www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?cmd=MWEDFResults&globa l_id=DOD100196700&assigned_name =MW-10-04-180 (accessed October 2019).
United States Army. 1995. Approval Memorandum, Proposed Interim Action Excavation, IA Area 10A, Site – Burn Pit, Fort Ord, California. April 1995. http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar_pdfs/AR-IAFS-146//IAFS-146.pdf (accessed August 2018).
_____. 2001. Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer with a CERCLA 120(h)(3) Covenant Deferral:
Housing Areas and Former Garrison Parcels, Former Fort Ord, California. December 2001. (FOSET), Former Fort Ord, California. December 1, 2001. _____. 2003. Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), Track 0 Parcels, Former Fort Ord, California. May 27, 2003.
_____. 2012. Final 3rd Five-Year Review Report for Fort Ord Superfund Site, Monterey County, California. September 17, 2012.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1243, Packet Page 1571 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1244, Packet Page 1572 Revised Figures
Figure 2-7 Conceptual Recycled Water System Plan:
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1245, Packet Page 1573 Figure 2-8 Conceptual Stormwater System:
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1246, Packet Page 1574 Figure 4.8-1 Surplus II Hazardous Sites in Plan Area
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1247, Packet Page 1575 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1248, Packet Page 1576 Figure 4.9-2 Groundwater Basin Subareas Near Plan Area
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1249, Packet Page 1577 Figure 4.14-1 Existing and Planned Transit Network
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1250, Packet Page 1578 Figure 4.14-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities Network ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1251, Packet Page 1579 Figure 4.14-3 Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities Network:
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1252, Packet Page 1580 Appendix B – Campus Town Specific Plan
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1253, Packet Page 1581
There is a desired regional flow of bike and pedestrian traffic to and through Campus Town extending from CSUMB Main Campus Library/Quad area to existing bike facilities in Seaside that extend as far north as the intersection of Normandy Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard.
Connection to the FORTAG spurs will occur at accessible gradients where feasible and to the extent that those connections fall within the boundary of this Specific Plan.
Given the unique ecosystem in Monterey Bay, the careful selection of landscaping in the Campus Town Specific Plan Area is linked to the vitality and sustainability of the local natural environment. The appropriate incorporation of street trees and vegetation detailed below will ensure the mutual health of the natural and built environments.
Existing Coast Live Oak trees recommended for preservation [as identified by the criteria in the Arborist Report] that have a height of ten feet or more, or a circumference of twenty inches or ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1254, Packet Page 1582 more measured twenty-four inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced (i) at a ratio of 1:1 within the Plan Area or (ii) at a ratio of 1:5 an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). 1:1.5 within the Specific Plan Area. The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger specimen, measuring one inch or more in diameter at a point of twelve inches above the base, and not less than seven feet in height, Coast Live Oak tree meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/4” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base. Trees replaced off-site shall be planted in open space areas for oak forest naturalization from tree pots that have been propagated from the Fort Ord / Marina area.
Existing Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation that have a circumference of 20 inches or more measured 24 inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.2 within the Specific Plan Area or at an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger Monterey Cypress tree, meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/2” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base.
Within the CC Sub-area, no building permit for any non-fire station use shall be issued for the land located on the east side General Jim Moore Boulevard between Lightfighter Drive and Gigling Road that currently house the existing fire station, until replacement fire services are operational.
4.5.1.9 Large Format Retail (over 15,000 sf), including but not limited to the following:
supermarkets, furniture stores, department stores, and cinemas. No individual use may exceed 75,000 40,000 sf, although two or more users may occupy a single building so long as no individual use exceeds 40,000 sf. on a single story.
The maximum anchor floor footprint is 60,000 gross square feet. No single use may exceed 40,000 gross square feet, but multiple users may utilize the full 60,000 square feet. The City may grant…
The maximum anchor floor footprint is 60,000 gross square feet. No single use may exceed 40,000 gross square feet, but multiple users may utilize the full 60,000 square feet. The City may grant…
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1255, Packet Page 1583
1. Tree Removal and Replacement. Each Development Application shall specify any tree to be removed or altered and shall demonstrate compliance with the Coast Live Oak and Monterey Cypress tree replacement policyies in this Specific Plan. Such application shall identify the Lot or off-site location on which the tree is located, or to be planted, provide a perimeter outline of an existing or proposed building on the Lot, specify the location of the tree, and furnish a brief statement of the reason for the request. The following finding must be made if it is determined that any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed: the preservation of the tree(s) would impair the implementation of the Base Reuse Plan, the General Plan, and/or the Specific Plan on the site in question, and/or the preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). Final approval of a Conformance Determination with respect to any Development Application indicating any trees to be removed shall constitute a permit to remove or alter any trees so designated, subject to tree replacement requirements solely to the extent required by Section 3.5 of this Specific Plan. Appeal of such permit shall be subject to the same provisions as appeal of a Conformance Determination, as provided herein.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1256, Packet Page 1584 Appendix K – Traffic Impact Study, Fehr & Peers
Other minor revisions not included in this summary include revising table numbers, correcting capitalization, and defining acronyms in text.
Scenario 5: Cumulative (2040) Conditions – Vehicle miles traveled from the future year (2040) travel demand forecasting model from AMBAG. This includes any land use updates as part of the City’s proposed Seaside 2040 General Plan, not including the Campus Town Specific Plan development.
Students, staff, and faculty of CSUMB receive free unlimited access on all MST regular bus routes with their CSUMB Otter ID card. Additionally, all transit users with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may have access to the MST para-transit program (paratransit service known as RIDES). This service operates on a point-to-point basis and eligibility is required for service.
Results from the AMBAG model were provided by TJKM for use in this analysis. Additional information about the model, any changes that were made, and how the data was extracted can be found in the model documentation provided by TJKM as part of the draft Seaside 2040 General Plan. VMT estimates were developed for the Plan area, for the following scenarios:
As discussed in Chapter 1: Vehicle Miles Traveled 3, SB 743…
However, the VMT estimates are primarily affected by the dominate dominant land use in the Plan area…
2018 conditions by interpolating between the 2015 and 2040 conditions”:
10 The AMBAG travel demand forecasting model uses a 2015 base year. The model results from 2015 and 2040 were interpolated to obtain 2018 base year results. Formula: VMT2018 = VMT2015 + (2018 – 2015) * [(VMT2040 – VMT2015) / (2040 - 2015)].
The model contains freeways, arterials, and local streets within the Monterey Bay region. Land uses are summarized in traffic analysis zones. The model includes similar detail in the rest of the AMBAG area of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. Information regarding VMT, service population and number of trip ends for the Plan traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and the AMBAG region was provided for the base year and 2040 future year by the City of Seaside’s Seaside 2040 General Plan transportation consultant, TJKM, on May 8, 2019. These future year estimates include growth assumed in Seaside as presented in the preliminary Seaside 2040 General Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1257, Packet Page 1585
Traffic volumes for Existing Conditions are based on turning movement counts as described in Chapter 32
Under Existing Conditions, southbound segments are generally more congested during the morning peak hour. In addition, congestion is experienced along State Route 1 between Del Monte Boulevard and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard in northbound direction during evening peak hour. Existing freeway segments operations are summarized in Table 18 and freeway merge and diverge operations are found in Table 19. Detailed calculation sheets are presented in Appendix H.
Table 18 Existing with Plan Freeway Segment Level of Service Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Existing Conditions Existing with Plan Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1
between
Lightfighter Drive
and Del Monte
Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM
15.2 25.32
B
C
15.54 25.8
39 88
0.5%
1.2%
B
C
SB 7,050 AM
PM
30.45 16.9
D
B
31.1 17.23
70 69
1.0%
1.0%
D
B
2 State Route 1
between Del
Monte Boulevard
and Canyon Del
Rey Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM
20.01 32.1
C
D
20.34 33.3
39 88
0.8%
1.8%
C
D
SB 4,700 AM
PM
34.57 21.2
D
C
35.67 21.7
70 69
1.5%
1.5%
E
C
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.
1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound
2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour
3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.
4. Level of service based on density.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1258, Packet Page 1586 Table 19 Existing with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number of
Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density (vphpl) LOS Density (vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM
21.4 31.7
C
D
21.8 32.4
C
D
Fremont/Del Monte
Off-Ramp
Diverge 2 AM
PM
25.3 36.5
C
E
25.7 37.3
C
E
Fremont/Del Monte
On-Ramp
Merge 2 AM
PM
15.2 25.7
B
C
15.5 26.2
B
D
Lightfighter OffRampDiverge 3 AM
PM
20.4 29.3
C
D
20.7 29.8
C
D
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter OnRampMerge 3 AM
PM
30.8 19.6
D
B
31.4 20.2
D
C
Fremont/Del Monte
Off-Ramp
Diverge 3 AM
PM
30.4 16.9
D
B
31.1 17.2
D
B
Fremont/Del Monte
On-Ramp
Merge 2 AM
PM
33.4 23.1
D
C
33.9 23.6
D
C
Canyon Del Rey OffRampDiverge 2 AM
PM
37.6 26.1
E
C
38.2 26.7
E
C
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
Background with Plan Conditions
Freeway volumes for the Background and Background with Plan Conditions were developed as described in Chapter 7. Future operations of freeway mainline segments in Monterey County were evaluated using level of service and percent of Plan traffic added to each roadway segment.
Table 20 and Table 21 presents the summary for the Background and Background with Plan Conditions freeway operations, and freeway merge and diverge operations, respectively. All segments operate below LOS C under without Plan and with Plan Conditions, except northbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the AM peak hour and southbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the PM peak hour. Appendix H includes the freeway density calculations and levels of service.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1259, Packet Page 1587 Table 20 Background with Plan Freeway Level of Service
Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Background
Conditions
Background with Plan
Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent
of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive
and Del Monte Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM
21.7 35.0
C
E
21.9 35.9
39 88
0.5%
1.2%
C
E
SB 7,050 AM
PM
39.4 24.8
E
C
40.4 25.2
70 69
1.0%
1.0%
E
C
2 State Route 1 between Del Monte
Boulevard and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM
32.4 >45.0
D
F
32.9 >45.0
39 87
0.8%
1.8%
D
F
SB 4,700 AM
PM
>45.0
38.7 F
E
>45.0
39.9 70
69 1.5%
1.5%
F
E
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.
1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound
2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour
3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.
4. Level of service based on density.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1260, Packet Page 1588 Table 21 Background with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number of
Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density
(vphpl) LOS
Density
(vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM
31.67 --
D
F
32.0 --
D
F
Fremont/Del Monte OffRampDiverge 2 AM
PM
36.7 --
E
F
37.1 --
E
F
Fremont/Del Monte OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM
21.7 35.9
C
E
21.9 36.8
C
E
Lightfighter Off-Ramp Diverge 3 AM
PM
27.6 35.6
CD
E
27.9 36.1
C
E
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter On-Ramp Merge 3 AM
PM
36.8 29.1
E
D
37.4 29.7
E
D
Fremont/Del Monte OffRampDiverge 3 AM
PM
39.4 24.8
E
C
40.4 25.2
E
C
Fremont/Del Monte OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM
--
35.5 F
E
--
36.1 F
E
Canyon Del Rey OffRampDiverge 2 AM
PM
--
40.0 F
E
--
--
F
F
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
Cumulative with Plan Conditions
Freeway volumes for the Cumulative and Cumulative with Plan scenarios were developed as described in Chapter 7. Future operations of freeway mainline segments in Monterey County were evaluated using level of service and percent of Plan traffic added to each roadway segment.
Table 22 and Table 23 presents the summary for the Cumulative and Cumulative with Plan Conditions freeway operations. All segments operate below LOS C under without Plan and with Plan Conditions, except northbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the AM peak hour. Appendix H includes the freeway density calculations and levels of service.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1261, Packet Page 1589 Table 1922 Cumulative with Plan Freeway Level of Service Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Cumulative Conditions
Cumulative with Plan
Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent
of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1 between
Lightfighter Drive and Del
Monte Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM
23.20 37.54
C
E
23.43 38.4
39 88
0.5%
1.2%
C
E
SB 7,050 AM
PM
42.67 26.6
E
D
43.78 27.01
70 69
1.0%
1.0%
E
D
2 State Route 1 between Del
Monte Boulevard and Canyon
Del Rey Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM
36.15 >45
E
F
36.77.1 >45
39 87
0.8%
1.8%
E
F
SB 4,700 AM
PM
>45
44.1 F
E
>45
>45
70 69
1.5%
1.5%
F
F
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.
1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound
2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour
3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.
4. Level of service based on density.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1262, Packet Page 1590 Table 23 Cumulative with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number
of Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density
(vphpl) LOS
Density
(vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey On-Ramp Merge 2 AM
PM
33.8 --
D
F
34.1 --
D
F
Fremont/Del Monte Off-Ramp Diverge 2 AM
PM
39.1 --
E
F
39.4 --
E
F
Fremont/Del Monte On-Ramp Merge 2 AM
PM
23.2 38.4
C
E
23.4 39.4
C
E
Lightfighter Off-Ramp Diverge 3 AM
PM
29.0 36.7
D
E
29.3 37.2
D
E
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter On-Ramp Merge 3 AM
PM
--
30.9 F
D
--
31.5 F
D
Fremont/Del Monte Off-Ramp Diverge 3 AM
PM
42.6 26.6
E
D
43.7 27.0
E
D
Fremont/Del Monte On-Ramp Merge 2 AM
PM
--
--
F
F
--
--
F
F
Canyon Del Rey Off-Ramp Diverge 2 AM
PM
--
--
F
F
--
--
F
F
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.
This section summarizes the queues calculated in Synchro using the Poisson distribution method2010 HCM outputs at the off-ramps with signalized terminal intersections.
This section summarizes the queues calculated in Synchro using the Poisson distribution method2010 HCM outputs at the off-ramps with signalized terminal intersections.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1263, Packet Page 1591 Figure Revisions
Figure Titles:
Figure 1: Campus Town Specific Plan Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Campus Town Specific Plan Site Plan Area
Figure 3: Campus Town Specific Plan Proposed Roadway Classifications Figure 4: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Figure 5: Existing and Approved Transit Routes Network
Figure 6: Existing and Approved Bicycle Facilities
Figure 7: Existing and Approved Pedestrian Network
Figure 8: Campus Town Specific Plan - Trip Distribution Figure 9: Campus Town Specific Plan - Trip Assignment for Existing and Background Trip Assignment Conditions
Figure 10: Campus Town Specific Plan - Cumulative Trip Assignment for Cumulative Conditions ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1264, Packet Page 1592 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1265, Packet Page 1593 Appendix C, MainStreet Summary, has been added to this appendix:
MainStreet
Current accepted trip generation methods, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation method, are primarily based on data collected at suburban, single-use, freestanding sites. These defining characteristics limit their applicability to mixed-use or multi-use development projects, or where complementary land uses are added (such as adding residential units to an office rich area). The land use mix, design features, and setting of the proposed Campus Town Specific Plan land use alternatives would include characteristics that influence travel behavior differently from typical single-use suburban developments. Thus, traditional data and methods, like ITE, would not accurately estimate the project vehicle trip generation. In response to the limitations in the ITE method, and to provide a straightforward and empiricallyvalidated method of estimating vehicle trip generation at mixed-use developments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a national study of the trip generation characteristics of multi-use sites. Travel survey data was gathered from 239 mixed-use developments (MXDs) in six major metropolitan regions, and correlated with the characteristics of the sites and their surroundings. The findings indicate that the amount of external traffic generated is affected by a wide variety of factors, each pertaining to one or more of the following characteristics:
• The relative numbers of residents and jobs on the site – the better the site jobs/ housing balance, the greater the proportion of commute trips that remain internal. • The amount of retail and service use on the site relative to the number of residences – the greater the degree to which retail and service opportunities match the needs generated by site residents, the greater the internalization of household-generated shopping, personal services and entertainment travel.
• The amount of retail and service use relative to the number of employees – the better the balance of employee-oriented retail and service opportunities, the greater the internal capture of lunchtime and after-work dining, shopping and errands by site employees.
• The overall size of the development – the larger the scale of the development in terms of acreage and total amounts of residential and commercial use, the greater the likelihood that travel destinations can be satisfied within the site as a whole. • The density of development – the greater the concentration of dwellings and commercial space per acre, the greater the likelihood that the interacting land uses will be near enough together to encourage walking or short-distance internal driving.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1266, Packet Page 1594 • The internal connectivity for walking or driving among different activities – measured in terms of the ratio of intersections to total land area within the site directly influences trip internalization and the number of trips made by walking instead of driving. • The availability of transit – the greater the number of jobs within a reasonable travel time via transit, the greater the share of travel likely to occur by transit, and the lower the traffic generation.
• The number of convenient trip destinations within the immediate area – the number of retail and other jobs in neighborhoods immediately surrounding the multi-use site reduces the amount of walking to/from the site and reduce traffic generation.
These characteristics were related statistically to the trip behavior observed at the study development sites using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) techniques. This quantified relationships between characteristics of the MXDs and the likelihood that trips generated by those MXDs will stay internal and/or use modes of transportation other than the private vehicle.
These statistical relationships produced equations, known as the EPA MXD model, that allows predicting external vehicle trip reduction as a function of the MXD characteristics. Applying the external vehicle trip reduction percentage to “raw trips”, as predicted by ITE, produces an estimate for the number of vehicle trips traveling in or out of the site.
Fehr & Peers developed a web application called MainStreet to apply the MXD+ model for any location in the United States. MainStreet was utilized for the Campus Town Specific Plan.
Validation of MainStreet/MXD+ model
Since the conclusion of the EPA sponsored study, Fehr & Peers has been actively enhancing the MXD model to improve sensitivity to various site characteristics, improve peak hour performance, and continue to validate the model against MXDs where data is available.
A set of 27 independent MXD sites across the country that were not included in the initial model development have been tested to validate the model. These sites represent locations where it is expected that traditional data and methods, such as ITE, would not accurately estimate the Project vehicle trip generation. Table A1 presents the performance of the MXD model against ITE and ITE internalization procedures. Based on all statistical measurements, the MXD model performs better than the ITE recommended procedures for these types of sites.
The MXD model has been approved for use by the EPA7. It has also been peer-reviewed in the ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development8, peer-reviewed in a 2012 TRB paper 7 Trip Generation Tool for Mixed-Use Developments (2012). www.epa.gov/dced/mxd_tripgeneration.html ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1267, Packet Page 1595 evaluating various smart growth trip generation methods9 , recommended by SANDAG for use on
mixed-use smart growth developments10, and has been used successfully in multiple certified EIRs in California.
TABLE A1
MAINSTREET/MXD+ MODEL
VALIDATION STATISTICS COMPARISON
Validation Statistic ITE raw ITE with internalization MainStreet/MXD+ Daily
Average Model Error1 28% 16% 2%
% RMSE2 40% 27% 17%
R-Squared3 0.77 0.89 0.96
AM Peak Hour
Average Model Error 54% 49% 12%
% RMSE 54% 53% 21%
R-Squared 0.81 0.81 0.97
PM Peak Hour
Average Model Error 49% 35% 4%
% RMSE 64% 49% 15%
R-Squared 0.40 0.65 0.97
1. Average model error measures the difference between the estimated trip generation and the counted trip generation of the 28 survey sites.
2. RMSE stands for percent root mean squared error is a demand assessment of performance of transportation models in that it does not apply average that would allow over-estimates and under-estimates to cancel one another out and it penalizes proportionally more for large errors. A % RMSE of less than 40% is generally considered acceptable in transportation modeling.
3. R-squared is a statistical measure that indicates, in this case, the degree to which each method explains the variation in trip generation among the 27 survey sites. An R-Squared value closer to 1.0 indicates that the method fully explains the variation in trip generation amongst the survey sites and would be suitable to be used for that set of site types.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
8 ”Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments—Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(3), 248–261.
9 Shafizadeh, Kevan et al. “Evaluation of the Operation and Accuracy of Available Smart Growth Trip Generation Methodologies for Use in California”. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012. 10 SANDAG Smart Growth Trip Generation and Parking Study. http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=378&fuseaction=projects.detail ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1268, Packet Page 1596 Appendix M – Campus Town Water Supply Assessment
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix M: Monterey Peninsula College water allocation is hereby revised from 9.0 to 9.7 AFY. Therefore, all references in the Draft EIR and the WSA to the City of Seaside unallocated amount of water from its FORA allocation should be read as changing from 181.3 to 180.6. The City of Seaside’s existing water sub-allocation is also revised from 831.2 to 831.9 AFY. Relatedly, the Project’s demand for water that cannot be met using the FORA allocation is revised from 260.3 to 261.0 AFY, and Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is revised to require a water offset of 261.0 AFY along with the additional text revisions outlined in the revisions to Section 4.16 above.
It also has a small desalination plant in the Central Marina Service Area that is currently not in operation.
The 6,600 acre-feet per year amount includes 5,200 acre-feet from the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, along with 1,400 acre-feet per year from the 900-foot or Deep Aquifer.
After execution of this agreement and until Project Implementation, Ford Ord/POM/RC may withdraw a maximum of 6,600 acre-feet of water per year from the Salinas Basis, provided no more than 5,200 acre-feet per year are withdrawn from the 180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer.
Table 4-4 City of Seaside Sub-Allocations
Land Use Jurisdiction Existing Groundwater Allocation (AFY) City of Seaside
SunBay Apartments 120.0
Brostram Park (Bay View MHP) 84.8
Seaside Highlands 168.5
Seaside Resort 161.4
MPUSD 81.0
Monterey College of Law 2.6
Monterey Peninsula College 9.0 9.7
Chartwell School 6.4
Main Gate "Retail Lifestyle Mall" 149.0
American Youth Hostile Hostel 5.5
Seaside Senior Living 40.0
Other Existing Use 3.0
City of Seaside Total 831.29
FORA Allocation 1012.5
City of Seaside Unallocated 181.3 180.6
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1269, Packet Page 1597 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1270, Packet Page 1598 5 References
Ahtna Environmental. 2019. Technical Summary Report – Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctanic Sulfonate Basewide Review of Historical Activities and Groundwater Monitoring at Operable Unit 2, Former Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 27, 2019.
ALH ECON. 2019. Urban Decay Prospects Associated with The Campus Town Specific Plan, Seaside, California. November 2019.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed October 2019).
_____. 2018. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2018 Edition. Last modified: July 11, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed January 2019). ____. 2019a. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nationalambient-air-quality-standards (accessed October 2019). ____. 2019b. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed October 2019).
____. 2019c. “Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/background-air-qualitystandards (accessed October 2019). ____. 2019d. “New Source Review.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/new-sourcereview-permitting-programs/new-source-review (accessed October 2019).
California Center for Sustainable Energy. 2013. California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Driver Survey Results. May 2013.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2018. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed October 2018).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. U.S. Per Capita Electricity Use by State in 2016. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/us_per_capita_electricity.html (accessed December 2019).
_____. 2019. “Federal – State Joint Environmental Process.” https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/public_adviser/joint_process.html (accessed October 2019).
California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. November 2018. Page 68. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20Reasons_111218.p df (accessed November 19, 2019).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1271, Packet Page 1599 Coren, Michael J. 2019. People are starting to buy electric cars for the same reason they buy any other car. September 3, 2019. https://qz.com/1701143/price-not-range-is-the-reasonpeople-will-buy-electric-cars/ (accessed December 2019).
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Western Division. 1990. Final Site Investigation Report, Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett, California, Part 1- Text. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha Nebraska and Directorate of Engineering and Housing Fort Ord, California. February 8, 1990.
Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA). 2019a. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2019-2010 through 2028-29. https://www.fora.org/Board/2019/Packet/Additional/FY19- 20_CIP_COMPLETE_DRAFT_050319_v1.pdf (accessed June 2019). _____. 2019b. 2020 Transition Transportation Study. Fiscal Year 2019/2020. October 28, 2019.
Harding ESE. 2002. Draft Final Field Investigation and Data Review, Solid Waste Management Units, Ford Ord, California. Prepared for Department of the Army Sacramento District Corps of Engineers. July 30, 2002.
Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1995. Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord, California, Volume I – Background and Executive Summary. Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. October 18, 1995.
_____. 1996. Interim Action Confirmation Report Site 10 - Burn Pit, Fort Ord, California. Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. August 30, 1996.
HMH. 2019. Arborist Report. October 4, 2019.
KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II. 2018. Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan for Campus Town. Prepared by Ruggeri Jensen Azar (RJA). July 2018.
Marina Coast Water District (MCWD). 2016. Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. https://www.mcwd.org/docs/engr/uwmp_final_12-27-05.pdf (accessed October 2019).
Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. February 2008. http://mbuapcd.org/pdf/CEQA_full%20(1).pdf (accessed January 2019). _____. 2011. Rule 207. “Review of New or Modified Sources.” https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/drdb/mon/curhtml/r207.pdf (accessed October 2019).
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). 2006. Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan. May 2006.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=22563 (accessed October 2019).
Said, Peter. 2019. Personal communication between Kurt Overmeyer (City of Seaside) and Peter Said (Fort Ord Reuse Authority) via email December 20, 2019, regarding noise, vibration, and air quality complaints.
Seaside, City of. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report: The Projects at Main Gate Specific Plan.
August 2008. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/417/DraftEnvironmental-Impact-Report-DEIR-PDF?bidId= (accessed December 2019). _____. 2010. The Projects at Main Gate Specific Plan. August 2010. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/278/Projects-at-Main-Gate-Specific-Plan (accessed October 2019).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1272, Packet Page 1600 _____. 2017. Seaside Fire Department 2017 Annual Report. http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=44 (accessed March 2019). _____. 2019. Solid Waste & Recycling. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/422/Solid-Waste-Recycling (accessed December 2019).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019a. State Water Board Updates Guidelines for Testing and Reporting PFOA and PFOS As It Assesses Scope of Problem. August 23, 2019. _____. 2019b. Update on Spring 2019 State Water Board Directives for Soil and Water Samples at Likely Per- and Poly- Fluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) “Hot Spot” Locations. August 23, 2019.
True, Brian. 2019. Personal communication between Kurt Overmeyer (City of Seaside) and Brian True (MCWD) via email December 16, 2019, regarding a stormwater capture option into the sanitary sewer.
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018. California State Energy Profile. Last Updated November 15, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA (accessed December 2019).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. “Basic Information about the General Conformity Rule.” https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/basic-informationabout-general-conformity-rule (accessed October 2019). ____. 2018. “Process of Reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Last modified: July 10, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambientair-quality-standards (accessed October 2019). ____. 2019. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Basin Information.” Last modified: February 8, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/nsr/prevention-significant-deterioration-basic-information (accessed October 2019).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1273, Packet Page 1601 This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1274, Packet Page 1602 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1275, Packet Page 1603 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1276, Packet Page 1604 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1277, Packet Page 1605 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1278, Packet Page 1606 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1279, Packet Page 1607 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1280, Packet Page 1608 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1281, Packet Page 1609 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1282, Packet Page 1610 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1283, Packet Page 1611 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1284, Packet Page 1612 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1285, Packet Page 1613 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1286, Packet Page 1614 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1287, Packet Page 1615 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1288, Packet Page 1616 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1289, Packet Page 1617 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1290, Packet Page 1618 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1291, Packet Page 1619 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1292, Packet Page 1620 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1293, Packet Page 1621 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1294, Packet Page 1622 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1295, Packet Page 1623 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1296, Packet Page 1624 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1297, Packet Page 1625 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1298, Packet Page 1626 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1299, Packet Page 1627 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1300, Packet Page 1628 Erickson Questioned Properties May 7, 2018 Letter; Proposed Removed June 25, 2018 (R1); Final List September 10, 2018 (R2) Remove parcel
Remove a portion of the parcel (split parcel)
Note: "Land Use Approvals" means when a parcel or parcels receive land use approvals by the Land Use Jurisdiction through a specific plan, master plan, or individual project approval.
Parcels within proposed "Campus Town":
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
1 031-151-032 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 2 031-151-029 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 3 031-151-031 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 4 031-151-040 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 5 031-151-037 FORA No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 6 031-151-039 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 7 031-040-024 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 8 031-151-025 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 9 031-151-036 County of Monterey No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters, Area between 7th and 8th:
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
10 031-101-060 County of Monterey Appears no water use. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
11 031-151-048 Parker Flats below DOD Center Existing barracks/office area. Existing water/sewer mains and services. Existing tank site
Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the tank site and substation to be kept in annexation (split parcel).
Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.
12 031-111-027 MBEST west of Blanco Existing warehouses/offices. Existing water/sewer mains and services Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the building that has existing customers (split parcel).
Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.
Specific Plans/CEQA complete on Parcel
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
13 031-031-018 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
14 031-041-011 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
15 031-021-050 Marina near Hwy 1/Del Monte Parcel is partially in University Villages (Dunes at Monterey Bay), partially in Cypress Knolls. Parcel is in both specific plans. Existing housing area. Existing water service but no customers yet. City allocated water to both. MCWD has the Booker lift station on this Parcel.
No Remove portion of parcel outside Dunes and Cypress
Knolls (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed
upon future land use approvals.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1301, Packet Page 1629 MCWD infrastructure Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
16 031-081-023 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
17 031-121-003 North of Preston Park (UC Regents
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
18 031-121-004 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
19 031-121-045 Area s/o Chartwell School (MCWD pipeline parcel for the D zone tanks)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
Other Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
20 031-101-052 City of Marina No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
21 031-201-012 MST No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
22 031-201-013 MST, Other Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
23 031-112-026 City of Marina, Skydiving Monterey, Ross Roofing, Other
Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
24 031-111-040 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
25 031-111-042 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
26 031-111-043 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
27 031-111-041 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1302, Packet Page 1630 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1303, Packet Page 1631 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1304, Packet Page 1632 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1305, Packet Page 1633 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1306, Packet Page 1634 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1307, Packet Page 1635 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1308, Packet Page 1636 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1309, Packet Page 1637 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1310, Packet Page 1638 Erickson Questioned Properties May 7, 2018 Letter; Proposed Removed June 25, 2018 (R1); Final List September 10, 2018 (R2) Remove parcel
Remove a portion of the parcel (split parcel)
Note: "Land Use Approvals" means when a parcel or parcels receive land use approvals by the Land Use Jurisdiction through a specific plan, master plan, or individual project approval.
Parcels within proposed "Campus Town":
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
1 031-151-032 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 2 031-151-029 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 3 031-151-031 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 4 031-151-040 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 5 031-151-037 FORA No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 6 031-151-039 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 7 031-040-024 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 8 031-151-025 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 9 031-151-036 County of Monterey No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters, Area between 7th and 8th:
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
10 031-101-060 County of Monterey Appears no water use. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
11 031-151-048 Parker Flats below DOD Center Existing barracks/office area. Existing water/sewer mains and services. Existing tank site
Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the tank site and substation to be kept in annexation (split parcel).
Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.
12 031-111-027 MBEST west of Blanco Existing warehouses/offices. Existing water/sewer mains and services Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the building that has existing customers (split parcel).
Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.
Specific Plans/CEQA complete on Parcel
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
13 031-031-018 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
14 031-041-011 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
15 031-021-050 Marina near Hwy 1/Del Monte Parcel is partially in University Villages (Dunes at Monterey Bay), partially in Cypress Knolls. Parcel is in both specific plans. Existing housing area. Existing water service but no customers yet. City allocated water to both. MCWD has the Booker lift station on this Parcel.
No Remove portion of parcel outside Dunes and Cypress
Knolls (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed
upon future land use approvals.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1311, Packet Page 1639 MCWD infrastructure Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
16 031-081-023 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
17 031-121-003 North of Preston Park (UC Regents
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
18 031-121-004 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
19 031-121-045 Area s/o Chartwell School (MCWD pipeline parcel for the D zone tanks)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).
No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
Other Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
20 031-101-052 City of Marina No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
21 031-201-012 MST No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
22 031-201-013 MST, Other Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
23 031-112-026 City of Marina, Skydiving Monterey, Ross Roofing, Other
Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
24 031-111-040 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
25 031-111-042 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
26 031-111-043 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
27 031-111-041 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1312, Packet Page 1640 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1313, Packet Page 1641 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1314, Packet Page 1642 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1315, Packet Page 1643 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1316, Packet Page 1644 SCH #2023080034
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Volume 2b: Technical Appendices B-I
February 9, 2024
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1317, Packet Page 1645 In association with:
Kimberly-Horn Associates
Salter
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Volume 2b
February 9, 2024
Public Review Draft
Prepared for the City of Monterey
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1318, Packet Page 1646
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix B: Housing Element Programs ......................................................B-i Appendix C: Materials for Cultural Resources.............................................C-i Appendix D: Materials for Tribal Cultural Resources................................. D-i Appendix E: GHG and Air Quality Data ..........................................................E-i Appendix F: Noise Data ....................................................................................F-i Appendix G: Public Service Provider Correspondence ............................. G-i Appendix H: Transportation VMT and Evacuation Assessment .............. H-i Appendix I: Water Supply Assessment...........................................................I-i ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1319, Packet Page 1647
APPENDIX
B
HOUSING ELEMENT
PROGRAMS
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1320, Packet Page 1648 This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1321, Packet Page 1649 1 Housing Goal #1. Increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031.
Policy 1.1 Maintain sufficient land designated and appropriately zoned for housing to achieve a complementary mix of single‐family and multi‐family development to accommodate RHNA allocations at all levels throughout the planning period.
Policy 1.2 Promote infill development in adopted Specific Plan areas where high density residential development can be accommodated in proximity to employment, shopping, transit, recreation, and other services.
Policy 1.3 Recognizing that infill development alone will not be sufficient to meet the City's RHNA obligations, plan holistically to integrate new housing in context sensitive ways on larger vacant properties in the southeast of Monterey to take advantage of opportunities where they exist.
Policy 1.4 Incentivize and facilitate housing development on properties owned by schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, and businesses so that interested property owners can build housing to help meet the needs of the local workforce.
Policy 1.5 Promote development of a variety of housing types, sizes, and densities that meet community needs based on the suitability of the land, including the availability of infrastructure, the provision of adequate services, and recognition of environmental constraints.
Policy 1.6 Continue to partner with and support non-profit and for-profit organizations in their efforts to construct, acquire, and improve housing to accommodate households with lower and moderate incomes.
Policy 1.7 Provide opportunities and facilitate innovative housing approaches in financing, design, construction, and types of housing to increase the variety and supply of lower and moderate-income housing.
Programs
Program 1-A Inventory of Available Sites. Maintain and publish an inventory of properties available for residential development on the City's website, updating it at regular intervals.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Publish inventory by April 2024; updates to be made quarterly throughout the planning period
Objective: 3,654 new housing units, consistent with RHNA obligations Funding: General Fund
Program 1-B Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments. The City has established a Multifamily Residential (MF) Overlay District, set forth in City Code section 38-99.4 et seq., applicable to properties along Garden Road that permits the conversion of existing commercial and office buildings to housing or the development of new housing at up to ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1322, Packet Page 1650 2 30 du/ac. Garden Road has attracted significant developer interest in recent years and to further facilitate housing development in this area, the City will amend the MF Overlay to (a) increase the maximum permitted density from 30 to 50 du/ac; and (b) consider establishing a minimum density for the area when adequate water supply becomes available.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt amendments by end of Q3 2024
Objective: Facilitate development of 365 new housing units by Q4 2031 Funding: General fund
Program 1-C Specific Plan Updates. The City has adopted specific plans with the intention of integrating new high density housing into three key commercial areas with good access to employment, shopping, transit, recreation, and other services: Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue. Buildout of the specific plans will primarily involve infill development, and recognizing the associated challenges, the specific plans incorporate strategies to assist with the financial feasibility of high density infill housing development, including reduced parking requirements and provisions for permitting density above 30 du/ac. As described in Chapter 3, there are additional opportunities to facilitate and incentivize development in the specific plan areas, including increasing permitted building heights to five stories in the Alvarado District (Downtown Specific Plan); increasing permitted density to 45 du/ac on all properties fronting Fremont Street (North Fremont Specific Plan); permitting 100 percent residential projects fronting Lighthouse Avenue (Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan); offering municipal shared parking agreements to projects that propose a minimum number of new housing units in proximity to a City-owned parking lot or structure (Downtown and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans); and incorporating additional incentives for consolidation of adjacent, small lots (Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans).
The City will establish a schedule for updating these specific plans, coordinated with implementation of Program 3-C. Updates will be undertaken sequentially with the goal of updating each specific plan within 18 months of initiation and completing all three updates by the end of Q2 2029.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) Detailed scope of work and schedule by end of Q2 2024; (b) complete update of first plan and adopt by end of Q4 2025; (c) complete update of all three plans and adopt by end of Q2 2029
Objective: Facilitate development of 1,081 new housing units by Q4 2031, including 526 units affordable to lower income households
Funding: General fund and grant funding
Program 1-D Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. The Monterey Peninsula faces an acute shortage of housing that undermines the local economy and the social fabric of its communities.
Lack of an adequate water supply is the primary constraint on new housing development; however, the development approval and permitting process in Monterey can add complexity, uncertainty, and cost for housing projects. Therefore, to fast-track infill housing development in core areas of the city identified for high density housing when ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1323, Packet Page 1651 3 adequate water supply becomes available, the City will adopt an ordinance modeled after the Resilient City Development Measures enacted by the City of Santa Rosa following the Tubbs and Nuns fires of October 2017. The ordinance will:
• Allow housing projects by-right in portions of the Downtown and Pacific/Munras/Cass areas with concentrations of housing opportunity sites (see Map 4-1);
• Delegate design review (subject to objective standards enacted pursuant to Program 3-C) to the City staff with the exception of properties in the National Landmark Historic District;
• Establish expedited permitting procedures to reduce the time required for review and approval of planning, engineering, and building permits; • Remain in force for a period of three years from the date it becomes effective, unless otherwise amended by subsequent action of the City Council.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Initiate preparation of the draft ordinance in Q2 2025 and bring the draft ordinance to the City Council for consideration in Q2 2026 Objective: 587 new housing units
Funding: General Fund
Program 1-E Education Workforce Housing Overlay. The cost of housing on the Monterey Peninsula is a significant barrier to the recruitment and retention of teachers and school district staff. Each year the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) loses approximately 20 percent of its teaching staff due to a critical housing shortage of housing in the region and the high cost of living. In 2022, the Governor signed into law AB2295, codified as Government Code section 65914.7, intended to facilitate housing development projects on property owned by a local educational agency (LEA). The law exempts LEA housing projects from the provisions of the Surplus Land Act and allows housing at densities deemed affordable to lower income households on properties wholly owned by LEAs, subject to certain conditions. To provide much needed housing for teachers, school district employees, public agency staff, and others in the community, the City will adopt an Education Workforce Housing Overlay and associated development standards that implements AB2295 locally and permits housing development by right at up to 30 du/ac on urban infill sites owned by the MPUSD in the City of Monterey and by interested private schools in the city, subject to compliance with the objective standards adopted as part of the overlay.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) conduct outreach to MPUSD and private school operators by end of Q2 2024; (b) bring draft ordinance to City Council for consideration in Q1 2025 Objective: 100 new housing units, at least 30 percent of which would be made available to lower income households through long-term affordability agreements.
Documentation from MPUSD expressing its intent to develop on these sites within the next eight years is attached as Appendix F.
Funding: General Fund
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1324, Packet Page 1652 4 Program 1-F Congregational Overlay. The faith-based community can play an important role in providing affordable housing in Monterey. The City has identified 12 sites owned by religious institutions with potential for redevelopment over the planning period should the owners wish to pursue that option. Current zoning for most of the properties permits housing development; however, cost and familiarity with the development process can be barriers to development even where supportive zoning is already in place. Therefore, to facilitate production of affordable housing projects on properties owned by religious institutions, the City will:
a. Adopt a congregational overlay and associated objective development standards that permits residential development at up to 30 dwelling units per acre by-right (consistent with Government Code section 65583.2 (h) and (i)) on properties owned by religious institutions where affordable housing is proposed; b. Provide a program of technical assistance and development support to faith-based organizations wishing to pursue affordable housing developments on their properties. This may include the preparation of factsheets; introductions to qualified design professionals, construction contractors, property management firms, and affordable housing operators; consultations on navigating the development application process;
c. Proactively conduct outreach to faith-based organizations in Monterey to raise awareness of programs and incentives available to them for affordable housing development. This may include mailers, phone calls, meetings, and publication of information on the City's website.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) Rezoning complete within 3 years or 1 year of statutory deadline as applicable; (b) institute program of technical assistance/support in April of year following rezoning; (c) ongoing with regular reporting annually by April of each year thereafter via Annual Progress Report to HCD
Objective: 100 new housing units affordable to Low and Very Low Income Households on properties owned by religious facilities
Funding: General Fund
Program 1-G Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities. Two City-owned downtown parking facilities (Lot 14 parking lot on Bonifacio Pl & Adams St and the Calle Principal Garage on Calle Principal near Bonifacio Pl) have been identified as candidates for redevelopment with workforce housing to increase opportunities for hospitality and service workers, teachers, public servants, and others who earn less than 80 percent of the area median income. Both sites are located in the Alvarado District where the Downtown Specific Plan permits residential development at up to 100 du/ac. Through this program, the City will seek to partner with a non-profit developer for the construction of workforce housing on the sites to meet the needs of lower income households in Monterey. In making these properties available for affordable housing development, the City will comply with the requirements of the Surplus Lands Act. City actions for implementation will include:
• Releasing an RFP for the sites in Q2 2024;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1325, Packet Page 1653 5 • Identifying partner(s) and entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) by end of Q4 2024;
• Negotiating Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA), including incentives such as a ground lease and soft costs by end of Q2 2025 so long as there is sufficient guarantee of a water supply for this site. • Holding regular meetings with developer in order to expedite processing development application and design work with the goal of project approval by end of Q4 2026;
• Completion of construction by end of Q4 is anticipated in 2027.
Responsibility: Community Development Department; City Manager's Office Timeframe: Actions and timing as noted above with the goal of completing construction by the end of Q4 2027 if water supply is available
Objective: 50 lower income units by 2027
Funding: General Fund
Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan. In a community survey conducted for the Housing Element that garnered over 1,050 responses, the former Fort Ord Military Base was the area of the city identified most favorably for new housing to meet current and projected need. Adjacent Ryan Ranch, home to a regional medical center and office park south of the airport, was also ranked highly as a location for new townhomes and apartments by respondents. Integrating new housing into this area would need to be done carefully and in a way that responds to the variety of preferences and concerns that community members expressed through the survey, as described in Chapter 3. Therefore, the City will prepare a specific plan to establish a clear vision for the area and to guide future development and conservation, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource protection. The overarching objective should be to foster the creation of a mixed-use village on a portion of the site to provide housing, jobs, schools, shops, services and recreation for future residents while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat. The Specific Plan should prioritize housing and mixed-use development on any combination of the parcels shown on Map 3-10 Sites Available for Housing. Additionally, given that the City of Monterey is the property owner, incentives should be incorporated to ensure that at least 220 of the new homes planned will be affordable to moderate income households and at least 220 homes will be affordable to lower income households.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) identify funding sources and release RFP by end of 2024; (b) complete site remediation work, special status species surveys, and biological study by the end of Q3 2026; (c) bring draft specific plan to City Council for adoption in Q4 2028 Objective: 1,600 new housing units, including 220 homes affordable to moderate income households and 220 homes affordable to lower income households Funding: General Fund and grant funding
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1326, Packet Page 1654 6 Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update. MPUSD owns a vacant 50-acre parcel on relatively flat land, east of Tarpey Flats and south of Highway 68 and the Monterey Regional Airport.
The Highway 68 Area Plan envisions a mix of up to 300 low and moderate income housing units on this property if MPUSD declares the property surplus, and the Plan provides policy direction and design guidelines that could serve as a starting point for planning of the site and surroundings. Through this program, the City will update the Highway 68 Area Plan to facilitate development of mixed income housing, access and infrastructure improvements, and neighborhood services and amenities on the site. The Highway 68 Area Plan Update should identify portions the site for low-medium density housing, high density housing, and open space preservation, including creation of a parcel or parcels no greater than 10-acres in size for development at densities deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households; incorporate regulatory or process incentives to facilitate on-site provision of housing for households with limited financial resources; establish a basis for the City, MPUSD, and Monterey County to jointly pursue an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to help fund the cost of infrastructure to support development of the site.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) identify funding sources and release RFP by end of 2026; (b) bring draft specific plan to City Council for adoption in Q3 2031
Objective: 640 new housing units, including 145 homes affordable to moderate income households and 145 homes affordable to lower income households Funding: General Fund and grant funding
Program 1-J SB 9 Housing Ordinance. SB 9 allows division of lots in single-family residential districts to facilitate the development of smaller scale housing that may be more affordable in existing neighborhoods. The new requirements, which are codified in Government Code sections 65852.21.21 and 66411.7, require ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone or subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels subject to compliance with objective development standards and requirements in the State law. This program commits the city to enacting regulations to comply with SB 9 and to promote and facilitate SB9 housing as appropriate in Monterey.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024 Objective: Comply with State law
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 1-K Employer Sponsored Housing. The availability and cost of housing is a significant impediment to hiring and retention of employees for Monterey businesses. The Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) has expressed interest in potentially building employee housing on property they own and other local businesses may also be interested. Therefore, the City will conduct outreach to major employers in the city to gauge interest in employee sponsored housing and discuss potential zoning ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1327, Packet Page 1655 7 mechanisms that could facilitate housing development for interested employers. If appropriate, the City will develop an overlay or comparable zoning mechanism to facilitate development of employee housing on properties they own, subject to objective standards.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) complete outreach in Q4 2023; (b) if appropriate, adopt an Employer Sponsored Housing Overlay and related objective standards by the end of Q3 2026 Objective: Increase housing options for those employed in the City of Monterey Funding: General Fund
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1328, Packet Page 1656 8 Housing Goal #2. Remove or reduce barriers to housing production in Monterey and address the regulatory, process, and market factors that limit and adversely affect affordability.
Policy 2.1 Review and revise use permit and design review thresholds including expanding number and type of housing projects allowed by-right.
Policy 2.2 Increase flexibility in development standards including building heights, parking, and other requirements.
Policy 2.3 Develop zoning standards to encourage smaller multi-unit housing types including fourplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses.
Policy 2.4 Reduce constraints to the development of Accessory Dwelling Units.
Policy 2.5 Ensure that City fees are equitable and reflect reasonable cost of reviewing projects.
Policy 2.6 Remove obstacles to the development of Single Room Occupancy housing and other affordable options available to individuals and households who are unsheltered and those transitioning from homelessness.
Programs
Program 2-A By-Right Rezoning Sites from Prior Inventories. A number of the non-vacant commercial sites identified on the housing sites inventory were included on two prior Housing Element inventories and identified to accommodate lower income RHNA units (see Map 4-2). As these sites are also anticipated to accommodate lower income RHNA during the 2023-31 planning period, the City will create a zoning provision to allow developments by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Complete rezoning by end of Q4 2024
Objective: Support meeting RHNA obligations, including development of 1,177 units affordable to very low income households and 769 affordable to low income households over the planning period
Funding: General Fund
Program 2-B Permit Thresholds for Multi-Family Projects. The Zoning Code requires a use permit for multi-family projects with four or more units in R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, CO, and CR Districts and for mixed-use projects including residential units in the districts where the Code allows them. As noted below, the same requirements apply to supportive and transitional housing with four or more units. In most cases, these projects also require design review. These requirements are a constraint to development of small multi-family projects including those with 5,000 square feet of floor area or less on sites where a non-residential build of the same size would be permitted by-right. As part of the process of bringing its zoning into compliance with the General Plan and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1329, Packet Page 1657 9 Housing Element, the City will review its permit thresholds and identify revisions to eliminate disparate treatment of residential projects.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Detailed scope of work and schedule by mid-2024 Objective: Comply with State law requiring that decisions on residential projects be based on objective design standards.
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-C ARC Review. The City will revise the Code to state that the Architectural Review Committee (DRC) will review residential projects for compliance with objective development and construction requirements rather than subjective design guidelines.
ARC review needs to focus on development features that may conflict with construction standards such as public safety access and the California Building Code, Title 24, requirements for disability access.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: End of Q1 2025
Objective: Comply with State law requiring that decisions on residential projects be based on objective design standards
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-D Revise Adopted Plans with Objective Standards. The City has revised several of the specific plans covering areas within and near the downtown area to include modified parking requirements for residential projects and make other changes identified as constraints to housing development, but these plans also include policies, standards and guidelines that use imprecise terms that rely on subjective judgment. The City will establish a schedule for review and revision of all adopted plans, including specific and neighborhood plans, to ensure that they comply with applicable State requirements. In addition to establishing objective policies and standards, pursuant to State law, Specific Plans must be consistent with the General Plan. (California Government Code section 65454).
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) detailed scope of work and schedule by end of Q3 2024; (b) target adoption by end of Q2 2029
Objective: Comply with State law requiring that decisions on residential projects be based on objective design standards
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-E Revise Parking Requirements. Amendments to State law enacted in 2023 (AB 2097), amending Government Code section 65585 and adding Government Code section 65863.2, generally prohibit public agencies from imposing minimum parking requirements within a half-mile of public transit. The City will need to revise parking requirements to reduce the minimum requirements to one space per unit for all units ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1330, Packet Page 1658 10 located within one half mile of public transit. In addition, the City should reduce the base parking requirements for mixed-use sites so that they reflect the maximum demand for parking at any one time, rather than the sum of the requirements for all individual uses.
The City will revise the Zoning Code to ensure its parking requirements conform to the requirements applicable to areas within a half-mile of public transit and will also initiate an evaluation of all parking requirements for residential uses to identify regulations that applicants identify as a constraint to affordable housing development and propose revisions to the Code.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe:(a)As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, adopt revisions Zoning Code to comply with changes to State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2023; (b) detailed scope of work and schedule for parking study by end of 2023 Objective: Comply with State law requiring reduced parking within a half mile of transit and undertake study as a basis for additional revisions to parking requirements Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-F Update Density Bonus Ordinance. New State laws pertaining to density bonuses were enacted in 2023: AB 2334, which amended Government Code section 65915, makes important changes to the Density Bonus Law to define development capacity; and AB 1551, set forth in Government Code section 65915.7, reinstates the ability to seek State Density Bonus Law benefits for commercial projects. Additional bonuses (including up to 80 percent for completely affordable projects) are now available. This program commits the City to updating its density bonus ordinance to incorporate the new requirements.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024 Objective: Comply with State law
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-G Prepare Local Coastal Program (LCP). Because Monterey has not yet adopted a Local Coastal Program (LCP) and implementation plan for certification by the State Coastal Commission, new housing in the coastal zone requires Coastal Commission review and approval of a Coastal Development Permit for most new development with possible exception of individual single-family development. The City will prepare an LCP for Coastal Commission that meets all applicable requirements at the same time it prepares a hearing on the draft of Zoning Code update so it can be submitted to Coastal Commission for review and approval immediately following City Council action on the Zoning Code update.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adoption by end of Q4 2024
Objective: Comply with State law requiring that decisions on residential projects be based on objective design standards
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1331, Packet Page 1659 11 Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-H Expand Online Transparency. Government Code section 65940.1 requires cities and counties to provide transparency in publicizing land use controls and fees. The Planning Office website provides links to a variety of resources as well as links to downloadable versions of Land Use Plans, Regulations, and Studies. The City must also continue to ensure that the on-line version of the City Code is regularly updated and that revisions to review procedures are available on-line as well as in handouts at the Planning counter.
This program commits the City to ensuring these requirements are met and to addressing the recently enacted regulations in Government Code section 65913.3 requiring cities to compile lists specifying information applicants most provide to obtain post-entitlement phase permits. These requirements are effective at the end of 2023 but the City may be eligible for an extension.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Comply with State requirements or obtain an exemption by the end of 2023 Objective: Comply with State requirements
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-I Inclusionary Zoning. Chapter 8 of the City Code establishes a requirement that a minimum of 20 percent of the units in any project with more than six new housing units be made permanently affordable to moderate- and low-income households for the life of the project. The inclusionary requirements are an important mechanism for increasing the total stock of affordable homes in the community over time. As a matter of practice, projects subject to the City's inclusionary requirement typically comply by making 10 percent of the proposed units available to moderate income households and 10 percent available to low income households. Through this program, the City will amend the Code to codify this as a requirement.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt amendments by the end of Q4 2024 as part of an omnibus Code clean up effort
Objective: Facilitate development of below market rate units, including 1,946 lower income units and 462 moderate income units
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-J Water Distribution Policy. As detailed in Appendix C, Housing Constraints, the State Water Resources Control Board has put in place a Cease-and-Desist Order that effectively prohibits new water hookups or increased water use in Monterey.
Consequently, the City cannot approve housing projects that would result a net increase in water consumption until the water supplier, the California American Water Company, has terminated illegal diversions from the Carmel River and a new water supply is in operation. Additional water supply is anticipated to become available starting in 2025 if the California Public Utilities Commission authorizes Cal-Am to enter into a water purchase agreement for the Pure Water Monterey expansion project, with supply to the City of Monterey increasing incrementally as new sources come online. Additional ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1332, Packet Page 1660 12 water sources are being explored for feasibility and are also anticipated to increase the overall water supply for the City. Therefore, the City will develop a methodology for allocating water credits and additional supply that prioritizes affordable housing projects. The methodology will consider the overall size of the project, the number of affordable units proposed, and the level of affordability proposed.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt a Water Distribution Policy by the end of Q4 2024 Objective: Support development of 1,946 lower income units by Q4 2031 Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-K Addressing Water Supply Constraints. The primary constraint to development on the Monterey Peninsula is water supply. While new sources of water supply are anticipated to become available during the planning period, the City does not currently have access to sufficient water to support development of its full RHNA allocation. Therefore, the City will the City continue to work with other jurisdictions and agencies to augment the existing water supply with the following actions:
• Support efforts by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and the California American Water Company (Cal-AM) to expand the water supply, including the Sand City desalination plant, Pebble Beach water recycling facility, and new lawful rights in the Carmel River; • Continue to work with MPWMP and Cal-AM to develop water conservation methods (e.g., low flow fixtures, instant hot water heaters, cisterns/rain gardens) to augment water for new development projects;
• Upon adoption of the Housing Element, provide a copy of the Element to MPWMP and Cal-AM to facilitate prioritization of adequate supply for affordable housing projects, in compliance with AB 1087.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) coordinate regularly with water providers starting Q1 2024; (b) send adopted Housing Element to MPWMD and Cal-Am by end of Q1 2024 Objective: Support development of 3,654 new homes by Q4 2031 Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 2-L Moratorium on Vehicle Storage. The Multifamily Residential Overlay applies to properties in the Industrial, Administration, and Research District (I-R District) along Garden Road. These sites represent important opportunities for high density infill housing in Monterey and have attracted interest from residential developers in recent years; however, water constraints limit the potential for housing in the short-term while the cease-and-desist order remains in place. Until new sources of water supply come online, there is a risk that these sites may develop with uses such as vehicle storage that generate revenue but do not require new water connections. Therefore, to protect these sites for high density housing to meet community need, the City will adopt an urgency ordinance prohibiting vehicle storage uses in the I_R district for a period of three years.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1333, Packet Page 1661 13 Timeframe: Adopt urgency ordinance by the end of Q1 2024 Objective: Preserve housing sites in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District Funding: General Fund
Housing Goal #3. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics such as age, sex, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin, etc.
Policy 3.1 Enforce fair housing laws and address discrimination in the building, financing, selling, or renting of housing based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, family status, national origin, disability, color, sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, or other protected class.
Policy 3.2 Work collaboratively with local non-profit, public, and private sector partners to raise awareness and achieve implementation of fair housing practices.
Policy 3.3 Promote a wider variety of housing types in High Resource areas of Monterey.
Policy 3.4 Expand housing choices for special needs groups throughout Monterey to better accommodate the varied housing needs of current and future residents.
Policy 3.5 Ensure that the City’s regulations, policies, practices, and procedures provide equal access to housing for all persons.
Programs
Program 3-A Legal Services and Fair Housing Education. Continue to contract with a fair housing counseling group in providing legal services (mediation and the processing of fair housing complaints) and fair housing education, both of which can assist in the prevention of discrimination against such households. Each year, the City’s fair housing counseling group uncovers and helps to resolve cases of housing discrimination, including cases of housing discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Additional specific actions will include:
• Making information detailing fair housing practices available at City Hall and on the City’s website;
• Partnering with a fair housing counseling group to conduct workshops and seminars about landlord and tenant responsibilities and rights.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Beginning in Q1 2024, (a) provide funding annually to a fair housing counseling group to; (b) publish information on City website and update annually as appropriate; (c) conduct workshops or seminars annually.
Objective: Provide fair housing support services for 75 persons annually during each year of the planning period
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1334, Packet Page 1662 14 Funding: CDBG funds
Program 3-B Housing for ELI Households and Persons with Special Needs. Recognizing that local funding capacity for affordable housing has been severely diminished by the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the City will continue to facilitate production of affordable housing, including units targeted to extremely low income (ELI) households and persons with special needs (elderly, disabled/developmentally disabled, large households, femaleheaded households, the unhoused, and farmworkers), through the following efforts:
• Provide administrative assistance upon request to developers seeking available State and federal funding and/or tax credits for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing;
• Facilitate projects that incorporate affordable units, including units targeted to ELI households and persons with special needs, by granting modifications to development standards, expediting the review process, and/or providing financial incentives consistent with City regulations and State law; Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Beginning in Q1 2024
Objective: 25 units for ELI households and persons with special needs during the planning period
Funding: CDBG funds
Program 3-C Local Density Bonus. Enact a local density bonus program that offers additional density over the maximum base permitted in the Monterey City Code as an incentive for projects that consolidate small, adjacent lots and/or develop 2- and 3-bedroom units; and/or commit to additional Moderate Income units over and above any provision of such units required under the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Program. The local density bonus program would complement additional density available to qualifying projects under State Density Bonus law with the objective of addressing particular local constraints and needs. The prevalence of parcels less than 0.5 acres in size in centrally located parts of the city is a constraint on infill development and the city has a relatively high rate of overcrowding, due in part to the fact that a disproportionate share of large households live in poverty.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt local density bonus provisions by Q2 2025 Objective: Facilitate development of 300 units affordable to lower income households, 93 units affordable to Moderate Income households, and 75 rental units with two or three bedrooms over the planning period
Funding: General Fund
Program 3-D Family-Sized Rental Units. Prioritize resources such as HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds, California Housing Finance Agency single-family and multiple-family programs, HUD Section 208/811 loans for the development of rental projects that provide units with two or three bedrooms.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1335, Packet Page 1663 15 Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Beginning in Q1 2024
Objective: Promote the development of 20 rental units with two or three bedrooms over the planning period
Funding: CHFA funds; HUD loans; HOPE funds; HOME funds
Program 3-E Home Sharing and Tenant Matching. Home-sharing and tenant matching programs pair existing homeowners with renters in need of space, and may also offer supportive services such as background checks, applicant interviews/screening, and facilitation of living together agreements. These programs make efficient use of existing housing stock and provide affordable rental rates without the need for new construction. Home sharing can be a particularly effective tool to support independent living for seniors and disabled residents while also increasing local housing opportunities for students and lower income earners who work in Monterey County. There are currently no homesharing/tenant matching programs operating on the Monterey Peninsula; however, United Way is studying the feasibility of expanding its 211 service to include such a program. Through this program, the City will support United Way in this initiative, promoting participation by local homeowners by providing information via the website, City newsletters, and public contact events, referring interested parties to United Way of Monterey County.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Beginning in Q1 2024, (a) publish information on City website and update annually as appropriate; (b) publicize the program in City newsletters annually; (c) conduct public outreach annually
Objective: 100 home sharing matches over the planning period, with geographic targeting to homeowners in High Resource neighborhoods
Funding: General Fund and partnership with nonprofit
Program 3-F Affirmative Marketing of Affordable Housing Opportunities. Western and central areas of Monterey are designated High or Highest Resource areas by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), which facilitates the investment of private capital into the development of affordable rental housing for low-income Californians.
In order to increase access to High/Highest Resource areas for Low, Very Low, and Extremely Low income households and special needs populations (including older adults, the disabled (including developmentally disabled), large households, femaleheaded households, people experiencing homelessness, and farmworkers), the City will encourage and facilitate affordable housing development in Monterey by:
• Preparing information on available sites and potential opportunities for affordable housing in Monterey, updating and distributing it annually to affordable housing developers;
• Conducting targeted outreach to housing developers with experience in development projects that include units affordable to extremely low income households and households with special needs;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1336, Packet Page 1664 16 • Continuing to provide technical assistance to housing developers to assist with the development application process;
• Annually exploring various sources (e.g., HCD and HUD) for funding opportunities, including those available for housing for extremely low income and special needs households; and
• Supporting applications for affordable housing funds for projects or programs that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) Prepare materials by Q2 2024; (b) prepare list of experienced developers and contact them by end of Q3 2024; (c) conduct outreach in Q1 2025 and annually thereafter.
Objective: Facilitate development of 1,177 units affordable to very low income households and 769 affordable to low income households over the planning period.
Funding: General Fund
Program 3-G Zoning Incentives for Deed Restricted ADUs/JADUs. ADUs and JADUs can be an important source of affordable housing to help meet the needs of lower income seniors and people who work in Monterey. The City will amend the Zoning Code to incentivize the development of ADUs and JADUs made available to households earning less than 80 percent of the Monterey County annual median income through a binding commitment to rent-restrict. Incentives may include:
• Increasing the maximum allowable lot coverage permitted by-right to 50 percent; • Increasing the maximum allowable FAR permitted by-right to 50 percent; • Allowing two detached or attached ADUs on lots over 8,000 square feet in size where slope does not exceed 25 percent and where trees removed are replace at a ratio of 3:1.
Responsibility: Community Development
Timeframe: Update Zoning Code to enact incentives by end of Q1 2026 Objective: Construction of 10 new ADUs/JADUs affordable to lower income households annually over the planning period, with geographic targeting to homeowners in high resource neighborhoods
Funding: General Fund (staff time)
Housing Goal #4. Take action to prevent homelessness and address the needs of unhoused people.
Policy 4.1 Preservation and Rehabilitation. Continue to prioritize funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing stock in the community and funding to assist low-income homeowners with home repair, rehabilitation, and accessibility improvements that keep people in their homes.
Policy 4.2 Prevention Resources. Connect those most at risk of becoming unhoused to programs and services that will help prevent them from losing their homes.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1337, Packet Page 1665 17 Policy 4.3 Housing First. Focus on “housing first” as a way of transitioning those who are unhoused to permanent housing.
Policy 4.4 Continuum of Housing. Increase access to a continuum of housing, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing, to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing by offering structure, supervision, support, and life skills training.
Policy 4.5 Continuous Improvement. Monitor the effectiveness of existing programs through the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) process and explore opportunities for additional homelessness prevention, response, and services.
Policy 4.6 Collaborative Approach. Continue to cooperate and coordinate with other jurisdictions and public service organizations to address the needs of the unhoused in the community.
Programs
Program 4-A Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT). The Monterey Police Department’s (MPD) MDOT works side-by-side with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to offer, provide, and find solutions for those who are unhoused. In 2023, the MPD MDOT team will expand it capacity to serve the unhoused with the recent City Council approval of a “Homeless Navigator position” to be added to the MPD MDOT team during the FY23-24 budget. MPD will also open an Outreach and Navigation Center at the Old French Consulate building adjacent to Lake El Estero in a waterfront location to better serve the public and the unhoused. In the most recent “point-in-time” homeless count, there was a 50 percent decrease in the number of homelessness in the City between 2019 and 2022, the largest decrease of any community in Monterey County.
Through this program, the City will:
• Provide workstations at the Monterey Police Department for service provider staff to facilitate solutions for the unhoused and collaboration with MPD officers; • Connect unhoused people with domestic violence workers, social workers, women's services, adult protective services, mental health and drug treatment programs, veterans programs, long-term housing solutions; and other relevant services;
• Abate illegal encampments to prevent beach erosion, public health problems, environmental damage, nuisance conditions, and fire hazards; and • Publish information about these collaborative efforts via the City website.
Responsibility: Monterey Police Department; local service providers Timeframe: Ongoing with community reports throughout the planning period and annual reports through the CAPER process
Objective: To continue to address and find resolution for the unhoused over the planning period
Funding: General Fund
Program 4-B Rental Assistance Pilot Program. Rental assistance is an effective way to prevent homelessness and improve housing security. Nearly half of all households in the City ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1338, Packet Page 1666 18 Monterey are considered cost burdened, meaning they devote more than 30 percent of their annual income to housing costs and are at high risk of becoming homeless. Large families and low-income seniors are disproportionately affected by severe cost burden.
While the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM) provides rental assistance through the federal Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program, the program is fully subscribed and there are an additional 1,500 households on the voucher waiting list. To help address the urgent need, the City will establish a rental assistance program that provides lower income renter households with recurring rental assistance at a fixed rate (known as a shallow subsidy) to help improve housing stability and prevent displacement. The City has $250,000 in the General Fund to support this initiative.
Responsibility: City Manager
Timeframe: Beginning Q1 2024
Objective: Provide shallow subsidies to 20 lower income households per year throughout the planning period
Funding: General Fund
Program 4-C Housing Rehabilitation Program. The City administers and manages a Housing Rehabilitation Program which encompasses a variety of home repair grants and loans intended to improve the condition of substandard owner-occupied single-family homes, with special emphasis placed on the remediation of health and safety housing issues. The program coordinator works closely with participating homeowners, helping to select a contractor, supervising construction along with the contractor, and inspecting all work completed - all at no cost to the homeowner. The City will continue to implement this program to help low income senior homeowners remain in their homes.
Responsibility: Housing Office
Timeframe: Beginning Q1 2024 with annual reporting the CAPER process Objective: Repairs to 25 lower income homes
Funding: CDBG
Program 4-D Classify Residential Care Facilities as Residential Uses. The Monterey Zoning Code classifies licensed residential care facilities providing 24-hour- a-day care to six or fewer persons with non-medical conditions as a residential use. Residential care facilities, limited, are permitted in all residential districts (R-E, R-1, R-2, and R-3). In contrast, State-licensed residential care facilities providing 24- hour-a-day care to seven or more persons with non-medical conditions, are categorized as a type of public/semipublic facility. Residential care facilities, general, require a conditional use permit in all residential districts (R-E, R-1, R-2, and R-3). This program proposes revising the Zoning Ordinance to classify all licensed residential care facilities as a residential use that is permitted by-right or, in the case of facilities that exceed a specific threshold, by approval of the Director in districts where residential uses are allowed and include a definition for residential care facility that complies with State law. Facilities will be subject to objective standards, such as providing employee parking, to ensure the facilities are a good fit in the areas where they are established.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1339, Packet Page 1667 19 Timeframe: As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024 Objective: Compliance with State law
Funding: General fund and staff time.
Program 4-E Eliminate Use Permit Requirements for Supportive and Transitional Housing. The Monterey Zoning Code includes definitions for supportive and transitional housing that distinguish these housing types based on the length of tenure. The definition for supportive housing states that this housing is occupied by a target population and is linked to on-site or off-site services. The definition of transitional housing is identical to the one in Government Code section 65582 of the Housing Element law that buildings are configured as rental housing developments but makes no reference to the provision of services. The City requires a use permit for supportive and transitional housing with four or more units, although residents of supportive housing facilities may live in a single unit and both types of facilities may be operated as group housing. Program 2-B, which will eliminate the disparate treatment of residential and non-residential projects with comparable development characteristics, will help to eliminate this obstacle. The Code should also be revised to clarify that the conversion of an existing multi-family housing development to accommodate supportive or transitional housing does not require a new use permit.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024 Objective: Comply with State law requiring that decisions on residential projects be based on objective standards
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Program 4-F Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers in Mixed-Use and Nonresidential Districts. In 2015, Monterey established the Safe Parking Program (City Code section 38-126), which allows the use of existing parking lots on a temporary basis to provide individuals and families living in vehicles with a safe place to park overnight while working towards a transition to permanent housing. Actions the city needs to take in response to the needs of the unhoused include revising the Zoning Code to comply with Government Code Section 65662 to allow a Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) permitted by-right in mixed-use districts and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily development. A LBNC is defined as a "housing-first, low-barrier, temporary, services-enriched shelter focused on helping homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing." This program also commits the City to establishing a definition of "emergency shelters," to comply with Government Code section 65583(a)(4), and to distinguish emergency shelters, which are temporary housing, from residential care facilities. As required by State law, the revised Code must ensure that zones where shelters are located near amenities and services that serve homeless individuals.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1340, Packet Page 1668 20 Timeframe: As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024 Objective: Compliance with State law
Funding: General fund and staff time
Program 4-G Recognize Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units as a Housing Type. A single room occupancy unit provides living and sleeping space for the exclusive use of the occupant but requires that the occupant share sanitary and/or food preparation facilities with others. These spaces are also known as co-living spaces or micro-apartments. Monterey's current regulations do not recognize Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units as a type of housing. The Lighthouse Area Specific Plan includes a definition for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities but does not specify what type of approval Monterey requires for this land use. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) commits the city to revising the Zoning Ordinance and other related City regulations to recognize that SRO units, even if rented for less than 30 days, are housing. SRO units should, at a minimum, be permitted in some commercial and higher density residential.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024 Objective: Facilitate the development of an alternative type of housing that can accommodate low- and very low-income households transitioning from or avoiding homelessness
Funding: General fund (staff time)
Housing Goal #5. Continue to promote sustainability and energy efficiency in residential development to lower energy use through energyefficient urban design and through better design and construction in individual projects.
Policy 5.1 Promote energy conservation programs and incentives, including those offered by Central Coast Community Energy.
Policy 5.2 Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments to conserve resources and reduce housing costs.
Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation, including green building practices, the use of recycled materials, and the recycling of construction and demolition debris.
Programs
Program 5-A Energy Efficient Design. Promote the use of solar energy and other environmentally sound, energy efficient methods for heating and cooling homes, consistent with adopted building, mechanical and plumbing codes. Provide information through the website and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1341, Packet Page 1669 21 newsletters to residents, highlighting the availability of financial incentives available through federal, State, and local government programs such as those offered by Central Coast Community Energy.
Responsibility: Community Development Department; Building and Safety Division Timeframe: 2023-2031
Objective: Promote energy efficiency
Funding: General Fund
Program 5-B Green Building Incentives. Evaluate the feasibility of offering incentives for residential and mixed-use projects built to green building standards that exceed the requirements of Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 11 (CalGreen). Incentives may include density/intensity bonus, fee waivers, or expedited processing. Harmonize incentives with those provided for high density multifamily projects in the Specific Plan areas.
Responsibility: Community Development Department; Public Works Department Timeframe: 2023-2031
Objective: Promote energy efficiency
Funding: General Fund
Program 5-C Sustainable Design. Encourage and facilitate environmentally sensitive construction practices by:
• Restricting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons in mechanical equipment and building materials; • Promoting the use of products that are durable and allow efficient end-of-life disposal (recyclable);
• Requiring large project applicants to submit a construction waste management plan for City approval;
• Promoting the use of locally or regionally available materials; and • Promoting the use of cost-effective design and construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts.
Responsibility: Community Development Department; Sustainability Division Timeframe: 2023-2031
Objective: Promote energy efficiency
Funding: General Fund
Housing Goal #6. Monitor the effectiveness of housing programs to ensure that they respond to housing needs.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1342, Packet Page 1670 22 Policy 6.1 Ensure that the City is meeting State requirements as well as the housing needs of current and future residents by developing and carrying out procedures for tracking progress toward achieving adopted housing goals and objectives.
Policy 6.2 Work with community groups, other jurisdictions and agencies, non-profit housing sponsors and the building and real estate industry when implementing Housing Element programs.
Policy 6.3 Provide outreach and information to the community on the availability of programs to address individual housing needs, and will actively involve the community through information, outreach, and review.
Programs
Program 6-A Adequate Sites Available to Meet RHNA. To ensure adequate sites remain available for residential development to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for all income categories, the City shall annually review its Available Land Inventory to ensure Monterey can accommodate its share of the RHNA throughout the planning period. As development projects are considered, the City shall not take action to permit fewer units on a site than projected on the Available Land Inventory unless: 1) the reduction is consistent with the general plan and housing element; and 2) the remaining sites identified in the Available Land Inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the RHNA. If the remaining sites are not adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the RHNA, the City will identify (and rezone, if necessary) sufficient additional sites to meet RHNA.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Complete review and submit report by April 1 of every year Objective: Conduct review and submit report to State Department of Housing and Community Development as required
Funding: General Fund
Program 6-B Annual Review. In conjunction with State requirements for preparation and submittal of annual housing progress report (Government Code section 65400), evaluate Housing Element implementation. Provide opportunities for public review and comment and submit to Planning Commission and City Council for review and any necessary action.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Complete review and submit report by April 1 of every year Objective: Conduct review and submit report to State Department of Housing and Community Development as required
Funding: General Fund
Program 6-C ADU/JADU Monitoring. Monitor ADU and JADU permitting/construction trends and affordability in Monterey, reporting performance in its Housing Element Annual Progress Reports. If actual performance is not in line with projections in January 2027, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1343, Packet Page 1671 23 the City will review and take action as needed to ensure compliance with "no-net loss" provisions of State law.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) reporting with annual report to HCD in April 2024; annually by April of each year thereafter (b) Q2 2027 for corrective action evaluation (if needed) Objective: Track progress toward Sixth Cycle RHNA production goals ensure compliance with State law
Funding: General Fund
Program 6-D Development and Replacement Unit Requirements. The replacement of lower income units affordable to the same or lower income level is required as a condition of any development on a non-vacant site identified in the Housing Element, consistent with those requirements set forth in Government Code section 65915(c)(3). Replacement requirements apply to sites identified in the inventory that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years (based on the date the application for development was submitted) have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and were:
• Subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low-income; or • Subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or
• Occupied by low or very low-income households.
The City will not approve a housing development project that requires the demolition of residential dwelling units regardless of whether the parcel was listed in the inventory unless the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished, and the affordability criteria stipulated in Government Code section 66300(d) are met.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Beginning in Q1 2024
Objective: Protection of existing housing
Funding: General fund (staff time)
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1344, Packet Page 1672
APPENDIX
C
MATERIALS FOR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1345, Packet Page 1673 This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1346, Packet Page 1674 June 16, 2023 NWIC File No.: 22-1686
Claire Villegas
Dyett & Bhatia
Urban and Regional Planners
4001 Howe Street
Oakland, CA 94611
Re: Record search results for the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update.
Dear Claire Villegas:
Per your request received by our office on May 1st, 2023, a records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Monterey County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures.
The proposed project will identify sites available for housing within the City limit and include a realistic projection of their capacity, along with policies and programs to address special needs groups and constraints to housing production. Additionally, the Project will identify new strategies to address risk associated with natural hazards and climate change and may result in revisions to land use regulations to ensure consistency with the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Review of the information at our office indicates that there have been four hundred fifty (450) cultural resource studies that include portions of the City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. See attached Report List. This City of Monterey General Plan Update project area contains eighty-one (81) recorded archaeological resources, including thirty-nine (39) recorded Native American archaeological resources, and forty-two (42) historic-period archaeological resources. See attached Resource List. In addition, there are three (3) Informal Resources; C-874, C-1301, and C-1554. These sites include two historic refuse scatters, and site of the Armed Forces YMCA at the first presidio. Informal Resources are those resources not recorded on DPR 523A primary record forms and not submitted in CHRIS standard format to an IC by OHP.
The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists nine hundred sixty-three (963) recorded buildings and structures within the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. See attached BERD Listing and California Historical Resource Status Codes List. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show two hundred two (202) recorded buildings and structures, and four recorded Districts, including; P-27-001752, Presidio of Monterey, P-27-003035 El Castillo (Old Presidio), ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1347, Packet Page 1675 2 22‐1686
P-27-003248 Old Del Monte Hotel District, and P-27-003426, Monterey Old Town, within the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. See attached Resource List. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory lists thirty-four (34) bridges within the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area (Hope 2005). See attached Bridge Listing.
At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Rumsen language, which is part of the Costanoan/Olhone language family (Levy 1978:485). There are Native American resources within or adjacent to the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area that are referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976, Howard 1979).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Monterey County have been found in areas marginal to Monterey Bay and inland near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The City of Monterey General Plan Update project area contains areas marginal to Monterey Bay in the area between Point Alones and Laguna Del Rey, near intermittent and perennial watercourses. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the archaeological sensitivity of the area, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated historic-period activity within the City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. Early Monterey County maps indicated numerous buildings and structures, including bridges, piers or wharfs, a racetrack, railroads, and cemeteries within the project area (1895 Monterey Sanborn Maps and 1913 Monterey USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle). With this information in mind, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area.
The 1947 Monterey USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts numerous buildings or structures within the City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. If present, these unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There are eighty-one (81) recorded archaeological resources in the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. There are three informal resources within the project area. There have been four hundred fifty (450) cultural resource studies that include portions of the City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. According to our research there is a high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in unsurveyed portions of the project area.
Given that the proposed City of Monterey General Plan Update project area covers such a large area with known sensitivity, and the proposed improvements will guide future projects, it is recommended that these future projects be considered on an individual basis under the Northwest Information Center’s Project Review Program. This Program is organized to aid cities and counties in meeting their CEQA obligations on a project-by-project basis. These ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1348, Packet Page 1676 3 22‐1686
reviews result in project specific information and recommendations. Please contact the NWIC Coordinator at 707/588-8455 for additional information. 2) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heataffected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
3) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351
4) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 5) Our research indicates that there are 962 recorded buildings and structures included in the OHP BERD within the City of Monterey General Plan Update project area. NWIC Base Maps show 202 recorded buildings and structures, and four recorded Districts, Presidio of Monterey, El Castillo (Old Presidio), Old Del Monte Hotel District, and Monterey Old Town. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory also includes 34 bridges. Additionally, the project area has the potential to contain other unrecorded buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement.
Therefore, prior to commencement of project specific activities, it is recommended that the above listed resources, and any other ones that have yet to be inventoried, be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of Monterey County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 6) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1349, Packet Page 1677 4 22‐1686
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.
Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Jillian Guldenbrein
Researcher
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1350, Packet Page 1678 5 22‐1686
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, California Archaeological Inventory, the following literature was reviewed:
Abrahamson, Eric
1989 Historic Monterey, California’s Forgotten First Capital. Sequoia Communications, Santa Barbara, CA.
Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll
2005 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California. Three Rocks Research, Santa Cruz, CA (Digital Reproduction of The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, IL: 1893.)
Clark, Donald Thomas
1991 Monterey County Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary. Kestrel Press, Carmel Valley, CA.
Fickewirth, Alvin A.
1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.
Gudde, Erwin G.
1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.
Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hamman, Rick
1980 California Central Coast Railways. Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, CO.
Hart, James D.
1987 A Companion to California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Hester, Thomas Roy
1978a Esselen. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 496-499. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b Salinan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 500-504. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1351, Packet Page 1679 6 22‐1686
Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Howard, Donald M., Esq.
1979 Prehistoric Sites Handbook: Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties. Angel Press, Monterey, CA.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976)
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts
1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico Rivera, CA.
Ryan, Nicki
1981 Historic Resources in Monterey County.
Sanborn Map Company
1895, 1908, 1926 Monterey, California.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2022 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.
Woodbridge, Sally B.
1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA.
Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, NY.)
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1352, Packet Page 1680 7 22‐1686
Works Progress Administration
1989 The WPA Guide to the Monterey Peninsula. Reprint by the University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. (Originally published in 1941 as Monterey Peninsula.) **Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1353, Packet Page 1681 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-003303
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1977
City of Monterey
the Custom House Redevelopment Project,
Further Archaeological Testing at 4-Mnt-298,
Service
Archaeological Resource
William Roop
Katherine Flynn and Voided - E-3 MNT
S-003305 1976
Recommendations for Mitigation of Impacts
298: Evaluation of Significance,
Archaeological Test Excavations at 4-Mntand Research ServicesArchaeological Consulting Voided - E-5 MNT S-003305a 1974 Custom House Urban Renewal Project EIR Will Shaw and Associates James R. Hommes S-003305b 1974
House Redevelopment Project (letter report)
Archaeological Reconnaissance, The Custom
and Research Services
Archaeological Consulting Thomas L. Jackson
S-003305c 1976
Project
MNT-298, Custom House Redevelopment
Letter regarding the misidentification of 4-
and Research Services
Archaeological Consulting Thomas L. Jackson
S-003326 1974
Monterey County
Subdivision, North Side, Carmel Valley,
Proposed Villas Carmel del Pacifico
Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Rob Edwards Voided - E-28 MNT S-003343 1974
Transportation, District 05
State of California, Department of
Project Nos. 021121 and 032900 for the
Archaeological Impact Report on Proposed
Inc.
Archaeological Research, Eric Hardesty
Voided - E-46 MNT
Caltrans - 032900;
Caltrans - 021121;
S-003344 1973
Study of Jacks Peak County Park
Archaeological Aspects of Environmental Rob Edwards
Voided - E-47 MNT
73255A-1;
Submitter - ES-003345 1976
Treatment System Expansion Project
Monterey Peninsula Regional Wastewater Ann S. Peak & Associates S. Peak
Tony F. Weber and Ann
Voided - S-5439
Voided - E-48 MNT;
S-003345a 1976
Treatment System)
Monterey Peninsula Regional Wastewater
and West of Davis Road (Augmentation of
the Interceptor Line -- East of Blanco Road
Appendix I: Cultural Resource Assessment of Ann S. Peak & Associates Ann S. Peak S-003345b 1978
Monterey County, California.
Regional Wastewater Treatment System,
Selected Alternative of the Monterey
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Ann S. Peak & Associates A. Peak
Ann S. Peak and Melinda
S-003345c 1980
of the Salinas River (letter report)
Treatment Plant to the Blanco Road crossing
Interceptor line from the Salinas Sewage
Regional Wastewater Treatment Project:
Test drilling for cultural resources, Monterey Ann S. Peak & Associates Melinda A. Peak
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1354, Packet Page 1682 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-003346
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1976
California
Proposed Arthur Jones Apartment, Monterey,
Archaeological Resources and Impact of the San Jose State University Joseph C. Winter Voided - E-49 MNT S-003348 1974
Department, Jacks Park
Prepared for Monterey City Planning
Archaeological Reconnaissance Report Toni Carrell Voided - E-51 MNT S-003349 1975
27, 1975
and Webster Streets, Monterey, August 25-
During Construction at the Corner of Munras
Report on Archaeological Observations Gary S. Breschini Voided - E-52 MNT S-003356 1977
Regional Sewerage System
Monterey Consolidation Project of the
the Proposed Stage 1 Pacific GroveReport of Archaeological Reconnaissance for and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting Stephen A. Dietz
Voided - S-3617
Voided - E-59 MNT;
Voided - E-522 MNT;
S-003356a 1981
of the Regional Sewerage System, Volume 1
Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project
Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage 1
Final Report of Archaeological Excavations at
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting
Thomas L. Jackson
Stephen A. Dietz and
S-003356b 1981
Part 1
of the Regional Sewerage System, Volume 2,
Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project
Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage 1
Report of Archaeological Excavations at
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting
Thomas L. Jackson
Stephen A. Dietz and
S-003356c 1981
Part 2
of the Regional Sewerage System, Volume 2,
Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project
Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage 1
Final Report of Archaeological Excavations at
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting
Thomas L. Jackson
Stephen A. Dietz and
S-003356d 1981
Appendices
of the Regional Sewerage System, Voume 3:
Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project
Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage 1
Final Report of Archaeological Excavations at
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting
Thomas L. Jackson
Stephen A. Dietz and
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1355, Packet Page 1683 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-003358
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1977
and Prescott Streets, Monterey (letter report)
Sardine Factory Restaurant Expansion, Foam
Service
Archaeological Resource William Roop Voided - E-61 MNT
S-003422 1977
75.2/75.4
48.2/49.4, 50.0/50.7, 51.2/53.8, 55.4/56.1,
Report, Project 05-Mon-1-46.3/48.0,
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Caltrans Laurence W. Spanne Voided - E-132 MNT
253901;
Caltrans - 05155-
S-003422a 1978
55.4/56.1, 75.2/75.4, 05155 - 253901
46.3/48.0, 48.2/49.4, 50.0/50.7, 50.2/53.8,
Sur/Monterey Bikeways, Project 05-Mon-1-
Reconnaissance Survey Report, Big
Supplement to Archaeological Caltrans Laurence W. Spanne S-003515 1979
California
Buren Avenues, Monterey, Monterey County,
at the SE Corner of Del Monte and Van
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and Voided - E-404 MNT
S-003525 1979 Unit Records for CA-MNT-271 E. Breck Parkman Voided - E-415 MNT S-003542 1979
the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation
Preliminary Archaeological Investigations for
Service
Archaeological Resource William Roop
Voided - S-005540
Voided - E-433 MNT;
S-003542a 1979
report)
Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation (letter
Preliminary Surface Examination for
Service
Archaeological Resource William Roop
S-003566 1979
California
Peak Regional Park, Monterey County,
A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Jacks
Field Class in Archaeology
Monterey Peninsula College
and Josef Gamper
Danielle M. Langholtz Other - E-458 MNT
S-003577 1968
the 1967 Archeological Survey
The History of El Castillo de Monterey and
Parks & Recreation
California Department of Robert W. Reese Voided - E-472 MNT S-003579 2000 U.S. Custom House Voided - E-477 MNT
S-003589 1980
Operating Projects, Monterey Harbor
Cultural Resources Investigations of
Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Steven A. Brandt Voided - E-489 MNT
S-003594 1961
of Feasibility as a State Historical Monument
Colton Hall, Monterey, California: An Analysis
Planning Office
Monterey Regional Robert Hatch Voided - E-494 MNT
S-003625 1980
Area, Northern Monterey County, California
of the Mesa Hills Development, Hidden Hills
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Trudy Haversat and Gary Voided - E-531 MNT
S-003633 1980
Presidio of Monterey
Intensive Cultural Resources Survey Report,
Archaeologists
Environmental Research
Findley Fisher
Roberts, and Janice
Jack L. Zahniser, Lois J.
Voided - E-540 MNT
DACA05-78-C-0160;
Other - Contract
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1356, Packet Page 1684 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-003647
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1980
California (letter report)
Location in Monterey, Monterey County,
Pacific Plaza Hotel and Parking Lot Project
Archaeological Resources Evaluation of the David Chavez Voided - E-555 MNT S-003654 1981
California
and 218, Monterey, Monterey County,
of a Parcel Near the Junction of Highways 68
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Trudy Haversat and Gary Voided - E-562 MNT
S-003655 1981
County, California
the Steinbeck Inn, Monterey, Monterey
Preliminary Archaeological Mitigation Plan for
Preliminary Archaeological Report and Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and Voided - E-563 MNT
S-003660 1981
Redevelopment Project, Monterey, California
Evaluation for the Cannery Row
Preliminary Archaeological Resources
Archaeologist
David Chavez, Consulting David Chavez Voided - E-568 MNT S-003661 1981
of Monterey, County of Monterey
Land at Foam and Reeside Streets in the City
Cultural Resource Evaluation for a Parcel of
Management
Archaeological Resource
Voided - S-8289
Voided - E-662 MNT;
Voided - E-569 MNT;
S-003661a 1981
County of Monterey
and Reeside Avenue in the City of Monterey,
Evaluation of a Parcel of Land at Foam Street
Secondary, Subsurface Archaeological
Management
Archaeological Resource
S-003666 1981
report)
Adobe, Courtyard Wall Reconstruction (letter
Recent Archeological Finds at Cooper-Molera
Parks & Recreation
California Department of Larry Felton Voided - E-574 MNT S-003676 1981
Reconnaissance (letter report)
Project No. PMR 001 Archaeological
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting Stephen A. Dietz Voided - E-584 MNT S-003716 1981
Monterey, Monterey County, California
of a Parcel at Foam, Wave and Drake, New
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Trudy Haversat and Gary Voided - E-627 MNT
S-003718 1981
Avenue in the City of Monterey
Jones Condominium Project on Drake
Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Arthur
Management
Archeological Resource Robert Cartier Voided - E-629 MNT S-003732 1981
County, California
for the Hotel San Carlos, Monterey, Monterey
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Paul Hampson and Gary Voided - E-644 MNT
S-003737 1981
County, California
of 652 Cannery Row, Monterey, Monterey
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and Voided - E-649 MNT
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1357, Packet Page 1685 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-003950
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1930
Aboriginal Habitation
Area for Shell Mounds and Other Traces of
on a Reconnaissance of the Monterey Bay
Monterey Bay Area Indian Mounds: Report Avery E. Wood
Voided - E-204 SCR
Survey);
(Archaeological
Other - MS 39
(Lowie Museum);
Other - MS 380
S-004878 1980
First Brick Building, Monterey, S.H.P.
the Courtyard of the Whaling Station and
Results of the Archaeological Monitoring of
Parks & Recreation
California Department of Lee Motz Voided - E-78 MNT
S-004978 1982
Monterey County, California
of Two Parcels on Cannery Row, Monterey,
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Jan Whitlow and Trudy
S-005211 1982
Forces YMCA, Monterey, California
Intensive Cultural Resource Survey, Armed Professional Analysts Swernoff
Philip Dole and Michael
DACA05-80-C-0228
Agency Nbr -
S-005211a 1981
Report
Forces YMCA, Monterey, California Draft
Intensive Cultural Resources Survey, Armed Professional Analysts Phillip Dole S-005413 1977
Monterey, California
Edward's Development Project Site,
Archaeological Resource Assessment of the
Service
Archaeological Resource Maryanne Fazio
Voided - E-111 MNT
Other - 043488;
S-005427 1978
Monte Forest, Monterey County, California.
Course Irrigation Project, Pacific Grove - Del
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Golf Ann S. Peak & Associates Voided - E-211 MNT S-005428 1975
Pipeline, Monterey County, California.
Canada de la Segunda Water Transmission
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Ann S. Peak & Associates Ann S. Peak Voided - E-212 MNT S-005434 1973
Archaeological Site Reconnaissance.
Del Monte Forest Comprehensive Plan,
University
San Francisco State
Anthropological Museum,
Adan E. Treganza Thomas L. Jackson Voided - E-218 MNT
S-005444 1978
Property, Monterey County, Ca.
and Reconnaissance Survey, Vista Nadura
Report of Archaeological Records Search
Collaborative
Archaeological Planning Theo Mabry Other - E-229 MNT
S-005445 1978
Seca Ranch Estates #2
Resource Assessment, File No. 689, Laguna
Monterey County Preliminary Cultural
Department
Monterey County Planning Lynne H. Mounday Voided - E-230 MNT S-005457 1978
298
Heritage on the Half-Shell: Excavation at MntServiceArchaeological Resource Katherine Flynn
William Roop and Voided - E-242 MNT
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1358, Packet Page 1686 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-005461
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1967
Report
Geographic and Geologic Investigations
371, 372, 373), Preliminary Report; and
The Monterey Peninsula College Sites (MntU.C.L.A.Archaeological Survey, Weide, and M. L. Susia
Robert K. Evans, D. L. Voided - E-246 MNT
S-005463 1976
Monterey, California.
of the proposed 'Arthur Jones Apartments',
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance
Service
Archaeological Resource William Roop Voided - E-248 MNT S-005464 1979
at 414 Foam Street, Monterey, California.
Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Parcel The Gavilan Foundation Rob Edwards Voided - E-249 MNT S-005484 1977
Monterey, California
Buren Connection Across the Presidio of
Impacted by the Proposed Hawthorne-Van
Evaluation of the Cultural Resources to be Rob Edwards
Voided - S-8275
Voided - E-270 MNT;
Voided - E-18 MNT;
S-005484a 1977
California
Environmental Impact Report, Monterey,
Hawthorne-Van Buren Connection, Rob Edwards
S-005489 1979
05351-271701
Monterey Peninsula Community Hospital,
Signal Plan on 05-Mon-68 P.M. 3.9, at
Archaeological Survey Report for a Proposed
Transportation
California Department of Cynthia J. Adams
Voided - E-275 MNT
271701;
Caltrans - 05351-
S-005491 1979
Hall, Seaside, Monterey County, California
Regional Park, Adjacent to the Seaside City
Reconnaissance of the Laguna Grande
Preliminary Archaeological Surface Gavilan Foundation Gary S. Breschini Voided - E-277 MNT S-005511 1979
California
Road, East of Monterey, Monterey County,
Area, Between York Road and Olmsted
Reconnaissance of the Highway 68 Plan Line
Preliminary Archaeological Surface Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini Voided - E-297 MNT S-005529 1974
Community Hall
Commission Regarding the Filipino
Regional Coastal Zone Conservation
Preliminary Report to the Central Coast Toni Carrell Voided - E-315 MNT S-005544 1979
(letter report)
San Carlos Social Hall, Monterey, California
Archaeological testing at the future site of the Greenwood & Associates E. Breck Parkman Voided - E-330 MNT S-005572 1979
Improvement Project
for the Laguna Grande Neighborhood
Cultural Resource Impact Evaluation Report
of Monterey
Parks Department, County Dennis L. Wardell
Voided - E-358 MNT
#79-140.;
Submitter - Project
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1359, Packet Page 1687 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-005577
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1975
Elements and Part II: The Grounds
Explorations in 1974; Part I: Architectural
Captain Cooper's House, Archaeological William J. Wallace Voided - E-363 MNT S-005577a 1975
Explorations in 1974
Captain Cooper's House - Archaeological William J. Wallace S-005583 1978
House, Monterey State Historic Park
Archeological Excavations at the Custom
Agency, State of California
Recreation, The Resources
Department of Parks and
Interpretation Division,
Preservation and
Section, Resource
The Cultural Heritage Greta Ellsworth Bingham Voided - E-369 MNT S-005585 1968
California
Castillo, Presidio of Monterey, Monterey,
Preliminary Archeological Investigations at El
Archaeological Foundation
Central California William E. Pritchard Voided - E-371 MNT S-005586 1971
Presidio of Monterey
Archaeological Investigation of the Royal
Archaeological Society
Monterey County
Breschini
Dawn Cope, and Gary S.
Kernohan, June Payne,
Graham, Vivian
Donald M. Howard, Toni Voided - E-372 MNT
S-005590 1979
Fort Ord, and Presidio of Monterey, California.
Survey, and Overview, Fort Hunter Liggett,
A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance,
Archaeologists
Environmental Research
Douglas
Baldwin, and John
William Chilner, James
Ivan Show, Rod Brown,
Janice Findley Fisher,
Stickel, Jack Zahniser,
Lois J. Roberts, Gary
Voided - E-401 MNT
C-0160;
Other - DACA05-78-
S-005590a 1980
Overview, Fort Hunter Liggett, California
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and
Archaeologists
Environmental Research
Lois J. Roberts
Jack L. Zahniser and
S-005606 1981
Area, Monterey County, California.
of Two Parcels in the Lower Carmel Valley
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and Voided - E-595 MNT
S-005632 1982
Encroachment Permit, 05-MON-68 5.9/6.0
Archaeological Reconnaissance for Caltrans Chuck Smith Voided - S-5915 S-005672 1982 Verga Hotel Project (A8176) (letter report). David Chavez Voided - E-679 MNT
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1360, Packet Page 1688 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-005709
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1982
California
Pacific Streets, Monterey, Monterey County,
of a Parcel at the Corner of Jackson and
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
Maryellen Ryan, and
Trudy Haversat,
Voided - S-6437
Voided - S-6269;
434;
Submitter - Project
Project 513a;
Submitter - AC
S-005709a 1983
County, California
and Pacific Streets Monterey, Monterey
for the Pacific Street Hotel Project at Jackson
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
S-005709b 1984
County, California
Street Hotel Project Monterey, Monterey
Located within the Boundaries of the Pacific
A Re-evaluation of the Cultural Resources
Robert Rechtman
Paul Farnsworth and
S-005742 1982
Monterey
the Monterey Municipal Airport in the City of
Improvements and Entrance Alignments for
Cultural Resource Evaluation for Highway 68
Management
Archeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-005759 1982
Parking Garage Site on Cannery Row
Evaluation of the Monterey Plaza Hotel
Secondary, Subsurface Archaeological
Management
Archaeological Resource Voided - S-7200
S-005759a 1985
Monterey
Row in the City of Monterey County of
Plaza Hotel Parking Garage Site on Cannery
Archaeological Evaluation of the Monterey
Addendum to the Secondary, Subsurface
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-005882 1983
Peninsula Airport, Monterey, California
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Monterey
Cooper
Rob Edwards and J. M.
S-005927 1983
County, California
and Irving Streets, Monterey, Monterey
of a Parcel at the Southeast Corner of Foam
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
Voided - S-6446
457B;
Submitter - Project
457;
Submitter - Project
S-005927a 1984
County, California
and Foam Streets, Monterey, Monterey
Testing of a Portion of CA-MNT-391, at Irving
Secondary (Subsurface) Archaeological Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1361, Packet Page 1689 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-005929
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1983
County, California.
Monterey and Pacific Grove, Monterey
of the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way,
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Jan Whitlow and Gary S.
Project 449
Submitter - AC
S-005969 1982
Tank, Monterey County, California
of the Proposed Ryan Ranch Water Storage
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Paul Hampson and Gary Voided - E-699 MNT
S-006099 1983
County, California
of a Parcel at 816 Wave Street, Monterey
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
479
Submitter - Project
S-006100 1983
Monterey, Monterey County, California
of a Parcel at 787 Laine Street, New
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
478
Submitter - Project
S-006104 1983
California
Avenue, Monterey, Monterey County,
at the Intersection of Second Street and Mark
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
Project 470
Submitter - AC
S-006108 1983
California
Avenues, Monterey, Monterey County,
of a Parcel at the Corner of Banner and Virgin
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
Project 460
Submitter - AC
S-006146 1983
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Wave Street and Two Nearby Parcels,
Archaeological Management Report for 816
Preliminary Archaeological Report and Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
479b
Submitter - Project
S-006274 1974
House Redevelopment Project (letter report)
Archaeological Reconnaissance: The Custom
and Research Services
Archaeological Consulting Thomas L. Jackson
S-006275 1973
Parcels F-1C and C-1 (letter report)
An Archaeological Sites Reconnaissance of San Francisco State College Stanley Van Dyke S-006307 1983
City of Monterey, California
at Cannery Row and Drake Avenue in the
Building 5 Site, Monterey Plaza Hotel Project
Subsurface Archaeological Testing of the
Management
Archaeological Resource
S-006331 1984
Monterey County, California
at 512 Pierce Street, Downtown Monterey,
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
Project 520
Submitter - AC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1362, Packet Page 1690 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-006332
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1984
California
Cannery Row, Monterey, Monterey County,
of a Parcel Bounded by Foam, Reeside, and
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
Project 521
Submitter - AC
S-006648 1984
County, California.
and Fremont Street, Monterey, Monterey
of Washerwoman's Pond, Camino Aguajito
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
Project 554
Submitter - AC
S-006694 1984
County, California
Monterra Ranch Project Area, Monterey
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Holman & Associates Matthew R. Clark S-006849 1984
(letter report)
Cannery Row, Monterey County, California
Archaeological monitoring at the Otter Inn, Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini S-006942 1984
Excavation and Preliminary Analysis
The Saunders Site (CA-MNT-391),
Management
Archaeological Resource
Charlene Detlefs
Jones, Lorna Pierce, and
Anne Laffey, Terry
Robert Cartier, Glory
S-006947 1984
the City of Monterey
of the Cannery Row Hotel on Cannery Row in
Cultural Resource Evaluation of Lots B and D
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
Nbr - #6080-84-0522
IC Record Search
S-006996 1984
Estates, Monterey County, California
MNT-1262 at Laguna Seca East Ranch
Secondary Archaeological Testing of CA- Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Haversat, and Gary S.
R. Paul Hampson, Trudy
558a
Submitter - Project
558;
Submitter - Project
S-006996a 1984
Monterey County, California
of Laguna Seca East Ranch Estates
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting gary Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
S-006998 1984
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Number 1-601-10, on Carmello Street,
Reconnaissance of Assessors Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
Project 624
Submitter - AC
S-007050 1984
Monterey, County of Monterey
Parcel A, on Cannery Row in the City of
for the Monterey Cannery Hotel Project,
Recommendations, and Mitigation Program
Cultural Resource Evaluation, Testing
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1363, Packet Page 1691 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-007051
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1984
Monterey, County of Monterey
Parcel B, on Cannery Row in the City of
for the Monterey Cannery Hotel Project,
Recommendations, and Mitigation Program
Cultural Resource Evaluation, Testing
Management
Archeological Resource
S-007052 1984
Monterey, County of Monterey
Parcel C, on Cannery Row in the City of
for the Monterey Cannery Hotel Project,
Recommendations, and Mitigation Program
Cultural Resource Evaluation, Testing
Management
Archeological Resource
S-007198 1985
Monterey, County of Monterey
and C, on Cannery Row in the City of
Monterey Cannery Hotel Project, Parcels B
Subsurface Testing/Mitigation of the
Management
Archeological Resource
S-007322 1985
County, California
Near Cannery Row, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Property on Wave Street,
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
672
Submitter - Project
S-007332 1984
California.
Garage in Monterey, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance for a Proposed Parking
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
654
Submitter - Project
S-007340 1985
Monterey, California
Institute of International Studies Campus,
Reconnaissance Report of the Monterey
A Preliminary Archaeological Charles R. Smith
S-007412 1985
EIR, Monterey, Monterey County, California
Monterey/Cannery Row Traffic Improvements
Reconnaissance for the New
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
Project 669
Submitter - AC
S-007415 1985
County, California.
and Reeside Avenue, in Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of a Parcel at Cannery Row
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
Voided - S-7772
705 & 705B;
Submitter - project
S-007415a 1985
California
Cannery Row Monterey, Monterey County,
Excavation for the San Carlos Beach Park on
Secondary (Subsurface) Archaeological Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1364, Packet Page 1692 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-007570
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1985
California
1243H, the Estrada Adobe in Monterey,
The Archaeological Investigations at CA-MNTManagementArchaeological Resource and Charlene Detlefs
Cartier, Edna Kimbro,
Vance Bente, Robert
Glory Anne Laffey,
S-007606 1985
County, California.
Pacific Right-of-Way, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of a Portion of the Southern
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
R. Paul Hampson and
Project 727
Submitter - AC
S-007740 1985
County
Boronda Road on Highway 183, Monterey
Del Monte Avenue, and Castroville to
on Highway 68, and from Jackson Street to
Located from Olmstead Road to Torero Drive
Pacific Bell Projects NE1841T and NE1843T,
Archaeological Reconnaissance Report for
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting Stephen A. Dietz
S-008215 1986
City of Monterey.
Convention Center on Cannery Row in the
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Plaza
Management
Archaeological Resource
Anne Laffey
Robert Cartier and Glory
S-008277 1977 Whaling Station Inn Expansion (letter report) Service
Archaeological Resource William Roop Voided - E-82 MNT
S-008278 1976
California (letter report)
the San Carlos Cannery Site, Monterey,
Preliminary archaeological reconnaissance of
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting Thomas L. Jackson Voided - E-93 MNT S-008294 1979 The Francis Doud Site - MNT-298
Archaeological Society
Monterey County Donald M. Howard Voided - E-690 MNT
S-008742 1986
Monterey
Row Worker's Memorial Park in the City of
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Cannery
Management
Archeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-008814 1986
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Reconnaissance at 1450 Manor Road,
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
Anna L. Runnings and
906
Submitter - Project
S-009021 1987
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Reconnaissance for the Hartnell Gulch Park,
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Charles R. Smith
Gary S Breschini and
Project 940
Submitter - AC
S-009264 1987
County, California
Asilomar Avenue in Pacific Grove, Monterey
Route 68) From State Highway 1 North to
Reconnaissance of Holman Highway (State
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Charles R. Smith
Gary S. Breschini and
Project 978
Submitter - AC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1365, Packet Page 1693 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-009279
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1987
Monterey County, California
01, First Street & Park Avenue, Monterey,
Reconnaissance of Parcel A.P.N. 001-826-
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Charles R. Smith
Gary S. Breschini and
Other - AC 1001
HUD870615A;
OHP PRN -
S-009279a 1987
Monterey, Monterey County, California
001-826-01, First Street & Park Avenue,
Resources Reconnaissance of Parcel A.P.N.
HUD870615A, Preliminary Cultural
Monterey
Preservation, City of
Office of Historic
Fell
Kathryn Gualtieri and Bill
S-009661 1987
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
Mnt-929 and El Castillo, at the Presidio and
Excavations, CA-Mnt-101, CA-Mnt-298, CAFinal Report, Archaeological Test Inc..; Beta Analytic, Inc.
and Research Services,
Archaeological Consulting
Simons
Ellen Ryan, and Dwight
Randy Milliken, Mary
Jackson, Rob Jackson,
Hager, Thomas L.
Kenneth Gobalet, Lori
Stephen A. Dietz,
S-009719 1987
the City of Monterey
Lighthouse Curve Road Widening Project in
Cultural Resource Evaluation for the
Management
Archaeological Resource
Anne Laffey
Robert Cartier and Glory
S-009747 1988
Monterey County, California
612-011, 1108 Cass Street, City of Monterey,
Cultural Resource Management, APN 001-
Reconnaissance with Recommendations for
Results of Phase I Archaeological Larry Bourdeau Pacific Museum Consultants S-009747a 1991
Monterey
1367H in the City of Monterey, County of
Phase II Archaeological Testing of CA-MNTManagementArchaeological Resource S-010021 1988
California
Cannery Row in the City of Monterey,
Historic Study of the Hotel Site at 750
Management
Archaeological Resource
Edith Smith
Glory Anne Laffey and
S-010066 1988
(letter report)
Seaside Laguna Grande Office Building
and Research Services, Inc.
Archaeological Consulting Stephen A. Dietz
S-010312 1988
Monterey, Monterey County, California
033-04, at 298 and 304 Foam Street,
Reconnaissance of APN 001-032-16 and 001-
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini Project 1311
Submitter - AC
S-010323 1988
County, California
Post-Graduate School, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of a Portion of the Naval
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 1302
Submitter - AC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1366, Packet Page 1694 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-010551
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1988
MON 68 P.M. 5.2 5351-356800
Josselyn Canyon Road and Highway 68, 05-
proposed signal at the intersection of
Negative Archaeological Survey Report, Caltrans Wendy Waldron 356800
Caltrans - 5351-
S-010888 1989
County, California
Improvements, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey
for the Highway 218/68 Intersection
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
Voided - S-011062
1436B;
Submitter - Project
1436;
Submitter - Project
S-010888a 1989
Del Rey Oaks, Monterey County, California
Highway 218/68 Intersection Improvements,
Historic Architectural Evaluation for the Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Portia Lee and Gary S.
S-010889 1989
County, California
Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, Monterey
for the New Education Building at the
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
1442
Submitter - Project
S-011264 1989
County, California
Postgraduate School, Monterey, Monterey
a Prehistoric Burial Recovered from the Naval
Archaeological and Osteological Analyses of Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Trudy Haversat and Gary
1577
Submitter - Project
S-011282 1989
Ranch, Monterey, Monterey County, California
Reconnaissance of a Portion of the Montera
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 42B
Submitter - AC
S-011421 1989
California
Ranch, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance of a Portion of the Ryan
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Voided - S-011422
1646;
Submitter - Project
S-011421a 1989
California
Ranch, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance of Parcel A on the Ryan
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
S-011462 1988
(letter report)
City of Seaside, Monterey County, California
Grande/Roberts Lake Restoration project,
the Roberts Lake area of the Laguna
An archaeological surface reconnaissance of Archeo-Tec Allen G. Pastron Voided - S-010764 S-011462a 1988
Monterey County, California (letter report)
Lake Restoration project, City of Seaside,
connection with the Laguna Grande/Roberts
Archaeological monitoring and evaluation in Archeo-Tec Allen G. Pastron
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1367, Packet Page 1695 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-011617
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1990
California
Roberts Lake, Monterey, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance for Sewer Lines Near
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
Project 1674
Submitter - AC
S-011624 1990
County, California
001-023-14 & 17, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of APNs 001-011-09 and
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 1677
Submitter - AC
S-012324 1990
Monterey County, California
Numbers 001-567-10 and -11, Monterey,
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
1837
Submitter - Project
S-012358 1990
County, California
Number 001-026-01, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 1813
Submitter - AC
S-012362 1989
County, California (ISBN 1-55567-067-9)
at Fisherman's Wharf, Monterey, Monterey
Archaeological Excavations at CA-MNT-108, Coyote Press
Runnings
Rondeau, and A. L.
M. F. Rondeau, V. L.
Origer, R. L. Reynolds,
Langenwalter, II, T. M.
Jackson, P. E.
Huddleston, T. L.
O. Gibson, R. W.
Haversat, B. Bowser, R.
Gary S. Breschini, Trudy
29 Submitter - Number
S-012554 1991
County of Monterey
Located at 299 and 285 Foam Street in the
Cultural Resource Evaluation for Two Parcels
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier Voided - S-13360 S-012554a 1991
Monterey
and 285 Foam Street Project in the County of
Archaeological Testing and Mitigation of 299
Management
Archaological Resource Robert Cartier
S-012555 1990
County of Monterey
Located at 398 and 380 Foam Street in the
Cultural Resource Evaluation for Two Parcels
Management
Archaeological Resource Voided - S-12553
S-012555a 1991
380 Foam Street in the County of Monterey
Phase II Archaeological Testing of 398 and
Management
Archaeological Resource
S-012596 1991
County, California
Number 001-034-01, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
Project 1873
Submitter - AC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1368, Packet Page 1696 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-012618
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1991
California
Widening, Monterey, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance for the Del Monte Avenue
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini Project 1854
Submitter - AC
S-013288 1991
California
011-464-20, Monterey, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance, Assessor's Parcel Number
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
1938
Submitter - Project
S-013333 1991
Monterey
Located off Lighthouse Avenue in the City of
Cultural Resource Evaluation of a Parcel
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-013378 1990
McClelland Avenue in the County of Monterey
Located at 499 Wave Avenue and 141
Cultural Resource Evaluation for One Parcel
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-013987 1992
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Numbers 001-034-01, 08, 14, and 15,
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
Project 1988
Submitter - AC
S-014013 1992
Center, Monterey, Monterey County, California
Reconnaissance for the Monterey Visitor's
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary Other - AC 2014
S-014451 1992
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Reconnaissance for the Larkin Street Bridge,
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Seavey
Haversat, and Kent
Gary S. Breschini, Trudy
2045
Submitter - A Project
S-015133 1993
the Early Period
The Saunders Site: Mnt-391, a Littoral Site of
Society
The Scotts Valley Historical
Zandt
Sweeney, and Irene Van
Filippo, Francoise
Elena Reese, Rich San
Lorna Collins Pierce,
Moore, Scott Ortman,
Glory Anne Laffey, Ellen
Holanda, Terry Jones,
Hildebrandt, Kim
Carrico, Jeff Hall, William
Robert Cartier, Judy
S-015645 1993
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Parcel APN 001-011-09 on Cannery Row,
Preliminary Archaeological Mitigation Plan for Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
Project 1677B
Submitter - AC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1369, Packet Page 1697 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-015684
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1993
County, California
Number 001-382-04, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Prehistoric Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 2177
Submitter - AC
S-016280 1994
California
Cemetery, Monterey, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance of a Portion of the St. Johns
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 2237
Submitter - AC
S-016375 1994
California
Thomas O. Larkin House in Monterey,
Spanish Presidio and Adjacent to the
Trench Through a Portion of the Historic
a California American Water Company
Final Report: The Profiling and Monitoring of Cabrillo College Allan Lonnberg
A. Simpson-Smith, and
Rob Edwards, Charlotte
S-016375a 1994
Utilities Trench Near the Presidio of Monterey
Analysis of Ceramics Recovered from a Foothill Resources, Ltd. Julia G. Costello S-016375b 1993
Monterey, California (letter report)
Vicinity of the "Governor's House", Presidio of
Conservation Research
Historical: Architectural: Edna E. Kimbro
S-016720 1994
California
Group Monterey Project in Monterey,
Register Evaluation of the U.S. Coast Guard,
Archaeological Testing Program and National
Management
Archaeological Resource
Wizorek
Reese, and Julie C.
Robert Cartier, Elena
S-016720a 1994
(Draft)
Monterey Project in the County of Monterey
Testing Program, U.S. Coast Guard, Group
Preliminary Report of the Archaeological
Management
Archaeological Resource
Wizorek
Reese, and Julie C.
Robert Cartier, Elena
S-016720b 1994
County of Monterey
Coast Guard, Group Monterey Project in the
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the U.S.
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-016720c 1994
California
Group Monterey Project in Monterey,
Register Evaluation of the U.S. Coast Guard,
Archaeological Testing Program and National
Management
Archaeological Resource
Wizorek
Reese, and Julie C.
Robert Cartier, Elena
S-016892 1967
Monterey, Monterey, California
of the Site of El Castillo, Presidio of
Progress Report on the Archaeological Study
Archeological Foundation
Central California William Pritchard
S-016967 1995
County, California
Number 001-012-14, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
2309
Submitter - Project
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1370, Packet Page 1698 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-017103
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1995
California
Cathedral, Royal Presidio Chapel, Monterey,
the Eastern Exterior Foundation, San Carlos
Archaeological Test Excavation Adjacent to
of Central California
Archaeological Associates
Smith and Rob Edwards
Charlotte A. Simpson0424-4-NC-14
Agreement No. MTOther - Grant
S-017180 1994
1 of 2
Archaeological Reports, Number 17, Volume
of the CDF Building Inventory, CDF
A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation
Forestry and Fire Protection
California Department of Mark V. Thornton
S-017180a 1994
2 of 2
Archaeological Reports, Number 17, Volume
of the CDF Building Inventory,CDF
A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation
Fresno
California State University, Mark V. Thornton
S-017235 1965
(Sites MNT-371, 372, 373)
Monterey Peninsula Junior College Area
Geographic and Geologic Investigation of the
College, Long Beach
Angeles; California State
University of California, Los
Susia
D. L. Weide and M. L.
S-017407 1995
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Monte Avenue and Figueroa Street,
Reconnaissance of the Intersection of Del
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 2323
Submitter - AC
S-017425 1995
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Improvements in the Cannery Row Area,
Archaeological Survey Report for Sidewalk Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
Voided - S-19486
Project 2333;
Submitter - AC
S-017425a 1997
California
Row area, Monterey, Monterey County,
for Sidewalk Improvements in the Cannery
Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Mary Doane and Gary S.
S-017497
California
Site of Old Capitol Project, Monterey County,
Archaeological Reconnaissance, Proposed
and Research Services
Archaeological Consulting
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1371, Packet Page 1699 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-017788
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1985
Monterey, Monterey, California
Historical Resources Overview: Presidio of
Group
Anthropological Research
Far Western
Jackson Research Projects;
and William Hildebrandt
W. Turrentine Jackson
Voided - S-18370
DACA05-84-R-0158;
Contract No.
Agency Nbr -
DACA05-84-C-0329;
Contract No.
Agency Nbr -
S-017788a 1985
Monterey, Monterey, California
Historical Resources Overview: Presidio of
Group
Anthropological Research
Far Western
Stephen D. Mikesell
Stephen R. Wee, and
Rand F. Herbert,
Rand F. Herbert
S-017788b 1985
Monterey County, California
Located at the Presidio of Monterey,
Archaeological Investigations of Five Sites
Group, Inc.
Anthropological Research
Far Western
Hylkema
Tordoff, and Mark
Kelly R. McGuire, Judith
William R. Hildebrandt,
S-017788c 1985
of Montery, Monterey, California
Draft Cultural Resources Overview, Presidio
Group, Inc.
Anthropological Research
Far Western
Jackson Research Projects;
Mackensen
D. Schuler, and Robert
Elizabeth McKee, Sharon
Stephen D. Mikesell,
Stephen R. Wee,
Rand F. Herbert,
W. Turrentine Jackson,
S-017788d
How to Hold Down the Fort
Montery National Register Historic District, or
Preserving and Maintaining the Presidio of Robert E. Mackensen S-017788e 1985
Monterey County, California
Located at the Presidio of Monterey,
Archaeological Investigations of Five Sites
Group, Inc.
Anthropological Research
Far Western
Hylkema
Tordoff, and Mark
Kelly R. McGuire, Judith
William R. Hildebrandt,
S-017788f
at the Presidio of Monterey
Methodology for Ranking Historic Properties Jackson Research Projects
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1372, Packet Page 1700 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-018092
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1996
Monterey County, California
Number 001-053-06 and -07, Monterey,
Reconnaissance for Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
Project 2371
Submitter - AC
S-018372 1995
California
Hectares, Fort Ord, Monterey County,
A Cultural Resources Survey of 783 Geo-Marine, Inc. Philip R. Waite Number 67
Investigations,
Report of
Miscellaneous
Other -
EDA950824A;
OHP PRN -
S-018372a 1995
Project, Fort Ord
Habitat Management Plan Demonstration
EDA Award No. 07-49-04063, proposed
Santa Cruz
University of California,
B. Gill
Graham Bice and James
S-018806 1996
California
062-019, Monterey, Monterey County,
Reconnaissance for a Portion of A.P.N. 001-
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting S. Breschini
Anna Runnings and Gary
2413
Submitter - Project
S-018816 1996
County, California
Number 013-031-26, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance for Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
Project 2426
Submitter - AC
S-018822 1996
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Proposed Lighthouse Curve Widening,
Secondary Archaeological Testing for the Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
S-018834 1996
County, California
Number 001-023-15, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
2455
Submitter - Project
S-019207 1996
(letter report)
Closure, Presidio of Monterey - July 1994)
Final Environmental Assessment, Landfill
closure, Presidio of Monterey (reference:
resources, repair of landfill cover, landfill
Consideration of potential impacts to cultural Pacific Legacy, Inc. Thomas L. Jackson USA940707B
OHP PRN -
S-019605 1997
County, California
Number 001-071-005, Monterey, Monterey
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
Preliminary Cultural Resources Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Mary Doane and Gary S.
2493
Submitter - Project
S-019616 1997
Curve Widening project (letter report)
Archaeological monitoring for the Lighthouse Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1373, Packet Page 1701 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-019963
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1997
County, California
Drive and Highway 1, Sand City, Monterey
Proposed Bicycle Path Along Sand Dunes
Historic Property Clearance Report for Archaeological Consulting Anna Runnings S-019986 1997
Monterey, Monterey County, California
for Assessor's Parcel Number 001-671-032,
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 2547
Submitter - AC
S-020059 2001
11.8 Permit Number
County, California, 05-Mon-68, Post KM 10.6-
Boundary Road in Monterey, Monterey
Including State Highway 68 and South
the Fort Ord Network Improvements Project
Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
S-020155 1997
Foam Street in the City of Monterey
Archaeological Testing and Augering at 831
Management
Archaeological Resource Robert Cartier
S-020280 1998
Monterey, Monterey County, California
of Assessor's Parcel Number 001-567-20,
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
2579
Submitter - Project
S-020584 1998
report)
Monterey, Monterey County, California (letter
Mobile Services Facility SF-811-04,
Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Applied EarthWorks Barry A. Price S-020585 1998
report)
Monterey, Monterey County, California (letter
Mobile Services Facility SF-813-02,
Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Applied EarthWorks Barry A. Price 02 Agency Nbr - SF-813-
S-020974 1998
County, California
05, -06, -07 and -09, Monterey, Monterey
of Assessor's Parcels Number 001-051-04, -
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Voided - S-023619
2613B;
Submitter - Project
2613;
Submitter - Project
S-020974a 2001
(Letter Report)
(APNs 001-051-04, -05, -06, -07, &-09
AC Project 2613B; Centennial Gardens Archaeological Consulting haversay
Mary Doane and Trudy
S-020985 1998
California
and -005, Monterey, Monterey County,
of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 001-031-004
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Anna Runnings and
2610
Submitter - Project
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1374, Packet Page 1702 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-020994
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 1998
Monterey County, California
007 and 001-022-002, 003 & -004, Monterey,
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 001-021-006 & -
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissane of Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
2591
Submitter - Project
S-021973 1999
Monterey, Monterey County, California
on Soledad Drive at Soledad Place,
Proposed Roadway Drainage Improvement
Historic Property Clearance Report for Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane S-021995 1999
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Shipwreck Site on Monterey Beach,
Preliminary Archaeological Report for a Archaeological Consulting and Tom Fordham
Haversat, Kent Seavey,
Gary S. Breschini, Trudy
S-022329 1999
PM R78.4-R81.2 CU 05-168 EA 05-0C4001
proposed fence replacement, 05-MON-01,
Negative Archaeological Survey Report,
Transportation
California Department of
Wilson
Terry L. Joslin and Kelda
0C4001
Caltrans - EA 05-
S-022405 1999
Side Retaining Walls
1, PM 78.48-79.00, Building of New Ocean
Prehistoric Property Survey Report, 05-MNT- Archaeological Consulting Voided - S-022406 S-022405a 1999
(Amended)
Curve, Monterey, Monterey County, California
Avenue and Erosion Control Along Presidio
Traffic Signal Modification Along Del Monte
Improvements Project Including Lighting and
Proposed Monterey Bay Coastal Trail
Historic Property Clearance Report for the Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane S-022405b 1999
California
Avenue, Monterey, Monterey County,
Modification Project Along Del Monte
Lighting & Del Monte Avenue Traffic Signal
Proposed Monterey Bay Coastal Trail
Historic Property Clearance Report for Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane S-022657 2000
Optic Cable Project
Onshore Portions of the Global West Fiber
Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Along
International Corporation
Science Applications
Berryman
Rasmussen, and Judy
Pfeiffer, Karen
Izaak Sawyer, Laurie
S-022740 2000
California
Resubdivision, Monterey, Monterey County,
of the Del Monte Beach Tract #2
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 2827
Submitter - AC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1375, Packet Page 1703 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-022760
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 2000
Streets (letter report)
Scott Street Between Van Buren and Pacific
Project Area for Sewer Improvements on Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini S-022764 2000
County, California
013, -018, & -019, in Monterey, Monterey
Project, Assessor's Parcels 001-801-006, -
for Phase III of the Windows on the Bay
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 2865
Submitter - AC
S-022766 2000
County, California
Technology Center, Monterey, Monterey
of the Monterey Peninsula College Library
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 2849
Submitter - AC
S-022800 2000
MON-0
Monterey, Monterey County, California, 05-
State Highway 68 at Skyline Forest Road in
the Skyline Bridge Retrofit Project Adjacent to
Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
S-023116 2000
County, California
Portion of CA-MNT-103, Monterey, Monterey
Archaeological Radiocarbon Dating of a Archaeological Consulting Trudy Haversat
Gary S. Breschini and
S-023819 2001
Monterey, Monterey County, California
of Assessor's Parcel Number 001-025-004, in
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
3039
Submitter - Project
S-023821 2001
Monterey County, California
of APN 416-191-001 in Hidden Hills,
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy Submitter - 3014
S-023884 2001
Recommendations (letter report)
(Ref#MO45XC037A): No Further
Wireless "First Baptist Church" Site
Personal Communication Services (PCS)
Record Search for Sprint Spectrum's
Technology
Archaeological Resources Carolyn Losee
S-024541 2001 Project AC 3101 (letter report) Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane Voided - S-028066
AC 3101;
Submitter - Project
S-024589 2002
Monterey, Monterey County
for the Catellus Property Project, City of
Archaeological Literature Search and Survey Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Holson
Cordelia Sutch and John Voided - S-025077
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1376, Packet Page 1704 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-024894
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 2001
Monterey County, California
Monte Courses, Pebble Beach and Monterey,
the Spyglass Hill, Spanish Bay and Del
of Three Golf Course Improvement Areas at
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 3185
Submitter - AC
S-025075 2002
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
Results for the Window on the Bay Project,
Archaeological Survey and Record Search Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Jackson
Holson, and Thomas
Jonathan Goodrich, John
S-025076 2001
Monterey, Monterey County
for the Lower Presidio Trail Project, City of
Archaeological Literature Search and Survey Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Cordelia Sutch
John Holson and
S-025078 2002
Monterey County, California
Van Bueren Projects, City of Monterey,
Results for the Public Service Center and 625
Archaeological Survey and Record Search Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Holson
Hannah Ballard and John Submitter - 820-07
S-025235 2002
Monterey County, Caltrans District V.
and Drake Project, City of Monterey,
Historic Property Survey Report for the Foam Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Sutch
Ballard, and Cordelia
John Holson, Hannah
S-025235a 2002
County
Drake Project, City of Monterey, Monterey
Determination of Eligibility for the Foam and
Archaeological Survey Report and Pacific Legacy Incorporated Sutch
Ballard, and Cordelia
John Holson, Hannah
S-025440 2002
Monterey, Monterey County, California
of Assessor's Parcel 001-692-010, in
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Mary Doane and Gary
Project 3149
Submitter - AC
S-025817 2002
Monterey, Monterey County, California
of Assessor's Parcel 001-732-007, in
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 3298
Submitter - AC
S-025832 2002
004, in Monterey, Monterey County, California
of Assessor's Parcels 001-729-002, -003 & -
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Voided - S-30152
Voided - S-29122;
Project 3319B;
Submitter - AC
Project 3319;
Submitter - AC
S-025832a 2004
report)
APNs 001-729-002, -003 and -004 (letter Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane S-025832b 2005
report)
APNs 001-729-002, -003, and -004 (letter Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1377, Packet Page 1705 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-026943
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 2003
Monterey County, California
for Assessor's Parcel 001-012-008, in
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Mary Doane and Gary S.
3450
Submitter - Project
S-026967 2003
Monterey, Monterey County, California
for Assessor's Parcel 001-032-005, in
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Breschini
Mary Doane and Gary S.
3436
Submitter - Project
S-027043 2003
City of Monterey, Monterey County
Fremont Storm Drain Improvement Project,
Archaeological Survey Report for the North Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Holson
Cordelia Sutch and John
S-027236 2000
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Lighthouse Corridor Improvements,
Historic Property Survey Report for Proposed Archaeological Consulting Mary K. Doane
Gary S. Breschini and
Voided - S-022744
Voided - S-022453;
Voided - S-022452;
Voided - S-021957;
965100;
Caltrans - E.A. 05-
S-027236a 2000
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Phase 1 Lighthouse Corridor Improvements,
Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane
Gary S. Breschini and
S-027236b 2000
Monterey
Short Form, Lighthouse Corridor in New
Historic Architectural Survey Report - MOU
Transportation
California Department of Robert C. Pavlik
S-027236c 1999
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Phase 1 Lighthouse Corridor Improvements,
Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane
Gary S. Breschini and
S-027236d 1999
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Lighthouse Corridor Improvements,
Historic Property Survey Report for Proposed Archaeological Consulting Mary K. Doane
Gary S. Breschini and
S-027236e 1999
Monterey, Monterey County, California
Phase 1 Lighthouse Corridor Improvements,
Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane
Gary S. Breschini and
S-027289 2003
Investigation of a 1860's Kiln in Monterey, CA
The French Potter of Monterey: Archeological
Cultural Resource Division
California State Parks, Eloise Richards Barter
S-027899 2002
Street, 202 Pacific Street, Monterey, California
Historic Park, Corner of Pacific and Scott
California's First Theater, Monterey State
Limited Historic Structure Report for
Group
Architectural Resources
Monterey District;
California State Parks,
Seth Bergstein
Anthony Crosby, and
Elizabeth Moore,
E. Kimbro, Mike Zuccaro,
Karen Hildebrand, Edna
S-027899a 2002
Study
First Theater, Monterey, California, Finishes
Associates, Inc.
Building Conservation
Norah Mazar
Andrea Gilmore and
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1378, Packet Page 1706 Report No.
Report List
Year Title Affiliation Author(s) Other IDs
S-027900
NWIC File # 22-1686 City of Monterey General Plan Update 2002
Park, 510 Dutra Street, Monterey, California
Alvarado Adobe, Monterey State Historic
Limited Historic Structure Report for the
Group
Architectural Resources
Monterey District;
California State Parks,
and Seth Bergstein
Moore, Anthony Crosby,
Zuccaro, Elizabeth
Hildebrand, Mike
Edna E. Kimbro, Karen
S-027969 2004
196 005 in the County of Monterey, California
Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel 416
Preliminary Cultural Resources Susan Morley
S-028279 2004
County, California (letter report)
Retrofit Project, City of Monterey, Monterey
of Effect for the Larkin Street Bridge Seismic
Historic Property Survey Report and Finding
Transportation
California Department of Gary L. Ruggerone Voided - S-028072 S-028279a 2003
County, California
Project in the City of Monterey, Monterey
the Larkin Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit
Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane S-028279b 2003
Project, City of Monterey, Monterey, California
Street Bridge Retrofitting and Rehabilitation
Historic Resources Evaluation Report: Larkin JRP Historical Consulting Theresa Saputo Rogers
Rand F. Herbert and
S-028888 2004
Monterey, California (letter report)
Material Identification at Colton Hall,
Archaeological Field Visit and Cultural Pacific Legacy, Inc. Hannah Ballard S-028913 2003
336 Pacific Street, Monterey, California
Soberanes, Monterey State Historic Park,
Limited Historic Structure Report for the Casa
Monterey District
California State Parks,
Anthony Crosby
Elizabeth Moore, and
Edna E. Kimbro,
S-029131 2004
(letter report).
CHOMP Sprint Tower Site MO45xc031-G Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini S-029341 1997
Investigation.
Motor Pool, Potential Soil Contamination
Resources, Presidio of Monterey Former
Assessment of Potential Impacts to Cultural Pacific Legacy, Inc Thomas L. Jackson S-029471 2002
Monterey County (letter report)
Highway 68/Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey,
MO45XC059A Ryan Ranch City Yard,
Telecommunication Facility Project,
Proposed Sprint PCS Wireless Sprint PCS Claudia Gemberling FCC020319I
OHP PRN -
S-029637 2004
California.
Plan EIR, Monterey, Monterey County,
for the Monterey Peninsula College Master
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Archaeological Consulting Haversat
Mary Doane and Trudy
Project 2849C
Submitter - AC