Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 17 of 22)

C49-7 Sorbo,
Allen
3/19/24 Goal 12 states that the Proposed Plan should be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) yet development of the 50 acre
parcel blatantly violates this stated goal. According
to ALUCP, the parcel is in Zone 3, where all
residential development is prohibited, except low
density and infill in already developed areas.

As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, page 3.11-27 of the DEIR states that portions of the Fort Ord opportunity area and the 50-acre MPUSD parcel south of Highway 68 are within Airport Safety Zone 3, which prohibits all residential except for low density residential and infill in developed areas. However, the proposed Land Use Element establishes a new ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2446, Packet Page 2774 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-525
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O) that applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Existing uses are permitted to continue on sites within the AC-O, and new development and expansion of existing uses shall only be permitted where the compatibility criteria or the infill exemption criteria of the ALUCP can be met. Further, Program 1-H and Program 1-I of the proposed Housing Element would also help ensure compatibility with the ALUCP, requiring future land uses planned on the Fort Ord property and the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries that are within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to be compatible with the ALUCP. As such, no conflicts with ALUCP zones would result.

C49-8 Sorbo,
Allen
3/19/24 Goal 9 states that the Proposed Plan should
“support a vibrant local economy.” This goal is what
is used to promote the Proposed Plan over the
“Increased Workforce Alternative Plan.” The City of
Monterey report states that the Increased
Workforce Alternative Plan is environmentally
superior to the Proposed Plan as it avoids
significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural
resources and air quality. However, the City of
Monterey rejects the Increased Workforce
Alternative Plan because it does not support local
economic vitality to the same extent as the
Proposed Plan does. This is in direct contradiction
to the stated facts! Goal 9, which discusses
economic vitality, states that there should be a
balance of jobs and housing so that those who
work in Monterey can afford to live in Monterey
but the report also states that with the Proposed
Plan, low wage hospitality and tourism workers
would increase their vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

So isn’t the Increased Workforce Alternative Plan
better for low wage workers, better for the
environment, and better for everyone else as it
Please see response to comment C2-8 regarding Goal 9 and Increased Workforce Housing Alternative.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2447, Packet Page 2775 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-526
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
reduces traffic congestion and air pollution and
maintains the scenic beauty of the Highway 68
Corridor?
C49-9 Sorbo,
Allen
3/19/24 Finally, why not embrace a hybrid plan?
Development of the land on South Boundary Rd, as
described in the Proposed Plan, makes sense as it’s
within walking distance of jobs at Ryan Ranch. Why
not implement part of the Increased Workforce
Alternative Plan but also develop housing along
Boundary Rd? Boundary Rd. is not part of a
recognized scenic corridor and would be much less
likely to add to traffic congestion on Highway 68. In
keeping with the State of California’s guideline for
higher density units that are infill, the City of
Monterey could modernize and further develop
areas that could use revitalization without
destroying the natural beauty and rural character
that attracts tourists to visit and retirees to
relocate to the Monterey Peninsula.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my
input.

The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required in this document. Comments related to the content of the Proposed Plan will be considered by City decision-makers at adoption hearings.

C50-1 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 I am writing to provide you with my comments
regarding the Draft EIR for the Monterey 2031
General Plan Update.

The proposed housing plan for the City of
Monterey includes developing a 50 acre parcel on
Highway 68. Developing this parcel would have a
significant negative impact on the Highway 68
Scenic Corridor and on the environment, in
general, especially as it would increase traffic
congestion on Highway 68 and the surrounding
rural roads. The parcel is in an area that is labeled
as a “highly sensitive viewshed.” There has already
been extensive development in the Highway 68
Scenic Corridor as evidenced by the airport
runway extension, the Highway 68 car condos, and
As outlined on page 3.1-17 in Aesthetics, the DEIR did consider visual character and aesthetic impacts on the Planning Area. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies to ensure that new development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would not substantially degrade the scenic character of the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a contextsensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade character and aesthetics, and impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2448, Packet Page 2776 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-527
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
the Montage Ohana building that was inexplicably
allowed to loom over the highway. At least, the
south side of the highway has maintained a scenic
rural character. If that is now developed, the
designation of Highway 68 as a scenic corridor
would be in jeopardy.

C50-2 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 PROPOSED PLAN BASED ON UNREALISTIC

PROJECTIONS
The Proposed Plan outlined in the City of
Monterey Document is based on what seem
to be unrealistic projections of population growth
and corresponding housing needs. The population
of Monterey has actually decreased by 2.2% over
the past 3 years and is projected to continue to
decrease. The source of these projections, AMBAG,
states that employment drives growth, but
projected employment growth does not support
the numbers used as the basis for the proposed
housing development plan. The Proposed Plan
assumes that, by 2031, employment in Monterey
will grow by 8.3%, but population will grow by

37.6%, and somehow that necessitates a 41.9%
growth in housing units.

For each new job, it is proposed that approximately
5 people will move to Monterey. Is population
growth outpacing employment growth due to the
birth rate and/or due to the number of
unemployed (potentially retired) people expected
to move to Monterey? If it is the birth rate, it
should be noted that children live in the same
housing unit as their parents so there should not
be a need for 3 times as many housing units as new
jobs, as is proposed.

Please see response to comment C2-2 regarding projections of population growth and corresponding housing needs. Please also see Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development impacts on scenic resources in the southeast and south Monterey.

C50-3 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 PROPOSED PLAN CONFLICTS WITH PROJECT

OBJECTIVES
The Proposed Plan, which includes development of
Please see response to comment C2-3 regarding projections of population growth and corresponding housing needs. Please also ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2449, Packet Page 2777 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-528
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
the 50 acre parcel on Highway 68, conflicts with six
of the specific objectives, or goals, for the project
as outlined in the report.

Goal 1
states that the plan should address the regional
housing needs (RHNA)
but, as mentioned above, Monterey appears to be
planning for many more new units than are
necessary to meet projected needs.

It leads one to wonder if perhaps the
Highway 68 parcel is included because an influential
developer would like to build on it at the expense
of the Highway 68
Scenic Corridor, the environment, and the general
enjoyment and welfare of the community.
see Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development impacts on scenic resources in the southeast and south Monterey.

C50-4 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 Goal 6
states that the City of Monterey should “
encourage new housing in locations
supported by existing or planned infrastructure,
while maintaining existing neighborhood character.”
There is no existing infrastructure on the 50 acre
Highway 68 parcel and the neighborhood character
is low density residential and rural so the proposed
plan does not meet goal 6.

As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. However, the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C50-5 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 Goal 7
, entitled “Maintain Existing Housing” , states that
the city wants to “assure high
quality maintenance, safety, and habitability of
existing housing resources.” If this is so, why not
have programs to rehabilitate and remodel existing
housing, especially in core areas of the city? If you
build an excess of new housing and significantly
increase vacancy rates and decrease rental rates, it
is well known that landlords will not be willing or
able to maintain existing properties. The result will
be some nice new buildings along Highway 68 while
The Housing Element includes strategies to maintain and expand housing in the core areas of the City. Infill development strategies include Housing Element Programs 1-C, Specific Plan Updates, Program 1-D, Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, Program 1-E, Education Workforce Housing Overlay, Program 1-G, Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities, Program 2-E, Revise Parking Requirements, Program 2-L, Moratorium on Vehicle Storage, and Program 3-C, Local Density Bonus.

The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2450, Packet Page 2778 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-529
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
the appearance of Monterey's central district
continues to degrade.

C50-6 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 Goal 8
states that appropriate housing sites “are proximate
to transportation, shopping
and schools...” This goal is in line with the State of
California’s goal to promote infill as a way to
promote sustainability and minimize negative
impacts on the environment. The parcel on
Highway 68 does not meet this goal. It is not infill
and would require residents to use cars to get to
work and for all errands. It is not on a major transit
route and it has a very low walk score.

As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. In addition, as detailed on page 3.10-17, the Proposed Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally. Infill development strategies include Housing Element Programs 1-C, Specific Plan Updates, Program 1-D, Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, Program 1-E, Education Workforce Housing Overlay, Program 1-G, Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities, Program 2-E, Revise Parking Requirements, Program 2-L, Moratorium on Vehicle Storage, and Program 3-C, Local Density Bonus. As such, overall, implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with regional, airport land use, or local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

C50-7 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 Goal 12
states that the Proposed Plan should be consistent
with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP) yet development of the 50 acre parcel
blatantly violates this stated goal. According to
ALUCP, the parcel is in Zone 3, where all
residential development is prohibited, except low
density and infill in already developed areas.

As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2451, Packet Page 2779 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-530
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, page 3.11-27 of the DEIR states that portions of the Fort Ord opportunity area and the 50-acre MPUSD parcel south of Highway 68 are within Airport Safety Zone 3, which prohibits all residential except for low density residential and infill in developed areas. However, the proposed Land Use Element establishes a new Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O) that applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Existing uses are permitted to continue on sites within the AC-O, and new development and expansion of existing uses shall only be permitted where the compatibility criteria or the infill exemption criteria of the ALUCP can be met. Further, Program 1-H and Program 1-I of the proposed Housing Element would also help ensure compatibility with the ALUCP, requiring future land uses planned on the Fort Ord property and the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries that are within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to be compatible with the ALUCP. As such, no conflicts with ALUCP zones would result.

C50-8 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 Goal 9 states that the Proposed Plan should
“support a vibrant local economy.” This goal is what
is used to promote the Proposed Plan over the
“Increased Workforce Alternative Plan.” The City of
Monterey report states that the Increased
Workforce Alternative Plan is environmentally
superior to the Proposed Plan as it avoids
significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural
resources and air quality. However, the City of
Monterey rejects the Increased Workforce
Alternative Plan because it does not support local
economic vitality to the same extent as the
Proposed Plan does. This is in direct contradiction
Please see response to comment C2-8 regarding Goal 9 and Increased Workforce Housing Alternative.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2452, Packet Page 2780 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-531
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
to the stated facts! Goal 9, which discusses
economic vitality, states that there should be a
balance of jobs and housing so that those who
work in Monterey can afford to live in Monterey
but the report also states that with the Proposed
Plan, low wage hospitality and tourism workers
would increase their vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

So isn’t the Increased Workforce Alternative Plan
better for low wage workers, better for the
environment, and better for everyone else as it
reduces traffic congestion and air pollution and
maintains the scenic beauty of the Highway 68
Corridor?
C50-9 Stevenson,
Stephanie
3/20/24 Finally, why not embrace a hybrid plan?
Development of the land on South Boundary Rd, as
described in the Proposed Plan, makes sense as it’s
within walking distance of jobs at Ryan Ranch. Why
not implement part of the Increased Workforce
Alternative Plan but also develop housing along
Boundary Rd? Boundary Rd. is not part of a
recognized scenic corridor and would be much less
likely to add to traffic congestion on Highway 68. In
keeping with the State of California’s guideline for
higher density units that are infill, the City of
Monterey could modernize and further develop
areas that could use revitalization without
destroying the natural beauty and rural character
that attracts tourists to visit and retirees to
relocate to the Monterey Peninsula.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my
input.

C51-1 Thayer,
Steven
3/25/24 I am responding to the 02/09/24 call for public comment on the draft EIR and related elements of
the general plan. My concerns relate to the
proposed housing development in the vicinity of
the Monterey Regional Airport and Highway 68.

Please see response Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development impacts in the southeast and south Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2453, Packet Page 2781 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-532
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
I live in the Oak Tree Views community (in an
unincorporated area of the county south of
Highway 68 and east of Olmsted Road, adjacent to
the Monterra Ranch community). While not within
the Monterey city limits, the residents in both Oak
Tree Views and Monterra Ranch are directly
affected by city plans to add housing units adjacent
to the airport and Highway 68. The impact of this
development is compounded by (and potentially
uncoordinated with) corresponding county plans to
accommodate additional housing units in the open
space bounded by Highway 68, Olmstead Road, and
Via Malpaso.

In the interest of rational and responsible
development, it is imperative that both the city and
county take into account the combined effect of
their plans in the vicinity of the airport and
Highway 68.

Detailed comments are attached.

C51-2 Thayer,
Steven
3/25/24 Page 3-15 of the Revised Draft of Monterey’s 2023- 31 Housing Element contains the following
statements related to development near the
Monterey Regional Airport and Highway 68:
“The inventory assumes development of 515 new
multifamily units along Garden Road.”
“The inventory assumes 640 new housing units”
[on the 50-acre site east of Tarpey Flats and south
of the airport]
To put the scale of this potential development in
perspective, the nearby community of Oak Tree
Views has 42 home sites, while Monterra Ranch has
168 home sites. In other words, the city is
seemingly proposing to add over five times the
number of housing units as currently exist in this
area.

The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required in this document.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2454, Packet Page 2782 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-533
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
C51-3 Thayer,
Steven
3/25/24 The traffic impact alone is concerning. The city itself recognizes in various ways the need to properly
assess traffic impacts in the following policies
(contained in the Draft Circulation Element):

Policy a.7 Do not support non-aviation uses within
the Monterey Peninsula Airport District that create
unnecessary traffic impacts in adjacent residential
neighborhoods.

Policy a.9 Limit direct access from private
property to State highways.

Policy j.9 Protect emergency evacuation routes.

Policy j.10 Maintain capacity on principal arterials
to support emergency evacuation.

As detailed on page 3.13-8 of the EIR, an assessment of impacts on traffic congestion is no longer required under CEQA and thus, not incorporated into the DEIR. With the passage of SB 743
(September 27, 2013) and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines in 2019, level of service (LOS) can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. LOS measures the average
amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. See Chapter 3.13 of the DEIR regarding transportation impacts. In addition, see page 3.3-48 of the EIR for an assessment of carbon monoxide hot spots due to increased vehicle congestion.

As detailed on page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, increased development in the Planning Area would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network, where employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact. As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the
development of mixed use villages and transit-oriented
development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7. In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Regarding emergency access, page 3.13-24 of the DEIR states that City staff, including emergency responders, review all development ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2455, Packet Page 2783 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-534
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
applications to ensure that applicable requirements are met, including provisions for adequate access for emergency
responders and response vehicles, consistent with the Fire Code.

As such, impacts on emergency access are less than significant.

Regarding evacuation, page 3.15-21 of the DEIR notes that under a multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont Street-Highway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. This is a potentially significant impact; therefore, mitigation measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway on-ramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Therefore, overall this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

C51-4 Thayer,
Steven
3/25/24 Emergency evacuation is of particular concern to those of us who live in this vicinity (a high to very
high fire hazard region). Highway 68 is the only way
out for those of us who may have to evacuate on
short notice if a fire were to break out in the
heavily-forested hills south of Oak Tree Views and
Monterra Ranch. A similar concern is noted by the
city with respect to the evacuation-constrained
parcels in Deer Flats and Fisherman’s Flats (see
Map 18 in the Draft Safety Element). Encountering
a traffic jam on Highway 68 during an emergency
evacuation could be catastrophic.

An assessment of impacts on traffic congestion is no longer required under CEQA and thus, not incorporated into the DEIR.

With the passage of SB 743 (September 27, 2013) and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines in 2019, level of service (LOS) can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA.

LOS measures the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. See Chapter 3.13 of the DEIR regarding transportation impacts. As detailed on page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, increased development in the Planning Area would generate ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2456, Packet Page 2784 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-535
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network, where employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact. As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the development of mixed use villages and transitoriented development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7.). In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Regarding emergency access, page 3.13-24 of the DEIR states that City staff, including emergency responders, review all development applications to ensure that applicable requirements are met, including provisions for adequate access for emergency
responders and response vehicles, consistent with the Fire Code.

As such, impacts on emergency access are less than significant.

Regarding evacuation, page 3.15-21 of the DEIR notes that under a multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont Street-Highway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. This is a potentially significant impact; therefore, mitigation measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2457, Packet Page 2785 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-536
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Therefore, overall this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

C51-5 Thayer,
Steven
3/25/24 Compounding these already serious concerns are
plans for airport expansion (adding to the traffic on
Garden Road, Olmsted Road and Highway 68) and
the county’s housing element which identifies the
open space bounded by Highway 68, Olmsted Road,
and Via Malpaso as a site for the potential addition
of 1,324 housing units!
Bottom Line: Let’s not build catastrophe into the
plans for this neighborhood.

Please see response Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development impacts in the southeast and south Monterey.

C52-1 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 I am a resident of the Oak Tree Views community
and I wish to register my concerns about the
proposed development of many housing units in
the open space between the Oak Tree Views and
Monterra communities and Highway 68. The
combined units proposed for both the County and
City of Monterey in this very small area numbers
well over 2000as I understand. These projects
greatly impact anyone in Monterra, Tehama, Oak
Tree Views, Deer Flats, Fisherman Flats and Jacks
Peak. A response we recently heard was, well, just
widen the roads. Not a good answer. Plan well and
thoughtfully is a far better answer.

My thoughts in a nutshell: You are not fixing a
problem. YOU are moving it. I want to be very clear
that I am not against affordable housing. It is
needed and wanted but where it is needed.

Monterey Peninsula has one major industry,
tourism. Monterey County has another and that is
agriculture. When you change the Scenic highway
(68) to a major highway with three and four story
As outlined on page 5-6 in CEQA Required Conclusions, the DEIR did consider cumulative impacts on designated scenic areas. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Elements includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan
boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context-sensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic resources, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2458, Packet Page 2786 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-537
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
buildings you minimize the character of the
peninsula, just as when you add more chain stores
to charming villages. The hospitality industry needs
more employees but it also needs a commitment
from the community to maintain the integrity of
this area so that the hospitality industry continues
to thrive. There is a way to do both but I do not
see any attempt to find that compromise. The same
holds true for the Salinas Valley area.

C52-2 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 Housing must be considered but in a way that does
not destroy the nature of the Peninsula. Water
must be an issue as those of us with homes already
here have a difficult time acquiring permits for an
extra bathroom or hose bib. We may dig a well but
it is all coming out of the same source, the aquifers
below our valuable land. Traffic is clearly an issue.

Any of us who drive to work can tell you about the
traffic jams during commuting hours or event
hours. Noise is an issue both from large, dense
communities and from the airport.

I have been on the Greater Monterey LUAC for a
number of years which advises the Planning
Commission regarding all construction along the
unincorporated Highway 68 corridor. We had many
limitations as to what could be approved.

A project with this proposed density is absurd and
will create a number of issues far beyond those
above. These proposed projects are not easily
accessible to jobs, maybe a few at the airport and
on Garden Road but that’s it. Then a car is required.

Then the congestion just moves from one place to
another. If Monterey County is not concerned
about population numbers then consider other
properties that put residents within easy walking of
most available jobs. The premise is to have the
workforce near jobs; there are vacant properties
along Fremont Blvd in Monterey and Seaside; along
As outlined in page 3.14-26, the DEIR did consider impacts of water supply. The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) projects that available groundwater supply from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin will be sufficient to meet demand in its service area through 2040. Further, MM UTIL-2, involving actions to expand MCWD supply, is required. To meet additional future demands, the MCWD 2020 UWMP provides that reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant could potentially add 300 AFY of additional supply. Further, to provide additional water to meet future demand when it materializes, the MCWD 2020 UWMP states Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver additional water to the Seaside Basin. Please see also Master Response MR-2 regarding water supply and Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative
development in the southeast and south Monterey. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2459, Packet Page 2787 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-538
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
DelMonte near the shopping malls and auto mall;
adjacent to Ryan Ranch with many offices. I assume
that Monterey County could make “a deal” with
any of the adjacent cities to be willing to build
under the County plan in a place where residents
are walking distance to work or along bus routes. I
suggest that you consider that housing for those in
hospitality (the suggested main concern) would be
better served by being in the cities where the
hospitality businesses actually exist. Again, perhaps
the County can find ways to work with the cities. I
also suggest that you consider small complexes
incorporated into areas with far lower density. It
seems that the City of Monterey has decided to
put two enormous projects as far out of town as is
possible, not helping with transportation issues for
the workers but complying with the states
requirement of numbers. Numbers vs quality,
money vs community character and easy vs
thoughtful. Also impacting the nature of Highway
68, a designated Scenic Highway!
C52-3 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 Traffic from the two City of Monterey projects that
we are aware of will be increased by at least 1,000
vehicles if not two to three times that. Traffic from
the project between Olmstead Road, Highway 68,
Via Mal Paso could include at least 3,000 vehicles if
not more.

As detailed on page 3.13-8 of the EIR, an assessment of impacts on traffic congestion is no longer required under CEQA and thus, congestion is not analyzed in the DEIR. With the passage of SB 743 (September 27, 2013) and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines in 2019, level of service (LOS) can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. LOS measures the average
amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. See Chapter 3.13 of the DEIR regarding transportation impacts. In addition, see page 3.3-48 of the EIR for an assessment of carbon monoxide hot spots due to increased vehicle congestion.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2460, Packet Page 2788 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-539
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
C52-4 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 This pasture is filled with wild life, including
mountain lions, and is considered a natural pathway
and habitat for these creatures. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife has expressed
much concern.

3.4-37 of the DEIR details that future development within the Planning Area would be subject to the Proposed Plan’s programs, local regulations, and General Plan goals and policies related to biological resources that involve preserving and protecting open space; preserving natural resources, including plant, animal, and fish habitats; protecting wetlands; and protecting and enhancing streams and creeks. Compliance with these policies and
regulations would ensure the preservation of natural resources in the Planning Area and impacts would be less than significant.

C52-5 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 Foothill school is no longer operating as a MPUSD
school.

As detailed on page 3.8-13 of the DEIR, Monterey Bay Charter School Foothill Campus (1700 Via Casoli) is a charter school separate from MPUSD.

C52-6 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 There are very few buildings over two stories tall.

For the years I have been involved with LUAC the
Countydid not approve buildings over two stories
along this road, they did not approve buildings that
made a visual impact on Highway 68. The City of
Monterey seems to have no problem with this. The
Car condos serve a purpose but make a terrible
visual impact on this scenic highway. At least put in
some plants.

Please see response to comment C2-1 regarding cumulative impacts on scenic resources. In addition, as detailed on page 3.1-20 of the DEIR, compliance with applicable zoning regulations and General Plan policies would ensure the impacts on scenic quality would be less than significant.

C52-7 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 While discussing the above you might reconsider
traffic circles along Highway 68. These might work
An assessment of impacts on traffic congestion is no longer required under CEQA and thus, congestion is not analyzed in the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2461, Packet Page 2789 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-540
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
well on roads with 25-40 mph speed limits.

Highway 68 is 55 and this makes little sense. Much
of the day there is a steady stream along Highway
68 and I’m not sure how easily we will be able to
merge. It also makes little sense considering that
our fire department is approximately 8 miles east
of us on Highway 68. Good luck getting those rigs
here in the event of fire. Oak Tree Views and other
neighboring communities are on the edge of a
HIGH fire risk area. There is only one way out for
some of us and that is Olmstead Road to Highway
68 or Garden Road. With the number of additional
vehicles I would imagine that egress will be
impossible.

DEIR. With the passage of SB 743 (September 27, 2013) and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines in 2019, level of service (LOS) can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA.

LOS measures the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. See Chapter 3.13 of the DEIR regarding transportation impacts. As detailed on page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, increased development in the Planning Area would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network, where employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact. As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the development of mixed use villages and transitoriented development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7. In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area because the detailed
characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

As such, impacts on emergency access are less than significant.

Regarding evacuation, page 3.15-21 of the DEIR notes that under a ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2462, Packet Page 2790 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-541
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont Street-Highway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. This is a potentially significant impact; therefore, mitigation measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway on-ramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Therefore, overall this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

C52-8 Agrati,
Linda
3/16/20
24 Have you considered schools? Rain runoff? Impact
on Olmsted/Monhollan Road? Medical services?
Police? Other services?
In truth most of us would prefer the land be left as
a conservation corridor but we are aware that it
likely will change. My personal opinion is that
considering the space available I think that a project
about three times the size of Oak Tree Views would
be maximum.

I hope and pray that you will be more thoughtful
and considerate of all circumstances before going
forward with these plans.

Impacts on schools and other public services are analyzed in Chapter 3.12 of the DEIR, stormwater runoff is analyzed in Chapter 3.9 of the DEIR, and transportation is analyzed in Chapter

3.13 of the DEIR. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C53-1 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 I am a nearby resident of the proposed housing
project for 640 units off of Highway 68 currently
owned by the Monterey
Peninsula School District. I'm shocked with the
massive amount of development being proposed
around the Airport/Hwy 68, including the Garden
Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative
development impacts on scenic resources in the southeast and south Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2463, Packet Page 2791 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-542
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Court development, the 1324 units being proposed
by the County, and the Boundary Road project with
significant units in the Ryan Ranch area. Does
anyone care about the cumulative effects of all
these developments on an area that already is
struggling with traffic, and was designated a scenic
corridor? Many of us moved to this area to escape
the urbanization and densification in other parts of
California. While I support the need for additional
residential development that is affordable to ensure
hard working people can afford to live and work in
Monterey County, several of the proposed sites are
of particular concern especially given the high
density.

C53-2 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 The two I especially object to are the County's 1324 units being proposed off Olmsted Rd, and the
City of Monterey's 640 units being proposed for
land that was previously designated for education,
also off of Olmsted Rd. Both of these projects
violate the State of California's desire for infill on
already developed land and pose significant risk,
including:

As outlined on page 3.10-10, the 50-acre Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) site is within the Highway 68 Area Plan which was adopted in 1984. The plan claims a maximum of 3,550 dwelling units will be permitted in the Monterra, Laguna Seca, and Aguajito areas. Specifically, for the MPUSD 50-acre site, the Highway 68 Area Plan calls for the development of 300 lowincome and moderate-income housing units. As such the proposed development at the site is consistent with previous City planning efforts.

C53-3 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Traffic on Olmsted Road and Highway 68,
including the proposed roundabout: It can be
estimated that the City of
Monterey's proposed development would generate
up to 1600 extra cars per day, and the County's
project - 3250 extra cars per day. This would be
approximately 5000 more cars in an area already
dense with traffic and backups, especially during
commute windows. The assumption is 2.5 car trips
per housing unit per day. The expansion of the
airport facilities, and new apartments on Garden
Rd, and proposed housing on South Boundary Rd,
added to the current courthouse off Aguajito Rd.,
First, it should be noted that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), traffic volume or level of service (LOS) can no longer be used, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) as codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, which required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).). The Technical Advisory by OPR outlines VMT (vehicle-miles traveled) as the metric to be used for ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2464, Packet Page 2792 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-543
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
and Jack’s Peak County Park off
Olmsted/Monhollan Rd, would make traffic even
worse. Enormous costs of widening Hwy 68 would
be paid for by taxpayers. There is currently no mass
transit in the area. What is the plan to mitigate the
impact of all this extra traffic?
transportation analysis under CEQA. See also page 3.13-8 of the EIR for further detail.

Second, for the DEIR, an analysis of VMT in the Planning Area was conducted for conditions without and with the Proposed Plan by a California traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn. The most recent version of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Travel Demand Model (AMBAG RTDM) was used to estimate
VMT efficiency metrics across all land uses. The AMBAG TDM has a base year of 2015 and a future year of 2045. The model’s 2045 cumulative year includes growth that is consistent with adopted general plans within Monterey County and with regional
projections contained in the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). As such, the City’s Housing Element and all Housing Elements in the County, including Monterey County, inform the model’s 2045 cumulative year.

Lastly, as detailed on page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, increased development in the Planning Area would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network, where employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact.

As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the development of mixed use villages and transit-oriented development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7.). In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, see ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2465, Packet Page 2793 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-544
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
page 3.3-48 of the EIR for an assessment of carbon monoxide hot spots due to increased vehicle congestion.

C53-4 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Environmental impact and vanishing Greenbelt:

The removal of this greenbelt is a significant
adverse impact aesthetically, and a huge contrast
from the scenic easement that gives this area such
a special character. It is also a loss of habitat for
many keystone animal species that can be observed
on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur
of Apex/Keystone species such as Mountain Lion,
Bobcat and Coyote, as well as many avian species of
special interest. Do the City and County
understand the implications of eliminating this
biological corridor? The current residential zoning
in this area is one home per 10 acres to allow for
new residential development, while still preserving
the rural character of this beautiful area. How does
such a high density (10-20 units per acre) fit into
this environment? I don't understand how a
designated scenic corridor can be turned into a
high density set of houses and roads. That is not in
the spirit of what California State criteria is for
affordable housing.
"As outlined on page 3.1-17 in Aesthetics, the DEIR did consider visual character and aesthetic impacts on the Planning Area. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Elements includes numerous policies to ensure that new development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would not substantially degrade the scenic character of the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a contextsensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade character and aesthetics, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.4-2. As detailed on page 3.4-24, development could contribute to the loss of natural lands in the Planning Area, with potential effects on special-status species. However, impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-12, which would ensure the protection of special-status plant and animal species. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO1 through BIO-12 and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Plan’s contribution to biological resources impacts would be less than significant."
C53-5 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Pedestrian and Bicycle safety: What is not clear is where the additional roads needed to support the
640-unit housing complex will be located. There
would need to be at least two additional roads for
entry and exit in to the development. Will the new
As outlined in page 3.13-17, the DEIR did consider impacts to pedestrian and bicycle safety. The proposed Circulation Element sets out a list of guidelines and considerations for Complete Streets in the City’s multimodal plan, which would maximize safety through design (Policy b.6), aligning with Move Monterey’s strategy ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2466, Packet Page 2794 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-545
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
road(s) open onto Olmsted Road- as the County's
proposed 1324-unit development will?
Olmsted Rd has already gone from a quiet rural
road to a very busy urban one. Even now the
people that live, drive, walk, run, ride their bicycles, and walk their dogs on Olmsted/Monhollan Road
are at risk! Thanks to cellular phone technology,
Olmsted/Monhollan Road has become a “short
cut” for drivers heading North on Hwy1 to Hwy
68, and for drivers heading West on Hwy 68 to
Monterey. I invite you to take a walk, or better yet,
ride your bicycle along Olmsted/Monhollan Road
during peak traffic commute times, and experience
what I am talking about: drivers speeding and
tailgating along this winding stretch road, as if it was a race track! During peak traffic times walking or
bicycling on Olmsted/Monhollan Road means
putting your life at risk-and this is NOT an
exaggeration! So, what is the plan for pedestrian
and bicycle safety with a much greater volume of
cars planned to use Olmsted Road? Or, are you
planning to access the development directly from
Highway 68? Which would also pose significant
safety risks as well.
to examine projects impact on safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Further, the proposed Circulation Element also requires development projects to provide on-site facilities such a bicycle parking and showers, to dedicate land to expand existing facilities or provide new facilities such as sidewalks/multi-use paths and/or bicycle lanes, and to ensure projects are designed to be efficiently served by bike routes and pedestrian connections (Policy c.9). As a result, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, particularly bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the impact would be less than significant.

C53-6 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Flight Crash Risk. Two years ago, an airplane
crashed into an unoccupied single-family home in
the Monterra neighborhood. If such an incident
were to occur in a high-density community such as
those proposed, there would be a substantial loss
of life. Similar incidents have occurred in California
(i.e. Truckee with a private jet, as well as Naples
FLA recently). Has the City of Monterey and
County consulted with Monterey Regional Airport
on the flight crash risk specific to the subject
property?
As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2467, Packet Page 2795 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-546
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

C53-7 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Fire Protection. The proposed development would come with extraordinary expense of added fire
response personnel and equipment. Compounded
by traffic jams adding to response times.

Additionally, one of the important functions of the
existing greenbelt zoning gives the entire
community an important firebreak. CALFIRE
depends on this parcel for fire protection of this
whole region. These parcels were an important
staging area for firefighters during the last fire just three years ago, and we would lose that critical
capability if this land were to be developed. Does
the City of Monterey, and the County of Monterey
comprehend the magnitude of additional risk of
wildfire this abandonment of firebreak will produce
given the forest densities to the east and
west? Is the City of Monterey and County of
Monterey prepared to assume liability for a future
wildfire disaster, which could have been prevented
by preservation of this critical firebreak? Has the
City and County consulted with CALFIRE on the
details of how this firebreak is vital to community
safety along the entire Hwy 68 corridor?
As outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of fire and emergency services. The MFD does not have plans to increase staffing or equipment levels over the next eight years.

Current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be sufficient to handle the potential increase in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Plan. However, fire and emergency medical response services are currently provided to the eastern portion of the city from Station 16, which is leased from the Monterey Airport District and it isn't well suited to provide increased services to that portion of Monterey. As such, a dedicated Cityowned fire station would likely be needed to serve that area.

While the location and design of this facility cannot be known at this time, the construction of the facility could potentially result in environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure PF-1 is required, and would reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the fire station to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, at a programmatic level, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

C53-8 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Police Protection. This proposed rezoning will place an untenable burden on our existing police
resources, which already are in critical shortage.

This is not only a public safety threat, but also an
extraordinary economic impact by placing 3000
As outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of police protection services. The Monterey Police Department (MPD) is able to adjust staffing to be appropriate with population levels in order to maintain standards of service. MPD has existing plans in place to increase staffing over the next five to ten years.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2468, Packet Page 2796 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-547
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
new residents within the County's Olmsted
development and ~1500 with the City Monterey's
development in locations, which are not even
conveniently serviced for the expected demand
level. Has the Monterey County sheriff been
consulted and are they prepared to handle this high
density loading and increased risk?
MPD and MFD have plans to develop a new joint public safety facility. The planned facility would be sufficient to accommodate increased MPD staffing and equipment needed to accommodate the increase in calls for service anticipated with buildout of the Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

C53-9 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Air Quality. The additional traffic, especially considering the projected congestion and idling, will
cause significant deterioration in local air quality,
both to onsite residents of the new development,
and to nearby existing populations. The specific
pollutants of public health concern are sulfur
dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and
carbon fiber from tires. Are the City and County
aware that approximately 20,000 deaths per annum
occur in the United States from these air
pollutants? How will this be
mitigated for current and future residents?
As outlined on page 3.3-51, the DEIR did consider impacts of local air quality and sensitive receptors. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to BACT requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant.

MM-AQ-1 is therefore required to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-4 would reduce CO, diesel, and PM (exhaust and fugitive dust) emissions during construction activities. MM-AQ-5 would reduce TAC and localized CO and PM exposure to future sensitive receptors but not for receptors at land uses that have already been constructed. MMAQ-6 requires air quality equipment to minimize health risks but would not apply to existing sensitive receptors that are present before new construction or operational activity commences.

Therefore, after mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

C53-
10 Villafranca,
Lisa
3/17/24 *Quality and Availability of Water: If the
moratorium on drilling wells is lifted, is there data
to support that the onsite wells can provide
sufficient healthy ground water for over 3000 new
As outlined in page 3.14-26, the DEIR did consider impacts of water supply. The MCWD projects that available groundwater supply from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin will be sufficient to meet demand in its service area through 2040. Further, MM ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2469, Packet Page 2797 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-548
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
residents for the County development and ~1500
for the City of Monterey development without
being a detriment to the current ground water
supply? It is well established that there are a
number of carcinogenic and toxic chemicals in the
groundwater emanating from Fort Ord. It is also
known that this subsurface water plume is
presently moving in the direction of the proposed
rezoning parcel, if not already present beneath the
subject parcel. This is a serious threat to residents
of the subject parcels, particularly to children who
will predictably explore the soils of
their neighborhood. See for example: Cancer
cluster at Fort Ord: Sick vets wonder, are there
more of us? (thecalifornian.com) . I would
encourage you to look at using ADUs and other
infill strategies, using land that has already been
developed and is not being fully utilized, such as
empty lots next to MPC and Casa Verde, the old
courthouse and hospital, as well as parcels around
Cannery Row.

Thank you for including my input.

UTIL-2, involving actions to expand MCWD supply, is required. To meet additional future demands, the MCWD 2020 UWMP
provides that reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater
desalination plant could potentially add 300 AFY of additional supply. Further, to provide additional water to meet future demand when it materializes, the MCWD 2020 UWMP states Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver additional water to the Seaside Basin. See also Master Response MR- 2 regarding water supply.

Regarding hazardous materials, as outlined on page 3.8-27, none of the parcels identified for housing are in need of remediation or disposal of hazardous waste. The northernmost parcel (APN 031- 191-018-000, referred to as parcel E29.1) within the City limit at Fort Ord has been cleared of UXO to a level that permits light industrial uses, but not residential uses. UXO are mostly encountered on former military sites. Additional remediation would be required prior to residential development on the site. As such, the parcel has been excluded as a site in the Housing Element. Prior to issuance of a building permit for residential or mixed-use development on the parcel, the City shall require documentation demonstrating that soil and water on the parcel have been remediated consistent with the Residential Quality Assurance (RQA) process (or equal) and that the residential restriction has been removed by DTSC. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure adequate remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. EPA, and DTSC before development occurs. Implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would make this impact less than significant. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C54-1 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 We are nearby residents of the proposed housing project for 640 units off Highway 68 currently
owned by the Monterey Peninsula School District.

I'm shocked with all the development being
proposed all around the airport/68,
including the Garden Court development, the 1324
Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative
development impacts on scenic resources in the southeast and south Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2470, Packet Page 2798 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-549
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
units being proposed by the county, and the
Boundary Road
project with significant units in the Ryan Ranch
area. Does anyone care about the cumulative
effects of all these developments on an area that
already is struggling with traffic and was designated
a scenic corridor? Many of us moved to this area to
escape the urbanization and densification in other
parts of California. While I support the need for
additional residential development that is affordable
to ensure hard working people can afford to live
and work in Monterey County, several of the
proposed sites are of particular concern especially
given the high density.

C54-2 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 The two I especially object to are the County's 1324 units being proposed off Olmstead Rd and
the city of Monterey's 640 units being proposed for
land that was previously designated for education.

Both of these projects violate the State of
California's desire for infill on already developed
land and pose significant risk, including:

C54-3 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Traffic on Olmstead Road and Highway 68,
including the proposed roundabout: It can be
estimated that Monterey's proposed development
could generate up to 1600 extra cars per day and
the County's project 3250 extra cars per day. This
would be approximately 5000 more cars in an area
already dense with traffic and backups, especially
during commute windows. The assumption is 2.5
car trips per housing unit per day). The expansion
of the airport facilities and new apartments on
Garden Rd and proposed housing on South
Boundary Rd and the current courthouse off
Aguajito Rd. would make traffic even worse.

First, it should be noted that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), traffic volume or level of service (LOS) can no longer be used, pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) as codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, which required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).). The Technical Advisory by OPR outlines VMT (vehicle-miles traveled) as the metric to be used for ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2471, Packet Page 2799 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-550
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Enormous costs of widening Hwy 68 would be paid
for by taxpayers. There is currently no mass transit
in the area. What is the plan to mitigate the impact
of all this extra traffic?
transportation analysis under CEQA. See also page 3.13-8 of the EIR for further detail.

Second, for the DEIR, an analysis of VMT in the Planning Area was conducted for conditions without and with the Proposed Plan by a California traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn. The most recent version of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Regional Governments Travel Demand Model (AMBAG RTDM) was used to estimate VMT efficiency metrics across all land uses. The AMBAG RTDM has a base year of 2015 and a future year of 2045. The model’s 2045 cumulative year includes growth that is consistent with adopted general plans within Monterey County and with regional projections contained in the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).

As such, the City’s Housing Element and all Housing Elements in the County, including Monterey County, inform the model’s 2045 cumulative year.

As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the development of mixed use villages and transit-oriented development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7.). In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, see ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2472, Packet Page 2800 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-551
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
page 3.3-48 of the EIR for an assessment of carbon monoxide hot spots due to increased vehicle congestion.

C54-4 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Environmental impact and vanishing Greenbelt:

The removal of this greenbelt is a significant
adverse impact
aesthetically and a huge contrast from the scenic
easement that gives this area such a special
character. It is also observations occur of
Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion,
Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian
species of special interest. Does the County
understand the implications of eliminating this
biological corridor? The current residential zoning
in this area is one home per 10 acres to allow for
new residential development, while still preserving
the rural character of this beautiful area. How does
such a high density (10-20 units per acre) fit into
this environment? I don't understand how a
designated scenic corridor can be turned into a
high density set of houses and roads. That is not in
the spirit of what California state criteria is for
affordable housing.

As outlined on page 3.1-17 in Aesthetics, the DEIR did consider visual character and aesthetic impacts on the Planning Area. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies to ensure that new development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would not substantially degrade the scenic character of the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a contextsensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade character and aesthetics, and impacts would be less than significant.

C54-5 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Pedestrian and Bicycle safety: It is not clear the roads in and out of the 640 unit housing complex
since there would need to be at least one
additional road for entry in and out. Is this also
going to be onto Olmstead Road through the
As outlined in page 3.13-17, the DEIR did consider impacts to pedestrian and bicycle safety. The proposed Circulation Element sets out a list of guidelines and considerations for Complete Streets in the City’s multimodal plan, which would maximize safety through design (Policy b.6), aligning with Move Monterey’s strategy ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2473, Packet Page 2801 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-552
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
County's development? Olmstead Rd would go
from a quiet rural road to a very busy urban one.

What is the plan for pedestrian and bike safety with
a high volume of cars coming in and out onto
Olmstead on both sides of the street? Are you
planning to access the development directly from
Highway 68? This would also pose significant safety
risks.
to examine projects impact on safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

C54-6 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Flight Crash Risk. 2 years ago, there was a crash into an unoccupied single-family home in the
Monterra neighborhood. If such an incident were
to occur in a high-density community, there could
be a substantial loss of life. Similar incidents have
occurred in California (i.e. Truckee with a private
jet, as well as Naples FLA recently). Has the city of
Monterey and County consulted with Monterey
Regional Airport on the flight crash risk specific to
the subject property?
As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

C54-7 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Fire Protection. This development would come
with extraordinary expense of added fire response
personnel and
equipment. This is compounded by traffic jams
adding to response times. Additionally, one of the
As outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of fire and emergency services. The MFD does not have plans to increase staffing or equipment levels over the next eight years.

Current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2474, Packet Page 2802 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-553
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
important functions of the existing greenbelt
zoning gives the entire community an important
firebreak. CALFIRE depends on this parcel for fire
protection of this whole region. These parcels were
an important staging area for firefighters during the
last fire just three years ago and we would lose that
critical capability if this land were to be developed.

Does the city of Monterey and County
comprehend the magnitude of additional risk of
wildfire this abandonment of firebreak will produce,
given the forest densities to the east and west? Is
the city of Monterey and County prepared to
assume liability for a future wildfire disaster, which
could have been prevented by preservation of this
critical firebreak? Has the County consulted with
CALFIRE on the details of how this firebreak is
vital to community safety along the entire Hwy 68
corridor?
sufficient to handle the potential increase in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Plan. However, fire and emergency medical response services are currently provided to the eastern portion of the city from Station 16, which is leased from the Monterey Airport District and it isn't well suited to provide increased services to that portion of Monterey. As such, a dedicated Cityowned fire station would likely be needed to serve that area.

C54-8 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Police Protection. This proposed rezoning will place an untenable burden on our existing police
resources, which already are in critical shortage.

This is not only a public safety threat, but also an
extraordinary economic impact by placing 3000
new residents with the county's Olmstead
development and ~1500 with Monterey's
development in
locations, which are not even conveniently serviced
for the expected demand level. Has the Monterey
County sheriff been consulted and are they
prepared to handle this high density loading and
increased risk?
As outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of police protection services. The Monterey Police Department (MPD) is able to adjust staffing to be appropriate with population levels in order to maintain standards of service. MPD has existing plans in place to increase staffing over the next five to ten years.

MPD and MFD have plans to develop a new joint public safety facility. The planned facility would be sufficient to accommodate increased MPD staffing and equipment needed to accommodate the increase in calls for service anticipated with buildout of the Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

C54-9 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Air Quality. The additional traffic, especially considering the projected congestion and idling, will
cause significant deterioration in local air quality,
both to onsite residents of the new development
and to nearby existing populations.

As outlined on page 3.3-51, the DEIR did consider impacts of local air quality and sensitive receptors. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2475, Packet Page 2803 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-554
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
The specific pollutants of public health concern are
sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide
and carbon fibre from tyres. Is the County aware
that approximately 20,000 deaths per annum occur
in the United States from these air pollutants? How
will this be mitigated for current and future
residents?
BACT requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant.

MM-AQ-1 is therefore required to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.

Therefore, after mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

C54-
10 Walton,
Patricia
3/14/24 *Quality and Availability of Water: If the
moratorium on drilling wells is lifted, is there data
to support that
the onsite wells can provide sufficient healthy
ground water for over 3000 new residents for the
County development and ~1500 for the Monterey
city development without being a detriment to the
current ground water supply? It is well established
that there are a number of carcinogenic and toxic
chemicals in the groundwater emanating from Fort
Ord. It is also known that this subsurface water
plume is presently moving in the direction of the
proposed rezoning parcel, if not already present
beneath the subject parcel. This is a serious threat
to residents of the subject parcels, particularly to
children who will predictably explore the soils of
their neighborhood. See for example: Cancer
As outlined in page 3.14-26, the DEIR did consider impacts of water supply. The MCWD projects that available groundwater supply from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin will be sufficient to meet demand in its service area through 2040. Further, MM UTIL-2, involving actions to expand MCWD supply, is required. To meet additional future demands, the MCWD 2020 UWMP
provides that reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater
desalination plant could potentially add 300 AFY of additional supply. Further, to provide additional water to meet future demand when it materializes, the MCWD 2020 UWMP states Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver additional water to the Seaside Basin. See also Master Response MR-2 regarding water supply.

Thank you for including my input. I would
encourage you to look at using ADUs and other
infill strategies using land that has already been
developed and is not being fully utilized, such as
empty lots next to MPC and Casa Verde, the old
courthouse and hospital, as well as parcels around
Cannery Row.

I agree with all of Beth’s comments.

Fort Ord has been cleared of UXO to a level that permits light industrial uses, but not residential uses. UXO are mostly encountered on former military sites. Additional remediation would be required prior to residential development on the site. As such, the parcel has been excluded as a site in the Housing Element. Prior to issuance of a building permit for residential or mixed-use development on the parcel, the City shall require documentation demonstrating that soil and water on the parcel have been remediated consistent with the Residential Quality Assurance (RQA) process (or equal) and that the residential restriction has been removed by DTSC. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure adequate remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. EPA, and DTSC before development occurs. Implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would make this impact less than significant. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C55-1 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 I am writing to provide you with my comments
regarding the Draft EIR for the Monterey 2031
General Plan Update.

The proposed housing plan for the City of
Monterey includes developing a 50-acre parcel on
Highway 68. Developing this parcel would have a
significant negative impact on the Highway 68
Scenic Corridor and on the environment, in
general, especially as it would increase traffic
congestion on Highway 68 and the surrounding
rural roads. The parcel is in an area that is labeled
as a “highly sensitive viewshed.” There has already
been extensive development in the Highway 68
Scenic Corridor as evidenced by the airport
runway extension, the Highway 68 car condos, and
the Montage Ohana building that was inexplicably
allowed to loom
over the highway. At least, the south side of the
highway has maintained a scenic rural character. If
As outlined on page 3.1-19 in Aesthetics, the DEIR did consider impacts on designated scenic vistas and corridors in the Planning Area. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Elements includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic vistas and corridors within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context sensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic vistas and corridors and impacts would be less than significant.

Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2477, Packet Page 2805 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-556
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
that is now developed, the designation of Highway
68 as a scenic corridor would be in jeopardy.

C55-2 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 PROPOSED PLAN BASED ON UNREALISTIC

PROJECTIONS
The Proposed Plan outlined in the City of
Monterey Document is based on what seem to be
unrealistic projections of population growth and
corresponding housing needs. The population of
Monterey has actually decreased by 2.2% over the
past 3 years and is projected to continue to
decrease. The source of these projections, AMBAG,
states that employment drives growth, but
projected employment growth does not support
the numbers used as the basis for the proposed
housing development plan. The
Proposed Plan assumes that, by 2031, employment
in Monterey will grow by 8.3%, but population will
grow by 37.6%, and somehow that necessitates a

41.9% growth in housing units. For each new job, it
is proposed that approximately 5 people will move
to Monterey. Is population growth outpacing
employment growth due to the birth rate and/or
due to the number of unemployed (potentially
retired) people expected to move to Monterey? If
it is the birth rate, it should be noted that children
live in the same housing unit as their parents so
there should not be a need for 3 times as many
housing units as new jobs, as is proposed.

C55-3 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 PROPOSED PLAN CONFLICTS WITH PROJECT

OBJECTIVES
The Proposed Plan, which includes development of
the 50-acre parcel on Highway 68, conflicts with six
of the specific objectives, or goals, for the project
as outlined in the report.

Goal 1 states that the plan should address the
regional housing needs (RHNA) but, as mentioned
Please see response to comment C2-3 regarding projections of population growth and corresponding housing needs. Please also see Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development impacts on scenic resources in the southeast and south Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2478, Packet Page 2806 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-557
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
above, Monterey appears to be planning for many
more new units than are necessary to meet
projected needs. It leads one to wonder if perhaps
the Highway 68 parcel is included because an
influential developer would like to build on it at the
expense of the Highway 68 Scenic Corridor, the
environment, and the general enjoyment and
welfare of the community.

C55-4 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 Goal 6 states that the City of Monterey should
“encourage new housing in locations supported by
existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining
existing neighborhood character.” There is no
existing infrastructure on the 50-acre Highway 68
parcel and the neighborhood character is low
density residential and rural so the proposed plan
does not meet goal 6.

As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. However, the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C55-5 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 Goal 7, entitled “Maintain Existing Housing”, states that the city wants to “assure high quality
maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing
housing resources.” If this is so, why not have
programs to rehabilitate and remodel existing
housing, especially in core areas of the city? If you
build an excess of new housing and significantly
increase vacancy rates and decrease rental rates, it
is well known that landlords will not be willing or
able to maintain existing properties. The result will
be some nice new buildings along Highway 68 while
the appearance of Monterey's central district
continues to degrade.

The Housing Element includes strategies to maintain and expand housing in the core areas of the City. Infill development strategies include Housing Element Programs 1-C, Specific Plan Updates, Program 1-D, Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, Program 1-E, Education Workforce Housing Overlay, Program 1-G, Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities, Program 2-E, Revise Parking Requirements, Program 2-L, Moratorium on Vehicle Storage, and Program 3-C, Local Density Bonus.

The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C55-6 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 Goal 8 states that appropriate housing sites “are proximate to transportation, shopping and
schools…” This goal is in line with the State of
California’s goal to promote infill as a way to
promote sustainability and minimize negative
impacts on the environment. The parcel on
Highway 68 does not meet this goal. It is not infill
As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. In addition, as detailed on page 3.10-17, the Proposed Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2479, Packet Page 2807 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-558
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
and would require residents to use cars to get to
work and for all errands. It is not on a major transit
route and it has a very low walk score.
to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally. Infill development strategies include Housing Element Programs 1-C, Specific Plan Updates, Program 1-D, Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, Program 1-E, Education Workforce Housing Overlay, Program 1-G, Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities, Program 2-E, Revise Parking Requirements, Program 2-L, Moratorium on Vehicle Storage, and Program 3-C, Local Density Bonus. As such, overall, implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with regional, airport land use, or local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

C55-7 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 Goal 12 states that the Proposed Plan should be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) yet development of the 50-acre
parcel blatantly violates this stated goal. According
to ALUCP, the parcel is in Zone 3, where all
residential development is prohibited, except low
density and infill in already developed areas.

In addition, page 3.11-27 of the DEIR states that portions of the Fort Ord opportunity area and the 50-acre MPUSD parcel south of Highway 68 are within Airport Safety Zone 3, which prohibits all residential except for low density residential and infill in developed areas. However, the proposed Land Use Element establishes a new ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2480, Packet Page 2808 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-559
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O) that applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Existing uses are permitted to continue on sites within the AC-O, and new development and expansion of existing uses shall only be permitted where the compatibility criteria or the infill exemption criteria of the ALUCP can be met. Further, Program 1-H and Program 1-I of the proposed Housing Element would also help ensure compatibility with the ALUCP, requiring future land uses planned on the Fort Ord property and the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries that are within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to be compatible with the ALUCP. As such, no conflicts with ALUCP zones would result.

C55-8 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 Goal 9 states that the Proposed Plan should
“support a vibrant local economy.” This goal is what
is used to promote the Proposed Plan over the
“Increased Workforce Alternative Plan.” The City of
Monterey report states that the Increased
Workforce Alternative Plan is environmentally
superior to the Proposed Plan as it avoids
significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural
resources and air quality. However, the City of
Monterey rejects the Increased Workforce
Alternative Plan because it does not support local
economic vitality to the same extent as the
Proposed Plan does. This is in direct contradiction
to the stated facts! Goal 9, which discusses
economic vitality, states that there should be a
balance of jobs and housing so that those who
work in Monterey can afford to live in Monterey
but the report also states that with the Proposed
Plan, low wage hospitality and tourism workers
would increase their vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2481, Packet Page 2809 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-560
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
reduces traffic congestion and air pollution and
maintains the scenic beauty of the Highway 68
Corridor?
C55-9 Washingto
n, James
3/17/24 Finally, why not embrace a hybrid plan?
Development of the land on South Boundary Rd, as
described in the Proposed Plan, makes sense as it’s
within walking distance of jobs at Ryan Ranch. Why
not implement part of the Increased Workforce
Alternative Plan but also develop housing along
South Boundary Rd? South Boundary Rd. is not
part of a recognized scenic corridor and would be
much less likely to add to traffic congestion on
Highway 68. In keeping with the State of California’s
guideline for higher density units that are infill, the City of Monterey could modernize and further
develop areas that could use revitalization without
destroying the natural beauty and rural character
that attracts tourists to visit and retirees to
relocate to the
Monterey Peninsula.

C56-1 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 I have been told that you are the point person on the receiving end of comments for the subject
proposal. If not, please point me in the proper
direction.

This comment is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C56-2 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 My concerns are legion:

Traffic Impact: There is already significant traffic on 68, which reaches critical numbers during
commuting times. The addition of another 3000
cars, trucks, and safety vehicles to this current level from the proposal is very, very bad planning.

As detailed on page 3.13-8 of the EIR, an assessment of impacts on traffic congestion is no longer required under CEQA and thus, not incorporated into the DEIR. With the passage of SB 743
(September 27, 2013) and the subsequent adoption of revised CEQA Guidelines in 2019, level of service (LOS) can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. LOS measures the average
amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, while the new CEQA metric (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. See ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2482, Packet Page 2810 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-561
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Chapter 3.13 of the DEIR regarding transportation impacts. In addition, see page 3.3-48 of the EIR for an assessment of carbon monoxide hot spots due to increased vehicle congestion.

C56-3 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 Water: Our area is already water stressed. Adding 1300+ units is madness.

Please see Master Response MR-2 regarding water supply impacts of the Proposed Plan and cumulative impacts.

C56-4 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 Safety: Our area is now served by the Sheriff's Depart, and CAL Fire at Laurels Grade. I have seen
no plans to increase equipment or staffing.

As outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of increased demand for police protection services and resulting impacts from developing new facilities to accommodate increased demand and additional staff. The Monterey Police Department (MPD) is able to to adjust staffing to be appropriate with population levels in order to maintain standards of service and to accommodate the increase in calls for service anticipated with buildout of the Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, as outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of fire and emergency services. The MFD evaluates and can adjust staffing or equipment levels. The City of Monterey's 2022 Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover Study shows that current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be sufficient to handle the potential increase in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Plan. The Monterey Fire Department continues to explore opportunities for enhancing response times and service levels in the eastern portion of the City, which includes a potential new fire station near Highway 68 and Olmsted Road. This station would serve areas within the City of Monterey, Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District and Cypress Fire Protection District boundaries. While the location and design of this facility cannot be known at this time, the construction of a new station could potentially result in environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure PF-1 is required, and would reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the fire station to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, at a ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2483, Packet Page 2811 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-562
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
programmatic level, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

C56-5 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 Environmental Impact: The proposal would eliminate a beautiful pasture which is home to
turkeys, coyotes, deer, mountain lions, and other
wildlife, as well as a number of domestic animals. It
also provides a natural buffer to noise from the
highway and the airport.

The DEIR did consider impacts on special-status species in the Planning Area. Pursuant to data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, special-status animal species with the potential to occur in the Planning Area are outlined in Table 3.4-2. As detailed on page 3.4-24, development could contribute to the loss of natural lands in the Planning Area, with potential effects on specialstatus species. However, impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12, which would ensure the protection of special-status plant and animal species. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Plan’s contribution to biological resources impacts would be less than significant. Also, as detailed on page 3.11-23 of the DEIR, the City's General Plan requires noise exposure regulations if noise levels exceed current guidelines. As such, implementation of General Plan policies, as well as requirements codified in Section 38 of the Monterey City Code, would ensure potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors along major roadways in the Planning Area will be less than significant despite increases in traffic noise.

C56-6 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 Airport Expansion: Already underway, this will add exponentially to the issues outlined above, traffic,
water, safety, etc.

As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2484, Packet Page 2812 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-563
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant. Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey.

C56-7 Agrati, Guy 3/1/24 In my opinion, this proposal would be a disaster, not only for my neighborhood, Oak Tree Views, but also
for Fisherman Flats, Montera, Garden Road, and the
218 corridor. Surely, there are wiser, better planned
proposals to meet the affordable housing crisis.

C57-1 Weitz,
Gary
3/19/24 I am writing to object to one of locations for the proposed housing plan for the Monterey 2031
General Plan Update. The proposed housing plan
for the City of Monterey includes developing a 50
acre parcel on Highway 68 and Monterra Rd.

Developing this parcel would have a significant
negative impact on the Highway 68 Scenic Corridor
and on our beautiful environment.

As outlined on page 5-6 in CEQA Required Conclusions, the DEIR did consider cumulative impacts on designated scenic areas. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Elements includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan
boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context-sensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey.

C57-2 Weitz,
Gary
3/19/24 This proposed development plan would
substantially increase traffic congestion on the
already overcrowded Highway 68. This would be a
horrific impact on sheriff and fire response time
and cause major gridlocks that would impact all
Monterey residents. This designated area is.
supposed to be a scenic corridor that would
almost completely disappear should this new
Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding the cumulative impacts of development in south and southeast Monterey, including impacts related to traffic, police and fire protection services, and biological and scenic resources. As noted in Master Response MR-1 and discussed on page 3.13-8 of the DEIR, congestion has been replaced with vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for assessing traffic and transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, cumulative VMT impacts from the Proposed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2485, Packet Page 2813 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-564
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
development be allowed in this location. This plan
would devastate our wildlife, and the scenic land
could never be recovered!
Plan were on page 5-14 of the DEIR and in Chapter 3.13. The DEIR concluded that even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.As outlined on page 5-6 in CEQA Required Conclusions, the DEIR did consider cumulative impacts on designated scenic areas. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Elements includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused into the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan
boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context-sensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey. Please see also response to comment C2-7 regarding impacts on traffic and evacuation.

C57-3 Weitz,
Gary
3/19/24 The Proposed Plan, which includes development of the 50 acre parcel on Highway 68, conflicts with
many of the specific objectives and goals for the
project as outlined in this report. I list 4 goals
below for this location (Hwy 68 & Monterra Rd.)
that are completely misaligned to
the plan's goals.

Goal 1 states that the plan should address the
regional housing needs (RHNA) however, Monterey
appears to be planning for many more new units
than are necessary to meet projected needs.

Population has been decreasing within the City of
Monterey for the past 3 years, yet your plan has
proposed a need for a 41% increase for new
housing.

Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative
development impacts on scenic resources in the southeast and south Monterey. The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2486, Packet Page 2814 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-565
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
C57-4 Weitz,
Gary
3/19/24 Goal 6 states that the City of Monterey should
“encourage new housing in locations supported by
existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining
existing neighborhood character.” There is no
existing infrastructure on the 50 acre Highway 68
parcel and the neighborhood character is low
density residential and rural so the proposed plan
does not in any way meet goal 6.

As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. However, the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C57-5 Weitz,
Gary
3/19/24 Goal 8 states that appropriate housing sites “are proximate to transportation, shopping and
schools…” This goal is in line with the State of
California’s goal to promote infill as a way to
promote sustainability and minimize negative
impacts on the environment. The parcel on
Highway 68 does not meet this goal. It is not infill
and would require residents to use cars to get to
work and for all errands. There is not a mass transit
route for this location, and none planned to my
knowledge. Additional, this location has a very low
walk ability score, and would be quite dangerous
for any pedestrian.

As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. In addition, as detailed on page 3.10-17, the Proposed Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally. Infill development strategies include Housing Element Programs 1-C, Specific Plan Updates, Program 1-D, Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, Program 1-E, Education Workforce Housing Overlay, Program 1-G, Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities, Program 2-E, Revise Parking Requirements, Program 2-L, Moratorium on Vehicle Storage, and Program 3-C, Local Density Bonus. As such, overall, implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with regional, airport land use, or local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

C57-6 Weitz,
Gary
3/19/24 Goal 12 states the Proposed Plan should be
consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP). Development of the proposed 50
acre parcel blatantly violates this goal. According to
ALUCP, the parcel is in Zone 3, where all
residential development is prohibited, except low
density and infill in already developed areas.

There is available land on South Boundary Rd. that
makes more sense for development for this plan.

Boundary Rd. is not part of a recognized scenic
corridor and would be much less likely to add to
traffic congestion on Highway 68.

Thank you for your time and I hope you will
consideration my input.
pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, page 3.11-27 of the DEIR states that portions of the Fort Ord opportunity area and the 50-acre MPUSD parcel south of Highway 68 are within Airport Safety Zone 3, which prohibits all residential except for low density residential and infill in developed areas. However, the proposed Land Use Element establishes a new Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O) that applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Existing uses are permitted to continue on sites within the AC-O, and new development and expansion of existing uses shall only be permitted where the compatibility criteria or the infill exemption criteria of the ALUCP can be met. Further, Program 1-H and Program 1-I of the proposed Housing Element would also help ensure compatibility with the ALUCP, requiring future land uses planned on the Fort Ord property and the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries that are within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to be compatible with the ALUCP. As such, no conflicts with ALUCP zones would result.

C58-1 Weitz,
Susan
3/19/24 I am writing to object to one of locations for the proposed housing plan for the Monterey 2031
General Plan Update. The proposed housing plan
for the City of Monterey includes developing a 50
acre parcel on Highway 68 and Monterra Rd.

Developing this parcel would have a significant
As outlined on page 3.1-19 in Aesthetics, the DEIR did consider impacts on designated scenic vistas and corridors in the Planning Area. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic vistas and corridors within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2488, Packet Page 2816 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-567
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
negative impact on the Highway 68 Scenic Corridor
and on our beautiful environment.

Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a contextsensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic vistas and corridors and impacts would be less than significant.

Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey.

C58-2 Weitz,
Susan
3/19/24 First, this proposed development plan at the
location of Hwy 68 & Monterra Rd. would
substantially increase traffic congestion on the
already overcrowded Highway 68. This would be a
horrific impact on sheriff and fire response time
and cause major gridlocks that would impact all
Monterey residents. This designated area is a scenic
corridor that would almost completely disappear
should this new development be allowed in this
location. This plan would devastate our wildlife, and
the scenic land and loss of wildlife could never be
recovered!
The City notes that the Proposed Plan is a targeted update to the Land Use, Housing, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan which will guide policy-level decision-making in the City of Monterey through 2030; however, no development is proposed on any specific site as part of the Proposed Plan.

Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding the cumulative impacts of development in south and southeast Monterey, including impacts related to traffic, police and fire protection services, and biological and scenic resources. As noted in Master Response MR-1 and discussed on page 3.13-8 of the DEIR, congestion has been replaced with vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for assessing traffic and transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, cumulative VMT impacts from the Proposed Plan were on page 5-14 of the DEIR and in Chapter 3.13. The DEIR concluded that even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

As outlined on page 5-6 in CEQA Required Conclusions, the DEIR did consider cumulative impacts on designated scenic areas. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan
boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context-sensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2489, Packet Page 2817 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-568
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey. Please see response to comment C2-7 regarding impacts on traffic and evacuation.

C58-3 Weitz,
Susan
3/19/24 The Proposed Plan, which includes development of the 50 acre parcel on Highway 68, conflicts with
many of the specific objectives and goals for the
project as outlined in this report. I list 4 goals
below for this location (Hwy 68 & Monterra Rd.)
that are completely misaligned to the plan's goals.

Goal 1 states that the plan should address the
regional housing needs (RHNA) however, Monterey
appears to be planning for many more new units
than are necessary to meet projected needs. The
population for the City of Monterey has decreased
by 2.2% over the past 3 years and is projected to
continue to decrease. The source of these
projections, AMBAG, states that employment drives
growth, but projected employment growth does
not support the numbers used as the basis for the
proposed housing development plan. The Proposed
Plan assumes that, by 2031, employment in
Monterey will grow by 8.3%, but population will
grow by 37.6%, Your plan supports a 41.9% in new
housing units which appear to be unsubstantiated.

C58-4 Weitz,
Susan
3/19/24 Goal 6 states that the City of Monterey should
“encourage new housing in locations supported by
existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining
existing neighborhood character.” There is no
existing infrastructure on the 50 acre Highway 68
parcel and the neighborhood character is low
density residential and rural so the proposed plan
does not in any way meet goal 6. Development at
this location would be quite expensive to Monterey
As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. However, the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2490, Packet Page 2818 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-569
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
residents and there are other locations throughout
the city that already have water and sewer in place.

C58-5 Weitz,
Susan
3/19/24 Goal 8 states that appropriate housing sites “are proximate to transportation, shopping and
schools”. This goal is in line with the State of
California’s goal to promote infill as a way to
promote sustainability and minimize negative
impacts on the environment. The parcel on
Highway 68 & Monterra Rd. does not meet this
goal. It is not infill and would require residents to
use cars to get to work and for all errands.

There is not a mass transit route for this location,
and none planned to my knowledge. Additionally,
this location has a very low walk ability score, and
would be dangerous for all pedestrians.

As detailed on page 3.10-22 of the DEIR, Program 1-I involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed
income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. In addition, as detailed on page 3.10-17, the Proposed Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally. Infill development strategies include Housing Element Programs 1-C, Specific Plan Updates, Program 1-D, Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, Program 1-E, Education Workforce Housing Overlay, Program 1-G, Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities, Program 2-E, Revise Parking Requirements, Program 2-L, Moratorium on Vehicle Storage, and Program 3-C, Local Density Bonus. As such, overall, implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with regional, airport land use, or local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

C58-6 Weitz,
Susan
3/19/24 Goal 12 states that the Proposed Plan should be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan (ALUCP) yet
development of the 50 acre parcel blatantly violates
this stated goal. According to ALUCP, the parcel is
in Zone 3, where all residential development is
prohibited except low density and infill in already
developed areas. There is available land on South
Boundary Rd. that makes more sense for
development for this plan. Development of the land
on South Boundary Rd. is within walking distance
to jobs at Ryan Ranch. Boundary Rd. is not part of a
recognized scenic corridor and would be much less
likely to add traffic congestion on Highway 68.

As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2491, Packet Page 2819 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-570
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Thank you for your time and I hope you will
consideration my input
for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, page 3.11-27 of the DEIR states that portions of the Fort Ord opportunity area and the 50-acre MPUSD parcel south of Highway 68 are within Airport Safety Zone 3, which prohibits all residential except for low density residential and infill in developed areas. However, the proposed Land Use Element establishes a new Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O) that applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Existing uses are permitted to continue on sites within the AC-O, and new development and expansion of existing uses shall only be permitted where the compatibility criteria or the infill exemption criteria of the ALUCP can be met. Further, Program 1-H and Program 1-I of the proposed Housing Element would also help ensure compatibility with the ALUCP, requiring future land uses planned on the Fort Ord property and the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries that are within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to be compatible with the ALUCP. As such, no conflicts with ALUCP zones would result.

C59-1 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 I support affordable housing in Monterey County, but the location proposed for 1300 new housing
units off Olmsted Rd & Hwy 68 is not an
acceptable location for the following reasons:

C59-2 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 1) Environmental concerns and the negative impact on our wildlife and endangered species
The DEIR did consider impacts on wildlife species in the Planning Area. Pursuant to data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, special-status animal species with the potential to occur in the Planning Area are outlined in Table 3.4-2. As detailed on page

3.4-24, development could contribute to the loss of natural lands in the Planning Area, with potential effects on special-status species. However, impacts would be reduced with implementation ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2492, Packet Page 2820 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-571
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12, which would ensure the protection of special-status plant and animal species.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO12 and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Plan’s contribution to biological resources impacts would be less than significant.

C59-3 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 2) Traffic - dense housing of this scale will create a massive gridlock at the intersection of Olmsted Rd.
and Highway 68. Highway 68 is already crowded
and is the main artery from Monterey and Salinas
.... we need to keep traffic moving, and not
gridlocked due to an unmanageable number of
vehicles on the roadways.

As detailed on page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, increased development in the Planning Area would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network, where employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact. As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the
development of mixed use villages and transit-oriented
development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7.). In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2493, Packet Page 2821 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-572
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

As such, impacts on emergency access are less than significant.

Regarding evacuation, page 3.15-21 of the DEIR notes that under a multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont Street-Highway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. This is a potentially significant impact; therefore, mitigation measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Therefore, overall this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

C59-4 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 This could create a longer response time for
emergency vehicles. The Monterey Sheriffs '
department objects to this location.

An assessment of impacts on traffic congestion is no longer required under CEQA and thus, not incorporated into the DEIR.

LOS measures the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2494, Packet Page 2822 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-573
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
while the new CEQA metric (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) measures the total number of daily miles traveled by vehicles on the roadway network and the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. See Chapter 3.13 of the DEIR regarding transportation impacts. As detailed on page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, increased development in the Planning Area would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network, where employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact. As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the development of mixed use villages and transitoriented development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7.). In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area because the detailed
characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

As such, impacts on emergency access are less than significant.

Regarding evacuation, page 3.15-21 of the DEIR notes that under a multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont Street-Highway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. This is a potentially significant impact; therefore, mitigation measure ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2495, Packet Page 2823 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-574
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

Therefore, overall this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Further, as noted on page 3.12-20 of the DEIR, MFD anticipates that current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be sufficient to handle the potential increase in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Proposed Plan.

C59-5 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 3) The proposed site has a natural fire break. Once this fire break is gone, this can severely impact
potential fires and the ability to control fires. The
Monterey Fire Dept. objects to this location
As detailed on page 3.15-23, given that the Project proposes development in this area and the extent of which VHFHSZs exist in and around Monterey, buildout of the Proposed Plan could increase the risk of loss and damage due to wildfire, resulting in potentially significant impacts. However, construction would be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. The Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. The codes and regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire for new developments under the Proposed Plan. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C59-6 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 4) The Monterey Airport objects to this plan
because of noise complaints which will come.

As detailed on page 3.11-28, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) identifies the airport’s noise contours. The 65 dB contour is predominantly limited to the airport’s jurisdiction and does not overlap with areas where development is permitted or ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2496, Packet Page 2824 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-575
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
on housing sites identified in the Housing Element. Compliance with the General Plan Exterior Noise Exposure Standards for New Development would also limit the potential for placement of new sensitive uses within the 65 dB contour. Further, City standards and the California Building Code require an interior sound rating of 45 dB for new development including residences, schools, and other noise sensitive uses. As such, with adherence to State and local regulations and Proposed Plan standards, policies, and programs, implementation of the Proposed Plan would not expose people to excessive noise levels related to airport activities and there would be a less than significant impact with respect to this criterion.

C59-7 Weitz,
Susan
2/29/24 This proposed location has not been well thought out and there are other locations within the county
that would be much better options.

Additionally, the increased cost to taxpayers for the
cost of the infrastructure required to support this
development would be huge!
The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required in this document. Comments related to the content of the Proposed Plan will be considered by City decision-makers at adoption hearings.

C60-1 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 As a current resident I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed housing project for
640 units off Highway 68 currently owned by the
Monterey Peninsula School District.

This is just one of several proposals under review
for development near the airport including along
Garden Court, a county proposal for 1324 units
along Olmsted Road and 640 units in Tarpy Flats. In
particular, I’m objecting to the two projects that I
especially object to are the County's 1324 units
being proposed off Olmstead Rd and the city of
Monterey's 640 units
These proposed developments violate the
Governor’s “30x30” initiative
(https://www.californianature.ca.gov) and the Scenic
Highway designation of Highway 68. My objections
are based upon the following:

While in principle I support the development of
As outlined on page 5-6 in CEQA Required Conclusions, the DEIR did consider cumulative impacts on designated scenic areas. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Elements includes numerous policies to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused in the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan
boundary is vacant. Implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-I would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context-sensitive manner. Therefore, in combination with 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element policies and implementation of Program 1-I, the Project would not substantially degrade scenic resources and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Please see also Master Response MR-1 regarding cumulative development in the southeast and south Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2497, Packet Page 2825 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-576
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
affordable housing, the number of units being
proposed are excessive and will create adverse
environmental and traffic impact to the surrounding
communities.

C60-2 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 *Traffic on Olmstead Road and Highway 68,
including the proposed roundabout: The
approximately 2000 additional housing units will
likely produce 5000 additional car-trips through the
already congested Olmstead-Highway 68
intersection. The expansion of the airport facilities
and proposed housing on South Boundary Rd and
the current courthouse off Aguajito Rd. would
make traffic even worse. Enormous costs of
widening Hwy 68 would be paid for by taxpayers.

There is currently no mass transit in the area.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2498, Packet Page 2826 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-577
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
As such, the Proposed Plan incorporates strategies to promote the development of mixed use villages and transit-oriented development within the City limit, including proposed Land Use Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.4, as well as policies involving coordination with MST to support transit use, including Circulation Element policies E.3, E.5, E. 6, and E.7.). In addition, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area through the adoption of an Employee Commute Trip Reduction Project and would reduce the magnitude of the impact. However, the effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this DEIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, see page 3.3-48 of the EIR for an assessment of carbon monoxide hot spots due to increased vehicle congestion.

C60-3 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 *Environmental impact and vanishing Greenbelt:

The removal of this greenbelt is a significant
adverse impact aesthetically and a huge contrast
from the scenic easement that gives this area such
a special character. It is also a loss of habitat for
many keystone animal species that can be observed
on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur
of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion,
Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of
special interest. The current residential zoning in
this area is one home per 10 acres to allow for
new residential development, while still preserving
the rural character of this beautiful area.

Additionally, the DEIR did consider impacts on special-status species in the Planning Area. Pursuant to data from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, special-status animal species with ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2499, Packet Page 2827 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-578
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
the potential to occur in the Planning Area are outlined in Table

C60-4 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 *Flight Crash Risk. 2 years ago, there was a crash into an unoccupied single-family home in the
Monterra neighborhood. If such an incident were
to occur in a high-density community, there could
be a substantial loss of life. Similar incidents have
occurred in California (i.e. Truckee with a private
jet, as well as Naples FLA recently). Has the city of
Monterey and County consulted with Monterey
Regional Airport on the flight crash risk specific to
the subject property?
As outlined in page 3.8-30, the DEIR did consider the impacts of airport proximity. Future development under the Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. The Safety Criteria Matrix establishes maximum densities, intensities, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the ALUCP safety zones so as to restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. Further, the proposed Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport. Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of the Plan would reduce airport safety hazards potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

C60-5 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 *Fire Protection. This development would come
with extraordinary expense of added fire response
personnel and equipment. This is compounded by
traffic jams adding to response times. Additionally,
one of the important functions of the existing
greenbelt zoning gives the entire community an
As outlined in page 3.12-19, the DEIR did consider the impacts of fire and emergency services. Monterey Fire Department (MFD) does not have plans to increase staffing or equipment levels over the next eight years. Current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be sufficient to handle the potential increase ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2500, Packet Page 2828 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-579
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
important firebreak. CALFIRE depends on this
parcel for fire protection of this whole region.

These parcels were an important staging area for
firefighters during the last fire just three years ago
and we would lose that critical capability if this land were to be developed. Does the city of Monterey
and County comprehend the magnitude of
additional risk of wildfire this abandonment of
firebreak will produce, given the forest densities to
the east and west? Is the city of Monterey and
County prepared to assume liability for a future
wildfire disaster, which could have been prevented
by preservation of this critical firebreak? Has the
County consulted with CALFIRE on the details of
how this firebreak is vital to community safety
along the entire Hwy 68 corridor?
in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Plan. However, fire and emergency medical response services are currently provided to the eastern portion of the city from Station 16, which is leased from the Monterey Airport District and it isn't well suited to provide increased services to that portion of Monterey. As such, a dedicated City-owned fire station would likely be needed to serve that area. While the location and design of this facility cannot be known at this time, the construction of the facility could potentially result in environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure PF-1 is required, and would reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the fire station to the maximum extent
practicable. Therefore, at a programmatic level, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

C60-6 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 *Air Quality. The additional traffic, especially considering the projected congestion and idling, will
cause significant deterioration in local air quality,
both to onsite residents of the new development
and to nearby existing populations. The specific
pollutants of public health concern are sulfur
dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and
carbon fiber from tires. Is the County aware that
approximately 20,000 deaths per annum occur in
the United States from these air pollutants? How
will this be mitigated for current and future
residents?
As outlined on page 3.3-51, the DEIR did consider impacts of local air quality and sensitive receptors. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to BACT requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant.

MM-AQ-1 is therefore required to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. MMAQ-2 through MM-AQ-4 would reduce CO, diesel, and PM (exhaust and fugitive dust) emissions during construction activities.

Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-5 would reduce TAC and localized CO and PM exposure to future sensitive receptors but not for receptors at land uses that have already been constructed. MMAQ-6 requires air quality equipment to minimize health risks but ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2501, Packet Page 2829 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-580
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
would not apply to existing sensitive receptors that are present before new construction or operational activity commences.

Therefore, after mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

C60-7 Wheatley,
Sandra
3/25/24 *Quality and Availability of Water: If the
moratorium on drilling wells is lifted, is there data
to support that the onsite wells can provide
sufficient healthy ground water for over 3000 new
residents for the County development and ~1000
for the Monterey city development without being a
detriment to the current ground water supply? It is
well established that there are a number of
carcinogenic and toxic chemicals in the
groundwater emanating from Fort Ord. It is also
known that this subsurface water plume is
presently moving in the direction of the proposed
rezoning parcel, if not already present beneath the
subject parcel. This is a serious threat to residents
of the subject parcels, particularly to children who
will predictably explore the soils of their
neighborhood. See for example: Cancer cluster at
Fort Ord: Sick vets wonder, are there more of us?
(thecalifornian.com) .

I strongly encourage you to reconsider the current
proposals in light of the above.

Regarding hazardous materials, as outlined on page 3.8-27, none of the parcels identified for housing are in need of remediation or disposal of hazardous waste. The northernmost parcel (APN 031- 191-018-000, referred to as parcel E29.1) within the City limit at Fort Ord has been cleared of UXO to a level that permits light industrial uses, but not residential uses. UXO are mostly encountered on former military sites. Additional remediation would be required prior to residential development on the site. As such, the parcel has been excluded as a site in the Housing Element. Prior to issuance of a building permit for residential or mixed-use development on the parcel, the City shall require documentation demonstrating that soil and water on the parcel have been remediated consistent with the Residential Quality Assurance (RQA) process (or equal) and that the residential restriction has been removed by DTSC. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure adequate remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. EPA, and DTSC before development occurs. Implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would make this impact less than significant. The remainder of the comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2502, Packet Page 2830 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-581
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C61-1 Woehler,
Markus
3/5/24 You are absolutely correct as I have gotten mixed information which did not seem to add up. Now I
fully understand the even greater impact to this
area of the community as I was not aware that both
the city and county were involved. Thank you for
your clarification. I will change the addressee on my
letter and send to Mr. Gutherie. I should however
add that although the proposed city development is
not located on Olmstead Rd, the impacts by a
combined Garden Rd. and Del Rey Oaks/ Hwy 68
intersection traffic will be felt by all. I would say
that my comments for the most part will also carry
over to the city plan.

C62-1 Zerbe,
Laura
3/22/24 Thank you for all you do for the residents of
Monterey County. I’m reaching out to voice my
concerns about the proposed housing development
along Hwy 68 around Olmsted Road.

This comment is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C62-2 Zerbe,
Laura
3/22/24 Adding housing to this location adds cars to the already-strained daily commute traffic on Highway

68. It puts more households in a HIGH wildfire risk
area in an era when traditional fire insurance for
new structures is no longer readily available to
protect residents. It removes open land which
currently serves us all by recharging and protecting
groundwater supply. It doubles-down on this insult
by adding to the consumption of our already
challenged fresh water availability.

Traffic congestion, fire risk and freshwater supply
are all existing challenges that as a community we
have struggled to alleviate as it is. A project at this location can only make these problems worse.

Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding the cumulative impacts of development in south and southeast Monterey, including impacts related to traffic, wildfire, and water supply.

As noted in Master Response MR-1 and discussed on page 3.13-8 of the DEIR, congestion has been replaced with vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for assessing traffic and transportation impacts under CEQA. Accordingly, cumulative VMT impacts from the Proposed Plan were on page 5-14 of the DEIR and in Chapter 3.13. The DEIR concluded that even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2503, Packet Page 2831 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-582
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
What then? We’re already in a hole- we need to
put down the proverbial shovel and stop digging.

As detailed on page 3.15-23, all new construction under the Proposed Plan would be subject to the California Fire Code, which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, including ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of
noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves, and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers.

Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. The Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. The codes and regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire for new developments under the Proposed Plan to a less-than-significant level.

As outlined in page 3.14-26, the DEIR did consider impacts of water supply. The MCWD projects that available groundwater supply from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin will be sufficient to meet demand in its service area through 2040. Further, MM UTIL-2, involving actions to expand MCWD supply, is required. To meet additional future demands, the MCWD 2020 UWMP
provides that reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater
desalination plant could potentially add 300 AFY of additional supply. Further, to provide additional water to meet future demand when it materializes, the MCWD 2020 UWMP states Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver additional water to the Seaside Basin. See also Master Response MR-2 regarding water supply. Further, as detailed on page 3.9-23, withdrawals of surface water from the Carmel River have been limited to protect threatened species that live in the river. The Seaside Basin is under a court-ordered reduction schedule limiting groundwater withdrawals. Groundwater pumping is limited to protect the basin from overuse and to prevent saltwater intrusion into the aquifer, which would contaminate the freshwater supply. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Plan ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2504, Packet Page 2832 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-583
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge as the withdrawals of Carmel Valley and Seaside Basins are limited. Therefore, associated groundwater impacts would be less than significant.

C62-3 Zerbe,
Laura
3/22/24 In the 2023 city of Monterey Community Survey
Report, several potential new housing locations
outranked the Hwy 68/olmsted area. One was Fort
Ord, which has fewer environmental hazards and
keeps traffic congestion away from Hwy 68. It also
included Fremont, which has already been
developed into a walk/bike friendly neighborhood.

These areas seem more advantageous. Why not
focus planning efforts on those areas instead?
Decisionmakers can consider all comments on the proposed plan as part of their deliberations. This comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required in this section.

C63-1 Zerbe,
Lindley
3/25/24 Thank you for all you do for the residents of
Monterey County. I’m reaching out to voice my
concerns about the proposed housing development
along Hwy 68 around Olmsted Road.

This comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required.

C63-2 Zerbe,
Lindley
3/25/24 Adding housing to this location adds cars to the already-strained daily commute traffic on Highway

68. It puts more households in a HIGH wildfire risk
area in an era when traditional fire insurance for
new structures is no longer readily available to
protect residents. It also removes open land which
currently serves us all by recharging and protecting
groundwater supply.

Please see Master Response MR-1 regarding the cumulative impacts of development in south and southeast Monterey, including impacts related to traffic, wildfire, and water supply..

Please see also Master Response MR-2 regarding water supply.

Further, as detailed on page 3.9-23, withdrawals of surface water from the Carmel River have been limited to protect threatened species that live in the river. The Seaside Basin is under a courtordered reduction schedule limiting groundwater withdrawals.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2505, Packet Page 2833 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 2: Public Comments and Responses
2-584
Letter Commenter Date Comment Response
Groundwater pumping is limited to protect the basin from overuse and to prevent saltwater intrusion into the aquifer, which would contaminate the freshwater supply. Therefore,
implementation of the Proposed Plan would not deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge as the withdrawals of Carmel Valley and Seaside Basins are limited. Therefore, associated groundwater impacts would be less than significant.

C63-3 Zerbe,
Lindley
3/25/24 In the 2023 city of Monterey Community Survey
Report, several potential housing development
locations outranked the Hwy 68/olmsted area. One
was Fort Ord, which has fewer environmental
hazards and keeps traffic congestion away from
Hwy 68. It also included Fremont, which has already
been developed into a walk/bike friendly
neighborhood. These areas seem more
advantageous. Why not focus planning efforts on
those areas instead?
The comment pertains to the Proposed Plan and is not related to the adequacy of the DEIR; thus, no further response is required in this document. Comments related to the content of the Proposed Plan will be considered by City decision-makers at adoption hearings.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2506, Packet Page 2834 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-1
3 Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter lists revisions to the Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions would appear in the Draft EIR. New text is indicated with an underline in red and deleted text is indicated with strikethrough.

Table of Contents
The Table of Contents is hereby amended as follows:

Figure 3.1-1 Scenic Corridors .................................................................................................................3.1-5 Figure 3.1-2 Scenic Vistas ........................................................................................................................ 3.1-6 Figure 3.1-1 Scenic Corridors ................................................................................................................ 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-2 Scenic Vistas ........................................................................................................................ 3.1-6 Figure 3.9-5: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards............................................................................. 3.9-10 Figure 3.9-5A: Sea Level Rise................................................................................................................. 3.9-10 Figure 3.9-5B: Coastal Hazards............................................................................................................. 3.9-11 Executive Summary
The first paragraph of page ES-1 is hereby amended as follows:

The Proposed Plan is both a policy document and an implementation tool for implementing the City’s General Plan a targeted update to the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan (adopted in 2005).

The fourth and fifth paragraphs of page ES-10 are hereby amended as follows:

Table 4-2 summarizes the alternatives’ overall environmental impacts for each topic presented in Section 4.3. For the Proposed Plan, 10 11 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, 10 impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 46 45 impacts were expected to be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2507, Packet Page 2835 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-2
For the No Project Alternative, eight impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, six impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 52 impacts were expected to be less than significant. For the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, 10 11 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, nine impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 47 46 impacts were expected to be less than significant. Similarly, for the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, nine 10 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, 10 impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 47 46 impacts were expected to be less than significant.

The first paragraph on page ES-11 of the DEIR is hereby revised as follows to clarify the rationale for identifying the environmentally superior alternative:

However, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would not meet all the project objectives as well as the Proposed Plan. While it would support most of the project objectives, including those related to housing production, fair housing access, and addressing the needs of disadvantaged segments of the population, it would not comply with RHNA obligations because its projections for housing development on individual sites far exceeds past performance in the City of Monterey and surrounding jurisdictions and as such do not represent a realistic projection of capacity based on past performance as required under Government Code Section 65583.2(c). support local economic vitality to the same extent as the Proposed Plan. The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative also has nominally reduced the number of impacts compared to the Proposed Plan, although it would have a worse impact on an already significant and unavoidable impact on water supply. This Alternative also would not meet the City’s RHNA obligations because it does not demonstrate adequate capacity to meet Moderate Income RHNA and because it assumes development of housing to meet the needs of low and very low income households that do not meet the criteria established in State law, including that they be of adequate size, and have appropriate development standards as needed to facilitate the development of a variety of housing products suitable for all income levels. Further, the parcel-based projections upon which is based assume that individual parcels will be built to the maximum density permitted under City zoning regulations and as such do not represent a realistic projection of capacity based on past performance as required under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)of accommodating their share of Very Low and Low (VL/L) Income housing units. Additionally, this Alternative would not support local economic vitality to the same extent as the Proposed Plan because it would not result in as many new housing units or locate new housing in proximity to the important concentration of jobs at Ryan Ranch.

Mitigation Measure AG-1 on page ES-13 is hereby amended as follows:

MM-AG-1: Offset Loss of Agricultural Land. Prior to approval of a development project which would convert land classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land to non-agricultural uses, the City shall require the project applicant to offset the loss of such land at a 1:1 ratio, either through the acquisition and dedication of comparable Farmland within Monterey County or through the acquisition and dedication of a conservation easement on comparable Farmland within Monterey County. Dedication of the land or conservation easement shall be to an open space trust or comparable entity acceptable to the City. Alternately, compliance with this mitigation measure may be achieved through participation in the Monterey County Agricultural Conservation ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2508, Packet Page 2836 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-3
Mitigation Program, if the project is eligible and if the program has been adopted by the time the need for mitigation occurs.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 on page ES-24 is hereby amended as follows:

MM-BIO-3: Install Temporary Flagging or Barrier Fencing to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources Adjacent to the Work Area. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist with prior experience for subject species in Monterey County shall identify and flag or fence sensitive biological habitat on-site to ensure it is avoided during construction and preconstruction activities. Flagging or fencing shall be installed prior to site preparation activities and remain in place for the duration of construction activities.

The barrier will be inspected and repaired at least weekly to ensure it remains in place during construction.
• A biological monitor will survey suitable habitat, including all wetlands, prior to grading or filling. If either species is located during surveys, it will be moved to an approved off-site location in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure PF-1 on page ES-60 is hereby amended as follows:

MM PF-1: City-Owned Fire Station. In parallel with preparation of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan pursuant to Program 1-H of the proposed Housing Element, the City shall:
• Identify in the southeastern part of Planning Area a location for the station that minimizes disruption to sensitive ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and natural resources;
• Require the use of stormwater management measures to control and treat stormwater runoff to prevent pollution and soil erosion during construction; • Develop a plan for the proper handling, recycling, and disposal of construction waste to minimize the impact on local landfills and ecosystems; • Establish erosion control measures, which may include erosion control barriers, sediment traps, and other best management practices to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of nearby water bodies;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2509, Packet Page 2837 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-4
• Require measures to protect and preserve existing vegetation, including trees and native plants, during construction activities;
• Implement best management practices to minimize noise and air pollution during construction, including dust and emissions control measures; and • Require the use of fire-safe building materials and design features to limit the risk of damage or loss due to wildfire.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 on page ES-64 is hereby amended as follows:

MM-UTIL-2: Expand MCWD Sources of Supply. MCWD shall implement measures to increase sources of water supply, including reactivation of the pilot seawater desalination plant and Indirect Potable Reuse of advanced treated water from the Pure Water Monterey project. The measures shall be sufficient to generate at least an additional 199.2 235 AFY by 2030, as needed to support new development within the City of Monterey that will be served by MCWD.

Mitigation Measure WF-1 on page ES-65 is hereby amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure WF-2 on page ES-66 is hereby amended as follows:

MM WF-2: Underground Utility District. The City shall adopt an underground utility district applicable to areas within the Highway 68 Area Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Area that are identified on Map 3-14 Sites Available for Housing of the Housing Element and that are both adjacent to and within 1,000 linear feet of a VHFHSZ designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The underground utility district shall require that all new electrical poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures be installed underground in order to reduce wildfire risks and promote public safety.

MM-WF-1: Traffic Volume Mitigation. The following measures shall be implemented Caltrans shall implement the following measures to increase capacity and improve vehicle flow at locations projected to have a high volume-to-capacity ratio in the event of an emergency evacuation:
• Mitigate congestion and delay at the interchanges of Fremont StreetHighway 1 and Soledad Drive-Highway 1 by temporarily widening highway ramps by placing traffic cones to indicate two lanes to accommodate a higher volume of evacuating vehicles.
• Deploy adaptive traffic signal control systems that dynamically respond to real-time traffic conditions at Fremont Street-Highway 1 interchange, giving priority to evacuation traffic and improving the efficiency of traffic flow during emergencies.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2510, Packet Page 2838 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-5
Chapter 1: Introduction

Page 1 ends

“City of Monterey Local Coastal Land Use Plan (2016)(1992-2004)” Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
Figure 3.2-2 is hereby amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2511, Packet Page 2839 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 3.2-2 Current Zoning.mxd Residential Estate
Residential - 1
Residential - 2
Residential - 3
Commercial - 1
Commercial - 2
Commercial - 3
Commercial Office
Cannery Row
Industrial
Visitor Accomodation Facility
Planned Community
Open Space
N/A
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 3.2-2: Current Zoning
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2512, Packet Page 2840 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-7
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
Mitigation Measure AG-1 on page 3.2-11 is hereby amended as follows:

MM-AG-1: Offset Loss of Agricultural Land. Prior to approval of a development project which would convert land classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land to non-agricultural uses, the City shall require the project applicant to offset the loss of such land at a 1:1 ratio, either through the acquisition and dedication of comparable Farmland within Monterey County or through the acquisition and dedication of a conservation easement on comparable Farmland within Monterey County. Dedication of the land or conservation easement shall be to an open space trust or comparable entity acceptable to the City. Alternately, compliance with this mitigation measure may be achieved through participation in the Monterey County Agricultural Conservation Mitigation Program, if the project is eligible and if the program has been adopted by the time the need for mitigation occurs.

Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
Figure 3.4-1 is hereby amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2513, Packet Page 2841 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Annual Grassland
Central Dune Scrub
Coastal Foredune
Coastal Prairie
Coastal Scrub
Maritime Chaparral
Mixed Monterey Pine Forest
Monterey Pine Forest
Oak Savanna
Oak Woodland
Sparse Vegetation/Bare Soil
Riparian/Wetland
Golf Course
Urban/Non-Vegetation
Stream/Creek
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 3.4-1: Habitat Types
Data Source: City of Monterey, Biological Assessment, 2003; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2514, Packet Page 2842 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-9
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
The following text is hereby amended at the first full paragraph on page 3.4-15:

The HMP Map for Former Fort Ord, updated in 2005, shows that the majority of land on all of the property that is within the Planning Area is within the Development category, with a portion in the northwest of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area identified as Habitat Reserve as identified in the HMP.

The following text is hereby added to the end of the second full paragraph on page 3.4-24:

In addition, according to the Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Former Fort Ord (1997), the California tiger salamander may occur in ponds and vernal pools throughout former Fort Ord which represents approximately less than one percent of land at the site.1 Compliance with the federal Clean Water Act would also be required and would help ensure protection or replacement for these waters.

The following text is hereby added to the end of the first full paragraph on page 3.4-25 of the DEIR:

Further, as noted above, the Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Former Fort Ord management establishes guidelines and specifications for all parcels on the property that are designed to promote the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of habitat and populations of HMP species while allowing development of properties that promotes economic recovery after closure of Fort Ord. Development at Fort Ord pursuant to the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with the HMP, reducing the potential for impacts to identified species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 on page 3.4-26 is hereby amended as follows:

Additionally, in the event that California Tiger Salamander is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the work area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then the following measures will be implemented:
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District. 1997. Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan for Former Fort Ord, California. Available at:
https://www2.co.monterey.ca.us/EconomicDevelopment/pdf/Habitat%20Management%20Plan%201997.pdf.

Accessed: May 22, 2024.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2515, Packet Page 2843 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-10
• Vernal pools and other potentially suitable wetland habitat will be avoided to the extent feasible during construction to minimize the potential loss of breeding sites for Califomia Tiger Salamanders. • Measures to protect water quality, will be implemented to reduce habitat degradation in adjacent areas.
• A USFWS-approved biologist will demarcate the limits of the fence line.

The text on page 3.4-39 under Impact 3.4-6 is hereby amended as follows:

As discussed above, all of the majority of land on the property that is within the Planning Area is within the Development category, where there are no management restrictions. A portion in the northwest of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area identified as Habitat Reserve, where no development is allowed.

The second paragraph of page 3.4-30 is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The third paragraph of page 3.8-21 is hereby amended as follows:

The Airport Safety Zones associated with runway activities and airport influence areas for the Monterey Regional Airport overlap with the Planning Area, as shown on Figure 3.8-2 Figure 3.8- 3 of this document and Exhibit 4C of the ALUCP.

The bold text at the bottom of page 3.8-28 and continuing on the top of page 3.8-29 is hereby amended as follows to correct a clerical error:

Impact 3.8-5 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in development located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public uses airport, and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Planning Area. (Less than Significant)
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2516, Packet Page 2844 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-11
The first paragraph of page 3.8-30 is hereby amended as follows:

Impact 3.8-6 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) (Significant and Unavoidable) See Impact 3.15-1 in EIR Section 3.15: Wildfire for analysis on this impact. Compliance with the existing regional and local codes and regulations, Monterey Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), the County of Monterey Emergency Operations Plan (OEP), the Monterey County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), and MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, wcould reduce impacts to a less than significant level related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As such However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Chapter 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Figure 3.9-5A and Figure 3.9-5B are hereby amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2517, Packet Page 2845 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Intermediate-High (5-foot) Sea Level Rise, 2100
Inundation (feet)
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 6
Low-lying Areas
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 3.9-5A: Sea Level Rise
µ
Data Source: Sea Level Rise Data from NOAA, 2023; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2518, Packet Page 2846 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard Zone
Tsunami Hazard Area
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 3.9-5B: Coastal Hazards
µ
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2519, Packet Page 2847 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-14
Chapter 3.12: Public Services and Recreation
Mitigation Measure PF-1 on page 3.12-20 is hereby amended as follows:

MM PF-1: City-Owned Fire Station. In parallel with preparation of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan pursuant to Program 1-H of the proposed Housing Element, the City shall:
• Identify in the southeastern part of Planning Area a location for the station that minimizes disruption to sensitive ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and natural resources;
• Require the use of stormwater management measures to control and treat stormwater runoff to prevent pollution and soil erosion during construction; • Develop a plan for the proper handling, recycling, and disposal of construction waste to minimize the impact on local landfills and ecosystems; • Establish erosion control measures, which may include erosion control barriers, sediment traps, and other best management practices to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of nearby water bodies;
• Require measures to protect and preserve existing vegetation, including trees and native plants, during construction activities;
• Implement best management practices to minimize noise and air pollution during construction, including dust and emissions control measures; and • Require the use of fire-safe building materials and design features to limit the risk of damage or loss due to wildfire.

Chapter 3.13: Transportation
The fourth paragraph of page 3.13-5 is hereby amended as follows:

Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) is the principal transit service for the city and the surrounding communities. MST is a joint powers agency special district with a board of directors that includes a representative from the city. Thirteen Eleven MST routes currently serve the citizens of the community. The City-Owned and maintained Simoneau Plaza located in downtown Monterey is the transfer center for all routes serving the city. The MST Trolley is an example of a tourist serving transit line which promotes the City’s “Park Once” program encouraging visitors to park once and reduce high demand to the transportation network. Senior and disabled citizens can use the MST fixed-route and Direct Area Response Transit (DART). MST also operates the RIDES program for disabled citizens. These routes operate on weekdays and Saturdays from approximately 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and from approximately 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM 7:00 AM to 9:00PM on Sundays and holidays weekends, and certain routes operate from approximately 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on holidays.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2520, Packet Page 2848 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-15
Chapter 3.14: Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 on page 3.14-29 is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 3.15: Wildfire
The first paragraph of page 3.15-19 is hereby amended as follows:

Impact 3.15-1 Implementation of the Proposed Plan wcould substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Significant and Unavoidable) Mitigation Measure WF-2 on page 3.15-21 is hereby amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure WF-2 on page 3.15-25 is hereby amended as follows:

MM-WF-1: Traffic Volume Mitigation. Caltrans shall implement the following measures to increase capacity and improve vehicle flow at locations projected to have a high volume-to-capacity ratio in the event of an emergency evacuation:
• Mitigate congestion and delay at the interchanges of Fremont StreetHighway 1 and Soledad Drive-Highway 1 by temporarily widening highway ramps by placing traffic cones to indicate two lanes to accommodate a higher volume of evacuating vehicles.
• Deploy adaptive traffic signal control systems that dynamically respond to real-time traffic conditions at Fremont Street-Highway 1 interchange, giving priority to evacuation traffic and improving the efficiency of traffic flow during emergencies.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2521, Packet Page 2849 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-16
Chapter 4: Alternatives
The third and fourth paragraphs of page 4-21 are hereby amended as follows:

For the No Project Alternative, eight impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, six impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 52 impacts were expected to be less than significant. For the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, 10 11 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, nine impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 47 46 impacts were expected to be less than significant. Similarly, for the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, nine 10 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, 10 impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 47 46 impacts were expected to be less than significant.

The first paragraph on page 4-22 of the DEIR is hereby revised as follows to clarify the rationale for identifying the environmentally superior alternative:

The Table 4-2 of page 4-23 is hereby amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2522, Packet Page 2850 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-17
Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts for Alternatives
Level of Significance
Impact Proposed Plan No Project
Alternative
Relocated
Housing Growth
Alternative
Increased
Workforce
Housing
Alternative

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.8-6 Emergency and Evacuation LTS SU LTS, - LTS, - SU, = LTS, = SU, - Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
The second paragraph of page 5-5 is hereby amended as follows:

Because it is a long-range, programmatic plan for an entire city and surrounding area, the Proposed Plan represents the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the General Plan Planning Area, as seen in Figure 1 of the current General Plan which shows the city limits and the wider General Plan Study Area, and this analysis uses the summary projections of the Proposed Plan. This future scenario incorporates the likely effects of surrounding regional growth.

The second paragraph of page 5-7 is hereby amended as follows:

The cumulative geographic context for agriculture is the General Plan Planning Area. While the General Plan Planning Area contains historical grazing land, it does not include any prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or Williamson Act contracts.

The second paragraph of page 5-8 is hereby amended as follows:

The cumulative geographic context for biological resources is the General Plan Planning Area.

Development associated with the Proposed Plan through the horizon year of 2031 could contribute to the loss of natural lands in the Planning Area, with potential effects on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands, wildlife and fish movement corridors, and invasive species.

The first paragraph of page 5-9 is hereby amended as follows:

The cumulative geographic context for cultural, historic, and tribal cultural resources is the City of Monterey General Plan Planning Area.

The second paragraph of page 5-12 is hereby amended as follows:

The cumulative context for land use is the City of Monterey General Plan Planning Area.

The third paragraph of page 5-13 is hereby amended as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2523, Packet Page 2851 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-18
The geographic context for all police and park services is the City of Monterey General Plan Planning Area and the geographic context for fire services is the Monterey Fire Department (MFD) service area, which includes the City of Monterey, the U.S. Army Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center at the Presidio of Monterey, the Naval Support Activity Monterey Naval Postgraduate School and their housing located at La Mesa Village, as well as the cities of Sand City, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, and the Monterey Peninsula Airport.

The fourth paragraph of page 5-14 is hereby amended as follows:

The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to transportation is the roadway network within the General Plan Planning Area and the regional roadway network with connections to the Planning Area.

The second paragraph of page 5-15 is hereby amended as follows:

Water to the Planning Area is supplied by California American Water (Cal Am) and managed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to water supply is the Cal Am and MPWMD service area.

The third sentence on page 5-16 is hereby amended as follows:

Water to the majority of the Planning Area is supplied by California American Water (Cal- Am) and managed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD).

The following text is added at the end of the Utilities and Service Systems section, before the first full paragraph on page 5-17:

Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) is the water service provider for the portion of Fort Ord which is within the Monterey City limit. MCWD's 2020 UWMP projects that available groundwater supply will be sufficient to meet demand in its service area through 2040, including a reliable supply of 9,620 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin pursuant to the agreements under which MCWD and the former Fort Ord were separately annexed into Monterey County Zones 2/2A in 1996 and 1993, respectively. This supply is sufficient to meet a total demand of 9,574 AFY in the service area through 2040, including a projected demand from the City of Monterey. In 2022, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) adopted a Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan for the 2023-31 period which established the share of the regional housing need that each member jurisdiction must plan for in its General Plan Housing Element. As the 2020 UWMP was produced prior to the adoption of the AMBAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, it does not fully account for the RHNA allocations of the other communities served by MCWD, including the cities of Marina, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks and unincorporated portions of Monterey County. However, the MCWD 2020 UWMP identifies actions to increase future supply, including reactivation of a MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant and participation in Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project, which would deliver sufficient additional water supply to meet projected demand within the MCWD service area in 2031.

Reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant would add 300 AFY of additional supply, and MCWD will receive up to an additional 1,427 AFY of advanced treated recycled water from the Pure Water Monterey Project through an agreement with Monterey One ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2524, Packet Page 2852 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-19
Water signed on April 8, 2016. Assuming a factor of 0.25 AFY per unit consistent with the demand projections for typical residential uses in the 2020 UWMP, this would provide sufficient water for 6,908 units, which far exceeds the total projected residential buildout of all communities served by MCWD in 2031.

Through Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, described in Chapter 3.14 of the DEIR, MCWD would implement planned actions to expand its water supply, including reactivation of the pilot seawater desalination plant and procurement of additional supply from Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. However, while the additional sources of supply identified in the MCWD 2020 UWMP could deliver sufficient water to meet projected demand from the Proposed Plan, MCWD does not currently have funding in place to reactivate the pilot seawater desalination plant or to procure additional supply from Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. No other feasible alternative sources of additional water supply have been identified by MCWD. Accordingly, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the actions identified by MCWD to increase supply will be completed as planned, and as such, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from the implementation of the Proposed Plan in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the MCWD service area and the contribution of the Proposed Project Plan would be cumulatively considerable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2525, Packet Page 2853 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-20
Appendix 1: MCWD Confirming Water Supply
The following is hereby added as Appendix 1 to the FEIR:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2526, Packet Page 2854

APPENDIX

MCWD LETTER

CONFIRMING

WATER SUPPLY
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2527, Packet Page 2855

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT
March 8, 2024
Hans Uslar
City Manager
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
11 RESERVATION ROAD, MARINA, CA 93933-2099
Home Page: www.mcwd.org
TEL: (831) 384-6131 FAX: (831) 883-5995
Subject: City of Monterey Letter Confinning Water Supply Dear Mr. Uslar,
In response to your February 9
th letter seeking confirmation of current and future water supply for City of Monterey owed prope1iies on the fo1mer Fort Ord, Marina Coast Water District can confirm that the existing supply of 65 Acre Feet a Year (AFY) is available, and the District is planning to augment its water supply for all the land use jurisdictions the District serves including the City of Monterey.

As your letter correctly details, the current supply of 65 AFY is included in both the District's Urban Water Management Plan and the Marina Coast Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency's Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Monterey Subbasin.

To augment the water supply, the District is continuing to implement its Regional Urban Water Augmentation Program (RUW AP) which includes restarting its idled Reservation Road desalination plant, a future desalination plant located at the old Garrison Waste Water Treatment Plant, a future brackish desalting facility on District owned Armstrong Ranch property, pmiicipation in the next phase of the Pure Water Monterey plant expansion, and partne1ing with the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency feasibility planning for aquifer storage.

The Disttict understands that Monterey could need an additional 530 AFY for housing on the former Foti Ord and will consider the City's letter as a request to include this amount in our supply planning.

We look forward to working with the City to develop the necessary water supply, wastewater, and recycled water supply to meet the City's needs on the former Fort Ord. As your planning progresses please include the District to ensure our supply augmentation and your housing timelines are in alignment.

Please coordinate with Pattick Breen, the District's Water Resources Manager, he can be reached by email [email protected] or by phone at 831-883.5951.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2528, Packet Page 2856 Otherwise, as always, please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Very truly yours,
Cc: Patrick Breen, MCWDGSA L
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2529, Packet Page 2857 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
3-24
Appendix 2: LandWatch Parcel-Based Projections
The following is hereby added as Appendix 2 to the FEIR:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2530, Packet Page 2858

APPENDIX
2 LANDWATCH

PARCEL-BASED

PROJECTIONS
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2531, Packet Page 2859 Income Category Very Low and Low Moderate Above Moderate Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Notes
Downtown 0 478 0 478 All Mullen density available for VL & L income per HE page 3-7 North Fremont 24 349 373 All Mullen density available for VL & L income per HE page 3-7 Garden Road 0 515 0 0 515
Lighthouse 11 285 0 0 296 All Mullen density available for VL & L income per HE page 3-7 Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 0 0 0 0
Reduce Fort Ord Housing to 0 and still have plenty to meet RHNA for Above Moderate
Ryan Ranch 3.3 acres 0 56 56
Assumes 3.3 acres at 17.11 units/acre - the density assumed for Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord in Appendix A
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs @ 15/year 72 36 12 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 109 1 393 503
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 64 64 512 640
590 Perry Land Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monterey Shopping Center 150 0 150 All Mullen density available for VL & L income per HE page 3-7 Local Density Bonus 93
Subtotal 241 2,337 194 1,072 154 3,998
Total by RHNA Category (Vacant + Nonvacant) 2,578 194 1,226 3,998 Lower Income Inclusionary Requirement (10%) 93
Moderate Incme Inclusionary Requirement (10%) 93
Adjusted Total RHNA 2,671 287 1,226 4,184
RHNA 1,946 462 1,246 3,654
Initial Buffer (see note) 725 -175 0 -20 530 Assumes all density housing developed as VL and L Adjustments -400 300 100 0 Assume some high density lots will be developed for moderate or above moderate Revised Buffer 325 125 0 80 530
Add Parking Lots 304 Assume 7 additional lots in downtown Monterey developed at 55 units/acre See Page 3-7 for description of realistic capacity assumptions Edited downtown/commercial corridor where development density is suitable for VL or L income because it meets Mullen density
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2532, Packet Page 2860 City says high density assigned to VL and L
Our adjustments make this consistent

96.99 total of Ryan Ranch acreage

17.11516651 how many acres City assumes on Ft. Ord + Ryan Ranch

56.48004949 only 3.3 acres are Ryan Ranch
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2533, Packet Page 2861 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2534, Packet Page 2862 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND MITIGATION

MONITORING PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION

1. These California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § § 21000 et seq., "CEQA") findings are adopted by the City of Monterey as lead agency for the City of Monterey General Plan Update ("the Plan"). These findings pertain to Environmental Impact Report SCH #2023080034 prepared for the Plan.

2. These CEQA findings are set forth in Exhibit A and are incorporated by reference into each and every resolution approving the Plan. Set forth below in Section VII of this document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All Exhibits are incorporated by reference into each other and into the resolution to which the Exhibit is attached.

3. The statements, findings, determinations, and other actions set forth in this Exhibit are based on the substantial evidence contained in the entire record before the City.

References to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the findings.

II. THE PLAN

4. The Plan is the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Plan or Project) analyzed under CEQA, which is intended to respond to emerging issues and new State laws and guide development and conservation within the Planning Area through 2031. The Plan fully replaces the City’s Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements from the 2005 General Plan. . The Plan referred to in these findings is the Plan as approved by the Monterey City Council on July 16, 2024.

5. The Proposed Plan is a document to be adopted by the City Council that serves the following objectives:
(a) Address Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the RHNA of 3,654 housing units at all income levels for the 2023-2031 planning period.
(b) Provide a Variety of Housing Opportunities. Provide a variety of housing opportunities proportionally by income to accommodate the needs of people who currently live, work, and go to school in Monterey, such as elderly residents, large families, students, teachers, and service and hospitality workers. (c) Provide Equal Housing Opportunities. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics, including but not limited to, age, ancestry, sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, disability, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2535, Packet Page 2863 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(d) Address Affordable Housing Needs. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected affordable housing needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.
(e) Address the Housing Needs of Special Need Groups. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected housing needs of persons living with disabilities, unhoused people, elderly residents, students, and other special needs households in the community.
(f) Remove Potential Constraints to Housing. Evaluate potential constraints to housing development and encourage new housing in locations supported by existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining existing neighborhood character. Develop programs to help remove or reduce barriers to the development of housing for all income levels.
(g) Maintain Existing Housing. Maintain the existing housing stock to assure high quality maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing housing resources. (h) Provide Adequate Housing Sites. Identify appropriate housing sites within specified areas that have the potential to accommodate or are proximate to transportation, shopping and schools, and the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.
(i) Support a Vibrant Local Economy. Support the vitality of local businesses, the health of the local economy, and the quality of life in the community with an improved balance of jobs and housing to help ensure that those who work in Monterey can afford to live in the community and to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with commute traffic to and from the city. (j) Promote Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. Continue to promote sustainability and energy efficiency in residential development to lower energy use through energy-efficient urban design and through better design and construction in individual projects.
(k) Address Risks from Natural Hazards. Incorporate strategies to minimize loss and damage due to geologic, wildfire, flooding, and other potential hazards. (l) Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Address airport-related hazards, compatibility zones, and airport noise contours and ensure consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, business, and airport users.

III. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW OF THE PLAN

6. Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs title 14, § § 15000 et seq), the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared. The NOP for the EIR was published on August 2, 2023, notifying State and local agencies and members of the public of the 30-day public scoping period and public Scoping Meeting. The EIR Scoping Meeting was held on August 7, 2023 to receive comments and suggestions on the scope and content for the EIR; solicit input Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2536, Packet Page 2864 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
on potential impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to consider; and consult with public agencies responsible for natural resources, other regulatory bodies, neighboring communities, Native American tribes, and members of the public. The scoping period ended on September 4, 2023. The NOP and comments on the NOP received by the City are included as Appendix A of the EIR.

7. A Draft EIR was prepared for the Plan to analyze its environmental effects. The EIR for the Proposed Plan assesses potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan in the areas of aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; energy, greenhouse gases, and climate change; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, population, and housing; noise; public services and recreation; transportation; utilities and service systems; and wildfire. The EIR also considers growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, and cumulative impacts. The NOP and comments on the NOP are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Appendices B through I provide further documentation of data and outreach utilized in the Draft EIR impact analyses.

8. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment between February 9, 2024 and March 25, 2024. The City received written comments on the Draft EIR. The City prepared responses to all substantive comments on environmental issues and made necessary additions and revisions to the Draft EIR. The comments, responses to the comments, changes to the Draft EIR, and additional information were published in the Final EIR, including Comments and Responses, dated July 5, 2024.

9. At a Joint Special Meeting with the City Council on July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR and adoption of the Plan.

10. On July 16, 2024, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR (consisting of the Draft EIR dated February 9, 2024 and the Comments and Responses dated July 5, 2024). The City certified the Final EIR and adopted the Plan on July 16, 2024. The Draft EIR and Final EIR comprise the "EIR" referenced in these findings.

11. The EIR provides a program-level analysis of the environmental impacts of the Plan and supports all levels of approval necessary to implement the Plan.

IV. THE RECORD

12. The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the Plan are based includes the following:
(a) The preliminary scoping documents, Draft and Final EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR.
(b) All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City staff and consultants to the Planning Commission and City Council, relating to the EIR, the proposed approvals for the Plan, the Plan, and alternatives to the Plan. (c) All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided to the City or presented at any and all public hearings related to the EIR and the Plan, and all Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2537, Packet Page 2865 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
information referenced in or incorporated into reports presented to any of the public bodies that conducted hearings on the EIR or the Plan.
(d) For documentary and information purposes, all locally adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans, and related ordinances, together with any related environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs and other documentation relevant to the Plan. (e) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Plan. (f) All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).

13. The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City's decision is based is Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director, or designee. Such documents and other materials are located at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California 93940, and on the project website (https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031).

V. CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR

14. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and was presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City has reviewed and considered the information contained in the record and the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and approving or recommending approval of any aspect of the Plan. Preparation of the EIR was overseen by the City and the conclusions and recommendations in the EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis as well as its conclusions and recommendations. By these findings, the City confirms and adopts the findings of the EIR as supplemented by these findings.

15. The City recognizes that the EIR may contain clerical errors and bases its determination on the substance of the information in the EIR.

16. The City certifies that the EIR complies with CEQA and is adequate to support the approval of the Plan, each alternative in the EIR, and variations on the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR, each component of these alternatives, and any minor modifications to the Plan or the alternatives. The EIR is adequate for approval of the Plan, and any future discretionary approvals required or anticipated by the Plan. The EIR is adequate to support the Plan as approved by the City Council at the July 16, 2024 hearing on the Plan. Conditions imposed by the City Council will enhance the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Plan and will not have any adverse physical impacts.

VI. FINDINGS ON DISAGREEMENT AMONG EXPERTS AND ABSENCE OF

SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION

17. To the extent the comment letters and correspondence submitted by the public or outside agencies or organizations are considered expert opinion, the City Council finds Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2538, Packet Page 2866 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
that the assumptions, data, methodology, and analysis included in the EIR (not including the comment letters) prepared by the City and its consultants, is supported by substantial evidence and was the appropriate assumption, data, methodology, and analysis to use to support the impact analysis and conclusions reached in the EIR.

18. The City recognizes that the EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that the EIR contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The City has reviewed and considered the Final EIR, and all of this information. The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Plan. No information indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

19. Based on the above finding, the City finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21092.1 or CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and that recirculation of the EIR is neither necessary nor required.

VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

20. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097 require the City to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures for the Plan identified in the EIR are implemented. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") is included in Exhibit B and is hereby adopted by the City. The MMRP is consistent with and satisfies the requirements of CEQA.

21. The mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP are specific and enforceable. As appropriate, some mitigation measures define performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts will result. The MMRP adequately describes implementation procedures, monitoring responsibility, reporting actions, compliance schedule, non-compliance sanctions, and verification of compliance in order to ensure that the Plan complies with the adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP ensures that the mitigation measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the Plan.

22. The mitigation measures contained in the MMRP will be imposed as enforceable conditions of approval of the Plan and individual development proposals to be approved by the City as the Plan is implemented. The City has adopted measures to substantially lessen or eliminate all significant effects where feasible.

23. The mitigation measures contained in the MMRP will not have new significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the EIR. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the EIR has been inadvertently omitted from the MMRP, that Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2539, Packet Page 2867 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated from the EIR into the MMRP by reference and adopted as part of the MMRP.

VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

24. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15092, the City adopts the findings and conclusions regarding the impacts and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR. These findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts contained in the EIR. The City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the EIR. The City adopts the reasoning of the EIR, staff reports, and presentations provided by the staff as may be modified by this Resolution.

25. The City recognizes that the environmental analysis of the Plan raises controversial environmental issues, and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to those issues. The City has, through review of the evidence and analysis presented in the record, considered the full scope of the environmental issues presented.

These findings are based on a full appraisal of all viewpoints expressed and evidence presented in the EIR and in the record, as well as other relevant information in the record of the proceedings for the Plan.

Less than Significant Impacts or No Impacts

26. Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that the following potential impacts would not occur or would be less than significant, as defined by the EIR:
(a) Aesthetics: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.1-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas.
(ii) Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
(iii) Impact 3.1-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings in non-urbanized areas or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas. (iv) Impact 3.1-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not create new sources of substantial light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
(b) Agricultural Resources: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.2-1: Implementation of the General Plan Update would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. (ii) Impact 3.2-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (c) Air Quality: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2540, Packet Page 2868 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(i) Impact 3.3-4: Development under the Proposed Plan would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to objectionable odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
(d) Biological Resources: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(ii) Impact 3.4-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. (iii) Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (iv) Impact 3.4-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
(v) Impact 3.4-5: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
(vi) Impact 3.4-6: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
(e) Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.6-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
(ii) Impact 3.6-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (f) Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.7-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not expose residents, visitors and employees, as well as public and private structures, to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides.
(ii) Impact 3.7-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
(iii) Impact 3.7-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in development located on expansive soils or on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of new development under the Plan, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, or create substantial risks to life or property.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2541, Packet Page 2869 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(iv) Impact 3.7-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not locate structures on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (v) Impact 3.7-5: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not locate structures on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.8-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
(ii) Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
(iii) Impact 3.8-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (iv) Impact 3.8-5: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in development located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public uses airport, and would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Planning Area.
(v) Impact 3.8-7: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
(h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.9-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not violate any federal, state, or local water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (ii) Impact 3.9-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
(iii) Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the City of Monterey, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (iv) Impact 3.9-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, implementation of the Proposed Plan would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2542, Packet Page 2870 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(v) Impact 3.9-5: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
(i) Land Use, Population, and Housing: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.10-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not physically divide an established community.
(ii) Impact 3.10-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Plan (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plans, coastal land use plans, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
(iii) Impact 3.10-3: Development under the Proposed Plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
(iv) Impact 3.10-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
(j) Noise: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.11-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (ii) Impact 3.11-2: Development under the Proposed Plan would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (ii) Impact 3.11-3: The Proposed Plan would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or expose people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise levels.
(k) Public Services and Recreation: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.12-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (ii) Impact 3.12-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
(l) Traffic and Transportation: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.13-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2543, Packet Page 2871 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(ii) Impact 3.13-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment). (iii) Impact 3.13-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access.
(m) Utilities and Service Systems: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (ii) Impact 3.14-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (iii) Impact 3.14-5: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes, and regulations related to solid waste.
(n) Wildfire: The following impacts were found to be less than significant:
(i) Impact 3.15-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (ii) Impact 3.15-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Significant but Mitigatable Impacts

27. Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 (a)(1) and 15092(b), and to the extent reflected in the EIR, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan that mitigate to a less than significant level or avoid the following potentially significant effects on the environment:
(a) Biological Resources, Impact 3.4-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(i) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would focus future development and redevelopment primarily in previously developed portions of the city, limiting the potential for significant adverse impacts on special-status species and sensitive natural communities. However, given the extent of biological resources throughout the community, future development under the Proposed Plan could have a significant direct or indirect impact on special-status species if it would result in the removal or degradation of the species or suitable habitat. If future development were to substantially degrade or remove suitable habitat for special-status species or result in adverse impacts on special-status individuals, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2544, Packet Page 2872 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
there could be significant impacts on special-status species. This could occur because of construction activities or from ongoing operation and/or maintenance of a project subsequent to the Proposed Plan.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The General Plan Conservation Element outlines requirements for development to conserve, manage, and restore habitats for endangered species, and protect biological diversity represented by special-status plant and wildlife species (Goal d). Specifically, policies d.1 and d.3 require the protection of existing native plants and sensitive habitat. Policy d.4 requires the protection and management of habitats that support special-status species, are of high biological diversity, or are unusual or regionally restricted. Developments must prepare biotic reports or habitat management plans as needed to ensure protection of habitat values. Policy d.5 requires the reduction of biotic impacts to a less-than-significant level on project sites by ensuring that mitigation measures identified in biotic reports are incorporated as conditions of approval for development projects. As mitigation for significant impacts, avoidance, replacement, restoration of habitats on- or off-site, or other measures may be required. These policies and regulations would serve to reduce impacts on special-status species and their habitats.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: To further address potential impacts to specialstatus species, Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require site assessments by a qualified professional for development applications that may adversely affect sensitive biological resources, is required. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require implementation of a worker environmental awareness training program to train construction staff on the needs of protecting sensitive biological resources and the ramifications for not complying with applicable laws. Mitigation Measure BIO3 would require the installation of temporary flagging or barrier fencing to protect sensitive biological resources adjacent to the work area as warranted based on the findings of the site assessment completed pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Further, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 through BIO-12 outline additional construction requirements to ensure the protection of special-status plant species, nesting bird species, bat species, the burrowing owl, Western bumble bee, Northern California legless lizard, Smith's blue butterfly, Monterey shrew, and the American badger, as warranted based on the findings of the site assessment. Thus, this impact will be mitigated through imposition of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO12, which require implementation of the following actions:
 MM-BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special Status Species. Prior to ground-disturbing activities and during the appropriate identification periods for special-status plants and wildlife listed in Tables

3.4-1 and 3.4-2, project applicants proposing development on sites with the potential for special-status species to occur shall engage a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting surveys for subject species in Monterey County to conduct field surveys within work areas and the immediately adjacent areas to determine the presence of habitat for specialstatus plant and wildlife species. The field surveys are to be conducted when special-status species that could occur in the area are evident and Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2545, Packet Page 2873 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
identifiable, generally during the blooming or breeding period. For specialstatus plants, field surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities”. One or more surveys shall be conducted as needed to account for different special-status species identification periods. The results of field surveys shall be summarized in an accompanying report documenting all proposed work areas and the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by development. Additionally, the report shall outline where species and/or habitat-specific mitigation measures (as required under Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-12) are required. This report will provide the basis for any applicable permit applications and consultations with regulatory agencies where incidental take may occur.  MM-BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program. If it is established pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 that special status species occur on the site, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, and for the duration of construction activities, the project proponent shall demonstrate that it has in place a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for all construction workers at the project site. All construction workers shall attend the Program prior to participating in construction activities. The Program shall be developed and conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in Monterey County.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2546, Packet Page 2874 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
 Vernal pools and other potentially suitable wetland habitat will be avoided to the extent feasible during construction to minimize the potential loss of breeding sites for California Tiger Salamanders.  Measures to protect water quality, will be implemented to reduce habitat degradation in adjacent areas.
 A USFWS-approved biologist will demarcate the limits of the fence line. The barrier will be inspected and repaired at least weekly to ensure it remains in place during construction.
 A biological monitor will survey suitable habitat, including all wetlands, prior to grading or filling. If either species is located during surveys, it will be moved to an approved off-site location in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW.
● MM-BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Special-Status Plant Species. If necessary pursuant to the results of surveys conducted under Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the work area shall be modified to the extent feasible to avoid indirect or direct impacts on special-status plants. Specialstatus plant species shall be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a no disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special status plant species. If complete avoidance of special-status plants is not feasible, at a minimum the special-status plant species shall be relocated on-site, at least 20 feet away from construction directly relating to the project. All site preparation, seed/cutting/root collection, grow-out, and plant installation shall be conducted by a landscape company approved by the City of Monterey with experience working on restoration projects and within the habitats present on-site. Following the relocation, the plantings/seedings shall be monitored annually for five years or longer by a botanist paid for and hired by the Project proponent to determine the success of the relocation. For individual plants, success criteria is the establishment of new viable occurrences equal to or greater in number than the number of plants impacted, for at least three years without supplemental care such as watering. On-site maintenance of the relocated plants shall be contracted to a landscaping company which will also be paid for and hired by the Project proponent. An annual report by a botanist detailing the success of the relocation shall be drafted and submitted to all responsible agencies (e.g., CDFW, USFWS) for their review. If success criteria are not met, management of the relocated plants will be modified as needed, but management and reporting shall continue until success criteria are met. ● MM-BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Bird Species.

If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. Surveys should also cover a sufficient Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2547, Packet Page 2875 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
area around each future project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by a project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, a qualified biologist shall continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from each future project. If behavioral changes occur, all work will be halted, causing that change, and consultation with CDFW will be conducted for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, then a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors will be implemented. These buffers shall remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction areas would be concealed from a nest site by topography. A qualified biologist shall advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.
● MM-BIO-6: Disturbance to Bat Species. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for bats which shall take place during the maternity roosting season (defined as: April 1 through August 31) within riparian habitat and any old wooden buildings within a project site. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to removal of trees, snags, or buildings within the project area. Ultrasonic acoustic surveys and/or other site appropriate survey method may be performed to determine the presence or absence of bats utilizing the project site as roosting or foraging habitat. Additionally, the following measures shall be implemented to lessen impacts to bats:
a) If special-status bat species are detected during surveys, species and roost specific mitigation measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist. Such measures may include postponing removal of trees, snags, or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species appropriate roosting habitat within, or adjacent to the project site.
b) Trees, snags, and buildings may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season without performing preconstruction bat surveys. c) Felled trees shall remain on the ground for 24 hours prior to being removed or chipped.
d) For all buildings to be demolished, internal entrance surveys shall be performed by a qualified bat biologist no less than 14 days prior Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2548, Packet Page 2876 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
to demolition to determine if buildings currently or previously support roosting bats. If bats are determined to be present, appropriate methods shall be used to exclude bats from the building.

Such methods may include installation of one way “valves” to allow bats to exit, but not allow them to reenter the building. e) If an identified maternity roost location is removed, species and roost appropriate mitigation shall be developed in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation shall include at minimum the replacement of a suitable roost structure within or immediately adjacent to the project site, such that similar structure shape and thermal properties are met with the replacement roost.
f) If no active roosts are identified, then work may commence as planned. Survey results are valid for 30 days from the survey date.

Should work commence later than 30 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. No preconstruction bat surveys are required for work conducted between the hibernation season and maternity season (i.e., September 1 through October 31). ● MM-BIO-7: Disturbance to Burrowing Owl. If feasible, constructionrelated ground disturbance activities shall begin outside of the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1 through August 31) and during construction the site shall be maintained in a manner that is inhospitable to burrowing owl such as keeping the site free of vegetation, ground squirrel control, and maintaining regular site disturbance by construction equipment and personnel. This will discourage burrowing owls from occupying the project site. If feasible, decommissioning-related ground disturbing activities shall begin outside of the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1 through August 31).

If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities of the project site and surrounding areas to 150 meters in accordance with the methods outlined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or most recently adopted guidance. The first preconstruction survey will cover all areas within 150 meters of the portion of the site in which construction is scheduled to start. Surveys will be phased based on the construction schedule such that the surveys are conducted no more than 14 days ahead of the start of ground disturbance in new areas. If no occupied breeding or wintering owl burrows are identified, no further mitigation will be required. If occupied burrows are identified on the site or within 150 meters, one of the following actions shall be taken: (1) permanent avoidance of the burrow or (2) establishment of a temporary avoidance buffer followed by passive relocation and compensatory mitigation for loss of habitat in conjunction with the measures below:
 If an occupied wintering burrow is discovered during
preconstruction surveys, a 50-meter buffer area shall be established around the burrow until the owl leaves on its own (if the burrow is Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2549, Packet Page 2877 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
more than 50 meters off-site and/or more than 50 meters from the work area, no buffer is necessary). Ground-disturbing work conducted during the nonbreeding (winter) season (September 1 to January 31) can proceed near the occupied burrow so long as the work occurs no closer than 50 meters to the burrow, and the burrow is not directly affected by the project activity. A smaller buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW and monitored at the discretion of a qualified biologist. If the 50-meter buffer cannot be maintained for the duration of occupancy by the owl, owls may be excluded from an occupied wintering burrow in accordance with the conditions of the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls.
 If an occupied nesting burrow is discovered during preconstruction surveys, an avoidance buffer of 200 meters shall be established around the burrow location and maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest has fledged or is no longer active (a 200-meter avoidance buffer is appropriate for low intensity impacts near nesting burrows during breeding season [CDFW 2012]). No project activities shall take place within the 200-meter buffer during the time in which it is in place. A smaller buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW and monitored at the discretion of a qualified biologist.
 If an occupied burrow cannot be avoided, and the burrow is not actively in use as a nest, a 200-meter buffer shall be established until the burrowing owls can be excluded from burrows in accordance with the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is based on the recommendations made in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or most recently adopted guidance and shall include the following information for each proposed passive relocation:
o Confirmation by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other species;
o Type of scope to be used and appropriate timing of scoping; o Occupancy factors to look for and what shall guide
determination of vacancy and excavation timing;
o Methods for burrow excavation;
o Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on-site;
o Methods for photographic documentation of the excavation and closure of the burrow; and
o Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take. Methods for assuring the impacted site shall Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2550, Packet Page 2878 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and
fossorial mammals.

If an occupied burrow is identified off-site within 150 meters and passive exclusion is deemed necessary to protect the owls, burrowing owls may be excluded from burrows if permission is granted by the landowner, and in accordance with the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls. If burrowing owls cannot be excluded from an off-site burrow and it is not feasible to maintain an avoidance buffer as stated above, coordination will be conducted with CDFW to determine appropriate measures to minimize impacts to off-site burrowing owls. Such measures could include, but are not limited to: (1) installation of barriers between the construction or decommissioning area and the occupied burrows to block noise and views of construction or decommissioning equipment and personnel, and (2) regular monitoring by a qualified biologist to determine if construction or decommissioning activities are resulting in disturbance of the owls that could lead to nest abandonment or harm to adult owls or their young. If such disturbance was occurring, the biological monitor would have the authority to halt construction activities until further modifications could be made to avoid disturbance of the owls.

If burrowing owl pairs are passively relocated, compensatory mitigation for lost wintering/breeding habitat shall be provided either through dedication of 6 acres of suitable habitat (per pair of relocated owls) at an off-site location in accordance with the conditions of the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan or through purchase of credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank in the region. No compensatory mitigation is required for passive relocation or eviction of transient, unpaired owls.

If permanent avoidance buffers are established, such areas shall be managed for the duration of the project to preserve current values as foraging habitat for burrowing owl. Management shall include: (1) exclusion of all project activities throughout the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases, including staging, parking, driving, or dumping; (2) vegetation management by grazing or mowing to preserve open, low-growing vegetation; (3) fencing to discourage human incursion; (4) signage identifying the area as a biologically sensitive area managed for burrowing owl, and; (5) a worker education and awareness program for all personnel working on the site including contractors and subcontractors. ● MM-BIO-8: Disturbance to Western Bumble Bee. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct a take avoidance survey for active bumble bee colony nesting sites in any previously undisturbed area no more than 14 days prior to each phase of construction, if the work will occur during the flying season, generally between March 1 and September 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2551, Packet Page 2879 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
The surveys shall occur when temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), on sunny days with wind speeds below 8 miles per hour, and at least 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset. Surveyors shall conduct transect surveys focusing on detection of foraging bumble bees and underground nests using visual aids such as binoculars. If no western bumble bees or potential western bumble bees are detected, no further mitigation is required. If potential western bumble bees are seen but cannot be identified, the applicant shall obtain authorization from CDFW within 14 days prior to groundbreaking to use nonlethal netting methods to capture bumble bees to identify them to species. If protected bumble bee nests are found, they shall be protected in place until they are no longer active as determined by a licensed entomologist. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to groundbreaking within 14 days of completing the take avoidance survey. ● MM-BIO-9: Disturbance to Northern California Legless Lizard. If the Northern California Legless Lizard is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the project area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO1, then the following measures will be implemented:

Immediately prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant will conduct a clearance survey in suitable habitat within the project work area for Northern California legless lizards.

The project biologist may establish Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (WEF) to keep the species from entering the work area. If the Northern California legless lizard is observed during construction, measures will be taken to avoid the individual(s) and the species will be allowed to leave on its own volition or will be relocated outside of the work area by the project biologist. Clearance surveys will be conducted daily unless the project biologist determines that the surveys are no longer necessary. ● MM-BIO-10: Disturbance to Smith’s Blue Butterfly. If the Smith’s blue butterfly is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the project area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then the following measures will be implemented:
 Project areas within the range of these species will be surveyed by a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant for seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), the butterfly’s host plant.
 Host plants within the occupied habitat will be marked with high visibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no construction activities will occur within 10 feet of these plants.
 If complete avoidance of the host plant is not feasible, then the species shall be relocated on-site pursuant to the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
 MM-BIO-11: Disturbance to Monterey Shrew. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, immediately prior to ground disturbing Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2552, Packet Page 2880 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
activities in or adjacent to Monterey shrew habitat, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct a clearance survey to identify and relocate any individuals within proposed work areas. Any individuals located during the survey shall be allowed to leave the work area on their own. All sightings of Monterey shrew shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database.
 MM-BIO-12: Disturbance to American Badger. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for American badger no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance related to construction and decommissioning activities to determine if there are any American badger dens on the project site. If there are no American badger dens on the project site, no further mitigation is necessary. If American badger dens are located within the work area and cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied. If unoccupied, the dens will be collapsed under the supervision of the biologist. If occupied, the biologist will determine if it is a natal/pupping den or a solitary badger den. Dens of solitary badger may be collapsed under the supervision of the biologist once the animal has vacated the den. Natal/pupping dens will be avoided by establishment of an exclusion zone around the den determined by the qualified biologist until the young are old enough to leave the den and survive on their own.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and adherence to existing policies and local regulations, as discussed above, the impacts of future development under the Proposed Plan on special-status species would be less than significant.
(b) Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources; Impact 3.5-1:

Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: Within the Planning Area, there are numerous properties more than 50 years old that have not yet been evaluated for historic significance and that may be eligible for listing on local, State, or national registers.

As such, a significant impact could occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in substantial adverse changes to potentially historical resources through demolition, alterations, changes in ownership, and accidents caused by construction activities.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The General Plan includes policies that can reduce impacts on potential resources, including Historic Preservation Element Policy a.1, which requires the City to maintain a preservation program to preserve and promote maintenance of historic resources; Program a.1.3 that calls for completion of a citywide historic survey; and Policy a.3 that requires Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2553, Packet Page 2881 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
the maintenance of City-owned historic buildings in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources. (iii) Rationale and Conclusion: To further address potential impacts to significant historic resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is recommended, requiring that project sponsors proposing development on a property with structures more than 50 years old evaluate the properties for historic significance. In the event that historic resources are identified, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is required, involving evaluation for potential direct and/or indirect effects on the identified historic resource(s) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, and as appropriate, avoidance or minimization of impacts to historic structures.
 MM-CUL-1: Evaluate Age-Eligible Properties That Have Not Previously Been Evaluated Prior to Development Projects to Identify Historic Resources. As a condition of project approval for a development project proposed on a parcel within the Planning Area that includes a building, structure, or landscape more than 50 years old (typical age threshold applied by the California Office of Historic Preservation) and that has not previously been evaluated for potential historic significance, the City shall require the project applicant retain a professional who meets the Secretary of the of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history or history (as appropriate), to conduct an evaluation of historic significance and eligibility for listing on local, State, or national registers.

The evaluation shall include an Intensive Survey, which is comprised of a field survey, archival research, and preparation of a historic resource evaluation report. The report shall include documentation of methodology and the findings of the historic evaluation, including a determination of historic significance and eligibility for listing on local, State, or national registers. On the basis of this evaluation, if it is determined that the subject property contains an historic resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall be implemented.
 MM-CUL-2: Avoidance or Minimization of Effects on Identified Historic Resources. The project applicant shall consult with City staff to determine whether a project can be feasibly redesigned or revised to avoid significant adverse impacts on listed and identified eligible historic resource(s), including historic districts. If a local landmark or local historic district is part of a proposed development, the project’s Historic Permit application must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. If avoidance of historic resource(s) is not feasible, where feasibility is defined as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors," the project sponsor shall seek to reduce the effect on historic resource(s) to a less-than-significant level pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. Projects that conform to the Secretary of the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2554, Packet Page 2882 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are considered to have a less-than-significant effect on historic architectural resources.

Overall, compliance of existing regulations and implementation of proposed mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce the impact of implementation of the Proposed Plan on historical resources to a less than significant level.
(c) Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources; Impact 3.5-2:

Implementation of the Proposed Plan could cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: As described in the Environmental Setting, there are known prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the Planning Area. Early Monterey County maps indicate 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). Given this, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the Planning Area.

Future development projects or public works activities allowed under the Proposed Plan may involve grading, excavation, overland vehicle travel, or other grounddisturbing activities, or could facilitate public access to archaeological sites, which could disturb or damage unknown archaeological resources. (ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The impact of the Proposed Plan would be considered significant if they were to cause a substantial adverse change to the archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. General Plan Historic Preservation Element Policy a.4 requires that developments utilize the CEQA process for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to identify and mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: To address the potential for impacts to archaeological resources, including as yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is required, which would require an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including a site survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, for development and redevelopment proposals in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas within the City of Monterey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is also recommended for developments in areas with a high potential for uncovering archaeological deposits or tribal cultural resources. This measure requires construction personnel to receive cultural awareness training on existing regulations and unanticipated discovery protocol. Additionally, in the case of accidental discovered of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is also recommended, requiring the immediate suspension of soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and an assessment of the significance of the discovery by a qualified archeological consultant, together with measures to preserve any resource that Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2555, Packet Page 2883 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance.
 MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Assessments. For projects in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas of the Planning Area, the City shall require project proponents to submit an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources prepared by a qualified archeological consultant prior to project approval. The assessment shall include a site survey, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, and if warranted by the results of the assessment, recommendations for avoidance or mitigation in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as applicable. Recommendations may include establishing conservation easements; preservation in situ of the resource; capping or covering archaeological sites; planning open space to incorporate archaeological sites; or excavation. If, on the basis of the assessment, it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.  MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.
 MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery. In the event of accidental discovery of an archeological or tribal cultural resource during soils-disturbing activity of any project pursuant to the Proposed Plan, the project sponsor shall immediately suspend any soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant to whether the discovery is an archeological resource retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. If it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.

Mitigation strategies may include preservation in situ of the resource, a monitoring program, a testing program, or an interpretation program.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2556, Packet Page 2884 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
Overall, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (d) Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources; Impact 3.5-3:

Implementation of the Proposed Plan could have the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: Human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Plan. There are several cemeteries located within the Planning Area, including Cemetery El Encinal at 798 Fremont Street, the San Carlos Cemetery at 792 Fremont Street, and the Presidio of Monterey Main Post Cemetery. These facilities are designated as Open Space on the Zoning Map where certain limited types of development are permitted with a use permit. Given high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area, it is possible that subsurface construction activities associated with the Proposed Plan, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: General Plan Historic Preservation Element Policy a.4 requires that developments utilize the CEQA process for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to identify and mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the protocols established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 would be required. Compliance with these existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 through CUL-5 would further reduce any potential impact on archaeological resources, including human remains, through cultural awareness training for construction personnel on unanticipated discovery protocol.  MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Assessments. For projects in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas of the Planning Area, the City shall require project proponents to submit an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources prepared by a qualified archeological consultant prior to project approval. The assessment shall include a site survey, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, and if warranted by the results of the assessment, recommendations for avoidance or mitigation in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as applicable. Recommendations may include establishing conservation easements; preservation in situ of the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2557, Packet Page 2885 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
resource; capping or covering archaeological sites; planning open space to incorporate archaeological sites; or excavation. If, on the basis of the assessment, it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.  MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.
 MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery. In the event of accidental discovery of an archeological or tribal cultural resource during soils-disturbing activity of any project pursuant to the Proposed Plan, the project sponsor shall immediately suspend any soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant to whether the discovery is an archeological resource retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. If it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.

Mitigation strategies may include preservation in situ of the resource, a monitoring program, a testing program, or an interpretation program.

Implementation of the Proposed Plan could cause an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as per the PRC Section 21074 definition. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: The results of the NWIC records search indicate that there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the City limits, especially in the vicinity of Monterey Bay in the area between Point Alones and Laguna Del Rey, near intermittent and perennial watercourse.

Therefore, future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Plan could result in indirect impacts through grading, overland construction vehicle travel, or other ground-disturbing activities, or through facilitation of public access to culturally significant sites.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2558, Packet Page 2886 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Consultation with the tribes per SB 18 and AB 52 provides the opportunity for Native American tribes to identify if known resources could be compromised by implementation of the Proposed Plan. Such consultation is also intended to arrive at consensus regarding mitigation measures or ways to avoid a significant effect on tribal cultural resources. As detailed in the Environmental Setting, local tribal representatives were sent formal notification under SB 18 on December 19, 2022 and under AB52 on July 12, 2023. No responses or formal requests for tribal consultation have been received as documented in supporting materials and correspondence located in Appendix D of the DEIR. General Plan Policy Historic Preservation Element a.4 also requires developments utilize the CEQA process for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to identify and mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: To address the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is recommended, which would require an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including a site survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, for development and redevelopment proposals in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas within the City of Monterey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is also recommended for developments in areas with a high potential for uncovering archaeological deposits or tribal cultural resources. This measure requires construction personnel to receive cultural awareness training on existing regulations and unanticipated discovery protocol. Additionally, in the case of accidental discovered of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is also recommended, requiring the immediate suspension of soilsdisturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and an assessment of the significance of the discovery by a qualified archeological consultant, together with measures to preserve any resource that retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance.
 MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Assessments. For projects in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas of the Planning Area, the City shall require project proponents to submit an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources prepared by a qualified archeological consultant prior to project approval. The assessment shall include a site survey, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, and if warranted by the results of the assessment, recommendations for avoidance or mitigation in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as applicable. Recommendations may include establishing conservation easements; preservation in situ of the resource; capping or covering archaeological sites; planning open space to incorporate archaeological sites; or excavation. If, on the basis of the assessment, it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2559, Packet Page 2887 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.  MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.
 MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery. In the event of accidental discovery of an archeological or tribal cultural resource during soils-disturbing activity of any project pursuant to the Proposed Plan, the project sponsor shall immediately suspend any soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant to whether the discovery is an archeological resource retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. If it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.

Mitigation strategies may include preservation in situ of the resource, a monitoring program, a testing program, or an interpretation program.

Overall, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (f) Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Impact 3.7-6: Implementation of the Proposed Plan could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
(i) Facts in Support of Finding: The geologic units exposed at and below ground surface in the Planning Area are composed primarily of Holocene Older Dune Sand and Dune Sand, with Pleistocene Aromas Sand lying further inland. These units are known to have yielded scientifically important fossils. Based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) method, this geologic unit is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Because paleontological resources are located below ground surface, ground disturbing activities such as excavating, grading, and resurfacing could affect any paleontological resources present, including destruction of the resource.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: To further address potential impacts to paleontological resources, any project applicant Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2560, Packet Page 2888 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
pursuing construction under the Proposed Plan would be required to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, which prohibits the willful excavation, removal, destruction, injury, or defacing of any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site. (iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Any project applicant pursuing construction under the Proposed Plan would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO1 and GEO-2, which require training to construction staff regarding paleontological resources and which establish protocols to follow in the event of the discovery of an unidentified paleontological resource, respectively.  MM-GEO-1: Worker Awareness Training. Prior to commencing construction, and ongoing throughout ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, utility installation, the applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area and/or their designee shall ensure that all project construction workers are trained on the contents of a paleontological resources alert sheet, as provided by the department. The paleontological resources alert sheet shall be prominently displayed at the construction site during ground-disturbing activities for reference regarding potential paleontological resources. In addition, the project applicant shall inform the contractor and construction personnel of the immediate stop work procedures and other procedures to be followed if bones or other potential fossils are unearthed at the project site. Should new workers who will be involved in ground-disturbing construction activities begin employment after the initial training has occurred, the construction supervisor shall ensure that they receive the worker awareness training as described above.

The applicant shall complete a standard form/affidavit confirming the timing of the worker awareness training to the City. The affidavit shall confirm the project’s location, the date of training, the location of the informational handout display, and the number of participants. The affidavit shall be transmitted to the City within five business days of conducting the training.
 MM GEO-2: Halt Construction, Maintenance, or Landscaping Activity in Case of Finding Paleontological Resources, Evaluate Find, and Excavate Find. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activity, applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall cease all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery ceases until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is potentially significant, the project applicant shall ensure a qualified paleontologist shall excavate the find in compliance with state law, document the find, and arrange for curation at a depository, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the qualified Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2561, Packet Page 2889 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
paleontologist determines the find is not significant, then the project will continue without delay.

Through the conformance to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, the impact would be less than significant.
(g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Impact 3.8-4: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in development located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: There are no Superfund sites within the Planning Area. However, the northernmost parcel within the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area (APN 031-191-018-000, referred to as parcel E29.1) is part of a munitions response area where unexploded ordnances (UXO) have been discovered. The site has been cleared of UXO to a level that permits light industrial uses; however, residential use is restricted and additional remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control is required before the residential restriction can be removed.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Program 1-H in the proposed Housing Element would involve preparation of a specific plan to foster the creation of a mixed-use village within the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area 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 proposed Housing Element does not identify the parcel E29.1 as a site available for housing within the 2023-31 planning period; however, the General Plan land use diagram designates the parcel as a mixed-use neighborhood.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure adequate remediation in coordination with the U.S.

Army, U.S. EPA, and DTSC before development occurs.
 MM-HAZ-1: Remediation of Unexploded Ordnance at Fort Ord. Prior to issuance of a building permit for residential or mixed use development on APN 031-191-018-000 (referred to as parcel E29.1), the City shall require documentation demonstrating that soil and water on the parcel have been remediated consistent with the Residential Quality Assurance (RQA) process (or equal) and that the residential restriction has been removed by DTSC.

Through the conformance to federal and State regulations and adherence to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the impact would be less than significant.

The significance conclusion related to emergency evacuation in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the DEIR, which cross-referenced impact 3.15-1, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2562, Packet Page 2890 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
incorrectly stated the impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level, but it should have matched the discussion in 3.15-1 concluding that the impact is significant and unavoidable because of the need for increased capacity at highway interchanges to facilitate evacuation traffic and the fact that responsibility for interchange capacity improvements is not within the City’s jurisdiction. This change in significance disclosure is not based on any new information indicating the impact is worse; rather, it was a clerical error that only became apparent upon comparing the wildfire and hazards conclusions after the DEIR comment period closed.
(h) Public Services and Recreation; Impact 3.12-1: A dedicated fire station would be needed to serve the southeastern portion of the city. While the location and design of this facility cannot be known at this time, the construction of the facility could potentially result in environmental impacts.
(i) Facts in Support of Finding: Despite a steady increase in calls for service since 2016, MFD does not have plans to increase staffing or equipment levels over the next eight years. Current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be sufficient to handle the potential increase in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Proposed Plan.

However, fire and emergency medical response services are currently provided to the eastern portion of the city from Station 16, which is leased from the Monterey Airport District and it isn't well suited to provide increased services to that portion of Monterey.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: As such, a dedicated City-owned fire station would likely be needed to serve that area. While the location and design of this facility cannot be known at this time, the construction of the facility could potentially result in environmental impacts. Such impacts would not be reduced by General Plan policies and require further mitigation. (iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Implementation of Mitigation Measure PF-1 would reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the fire station to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, at a programmatic level, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.  MM-PF-1: City-Owned Fire Station. In parallel with preparation of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan pursuant to Program 1-H of the proposed Housing Element, the City shall:
o Identify in the southeastern part of Planning Area a location for the station that minimizes disruption to sensitive ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and natural resources;
o Require the use of stormwater management measures to control and treat stormwater runoff to prevent pollution and soil erosion during construction;
o Develop a plan for the proper handling, recycling, and disposal of construction waste to minimize the impact on local landfills and ecosystems;
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2563, Packet Page 2891 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
o Establish erosion control measures, which may include erosion control barriers, sediment traps, and other best management practices to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of nearby water bodies;
o Require measures to protect and preserve existing vegetation, including trees and native plants, during construction activities; o Implement best management practices to minimize noise and air pollution during construction, including dust and emissions control measures; and
o Require the use of fire-safe building materials and design features to limit the risk of damage or loss due to wildfire.

Through implementation of Mitigation Measure PF-1, the impact would be less than significant.
(i) Wildfire; Impact 3.15-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: In certain areas, including the 50-acre MPUSD site south of Highway 68 and in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch area, new and expanded road and utility infrastructure would be needed to support anticipated development.

Neither of these locations is within a Very High, High or Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, although the 50-acre MPUSD site and the southern portion of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch both abut VHFHSZs in the SRA. Nonetheless, the installation and operation of road and utility infrastructure could result in a potentially significant exacerbation of wildfire risk.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Compliance with existing State regulations, including Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Fire and Building Codes, would help reduce wildfire risks from new development. Additional Proposed Plan policies to help reduce infrastructurerelated wildfire risk include policies related to vegetation management, roadside fuel reduction, fuel breaks, water supply for fire suppression, and fire protection plans for new development. Implementation of these policies would reduce the potential for wildfire ignition from the operation of construction equipment or vehicles traveling on roadways in the area. Further, Chapter 18, Article 3 of the Monterey City Code allows for the City Council to designate underground utility districts when public necessity, health, or safety requires the removal of poles and overhead wires and associated overhead structures within designated areas of the city. Designating underground utility districts adjacent to the VHFHSZs in the SRA would reduce the potential for wildfire ignition from power lines; however, as such districts have not yet been designated in these areas, it cannot be said with certainty that new power lines would be installed underground, and impacts related to the installation or maintenance of electrical utility infrastructure would be potentially significant.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2564, Packet Page 2892 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Mitigation Measure MM-WF-2, which would involve the creation of an underground utility district to require the under grounding of electrical utility lines within portions of the Highway 68 Area Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Area adjacent to a VHFHSZ, is required.
 MM-WF-2: Underground Utility District. The City shall adopt an underground utility district applicable to areas within the Highway 68 Area Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Area that are identified on Map 3-14 Sites Available for Housing of the Housing Element and that are both adjacent to and within 1,000 linear feet of a VHFHSZ designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The underground utility district shall require that all new electrical poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures be installed underground in order to reduce wildfire risks and promote public safety.

As such, compliance with existing State and local regulations and implementation of Proposed Plan policies and mitigation Measure MM-WF-2 would reduce impacts related wildfire risks from the installation and operation of infrastructure to a less-than-significant level.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

28. Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091(a)(1) and 15092(b), the City determines that the following significant effects on the environment, as reflected in the EIR, and as mitigated as shown below, remain significant and unavoidable despite the fact that changes or alterations to the Project have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Further, the City finds that the following significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described below. The City also finds that further mitigation measures and a No Project Alternative that may reduce the significance of any of these impacts are rejected as infeasible for the reasons given below. (a) Agricultural Resources, Impact 3.2-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would involve other changes in the existing environment, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Monterey is located in an urbanized part of Monterey County and there are no active agricultural uses within the Planning Area. However, a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area is classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. Within this area classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land, the Highway 68 Area Plan identifies a 50-acre site owned by MPUSD as a potential location for 300 units of housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Map 3 (Land Use Map) in the existing City of Monterey General Plan designates the area as a Special Planning Area and it is currently zoned as a Planned Community (PC) District, given that it falls within the Highway 68 Area Plan Planning Area. Program 1-I of Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2565, Packet Page 2893 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
the proposed Housing Element would involve an update to the Highway 68 Plan that would permit the development of this parcel with up to 640 new housing units and neighborhood retail and services on a portion of the 50-acre site. (iii) Rationale and Conclusion: While the development of housing on the 50-acre site would be consistent with the Highway 68 Area Plan and while there are no active agricultural activities on the site today, this would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which is a potentially significant impact. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 is required.
 MM-AG-1: Offset Loss of Agricultural Land. Prior to approval of a development project which would convert land classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land to non-agricultural uses, the City shall require the project applicant to offset the loss of such land at a 1:1 ratio, either through the acquisition and dedication of comparable Farmland within Monterey County or through the acquisition and dedication of a conservation easement on comparable Farmland within Monterey County. Dedication of the land or conservation easement shall be to an open space trust or comparable entity acceptable to the City. Alternately, compliance with this mitigation measure may be achieved through participation in the Monterey County Agricultural Conservation Mitigation Program, if the project is eligible and if the program has been adopted by the time the need for mitigation occurs.

Nevertheless, Farmland is a finite and irreplaceable resource, and therefore not directly mitigatable. Even with the acquisition of comparable land or a conservation easement, the conversion of Grazing Land to non-agricultural uses would represent a permanent loss of such land. The Proposed Plan reflects a policy determination to allow a certain amount of growth to occur in the Planning Area, which necessitates conversion of Grazing Land to urban uses. Beyond limiting the area in which growth is permitted, there are no feasible mitigation measures for agricultural land conversion that would also fulfill the objectives of and implement the Proposed Plan. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (b) Air Quality, Impact 3.3-1: Development under the Proposed Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
(i) Facts in Support of Finding: The Proposed Plan’s operational emissions would exceed MBARD’s project-level significance thresholds for all pollutants except NOx. The increase in ROG and CO emissions is primarily attributed to energy consumption, while area source emissions, specifically on-road fugitive dust, account for nearly all PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: MBARD recommends site design measures to reduce individual projects’ energy demand and VMT, including solar or energy-efficient systems (lighting, heating, cooling, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2566, Packet Page 2894 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
appliances), incorporation of pedestrian facilities (paths/trails) into site design, provision of bicycle facilities (bike lockers, racks, paths/trails, showers and lockers), and inclusion of retail or service uses with commercial or industrial projects – all of which are features of the Proposed Plan (Housing Element Programs 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C and Circulation Element policies A.2, A.3, C.9, D.7, E.8, and G.8). Although the Proposed Plan would reduce the severity of growthoriented criteria pollutants, individual projects may still generate emissions exceeding the MBARD’s project-level thresholds. Accordingly, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with development under the Proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on air quality and mitigation would be required.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: As shown in Table 3.3-7, it is estimated that energy-source emissions of ROG and CO and area-source emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 may have significant impacts. MM-AQ-1 would require projects that exceed MBARD’s project emissions thresholds to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures (as necessary) and address project-level sources of criteria air pollutants.

Operational emissions would be reduced by MM-VMT-1 (see Section 3.13:

Transportation), substantially reducing on-road PM emissions, which are the largest source of Proposed Plan PM10 and PM2.5.
 MM-AQ-1: Project-Level Air Quality Analysis. The City shall require that applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall compare their project size with the MBARD screening sizes (Tables 5- 1, 5-2, and 5-3 in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) appropriate to their project for criteria air pollutants generated during constructions and operations. If the project is less than the screening sizes for the project type, then the project is not required to conduct a project-level analysis of operational and construction emissions, unless construction would involve:
o Demolition;
o Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously) or construction would occur simultaneous with other Proposed Plan development;
o Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development); o Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or
o Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

If the project-level analysis results in exceedances of MBARD construction Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2567, Packet Page 2895 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
thresholds, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 shall be implemented, as well as any project-specific measures. If the project’s emissions are reduced to levels below MBARD thresholds with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.  MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for Air Quality. The City shall require implementation of the following basic construction mitigation measures, as feasible, as a condition of approval of grading permits.

1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

13. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) shall also be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

However, even with these mitigation measures, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (c) Air Quality, Impact 3.3-2. Development under the Proposed Plan could conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: The Proposed Plan is broadly consistent with the policy objectives of the AQMP. The focus on mixed-use and infill development in land use and transportation policies as well as Housing Element policies and programs in the Proposed Plan would help reduce pollutant emissions in the Planning Area and support 2016 AQMP programs and control measures for attainment and maintenance of ozone NAAQS and CAAQS. Additionally, the Proposed Plan meets legal requirements to accommodate RHNA and would improve the jobs-to-housing balance by providing more housing near employment opportunities. However, because the magnitude of growth associated with buildout of the Proposed Plan exceeds the level of growth that is incorporated into the 2016 AQMP, ultimately resulting in a cumulative net increase in ozone precursors and PM, this impact is potentially significant.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: MBARD recommends site design measures to reduce individual projects’ energy demand and VMT, including solar or energy-efficient systems (lighting, heating, cooling, appliances), incorporation of pedestrian facilities (paths/trails) into site design, provision of bicycle facilities (bike lockers, racks, paths/trails, showers and lockers), and inclusion of retail or service uses with commercial or industrial projects – all of which are features of the Proposed Plan (Housing Element Programs 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C and Circulation Element policies A.2, A.3, C.9, D.7, E.8, and G.8). Although the Proposed Plan would reduce the severity of growthCouncil Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2569, Packet Page 2897 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
oriented criteria pollutants, individual projects may still generate emissions exceeding the MBARD’s project-level thresholds.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-4, in conjunction with any additional project-specific mitigation measures as needed under MM-AQ1, would help reduce project-generated emissions from construction and operation of the Proposed Plan.
 MM-AQ-1: Project-Level Air Quality Analysis. The City shall require that applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall compare their project size with the MBARD screening sizes (Tables 5- 1, 5-2, and 5-3 in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) appropriate to their project for criteria air pollutants generated during constructions and operations. If the project is less than the screening sizes for the project type, then the project is not required to conduct a project-level analysis of operational and construction emissions, unless construction would involve:
o Demolition;
o Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously) or construction would occur simultaneous with other Proposed Plan development;
o Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development); o Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or
o Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

If the project-level analysis results in exceedances of MBARD construction thresholds, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 shall be implemented, as well as any project-specific measures. If the project’s emissions are reduced to levels below MBARD thresholds with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.  MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for Air Quality. The City shall require implementation of the following basic construction mitigation measures, as feasible, as a condition of approval of grading permits.

1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2570, Packet Page 2898 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

However, because project-generated emissions could potentially lead to significant impacts that conflict with the 2016 AQMP, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(d) Air Quality, Impact 3.3-3: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Plan ultimately would result in the net new development of up to approximately 5,800 new housing units. The Proposed Plan is also expected to result in approximately 2,746,400 sf of research and development, 1,639,400 sf of retail, 344,100 sf of educational, 173,100 sf of public, 126,400 sf of industrial, and 56,200 sf of other business uses throughout the Planning Area but concentrated along existing commercial corridors and targeted growth areas, as encouraged by mixed-use and infill development policies. Such development would include area-wide sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and may also result in the installation or operation of new stationary sources of TACs (e.g., emergency generators). Additionally, traffic levels are expected to increase due to the Proposed Plan and would therefore exacerbate existing cumulative health risks. Both new and existing sensitive receptors near these stationary sources and roadways may therefore be exposed to substantial levels of criteria air pollutants or CO hot spots in addition to significant health risks from TACs.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to BACT requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant.

However, they may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PM concentrations, especially given the existing nonattainment status for PM10 and the expected increase in PM emissions due to the Proposed Plan. (iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ4 would reduce CO, diesel, and PM (exhaust and fugitive dust) emissions during construction activities. Even with these mitigation measures, the extent of the reductions from mitigation are unknown at this time. Therefore, health risks from emissions from construction activities could expose receptors to cancer and noncancer risks in excess of the MBARD significance thresholds and would be potentially significant. Even with the Proposed Plan’s policies and mitigation measures, emissions generated by new stationary sources and vehicle trips could expose sensitive receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks above MBARD’s significance thresholds. MM-AQ-1 is therefore required to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future projects Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2572, Packet Page 2900 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. MM-AQ-5 would reduce TAC and localized CO and PM exposure to future sensitive receptors but not for receptors at land uses that have already been constructed. Because risks associated with additional vehicle traffic are the result of personal transportation decisions, there is no feasible mitigation beyond MM-AQ-6 to address this impact. In addition, MMAQ-6 would not apply to existing sensitive receptors that are present before new construction or operational activity commences. Therefore, after mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
 MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for Air Quality. The City shall require implementation of the following basic construction mitigation measures, as feasible, as a condition of approval of grading permits.

1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

14. Limit the area under construction at any one time.
 MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4 Final Engines on Construction Equipment. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2573, Packet Page 2901 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
on at least an EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPAapproved Tier 3 engine. CARB regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years. Applicants must conduct recordkeeping of equipment verification documents for construction equipment and the City has the right to review equipment logs.  MM-AQ-4: Require 2010 Model Year Compliance of Diesel Truck Engines. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines, but no less than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year as set forth in the CARB’s EMFAC database. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that a good faith effort to locate such engines was conducted. Applicants must conduct recordkeeping of truck verification documents and the City has the right to review truck logs.  MM-AQ-5: Require Future Projects Proposing Stationary Sources of TACs Located within 1,000 Feet of Receptors to Perform a Health Risk Assessment. The City shall require that all applicants proposing development of projects that would involve the installation of stationary sources of TACs within the Planning Area and within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by the MBARD, shall prepare a site-specific health risk assessment (HRA). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than the MBARD project-level and cumulative-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed the project-level or cumulative-level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant in coordination with the City and shall implemented by the applicant to reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable in order to achieve levels below MBARD’s thresholds.  MM-AQ-6: Require Air Quality Equipment to Minimize Health Risks.

The City shall require that all applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area that includes new development of residential projects and other new land use developments which would site new sensitive receptors such as schools and daycares in commercial buildings and within 1,000 feet of road segments with an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of greater than 10,000 vehicles per day (based on the most current data from Caltrans’ Traffic Census Program), to install indoor air quality equipment, such as enhanced air filters (air filters rated at a minimum efficiency reporting value [MERV] 13 or higher) or equivalent mechanisms, to minimize health risks for future receptors.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2574, Packet Page 2902 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
(e) Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change, Impact 3.6-1: Development under the Proposed Plan would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: GHG emissions from operation of the Proposed Plan would result in a net increase compared to existing conditions, primarily attributed to mobile sources. Although emissions would decrease on a per capita basis, the increase in overall emissions would translate to a decrease in performance-based metrics such that it would conflict with both the City’s and the State’s target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030—a target year that is within the Proposed Plan’s planning period—as established in the City of Monterey CAP and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Despite this net increase, the Proposed Plan’s policies represent a suite of land use and building strategies that would reduce emissions from area sources, building energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. However, there is no guarantee that all voluntary sustainability features and practices will be incorporated into the designs and construction of all future developments to reach the maximum reductions possible. This is a potentially significant impact, particularly as new development will coincide with water service expansion and would continue to use natural gas for building heating and cooking, appliances, and woodstoves/fireplaces, and gasoline or other fossil fuels in landscaping equipment prior to and beyond 2030. The magnitude of water consumption, waste generation, and natural gas and gasoline use for energy and area sources within the Planning Area cannot be known at this time, and thus there is a possibility that such use of fossil fuels could be considered substantial.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Overall, the Proposed Plan includes policies that would reduce GHG impacts, in line with CARB and OPR guidance, but the magnitude of effect of such measures is unknown and therefore cannot be assumed to reduce the increase in operational emissions to a less-than-significant level.

Therefore, the Proposed Plan would have a significant impact, and the following mitigation measures would be required.
 MM-GHG-1: Update Climate Action Plan. Within 18 months of adoption of the Proposed Plan, the City shall update the City of Monterey Climate Action Plan to address changes in State GHG reduction goals, including SB 32, EO B-55-18, AB 1279, and the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and meet the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA.

The update shall incorporate specific, measurable GHG reduction strategies that address each emissions source sector, are prioritized by timeframe (i.e., 2030 for near term and 2045 for long term) and are assigned to a lead agency/organization for implementation. The CAP Update shall incorporate the most recent communitywide GHG Inventory and strategies that would achieve at least an additional two percent reduction by 2030 to ensure citywide target of 40 percent reduction. The Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2575, Packet Page 2903 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
CAP shall target top-contributing emissions sectors (especially the transportation sector, which represents more than 60 percent of operational emissions), such as by adapting CARB’s recommended key project attributes for VMT reduction into citywide programs. GHG reduction strategies to be considered shall include: prohibiting woodburning or natural gas fireplaces in new construction, making new construction solarready, and requiring new multifamily construction to exceed Title 24 electric vehicle charging station requirements by 15 percent. The CAP shall also incorporate a CEQA checklist to streamline project approval and encourage use of CARB’s recommended key project attributes that reduce GHGs (as included in the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan).
 MM-GHG-2: Construction Best Management Practices to Minimize GHGs. All applicants within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines):
o Ensure alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (A five-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [CCR, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site and develop an enforceable mechanism to monitor idling time to ensure compliance with this measure. o Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
o Require all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment should be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
o Where grid power is available, prohibit portable diesel engines and provide electrical hook ups for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
o Recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris, with a goal of recycling at least 15 percent more by weight than the diversion requirement in Title 24.
o Use locally sourced (within 100 miles of the Planning Area) or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 10 percent based on costs for building materials and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products used should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2576, Packet Page 2904 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
o Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control since substantial amounts of energy can be consumed during the pumping of water.

Although implementation of the mitigation measures above would help significantly reduce GHG emissions generated during construction and operation of the Proposed Plan and may achieve the citywide GHG reduction target (potentially revised in an updated CAP), without further State action, it is unlikely that local efforts alone would be sufficient to meet carbon neutrality by 2045 and thereby reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Moreover, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan indicates that carbon sequestration from natural and working lands will not be enough to attain carbon neutrality, and doing so will require research, development, and implementation of additional measures. CARB maintains authority to adopt regulations as necessary to meet future GHG targets under SB 32, EO S-3-05, EO B-55-18, and AB 1279, but the specific path to carbon neutrality is unknown and dependent on development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available; therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(f) Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change, Impact 3.6-2: Development under the Proposed Plan would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: Overall, the Proposed Plan would be consistent with policies and plans that encourage energy conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainability, as it would concentrate new development within the City limit on land previously identified for development and as it would improve the jobshousing ratio and promote walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, reducing per capita VMT and associated vehicle trips. However, implementation of the Proposed Plan could result in GHG emissions that exceed targets established in the City and State plans.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: While accommodating the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need for the 2023- 31 planning period is a legal requirement under State law, these exceedances nevertheless represent a conflict with plans, policies, and regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Implementation of MM-GHG-1 would require an update the City's CAP to incorporate additional measures to achieve at least an additional 2 percent reduction in GHG emissions with specific strategies targeted toward transportation-related emissions, which account for more than 60 percent of all GHG emission in the Planning Area. Implementation of MM-GHG-2 would require the use of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions from construction activities. Implementation of these measures would further reduce GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation; however, as the CAP Update has not yet been adopted it cannot be determined with certainty that the measures necessary to meet reduction targets will be implemented.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2577, Packet Page 2905 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
 MM-GHG-1: Update Climate Action Plan. Within 18 months of adoption of the Proposed Plan, the City shall update the City of Monterey Climate Action Plan to address changes in State GHG reduction goals, including SB 32, EO B-55-18, AB 1279, and the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and meet the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA.

The update shall incorporate specific, measurable GHG reduction strategies that address each emissions source sector, are prioritized by timeframe (i.e., 2030 for near term and 2045 for long term) and are assigned to a lead agency/organization for implementation. The CAP Update shall incorporate the most recent communitywide GHG Inventory and strategies that would achieve at least an additional two percent reduction by 2030 to ensure citywide target of 40 percent reduction. The CAP shall target top-contributing emissions sectors (especially the transportation sector, which represents more than 60 percent of operational emissions), such as by adapting CARB’s recommended key project attributes for VMT reduction into citywide programs. GHG reduction strategies to be considered shall include: prohibiting woodburning or natural gas fireplaces in new construction, making new construction solarready, and requiring new multifamily construction to exceed Title 24 electric vehicle charging station requirements by 15 percent. The CAP shall also incorporate a CEQA checklist to streamline project approval and encourage use of CARB’s recommended key project attributes that reduce GHGs (as included in the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan).
 MM-GHG-2: Construction Best Management Practices to Minimize GHGs. All applicants within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines):
o Ensure alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (A five-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [CCR, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site and develop an enforceable mechanism to monitor idling time to ensure compliance with this measure. o Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
o Require all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment should be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2578, Packet Page 2906 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
o Where grid power is available, prohibit portable diesel engines and provide electrical hook ups for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
o Recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris, with a goal of recycling at least 15 percent more by weight than the diversion requirement in Title 24.
o Use locally sourced (within 100 miles of the Planning Area) or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 10 percent based on costs for building materials and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products used should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
o Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control since substantial amounts of energy can be consumed during the pumping of water.

Therefore, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, impacts related to conflicts with plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Impact 3.8-6: Implementation of the Proposed Plan could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: An evacuation route capacity analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates for the Proposed Plan concluded that, on a systemwide basis, roadways in the planning area would have adequate capacity for an evacuation. Even so, the analysis concluded that under this multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont StreetHighway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. (ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The Proposed Plan also includes an array of policies that would enhance community preparedness and strengthen emergency response to wildfires which are listed above. Policies that specifically strengthen community wildfire preparedness include A.22 which disseminates fire weather information, A.24 through A.29 which require development standards in Very High FHSZs, A.30 through A.32 which require coordination with regional agencies for preparedness, and C.7 through C.12 which build community resilience to natural disasters through education. In addition, several Safety Element policies ensure effective emergency response to disasters and emergencies. Policies B.1 through B.3 require compliance with adopted emergency operation plans; policies B.4 and B.5 require coordination with Caltrans to protect and increase capacity of critical evacuation routes; policies B.6, B.7, B.11, and B.12 explore enhancing signage and building community awareness of evacuation routes; and policies B.8 through B.10 ensure sufficient road conditions Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2579, Packet Page 2907 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
and means of ingress and egress. These policies would support and enhance the implementation of the MJHMP, OEP, and CWPP.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Mitigation Measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.1
 MM-WF-1: Traffic Volume Mitigation. The following measures shall be implemented to increase capacity and improve vehicle flow at locations projected to have a high volume-to-capacity ratio in the event of an emergency evacuation:
o Mitigate congestion and delay at the interchanges of Fremont Street-Highway 1 and Soledad Drive-Highway 1 by temporarily widening highway ramps by placing traffic cones to indicate two lanes to accommodate a higher volume of evacuating vehicles. o Deploy adaptive traffic signal control systems that dynamically respond to real-time traffic conditions at the Fremont StreetHighway 1 interchange, giving priority to evacuation traffic and improving the efficiency of traffic flow during emergencies. (h) Transportation, Impact 3.13-2: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (i) Facts in Support of Finding: Residential land uses would not exceed the established threshold of significance for VMT for either the No Project or the Proposed Plan in 2031. However, employment-based VMT would exceed the established threshold for both scenarios and would require mitigation. (ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The following proposed Circulation Element policies would help to reduce employment-based VMT when implemented by non-residential developments subsequent to the 1 The significance conclusion related to emergency evacuation in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the the DEIR, which cross-referenced Impact 3.15-1, incorrectly stated that Impact 3.8-6 could be mitigated. Rather, it should have matched the discussion in Impact 3.15-1 concluding that the impact is significant and unavoidable because of the need for increased capacity at highway interchanges to facilitate evacuation traffic and the fact that responsibility for interchange capacity improvements is not within the City’s jurisdiction. This change in significance disclosure is not based on any new information indicating the impact is worse; rather, it was a clerical error that only became apparent upon comparing the wildfire and hazards conclusions after the DEIR comment period closed.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2580, Packet Page 2908 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
Proposed Plan: Policies a.10 and c.9 would require Proposed Plans to provide bicycle facilities, bicycle parking, storage and showers, or contribute to the cost of improvements, thereby providing end-of-trip bicycle facilities; Policy d.3, under which the City would increase pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations, and Policies d.4 and d.5 under which the City would prioritize ADA ramps, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk widenings, and other infrastructure, would provide pedestrian network improvements; Policies c.2, c.3, c.5, c.6 and c.8, under which the City would plan and construct new bicycle facilities and improve bicycle connectivity; Policies c.3, c.5, and c.6 would facilitate construction of new or improvement of existing bicycle boulevards; and Policy b.1, under which the City would create and maintain a system of complete streets, would result in transit-supportive roadway treatments. However, given that VMT/employee in 2031 under the Proposed Plan would exceed the threshold by nearly 30 percent, even after accounting for the VMT mitigation potential of Proposed Plan policies, work VMT per employee would still exceed the established threshold in 2031.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Therefore, Mitigation Measure VMT-1, under which the City would implement a Commute Trip Reduction Program applicable to businesses that employ 50 or more people in Monterey, is required. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measure VMT-1 can be expected to reduce work VMT per employee once implemented, the precise mix of incentives offered by employers cannot be known at this time:
 MM-VMT-1: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program. Within one year of adoption of the Proposed Plan, the City shall adopt an Employee Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program that establishes requirements for businesses employing 50 or more people in the City of Monterey to offer incentives and resources aimed at reducing the number and length of drivealone commutes to worksite(s). The CTR Program shall identify a range/menu of actions that employers may use to incentivize alternatives to single occupant vehicle commute trips, such as:
o Offering free or subsidized transit passes;
o Providing secure bike storage and lockers to encourage bicycle commuting;
o Allowing employees to work from home some or all of the time; o Offering vouchers, cash, or paid time-off incentives to employees who carpool, bike or walk to work;
o Providing priority parking for carpools and vanpools.

Therefore, this EIR conservatively assumes that the VMT reduction due to implementation of these strategies would not be adequate to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Accordingly, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (i) Utilities and Service Systems, Impact 3.14-1: Development under the Proposed Plan would have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Planning Area and Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2581, Packet Page 2909 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

While feasible measures to increase supply as needed have been identified, it cannot be said with certainty that supply will be available by 2030. As such, the impact remains significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared to assess whether the total projected water supplies available within the Cal-Am service area during average, single dry, and five-consecutive dry water year scenarios would meet the projected water demand from the Proposed Plan in combination with existing and planned future uses in the service area over a 30- year projection period. The currently available supply would not be sufficient to serve total projected demand in 2025; however, if anticipated future supply from the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project and the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant become available by 2030, total available supply would exceed demand in 2031.

A WSA prepared by Cal-AM concludes that the currently available water supply would not be sufficient to serve total projected demand in 2025, but that if future supply from the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project and the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant become available by 2030, total available supply would exceed demand in 2031. Additionally, while the MCWD 2020 UWMP projections do not fully account for the 2023-31 RHNA allocations of the communities served by MCWD, the MCWD 2020 UWMP identifies actions to increase future supply, including reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant and participation in Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project, which would deliver sufficient additional water supply to meet projected demand within the MCWD service area in 2031. In a letter to the City of Monterey dated March 8, 2024, MCWD confirmed this conclusion. (ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Program 2-K of the proposed Housing Element call for the City to continue to work with other jurisdictions and agencies to optimize the use of available supply in the short-term and to augment the existing water supply in the mid- to long-term by continuing to require as a condition of project approval that new development and remodels implement the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's Rule 142 Water Efficiency Standards, as applicable, in order to minimize the use of water; supporting efforts by regional water service providers to expand the water supply, including future supply from the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project and the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination Plant, anticipated to become available by 2030; and facilitating prioritization of adequate supply for affordable housing projects, in compliance with AB 1087. While Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver an additional 2,250 AFY of water to the Seaside Basin that would be available to Cal-Am customers, the project has not been proven to provide the full 2,250 AFY, particularly during dry years. A 2022 analysis determined that the expansion can be reasonably expected to provide 2,001 to 2,234 AFY during normal conditions and 0 to 1,100 AFY during drought conditions. Further, funding for the Ocean Desalination Plant has not yet been identified and construction has not yet begun.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2582, Packet Page 2910 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
As such, it cannot be said with certainty that the plant will be operational by 2030 as envisioned. No other feasible sources of additional water supply have been identified. Additionally, while the additional sources of supply identified in the MCWD 2020 UWMP could deliver sufficient water to meet projected demand from the Proposed Plan, MCWD does not currently have funding in place to reactivate the pilot seawater desalination plant or to procure additional supply from Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. No other feasible sources of additional water supply have been identified.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: While implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce water demand resulting from implementation of the Proposed Plan to the extent feasible, compliance with these standards alone would not be sufficient to offset the anticipated supply shortfall under average, single dry year, or multiple dry year scenarios and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation.

In addition, Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, involving actions to expand MCWD supply, is required. However, while these additional sources of supply could deliver sufficient water to meet projected demand from the Proposed Plan, MCWD does not currently have a plan or funding in place to reactivate the pilot seawater desalination plant or procure additional supply from Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. No other feasible sources of additional water supply have been identified. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
 MM-UTIL-1: Water Efficiency Measures for New Development and Remodels. New development and remodels in the Planning Area shall be required as a condition of project approval to implement the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's Rule 142 Water Efficiency Standards, as applicable, in order to minimize the use of water. For reference, Rule 142 Water Efficiency Standards are included in Appendix H to this Draft EIR.
 MM-UTIL-2: Expand MCWD Sources of Supply. MCWD shall implement measures to increase sources of water supply, including reactivation of the pilot seawater desalination plant and Indirect Potable Reuse of advanced treated water from the Pure Water Monterey project. The measures shall be sufficient to generate at least an additional 235 AFY by 2030, as needed to support new development within the City of Monterey that will be served by MCWD.
(j) Utilities and Service Systems, Impact 3.14-2: Development under the Proposed Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
(i) Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Proposed Plan would also require the construction and extension of public sewer and stormwater conveyance Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2583, Packet Page 2911 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
infrastructure to areas not currently served by existing facilities, including the 50- acre MPUSD site in the Highway 68 Plan area and portions of Fort Ord.

Construction or expansion of infrastructure to these areas could potentially result in environmental impacts.
(ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: Construction period impacts are analyzed at a programmatic level throughout this Draft EIR.

While construction period impacts related to soil erosion and noise can be mitigated to a less than significant level, construction period impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy and greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.
(iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Therefore, in conclusion, impacts associated with the relocation, construction, or expansion of regional utility infrastructure would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated; however, impacts associated with construction period impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy and greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.
 MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for Air Quality. The City shall require implementation of the following basic construction mitigation measures, as feasible, as a condition of approval of grading permits.

1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

13. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2584, Packet Page 2912 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) shall also be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

3.4-1 and 3.4-2, project applicants proposing development on sites with the potential for special-status species to occur shall engage a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting surveys for subject species in Monterey County to conduct field surveys within work areas and the immediately adjacent areas to determine the presence of habitat for specialstatus plant and wildlife species. The field surveys are to be conducted when special-status species that could occur in the area are evident and identifiable, generally during the blooming or breeding period. For specialstatus plants, field surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.” One or more surveys shall be conducted as needed to account for different special-status species identification periods. The results of field surveys shall be summarized in an accompanying report documenting all proposed work Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2585, Packet Page 2913 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
areas and the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by development. Additionally, the report shall outline where species and/or habitat-specific mitigation measures (as required under Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-12) are required. This report will provide the basis for any applicable permit applications and consultations with regulatory agencies where incidental take may occur.  MM-BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program. If it is established pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 that special status species occur on the site, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, and for the duration of construction activities, the project proponent shall demonstrate that it has in place a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for all construction workers at the project site. All construction workers shall attend the Program prior to participating in construction activities. The Program shall be developed and conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in Monterey County.

The training may be presented in video form. The Program shall include:
● Information on the life history of wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during construction activities and legal protection status of each species;
● The definition of “take” under the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act;
● Measures the project proponent/operator is implementing to protect the species; and
● Specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid take of wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act.  MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.
 MM-GHG-2: Construction Best Management Practices to Minimize GHGs. All applicants within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines):
o Ensure alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2586, Packet Page 2914 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (A five-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [CCR, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site and develop an enforceable mechanism to monitor idling time to ensure compliance with this measure. o Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
o Require all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment should be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
o Where grid power is available, prohibit portable diesel engines and provide electrical hook ups for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
o Recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris, with a goal of recycling at least 15 percent more by weight than the diversion requirement in Title 24.
o Use locally sourced (within 100 miles of the Planning Area) or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 10 percent based on costs for building materials and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products used should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
o Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control since substantial amounts of energy can be consumed during the pumping of water.
(k) Wildfire, Impact 3.15-1: Implementation of the Proposed Plan could substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (i) Facts in Support of Finding: An evacuation route capacity analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates for the Proposed Plan concluded that, on a systemwide basis, roadways in the planning area would have adequate capacity for an evacuation. Even so, the analysis concluded that under this multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network: the interchange of Fremont StreetHighway 1, where the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) would be 1.2, and at the Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approach, where the v/c ratio would be 1.1. (ii) Effects of Proposed Plan Policies and Remaining Impacts: The Proposed Plan also includes an array of policies that would enhance community preparedness and strengthen emergency response to wildfires which are listed above. Policies that specifically strengthen community wildfire preparedness include the following Safety Element Policies: A.22 which disseminates fire weather information, A.24 through A.29 which require development standards in Very High FHSZs, A.30 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2587, Packet Page 2915 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
through A.32 which require coordination with regional agencies for preparedness, and C.7 through C.12 which build community resilience to natural disasters through education. In addition, several other Safety Element policies ensure effective emergency response to disasters and emergencies. Policies B.1 through B.3 require compliance with adopted emergency operation plans; policies B.4 and B.5 require coordination with Caltrans to protect and increase capacity of critical evacuation routes; policies B.6, B.7, B.11, and B.12 explore enhancing signage and building community awareness of evacuation routes; and policies B.8 through B.10 ensure sufficient road conditions and means of ingress and egress. These policies would support and enhance the implementation of the MJHMP, OEP, and CWPP. (iii) Rationale and Conclusion: Mitigation Measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
 MM-WF-1: Traffic Volume Mitigation. The following measures shall be implemented to increase capacity and improve vehicle flow at locations projected to have a high volume-to-capacity ratio in the event of an emergency evacuation:
o Mitigate congestion and delay at the interchanges of Fremont Street-Highway 1 and Soledad Drive-Highway 1 by temporarily widening highway ramps by placing traffic cones to indicate two lanes to accommodate a higher volume of evacuating vehicles. o Deploy adaptive traffic signal control systems that dynamically respond to real-time traffic conditions at the Fremont StreetHighway 1 interchange, giving priority to evacuation traffic and improving the efficiency of traffic flow during emergencies.

IX. FINDINGS REGARDING PLAN ALTERNATIVES

29. The City adopts the EIR’s environmental analysis and impact conclusions with respect to all of the alternatives discussed as supplemented by the findings below.

30. The three alternatives analyzed in the EIR represent a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that reduce one or more significant impacts of the Plan. These alternatives include the (1) No Project Alternative; (2) the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative; and (3) the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative. The Increased Workforce Housing Alternative was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the reasons stated in the EIR.

31. The City certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the City's Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2588, Packet Page 2916 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
independent judgment as to the Plan alternatives. The City finds that the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative and the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would not meet the project objectives as well as the Proposed Plan, as described below. The No Project Alternative described and evaluated in the EIR is rejected as infeasible for the reasons stated in the EIR and for the reasons described below. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis for a determination of feasibility and, when the reasons are viewed collectively, provide an overall basis for determination.

32. No Project Alternative: The No Project Alternative represents what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Proposed Plan were not adopted and the City’s current 2005 General Plan, including the 2015-2013 Housing Element, was left unchanged and in use. This Alternative would retain all current land use designations and policies from the 2005 General Plan as amended to date. There would be no changes to the current General Plan Land Use map, no new Mixed Use Neighborhood land use designation, and no new Airport Compatibility Overlay.

Strategies outlined in the Proposed Plan to facilitate and incentivize housing development as needed to meet the City's assessed share of the regional housing need would not be implemented and policies related to land use, safety, and circulation would also remain unchanged.
 Growth under the No Project Alternative (Current 2005 City General Plan) is projected to result in approximately 991 new residents, 511 new housing units, and 1,991 new jobs in Monterey by 2031. For the 2015-23 Housing Element Cycle, the City has a total RHNA allocation of 650 units, of which 139 were permitted or constructed. Accordingly, this Alternative assumes buildout of the City's remaining RHNA allocation pursuant to the adopted Fifth Cycle Housing Element. Additionally, this option assumes that Fort Ord will be constructed with industrial (employment) uses and the Highway 68 Corridor would be developed in compliance with the voter approved Highway 68 Area Plan. The Highway 68 Area Plan assumes residential and commercial development, including a school, 300 below market rate housing units and parks/open space uses on the 50-acre MPUSD site.
 Findings and Supporting Facts: For the No Project Alternative, eight impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, six impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 52 impacts were expected to be less than significant. However, adoption of the No Project Alternative is determined to be infeasible as it would not achieve the basic project objectives and would not permit the City to comply with its RHNA obligations as established in State law.

33. Relocated Housing Growth Alternative. The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative is designed to avoid significant environmental impacts related to development at Fort Ord, including a significant and unavoidable impact related to the availability of water supply from the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) as well as impacts related to biological resources and hazardous materials that can be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2589, Packet Page 2917 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
 Under this Alternative, a mixed-use neighborhood integrating 1,660 new homes together with jobs, schools, shops, services and recreational amenities and natural open space at Fort Ord would not be planned and constructed. Instead, the Alternative would involve development of employment-related uses at Fort Ord as envisioned in the 2005 General Plan, while housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors, including North Fremont Street, Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, Garden Road, Pacific Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Abrego Street. To accommodate this additional housing growth, permitted density along the commercial corridors would be increased to 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum building height would be raised to 5 stories. Development of the 50-acre MPUSD site in the Highway 68 Plan area would proceed as with the Proposed Plan, the new Airport Compatibility Overlay would be adopted, and policies related to land use, safety, and circulation would be updated to address new State law and emerging issues, as with the Proposed Plan. Overall, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative is projected to result in approximately 8,115 new residents, 4,183 housing units, and 1,991 new jobs in Monterey by 2031.
 Findings and Supporting Facts: For the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, 11 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, nine impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 46 impacts were expected to be less than significant. The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative also has nominally reduced the number of impacts compared to the Proposed Plan, although the already significant and unavoidable impact on water supply would be made worse. While the Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable water supply impacts for the MCWD service area, it would instead concentrate more development in the Cal-Am service area, which could exacerbate water supply impacts. This Alternative also would not meet the City’s RHNA obligations because it does not demonstrate adequate capacity to meet Moderate Income RHNA and because it assumes development of housing to meet the needs of low and very low income households that do not meet the criteria established in State law, including that they be of adequate size, and have appropriate development standards as needed to facilitate the development of a variety of housing products suitable for all income levels. Further, the parcel-based projections upon which is based assume that individual parcels will be built to the maximum density permitted under City zoning regulations and as such do not represent a realistic projection of capacity based on past performance as required under Government Code Section 65583.2(c). Additionally, this Alternative would not support local economic vitality to the same extent as the Proposed Plan because it would not result in as many new housing units or locate new housing in proximity to the important concentration of jobs at Ryan Ranch.

34. Increased Workforce Housing Alternative. The Increased Workforce Housing Alternative is designed to address significant and unavoidable impacts related to employment vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the loss of agricultural grazing land Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2590, Packet Page 2918 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
within the Highway 68 Plan area. While per capita VMT would improve significantly under the Proposed Plan, robust employment growth would mean that a large number of people - many of them low wage earners employed in the hospitality and tourism sectors - would continue to commute into the Planning Area for work each day, resulting in a significant employment VMT impact. Therefore, this Alternative would involve land use and zoning changes to further increase workforce housing development in proximity to job centers and achieve an equal number of jobs and housing units in Monterey in 2031.
 Specifically, this Alternative would replace office and visitor-serving uses with high density housing in the following locations: Downtown, Cannery Row, Lighthouse Avenue, North Fremont Street, Pacific Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Abrego Street. Additionally, it would transform Del Monte Avenue into a high-density residential corridor, and reduce projected job growth at Fort Ord while also increasing multifamily housing at Fort Ord adjacent to the Ryan Ranch Business Park, a major employment center within the Planning Area.

Under this Alternative, development of the 50-acre MPUSD site and other housing development envisioned under the Highway 68 Area Plan would not proceed and grazing land would remain in its current state; however, the new Airport Compatibility Overlay would be adopted, and policies related to land use, safety, and circulation would be adopted to address new State laws and emerging issues, as with the Proposed Plan. Overall, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative is projected to result in approximately 19,070 new residents, 9,830 housing units, and 921 new jobs in Monterey by 2031.  Findings and Supporting Facts: For the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, 10 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, 10 impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 46 impacts were expected to be less than significant. Since the CEQA Guidelines require another environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative to be identified, the City determined the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative.

This is because it avoids the Proposed Plan’s significant and unavoidable impact pertaining to agricultural resources and reduces the severity of significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. However, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would not meet all the project objectives. While it would support most of the project objectives, including those related to housing production, fair housing access, and addressing the needs of disadvantaged segments of the population, it would not comply with RHNA obligations because its projections for housing development on individual sites far exceeds past performance in the City of Monterey and surrounding jurisdictions and as such do not represent a realistic projection of capacity based on past performance as required under Government Code Section 65583.2(c).

XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2591, Packet Page 2919 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A

35. The City of Monterey has: (1) independently reviewed the information in the EIR and the record of proceedings; (2) made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially lessen the impacts resulting from the Proposed Plan to the extent feasible by including in it policies and actions that effectively mitigate potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) balanced the Proposed Plan’s benefits against its significant unavoidable impacts.

36. The City also finds that the No Project Alternative, Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, and the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative discussed in the EIR should not be adopted because they would not meet the project objectives as well as the Proposed Plan, amongst other reasons, because they would not meet requirements established in State law for the Housing Element. The City finds that the Proposed Plan most fully implements the objectives of ensuring adequate capacity for development of housing to meet State mandated RHNA requirements, promoting housing affordability and production in the community, addressing risks from natural and humanmade hazards, and promoting sustainability and energy efficiency.

37. The City Council declares that it has adopted mitigation measures to reduce the Proposed Plan’s environmental impacts to the extent feasible; considered the entire administrative record, including the Final EIR; and weighed the Proposed Plan’s benefits against its environmental impacts. After doing so, the City Council has determined that the Proposed Plan’s benefits outweigh its environmental impacts and deem them acceptable.

38. The City Council identified the following public benefits in making this determination.

Each of these public benefits serves as an independent basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these Findings and the Final EIR. The City Council considers these impacts to be acceptable, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

1. The Proposed Plan promotes development in a manner that would accommodate anticipated population growth for the City and existing unmet need for housing, as required by the City's 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation and in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments' Final 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: 2023 - 2031 of October 2022.

2. The Proposed Plan complies with State Housing Element requirements, and adoption of the Proposed Plan would ensure the City achieves Housing Element compliance. Jurisdictions that fail to adopt a compliant Housing Element by the statutory deadline face potential loss of eligibility for certain state and federal funding programs for affordable housing in addition to other penalties that may be imposed by a court or potentially under the Housing Accountability Act (GC Section 65589.5(d)), such as potential limiting of some of the City's land use authority.

3. The Proposed Plan complies with Assembly Bill (AB) 686, which requires that the City's Housing Element affirmatively furthers fair housing. Programs in the Housing Element are designed to disseminate fair housing information and respond to fair housing complaints. In addition, programs address zoning for transitional and supportive housing in order to provide housing for special needs populations.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2592, Packet Page 2920 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A

4. The Proposed Plan is consistent with the goals of SB 375 and Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045, given the Proposed Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally.

5. The Proposed Plan responds to the regional housing and homelessness crisis and the corresponding increasing cost of housing in the region by providing a comprehensive eight-year strategy to meet the City's housing needs through the build-out of the RHNA. The Proposed Plan incorporates goals, policies, and programs that promote the creation of an ample supply of housing, in particular affordable housing, provides greater housing stability for households of all income levels, and commits to housing and other supportive options for the homeless.

6. The Proposed Plan complies with Senate Bill (SB) 379 which requires all cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety elements of their general plans. Policies in the Safety Element incorporate strategies to minimize loss and damage due to geologic, wildfire, flooding, and other potential hazards that are exacerbated by climate change.

7. The Monterey 2031 General Plan Update is the product of comprehensive public planning efforts, comprised of the public, staff, the City Council, and results in a thoughtful approach to addressing the community’s needs.

XII. CONCLUSION

39. In summary, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Proposed Plan, the City of Monterey finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified may be considered “acceptable” due to the specific considerations listed above, individually or collectively, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan.

40. The City of Monterey has considered information contained in the EIR prepared for the Plan as well as the public testimony and record of proceedings in which the Plan was considered. Recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources; air quality; energy, greenhouse gases, and climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; transportation; utilities and service systems; and wildfire may result from implementation of the Proposed Plan, the City finds that the benefits of the Proposed Plan and overriding considerations outweigh the potential adverse effects. Having included all feasible mitigation measures in the EIR or as policies and actions in the Proposed Plan, and recognized all unavoidable significant impacts, the City of Monterey hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the Proposed Plan, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants adoption of the Proposed Plan and outweighs and overrides its unavoidable significant effects, and thereby justifies the adoption of the Proposed Plan.

41. In reaching this conclusion and approving the Proposed Plan:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2593, Packet Page 2921 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
 The City has considered the information contained in the Final EIR and fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The City Council specifically finds and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon and supported by substantial evidence in the record.  The City has carefully weighed the benefits of the Proposed Plan against any adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. While the City has required all feasible mitigation measures, some impacts remain potentially significant.
 This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be potentially significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Final EIR and the record of these proceedings.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2594, Packet Page 2922 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
for the
CITY OF MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
SCH No. 2023080034
City of Monterey
June 18, 2024
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2595, Packet Page 2923 ATTACHMENT 2 / EXHIBIT A
This page intentionally left blank.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2596, Packet Page 2924 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1 Purpose
State of California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1) requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City of Monterey (the "City") is the lead agency for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan Update (SCH No. 2023080034), hereafter referred to as “Proposed Plan,” and therefore is responsible for the adoption and implementation of the required mitigation monitoring and reporting program. An EIR has been prepared for the Proposed Plan that addresses potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts.

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1). It is the intent of this program to:

1. Verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the EIR;

2. Provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation;

3. Provide a record of the monitoring program;

4. Identify monitoring responsibility;

5. Establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures;

6. Establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and

7. Utilize existing review processes wherever feasible.

The MMRP describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the Proposed Plan and the methods of monitoring such actions. A monitoring program is necessary only for impacts which would be significant if not mitigated.

If, during the course of project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall immediately inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the project is required, and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate.

The following consists of a monitoring program table noting the responsible entity for mitigation monitoring, the timing, and a list of all project-related mitigation measures.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2597, Packet Page 2925 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2 This page intentionally left blank.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2598, Packet Page 2926 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impact Mitigation
Measure
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsibility for
Verification
Verification
Complete
Date Initial

3.2 Agricultural Resources

3.2-3
Implementation could
result in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use.

MM-AG-1: Offset Loss of
Agricultural Land. Prior to
approval of a development project
which would convert land
classified by the FMMP as Grazing
Land to non-agricultural uses, the
City shall require the project
applicant to offset the loss of such
land at a 1:1 ratio, either through
the acquisition and dedication of
comparable Farmland within
Monterey County or through the
acquisition and dedication of a
conservation easement on
comparable Farmland within
Monterey County. Dedication of
the land or conservation easement
shall be to an open space trust or
comparable entity acceptable to
the City. Alternately, compliance
Submittal of
documentation that
demonstrates an offset of
the loss of Grazing Land,
either through the
acquisition and
dedication of comparable
Farmland within
Monterey County or
through the acquisition
and dedication of a
conservation easement
on comparable Farmland
within Monterey County.

Prior to project
approval.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2599, Packet Page 2927 4 with this mitigation measure may
be achieved through participation
in the Monterey County
Agricultural Conservation
Mitigation Program, if the project
is eligible and if the program has
been adopted by the time the
need for mitigation occurs.

3.3 Air Quality

3.3-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of criteria pollutants for
which the Project region is
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality
standard.

MM-AQ-1: Project-Level Air Quality
Analysis. The City shall require that
applicants proposing development of
projects within the Planning Area
shall compare their project size with
the MBARD screening sizes (Tables 5-
1, 5-2, and 5-3 in the CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines) appropriate to their
project for criteria air pollutants
generated during constructions and
operations. If the project is less than
the screening sizes for the project
type, then the project is not required
to conduct a project-level analysis of
operational and construction
emissions, unless construction would
involve:
 Demolition;
 Simultaneous occurrence of
more than two construction
phases (e.g., paving and
building construction would
occur simultaneously) or
construction would occur
Submittal of project-level
air quality analysis for
criteria air pollutants
generated during
constructions and
operations, including
mitigation measures as
needed for projects not
meeting screening
criteria.

Prior to
issuance of a
construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2600, Packet Page 2928 5 simultaneous with other
Proposed Plan development;
 Simultaneous construction of
more than one land use type
(e.g., project would develop
residential and commercial
uses on the same site) (not
applicable to high density infill
development);
 Extensive site preparation (i.e.,
greater than default
assumptions used by the
CalEEMod model for grading,
cut/fill, or earth movement); or
 Extensive material transport
(e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic
yards of soil import/export)
requiring a considerable
amount of haul truck activity.

Projects that exceed the screening
sizes or include the above
activities would be required to
evaluate the project’s emissions
and compare them to MBARD
daily thresholds for construction
and/or operation, as applicable. If
the project-level analysis results in
exceedances of MBARD
construction thresholds, MM AQ-2
through MM AQ-4 shall be
implemented, as well as any
project-specific measures. If the
project’s emissions are reduced to
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2601, Packet Page 2929 6 levels below MBARD thresholds
with implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures, impacts
would be less than significant.

MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures
for Air Quality. The City shall
require implementation of the
following basic construction
mitigation measures, as feasible, as
a condition of approval of grading
permits.

1. Water all active construction
sites at least twice daily.

Frequency should be based on
the type of operation, soil, and
wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities
during periods of high wind
(over 15 miles per hour).

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers
on inactive construction areas
(disturbed lands within
construction projects that are
unused for at least four
consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g.,
latex acrylic copolymer) to
exposed areas after cut and fill
operations and hydro seed
area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.

Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2602, Packet Page 2930 7 6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the
windward perimeter of
construction projects if
adjacent to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover
in disturbed areas as soon as
possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the
entrance to construction sites
for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction
sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil
material is carried out from the
construction site.

13. Post a publicly visible sign with
the telephone number and
person to contact regarding
dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take
corrective action within 48
hours. The phone number of
Monterey Bay Air Resources
District (MBARD) shall also be
visible to ensure compliance
with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

14. Limit the area under
construction at any one time.

3.3-1 MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4 Submittal of Prior to issuance Building and Safety Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2603, Packet Page 2931 8 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of criteria pollutants for
which the Project region is
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality
standard.

Final Engines on Construction
Equipment. All applicants
proposing development of projects
within the Planning Area shall
require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related exhaust
emissions by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the
entire duration of construction
activities shall operate on at least
an EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or
newer engine. Exemptions can be
made for specialized equipment
where Tier 4 engines are not
commercially available within 200
miles of the project site. The
construction contract must
identify these pieces of
equipment, document their
unavailability, and ensure that
they operate on no less than an
EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. CARB
regulations will result in the
percentage of Tier 4 engines
increasing over the next several
years. Applicants must conduct
recordkeeping of equipment
verification documents for
construction equipment and the
City has the right to review
equipment logs.
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Visual inspection of the
construction site to verify
that construction
activities comply with the
measures.
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2604, Packet Page 2932 9 3.3-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of criteria pollutants for
which the Project region is
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality
standard.

MM-AQ-4: Require 2010 Model
Year Compliance of Diesel Truck
Engines. All applicants proposing
development of projects within
the Planning Area shall require
their contractors, as a condition of
contract, to use diesel trucks that
have 2010 model year or newer
engines, but no less than the
average fleet mix for the current
calendar year as set forth in the
CARB’s EMFAC database. In the
event that 2010 model year or
newer diesel trucks cannot be
obtained, the contractor must
provide documentation to the City
showing that a good faith effort to
locate such engines was
conducted. Applicants must
conduct recordkeeping of truck
verification documents and the
City has the right to review truck
logs.

Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Visual inspection of the
construction site to verify
that construction
activities comply with the
measures.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

Building and Safety
Division

3.3-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
conflict with or obstruct
the implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

Prior to
issuance of a
construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2605, Packet Page 2933 10 the screening sizes for the project
type, then the project is not required
to conduct a project-level analysis of
operational and construction
emissions, unless construction would
involve:
 Demolition;
 Simultaneous occurrence of
more than two construction
phases (e.g., paving and
building construction would
occur simultaneously) or
construction would occur
simultaneous with other
Proposed Plan development;
 Simultaneous construction of
more than one land use type
(e.g., project would develop
residential and commercial
uses on the same site) (not
applicable to high density infill
development);
 Extensive site preparation (i.e.,
greater than default
assumptions used by the
CalEEMod model for grading,
cut/fill, or earth movement); or
 Extensive material transport
(e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic
yards of soil import/export)
requiring a considerable
amount of haul truck activity.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2606, Packet Page 2934 11 Projects that exceed the screening
sizes or include the above
activities would be required to
evaluate the project’s emissions
and compare them to MBARD
daily thresholds for construction
and/or operation, as applicable. If
the project-level analysis results in
exceedances of MBARD
construction thresholds, MM AQ-2
through MM AQ-4 shall be
implemented, as well as any
project-specific measures. If the
project’s emissions are reduced to
levels below MBARD thresholds
with implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures, impacts
would be less than significant.

3.3-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
conflict with or obstruct
the implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

1. Water all active construction
sites at least twice daily.

Frequency should be based on
the type of operation, soil, and
wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities
during periods of high wind
(over 15 miles per hour).

Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2607, Packet Page 2935 12 3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers
on inactive construction areas
(disturbed lands within
construction projects that are
unused for at least four
consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g.,
latex acrylic copolymer) to
exposed areas after cut and fill
operations and hydro seed
area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the
windward perimeter of
construction projects if
adjacent to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover
in disturbed areas as soon as
possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the
entrance to construction sites
for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction
sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil
material is carried out from the
construction site.

13. Post a publicly visible sign with
the telephone number and
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2608, Packet Page 2936 13 person to contact regarding
dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take
corrective action within 48
hours. The phone number of
Monterey Bay Air Resources
District (MBARD) shall also be
visible to ensure compliance
with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

14. Limit the area under
construction at any one time.

3.3-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
conflict with or obstruct
the implementation of
the applicable air quality
plan.

MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4
Final Engines on Construction
Equipment. All applicants
proposing development of projects
within the Planning Area shall
require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related exhaust
emissions by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the
entire duration of construction
activities shall operate on at least
an EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or
newer engine. Exemptions can be
made for specialized equipment
where Tier 4 engines are not
commercially available within 200
miles of the project site. The
construction contract must
identify these pieces of
Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2609, Packet Page 2937 14 equipment, document their
unavailability, and ensure that
they operate on no less than an
EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. CARB
regulations will result in the
percentage of Tier 4 engines
increasing over the next several
years. Applicants must conduct
recordkeeping of equipment
verification documents for
construction equipment and the
City has the right to review
equipment logs.

3.3-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
conflict with or obstruct
the implementation of
the applicable air quality
plan.

Visual inspection of the
construction site to verify
that construction
activities comply with the
measures.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2610, Packet Page 2938 15 City has the right to review truck
logs.

3.3-3
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

1. Water all active construction
sites at least twice daily.

Frequency should be based on
the type of operation, soil, and
wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities
during periods of high wind
(over 15 miles per hour).

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers
on inactive construction areas
(disturbed lands within
construction projects that are
unused for at least four
consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g.,
latex acrylic copolymer) to
exposed areas after cut and fill
operations and hydro seed area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, or loose materials.

Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2611, Packet Page 2939 16 7. Plant tree windbreaks on the
windward perimeter of
construction projects if adjacent
to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover in
disturbed areas as soon as
possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the
entrance to construction sites
for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction
sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil
material is carried out from the
construction site.

13. Post a publicly visible sign with
the telephone number and
person to contact regarding
dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take
corrective action within 48
hours. The phone number of
Monterey Bay Air Resources
District (MBARD) shall also be
visible to ensure compliance
with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

14. Limit the area under
construction at any one time.

3.3-3 MM-AQ-3: Require at
Least Tier 4 Final Engines
on Construction
Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating
Prior to
issuance of a
construction
Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2612, Packet Page 2940 17 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

Equipment. All applicants
proposing development of
projects within the
Planning Area shall require
their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to
reduce constructionrelated exhaust emissions
by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater
than 50 horsepower (hp)
and operating for more
than 20 total hours over
the entire duration of
construction activities
shall operate on at least
an EPA-approved Tier 4
Final or newer engine.

Exemptions can be made
for specialized equipment
where Tier 4 engines are
not commercially available
within 200 miles of the
project site. The
construction contract
must identify these pieces
of equipment, document
their unavailability, and
ensure that they operate
on no less than an EPAapproved Tier 3 engine.

CARB regulations will
result in the percentage of
Tier 4 engines increasing
over the next several
inclusion of
requirements in
construction
contractor
specifications.
permit.

As needed
during
demolition
and
construction.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2613, Packet Page 2941 18 years. Applicants must
conduct recordkeeping of
equipment verification
documents for
construction equipment
and the City has the right
to review equipment logs.

3.3-3
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

Submittal of construction
documents that note that
all construction activities
shall use diesel trucks
that have 2010 model
year or newer engines.

Visual inspection of the
construction site to verify
that construction activities
comply with the measures.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

Building and Safety
Division

3.3-3
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
expose sensitive receptors
MM-AQ-5: Require Future
Projects Proposing Stationary
Sources of TACs Located within
1,000 Feet of Receptors to
Submittal of a sitespecific health risk
assessment (HRA),
including mitigation
Prior to issuance
of building
permits.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2614, Packet Page 2942 19 to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

Perform a Health Risk
Assessment. The City shall require
that all applicants proposing
development of projects that
would involve the installation of
stationary sources of TACs within
the Planning Area and within 1,000
feet of existing sensitive receptors,
as defined by the MBARD, shall
prepare a site-specific health risk
assessment (HRA). If the HRA
demonstrates, to the satisfaction
of the City, that the health risk
exposures for adjacent receptors
will be less than the MBARD
project-level and cumulative-level
thresholds, then additional
mitigation would be unnecessary.

However, if the HRA demonstrates
that health risks would exceed the
project-level or cumulative-level
thresholds, additional feasible onand off-site mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant in
coordination with the City and
shall implemented by the
applicant to reduce risks to the
greatest extent practicable in
order to achieve levels below
MBARD’s thresholds.
measures as needed for
projects that exceed
MBARD thresholds.

3.3-3
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
expose sensitive receptors
MM-AQ-6: Require Air Quality
Equipment to Minimize Health
Risks. The City shall require that all
applicants proposing development
of projects within the Planning
Submittal of plans for
building permit approval
that note the installation
Prior to issuance
of building
permits.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2615, Packet Page 2943 20 to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

Area that includes new
development of residential
projects and other new land use
developments which would site
new sensitive receptors such as
schools and daycares in
commercial buildings and within
1,000 feet of road segments with
an annual average daily traffic
(AADT) count of greater than
10,000 vehicles per day (based on
the most current data from
Caltrans’ Traffic Census Program),
to install indoor air quality
equipment, such as enhanced air
filters (air filters rated at a
minimum efficiency reporting
value [MERV] 13 or higher) or
equivalent mechanisms, to
minimize health risks for future
receptors.
of indoor air quality
equipment.

Visual inspection of the
project site to verify that
development activities
comply with the
measures.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or
by the California
MM-BIO-1: Conduct
Preconstruction Surveys for
Special Status Species. Prior to
ground-disturbing activities and
during the appropriate
identification periods for specialstatus plants and wildlife listed in DEIR Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2,
project applicants proposing
development on sites with the
potential for special-status species
to occur shall engage a qualified
Submittal of a survey
prepared by a qualified
biologist.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities, when
special-status
species that
could occur in
the area are
evident and
identifiable,
generally during
the blooming or
breeding period.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2616, Packet Page 2944 21 Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
biologist with prior experience
conducting surveys for subject
species in Monterey County to
conduct field surveys within work
areas and the immediately
adjacent areas to determine the
presence of habitat for specialstatus plant and wildlife species.

The field surveys are to be
conducted when special-status
species that could occur in the
area are evident and identifiable,
generally during the blooming or
breeding period. For special-status
plants, field surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified botanist
following the “Protocols for
Surveying and Evaluating Impacts
to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural
Communities.” One or more
surveys shall be conducted as
needed to account for different
special-status species
identification periods. The results
of field surveys shall be
summarized in an accompanying
report documenting all proposed
work areas and the presence or
absence of any sensitive resources
that could be affected by
development. Additionally, the
report shall outline where species
and/or habitat-specific mitigation
measures (as required under
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2617, Packet Page 2945 22 Mitigation Measures BIO-2
through BIO-12) are required. This
report will provide the basis for
any applicable permit applications
and consultations with regulatory
agencies where incidental take
may occur.

MM-BIO-2: Worker
Environmental Awareness
Training Program. If it is
established pursuant to Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 that special status
species occur on the site, prior to
the issuance of grading or building
permits, and for the duration of
construction activities, the project
proponent shall demonstrate that
it has in place a Construction
Worker Environmental Awareness
Training Program for all
construction workers at the
project site. All construction
workers shall attend the Program
prior to participating in
construction activities. The
Program shall be developed and
conducted by a qualified biologist
with experience in Monterey
County. The training may be
presented in video form. The
Program shall include:
 Information on the life history
of wildlife and plant species
that may be encountered
Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2618, Packet Page 2946 23 during construction activities
and legal protection status of
each species;
 The definition of “take” under
the Federal Endangered
Species Act and the California
Endangered Species Act;
 Measures the project
proponent/operator is
implementing to protect the
species; and
 Specific measures that each
worker shall employ to avoid
take of wildlife species, and
penalties for violation of the
Federal Endangered Species
Act or California Endangered
Species Act.

MM-BIO-3: Install Temporary
Flagging or Barrier Fencing to
Protect Sensitive Biological
Resources Adjacent to the Work
Area. If required pursuant to
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a
qualified biologist with prior
experience for subject species in
Monterey County shall identify
and flag or fence sensitive
biological habitat on-site to ensure
it is avoided during construction
and pre-construction activities.

Flagging or fencing shall be
installed prior to site preparation
activities and remain in place for
Submittal of photographs
of flagging or barrier
fencing or onsite
inspection.

Prior to start of
site preparation
activities.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2619, Packet Page 2947 24 the duration of construction
activities.

Additionally, in the event that
California Tiger Salamander is
identified as occurring or having
potential to occur in the work area
pursuant to Mitigation Measure
BIO-1, then the following
measures will be implemented:
 Vernal pools and other
potentially suitable wetland
habitat will be avoided to the
extent feasible during
construction to minimize the
potential loss of breeding
sites for California Tiger
Salamanders.
 Measures to protect water
quality will be implemented
to reduce habitat degradation
in adjacent areas.
 A USFWS-approved biologist
will demarcate the limits of
the fence line. The barrier will
be inspected and repaired at
least weekly to ensure it
remains in place during
construction.
 A biological monitor will
survey suitable habitat,
including all wetlands, prior
to grading or filling. If either
species is located during
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2620, Packet Page 2948 25 surveys, it will be moved to
an approved off-site location
in coordination with the
USFWS and CDFW.

MM-BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize
Disturbance to Special-Status
Plant Species. If necessary
pursuant to the results of surveys
conducted under Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, the work area
shall be modified to the extent
feasible to avoid indirect or direct
impacts on special-status plants.

Special-status plant species shall
be avoided whenever possible by
delineating and observing a no
disturbance buffer of at least 50
feet from the outer edge of the
plant population(s) or specific
habitat type(s) required by special
status plant species. If complete
avoidance of special-status plants
is not feasible, at a minimum the
special-status plant species shall
be relocated on-site, at least 20
feet away from construction
directly relating to the project. All
site preparation, seed/cutting/root
collection, grow-out, and plant
installation shall be conducted by
a landscape company approved by
the City of Monterey with
experience working on restoration
projects and within the habitats
present on-site. Following the
Submittal of annual
report by a botanist
detailing the relocation to
all responsible agencies
(e.g., City, CDFW,
USFWS).

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities if no
disturbance is
identified.

Submittal of
report shall
occur annually
for five years
after relocation.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2621, Packet Page 2949 26 relocation, the plantings/seedings
shall be monitored annually for
five years or longer by a botanist
paid for and hired by the Project
proponent to determine the
success of the relocation. For
individual plants, success criteria is
the establishment of new viable
occurrences equal to or greater in
number than the number of plants
impacted, for at least three years
without supplemental care such as
watering. On-site maintenance of
the relocated plants shall be
contracted to a landscaping
company which will also be paid
for and hired by the Project
proponent. An annual report by a
botanist detailing the success of
the relocation shall be drafted and
submitted to all responsible
agencies (e.g., CDFW, USFWS) for
their review. If success criteria are
not met, management of the
relocated plants will be modified
as needed, but management and
reporting shall continue until
success criteria are met.

3.4-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
MM-BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize
Disturbance to Nesting Bird
Species. If required pursuant to
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a
qualified biologist paid for and
Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities, no
more than 10
days prior to the
Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2622, Packet Page 2950 27 habitat modifications, on
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
hired by the applicant shall
conduct preconstruction surveys
for active nests no more than 10
days prior to the start of ground or
vegetation disturbance to
maximize the probability that
nests that could potentially be
impacted are detected. Surveys
should also cover a sufficient area
around each future project site to
identify nests and determine their
status. A sufficient area means any
area potentially affected by a
project. In addition to direct
impacts (i.e., nest destruction),
noise, vibration, and movement of
workers or equipment could also
affect nests. Prior to initiation of
construction activities, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a survey to
establish a behavioral baseline of
all identified nests. Once
construction begins, a qualified
biologist shall continuously
monitor nests to detect behavioral
changes resulting from each future
project. If behavioral changes
occur, all work will be halted
causing that change and
consultation with CDFW will be
conducted for additional
avoidance and minimization
measures.

If continuous monitoring of
identified nests by a qualified
start of ground
or vegetation
disturbance.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2623, Packet Page 2951 28 biologist is not feasible, then a
minimum no-disturbance buffer of
250 feet around active nests of
non-listed bird species and a 500-
foot no-disturbance buffer around
active nests of non-listed raptors
will be implemented. These
buffers shall remain in place until
the breeding season has ended or
until a qualified biologist has
determined that the birds have
fledged and are no longer reliant
upon the nest or on-site parental
care for survival. Variance from
these no-disturbance buffers is
possible when there is compelling
biological or ecological reason to
do so, such as when the
construction areas would be
concealed from a nest site by
topography. A qualified biologist
shall advise and support any
variance from these buffers and
notify CDFW in advance of
implementing a variance.

3.4-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
MM-BIO-6: Disturbance to Bat
Species. If required pursuant to
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a
qualified biologist paid for and
hired by the applicant shall
conduct preconstruction surveys
for bats which shall take place
during the maternity roosting
season (defined as: April 1 through
August 31) within riparian habitat
Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities, during
the maternity
roosting season
(defined as: April
1 through August
31). Surveys shall
be conducted no
less than 14 days
Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2624, Packet Page 2952 29 local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
and any old wooden buildings
within a project site. Surveys shall
be conducted no less than 14 days
prior to removal of trees, snags, or
buildings within the project area.

Ultrasonic acoustic surveys and/or
other site appropriate survey
method may be performed to
determine the presence or
absence of bats utilizing the
project site as roosting or foraging
habitat. Additionally, the following
measures shall be implemented to
lessen impacts to bats:
a) If special-status bat species
are detected during surveys,
species and roost specific
mitigation measures shall be
developed by the qualified
biologist. Such measures may
include postponing removal
of trees, snags, or structures
until the end of the maternity
roosting season or
construction of species
appropriate roosting habitat
within, or adjacent to the
project site.
b) Trees, snags, and buildings
may be removed outside of
the maternity roosting season
without performing
preconstruction bat surveys.
prior to removal
of trees, snags,
or buildings
within the
project area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2625, Packet Page 2953 30 c) Felled trees shall remain on
the ground for 24 hours prior
to being removed or chipped.
d) For all buildings to be
demolished, internal entrance
surveys shall be performed by
a qualified bat biologist no
less than 14 days prior to
demolition to determine if
buildings currently or
previously support roosting
bats. If bats are determined
to be present, appropriate
methods shall be used to
exclude bats from the
building. Such methods may
include installation of one
way “valves” to allow bats to
exit, but not allow them to
reenter the building.
e) If an identified maternity
roost location is removed,
species and roost appropriate
mitigation shall be developed
in consultation with CDFW.

Mitigation shall include at
minimum the replacement of
a suitable roost structure
within or immediately
adjacent to the project site,
such that similar structure
shape and thermal properties
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2626, Packet Page 2954 31 are met with the replacement
roost.
f) If no active roosts are
identified, then work may
commence as planned.

Survey results are valid for 30
days from the survey date.

MM-BIO-7: Disturbance to
Burrowing Owl. If feasible,
construction-related ground
disturbance activities shall begin
outside of the burrowing owl
nesting season (February 1
through August 31) and during
construction the site shall be
maintained in a manner that is
inhospitable to burrowing owl
such as keeping the site free of
vegetation, ground squirrel
control, and maintaining regular
site disturbance by construction
equipment and personnel. This will
discourage burrowing owls from
occupying the project site. If
Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.
14 days prior to
ground
disturbing
activities.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2627, Packet Page 2955 32 feasible, decommissioning-related
ground disturbing activities shall
begin outside of the burrowing
owl nesting season (February 1
through August 31).

Surveys will be phased based on
the construction schedule such
that the surveys are conducted no
more than 14 days ahead of the
start of ground disturbance in new
areas. If no occupied breeding or
wintering owl burrows are
identified, no further mitigation
will be required. If occupied
burrows are identified on the site
or within 150 meters, one of the
following actions shall be taken:
(1) permanent avoidance of the
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2628, Packet Page 2956 33 burrow or (2) establishment of a
temporary avoidance buffer
followed by passive relocation and
compensatory mitigation for loss
of habitat in conjunction with the
measures below:
 If an occupied wintering
burrow is discovered during
preconstruction surveys, a 50-
meter buffer area shall be
established around the
burrow until the owl leaves on
its own (if the burrow is more
than 50 meters off-site and/or
more than 50 meters from the
work area, no buffer is
necessary). Ground-disturbing
work conducted during the
nonbreeding (winter) season
(September 1 to January 31)
can proceed near the
occupied burrow so long as
the work occurs no closer than
50 meters to the burrow, and
the burrow is not directly
affected by the project
activity. A smaller buffer may
be established in consultation
with CDFW and monitored at
the discretion of a qualified
biologist. If the 50-meter
buffer cannot be maintained
for the duration of occupancy
by the owl, owls may be
excluded from an occupied
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2629, Packet Page 2957 34 wintering burrow in
accordance with the
conditions of the project’s
Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan,
which will be submitted for
approval by CDFW prior to
passive relocation of any
burrowing owls.
 If an occupied nesting burrow
is discovered during
preconstruction surveys, an
avoidance buffer of 200
meters shall be established
around the burrow location
and maintained until a
qualified biologist has
determined that the nest has
fledged or is no longer active
(a 200-meter avoidance buffer
is appropriate for low intensity
impacts near nesting burrows
during breeding season [CDFW
2012]). No project activities
shall take place within the
200-meter buffer during the
time in which it is in place. A
smaller buffer may be
established in consultation
with CDFW and monitored at
the discretion of a qualified
biologist.
 If an occupied burrow cannot
be avoided, and the burrow is
not actively in use as a nest, a
200-meter buffer shall be
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2630, Packet Page 2958 35 established until the
burrowing owls can be
excluded from burrows in
accordance with the project’s
Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan,
which will be submitted for
approval by CDFW prior to
passive relocation of any
burrowing owls. The
Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan
is based on the
recommendations made in the
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or
most recently adopted
guidance and shall include the
following information for each
proposed passive relocation:
o Confirmation by site
surveillance that the
burrow(s) is empty of
burrowing owls and
other species;
o Type of scope to be used
and appropriate timing
of scoping;
o Occupancy factors to
look for and what shall
guide determination of
vacancy and excavation
timing;
o Methods for burrow
excavation;
o Removal of other
potential owl burrow
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2631, Packet Page 2959 36 surrogates or refugia onsite;
o Methods for
photographic
documentation of the
excavation and closure
of the burrow; and
o Monitoring of the site to
evaluate success and, if
needed, to implement
remedial measures to
prevent subsequent owl
use to avoid take.

Methods for assuring the
impacted site shall
continually be made
inhospitable to
burrowing owls and
fossorial mammals.

If burrowing owls cannot be
excluded from an off-site burrow
and it is not feasible to maintain
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2632, Packet Page 2960 37 an avoidance buffer as stated
above, coordination will be
conducted with CDFW to
determine appropriate measures
to minimize impacts to off-site
burrowing owls. Such measures
could include, but are not limited
to: (1) installation of barriers
between the construction or
decommissioning area and the
occupied burrows to block noise
and views of construction or
decommissioning equipment and
personnel, and (2) regular
monitoring by a qualified biologist
to determine if construction or
decommissioning activities are
resulting in disturbance of the
owls that could lead to nest
abandonment or harm to adult
owls or their young. If such
disturbance was occurring, the
biological monitor would have the
authority to halt construction
activities until further
modifications could be made to
avoid disturbance of the owls.

If burrowing owl pairs are
passively relocated, compensatory
mitigation for lost
wintering/breeding habitat shall
be provided either through
dedication of 6 acres of suitable
habitat (per pair of relocated owls)
at an off-site location in
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2633, Packet Page 2961 38 accordance with the conditions of
the project’s Burrowing Owl
Exclusion Plan or through purchase
of credits at a CDFW-approved
mitigation bank in the region. No
compensatory mitigation is
required for passive relocation or
eviction of transient, unpaired
owls.

3.4-1 MM-BIO-8: Disturbance to Submittal of survey Prior to initiation Planning Division Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2634, Packet Page 2962 39 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Western Bumble Bee. If required
pursuant to Mitigation Measure
BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for
and hired by the applicant shall
conduct a take avoidance survey
for active bumble bee colony
nesting sites in any previously
undisturbed area no more than 14
days prior to each phase of
construction, if the work will occur
during the flying season, generally
between March 1 and September

1. The surveys shall occur when
temperatures are above 60
degrees Fahrenheit (°F), on sunny
days with wind speeds below 8
miles per hour, and at least 2
hours after sunrise and 3 hours
before sunset. Surveyors shall
conduct transect surveys focusing
on detection of foraging bumble
bees and underground nests using
visual aids such as binoculars. If no
western bumble bees or potential
western bumble bees are
detected, no further mitigation is
required. If potential western
bumble bees are seen but cannot
be identified, the applicant shall
obtain authorization from CDFW
within 14 days prior to
groundbreaking to use nonlethal
netting methods to capture
bumble bees to identify them to
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.
of construction
activities, no
more than 14
days prior to
each phase of
construction, if
the work will
occur during the
flying season,
generally
between March
1 and September

1. Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2635, Packet Page 2963 40 species. If protected bumble bee
nests are found, they shall be
protected in place until they are
no longer active as determined by
a licensed entomologist. Survey
results, including negative findings,
shall be submitted to CDFW and
the City prior to groundbreaking
within 14 days of completing the
take avoidance survey.

MM-BIO-9: Disturbance to
Northern California Legless Lizard.

If the Northern California Legless
Lizard is identified as occurring or
having potential to occur in the
project area pursuant to
Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then
the following measures will be
implemented:
 Immediately prior to
ground disturbing
activities, a qualified
biologist paid for and
hired by the applicant will
conduct a clearance
survey in suitable habitat
within the project work
area for Northern
California legless lizards.

The project biologist may
establish Wildlife
Exclusion Fencing (WEF)
to keep the species from
entering the work area. If
Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2636, Packet Page 2964 41 the Northern California
legless lizard is observed
during construction,
measures will be taken to
avoid the individual(s)
and the species will be
allowed to leave on its
own volition or will be
relocated outside of the
work area by the project
biologist. Clearance
surveys will be conducted
daily unless the project
biologist determines that
the surveys are no longer
necessary.

MM-BIO-10: Disturbance to
Smith’s Blue Butterfly. If the
Smith’s blue butterfly is identified
as occurring or having potential to
occur in the project area pursuant
to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then
the following measures will be
implemented:
 Project areas within the
range of these species will
be surveyed by a qualified
biologist paid for and hired
by the applicant for seacliff
buckwheat (Eriogonum
latifolium), the butterfly’s
host plant.
 Host plants within the
occupied habitat will be
Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2637, Packet Page 2965 42 marked with high visibility
flagging, fencing, or stakes,
and no construction
activities will occur within
10 feet of these plants.
 If complete avoidance of
the host plant is not
feasible, then the species
shall be relocated on-site
pursuant to the
requirements outlined in
Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

MM-BIO-11: Disturbance to
Monterey Shrew. If required
pursuant to Mitigation Measure
BIO-1, immediately prior to ground
disturbing activities in or adjacent
to Monterey shrew habitat, a
qualified biologist paid for and
hired by the applicant shall
conduct a clearance survey to
identify and relocate any
individuals within proposed work
areas. Any individuals located
during the survey shall be allowed
to leave the work area on their
own. All sightings of Monterey
Shrew shall be reported to the
California Natural Diversity
Database.

Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
biologist to City and
CDFW.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Planning Division

3.4-1 MM-BIO-12: Disturbance to
American Badger. If required
Submittal of survey
prepared by qualified
Prior to initiation
of construction
Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2638, Packet Page 2966 43 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
pursuant to Mitigation Measure
BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for
and hired by the applicant shall
conduct preconstruction surveys
for American badger no more than
14 days prior to the beginning of
ground disturbance related to
construction and decommissioning
activities to determine if there are
any American badger dens on the
project site. If there are no
American badger dens on the
project site, no further mitigation
is necessary. If American badger
dens are located within the work
area and cannot be avoided, a
qualified biologist will determine if
the dens are occupied. If
unoccupied, the dens will be
collapsed under the supervision of
the biologist. If occupied, the
biologist will determine if it is a
natal/pupping den or a solitary
badger den. Dens of solitary
badger may be collapsed under
the supervision of the biologist
once the animal has vacated the
den. Natal/pupping dens will be
avoided by establishment of an
exclusion zone around the den
determined by the qualified
biologist until the young are old
enough to leave the den and
survive on their own.
biologist to City and
CDFW.
activities, no
more than 14
days prior to the
beginning of
ground
disturbance.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2639, Packet Page 2967 44 3.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.5-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could cause
a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a historical resource, as
defined as physical
demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of
the resource or its
immediate surroundings
such that the significance
of a historic resource
would be materially
impaired (Guidelines
Section 15064.5).

MM-CUL-1: Evaluate Age-Eligible
Properties That Have Not
Previously Been Evaluated Prior
to Development Projects to
Identify Historic Resources. As a
condition of project approval for a
development project proposed on
a parcel within the Planning Area
that includes a building, structure,
or landscape more than 50 years
old (typical age threshold applied
by the California Office of Historic
Preservation) and that has not
previously been evaluated for
potential historic significance, the
City shall require the project
applicant shall retain a
professional who meets the
Secretary of the of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications
Standards for architectural history
or history (as appropriate), to
conduct an evaluation of historic
significance and eligibility for
listing on local, State, or national
registers.

The evaluation shall include an
Intensive survey, which is
comprised of a field survey,
archival research, and preparation
of a historic resource evaluation
report. The report shall include
documentation of methodology
Consultation with City;
and in the event of
potential impacts to
historic resources,
submittal of an evaluation
prepared by a qualified
architectural historian.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2640, Packet Page 2968 45 and the findings of the historic
evaluation, including a
determination of historic
significance and eligibility for
listing on local, State, or national
registers. On the basis of this
evaluation, if it is determined that
the subject property contains an
historic resource, Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 shall be
implemented.

MM-CUL-2: Avoidance or
Minimization of Effects on
Identified Historic Resources. The
project applicant shall consult with
City staff to determine whether a
project can be feasibly redesigned
or revised to avoid significant
adverse impacts on listed and
identified eligible historic
resource(s), including historic
districts. If a local landmark or
local historic district is part of a
proposed development, the
project’s Historic Permit
application must be reviewed by
the Historic Preservation
Commission. If avoidance of
historic resource(s) is not feasible,
where feasibility is defined as
"capable of being accomplished in
a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking
into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and
Consultation with City
and the Office of Historic
Resources. Approval of an
Historic Permit
application with
associated mitigation
measures by the City’s
Historic Preservation
Commission.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division,
Historic
Preservation
Commission
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2641, Packet Page 2969 46 technological factors," the project
sponsor shall seek to reduce the
effect on historic resource(s) to a
less-than-significant level pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.

Projects that conform to the
Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties are considered
to have a less-than-significant
effect on historic architectural
resources.

3.5-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could cause
an adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5.

MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural Assessments. For
projects in archaeologically or
tribal culturally sensitive areas of
the Planning Area, the City shall
require project proponents to
submit an assessment of the
potential presence of
archaeological and tribal cultural
resources prepared by a qualified
archeological consultant prior to
project approval. The assessment
shall include a site survey, a
records search of the California
Historical Resources Information
System at the Northwest
Information Center, and if
warranted by the results of the
assessment, recommendations for
avoidance or mitigation in
accordance with section 5097.98
of the California Public Resources
Code, and section 7050.5 of the
Submittal of assessment
of the potential presence
of archaeological and
tribal cultural resources
prepared by a qualified
archeological consultant.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2642, Packet Page 2970 47 California Health and Safety Code,
as applicable. Recommendations
may include establishing
conservation easements;
preservation in situ of the
resource; capping or covering
archaeological sites; planning open
space to incorporate
archaeological sites; or excavation.

If on the basis of the assessment it
is determined that the discovery is
a tribal cultural resource affiliated
Native Americans tribal
representatives shall be consulted
and invited to engage in the
formulation of mitigation
strategies.

3.5-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could cause
an adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5.

MM CUL-4: Conduct Cultural
Resources Awareness Training.

Prior to the start of any ground
disturbance or construction
activities, developers of projects
within 50 feet of a creek or within
50 feet of recorded archaeological
resources or tribal cultural
resources in the Planning Area
shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist to conduct cultural
resource awareness training for
construction personnel. This
training shall include an overview
of what cultural resources are and
why they are important,
archaeological terms (such as site,
Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2643, Packet Page 2971 48 feature, deposit), project site
history, types of cultural resources
likely to be uncovered during
excavation, laws that protect
cultural resources, and the
unanticipated discovery protocol
per the PRC Section 21083.

3.5-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could cause
an adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.5.

MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery.

In the event of accidental
discovery of an archeological or
tribal cultural resource during
soils-disturbing activity of any
project pursuant to the Proposed
Plan, the project sponsor shall
immediately suspend any soilsdisturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the
services of a qualified
archeological consultant to
whether the discovery is an
archeological resource retains
sufficient integrity and is of
potential
scientific/historical/cultural
significance. The archeological
consultant shall make a
recommendation as to what
action, if any, is warranted. If it is
determined that the discovery is a
tribal cultural resource, affiliated
Native American tribal
representatives shall be consulted
and invited to engage in the
formulation of mitigation
strategies. Mitigation strategies
Submittal of assessment
of qualified archeological
consultant on whether
the discovery is an
archeological resource
retains sufficient integrity
and is of potential
scientific/historical/cultur
al significance.

During
construction
activities.

Planning Division;
Native American
tribal
representatives.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2644, Packet Page 2972 49 may include preservation in situ of
the resource, a monitoring
program, a testing program, or an
interpretation program.

3.5-3
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would have
the potential to disturb
human remains, including
those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural Assessments. For
projects in archaeologically or
tribal culturally sensitive areas of
the Planning Area, the City shall
require project proponents to
submit an assessment of the
potential presence of
archaeological and tribal cultural
resources prepared by a qualified
archeological consultant prior to
project approval. The assessment
shall include a site survey, a
records search of the California
Historical Resources Information
System at the Northwest
Information Center, and if
warranted by the results of the
assessment, recommendations for
avoidance or mitigation in
accordance with section 5097.98
of the California Public Resources
Code, and section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code,
as applicable. Recommendations
may include establishing
conservation easements;
preservation in situ of the
resource; capping or covering
archaeological sites; planning open
space to incorporate
Submittal of assessment
of the potential presence
of archaeological and
tribal cultural resources
prepared by a qualified
archeological consultant.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2645, Packet Page 2973 50 archaeological sites; or excavation.

3.5-3
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would have
the potential to disturb
human remains, including
those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

MM CUL-4: Conduct Cultural
Resources Awareness Training.

Prior to the start of any ground
disturbance or construction
activities, developers of projects
within 50 feet of a creek or within
50 feet of recorded archaeological
resources or tribal cultural
resources in the Planning Area
shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist to conduct cultural
resource awareness training for
construction personnel. This
training shall include an overview
of what cultural resources are and
why they are important,
archaeological terms (such as site,
feature, deposit), project site
history, types of cultural resources
likely to be uncovered during
excavation, laws that protect
cultural resources, and the
unanticipated discovery protocol
per the PRC Section 21083.

Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Building and Safety
Division

3.5-3 MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery. Submittal of assessment During Planning Division; Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2646, Packet Page 2974 51 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could have
the potential to disturb
human remains, including
those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

In the event of accidental
discovery of an archeological or
tribal cultural resource during
soils-disturbing activity of any
project pursuant to the Proposed
Plan, the project sponsor shall
immediately suspend any soilsdisturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the
services of a qualified
archeological consultant to
whether the discovery is an
archeological resource retains
sufficient integrity and is of
potential
scientific/historical/cultural
significance. The archeological
consultant shall make a
recommendation as to what
action, if any, is warranted. If it is
determined that the discovery is a
tribal cultural resource, affiliated
Native American tribal
representatives shall be consulted
and invited to engage in the
formulation of mitigation
strategies. Mitigation strategies
may include preservation in situ of
the resource, a monitoring
program, a testing program, or an
interpretation program.
of qualified archeological
consultant on whether
the discovery is an
archeological resource
retains sufficient integrity
and is of potential
scientific/historical/cultur
al significance.
construction
activities.

Native American
tribal
representatives.

3.5-4
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could cause
MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and
Tribal Cultural Assessments. For
projects in archaeologically or
tribal culturally sensitive areas of
Submittal of assessment
of the potential presence
of archaeological and
tribal cultural resources
Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2647, Packet Page 2975 52 an adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined
in PRC Section 21074 as
either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape
that is geographically
defined in terms of the
size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value
to a California Native
American Tribe, and that
is:
(a) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
(b) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the
the Planning Area, the City shall
require project proponents to
submit an assessment of the
potential presence of
archaeological and tribal cultural
resources prepared by a qualified
archeological consultant prior to
project approval. The assessment
shall include a site survey, a
records search of the California
Historical Resources Information
System at the Northwest
Information Center, and if
warranted by the results of the
assessment, recommendations for
avoidance or mitigation in
accordance with section 5097.98
of the California Public Resources
Code, and section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code,
as applicable. Recommendations
may include establishing
conservation easements;
preservation in situ of the
resource; capping or covering
archaeological sites; planning open
space to incorporate
archaeological sites; or excavation.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2648, Packet Page 2976 53 resource to a California
Native American tribe.
formulation of mitigation
strategies.

3.5-4
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could cause
an adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined
in PRC Section 21074 as
either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape
that is geographically
defined in terms of the
size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value
to a California Native
American Tribe, and that
is:
(a) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
(b) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1. In applying
MM CUL-4: Conduct Cultural
Resources Awareness Training.

Prior to the start of any ground
disturbance or construction
activities, developers of projects
within 50 feet of a creek or within
50 feet of recorded archaeological
resources or tribal cultural
resources in the Planning Area
shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist to conduct cultural
resource awareness training for
construction personnel. This
training shall include an overview
of what cultural resources are and
why they are important,
archaeological terms (such as site,
feature, deposit), project site
history, types of cultural resources
likely to be uncovered during
excavation, laws that protect
cultural resources, and the
unanticipated discovery protocol
per the PRC Section 21083.

Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2649, Packet Page 2977 54 the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

In the event of accidental
discovery of an archeological or
tribal cultural resource during
soils-disturbing activity of any
project pursuant to the Proposed
Plan, the project sponsor shall
immediately suspend any soilsdisturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the
services of a qualified
archeological consultant to
whether the discovery is an
archeological resource retains
sufficient integrity and is of
potential
scientific/historical/cultural
significance. The archeological
consultant shall make a
recommendation as to what
action, if any, is warranted. If it is
determined that the discovery is a
tribal cultural resource, affiliated
Native American tribal
representatives shall be consulted
and invited to engage in the
formulation of mitigation
strategies. Mitigation strategies
Submittal of assessment
and recommendations by
a qualified archeological
consultant.

During
construction
activities.

Planning Division;
Native American
tribal
representatives.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2650, Packet Page 2978 55 by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.
may include preservation in situ of
the resource, a monitoring
program, a testing program, or an
interpretation program.

3.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change

3.6-1
Development under the
Proposed Plan would
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.

MM-GHG-1: Update Climate
Action Plan. Within 18 months of
adoption of the Proposed Plan, the
City shall update the City of
Monterey Climate Action Plan to
address changes in State GHG
reduction goals, including SB 32,
EO B-55-18, AB 1279, and the
CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and meet
the requirements for a Qualified
GHG Reduction Strategy under
CEQA. The update shall
incorporate specific, measurable
GHG reduction strategies that
address each emissions source
sector, are prioritized by
timeframe (i.e., 2030 for near term
and 2045 for long term) and are
assigned to a lead
agency/organization for
implementation. The CAP Update
Adoption of an updated
Climate Action Plan by
the City Council.

Within 18
months of
adoption of the
Proposed Plan.

Sustainability
Office; City Council
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2651, Packet Page 2979 56 shall incorporate the most recent
communitywide GHG Inventory
and strategies that would achieve
at least an additional two percent
reduction by 2030 to ensure
citywide target of 40 percent
reduction. The CAP shall target
top-contributing emissions sectors
(especially the transportation
sector, which represents more
than 60 percent of operational
emissions), such as by adapting
CARB’s recommended key project
attributes for VMT reduction into
citywide programs. GHG reduction
strategies to be considered shall
include: prohibiting woodburning
or natural gas fireplaces in new
construction, making new
construction solar-ready, and
requiring new multifamily
construction to exceed Title 24
electric vehicle charging station
requirements by 15 percent. The
CAP shall also incorporate a CEQA
checklist to streamline project
approval and encourage use of
CARB’s recommended key project
attributes that reduce GHGs (as
included in the CARB 2022 Scoping
Plan).

3.6-1 MM-GHG-2: Construction Best
Management Practices to
Minimize GHGs. All applicants
within the Planning Area shall
Project applicant to
submit to City
construction contracts
requiring the use of
Prior to issuance
of grading
permits, and
improvement
Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2652, Packet Page 2980 57 Development under the
Proposed Plan would
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment.
require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related GHG
emissions by implementing
recommended best management
practices, including (but not
limited to) the following measures
(based on the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s 2022 CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines):
 Ensure alternative fueled (e.g.,
biodiesel, electric)
construction
vehicles/equipment make up
at least 15 percent of the
fleet.
 Minimize idling time either by
shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the time
of idling to no more than two
minutes (A five-minute limit is
required by the state airborne
toxics control measure [CCR,
Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3)
and 2485]). Provide clear
signage that posts this
requirement for workers at
the entrances to the site and
develop an enforceable
mechanism to monitor idling
time to ensure compliance
with this measure.

BAAQMD-recommended
construction best
management practices to
reduce GHG emissions.
plan approvals
and building
permits for each
building.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2653, Packet Page 2981 58  Prohibit off-road dieselpowered equipment from
being in the “on” position for
more than 10 hours per day.
 Require all construction
equipment is maintained and
properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s
specifications. Equipment
should be checked by a
certified mechanic and
determined to be running in
proper condition prior to
operation.
 Where grid power is available,
prohibit portable diesel
engines and provide electrical
hook ups for electric
construction tools, such as
saws, drills and compressors,
and using electric tools
whenever feasible.
 Recycle or salvage
nonhazardous construction
and demolition debris, with a
goal of recycling at least 15
percent more by weight than
the diversion requirement in
Title 24.
 Use locally sourced (within
100 miles of the Planning
Area) or recycled materials for
construction materials (goal of
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2654, Packet Page 2982 59 at least 10 percent based on
costs for building materials
and based on volume for
roadway, parking lot, sidewalk
and curb materials). Wood
products used should be
certified through a sustainable
forestry program.
 Develop a plan to efficiently
use water for adequate dust
control since substantial
amounts of energy can be
consumed during the pumping
of water.

3.6-2
Development under the
Proposed Plan would
conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases.

MM-GHG-1: Update Climate
Action Plan. Within 18 months of
adoption of the Proposed Plan, the
City shall update the City of
Monterey Climate Action Plan to
address changes in State GHG
reduction goals, including SB 32,
EO B-55-18, AB 1279, and the
CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and meet
the requirements for a Qualified
GHG Reduction Strategy under
CEQA. The update shall
incorporate specific, measurable
GHG reduction strategies that
address each emissions source
sector, are prioritized by
timeframe (i.e., 2030 for near term
and 2045 for long term) and are
assigned to a lead
Adoption of an updated
Climate Action Plan by
the City Council.

Within 18
months of
adoption of the
Proposed Plan.

Sustainability
Office; City Council
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2655, Packet Page 2983 60 agency/organization for
implementation. The CAP Update
shall incorporate the most recent
communitywide GHG Inventory
and strategies that would achieve
at least an additional two percent
reduction by 2030 to ensure
citywide target of 40 percent
reduction. The CAP shall target
top-contributing emissions sectors
(especially the transportation
sector, which represents more
than 60 percent of operational
emissions), such as by adapting
CARB’s recommended key project
attributes for VMT reduction into
citywide programs. GHG reduction
strategies to be considered shall
include: prohibiting woodburning
or natural gas fireplaces in new
construction, making new
construction solar-ready, and
requiring new multifamily
construction to exceed Title 24
electric vehicle charging station
requirements by 15 percent. The
CAP shall also incorporate a CEQA
checklist to streamline project
approval and encourage use of
CARB’s recommended key project
attributes that reduce GHGs (as
included in the CARB 2022 Scoping
Plan).

3.6-2 MM-GHG-2: Construction Best
Management Practices to
Project applicant to
submit to City
Prior to issuance
of grading
Building and Safety
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2656, Packet Page 2984 61 Development under the
Proposed Plan would
conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases.

Minimize GHGs. All applicants
within the Planning Area shall
require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related GHG
emissions by implementing
recommended best management
practices, including (but not
limited to) the following measures
(based on the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s 2022 CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines):
 Ensure alternative fueled (e.g.,
biodiesel, electric)
construction
vehicles/equipment make up
at least 15 percent of the
fleet.
 Minimize idling time either by
shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the time
of idling to no more than two
minutes (A five-minute limit is
required by the state airborne
toxics control measure [CCR,
Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3)
and 2485]). Provide clear
signage that posts this
requirement for workers at
the entrances to the site and
develop an enforceable
mechanism to monitor idling
construction contracts
requiring the use of
BAAQMD-recommended
construction best
management practices to
reduce GHG emissions.
permits, and
improvement
plan approvals
and building
permits for each
building.

Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2657, Packet Page 2985 62 time to ensure compliance
with this measure.
 Prohibit off-road dieselpowered equipment from
being in the “on” position for
more than 10 hours per day.
 Require all construction
equipment is maintained and
properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s
specifications. Equipment
should be checked by a
certified mechanic and
determined to be running in
proper condition prior to
operation.
 Where grid power is available,
prohibit portable diesel
engines and provide electrical
hook ups for electric
construction tools, such as
saws, drills and compressors,
and using electric tools
whenever feasible.
 Recycle or salvage
nonhazardous construction
and demolition debris, with a
goal of recycling at least 15
percent more by weight than
the diversion requirement in
Title 24.
 Use locally sourced (within
100 miles of the Planning
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2658, Packet Page 2986 63 Area) or recycled materials for
construction materials (goal of
at least 10 percent based on
costs for building materials
and based on volume for
roadway, parking lot, sidewalk
and curb materials). Wood
products used should be
certified through a sustainable
forestry program.
 Develop a plan to efficiently
use water for adequate dust
control since substantial
amounts of energy can be
consumed during the pumping
of water.

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

3.7-6
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature.

MM-GEO-1: Worker Awareness
Training. Prior to commencing
construction, and ongoing
throughout ground-disturbing
activities (e.g., excavation, utility
installation, the applicants
proposing development of projects
within the Planning Area and/or
their designee shall ensure that all
project construction workers are
trained on the contents of a
paleontological resources alert
sheet, as provided by the
department. The paleontological
resources alert sheet shall be
Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2659, Packet Page 2987 64 prominently displayed at the
construction site during grounddisturbing activities for reference regarding potential paleontological
resources. In addition, the project
applicant shall inform the
contractor and construction
personnel of the immediate stop
work procedures and other
procedures to be followed if bones
or other potential fossils are
unearthed at the project site.

Should new workers who will be
involved in ground-disturbing
construction activities begin
employment after the initial
training has occurred, the
construction supervisor shall
ensure that they receive the
worker awareness training as
described above.

3.7-6 MM GEO-2: Halt Construction, Submittal of assessment Prior to Building and Safety Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2660, Packet Page 2988 65 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan could
directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature.

Maintenance, or Landscaping
Activity in Case of Finding
Paleontological Resources,
Evaluate Find, and Excavate Find.

In the event that previously
unidentified paleontological
resources are uncovered during
site preparation, excavation, or
other ground-disturbing activity,
applicants proposing development
of projects within the Planning
Area shall cease all such activity
within 25 feet of the discovery or
ensure that all such activity within
25 feet of the discovery ceases
until the resources have been
evaluated by a qualified
professional and specific measures
can be implemented to protect
these resources in accordance
with Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5. If the qualified
paleontologist determines the find
is potentially significant, the
project applicant shall ensure a
qualified paleontologist shall
excavate the find in compliance
with state law, document the find,
and arrange for curation at a
depository, keeping project delays
to a minimum. If the qualified
paleontologist determines the find
is not significant, then the project
will continue without delay.
and recommendations by
a qualified paleontologist.
resumption of
construction
activities.

Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2661, Packet Page 2989 66 3.8 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire

3.8-4
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
result in development
located on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment.

MM-HAZ-1: Remediation of
Unexploded Ordnance at Fort
Ord. Prior to issuance of a building
permit for residential or mixed use
development on APN 031-191-
018-000 (referred to as parcel
E29.1), the City shall require
documentation demonstrating
that soil and water on the parcel
have been remediated consistent
with the Residential Quality
Assurance (RQA) process (or
equal) and that the residential
restriction has been removed by
DTSC.

Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating that soil
and water on the parcel
have been remediated on
parcel E29.1.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Building and Safety
Division

3.8-6
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan.

MM-WF-1: Traffic Volume
Mitigation. The following
measures shall be implemented to
increase capacity and improve
vehicle flow at locations projected
to have a high volume-to-capacity
ratio in the event of an emergency
evacuation:
 Mitigate congestion and
delay at the interchanges
of Fremont StreetHighway 1 and Soledad
Drive-Highway 1 by
temporarily widening
highway ramps by placing
traffic cones to indicate
two lanes to
accommodate a higher
Submittal of
documentation that
demonstrates
implementation of traffic
measures.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Traffic Engineering
section of
Engineering
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2662, Packet Page 2990 67 volume of evacuating
vehicles.
 Deploy adaptive traffic
signal control systems
that dynamically respond
to real-time traffic
conditions at the
interchanges of Fremont
Street-Highway 1 and
Soledad Drive-Highway 1,
giving priority to
evacuation traffic and
improving the efficiency
of traffic flow during
emergencies.

3.12 Public Services and Recreation

3.12-1
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would not
result in substantial
adverse physical impacts
associated with the
provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, the construction
of which could cause
significant environmental
impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable
service ratios, response
MM-PF-1: City-Owned Fire
Station. In parallel with
preparation of the Fort Ord/Ryan
Ranch Specific Plan pursuant to
Program 1-H of the proposed
Housing Element, the City shall:
 Identify in the southeastern
part of the Planning Area a
location for the station that
minimizes disruption to
sensitive ecosystems, wildlife
habitats, and natural
resources;
 Require the use of stormwater
management measures to
control and treat stormwater
runoff to prevent pollution
Incorporation into Fort
Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific
Plan
With the
adoption of the
Fort Ord/Ryan
Ranch Specific
Plan.

Planning Division;
Environmental
Regulations Office
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2663, Packet Page 2991 68 times or other
performance objectives
for any of the public
services: fire protection,
police protection, schools,
parks, and other public
facilities.
and soil erosion during
construction;
 Develop a plan for the proper
handling, recycling, and
disposal of construction waste
to minimize the impact on
local landfills and ecosystems;
 Establish erosion control
measures, which may include
erosion control barriers,
sediment traps, and other best
management practices to
prevent soil erosion and
sedimentation of nearby
water bodies;
 Require measures to protect
and preserve existing
vegetation, including trees and
native plants, during
construction activities;
 Implement best management
practices to minimize noise
and air pollution during
construction, including dust
and emissions control
measures; and
 Require the use of fire-safe
building materials and design
features to limit the risk of
damage or loss due to wildfire.

3.13 Transportation
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2664, Packet Page 2992 69 3.13-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would
conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

MM-VMT-1 / MM-TRANS-1:

Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program. Within one
year of adoption of the Proposed
Plan, the City shall adopt an
Employee Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) Program that
establishes requirements for
businesses employing 50 or more
people in the City of Monterey to
offer incentives and resources
aimed at reducing the number and
length of drive-alone commutes to
worksite(s). The CTR Program shall
identify a range/menu of actions
that employers may use to
incentivize alternatives to single
occupant vehicle commute trips,
such as:
 Offering free or
subsidized transit
passes;
 Providing secure
bike storage and
lockers to
encourage bicycle
commuting;
 Allowing employees
to work from home
some or all of the
time;
 Offering vouchers,
cash, or paid timeoff incentives to
Adoption of Employee
Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR) Program.

Within one year
of adoption of
the Proposed
Plan.

Traffic Engineering,
a section of the
Engineering
Division of Public
Works
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2665, Packet Page 2993 70 employees who
carpool, bike or
walk to work;
 Providing priority
parking for carpools
and vanpools.

3.14 Utilities and Service Systems

3.14-1
Water providers would
have insufficient water
supplies available to serve
the Planning Area and
reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years. While
feasible measures to
increase supply as needed
have been identified, it
cannot be said with
certainty that supply will
be available by 2030. As
such, the impact remains
significant and
unavoidable even after
implementation of all
feasible mitigation.

MM-UTIL-1: Water Efficiency
Measures for New Development
and Remodels. New development
and remodels in the Planning Area
shall be required as a condition of
project approval to implement the
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District's Rule 142
Water Efficiency Standards, as
applicable, in order to minimize
the use of water. For reference,
Rule 142 Water Efficiency
Standards are included in
Appendix H to this Draft EIR.

Submittal of plans for
building permit approval
that note the inclusion of
MPWMD Rule 142 Water
Efficiency Standards.

Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division

3.14-1
Water providers would
have insufficient water
supplies available to serve
the Planning Area and
MM-UTIL-2: Expand MCWD
Sources of Supply. MCWD shall
implement measures to increase
sources of water supply, including
reactivation of the pilot seawater
Submittal of
documentation from
MCWD that demonstrates
successful
implementation of
Prior to issuance
of a construction
permit.

Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2666, Packet Page 2994 71 reasonably foreseeable
future development
during normal, dry and
multiple dry years. While
feasible measures to
increase supply as needed
have been identified, it
cannot be said with
certainty that supply will
be available by 2030. As
such, the impact remains
significant and
unavoidable even after
implementation of all
feasible mitigation.
desalination plant and Indirect
Potable Reuse of advanced treated
water from the Pure Water
Monterey project. The measures
shall be sufficient to generate at
least an additional 235 AFY by
2030, as needed to support new
development within the City of
Monterey that will be served by
MCWD.
measures to increase
water supply sources.

3.14-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would also
require the construction
and extension of public
sewer and stormwater
conveyance infrastructure
to areas not currently
served by existing
facilities, which could
potentially result in
environmental impacts.

1. Water all active construction
sites at least twice daily.

Frequency should be based on
the type of operation, soil, and
wind exposure.

2. Prohibit all grading activities
during periods of high wind
(over 15 miles per hour).

3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers
on inactive construction areas
(disturbed lands within
Submittal of
documentation
demonstrating inclusion
of requirements in
construction contractor
specifications.

Prior to
issuance of a
construction
permit.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2667, Packet Page 2995 72 construction projects that are
unused for at least four
consecutive days).

4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g.,
latex acrylic copolymer) to
exposed areas after cut and fill
operations and hydro seed area.

5. Haul trucks shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.

6. Cover all trucks hauling dirt,
sand, or loose materials.

7. Plant tree windbreaks on the
windward perimeter of
construction projects if adjacent
to open land.

8. Plant vegetative ground cover in
disturbed areas as soon as
possible.

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

10. Install wheel washers at the
entrance to construction sites
for all exiting trucks.

11. Pave all roads at construction
sites.

12. Sweep streets if visible soil
material is carried out from the
construction site.

13. Post a publicly visible sign with
the telephone number and
person to contact regarding
dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take
corrective action within 48
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2668, Packet Page 2996 73 hours. The phone number of
Monterey Bay Air Resources
District (MBARD) shall also be
visible to ensure compliance
with Rule 402 (Nuisance).

14. Limit the area under
construction at any one time.

MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4
Final Engines on Construction
Equipment. All applicants
proposing development of projects
within the Planning Area shall
require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related exhaust
emissions by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the
entire duration of construction
activities shall operate on at least
an EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or
newer engine. Exemptions can be
made for specialized equipment
where Tier 4 engines are not
commercially available within 200
miles of the project site. The
construction contract must
identify these pieces of
equipment, document their
unavailability, and ensure that
they operate on no less than an
EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. CARB
Submittal of construction
documents that note that
all construction activities
shall operate on at least
an EPA-approved Tier 4
Final or newer engine.

Visual inspection of the
construction site to verify
that construction
activities comply with the
measures.

Prior to project
approval.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2669, Packet Page 2997 74 regulations will result in the
percentage of Tier 4 engines
increasing over the next several
years. Applicants must conduct
recordkeeping of equipment
verification documents for
construction equipment and the
City has the right to review
equipment logs.

Submittal of construction
documents that note that
all construction activities
shall use diesel trucks that
have 2010 model year or
newer engines.

Visual inspection of the
construction site to verify
that construction
activities comply with the
measures.

Prior to project
approval.

As needed
during
demolition and
construction.

Visual inspection
to occur prior to
certificate of
completion.

Building and Safety
Division

3.14-2 MM-BIO-1: Conduct
Preconstruction Surveys for
Submittal of a survey
prepared by a qualified
Prior to initiation
of construction
Planning Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2670, Packet Page 2998 75 Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would also
require the construction
and extension of public
sewer and stormwater
conveyance infrastructure
to areas not currently
served by existing
facilities, which could
potentially result in
environmental impacts.

Special Status Species. Prior to
ground-disturbing activities and
during the appropriate
identification periods for specialstatus plants and wildlife listed in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, project
applicants proposing development
on sites with the potential for
special-status species to occur
shall engage a qualified biologist
with prior experience conducting
surveys for subject species in
Monterey County to conduct field
surveys within work areas and the
immediately adjacent areas to
determine the presence of habitat
for special-status plant and wildlife
species. The field surveys are to be
conducted when special-status
species that could occur in the
area are evident and identifiable,
generally during the blooming or
breeding period. For special-status
plants, field surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified botanist
following the “Protocols for
Surveying and Evaluating Impacts
to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural
Communities. ”One or more
surveys shall be conducted as
needed to account for different
special-status species
identification periods. The results
of field surveys shall be
biologist. activities.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2671, Packet Page 2999 76 summarized in an accompanying
report documenting all proposed
work areas and the presence or
absence of any sensitive resources
that could be affected by
development. Additionally, the
report shall outline where species
and/or habitat-specific mitigation
measures (as required under
Mitigation Measures BIO-2
through BIO-12) are required. This
report will provide the basis for
any applicable permit applications
and consultations with regulatory
agencies where incidental take
may occur.

MM-BIO-2: Worker
Environmental Awareness
Training Program. If it is
established pursuant to Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 that special status
species occur on the site, prior to
the issuance of grading or building
permits, and for the duration of
construction activities, the project
proponent shall demonstrate that
it has in place a Construction
Worker Environmental Awareness
Training Program for all
construction workers at the
project site. All construction
workers shall attend the Program
prior to participating in
construction activities. The
Program shall be developed and
Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2672, Packet Page 3000 77 conducted by a qualified biologist
with experience in Monterey
County. The training may be
presented in video form. The
Program shall include:
 Information on the life history
of wildlife and plant species
that may be encountered
during construction activities
and legal protection status of
each species;
 The definition of “take” under
the Federal Endangered
Species Act and the California
Endangered Species Act;
 Measures the project
proponent/operator is
implementing to protect the
species; and
 Specific measures that each
worker shall employ to avoid
take of wildlife species, and
penalties for violation of the
Federal Endangered Species
Act or California Endangered
Species Act.

3.14-2
Implementation of the
Proposed Plan would also
require the construction
and extension of public
sewer and stormwater
conveyance infrastructure
MM CUL-4: Conduct Cultural
Resources Awareness Training.

Prior to the start of any ground
disturbance or construction
activities, developers of projects
within 50 feet of a creek or within
50 feet of recorded archaeological
Submittal of
documentation, including
training materials and
sign-in sheets indicating
worker attendance.

Prior to initiation
of construction
activities.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2673, Packet Page 3001 78 to areas not currently
served by existing
facilities, which could
potentially result in
environmental impacts.
resources or tribal cultural
resources in the Planning Area
shall retain a qualified professional
archaeologist to conduct cultural
resource awareness training for
construction personnel. This
training shall include an overview
of what cultural resources are and
why they are important,
archaeological terms (such as site,
feature, deposit), project site
history, types of cultural resources
likely to be uncovered during
excavation, laws that protect
cultural resources, and the
unanticipated discovery protocol
per the PRC Section 21083.

MM-GHG-2 Construction Best
Management Practices to
Minimize GHGs. All applicants
within the Planning Area shall
require their contractors, as a
condition of contract, to reduce
construction-related GHG
emissions by implementing
recommended best management
practices, including (but not
limited to) the following measures
(based on the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s 2022 CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines):
 Ensure alternative fueled (e.g.,
biodiesel, electric)
construction
Project applicant to
submit to City
construction contracts
requiring the use of
recommended
construction best
management practices to
reduce GHG emissions.

Prior to issuance
of grading and
building permits.

Building and Safety
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2674, Packet Page 3002 79 vehicles/equipment make up
at least 15 percent of the
fleet.
 Minimize idling time either by
shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the time
of idling to no more than two
minutes (A five-minute limit is
required by the state airborne
toxics control measure [CCR,
Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3)
and 2485]). Provide clear
signage that posts this
requirement for workers at
the entrances to the site and
develop an enforceable
mechanism to monitor idling
time to ensure compliance
with this measure.
 Prohibit off-road dieselpowered equipment from
being in the “on” position for
more than 10 hours per day.
 Require all construction
equipment is maintained and
properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s
specifications. Equipment
should be checked by a
certified mechanic and
determined to be running in
proper condition prior to
operation.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2675, Packet Page 3003 80  Where grid power is available,
prohibit portable diesel
engines and provide electrical
hook ups for electric
construction tools, such as
saws, drills and compressors,
and using electric tools
whenever feasible.
 Recycle or salvage
nonhazardous construction
and demolition debris, with a
goal of recycling at least 15
percent more by weight than
the diversion requirement in
Title 24.
 Use locally sourced (within
100 miles of the Planning
Area) or recycled materials for
construction materials (goal of
at least 10 percent based on
costs for building materials
and based on volume for
roadway, parking lot, sidewalk
and curb materials). Wood
products used should be
certified through a sustainable
forestry program.
 Develop a plan to efficiently
use water for adequate dust
control since substantial
amounts of energy can be
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2676, Packet Page 3004 81 consumed during the pumping
of water.

3.15 Wildfire

3.15-1 Implementation of
the Proposed Plan would
substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan.

MM-WF-1: Traffic Volume
Mitigation. Caltrans shall
implement the following measures
to increase capacity and improve
vehicle flow at locations projected
to have a high volume-to-capacity
ratio in the event of an emergency
evacuation:
 Mitigate congestion and
delay at the interchanges
of Fremont StreetHighway 1 and Soledad
Drive-Highway 1 by
temporarily widening
highway ramps by placing
traffic cones to indicate
two lanes to
accommodate a higher
volume of evacuating
vehicles.
 Deploy adaptive traffic
signal control systems
that dynamically respond
to real-time traffic
conditions at Fremont
Street-Highway 1
interchange, giving
priority to evacuation
traffic and improving the
Inclusion in CALTRANS
procedural manuals
Within 1 year of
EIR certification
Traffic Engineering
section of
Engineering
Division
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2677, Packet Page 3005 82 efficiency of traffic flow
during emergencies.

3.15-3 Implementation of
the Proposed Plan would
not require the installation
or maintenance of
associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other
utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment.

MM-WF-2: Underground Utility
District. The City shall adopt an
underground utility district
applicable to areas within the
Highway 68 Area Plan and the Fort
Ord Reuse Area that are identified
on Map 3-14 Sites Available for
Housing of the Housing Element
and that are both adjacent to and
within 1,000 linear feet of a
VHFHSZ designated by the
California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection. The
underground utility district shall
require that all new electrical
poles, overhead wires, and
associated overhead structures be
installed underground in order to
reduce wildfire risks and promote
public safety.

Adoption of underground
utility district applicable
to areas identified in
Housing Element.

In conjunction
with adoption of
Fort Ord/Ryan
Ranch Specific
Plan or
amendments to
the Highway 68
Plan, whichever
occurs first.

Planning Division;
City Council
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2678, Packet Page 3006 Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Housing Element ....................... 2
Land Use Element ....................... 749
Circulation Element ....................... 763
Safety Element ....................... 773
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2679, Packet Page 3007 June 18, 2024
2023-31

HOUSING

ELEMENT
Hearing Draft
Volume 1
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2680, Packet Page 3008 2023-31 HOUSING ELEMENT
Hearing Draft
Volume 1
June 18, 2024
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2681, Packet Page 3009 Hearing Draft | June 2024 1-1
1 Introduction
Purpose and Objectives
All California cities and counties are required to have a Housing Element included in their General Plan which establishes housing objectives, policies, and programs in response to community housing conditions and needs. This Housing Element has been prepared to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey and provide a framework for the community’s longer-term approach to addressing its housing needs.

The Housing Element contains goals, updated information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing actions) that the City is committed to undertaking. Housing affordability in Monterey County and in California is a critical issue. Over the past 30 years, housing costs have ballooned, driven by rising construction costs and land values, and homeownership in Monterey and throughout Monterey County has become an ever more distant dream for many people. The typical home value in Monterey in August 2022 was more than $1.1 million, an increase of 54 percent over the past decade. The double-edged sword of steep home prices is apparent as subsequent generations are priced out of the local housing market.

Similarly, people who work in Monterey are often forced to live far away where housing is more affordable, and high housing costs have become a significant obstacle to hiring service and hospitality workers, teachers, first responders, and others essential to the community.

This Housing Element touches many aspects of community life. It builds upon the goals, policies, and implementing programs contained in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element and other City policies and practices to address housing needs in the community. The overall focus of the Housing Element is to preserve and enhance community life, character, and serenity through the provision of adequate housing opportunities for people at all income levels, while being sensitive to the unique and historic character of Monterey that residents know and love.

The following are some of the specific purposes of the Housing Element update:

1. Address Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the RHNA of 3,654 housing units at all income levels for the 2023-2031 planning period.

2. Provide a Variety of Housing Opportunities. Provide a variety of housing opportunities proportionally by income to accommodate the needs of people who currently live, work, and go to school in Monterey, such as elderly residents, large families, students, teachers, and service and hospitality workers.

3. Provide Equal Housing Opportunities. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics, including but not limited to, age, ancestry, sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, disability, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin.

ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2682, Packet Page 3010 1-2 Hearing Draft | June 2024

4. Address Affordable Housing Needs. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected affordable housing need of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households.

5. Address the Housing Needs of Special Need Groups. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected housing needs of persons living with disabilities, unhoused people, elderly residents,students, and other special needs households in the community.

6. Remove Potential Constraints to Housing. Evaluate potential constraints to housing development and encourage new housing in locations supported by existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining existing neighborhood character. Develop programs to help remove or reduce barriers to the development of housing for all income levels.

7. Maintain Existing Housing. Maintain the existing housing stock to assure high quality maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing housing resources.

8. Provide Adequate Housing Sites. Identify appropriate housing sites within specified areas that have the potential to accommodate or are proximate to transportation, shopping and schools, and the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.

9. Promote Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. Continue to promote sustainability and energy efficiency in residential development to lower energy use through energy-efficient urban design and through better design and construction in individual projects.

Legal Requirements
State law requires each city, town, and county in California to adopt a General Plan containing at least seven elements, including a Housing Element. Regulations regarding Housing Elements are found in the California Government Code sections 65580-65589. Although the Housing Element must follow State law, it is by its nature a local document. The focus of the Monterey Housing Element is on the needs and desires of Monterey residents and workers as they relate to housing in the community. Within these parameters, the intent of the Element is also to comply with State law requirements.

Unlike the other mandatory General Plan elements, the Housing Element requires periodic updating and is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development — HCD. According to State law, the Housing Element must:
• Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve, improve and develop housing.
• Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community.
• Identify adequate sites that will be zoned and available within the Housing Element planning period — between 2023 and 2031 — to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs at all income levels. • Be submitted to HCD to review and certify that the Housing Element complies with State law.

State law establishes detailed content requirements for Housing Elements and establishes a regional “fair share” approach to distributing housing needs throughout all communities in the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) region. The law recognizes that for the private sector and non-profit housing sponsors to address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and implementing regulations that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.

ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2683, Packet Page 3011 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Chapter 1: Introduction Hearing Draft | June 2024 1-3

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
Monterey’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 to plan for the years 2015-2023. This Housing Element update reflects the RHNA as determined by AMBAG for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update, covering the years 2023-2031. The RHNA is a State-mandated process intended to ensure every city, town, and county plans for enough housing production to accommodate future growth. HCD assigns each region of the state an overall RHNA allocation. AMBAG distributes a “fair share” portion of that allocation to each local jurisdiction in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. The Council of San Benito County Governments distributes RHNA to jurisdictions within San Benito County. Each city and county must then identify adequate sites with a realistic capacity for development sufficient to meet this RHNA.

For the 2023-2031 period, Monterey must identify sites sufficient to accommodate 3,654 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, with a specific number of units designated as affordable to each income category, as shown in Table 1-1. The RHNA does not specifically break down the need for extremely-low-income households. As provided by State law, the housing needs of extremely-low-income households, or those making less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI), is estimated as 50 percent of the very-lowincome housing need. More detail on the RHNA allocation process is described in Chapter 3 as well as in Appendix C.

Table 1-1: Monterey Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031 Income Level AMI Needed Units Percent of Needed Units
Very-Low-Income 0-50% 1,177 32.2%
Low-Income 51-80% 769 21.0%
Moderate-Income 81-120% 462 12.6%
Above-Moderate-Income >120% 1,246 34.1%
Total 3,654 100.0%
Source: HCD State Income Limits, 2023; City of Monterey, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023 HOUSING ELEMENT LAW: STATE CHANGES
Various amendments have been made to Housing Element law since adoption of the 2015-23 Housing Element, especially since 2017. Some of the key changes for 6th cycle RHNA and Housing Element update include:
• Assembly Bill (AB) 72 (2017), codified in Government Code section 65585, provides additional authority to State HCD to scrutinize housing elements and enforce housing element noncompliance and other violations of state housing laws. • AB 879 (2017), which amended Government Code sections 65400, 65583, and 65700 and Health and Safety Code section 50456, and AB 1397 (2017), which amended Government Code sections 65580, 65583, and 65583.2, require additional analysis and justification of sites listed on a local government’s housing sites inventory, additional explanation of the realistic capacity of those listed sites, and further scrutiny of governmental and nongovernmental constraints that limit the production of housing.
• AB 686 (2018), which amended Government Code sections 65583 and 65583.2, requires local governments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) by including in revised housing elements (1) an assessment of fair housing; (2) equitable distribution of housing to meet the needs of households at all income levels and dismantle segregated living patterns with integrated ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2684, Packet Page 3012 1-4 Hearing Draft | June 2024
and balanced living patterns; (3) policies and programs that address fair housing barriers and promote fair housing patterns; and (4) a comprehensive, collaborative, accessible, inclusive, and equity-driven public engagement approach.
• AB 215 (2021), which amended Government Code section 65585, extends the housing element compliance review process by requiring local governments to make draft housing elements available for public review prior to submittal to State HCD rather than conducting concurrent review. The draft must be made publicly available for at least 30 days, and the local government must consider and incorporate public comment for at least 10 business days, before sending the draft to State HCD. AB 215 also increased State HCD’s review period of the first draft element submittal from 60 to 90 days and within 60 days of its receipt for a subsequent draft amendment or adoption. However, the January 31, 2023, statutory deadline remains the same, even as these new requirements have significantly added to the time a city needs to complete the overall housing element update process.
• AB 1398 (2021), which amended Government Code sections 65583, 65583.2, and 65588, revises the consequences for local governments that do not meet the deadline for housing element adoption. Local governments must complete rezoning no later than one year from the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element if that jurisdiction fails to adopt a housing element that State HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline. The City retains the three-year rezoning period if the housing element is adopted within 120 days of the statutory deadline.
• AB 1304 (2021), which amended Government Code sections 8899.50, 65583, and 65583.2, clarifies that a public agency has a mandatory duty to comply with existing Housing Element Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. AB 1304 revises the items to be included in AFFH analysis and requires that analysis to be done in a specified manner. In addition, the housing inventory must analyze the relationship of the sites identified in the inventory to the city’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

The contents of this Housing Element comply with these amendments and all other requirements of Housing Element law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to identify and mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects that could result from implementation of the 2023-31 City of Monterey Housing Element. Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR was circulated to invite comments from public agencies and interested community members to scope content of issues and alternatives that should be considered in the EIR. A public review Draft EIR will be released in Fall 2023, reflecting comments on the NOP was made available for public review between February 9 and March 25, 2024. The Final EIR, responding to public comments on the Draft EIR will be released in early May 2024.

Process for Updating the Housing Element
The 2023-31 Housing Element is a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, undertaken to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need and address new State law. Amid the ongoing housing shortage in California, Monterey is required by law to plan for 3,654 new housing units over the next 8 years. As a community with few vacant lots, steep topography, airport safety zones, and significant areas of flood, wildfire, and liquefaction risk, accommodating new housing will require a ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2685, Packet Page 3013 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Chapter 1: Introduction Hearing Draft | June 2024 1-5
thoughtful approach that integrates new homes to serve local needs while preserving the unique and historic sense of place so important to our community.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community involvement is an integral component of the Housing Element process. The City of Monterey employed a range of public outreach and engagement strategies to solicit meaningful community input that has informed the 2023-2031 Housing Element. These strategies included targeted community listening sessions, an online survey, a youth-led survey, decision-maker meetings, and pop-up outreach at popular locations around town as well as ongoing communication with the community online at the project’s website. Details of outreach activities and community input are included in Appendix G, together with a summary of how feedback is reflected in the Housing Element. A summary of these engagement activities is described below:
• Web and Social Media – At the outset of the process, a webpage was created on Have Your Say Monterey website to serve as a one-stop information portal for the Housing Element Update.

The webpage provided contextual information on legal requirements and key concepts and housed draft documents for public review. Updated content was posted to the City website and on social media regularly to keep the community informed of progress. • Citywide Mailers - The City sent postcards to every household in Monterey at three key points in the process to help raise awareness of the project and the process and keep community members informed of status and key dates. The mailers announced the dates/times of community open house meetings and invited participation in the community online survey. • Focus Group Discussions - The City hosted a series of listening sessions with property owners, community group representatives, local architects, real estate developers and builders, major employers, affordable housing advocates and service providers, and others to gather information on housing needs and preferences, as well as opportunities and constraints to residential development in Monterey. In total, 12 listening sessions of 5 to 10 participants were held over the course of December 6-8, 2022, at the Monterey Conference Center. Participants included representatives from Monterey Unified School District, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Naval Postgraduate School, U.S. Army (Defense Language Institute), hospitality and service employers, downtown property owners, architects who have designed/built ADUs in Monterey, and residents. Participant feedback from these groups helped inform the program of implementing actions in the Housing Element.
• Community Online Survey – In order to gather community input to inform updates to the Housing Element, an online survey was conducted March 1, 2023, to April 30, 2023. The survey provided residents with an opportunity to help identify and evaluate strategies for accommodating and encouraging new housing to serve local needs to help the City meet the legal requirements for the Housing Element. The survey was also promoted via the City’s website and email blasts to community members, citywide mailers to all households in Monterey, as well as newspaper. In total, 1,050 respondents participated in the survey. • Pop-Up Outreach - Using a “go to them” strategy to raise awareness of the project and provide community members with additional in-person opportunities for input, City staff conducted pop up events in March and April 2023 at locations where community members gather, such as the Del Monte Farmer’s Market, Monterey Public Library, Captain + Stoker Coffee Roasters, and the Alvarado Farmer’s Market. The events were structured as "chalk board chats" that provided community members with opportunities to learn about the project and share quick feedback.

ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2686, Packet Page 3014 1-6 Hearing Draft | June 2024
The events were also an opportunity to hand out postcards advertising the community online survey.
• Public Review Period - The Draft Housing Element was released for a 30-day public review period on August 2, 2023 to provide the community with an opportunity to ask questions and comment on the public review draft. During the public comment period, a community open house was held on August 7, 2023 at the Monterey Conference Center. The date and time were noticed with a direct mailer to every household in Monterey, an email blast to the community, social media, and an announcement on the City’s website. Revisions made in response to comments from HCD were posted for public review in April and in June 2024. • Decision-Maker Review – A series of study sessions before the Planning Commission and City Council was held as the components of the Housing Element were developed and refined, to provide additional opportunity for public input and decision-maker review. Upon close of the 30-day public review period, the Draft Housing Element and public comments were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. Adoption hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council are scheduled for June 2024.

Organization of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is an integrated part of the General Plan, published under separate cover. It is an eight-year plan that is updated more frequently than other General Plan elements to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The Housing Element consists of the following major components organized as described below:
• Chapter 1 - Introduction: Provides an introduction to the purpose of the document and the legal requirements for a Housing Element, together with an overview of the community and the community involvement process.
• Chapter 2 – Community Profile: Documents population characteristics, housing characteristics, and current development trends to inform the current housing state of Monterey and to identify community needs.
• Chapter 3 – Adequate Sites for Housing: Presents an inventory of adequate sites suitable for construction of new housing sufficient to meet needs at all economic levels along with projections of their realistic capacity for housing during the planning period and an overview of administrative and financial resources to support housing planning and production. • Chapter 4 - Housing Action Plan: Articulates housing goals, policies, and programs to address the City’s identified housing needs, including those of special needs groups and the findings of an analysis of fair housing issues in the community. This Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of six overarching goals to comprehensively address the housing needs of Monterey residents and workers.
• Appendix A – Sites Inventory: Presents a parcel-by-parcel inventory of sites identified to accommodate the City's RHNA together with other pertinent details in the electronic inventory form provided by the State for use in Housing Elements. • Appendix B – Housing Needs Assessment: Presents a profile of the community, including demographic and economic characteristics, commute patterns, and environmental conditions in the city.
• Appendix C – Constraints Analysis: Includes an analysis of constraints to housing production and maintenance in Monterey. Constraints include potential market, governmental, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified housing needs. In addition, an assessment of ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2687, Packet Page 3015 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Chapter 1: Introduction Hearing Draft | June 2024 1-7
impediments to fair housing is included, with a fuller analysis of actions needed to comply with AFFH is included in a separate appendix.
• Appendix D – Fair Housing Assessment: Identifies fair housing issues and solutions to meet Monterey’s AFFH mandate.
• Appendix E – Fifth Cycle Accomplishments: Summarizes the City’s achievements in implementing goals, policies, and actions under the previous Housing Element. • Appendix F – Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections:Includes additional details to demonstrate the viability of sites included on the inventory of housing sites and the projections for housing development during the 2023-31 period, as well as a letter of intent from the Monterey Peninsula School District.
• Appendix G Outreach Materials: Includes outreach materials, summaries, and a description of how community and stakeholder input has been reflected in the Housing Element. • Appendix H Test Fits: Includes illustrative project design calculations to inform the analysis of regulatory constraints in Appendix C.

General Plan Consistency
State law requires that the General Plan and all its elements comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies. The City of Monterey General Plan was adopted in 2005, and the Housing Element, published under separate cover, was certified and adopted in 2015. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update is consistent with the Monterey General Plan, which seeks to encourage housing, including mixed-use housing to meet the needs of business (Economic Element Goal D), as well as preserve existing and encourage development of new family housing in Monterey (Social Element Policy a.1). In 2022, the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on September 14, 2022. The Plan implements the FEMA’s Mitigation Planning regulations (44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 201), the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, and the Floodplain Management Plan requirements of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS). The City is required to have a FEMA‐approved hazard mitigation plan to be eligible for disaster recovery assistance and mitigation funding.

In parallel with the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update, the City has initiated an update to the Safety Element of the Monterey General Plan, which is anticipated for adoption in early 2024. The updated Safety Element will incorporate new data, information, and maps related to flooding, sea level rise, tsunamis, wildfires, landslides, and seismic hazards, as well as the findings of an emergency evacuation capacity analysis being conducted by the City to inform the Safety Element Update. This Sixth Cycle Housing Element builds upon the City's current, adopted General Plan and is consistent with its goals, policies, and implementation actions. Through the implementation of Program 6-A in this Housing Element, the City will continue to review the General Plan and Housing Element annually for internal consistency as amendments are proposed and adopted.

ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2688, Packet Page 3016 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Chapter 2: Community Profile Hearing Draft | June 2024 2-1
2 Community Profile
Monterey is a coastal community of about 28,000 residents with a rich historic background and a distinctive small-town feel. The city occupies 8.67 square miles of land between the southern shore of Monterey Bay and the forested ridgeline of the foothills, bordered by the City of Pacific Grove to the northwest and the City of Seaside to the east. Known for its stunning natural scenery and world-renowned attractions like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, tourism is a pillar of the local economy. Monterey is also home to four educational institutions – U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Peninsula College, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, and the U.S. Army Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center – and its enviable quality of life continues to make the community an attractive place to live.

This community profile documents population and housing characteristics, economic conditions, and current development trends to highlight community housing needs as well as issues and opportunities related to housing production. For a more detailed analysis of local housing needs, please see Appendix B:

Housing Needs Assessment.

Location and Context

LOCATION AND ACCESS
The City of Monterey is located in northern Monterey County about 19 miles west of Salinas, 29 miles north of Big Sur, and 115 miles south of San Francisco, as shown in Map 2-1. Covering an area of approximately

8.67 square miles, excluding 3.5 square miles of water area in the Monterey Bay, the City is largely a builtout community beside the bay, framed by a forested hill backdrop and rich historical background. Highway access is provided by California State Route 1 (SR1), a north-south highway that runs through the center of Monterey, as well as California State Route 68 (SR68), an east-west highway that serves as a major route between Salinas and Monterey Peninsula. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides connections at the Monterey Transit Plaza to the Salinas Transit Center as well as other surrounding cities such as Pacific Grove, Carmel Valley, Seaside, and Marina.

EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN AND USES
The City of Monterey is the third most populous jurisdiction in Monterey County, behind Salinas and Seaside. The city is largely developed with single-family homes, multi-family apartments, military and educational facilities, commercial corridors, and parks, with little vacant parcels throughout. The single largest land use category in Monterey is public/semi-public at 1,876.8 acres, which encompasses all publicly owned facilities and private facilities operated to serve the general public. Included in this category are public schools, military facilities, airport, and cemetery. Single-family residential accounts for 991.7 acres of land use in City, while multi-family residential covers about 387.5 acres. Parks and recreation uses occupy 617.5 acres, commercial uses occupy 428.8 acres, and industrial uses occupy 112.8 acres.

ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2689, Packet Page 3017 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Don Dahvee
Park Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
US Coast
Guard
Station
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
A brego St
Army St
Cam Agu ajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Mason Rd
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Leahy Rd Glenwood Cir
Scen i c Dr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Map 2-1: Regional Location and Planning Area
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\Map 2-1 RegionalLocation_PlanningArea.mxd City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Park
Water
Pacific
Grove
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Gonzales
Marina
Seaside
Salinas
Hollister
Watsonville
Aromas
Carmel Valley
Village
Castroville
Del Monte
Forest
Interlaken
La Selva Beach
Las Lomas
Pajaro
Prunedale
Monterey
Monterey
San B enito
Santa
Clara
Santa Cruz
UV1
UV68
UV1
UV156
UV68
UV1
UV1
£¤101
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Regional Locator
Map Not to Scale
µ
µ
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
County
Urban Areas
Water
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2690, Packet Page 3018 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Chapter 2: Community Profile Hearing Draft | June 2024 2-3

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Natural resources are an integral part of the city’s setting, economy, and physical development. Monterey features an array of natural habitats and protected areas that are home to abundant wildlife, from the coastal beaches, rocky bluffs, and sand dunes, the marine life in the Monterey Harbor and federally protected Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, to upland oak and pine forests and chaparral habitats. While the natural setting of Monterey helps define the character of the community, it also holds potential for natural hazards that pose risk to human life and property. As shown in Map 2-2, upland areas in the south and southwest of the city are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFire), based on the presence of vegetation that is highly flammable and extremely dry during the summer months. There are areas of high liquefaction risk along the course of creeks that drain from the hills to the Monterey Bay, and there is an area of high landslide susceptibility in the hills near Fisherman’s Flats Greenbelt. Low lying areas of Downtown and along Del Monte Avenue are subject to flooding and coastal inundation. Coastal erosion is common along much of the Monterey coastline, which could increase with sea level rise. Careful consideration of environmental constraints was vital in selecting and allocating adequate sites for all income categories in Monterey’s inventory.

Population Characteristics

POPULATION TRENDS
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the total population of the City of Monterey in 2020 was 28,304, an increase of 2.3 percent since 2010 (27,810). As shown in Table 2-1, AMBAG projects that by 2040 the population of the city will increase approximately 10 percent from the 2010 reported Census population. The AMBAG projections show a slightly higher population in 2020 than the U.S. Census count (28,575).

Table 2-1: City of Monterey Population Projections (2010-2050) 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Monterey 27,810 28,239 28,304 28,044 28,650 29,032 29,342 29,639 29,934 Monterey
County
415,05
7 430,277 440,393 453,956 464,124 471,901 477,265 480,694 481,30 5 Source: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2022, California Department of Finance, E-5 series, P1: State Population Projections (2010-2060), 2023 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2691, Packet Page 3019 P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
ÔA
»A
A§
A§
ÔA A§
ÔA
A§
1 2
4 1
2 4
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 1
4 2
2 5
Presidio of U.S. Army Monterey Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Ab rego St
Cam
Agu ajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Agu ajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Don Dahvee
Park Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio
Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
Figure 2-2: Environmental Hazards
Data Source: Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, CAL FIRE, September 2023 (Effective April 1, 2024); Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Recommended by CALFIRE, 2007; National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA 2017; Liquefaction Data, County of Monterey, 2014; Landslide Layer, County of Monterey, 2018; : Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2019; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\Map 2-2 Environmental Hazards.mxd Environmental Constraints
100 Year Coastal Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
High Liquefaction Susceptibility
High Landslide Susceptibility
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard
Airport Safety Zones (1-5)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Very High (LRA)
Very High (SRA)
High (SRA)
City of Monterey
Park
Water
µ
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2692, Packet Page 3020 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Chapter 2: Community Profile Hearing Draft | June 2024 2-5

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Understanding the racial and ethnic makeup of Monterey and the region can be important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. Throughout the U.S., past practices - including exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and urban renewal projects - have historically impeded fair access to housing for certain ethnic groups and the legacy of these actions continues to impact communities of color today.

Chart 2-1 presents the racial and ethnic composition of the City of Monterey’s population in 2010 and 2020, as reported in American Community Survey five-year data (for 2010 and 2020). Since 2010, Monterey has seen an increase in its Hispanic or Latinx population from 14.2 percent to 17 percent, making it the city’s second largest racial or ethnic group. The largest racial or ethnic group remains White, at 67.7 percent in 2020, down from 69 percent in 2010. In 2020, non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic Asian populations stayed the same in their share of the city’s overall population at 3.6 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

Chart 2-1 Population by Race in Monterey, 2010 and 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B03002 AGE
Current and future housing needs are typically determined in part by the age characteristics of a community’s residents. Each age group has distinct lifestyles, family type and size, incomes, and housing preferences. Consequently, evaluating the age characteristics of a community is important in determining its housing needs.

Monterey City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Monterey City Council
July 16, 2024