Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 4 of 22)

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 208, Packet Page 305 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
014-081-025-000 $169.32 25 WYNDEMERE WAY Single-Family Residential 014-081-026-000 $169.32 26 WYNDEMERE WAY Single-Family Residential 014-081-027-000 $169.32 27 WYNDEMERE WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-001-000 $169.32 1 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-002-000 $169.32 2 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-003-000 $169.32 3 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-004-000 $169.32 4 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-005-000 $169.32 5 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-006-000 $169.32 6 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-007-000 $169.32 7 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-008-000 $169.32 8 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-009-000 $169.32 9 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-010-000 $169.32 10 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-011-000 $169.32 11 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-012-000 $169.32 12 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-013-000 $169.32 13 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-014-000 $169.32 14 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-015-000 $169.32 15 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-016-000 $169.32 16 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-017-000 $169.32 17 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-018-000 $169.32 18 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-019-000 $169.32 19 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-020-000 $169.32 20 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-021-000 $169.32 21 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-022-000 $169.32 22 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-023-000 $169.32 23 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-024-000 $169.32 24 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-025-000 $169.32 25 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-091-026-000 $169.32 26 PINEHILL WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-001-000 $169.32 1 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-002-000 $169.32 2 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-003-000 $169.32 3 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-004-000 $169.32 4 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-005-000 $169.32 5 GREENWOOD RISE Single-Family Residential 014-101-006-000 $169.32 6 GREENWOOD RISE Single-Family Residential 014-101-007-000 $247.68 7 GREENWOOD RISE Multi-Family Residential 014-101-008-000 $169.32 8 GREENWOOD RISE Single-Family Residential 014-101-009-000 $169.32 9 GREENWOOD RISE Single-Family Residential 014-101-010-000 $169.32 10 GREENWOOD RISE Single-Family Residential 014-101-011-000 $169.32 11 GREENWOOD RISE Single-Family Residential 014-101-012-000 $169.32 12 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-013-000 $169.32 13 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-014-000 $169.32 14 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-015-000 $169.32 15 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-016-000 $169.32 16 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential

Page 200 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 209, Packet Page 306 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
014-101-017-000 $169.32 17 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-018-000 $169.32 18 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-019-000 $169.32 19 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-020-000 $169.32 20 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-021-000 $169.32 21 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-022-000 $169.32 22 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-023-000 $169.32 23 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-024-000 $169.32 24 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-025-000 $169.32 25 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-026-000 $169.32 26 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-027-000 $169.32 27 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-028-000 $169.32 28 GREENWOOD VALE Single-Family Residential 014-101-029-000 $169.32 29 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-030-000 $169.32 30 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-031-000 $169.32 31 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-032-000 $169.32 32 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-101-033-000 $169.32 33 GREENWOOD WAY Single-Family Residential 014-111-001-000 $169.32 14 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-002-000 $169.32 13 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-003-000 $169.32 12 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-004-000 $169.32 11 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-005-000 $169.32 10 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-007-000 $169.32 8 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-008-000 $169.32 7 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-011-000 $169.32 6 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-012-000 $169.32 5 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-013-000 $169.32 4 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-014-000 $169.32 3 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-015-000 $169.32 2 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-016-000 $169.32 1 STRATFORD PL Single-Family Residential 014-111-018-000 $169.32 14 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-019-000 $169.32 13 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-020-000 $169.32 12 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-021-000 $169.32 11 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-022-000 $169.32 10 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-023-000 $169.32 9 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-024-000 $169.32 8 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-025-000 $169.32 7 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-026-000 $169.32 6 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-027-000 $169.32 5 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-028-000 $169.32 4 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-029-000 $169.32 3 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-030-000 $169.32 2 VICTORIA VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-031-000 $169.32 175 FOREST RIDGE RD Single-Family Residential 014-111-032-000 $169.32 9 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential

Page 201 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 210, Packet Page 307 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
014-111-033-000 $169.32 8 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-034-000 $169.32 7 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-035-000 $169.32 6 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-036-000 $169.32 5 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-037-000 $169.32 4 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-038-000 $247.68 3 SOMMERSET VALE Multi-Family Residential 014-111-039-000 $169.32 2 SOMMERSET VALE Single-Family Residential 014-111-041-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #1 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-042-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #2 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-043-000 $123.84 3 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-044-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #4 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-045-000 $123.84 5 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-046-000 $123.84 6 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS Multi-Family Residential 014-111-047-000 $123.84 7 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-048-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #8 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-049-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #9 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-050-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #10 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-051-000 $123.84 249 FOREST RIDGE RD #11 Multi-Family Residential 014-111-052-000 $123.84 12 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-053-000 $123.84 13 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-054-000 $123.84 14 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-055-000 $123.84 15 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-056-000 $123.84 16 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-057-000 $123.84 17 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-058-000 $123.84 18 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-059-000 $123.84 19 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-111-060-000 $123.84 20 MOUNTAIN SHADOWS LN Multi-Family Residential 014-121-001-000 $169.32 1 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-002-000 $169.32 2 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-003-000 $169.32 3 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-004-000 $169.32 4 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-005-000 $169.32 5 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-006-000 $169.32 6 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-007-000 $169.32 7 VICTORIA RISE Single-Family Residential 014-121-008-000 $169.32 190 FOREST RIDGE RD Single-Family Residential 014-131-001-000 $169.32 110 FOREST RIDGE RD Single-Family Residential 014-131-002-000 $169.32 2 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-003-000 $169.32 3 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-004-000 $169.32 4 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-005-000 $169.32 5 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-006-000 $169.32 6 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-007-000 $169.32 7 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-008-000 $169.32 8 SOMMERSET RISE Single-Family Residential 014-131-009-000 $169.32 1 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-010-000 $169.32 2 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential

Page 202 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 211, Packet Page 308 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
014-131-011-000 $169.32 3 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-012-000 $169.32 4 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-013-000 $169.32 5 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-014-000 $169.32 6 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-015-000 $169.32 7 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-016-000 $169.32 8 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-017-000 $169.32 9 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-018-000 $169.32 10 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-019-000 $169.32 11 OVERLOOK PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-024-000 $169.32 1 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-025-000 $169.32 2 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-026-000 $169.32 3 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-027-000 $169.32 4 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-028-000 $169.32 5 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-029-000 $169.32 6 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-030-000 $169.32 7 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-031-000 $169.32 8 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-032-000 $169.32 9 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-033-000 $169.32 10 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-034-000 $169.32 11 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-035-000 $169.32 12 CHATSWOOD PL Single-Family Residential 014-131-036-000 $4,953.60 1330 SKYLINE DR Multi-Family Residential 014-141-001-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #1 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-002-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #2 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-003-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #3 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-004-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #4 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-005-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #5 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-006-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #6 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-007-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #7 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-008-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #8 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-009-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #9 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-010-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #10 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-011-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #11 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-012-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #12 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-013-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #13 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-014-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #14 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-015-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #15 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-016-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #16 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-017-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #17 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-018-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #18 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-019-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #19 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-020-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #20 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-021-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #21 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-022-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #22 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-023-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #23 Multi-Family Residential

Page 203 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 212, Packet Page 309 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
014-141-024-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #24 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-025-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #25 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-026-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #26 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-027-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #27 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-028-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #28 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-029-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #29 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-030-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #30 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-031-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #31 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-032-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #32 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-033-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #33 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-034-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #34 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-035-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #35 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-036-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #36 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-037-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #37 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-038-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #38 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-039-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #39 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-040-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #40 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-041-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #41 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-042-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #42 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-043-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #43 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-044-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #44 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-045-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #45 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-046-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #46 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-047-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #47 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-048-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #48 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-049-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #49 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-050-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #50 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-051-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #51 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-052-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #52 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-053-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #53 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-054-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #54 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-055-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #55 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-056-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #56 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-057-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #57 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-058-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #58 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-059-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #59 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-060-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #60 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-061-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #61 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-062-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #62 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-063-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #63 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-064-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #64 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-065-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #65 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-066-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #66 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-067-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #67 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-068-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #68 Multi-Family Residential

Page 204 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 213, Packet Page 310 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
014-141-069-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #69 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-070-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #70 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-071-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #71 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-072-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #72 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-073-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #73 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-074-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #74 Multi-Family Residential 014-141-075-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD #75 Multi-Family Residential 014-151-001-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-002-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-003-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-004-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-005-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-006-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-007-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-008-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-009-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-010-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-011-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-012-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-013-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-014-000 $123.84 250 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-015-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-016-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-017-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-018-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-019-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-020-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-021-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-022-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-023-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-024-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-025-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-026-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-027-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-028-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-029-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-030-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-031-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 014-151-032-000 $123.84 70 FOREST RIDGE RD Multi-Family Residential 03-001132 $169.32 699 ARCHER ST Single-Family Residential 101-011-003-000 $169.32 1162 CASTRO RD Single-Family Residential 101-011-010-000 $169.32 1100 CASTRO RD Single-Family Residential 101-011-011-000 $169.32 1339 AGUAJITO RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-006-000 $169.32 105 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-007-000 $169.32 107 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential

Page 205 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 214, Packet Page 311 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-051-008-000 $169.32 109 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-009-000 $169.32 111 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-010-000 $169.32 113 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-011-000 $169.32 115 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-012-000 $169.32 117 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-013-000 $169.32 121 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-014-000 $169.32 123 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-015-000 $169.32 125 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-016-000 $169.32 127 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-017-000 $169.32 129 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-018-000 $169.32 131 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-019-000 $169.32 133 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-020-000 $169.32 135 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-021-000 $169.32 137 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-022-000 $169.32 139 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-023-000 $169.32 143 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-024-000 $169.32 145 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-025-000 $169.32 147 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-026-000 $169.32 149 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-027-000 $169.32 151 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-028-000 $169.32 153 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-029-000 $169.32 159 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-030-000 $169.32 167 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-031-000 $169.32 171 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-051-032-000 $169.32 110 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-052-001-000 $169.32 120 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-052-002-000 $169.32 124 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-052-003-000 $169.32 126 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-052-004-000 $169.32 130 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-052-005-000 $169.32 132 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-052-006-000 $247.68 134 LITTLEFIELD RD Multi-Family Residential 101-053-003-000 $169.32 166 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-053-004-000 $169.32 162 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-053-005-000 $169.32 158 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-053-006-000 $169.32 150 LITTLEFIELD RD Single-Family Residential 101-061-004-000 $169.32 1 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-005-000 $169.32 2 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-006-000 $169.32 3 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-007-000 $169.32 4 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-008-000 $169.32 5 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-009-000 $169.32 6 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-010-000 $169.32 7 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-011-000 $169.32 8 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-012-000 $169.32 9 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-013-000 $169.32 10 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential

Page 206 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 215, Packet Page 312 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-061-014-000 $169.32 11 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-061-015-000 $169.32 12 ABINANTE WAY Single-Family Residential 101-091-017-000 $169.32 101 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-020-000 $169.32 107 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-021-000 $169.32 109 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-022-000 $169.32 111 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-023-000 $169.32 113 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-024-000 $169.32 115 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-026-000 $169.32 103 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-091-027-000 $169.32 105 FLAGG HILL DR Single-Family Residential 101-261-001-000 $123.84 57 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-002-000 $123.84 56 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-003-000 $123.84 55 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-004-000 $123.84 54 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-005-000 $123.84 53 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-006-000 $123.84 52 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-007-000 $123.84 51 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-008-000 $123.84 50 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-009-000 $123.84 49 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-010-000 $123.84 48 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-011-000 $123.84 47 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-012-000 $123.84 46 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-013-000 $123.84 45 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-014-000 $123.84 44 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-015-000 $123.84 43 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-016-000 $123.84 42 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-017-000 $123.84 41 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-018-000 $123.84 40 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-019-000 $123.84 39 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-020-000 $123.84 38 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-021-000 $123.84 37 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-022-000 $123.84 36 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-023-000 $123.84 35 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-024-000 $123.84 34 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-025-000 $123.84 33 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-026-000 $123.84 32 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-027-000 $123.84 31 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-028-000 $123.84 94 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-029-000 $123.84 93 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-030-000 $123.84 92 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-031-000 $123.84 91 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-032-000 $123.84 90 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-033-000 $123.84 89 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-034-000 $123.84 88 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-035-000 $123.84 87 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential

Page 207 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 216, Packet Page 313 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-261-036-000 $123.84 86 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-037-000 $123.84 85 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-038-000 $123.84 84 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-039-000 $123.84 83 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-040-000 $123.84 82 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-041-000 $123.84 81 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-042-000 $123.84 80 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-043-000 $123.84 79 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-044-000 $123.84 78 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-045-000 $123.84 77 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-046-000 $123.84 76 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-047-000 $123.84 75 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-048-000 $123.84 74 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-049-000 $123.84 73 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-050-000 $123.84 72 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-051-000 $123.84 71 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-052-000 $123.84 67 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-053-000 $123.84 66 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-054-000 $123.84 65 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-055-000 $123.84 64 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-056-000 $123.84 63 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-057-000 $123.84 62 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-058-000 $123.84 61 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-059-000 $123.84 60 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-060-000 $123.84 59 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-061-000 $123.84 58 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-062-000 $123.84 1 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-063-000 $123.84 2 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-064-000 $123.84 3 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-065-000 $123.84 4 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-066-000 $123.84 5 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-067-000 $123.84 6 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-261-068-000 $169.32 1100 OLD SALINAS HWY Single-Family Residential 101-271-001-000 $123.84 7 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-002-000 $123.84 8 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-003-000 $123.84 9 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-004-000 $123.84 10 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-005-000 $123.84 11 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-006-000 $123.84 12 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-007-000 $123.84 13 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-008-000 $123.84 14 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-009-000 $123.84 15 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-010-000 $123.84 16 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-011-000 $123.84 17 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-012-000 $123.84 18 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential

Page 208 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 217, Packet Page 314 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-271-013-000 $123.84 19 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-014-000 $123.84 20 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-015-000 $123.84 21 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-016-000 $123.84 22 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-017-000 $123.84 23 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-018-000 $123.84 24 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-019-000 $123.84 25 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-020-000 $123.84 26 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-021-000 $123.84 27 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-022-000 $123.84 28 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-023-000 $123.84 29 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-024-000 $123.84 30 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-025-000 $123.84 95 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-026-000 $123.84 96 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-027-000 $123.84 97 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-028-000 $123.84 98 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-029-000 $123.84 99 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-030-000 $123.84 100 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-031-000 $123.84 70 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-032-000 $123.84 69 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-271-033-000 $123.84 68 MONTSALAS DR Multi-Family Residential 101-281-001-000 $169.32 2 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-002-000 $169.32 4 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-003-000 $169.32 6 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-004-000 $169.32 2 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-005-000 $169.32 4 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-006-000 $169.32 6 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-007-000 $169.32 8 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-008-000 $169.32 10 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-009-000 $169.32 12 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-010-000 $169.32 14 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-011-000 $169.32 16 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-012-000 $169.32 18 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-013-000 $169.32 20 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-014-000 $169.32 22 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-015-000 $169.32 24 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-016-000 $169.32 26 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-017-000 $169.32 23 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-018-000 $169.32 21 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-019-000 $169.32 19 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-020-000 $169.32 17 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-021-000 $169.32 15 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-022-000 $169.32 13 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-023-000 $169.32 11 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-024-000 $169.32 9 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential

Page 209 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 218, Packet Page 315 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-281-025-000 $169.32 7 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-026-000 $169.32 5 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-027-000 $169.32 3 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-028-000 $169.32 1 ANTELOPE LN Single-Family Residential 101-281-029-000 $169.32 14 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-030-000 $169.32 16 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-031-000 $169.32 18 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-032-000 $169.32 20 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-033-000 $169.32 22 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-034-000 $169.32 24 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-035-000 $169.32 26 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-036-000 $169.32 28 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-037-000 $169.32 29 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-038-000 $169.32 27 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-039-000 $169.32 25 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-040-000 $169.32 23 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-041-000 $169.32 21 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-042-000 $169.32 19 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-043-000 $169.32 17 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-044-000 $169.32 15 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-045-000 $169.32 13 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-046-000 $169.32 11 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-281-047-000 $169.32 9 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-291-001-000 $169.32 7 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-291-002-000 $169.32 5 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-291-003-000 $169.32 3 ELK RUN Single-Family Residential 101-291-004-000 $169.32 1 ELK RUN CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-005-000 $169.32 4 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-291-006-000 $169.32 6 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-291-007-000 $169.32 8 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-291-008-000 $169.32 10 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-291-009-000 $169.32 12 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-291-010-000 $169.32 14 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-291-011-000 $169.32 2 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-012-000 $169.32 4 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-013-000 $169.32 6 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-014-000 $169.32 8 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-015-000 $169.32 10 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-016-000 $169.32 12 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-017-000 $169.32 14 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-018-000 $169.32 16 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-019-000 $169.32 18 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-020-000 $169.32 20 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-021-000 $169.32 22 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-022-000 $169.32 24 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential

Page 210 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 219, Packet Page 316 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-291-023-000 $169.32 25 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-024-000 $169.32 23 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-025-000 $169.32 21 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-026-000 $169.32 19 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-027-000 $169.32 17 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-028-000 $169.32 15 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-029-000 $169.32 13 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-030-000 $169.32 11 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-031-000 $169.32 9 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-032-000 $169.32 7 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-033-000 $169.32 5 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-034-000 $169.32 3 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-291-035-000 $169.32 1 CARIBOU CT Single-Family Residential 101-301-001-000 $169.32 2 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-301-002-000 $169.32 23 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-003-000 $169.32 25 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-004-000 $169.32 27 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-005-000 $169.32 29 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-006-000 $169.32 31 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-007-000 $169.32 33 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-008-000 $169.32 35 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-301-009-000 $169.32 4 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-301-010-000 $169.32 2 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-011-000 $169.32 4 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-012-000 $169.32 6 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-013-000 $169.32 8 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-014-000 $169.32 10 BLACKTAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-015-000 $169.32 12 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-016-000 $169.32 11 BLACKTAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-017-000 $169.32 9 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-018-000 $169.32 7 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-019-000 $169.32 5 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-020-000 $169.32 3 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-021-000 $169.32 1 BLACK TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-022-000 $169.32 2 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-023-000 $169.32 4 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-024-000 $169.32 6 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-025-000 $169.32 8 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-026-000 $169.32 10 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-027-000 $169.32 12 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-028-000 $169.32 14 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-029-000 $169.32 15 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-030-000 $169.32 13 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-031-000 $169.32 11 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-032-000 $169.32 9 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential

Page 211 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 220, Packet Page 317 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-301-033-000 $169.32 7 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-034-000 $169.32 5 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-035-000 $169.32 3 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-036-000 $169.32 1 WHITE TAIL LN Single-Family Residential 101-301-037-000 $169.32 14 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-301-038-000 $169.32 16 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-302-001-000 $169.32 32 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-302-002-000 $169.32 30 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-302-003-000 $169.32 28 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-302-004-000 $169.32 26 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-302-005-000 $169.32 1 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-006-000 $169.32 5 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-007-000 $169.32 3 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-008-000 $169.32 9 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-009-000 $169.32 7 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-010-000 $169.32 11 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-011-000 $169.32 13 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-012-000 $169.32 15 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-013-000 $169.32 16 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-014-000 $169.32 14 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-015-000 $169.32 12 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-016-000 $169.32 10 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-017-000 $169.32 8 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-018-000 $169.32 6 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-302-021-000 $169.32 22 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-302-022-000 $169.32 2 ANTLER PL Single-Family Residential 101-311-001-000 $169.32 18 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-002-000 $169.32 20 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-003-000 $169.32 22 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-004-000 $169.32 24 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-005-000 $169.32 26 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-006-000 $169.32 28 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-007-000 $169.32 30 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-008-000 $169.32 32 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-009-000 $169.32 34 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-010-000 $169.32 36 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-011-000 $169.32 35 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-012-000 $169.32 33 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-013-000 $169.32 31 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-014-000 $169.32 29 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-015-000 $169.32 27 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-016-000 $169.32 25 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-017-000 $169.32 23 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-018-000 $169.32 21 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-019-000 $169.32 19 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential

Page 212 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 221, Packet Page 318 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-311-020-000 $169.32 17 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-021-000 $169.32 15 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-022-000 $169.32 13 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-023-000 $169.32 11 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-024-000 $169.32 9 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-025-000 $169.32 7 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-026-000 $169.32 5 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-027-000 $169.32 4 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 101-311-028-000 $169.32 6 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 101-311-029-000 $169.32 8 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 101-311-030-000 $169.32 9 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 101-311-031-000 $169.32 7 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 101-311-035-000 $169.32 1 DEER STALKER PATH Single-Family Residential 101-311-036-000 $169.32 17 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-311-037-000 $169.32 15 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-311-038-000 $169.32 13 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-311-039-000 $169.32 11 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-311-040-000 $169.32 9 DEER FOREST DR Single-Family Residential 101-311-041-000 $169.32 3 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 101-311-042-000 $169.32 1 STAG LN Single-Family Residential 259-011-018-000 $532.56 1700 VIA CASOLI School - Pre-Grade 6 259-011-067-000 $260.76 1 RYAN RANCH RD Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-011-067-000 $125.28 1 RYAN RANCH RD Garage/Repair
259-011-067-000 $759.74 1 RYAN RANCH RD Special User
259-011-068-000 $260.76 10 RYAN RANCH RD Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-011-068-000 $125.28 10 RYAN RANCH RD Garage/Repair
259-021-012-000 $260.76 3001 SLNS-MTY HWY Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-021-012-000 $316.56 3001 SLNS-MTY HWY Take-Out Small 259-022-001-000 $130.32 2969 HIGHWAY 68 Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-022-002-000 $130.32 2969 HIGHWAY 68 Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-022-003-000 $130.32 2969 MONTEREY SALINAS HWY Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-022-006-000 $130.32 2969 HIGHWAY 68 Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-022-011-000 $130.32 2969 HIGHWAY 68 Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-022-023-000 $130.32 2969 MONTEREY SALINAS HWY Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-022-087-000 $260.76 2969 MONTEREY SALINAS HWY Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $355.46 2 HARRIS CT Special User
259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-018-000 $130.32 2 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees)

Page 213 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 222, Packet Page 319 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $260.76 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $260.76 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-021-000 $130.32 8 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-040-000 $523.20 8 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (31-40 employees) 259-031-043-000 $392.88 4 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-031-044-000 $130.32 6 UPPER RAGSDALE Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-050-000 $260.76 5 MANDEVILLE CT Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-050-000 $260.76 5 MANDEVILLE CT Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-053-000 $392.88 5 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-031-053-000 $130.32 5 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-053-000 $130.32 5 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-053-000 $871.80 5 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-031-053-000 $523.08 5 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-031-055-000 $130.32 8 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-059-000 $260.76 16 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-060-000 $392.88 18 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-031-066-000 $260.76 22 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-066-000 $260.76 22 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-066-000 $260.76 22 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-069-000 $568.32 6 LOWER RAGSDALE DR School - Boarding 259-031-074-000 $326.76 20 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Animal Hospital 259-031-074-000 $783.96 20 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (51-60 employees) 259-031-075-000 $523.20 50 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (31-40 employees) 259-031-075-000 $130.32 50 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-075-000 $260.76 50 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-076-000 $130.32 40 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-076-000 $174.36 40 RAGSDALE DR Medical Office
259-031-076-000 $130.32 40 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-076-000 $260.76 40 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-076-000 $130.32 40 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-077-000 $130.32 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-077-000 $130.32 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-077-000 $130.32 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees)

Page 214 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 223, Packet Page 320 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
259-031-077-000 $260.76 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-077-000 $130.32 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-077-000 $260.76 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-077-000 $130.32 30 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-078-000 $260.76 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-078-000 $130.32 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-078-000 $130.32 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-078-000 $130.32 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-078-000 $260.76 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-078-000 $392.88 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-031-078-000 $130.32 20 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-079-000 $1,306.92 10 RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (91-100 employees) 259-031-080-000 $130.32 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-080-000 $130.32 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-080-000 $260.76 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-080-000 $130.32 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-080-000 $130.32 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-080-000 $260.76 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-080-000 $130.32 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-080-000 $348.72 2 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-031-081-000 $260.76 4 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-031-081-000 $130.32 4 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-081-000 $130.32 4 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-081-000 $130.32 4 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-081-000 $130.32 4 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-031-083-000 $174.36 15 RYAN CT Medical Office
259-032-001-000 $653.52 40 RYAN CT Business/Government (41-50 employees) 259-032-001-000 $130.32 40 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-032-001-000 $130.32 40 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-032-001-000 $260.76 40 RYAN CT Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-033-005-000 $130.32 30 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-033-006-000 $130.32 30 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-033-009-000 $130.32 30 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-033-010-000 $130.32 30 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-033-011-000 $130.32 30 RYAN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-034-010-000 $130.32 12 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-034-038-000 $130.32 12 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-034-047-000 $130.32 12 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-004-000 $204.96 2 JUSTIN CT School - Pre-Grade 6 259-041-005-000 $130.32 4 JUSTIN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-005-000 $130.32 4 JUSTIN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-006-000 $392.88 6 HARRIS CT Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-041-007-000 $260.76 8 THOMAS OWENS WAY Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-041-007-000 $130.32 8 THOMAS OWENS WAY Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-008-000 $260.76 12 THOMAS OWENS WAY Business/Government (11-20 employees)

Page 215 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 224, Packet Page 321 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
259-041-014-000 $130.32 1 JUSTIN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-014-000 $130.32 1 JUSTIN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-015-000 $523.20 3 JUSTIN CT Business/Government (31-40 employees) 259-041-016-000 $130.32 5 JUSTIN CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-016-000 $125.28 5 JUSTIN CT Garage/Repair
259-041-017-000 $130.32 11 THOMAS OWENS WAY Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-017-000 $174.36 11 THOMAS OWENS WAY Medical Office 259-041-017-000 $174.36 11 THOMAS OWENS WAY Medical Office 259-041-018-000 $174.36 4 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-041-018-000 $523.08 4 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-041-018-000 $130.32 4 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-041-018-000 $130.32 4 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-001-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG A Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-002-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-003-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG C Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-005-000 $392.88 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-051-008-000 $392.88 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-051-012-000 $915.96 5 HARRIS CT BLDG L Business/Government (61-70 employees) 259-051-014-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG N Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-014-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG N Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-014-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG N11 Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-014-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG N Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-014-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG N6 Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-015-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-051-015-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-061-001-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG Q Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-061-006-000 $260.76 5 HARRIS CT BLDG W Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-061-006-000 $260.76 5 HARRIS CT BLDG W Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-061-010-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT BLDG S Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-062-001-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-062-002-000 $130.32 5 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-062-003-000 $174.36 5 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-062-003-000 $174.36 5 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-062-003-000 $174.36 5 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-062-006-000 $1,220.52 5 HARRIS CT BLDG Medical Office 259-071-001-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-071-001-000 $260.76 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-071-001-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-071-002-000 $1,176.60 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (81-90 employees) 259-071-003-000 $392.88 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-071-004-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-071-004-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-071-004-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-071-004-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-071-004-000 $130.32 1 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees)

Page 216 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 225, Packet Page 322 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
259-141-001-000 $392.88 17 MANDEVILLE CT Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-141-002-000 $130.32 21 MANDEVILLE CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-141-002-000 $130.32 21 MANDEVILLE CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-141-004-000 $260.76 21 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-141-004-000 $174.36 21 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-004-000 $130.32 21 LOWER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-141-005-000 $174.36 12 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-151-003-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-151-003-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-151-003-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-151-004-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-151-004-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-151-004-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-151-004-000 $130.32 10 HARRIS CT Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-152-002-000 $174.36 10 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-152-004-000 $174.36 10 HARRIS CT Medical Office
259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $174.36 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-181-004-000 $130.32 23 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-182-001-000 $174.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-182-001-000 $130.32 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-182-003-000 $174.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-182-003-000 $174.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-182-004-000 $174.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-182-005-000 $240.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Dental Office 259-182-006-000 $240.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Dental Office 259-182-007-000 $240.36 21 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Dental Office 259-183-002-000 $130.32 31 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-183-003-000 $174.36 101 WILSON RD Medical Office
259-183-003-000 $130.32 101 WILSON RD Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-183-003-000 $174.36 101 WILSON RD Medical Office

Page 217 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 226, Packet Page 323 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
259-184-003-000 $174.36 19 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-184-003-000 $130.32 19 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-184-004-000 $392.88 19 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (21-30 employees) 259-185-001-000 $130.32 100 WILSON RD Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-185-002-000 $1,306.92 100 WILSON RD Business/Government (91-100 employees) 259-185-002-000 $1,176.60 100 WILSON RD Business/Government (81-90 employees) 259-221-001-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-221-001-000 $348.72 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-221-001-000 $130.32 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-221-001-000 $130.32 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-221-001-000 $130.32 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-221-001-000 $260.76 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (11-20 employees) 259-221-001-000 $130.32 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-221-001-000 $130.32 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Business/Government (1-10 employees) 259-221-001-000 $348.72 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-221-002-000 $1,046.16 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-221-004-000 $6,974.40 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-001-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-002-000 $348.72 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-004-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-004-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-004-000 $523.08 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-005-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-006-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-007-000 $2,194.24 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Special User 259-222-008-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-009-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-009-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-009-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-009-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-009-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-009-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-010-000 $523.08 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-011-000 $348.72 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-013-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-013-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-013-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 259-222-013-000 $174.36 2 UPPER RAGSDALE DR Medical Office 101-191-005-000 $338.64 1217 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-005-000 $338.64 1176 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-021-000 $338.64 1237 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-014-000 $338.64 1229 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-003-000 $338.64 1166 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-025-000 $338.64 1227 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-026-000 $338.64 1231 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential

Page 218 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 227, Packet Page 324 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-191-039-000 $338.64 1629 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-161-003-000 $338.64 1122 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-018-000 $338.64 1520 Monterey-Salinas Hwy A Single-Family Residential 008-581-001-000 Los Altos Drive
008-581-004-000 Los Altos Drive
008-581-006-000 Scenic Drive
008-581-005-000 Scenic Drive
008-582-012-000 $247.68 10 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-051-000 $247.68 51 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-026-000 $247.68 3999 Scenic Dr 82 Multi-Family Residential 008-582-001-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-018-000 $247.68 16 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-006-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-013-000 $247.68 11 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-041-000 $247.68 41 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-054-000 $247.68 54 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-036-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-019-000 $247.68 19 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-014-000 $247.68 70 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-029-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-053-000 $247.68 53 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-017-000 $247.68 15 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-008-000 $247.68 6 Windsong Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-026-000 $247.68 Ocean Pines Lane Multi-Family Residential 008-583-018-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-583-021-000 $247.68 77 Ocean Pines Ln B Multi-Family Residential 008-583-016-000 $247.68 72 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-039-000 $247.68 39 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-040-000 $247.68 40 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-043-000 $247.68 43 Ocean Pines Ln G Multi-Family Residential 008-582-034-000 $247.68 19 Ocean Pines Ln 34D Multi-Family Residential 008-582-046-000 $247.68 46 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-005-000 $247.68 46 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-003-000 $247.68 57 Scenic Dr 57 Multi-Family Residential 008-582-027-000 $247.68 27 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-033-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-028-000 $247.68 28 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-023-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-582-038-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-024-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-583-001-000 $247.68 55 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-025-000 $247.68 25 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-034-000 $247.68 90 Ocean Pines Ln G Multi-Family Residential 008-582-048-000 $247.68 48L Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-022-000 $247.68 22 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential

Page 219 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 228, Packet Page 325 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
008-583-032-000 $247.68 88 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-031-000 $247.68 87 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-015-000 $247.68 71 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-033-000 $247.68 89 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-582-037-000 $247.68 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-042-000 $247.68 42 Ocean Pines Ln R Multi-Family Residential 008-582-031-000 $247.68 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-020-000 $247.68 20 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-049-000 $247.68 49 Ocean Pines Ln A Multi-Family Residential 008-583-008-000 $247.68 63 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-025-000 $247.68 81 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-045-000 $247.68 45 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-052-000 $247.68 52 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-022-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-583-010-000 $247.68 66 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-017-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-583-013-000 $247.68 69 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-021-000 $247.68 21 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-011-000 $247.68 67 Ocean Pines Ln K Multi-Family Residential 008-583-030-000 $247.68 86 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-012-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-583-029-000 $247.68 85 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-020-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-582-009-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-583-028-000 $247.68 Multi-Family Residential
008-582-007-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-583-027-000 $247.68 83 Ocean pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-010-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-583-019-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-582-015-000 $247.68 17 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-047-000 $247.68 47 Ebbtide K Multi-Family Residential 008-582-011-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-583-006-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential 008-583-023-000 $247.68 79 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-016-000 $247.68 18 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-032-000 $247.68 32 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-035-000 $247.68 35 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-002-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-582-005-000 $247.68 3 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-014-000 $247.68 Multi-Family Residential
008-582-044-000 $247.68 44 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-050-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 008-583-007-000 $247.68 62 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-004-000 $247.68 59 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-009-000 $247.68 Scenic Dr Multi-Family Residential

Page 220 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 229, Packet Page 326 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
008-583-002-000 $247.68 56 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-003-000 $247.68 7 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-004-000 $247.68 8 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-583-024-000 $247.68 80 Ocean Pines Ln Multi-Family Residential 008-582-030-000 $247.68 Los Altos Drive Multi-Family Residential 101-191-010-000 $338.64 1632 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-004-000 $338.64 1172 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-221-007-000 $338.64 1327 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-161-002-000 $338.64 1110 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-001-000 $338.64 1640 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-004-000 $338.64 1215 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-211-004-000 $338.64 1283 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-034-000 $338.64 1247 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-161-005-000 $338.64 1150 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-211-001-000 $338.64 1273 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-038-000 $338.64 1510 Monterey Salinas Highway Single-Family Residential 101-211-002-000 $338.64 1285 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-016-000 $338.64 1520 Monterey Salinas Hwy Single-Family Residential 101-191-017-000 $338.64 1521 Monterey Salinas Hwy Single-Family Residential 101-191-030-000 $338.64 1519 Monterey Salinas Hwy A Single-Family Residential 101-201-002-000 1249 Josselyn Canyon Rd
101-191-035-000 $338.64 1520 Monterey Salinas Hwy Single-Family Residential 101-161-004-000 $338.64 1138 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-037-000 $338.64 1241 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-036-000 $338.64 1239 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-002-000 $338.64 1211 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-001-000 $338.64 1156 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-003-000 $338.64 1215 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-004-000 $338.64 1217 Sylvan Rd 10 Single-Family Residential 101-141-007-000 $338.64 1219 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-008-000 $338.64 1235 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-009-000 $338.64 1237 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-011-000 $338.64 1239 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-012-000 $338.64 1241 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-015-000 $338.64 1221 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-141-017-000 $338.64 1225 Sylvan Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-002-000 $338.64 1162 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 013-221-020-000 $338.64 1200 Airport Rd Single-Family Residential 011-401-023-000 1350 Del Monte Blvd, Seaside
101-042-007-000 $338.64 1255 Aguajito Rd Single-Family Residential 101-221-006-000 $338.64 1313 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-031-000 $338.64 1235 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-022-002-000 $338.64 1176 Castro Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-009-000 $338.64 1194 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-151-008-000 $338.64 1184 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential

Page 221 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 230, Packet Page 327 City of Monterey - Sewer Collection Fees, FY 2024-25
Parcel No. Annual Charge
(FY 24/25)
Service Address Category Description
101-221-009-000 $338.64 1337 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-211-028-000 $338.64 1277 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-211-003-000 $338.64 1275 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 101-191-009-000 $338.64 1631 Josselyn Canyon Rd Single-Family Residential 103-071-025-000 $338.64 564 Monhollan Rd Single-Family Residential

Page 222 of 222 ends

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 14., Item Page 231, Packet Page 328 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Senior Associate Planner SUBJECT: I. Planning Commission Adopt a Resolution Recommending that the City Council:

A. Certify the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update in accordance with CEQA Article 7, Section 15090;
B. Adopt Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Consideration, and Mitigation and Monitoring Program; and C. Approve the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update to the Housing (2023-2031), Land Use, Circulation, and Safety Elements Note: The Elements Contain Revised Land Use Designations which will Lead to Future Rezoning and Will Affect Individual Property Owners
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 4) recommending the City Council certify the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), environmental findings, statement of overriding considerations and Mitigation and Monitoring Program; and approve the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update of the Housing, Land Use, Circulation and Safety elements; (2) That the City Council receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and adopt two resolutions to: certify the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopt the environmental findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA, and adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Attachments 5 and 6); and (3) That the City Council receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution (Attachment 7) approving the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update of the Housing (2023-2031), Land Use, Circulation, and Safety elements (Attachment 3).

Date: 7/16/2024
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 329 №10/24
VALUE DRIVERS:

In collaboration with our community partners, work to improve the quality of life of all of our community members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion; championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.

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

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.

Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation, accessibility, and safety initiatives.

Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions.

Foster a local government that is transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term plan for the development of the city, including any land outside its boundaries that the city believes is related to its planning. (Government Code section 65300.) The city’s land use regulations, zoning, and other land use decisions must conform to the general plan. The general plan consists of seven mandatory elements and any optional elements that the city chooses to adopt. (Government Code section 65302-65303.) This action proposes updates to the city’s the Housing (2023-2031), Land Use, Circulation, and Safety elements.

Adoption requires an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. (Government Code section 65356(a).)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) must review and certify that the Housing Element complies with State law. In fulfillment of these requirements, the City has submitted multiple drafts to HCD for review and comment, and the City has substantially revised the Element based on their input.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is a fiscal cost to updating the General Plan and preparing the appropriate CEQA document.

Costs:

The General Plan Update overall costs to date for the consultant (not staff costs):

General Plan Update: $480,189.31
EIR: $511,278.95
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 330 №10/24
Funds/Grants Received:

The City received two grants for the preparation of the Housing Element and the associated Environmental Impact Report.

HCD Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant: $150,000
HCD Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant: $165,000 The Housing Element was partially funded by an HCD LEAP Grant. Of the $150,000 grant, $135,855.00 has been received and the remaining $14,145.00 will be reimbursed once the Housing Element has been adopted.

The REAP Grant in the amount of $165,000 funded the partial cost of the CEQA analysis related to the Housing Element. The full $165,000 grant amount has been received and the grant has been closed out.

Table 1: Summary of Cost and Allocation of Grant funding.

General Plan Update EIR Total
Cost $480,189.31 $511,278.95 $991,468.26
LEAP Grant $150,000.00 $150,000.00
REAP Grant $165,000.00 $165,000.00
General Fund $330,189.31 $346,278.95 $676,468.26
Staff costs were covered by the City’s General Fund for staffing.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office prepared a Program EIR for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update of the Housing, Land Use, Safety, Circulation elements (SCH#2023080034) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15120 to 15132. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was publicized and circulated to State and local agencies between August 2 and September 4, 2023. A Scoping Meeting conducted by the Planning Commission was held on August 7, 2023 to receive public comments on the scope and content of the EIR. Based on the input received, a detailed environmental analysis was conducted and the Draft EIR was released for public review for a 45-day public comment period from February 9, 2024 - March 25, 2024. Seventy-one (71) comment letters, containing approximately 500 unique comments, were received on the Draft EIR.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15126.2(a)(c) requires an Environmental Impact Report to identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed General Plan update, including effects that cannot be avoided if the General Plan update is implemented.

Based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed General Plan update would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 331 №10/24
agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed General Plan update could result in impacts that are less than significant associated with:
biological resources; cultural, historic and tribal cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; public services; and wildfire. Mitigation Measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR, Final EIR, Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are provided in Attachments 1 and 2.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission. (Government Code section 65356; City Code section 26-2(e)-(f).) Any substantial modification proposed by the City Council not previously considered by the Planning Commission shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. (Government Code section 65356.) The Planning Commission has 45 days to report on the reference, and if it does not so report, it shall be deemed a recommendation for approval. (Id.) DISCUSSION:

Background
On February 21, 2023, the City Council and Planning Commission received a comprehensive report on the General Plan Update from the City’s consultant, Dyett and Bhatia – Urban and Regional Planners and City Staff.

There are seven elements that are required to be in a general plan. (Government Code section 65302.) All elements of the general plan have equal legal status. This action proposes updates to four elements, one of which is the housing element.

The housing element identifies locations for future housing development for all income levels. The plan considers the housing development goals (3,654 units) established for the city by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). This housing development number is commonly referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Concurrently with the Housing Element update, the Safety Element must be updated to ensure that new development is placed in locations that are suitable for future growth. Updates to the Land Use and Circulation Elements are also proposed.

At a public meeting held on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission received the Monterey 2031 – General Plan update schedule. Staff informed the Planning Commission of the upcoming milestones for the project.

At a joint public meeting held on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the draft Preliminary Sites Inventory and Key Strategies Memorandum,1 developed with 1 Preliminary Sites Inventory and Key Strategies Memorandum, May 31, 2023 (Revised June 7):
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031/widgets/58946/documents Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 332 №10/24
extensive community input received during the community survey conducted from March 1, 2023 to April 30, 2023.2 This Memorandum was presented to:
 Provide relevant background information regarding State guidance for site suitability and community input on locations and strategies for new housing;  Introduce several areas of the City with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing, assess the capacity for new housing in each based on State site suitability guidelines; and
 Summarize the total potential housing capacity of the sites with implementation of the potential strategies in relation to Monterey's RHNA allocation.

The City Council carefully reviewed each map in the draft Monterey 2031 - Preliminary Sites Inventory and Key Strategies Memorandum approved the inventory shown on Map 1 (Downtown), Map 2 (North Fremont), and Maps 5-9 (Pacific/Munras/Cass, Del Monte, Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch, Sites Outside Opportunity Areas, and Pipeline Projects), approved Map 3 (Garden Road/Airport/Hwy 68) with increased density in the 50-acre Monterey Peninsula Unified School District site, and approved Map 4 (Lighthouse) excluding the Andronico’s site (the portion of the site in the City of Monterey). The City Council also approved adding new opportunity sites to the inventory including the Heritage Harbor office complex, U.S. Navy La Mesa Village, and Del Monte Shopping Center. The City Council directed staff to review these three new opportunity sites for feasibility to include in the inventory.

At a joint public meeting held on September 19, 2023, the City Council and Planning Commission received a summary of public comments received during the required 30-day public comment period of the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element3 (August 2 – September 4, 2023). Staff recommended revisions4 and suggestions received from the Planning Commission and City Council included utilizing an electronic inventory form; adding stakeholder agencies including the City of Del Rey Oaks, Monterey Peninsula Airport District, and County of Monterey; the need to add amenities like grocery stores to the Ryan Ranch area; raising height limits in business corridors; and focusing on employer-sponsored housing. Concerns expressed included unintended consequences such as parking, traffic, evacuation difficulties, and future strains on services due to the addition of residents. It was stated that the affordability mix at Fort Ord should be high.

During public comments, a coordinated hate speech verbal attack was conducted via Zoom by numerous individuals who joined the meeting in bad faith and espoused racist and anti-Semitic views, used abhorrent hate speech, and did not address the Draft Housing Element. The joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting ended shortly after the public comments due to 2 Community Survey Report, May 2023:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031/widgets/58946/documents 3 Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Housing Element:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031/news_feed/draft-housing-element-comes-before-citycouncil-and-planning-commission-at-joint-special-meeting-tuesday-sep-19-at-7-00-p-m 4 Staff Recommended Revisions to the Draft Housing Element, September 11, 2023:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031/news_feed/draft-housing-element-comes-before-citycouncil-and-planning-commission-at-joint-special-meeting-tuesday-sep-19-at-7-00-p-m Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 333 №10/24
this disruption without acting on the agenda items before them. However, in an effort to maintain state mandated deadlines for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, staff sent the Draft Housing Element to HCD for the initial 90-day review.

HCD provided a comment letter on the Draft Housing Element on December 22, 2023 outlining a number of issues. Staff met with HCD almost weekly between January to early April to discuss how to improve the draft Housing Element. Based on HCD input, staff published a revised draft Housing Element. On April 19, 2024, the revised Draft Housing Element was posted to Have Your Say Monterey, and following a 7-day comment period, the Revised Draft Element was resubmitted to HCD for review and certification.

On June 26, 2024, HCD responded by stating that the Housing Element needed “[a]n analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including…land use controls…” and “[a]ddress and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.” Staff responded by providing mathematical calculations demonstrating that two and three-room units can be accommodated.

Since resubmitting to HCD, staff has met regularly with HCD to address new comments. On June 18, 2024, staff posted another revised Draft Housing Element to be sent to HCD for final review and certification after the public comment period expires.

Overview of Monterey 2031 General Plan
The Draft Monterey 2031 General Plan Update incorporates updates to the Housing, Land Use, Circulation, and Safety elements of the City of Monterey General Plan to respond to emerging issues and new State laws. The update is a collaborative effort between the City and its residents to create a blueprint that will guide Monterey in the years to come. Under California law, all cities and counties are required by law to have a general plan, composed of at least seven elements that address land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety and noise.

By law, the housing element must be updated every eight years to address demographic trends, market conditions, and new State laws. Amid the ongoing housing shortage in California, Monterey is required to plan for 3,654 new housing units over the next eight (8) years to accommodate this projected need. The Land Use Element has been updated to ensure consistency with the Housing Element and the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Safety Element has been updated to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change, along with actions to strengthen community resilience and emergency evacuation capacity. City staff also prepared an update to the Circulation Element to promote an integrated multimodal transportation system that meets the needs of all users of streets and to update the metric to Vehicle Miles Traveled in compliance with SB743, which took effect July 1, 2020. No changes to other elements of the general plan are proposed at this time.

Land Use Element Update
The City's existing Land Use Element incorporates policies and standards to foster compact, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods and provide housing to meet the needs of the local workforce.

The proposed Draft Land Use Element maintains the basic framework and objectives of the existing Land Use Element, but incorporates targeted updates to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation as identified in the proposed Housing Element. Specifically, this includes:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 334 №10/24
 An update to the Commercial land use designation to clarify that multifamily residential uses are permitted in a stand-alone or mixed use format at up to 30 dwelling units per acre and to establish an allowable non-residential floor area ratio of between 0.25 and 3.0 FAR.  Creation of a new Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) land use classification applicable to the Downtown, Lighthouse Avenue, and North Fremont Avenue Specific Plan areas, as well as the portion of the former Fort Ord site that is within the City limit. The MUN classification is intended to foster a mix of residential, retail, employment, entertainment, cultural, public, and personal service uses that encourage people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. Allowable non-residential floor area ratio is up to 2.0 FAR and maximum permitted residential density is 30 dwelling units per acre, with allowances for higher intensity development in certain areas and under certain conditions as defined in the zoning ordinance, specific plans, or area plans.
 Creation of a new Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) intended to increase opportunities for a range of housing types to meet the needs of the local workforce and address a shortage of supply. Multifamily housing of two or more units is permitted on sites within the MFR-O at densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan MFR overlay is implemented by the existing Multifamily Residential Zoning Overlay.  Creation of a new Visitor Accommodating Facility (VAF) classification that provides for a range of short-term lodging facilities to accommodate visitors to Monterey and accessory uses typically associated with commercial lodging. Allowable non-residential floor area ratio is between 0.25 and 3.0 FAR.
 Renaming the Industrial land use classification Employment to better reflect the range and type of uses permitted, which includes administrative and professional offices, light manufacturing, and research and development at up to 0.8 FAR. Secondary and accessory uses such as restaurants, cafes, printers, and office supply stores to serve the needs of employees and businesses are encouraged.
 Renaming the Public/Semi-Public land use classification Public/Institutional to better reflect the type of facility permitted, which includes public schools, military facilities, the airport, cemetery, large public parking facilities, hospitals, museums, conference center, and some publicly owned historic buildings.
 Amending the policy framework to reflect the vision for multifamily housing to serve the needs of the local workforce on the 50-acre MPUSD property within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries, and to reflect the vision for an integrated mixed use village in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 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.
 Revising the projections of development potential citywide and in mixed use areas to match the projections contained in the proposed Housing Element.  Updating the map of mixed use areas to show Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch, consistent with the proposed Housing Element.

Additionally, the proposed Land Use Element incorporates a new Airport Compatibility Overlay with performance standards oriented to protecting airport operations and ensuring public safety.

The purpose of the overlay is to resolve conflicts with respect to permitted development types and intensities on properties in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport that have resulted from an update to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by the County in 2019.

The overlay would be applied to the General Plan Land Use Map and would:
 Permit continuance of existing uses and allow for new development or expansion of existing uses consistent with the ALUCP infill exemption.  Establish requirements for ALUCP notification and project approval.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 7, Packet Page 335 №10/24
 Incorporate new mitigation requirements for interior noise levels by land use type.

The Draft Land Use Element also incorporates a new goal and six supporting policies intended to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport and military operations.

Consistent with guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, military installations in the planning area are identified and described. The Land Use Element was reviewed by the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and found to be consistent with the ALUCP on January 26, 2024. Additionally, as required under State law, the Element was circulated to military installations in Monterey for comment. A letter from the Naval Support Activity (NSA) Monterey is included in the packet and the changes recommended regarding nomenclature have been incorporated (Attachment 8).

Safety Element Update
Originally adopted in 2005 and amended in 2006, 2009 and 2013, the existing Safety Element is organized around eight goals that address seismic, geologic, flood, wildfire, and airport hazards as well as crime, hazardous materials, and emergency preparedness. The Safety Element Update comprehensively updates the background data and hazard mapping in the Element to reflect current and projected conditions in the Planning Area, along with amendments and additions to policies that strengthen resilience to natural and human made hazards and enhance emergency preparedness and response. Specifically, updated Safety Element policies proposed would:
 Identify various risks in Monterey and introduce strategies to address these risks.  Enhance communitywide emergency preparedness through the creation of neighborhoodlevel resilience plans to improve initial emergency response and subsequent recovery; the organization of disaster preparedness training for volunteers and community members, and public awareness activities.
 Strengthen emergency response with enhanced wayfinding and signage, refinements to roadway maintenance and design standards that facilitate efficient emergency evacuation and in general coordinate with other agencies in Monterey and the surrounding area to develop a coordinated emergency evacuation process.
 Address wildfire risks by promoting proactive vegetation management practices on public and private property, requiring the preparation of Fire Protection Plans for new development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, including fuel breaks into the design of new subdivisions in and adjacent to wildland-urban interface areas, and incorporating actions to mitigate risk in areas with existing development that does not meet current state and/or locally adopted fire safety standards.

As required under State law, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) reviewed the Safety Element and recommended modifications which have been incorporated. These modifications include adding specific references to State regulations regarding fire protection requirements for wildfire protection in new development and amending a policy to position the City for grant funding to facilitate structural retrofits, roadway improvements, and abatement of vegetative hazards. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection reviewed and approved the Safety Element at a public hearing on April 9, 2024. The Monterey ALUC reviewed the Safety Element together with the Land Use Element and found it consistent with the ALUCP on January 26, 2024. Additionally, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team reviewed the Safety Element during the public comment period and requested no modifications.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 8, Packet Page 336 №10/24
Circulation Element Update
City staff prepared a comprehensive update to the Circulation Element, organized around 11 key goals that seek to promote an integrated multimodal transportation system that provides a range of safe, equitable, and efficient options for mobility and supports the reduction of transportationrelated greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. Pursuant to the Complete Streets Act (2008), the Draft Circulation Element Update incorporates strategies for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets. The Element also establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts in compliance with SB743, includes strategies to prioritize safety over congestion management, and outlines a framework for effectively managing parking supply while encouraging reduced auto travel. The Monterey ALUC previously reviewed the Circulation Element and found it consistent with the ALUCP on August 23, 2023.

During the public comment period, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) District both submitted comment letters supportive of the Draft General Plan Update, including the Circulation Element. Caltrans expressed support for the City's efforts to promote a balanced, multimodal transportation network, to increase densities to better support frequent, reliable transit, and to reduce employment-based VMT. MST encouraged the City to facilitate mixed-use and transit-oriented development in key areas, including the following sites: Laguna Del Rey, Del Monte Light Industrial, and North Fremont based on its recent Transit Oriented Development Planning Study5. The updated Land Use and Housing Elements incorporate policies and standards to accomplish that objective. Additionally, MST expressed support for the bicycle, pedestrian, crosswalk, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) enhancements in the Circulation Element; the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in the Circulation Element; and the Commute Trip Reduction Program proposed as mitigation for employment VMT in the Draft EIR.
6 th Cycle Housing Element Update – Revised Draft
The modifications that HCD staff requested for substantial compliance with State law relate to the sites inventory capacity projections, the background analysis, and implementing programs in the Housing Action Plan. A summary of the related modifications and the rationale for them is provided below.

Sites Inventory Capacity Projections
In the December 22, 2023 comment letter on the Public Review Draft Housing Element, HCD requested clarification on the number of units that can be accommodated under current zoning.

If existing inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels, then rezoning of those sites, including minimum density and development standards, shall be completed. Government Code section 65583.2(h) places more exacting zoning standards on sites being used to accommodate a carryover than are placed on the sites that are already residentially zoned and capable of being developed at a higher density.

It does so by requiring:
 Permit multifamily development "by right," meaning without discretionary review, subject to objective standards.
 Permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20 du/ac.  Permit 100 percent residential developments.
5 MST’s TOD Planning Study: Planning / Development | Monterey-Salinas Transit (mst.org) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 9, Packet Page 337 №10/24
 If mixed use is permitted, require that at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed use development be for residential uses.
(See, Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal. App.5th 193, 240-242.) Additionally, any rezoning needed to accommodate a RHNA unit inventory shortfall (regardless of income category) must be completed by December 15, 2024 because the City did not adopt a certified Sixth Cycle Housing Element by April 15, 2024. For these reasons, the Revised Housing Element incorporates revisions to zoning strategies and capacity calculations. The sites themselves are the same as previously reviewed with the community and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, however the capacity projections and the zoning strategies to achieve this program have been revised.

In the revised Draft Housing Element, Table 3-4, Summary of RHNA Capacity, summarizes the revisions and illustrates the number of units that can be accommodated under current zoning and which zoning strategies are being used to address the carryover shortfall of RHNA units from the prior planning period. As shown, under current zoning a total of 1,873 units can be accommodated, but that number is not sufficient to meet the City's RHNA obligations overall or for any individual income category. Accordingly, the Revised Draft Housing Element incorporates the following new rezoning strategies to bridge the gap:
 Amend the North Fremont Specific Plan to permit residential development up to 60 du/ac and incorporate objective standards that facilitate high density multifamily housing development by right (meaning a streamlined development process that is not subject to special review and approval by the city) for projects that comply. Sites in the North Fremont Specific Plan area are larger than Downtown or in the Lighthouse Specific Plan area and as such can meet the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h), whereas sites Downtown or in the Lighthouse Specific Plan area often cannot. This strategy helps ensure sufficient lower income RHNA capacity.
 Increase the maximum permitted density in the Multifamily Residential Zoning Overlay to 60 du/ac and also apply the overlay to sites in the Pacific/Munras/Cass opportunity area.

Not all sites in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area meet the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h), but there are several larger sites that do, and staff has received numerous inquiries from property owners in the area interested in redeveloping their sites with housing, which helps to demonstrate the viability of these sites. Overall, the size of the sites and the mix of uses is different than on Garden Road where the overlay currently applies, so development standards in the overlay will need to be customized to the different mix of uses.
 Apply the Multifamily Residential Zoning overlay to the County Courthouse site and work with the County to facilitate redevelopment with lower and moderate income housing.

Given that the site is publicly owned and subject to Surplus Land Act requirements, it is a realistic candidate for an affordable housing project that would help the City meet its RHNA obligations. The County of Monterey courthouse is anticipated to move to an adjacent community.

These rezoning strategies would accommodate an additional 1,772 units and provide adequate capacity to meet RHNA obligations at all income categories. Importantly, these rezoning strategies can all be accomplished by the December of 2024 deadline. However, by themselves these strategies are not sufficient, and they will not result in certification of the Housing Element by HCD. This is because the "no net loss" provisions of State Housing Element law require that the City ensure the zoning map and sites inventory have adequate capacity to meet RHNA obligations at all income levels at all times during the planning period. As shown in Table 3-4 of the Housing Element, the combination of units under current zoning and units with rezoning per Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 10, Packet Page 338 №10/24
Government Code section 65583.2 (h) provides a buffer of just six (6) lower income units and three (3) moderate income units, whereas HCD recommends a buffer of 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required to ensure the City can navigate the no net loss provisions of State law in the event that some sites do not develop with the total number of units or the affordability mix envisioned.

Therefore, the Revised Draft Housing Element also includes strategies to build an adequate buffer. These are all strategies that were included in the Public Review Draft Element and were previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; however, they cannot be used to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall. In the case of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan (Program 1-H) and the Highway 69 Area Plan (Program 1-I), this is because the parcels are currently too large to meet the parameters established in State law for lower income RHNA sites and because preparing a new specific plan or amending the Highway 68 Area Plan cannot be accomplished by December 2024. In the case of the educational workforce housing overlay (Program 1-E), the base zoning of most of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) infill sites to which this overlay would apply is R-1 low density residential. A recent California appellate court decision in the case of Martinez vs. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, held that overlapping densities in zoning do not comply with Housing Element Law. That is, an overlay cannot be used to accommodate lower income RHNA if the base zoning is not at least the minimum deemed affordable for lower income households, which in the case of Monterey is 20 du/ac. The MPUSD infill sites receiving the new educational workforce housing overlay cannot be used to accommodate lower income RHNA, but they can be used to create buffer and any housing constructed on those sites that are deed restricted for households making less than 80 percent of the countywide area median income will count toward RHNA when permits are issued.

One further change to the capacity projections has to do with the number of units projected from the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan and on the 50-acre MPUSD site in the Highway 68 Plan area. New rezoning strategies were added to the Housing Element to ensure adequate sites and capacity by shifting units to Garden Road, Pacific/Munras/Cass and the County Courthouse site.

The EIR analyzed impacts that would result from a total of 5,800 new units, and in order to ensure that this maximum number of units is not exceeded and the analysis in the EIR remains valid, the capacity at Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch and on the 50-acre MPUSD site was reduced.

In summary, the revisions to the zoning strategies and the capacity projections ensure that the City complies with State Housing Element law, including the specific requirements for sites identified to accommodate a lower-income RHNA shortfall and the required timing for zoning amendments to accommodate a RHNA shortfall. The sites themselves are the same as previously reviewed with the community, the Planning Commission and City Council, it's only the capacity projections and the zoning strategies used to achieve them that have been revised.

HCD also requested additional analysis and supporting detail in the Housing Needs Assessment and the Constraints Analysis (Attachment 3, Housing Element, Appendix B). Specifically, HCD requested that each statutorily defined protected special needs group (Extremely low-income households; Older adults; Persons with disabilities including developmental disabilities; Femaleheaded households; Large households; Persons experiencing homelessness; and Farmworkers) be quantified, that the description of programs and services available to them be expanded, and that the magnitude of the gap between need and available programs and services be discussed to help demonstrate that programs in the Action Plan (Chapter 4) are adequate. That detail has been added to Attachment 3, Housing Element, Appendix B, with changes shown in redline.

Additionally, HCD requested that information on housing development in the Coastal Zone be added and that additional analysis on permit processing times for development applications and on the effects of land use controls (zoning and design standards), parking requirements, and other Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 11, Packet Page 339 №10/24
development constraints (such parcel shape, access, title conditions, historic preservation, or easements) be provided. In response, additional detail has been incorporated into Attachment 3, Housing Element, Appendix C, with changes shown in redline. Based on that additional analysis, some programs in the Action Plan have been modified or added. Specifically, Program 2-D (Revise Adopted Plans and Zoning with Objective Standards) was modified to remove subjective findings and incorporate additional objective standards for use in architectural review, and Program 4-I (Reasonable Accommodation) was revised to remove authority for granting reasonable accommodations from discretionary bodies when a reasonable accommodation request is reviewed concurrently with another land use permit and maintain it with the City Manager or designee. These modifications address factors identified by HCD as potential constraints to housing development. Regarding permit processing times, Program 2-M (Permit Processing Procedures) was added, under which the City will identify internal process improvements to further reduce the time required for review and approval of planning, engineering, and building permits. Such improvements may include establishing regular interdepartmental coordination meetings and designating a staff member to track and expedite review.

HCD requested modifications to other programs in the Action Plan, such as identifying milestones and the timing to complete those milestones and issuing building permits earlier in the planning period. This applies to the following programs in the Action Plan: Program 1-G (Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities), Program 1-H (Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan), Program 1-I (Highway 68 Area Plan Update), and Program 1-L (County Courthouse Site). A timetable illustrating the timing and sequence of all implementing programs in the Action Plan is included at the end of Chapter

4. The Draft Housing Element assumes construction of 15 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) per year over the planning period, which is more than the annual average of 12 ADUs permitted since 2018. HCD requested that the City do more to promote and incentivize ADU production in order to better support this projection. Accordingly, two new programs have been added to the Revised Element: Program 1-M (ADU/JADU Awareness), under which the City will conduct public outreach and informational activities; and Program 1-N (Pre-Approved ADU Floor Plans), under which the City will prepare and make available pre-approved ADU floor plans to help reduce costs for interested homeowners. This program recognizes that given the topography and site conditions in much of the city, context-specific site designs prepared by architects, landscape architects and/or civil engineers will still be required.

Finally, HCD requested additional programs to create further opportunities for disadvantaged groups to find housing in Monterey. HCD calls this "housing mobility." There are Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) in the City as designated by the State, meaning that the residents in those areas are predominantly White and high income. Further, the city is located in a region with excellent access to economic, educational, and environmental opportunity.

Therefore, HCD has requested actions and targets that create housing opportunities for disadvantaged groups that go beyond meeting lower income RHNA targets. In certifying Housing Elements across the State, HCD has made similar requests of high opportunity communities with RCAAs. To address this request, one existing program was modified, and one new program was added to the Action Plan.

Through Program 1-J (SB9 Housing Ordinance) in the Housing Element, the City will adopt an SB9 Ordinance that allows owners of properties zoned for single-family housing to subdivide their lots and create up to four units over the total site area. This program has been expanded to create additional opportunities for housing mobility. Specifically, in the Revised Draft Housing Element, Program 1-J would involve allowing for up to six units across the total site area but only if the owner commits to deed restricting two of the new units for lower income households. Additionally, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 12, Packet Page 340 №10/24
Program 3-H (Co-Housing Overlay) has been added to the Revised Draft Element, under which the City would adopt an overlay with related objective standards to permit the development of cohousing communities on lots of 1-acre or more. Co-housing is an intentional community of private homes clustered around shared common spaces, such as a communal kitchen, game rooms, laundry facilities, gardens, or recreational spaces. Households have independent incomes and private lives, but neighbors collaboratively plan and manage community activities and share resources like tools and lawnmowers. The legal structure is typically an HOA, Condo Association, or Housing Cooperative. Larger lots in Monterey offer potential opportunities for co-housing communities. Such communities can help groups of older adults age in place or provide opportunities for intergenerational living. Cumulatively, in combination with Programs 1-E, 1-F, 3- E, and 3-G) the Revised Element establishes a target of 200 new housing opportunities for disadvantaged households in low density single-family neighborhoods in the southern area of the city over the planning period, including affordable ADUs, home sharing opportunities, and school and church-sponsored affordable housing.

Summary of Public Comments on Housing Element and Other General Plan Elements During the review period (April 17 – April 30, 2024) prior to resubmittal of the Revised draft Housing Element to HCD, the City received 56 comment letters6. The majority of the letters received are related to the cumulative impacts of housing development in the southeastern part of the city in combination with housing development envisioned for the adjacent unincorporated area in the County's Housing Element.

Department of the Navy Comments on the General Plan Update The Navy representative, Robert Smith, Captain, Commanding Officer, did not anticipate negative mission impact from the proposed General Plan update. The Navy letter stated that references to the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) should be changed to Naval Support Activity Monterey when referencing the Navy’s property. The letter also contains a recommendation that the City take advantage of the vast array of federal grant opportunities because of its proximity to multiple military installations.

MST Comment Letter on Revised Draft Housing Element
MST recommends specific edits to the Housing Action Plan (to incorporate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure) and Appendix D (Assessment of Fair Housing) (with minor factual/technical corrections) and these edits have been incorporated.

LandWatch Comments on the Revised Draft Housing Element In a letter from LandWatch to HCD dated April 29, 2024, LandWatch states three reasons why it believes Fort Ord should not be included in the Housing Element. LandWatch’s comments are summarized below together with an explanation as to why they are not an impediment to the adoption of the Housing Element.

Issue #1: Fort Ord is Not Required to Meet RHNA Obligations. 6 Public comment letters during the 7-day review period. See Documents folder, “Letters received during online posting, April 17 - April 30, 2024: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031#folder-58946- 12392
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 13, Packet Page 341 №10/24
LandWatch states that the Revised Draft Housing Element inventory identifies sites and programs that demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate the City's assessed share of the regional housing need at all income levels without any residential rezoning at Fort Ord or in the Highway 68 Plan area. This approach leaves a buffer of only six lower income units.

The City’s position is that the "no net loss" provisions of State Housing Element law require that the City ensure the zoning map and sites inventory have adequate capacity to meet RHNA obligations at all income levels at all times during the planning period. HCD guidance recommends that jurisdictions create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA. Therefore, in accordance with HCD guidance, the Revised Draft Housing Element incorporates several different strategies for creating an adequate buffer as described in the Sites Inventory Capacity Projections section of this report, above.

Issue #2: Counting Fort Ord Sites Toward Lower Income RHNA violates HCD Guidance LandWatch asserts that counting Fort Ord sites toward lower income RHNA violates HCD Guidance.

The City disagrees because State law requires that appropriate zoning be in place to accommodate lower income households, and it establishes that for Monterey County a density of at least 20 du/ac is deemed appropriate for lower income households, as housing products at that density is typically affordable to households in those income categories.

The point that the excerpt from the Sites Inventory Guidelines that LandWatch has cited is that it would be inappropriate for a community in Monterey County to have no base zoning of at least 20 du/ac and to try and demonstrate adequate capacity for lower income RHNA using only inclusionary zoning and density bonus tools. That is clearly not the case with the Draft Housing Element, which identifies sites throughout the city with zoning appropriate for lower income households. Further, through Housing Element Program 1-H (Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan), the City would prepare a specific plan to integrate multifamily housing and mixed use development on a portion of the Fort Ord site while also preserving and protecting areas of natural resources and open space. The specific plan would establish appropriate base zoning for that purpose as noted in the program and it would also ensure parcelization at appropriate sizes and identification of infrastructure funding and financing strategies to serve planned development.

Inclusionary zoning would apply at Fort Ord as it does throughout the city and it would be a mechanism for ensuring affordability. This is important because simply zoning at 20 du/ac does not guarantee the units will be affordable when constructed.

HCD encourages communities to put inclusionary zoning programs in place to help achieve affordability targets. Therefore, given that the City has appropriate zoning in place for lower income households in many areas of Monterey and that it would establish appropriate zoning for lower income households at Fort Ord through a specific plan, it would be both appropriate and good practice to apply inclusionary zoning requirements at Fort Ord.

Issue #3: Fort Ord is Ineligible for Inclusion in the Housing Element Due to Lack of Water Supply
LandWatch asserts that Fort Ord is ineligible for inclusion in the Housing Element due to lack of water supply.

State law (Gov. Code, § 65583.2(b)(5)(B)) requires that an adequate water supply must “be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service.” The Marina Coast Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 14, Packet Page 342 №10/24
Water District (MCWD) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) identifies actions to increase future supply which would deliver sufficient additional water supply to meet projected demand within the MCWD service area in 2031, including reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant and participation in Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. The 2020 UWMP is a State-mandated plan prepared by MCWD and as such meets the requirement of Gov. Code, § 65583.2(b)(5)(B). By way of a letter to the City of Monterey dated March 8, 2024, MCWD confirmed that it is continuing to implement its Regional Urban Water Augmentation Program (RUWAP), which includes but is not limited to restarting its idled Reservation Road desalination plant and participating in the next phase of the Pure Water Monterey plant expansion. MCWD stated it understands it could need an additional 530 AFY for housing on the former Fort Ord and will include this amount in their supply planning. Therefore, Fort Ord is not ineligible for inclusion on the inventory due to lack of water.

Overall, it bears repeating that in a community survey conducted for the Housing Element that garnered over 1,050 responses, the former Fort Ord Military Base was the area of the city identified most favorably for new housing to meet current and projected need. As acknowledged in the Draft Housing Element, integrating new housing into this area will require a thoughtful strategy to guide future development and conservation on the site informed by robust community engagement. At the end of the day, however, it is a policy question for the City whether to pursue housing and mixed-use development at Fort Ord. The LandWatch letter does not present any credible arguments for why the City cannot pursue that option if it chooses.

Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) Comments on the Revised Draft Housing Element
MBEP Comment Response
Opportunity Areas Map 3-14
Ensure streamlining incentives in all opportunity
areas
Implement form-based codes that allows greater
building heights, decreased setbacks, greater
FAR
Program 1-D proposes a permit
streamlining pilot project in Downtown and
Pacific/Munras/Cass Street. This program
allows development by-right and
delegates all design review to City staff.

This is a dramatic departure from past
practices. MBEP proposes that it should
be available in all opportunity areas. This
is a policy choice. The program proposes
a three-year pilot program so lessons
learned can be incorporated and
considered. After lessons are learned, it
may be appropriate to expand the
program.

Programs 2-C and 2-D require the
development of objective development
standards for Architectural Review. The
Housing Element proposes specific
increases in areas for increased building
heights – Alvarado area 5 stories, etc.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 15, Packet Page 343 №10/24
Implement impact fee reductions and deferrals
for infill housing
Reduce parking requirements for projects
developed within ¾ mile of transit routes with
service frequency every hour during commute
hours
Additionally, a departure from the City’s
traditional Euclidean zoning to a formbased code would be a major program for the City. The City will be prioritizing
implementation of the multiple programs
in the Housing Element Housing Action
Plan.

Policy 2.5 ensures that City fees are
equitable and reflect reasonable cost of
reviewing projects.

Program 2-E proposes to reduce parking
requirements within ½ mile of a major
transit stop or high quality transit corridor
with fixed route bus service with intervals
no longer than 15 minutes during peak
commute hours. The program proposes
15 minute interval bus service because it
is considered a minimum for effective
transit service. Otherwise, people can be
waiting for 1 hour to take a bus and it is
less likely to be utilized.

Program 1-B: Multi-family Overlay amendments;
1-C Specific Plan updates; 1-D Permit
Streamlining Pilot Project
MBEP recommends the City:

1. Extend the 3-year sunset on the Permit
Streamlining Program (1-D) until the City
meets its RHNA goals for VLI, LI and
Moderate Income.

2. Devise a set of criteria by which the
Permit Streamlining Program can be
applied to any qualifying parcel in the City
including all parcels in the Opportunity
Areas.

The draft Housing Element includes a
program that will allow projects by right for
three years in two areas of the City
(Downtown and Pacific/Munras/Cass
Street).

Staff recommends that the City monitor
how the program works for three years,
and then the City Council consider
extending and expanding the program
based on lessons learned.

The Council has the policy option to adopt
the MBEP recommendation. This option
would require the construction of 1,177
very low income, 769 low income, and
462 moderate income units before the
program sunsets. Basically, this would
mean all residential development would
be permitted by right and all design review
would be administrative. Staff does not
recommend this option until the three year
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 16, Packet Page 344 №10/24
monitoring period for the specified areas
is completed and evaluated.
1-E Education Workforce Housing Overlay and
1-F Congregational Overlay
MBEP supports both programs. Increase density
to 60 du/acre. Alternatively, apply a form based
code.

The Housing Element includes a policy to
allow residential construction on school
sites at 30 du/acre and adopt objective
development standards for school sites.

The draft Element embraces a
streamlined approach to development.

If the Council wants to increase density
beyond 30 du/acre, this is a policy option.

Staff recommends 30 du/acre.
1-G Surplus Municipal Facilities
MBEP supports the designation of surplus
municipal parking facilities for lower income
housing.

The City of Monterey has inventoried all
publicly owned land and designated two
city parking facilities for affordable
housing. Program 1-G implements this
concept.
1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan
MBEP supports the objective of creating a mixed
use village. MBEP recommends that the area
includes adequate public transit service.

Staff concurs with this recommendation.

As part of the development of the Specific
Plan under Program I-H, transit service
needs to be incorporated.

Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update
MBEP supports development and open space
preservation on the site and recommends
collaboration with the County.

The proposed program, Program 1-I, will
require the City to update the Highway 68
Area Plan to address future development
scenarios. The City will coordinate with
the County as they are an adjacent land
owner.
2-A By Right Rezoning Sites from Prior
Inventories
MBEP supports by-right development of housing
on sites from previous two sites inventories
totaling 1,177 units to very low income
households and 769 for low income households.

Program 2-A incorporates this concept.
2-C ARC Review
Revise City Code limiting ARC review to
objective standards.

Program 2-C requires the development of
objective design standards.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 17, Packet Page 345 №10/24
2-D Revised adopted plans with objective
standards
MBEP supports objective standards for specific
planned areas.

Program 2-D requires the development of
objective design standards.
2-E Revise Parking Requirements
MBEP supports allowing for deeper reduction of
parking requirements where shared parking
options are available or underutilized city lots.

Program 2-E proposes conformance to
the State law requirement for sites within
½ mile of a high quality transit stop and
review of all parking requirements for
residential uses. This concept of deeper
reduction of parking requirements where
shared parking options are available can
be incorporated into these zoning
amendments.
2-I: Inclusionary Housing
MBEP supports undertaking a study of the
financial feasibility of the current 20%
requirement. MBEP recommends a sliding scale
for inclusionary affordable housing.

Program 2-I maintains the 20%
requirement and proposes to refine this
program to clarify that 10% would be
dedicated to low income and 10% to
moderate income. The City Council could
choose an alternate policy.
2-J Water Distribution Policy and 2-K
Addressing Water Supply Constraints
MBEP supports developing a methodology for
allocating existing and emergent water credits for
projects.

Program 2-J creates a Water Distribution
Policy that prioritizes water for affordable
housing projects.

Program 3-A Legal Services and Fair Housing
Education
MBEP supports expanding efforts for fair
housing practice.

The City contracts for fair housing
services and education. The City Council
recently adopted Rental Assistance
program that includes money for
expanded legal and fair housing
counseling services. The City intends to
continue to expand its fair housing
practices as outlined in Program 3-A.

Program 3-C Local Density Bonus
MBEP supports extending the density bonus to
parcels of all sizes, scaling it inversely to parcel
size. Incentivize the production of 2 and 3
bedroom units.

The draft Program 3-C includes a robust
program to create a Local Density Bonus
program beyond State law requirements.

It specifically mentions that an objective of
the program is to incentivize projects that
consolidate small, adjacent lots, and/or
develop 2- and 3-bedroom units, and or
commit to additional Moderate-Income
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 18, Packet Page 346 №10/24
units over and above any provision of
such units required under the City’s
Inclusionary Zoning Program. The draft
program would apply to all parcel sizes as
drafted.

Program 3-F Affirmative Marketing of Affordable
Housing Opportunities
MBEP supports ensuring that marketing efforts
become an opt-in accessible program to
developers with a history of developing mixed
income housing including for-profit developers
who opt into notifications.

Program 3-F has been amended to allow
an opt-in notification option. The City will
maintain a list that developers can opt-into
and be notified of available opportunities.

Program 3-G: Zoning Incentives for Deed
Restricted ADUs and JADUs.

MBEP supports the consideration of offering
increases to allowable lot coverage and FAR.

Program 3-G states that incentives may
include increasing the maximum allowable
lot coverage permitted by right to 50
percent and increasing allowable FAR
permitted by right to 50 percent.

Program 4-B: Rental Assistance Pilot Program
MBEP supports implementation of a rental
assistance program independent from Housing
Authority vouchers. Conduct a study and
annually report to the Council on whether to
increase funding.

The City launched a rental assistance
program in 2024 in advance of the
adoption of the Housing Element. The
City budget includes extending this
program next year.

Program 4-B includes a Rental Assistance
Pilot Program and this fiscal year budget
includes rental assistance funded from the
City’s General Fund.

Staff will be reporting back to the City
Council after the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. Anthony Davi Comments on General Plan Amendments
Mr. Davi encouraged the City to amend the General Plan’s Economic Element concurrently with the project and to revise the “hotel moratorium” to allow for additional hotel rooms to be constructed in downtown Monterey. He also identified several impediments to housing construction: water supply, 20% inclusionary requirement, operational costs, reduced rents collected for affordable housing units, lower income = lower value, lower net operating income = lower loans, higher interest rates, and lower financing. The plan should identify financial and other subsidies.

Staff’s recommendation is that the City proceed with the General Plan Element amendments as drafted to comply with State law. If the City wants to undertake updating the Economic Element, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 19, Packet Page 347 №10/24
it would take time to draft, conduct public outreach and adopt. Staff is not opposed to updating the Economic Element, but it is necessary to comply with State law on the other issues now.

The Housing Element includes many incentives to help encourage affordable housing development including Density Bonus beyond State requirements, etc. A new funding source has not been identified.

Remaining Comment Letters on Revised Draft Housing Element The vast majority of comment letters received about the Housing Element are opposed to increased density along the Highway 68 corridor for multiple reasons including water supply, transportation capacity, and various environmental factors. Similar comments were received on the FEIR, and a detailed response is provided in the FEIR. The majority of these commentors lived outside the City of Monterey in the Monterra area.

Environmental Review
The EIR consists of the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR includes responses to comments received.

Draft EIR
The analysis in the Draft EIR (DEIR) found that the majority of impacts associated with implementation of the 2031 General Plan would be less than significant. The DEIR identified that the project could result in impacts that are less than significant with mitigation associated with biological resources; cultural, historic and tribal cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; public services; and wildfire. Mitigation Measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the DEIR. Additionally, significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources; air quality; energy, greenhouse gases, and climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; transportation; utilities and service systems; and wildfire. The less than significant impacts, significant but mitigable impacts, and significant and unavoidable impacts are described in the attached Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 2).

CEQA requires the analysis of alternatives that could reduce or avoid the significant impacts of the proposed General Plan update. The intent of the alternatives is to provide perspective on other project scenarios for the purpose of comparison with the impacts of the Proposed General Plan update. Accordingly, the DEIR considered three alternatives that could potentially avoid or substantially reduce significant impacts:
 A No Project Alternative, which considers the environmental impacts of a scenario under which the City does not adopt the proposed General Plan update, but instead continues to implement the City’s 2005 General Plan and 5th Cycle (2015-2013) Housing Element.

This alternative is required under State law, even though it does not meet the basic project objectives;
 A Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, which would not involve housing development at Fort Ord. This alternative is designed specifically to address significant environmental impacts related to development at Fort Ord, including a significant and unavoidable impact related to the availability of water supply from the MCWD as well as significant impacts related to biological resources and hazardous materials that can be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Under this Alternative, a mixed-use neighborhood integrating 1,600 new homes together with jobs, schools, shops, services, recreational amenities, and natural open space would not be planed and constructed; instead, this Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 20, Packet Page 348 №10/24
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; and
 An Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, which is designed to achieve a balance of jobs and housing in the city by 2031 in order to address a significant and unavoidable employment-related VMT impact. This alternative would replace office and visitor-serving uses with high density housing in key commercial areas: Downtown, Cannery Row, Lighthouse Avenue, North Fremont Street, Pacific Avenue, and Abrego Street.

Additionally, it would transform Del Monte Avenue into a high-density residential corridor, increase multifamily housing at Fort Ord adjacent to the Ryan Ranch Business Park, a major employment center within the Planning Area, and reduce projected job growth at Fort Ord. This alternative would not involve housing development on the 50-acre MPUSD site and other housing development envisioned under the Highway 68 Area Plan in order to avoid a significant and unavoidable impact related to loss of grazing land in the Highway 68 Plan area.

Overall, the proposed General Plan update was found to have a similar impact profile to the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative and the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative; however, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative because it avoids the proposed General 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. Notably, it would not result in certification of the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) because it relies on capacity projections that cannot be borne out by recent development trends in the City and the Monterey Peninsula and because it would assume redevelopment of non-vacant sites that do not meet the criteria established in State law.

FEIR
During the State-mandated 45-day public review period, which began on February 9, 2024 and ended on March 25, 2024, a total of 71 comment letters were received, including six from public agencies, two from community organizations, and 63 from individual community members. A Final EIR has been prepared that responds to comments received and it has been circulated to commenters ahead of the public hearings on the Draft 2031 General Plan Update and EIR.

Additionally, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared that 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.

Overall, there are two key recurring themes in the comment letters, which are summarized below together with a synopsis of the response: (1) concern for the cumulative impacts of housing development in the southeastern part of the city in combination with housing in the adjacent unincorporated area as envisioned in the Monterey County 2023-31 Housing Element; and (2) concern regarding the availability of adequate water supply to serve projected demand in 2031.

Cumulative Impacts of Development in Southeast
In its 2023-31 Draft Housing Element, the County of Monterey initially identified four sites with a total projected capacity for 1,324 new homes adjacent to the City of Monterey in the unincorporated Monterra area. The vast majority of comment letters received during the public review period expressed concerns for the cumulative environmental impacts of this housing in combination with development in the southeast of the City of Monterey. Comments raised concerns for traffic, noise, and impacts to aesthetics and visual resources. Many of the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 21, Packet Page 349 №10/24
commenters are residents of the unincorporated area adjacent to the City and expressed specific concerns with the County's proposed Housing Element as well. A master response was prepared to holistically address these comments and clarify how cumulative impacts are addressed in the EIR.

Chapter 5 of the DEIR provides a cumulative analysis of the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed General Plan update in combination with other reasonably foreseeable development in the surrounding area. That analysis was informed by technical modeling of vehicle miles travelled, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise impacts that take into account projected RHNA development in all of Monterey County. In preparing the DEIR, the City coordinated with cities and Monterey County to gather details of housing development projected in their respective 2023-31 Housing Elements and to incorporate that data into modeling to ensure a cumulative analysis that accounts for regional RHNA buildout in 2031. Additionally, the master response discusses the effects of existing policies and regulations related to protection of open space, scenic resources, and noise from the Monterey Regional Airport, as well as the effectiveness of mitigation proposed in the DEIR in addressing impacts on biological resources and vehicle miles travelled. The master response demonstrates that the DEIR adequately addressed cumulative impacts related to housing development in and adjacent to the southeastern part of the city.

Adequate Water Supply
Lack of an adequate water supply is the primary constraint to development on the Monterey Peninsula, given the State’s cease-and-desist order that has been in place since 1995. In this context, numerous comments on the DEIR questioned whether adequate water supply would be available to serve development under the proposed General Plan update and cumulatively in the region. Additionally, LandWatch questioned the adequacy of the water supply analysis and the associated mitigation measures included in the DEIR. The FEIR incorporates a master response to clarify current and planned sources of water supply available to serve new development based on information provided by the water service providers that serve the Planning Area, to clarify the findings of the DEIR with respect to adequacy of the water supply to serve new development, and to correct mischaracterizations in the public comments regarding the adequacy of analysis and mitigation measures in the DEIR.

Most of the Planning Area is serviced by California American Water (Cal Am); however, about 126.8 acres of land at Fort Ord is within the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) future study area as shown on Figure 3.14-1 in the DEIR. To inform the analysis in the DEIR, the City requested a Water Supply Assessment from Cal Am evaluating whether its total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Plan, in combination with the MPWMD’s existing and planned future uses. For the assessment of MCWD water supply, the DEIR relied on information contained in the MCWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and asked MCWD to confirm current and future water supply for City of Monterey-owned properties on the former Fort Ord.

In summary, the Cal Am WSA establishes that available water supply would not be sufficient to serve total projected demand in 2025, but that with 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, total available supply would exceed demand in 2031.

Regarding MCWD supply, the MCWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan identifies actions MCWD can take 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, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 22, Packet Page 350 №10/24
which would deliver sufficient additional water supply to meet projected demand within the MCWD service area in 2031. By way of a letter to the City of Monterey dated March 8, 2024 and included in the FEIR, MCWD confirmed this conclusion and also indicated that they are partnering with the Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency on feasibility planning for aquifer storage to further bolster supply. However, even though both suppliers are planning for adequate capacity to serve projected need in their respective service areas, including demand within the City of Monterey in 2031, it cannot be said with certainty that supply will become available. Therefore, even after implementing all feasible mitigation measures, the EIR appropriately finds that impacts related to water supply will remain significant and unavoidable. No building permits will be issued without a water permit.

Late Comment Letters
The City received six comment letters after close of the legally mandated 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, including one letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), one letter from Big Sur land Trust, and four letters from individual community members.

The CDFW letter discusses/ potential impacts related to California black rail, a species of bird listed as a California State Threatened, and Special-Status Plant Species. California black rail has the potential to occur within the Planning Area so CDFW has requested a modification to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, requiring consultation with CDFW if the species is found during site surveys. Additionally, CDFW has requested that Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to clarify that for State listed and the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) listed species, if a "take" (i.e., harm, damage or killing) cannot be avoided, authorization via an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from CDFW would be required prior to any relocation efforts or initiation of ground-disturbing activities for any projects tiered from this Plan. These revisions represent clarifications to the existing mitigation measures and have been incorporated into the Final EIR.

The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) letter informs the City that it is in the process of acquiring the Hiss parcel, located adjacent and to the north of the 50-acre MPUSD site in the Highway 68 Plan Area for the purpose of conservation. The DEIR project description currently identifies the land as vacant. BSLT has requested that the EIR be updated to reflect the conservation status of the parcel. This edit has been made via errata to the DEIR. Additionally, the Land Use Element has been updated with this information.

Three of the four letters from community members express opposition to housing development, particularly in the Highway 68 Plan Area. The fourth letter expresses opposition to restrictions on development in the City of Monterey imposed by the ALUCP.

Findings
The City proposes findings to adopt the Program Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 2).

Conflicts of Interest and Segmentation
The City Attorney will prepare a separate memorandum regarding conflicts of interest and segmentation of the voting process to address conflicts.

SAB/kc/lh
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 23, Packet Page 351 №10/24
Attachments:

1. Environmental Impact Report (and Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 1.)

2. Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Consideration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program (and Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 2.)

3. Monterey 2023 General Plan Update to the Housing, Land Use, Circulation, and Safety Elements (and Exhibit A to City Council Reso. -3.)

4. Planning Commission Resolution

5. City Council Resolution 1: Certifying the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update

6. City Council Resolution 2: Adopting Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update

7. City Council Resolution 3: Adopting the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, including the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements

8. Comments received on the General Plan Elements during the 45-day public review period and Housing Element

9. Comments received during the 7-day Housing Element posting beginning on June 18, 2024
e: Andrew Hill, Dyett and Bhatia, Principal
All Monterey Business Associations
All Monterey Neighborhood Associations
Fionna Jensen, Monterey County, ALUC
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 24, Packet Page 352 SCH #2023080034
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Volume 1
February 9, 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 25, Packet Page 353 In association with:

Kimberly-Horn Associates
Salter
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Volume 1
February 9, 2024
Public Review Draft
Prepared for the City of Monterey
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 26, Packet Page 354 Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................ES-1 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the EIR .................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Approach and Scope of the EIR........................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Planning Process and Public Involvement........................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Other Relevant Plans and Environmental Studies............................................................................ 1-6

1.5 Organization of the EIR.......................................................................................................................... 1-6 2 Project Description................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Location and Project Setting................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Purpose and Objectvies of the Proposed Plan ................................................................................. 2-6

2.5 General Plan Update Process............................................................................................................... 2-8

2.6 Proposed Plan Context.......................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.7 Buildout Projections ............................................................................................................................ 2-21

2.8 Intended Uses of the EIR.................................................................................................................... 2-25

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 3.1-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.1-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.1-16

3.2 Agricultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3.2-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.2-1 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 3.2-9

3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 3.3-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.3-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.3-27

3.4 Biologial Resources ................................................................................................ 3.4-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.4-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.4-22

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................ 3.5-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.5-1 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 27, Packet Page 355 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.5-14

3.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change ................................ 3.6-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.6-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.6-21

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ............................................................................... 3.7-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.7-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.7-19

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 3.8-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.8-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.8-23

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................... 3.9-1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 3.9-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 3.9-18

3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing.............................................................. 3.10-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3.10-1 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................3.10-12

3.11 Noise ............................................................................................................... 3.11-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3.11-1 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................3.11-17

3.12 Public Services and Recreation .................................................................... 3.12-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3.12-1 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................3.12-18

3.13 Transportation.................................................................................................... 3.13-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3.13-1 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................3.13-10

3.14 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... 3.14-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3.14-1 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................3.14-22

3.15 Wildfire .......................................................................................................... 3.15-1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3.15-1 Impact Analysis........................................................................................................................................3.15-14

3.16 Effects Found Not to be Significant ............................................................ 3.16-1 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 28, Packet Page 356 Forest Resources...................................................................................................................................... 3.16-1 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................... 3.16-2 4 Alternatives Analysis................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Alternatives Analyzed in This EIR........................................................................................................ 4-2

4.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated in Detail in this EIR................................................ 4-4

4.3 Impact Analysis of Alternatives............................................................................................................ 4-5

4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................................. 4-22 5 CEQA Required Conclusions................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................................. 5-5

5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................................. 5-17

5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................................................. 5-20 6 List of Preparers........................................................................................................ 6-1 VOLUME 2A: APPENDICES
A Programs NOP and Comment Letters
VOLUME 2B: APPENDICES
B Housing Element
C Materials for Cultural Resources
D Materials for Tribal Cultural Resources
E GHG and Air Quality Data
F Noise Data
G Public Service Provider Correspondence
H Transportation VMT and Evacuation Assessment
I Water Supply Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Regional Setting / Planning Area Boundaries....................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3: Opportunity Areas................................................................................................................. 2-11 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 29, Packet Page 357 Figure 2-4 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map ............................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-5 Pipeline Projects....................................................................................................................... 2-22 Figure 2-6 Sites Available for Housing .................................................................................................... 2-24 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 3.2-1: Agricultural Resources...................................................................................................... 3.2-4 Figure 3.2-2: Current Zoning in the Planning Area............................................................................. 3.2-6 Figure 3.3-1: Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors and Emissions Sources.......................... 3.3-12 Figure 3.4-1: Habitat Types in the Planning Area ................................................................................ 3.4-3 Figure 3.4-2: Special Status Species Occurrences............................................................................. 3.4-10 Figure 3.4-3: Wildlife and Habitat Connectivity ................................................................................ 3.4-12 Figure 3.5-1A: Historic Resources - NWIC......................................................................................... 3.5-3 Figure 3.5-1B: Historic Resources - Local............................................................................................. 3.5-5 Figure 3.7-1: Soil Types.............................................................................................................................. 3.7-5 Figure 3.7-2: Fault Zones........................................................................................................................... 3.7-8 Figure 3.7-3: Liquefaction Risk............................................................................................................... 3.7-11 Figure 3.7-4: Landslide Susceptibility .................................................................................................... 3.7-12 Figure 3.8-1: Hazardous Materials Sites................................................................................................. 3.8-5 Figure 3.8-2: Airport Safety Zones....................................................................................................... 3.8-15 Figure 3.9-1: Groundwater Basins .......................................................................................................... 3.9-3 Figure 3.9-2: Regional Watersheds and Surface Water..................................................................... 3.9-4 Figure 3.9-3: Existing Storm Facilities..................................................................................................... 3.9-6 Figure 3.9-4: Flood Zones in the Vicinity of Planning Area............................................................... 3.9-8 Figure 3.9-5: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards............................................................................. 3.9-10 Figure 3.11-1a: Existing (No Project) Noise Contours..................................................................3.11-24 Figure 3.11-1b: Future (With Project) Noise Contours................................................................3.11-25 Figure 3.12-1: Educational Institutions and Public Facilities............................................................ 3.12-2 Figure 3.12-2: Parks and Recreational Facilities...............................................................................3.12-12 Figure 3.13-1: Designated Truck Routes............................................................................................. 3.13-4 Figure 3.13-2: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network................................................................... 3.13-9 Figure 3.14-1: Water Service Areas..................................................................................................... 3.14-2 Figure 3.14-2: Existing Wastewater Collection System................................................................. 3.14-10 Figure 3.14-3: Existing Storm Drain System.....................................................................................3.14-12 Figure 3.15-1: WUI Areas in Monterey County................................................................................ 3.15-4 Figure 3.15-2: Fire Hazards..................................................................................................................... 3.15-8 Figure 3.15-3: Evacuation Routes........................................................................................................3.15-22 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 30, Packet Page 358 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Projected Buildout (2031)..................................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................... ES-11 Table 2-1: Existing Land Use Summary...................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2: Projected Buildout (2031)....................................................................................................... 2-25 Table 3.3-1: Ambient Air Quality Data (Salinas Monitoring Station, 2020-2022).......................... 3.3-9 Table 3.3-2: Existing Stationary Sources and Emissions within the Planning Area......................3.3-11 Table 3.3-3: Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for Monterey County portion of the NCCAB .......................................................................................................................................................................3.3-14 Table 3.3-4: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards.............................................3.3-16 Table 3.3-5: Subregional Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts for Monterey ........3.3-25 Table 3.3-6: MBARD Project-Level Air Quality Emissions Thresholds..........................................3.3-28 Table 3.3-7: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions with Proposed Plan.................3.3-43 Table 3.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Planning Area...... 3.4-7 Table 3.4-2: Special-Status Animal Species with the Potential to Occur in the Planning Area... 3.4-8 Table 3.5-1: Proposed Plan Sites that Contain Historic Resources...............................................3.5-17 Table 3.6-1: Recent Global, National, State, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories ... ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.6-4 Table 3.6-2: City of Monterey Community Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, 2005-2020............ ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.6-5 Table 3.6-3: Unmitigated Proposed Plan Operational Emissions (Annual) ...................................3.6-32 Table 3.6-4: Mitigated Proposed Plan Operational Emissions by Emissions Source ..................3.6-33 Table 3.6-5: GHG Reduction Targets and Performance-Based Metrics........................................3.6-34 Table 3.6-6: Per Capita and Per Service Population Metrics...........................................................3.6-35 Table 3.6-7: Per Capita and Per Service Population Metrics Per Capita and Per Service Population Metrics.........................................................................................................................................................3.6-42 Table 3.6-8: Consistency with AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS Implementation Strategies..................3.6-44 Table 3.6-9: Energy Consumption from Proposed Plan Development .........................................3.6-49 Table 3.7-1: Soil Types in the Planning Area........................................................................................... 3.7-3 Table 3.8-1: Contaminated Sites in the Vicinity of Planning Area...................................................... 3.8-6 Table 3.10-1: Existing Land Use Summary ...........................................................................................3.10-4 Table 3.10-2: Subregional Employment Forecast, 2015-2045 ..........................................................3.10-6 Table 3.10-3: Planning Area Population and Job Growth Projections 2015-2031.......................3.10-6 Table 3.11-1:Typical Noise Levels in the Environment.....................................................................3.11-2 Table 3.11-2:Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration.....................................................................3.11-8 Table 3.11-3:Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..............................................3.11-9 Table 3.11-4:Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines..................................3.11-10 Table 3.11-5:Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines.................................................3.11-10 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 31, Packet Page 359 Table 3.11-6: General Plan Exterior Noise Exposure Standards for New Development .....3.11-14 Table 3.11-7:Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment..................................................3.11-22 Table 3.12-1: Monterey Fire Department Stations............................................................................3.12-4 Table 3.12-2: Enrollment at Monterey Peninsula Unified District Schools Serving the Planning Area (2018-2023)................................................................................................................................................3.12-6 Table 3.12-3: MPUSD Enrollment Projections....................................................................................3.12-7 Table 3.12-4: Existing Parks and Facilities............................................................................................3.12-9 Table 3.12-5: Existing Recreation Facilities........................................................................................3.12-13 Table 3.13-1: Truck Routes......................................................................................................................3.13-5 Table 3.13-2: Consistency with Move Monterey Strategies for New Development ...............3.13-21 Table 3.13-3: Planning Area VMT Metrics...........................................................................................3.13-26 Table 3.13-4: CAPCOA Mitigation Measures to Reduce VMT .....................................................3.13-26 Table 3.14-1: Subbasins within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin...........................................3.14-7 Table 3.14-2: Historic and Projected Water Demand in the Cal-Am Service Area .................3.14-25 Table 3.14-3: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison .......................................................3.14-26 Table 3.14-4: Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ..................................................3.14-27 Table 3.14-5: MCWD Water Demand Projections by Jurisdiction (AFY)..................................3.14-28 Table 3.14-6:Annual Solid Waste Disposal Per Capita (Monterey) .............................................3.14-33 Table 4-1:Alternatives Buildout Comparison .......................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts for Alternatives.................................................................................... 4-22 Table 5-1: Projected Buildout (2031)......................................................................................................... 5-2 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 32, Packet Page 360 City of Monterey ES-1
Executive Summary
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Monterey 2031 General Plan, referred to as the “Proposed Plan.” The Proposed Plan is both a policy document and an implementation tool for implementing the City’s General Plan. It contains goals, policies, and programs to guide future housing development within the approximately 8.67 square miles of land and 3.5 square miles of water Planning Area. The Proposed Plan was developed in response to policy direction provided by the City Council, Planning Commission, and community.

This Draft EIR has been prepared on behalf of the City of Monterey, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Monterey is the lead agency for this EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA).

An EIR is intended to inform decision-makers and the general public of the potential significant environmental impacts of a proposed project. The EIR also considers the availability of mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts and evaluates reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Plan that may reduce or avoid one or more significant environmental effects. Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is identified.

This EIR is a program EIR that examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the Proposed Plan. The impact assessment evaluates the Proposed Plan as a whole and identifies the broad, regional effects that may occur with its implementation. As a programmatic document, this EIR does not assess project-specific impacts that may result from developments pursuant to the Proposed Plan. To the extent that any future development project made possible by the Proposed Plan may have individual, site-specific impacts not addressed in this program EIR, such projects would be subject to separate, project-level environmental review, as required by State law. Projects consistent with the Proposed Plan and the findings of this EIR may also be eligible for streamlined environmental review as permitted under CEQA. This EIR represents the City’s best effort to evaluate the implementation and buildout of the Proposed Plan through its horizon year of 2031. While it is anticipated that conditions may change, the assumptions used are the best available at the time of preparation and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development.

Proposed Plan
The Proposed Plan is a targeted update to the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan (adopted in 2005) intended to respond to emerging issues and new State laws and guide development and conservation within the Planning Area through 2031. The Proposed Plan, which establishes a long-range planning framework and policies, would ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 33, Packet Page 361 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-2 City of Monterey
fully replace the City’s existing General Plan, specifically the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements, if adopted by the City Council.

The General Plan update was initiated to comprehensively examine the existing conditions in the city and to create a vision for the city’s future. Although the Proposed Plan does not specify or anticipate when buildout of the city will occur, a horizon of year 2031 is assumed for planning purposes. The purpose and objectives of the Proposed Plan, included below, underpin the policies and implementing actions of the Proposed Plan. A full project description is included in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR.

Planning Area
The Planning Area encompasses 5,522 acres (8.67 square miles) of incorporated land and 3.5 square miles of water within the Monterey Bay. The Planning Area is defined as the land area addressed by the General Plan, including land within the City limits and outside City limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. The boundary of the Planning Area was determined in response to State law requiring each city to include in its General Plan all territory within the boundaries of the incorporated area as well as “any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning” (California Government Code Section 65300). The existing city limits include residential, commercial, and industrial developments as well as public facilities, including parks and schools.

Purpose
Under State law, all California cities, towns, and counties are required to adopt a General Plan Housing Element which establishes housing objectives, policies, and programs in response to community housing conditions and needs. The City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element has been prepared to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey and it provides a framework for the community’s longer-term approach to addressing its housing needs.

By law, the Housing Element also includes an assessment of local housing needs, potential constraints to housing production, and fair housing issues. In view of that assessment, the Housing Element includes a program of actions to address identified needs, constraints, and fair housing issues.

As a built-out community, nestled between the California coast and the Santa Lucia Mountains, integrating new housing into the fabric of the Monterey community requires a thoughtful approach to land use and community character. Ensuring consistency of the Land Use Element with the newly adopted Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is also required. In addition, State law triggers requirements to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change into the Safety Element along with actions to strengthen community resilience and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 34, Packet Page 362 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-3
emergency evacuation capacity. Updated policies and actions regarding emergency evacuation can be found in the Circulation Element.

Objectives
The Proposed Plan provides the basis for the City’s land use and development policy and represents the basic community values, ideals, and aspirations that will govern development and conservation.

Specific objectives established for the project include the following:

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.

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. 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 35, Packet Page 363 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-4 City of Monterey

10. 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.

11. Address Risks from Natural Hazards. Incorporate strategies to minimize loss and damage due to geologic, wildfire, flooding, and other potential hazards,

12. 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.

Estimated Buildout of the Proposed General Plan
Buildout refers to the estimated amount of new development and corresponding growth in population and employment that is likely to take place under the Proposed Plan through the planning horizon year of 2031. Buildout estimates should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur through 2031 is based on many factors outside of the City’s control. Therefore, buildout estimates represent one potential set of outcomes rather than definitive figures. Additionally, the designation of a site for a specific land use in the Proposed Plan does not guarantee that a site will be developed or redeveloped at the assumed density during the planning period, as future development will rely primarily on each property owner’s initiative. For this EIR, buildout projections assume housing development and population growth consistent with the capacity projections in the Draft Housing Element and employment growth consistent with the increment in the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the planning period.

Table ES-1 Projected Buildout (2031) describes the growth in population, housing, and employment projected to result from buildout of the Proposed Plan in 2031. Projected increases reflect pipeline projects, and new development projections. For the purpose of a conservative estimate of potential environmental impacts, this Draft EIR considers 10,125 new residents, 5,800 new housing units, and 1,995 new jobs at buildout in 2031.

Table ES-1: Projected Buildout (2031)
Existing (2023) Net New Future (2031)
Population 26,845 10,104 36,949
Housing Units 13,825 5,787 19,612
Jobs 22,246 1,991 24,237
Jobs - Housing Ratio 1.60 -- 1.24
Source: AMBAG, 2022; DOF, 2023, US Census, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 36, Packet Page 364 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-5
Alternatives to the Proposed Plan
The following alternatives are described and evaluated in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR.

NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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 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.

Overall, the No Project Alternative (Current City General Plan) is projected to result in approximately 991 new residents, 511 housing units, and 1,991 new jobs in Monterey by 2031. This option assumes that Fort Ord will be constructed with industrial (employment) uses and the Highway 68 Corridor in compliance with the voter approved Highway 68 Area Plan. The Highway 68 Area Plan assumes residential and commercial development. More specifically, the 50-acre MPUSD site is currently planned for a school, 300 housing units and parks/open space uses. The current General Plan does not plan for enough housing for the 2023-2031 required RHNA allocation. Although the No Project Alternative would not achieve the project objectives and as such is not considered a feasible project alternative, it is presented below as required by the State CEQA Guidelines.

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 as well as significant impacts related to biological resources and hazardous materials that can be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. 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 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 37, Packet Page 365 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-6 City of Monterey
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.

INCREASED WORKFORCE HOUSING ALTERNATIVE
The Increased Workforce Housing Alternative is designed to address significant and unavoidable impacts related to employment vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and the loss of agricultural grazing land 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 increasing multifamily housing 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.

Areas of Known Controversy
During the drafting of the Proposed Plan and this EIR, public agencies and members of the public were invited to provide feedback on the documents. The following topics were identified as areas of controversy, based on comments at public meetings on the Proposed Plan and at the EIR Scoping Meeting, and responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP): Hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Additionally, environmental impacts classified as significant and unavoidable have been identified in the resource topics of agricultural resources; transportation; greenhouse gases, air quality, utilities and service systems, and wildfire; and inasmuch as they may be controversial to the general public, agencies, or stakeholders, they are described briefly here.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Commenters expressed concern for comments addressed concern about existing site contamination in the Fort Ord Sites. There are seven parcels located within the Planning Area on South Boundary Road, near Ryan Ranch Office Park, that were once a part of the former Fort Ord ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 38, Packet Page 366 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-7
base. Implementation of the Proposed Plan could result in development of three parcels that are included to meet the City’s RHNA obligation in the Housing Element: APNs 031-191-016-000 (36.9 acres), 031-191-003-000 (32.8 acres), and 031-191-006-000 (24 acres) for a total of 93.7 acres. None of the parcels featured in the Housing Element are in need of remediation or disposal of hazardous waste associated with the Superfund cleanup process of Fort Ord.

Impacted sites under development would undergo remediation under oversight of applicable state and local agencies, effectively reducing the amount of contamination found in the cumulative project area. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For each of the reasonably foreseeable projects under consideration, various project-specific measures (such as the ones identified for the Proposed Plan) would be implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. For these reasons, the Proposed Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative hazards or hazardous materials impact.

TRANSPORATION
Commenters expressed concern about development patterns that increase vehicular use and subsequent congestion, as well as support for alternative transportation options. Buildout of the Proposed Plan would result in increased development in the Planning Area and would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network. The General Plan Circulation Element includes policies that seek to improve mode share and reduce the impact of new traffic on alternative transportation modes. Development under the Proposed Plan would be consistent with such policies and regulations by increasing housing opportunities in already developed areas which is an integral part of VMT reduction and encouraging transportation alternatives, such as walking and biking.

As detailed in Section 3.13, employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact under the Proposed Plan and mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure VMT-1 would require implementation of commute trip reduction programs for employers in the city with more than 50 employees. Employers can choose from a range of commute-reduction strategies that include ridesharing, discounted transit, bicycling, vanpool, or guaranteed ride home. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measure VMT-1 can be expected to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area and reduce the magnitude of the impact, their 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 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. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Commenters had various concerns about future water supply. Water service for the majority of the Planning Area is provided by Cal-Am; however, approximately 135 acres of land at Fort Ord is within the MCWD service area. Cal-Am projects there will be sufficient water when new sources ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 39, Packet Page 367 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-8 City of Monterey
come online. However, it cannot be said with certainty that these new sources will be operational in the future as envisioned; thus, impacts on water supply under the Proposed Plan would be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant could potentially add 300 AFY of additional supply, reactivation is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Monterey and there is no reasonable plan to reactivate the plant at this time. Further, while Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver additional water to the Seaside Basin, the project has not been proven to provide its full projected capacity, particularly during dry years. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact on water supply is considered significant and unavoidable.

In addition, 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, 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. 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 emission would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
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, there is a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area 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 as a potential location for housing development. 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. Even with Mitigation Measure AG-1 which requires the project applicant to offset the loss of such lands, farmland is a finite and irreplaceable resource, and therefore not directly mitigable. 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.

ENERGY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG emissions from operation of the Proposed Plan would result in a net increase compared to existing conditions, primarily attributed to mobile sources. Despite this 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. Lastly, mobile sources make up a large majority of the Proposed Plan’s overall emissions as well as the increase in emissions relative to existing conditions. Although the City’s ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 40, Packet Page 368 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-9
direct influence over these emissions is limited, the Proposed Plan incorporates local land use strategies that promote VMT reduction, resulting in a decrease in VMT per capita. Overall, the Proposed Plan includes policies that are designed to reduce GHG impacts, in line with CARB and OPR guidance. Additionally, recommended Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require the use of construction period best management practices for the control of construction related GHG emissions, while Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require an update to the City Climate Action Plan to identify and incorporate additional GHG reduction strategies to achieve an additional two percent reduction in emissions by 2030 to achieve an overall reduction of 40 percent. Nevertheless, the magnitude of effect of the additional cap measures cannot be known with certainty at this time, and there therefore cannot be assumed to reduce the increase in operational emissions to a lessthan-significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact even after implementation of all feasible mitigation.

AIR QUALITY
Under the Proposed Plan, it is estimated that energy-source emissions of ROG and CO and areasource 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. If projects exceed operational thresholds, MM-AQ-2 and MM-AQ-4 would be implemented, which promotes the use of green consumer products to reduce ROG emissions and prohibits wood fireplaces and stoves to reduce PM emissions from area sources. Reductions achieved by these measures cannot currently be quantified since project developers do not have authority to require green consumer products (although they can be encouraged), and it is unknown how many woodburning hearths would be avoided. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Further, development under the Proposed Plan 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 (as discussed in Section 3.13: Transportation) 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. 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. 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, MM-AQ-6 would not apply to existing sensitive receptors that are present before new construction or operational activity. As such, these impacts are significant and unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 41, Packet Page 369 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-10 City of Monterey

WILDFIRE
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. 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 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.

Impacts Summary and Environmentally Superior
Alternative

IMPACTS SUMMARY
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures presents the summary of the significant impacts of the Proposed Plan identified in the EIR and the Proposed Plan mitigation measures that reduce these impacts. Detailed discussions of the impacts and proposed policies that would reduce impacts are in Chapter 3.

IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR. If the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the guidelines require another environmentally superior alternative to be identified.

Table 4-2 summarizes the alternatives’ overall environmental impacts for each topic presented in Section 4.4. For the Proposed Plan, 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.

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 impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, nine impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 47 impacts were expected to be less than significant. Similarly, for the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, nine impacts were expected to be significant and unavoidable, 10 impacts were expected to be less than significant with mitigation, and 47 impacts were expected to be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 42, Packet Page 370 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-11
The No Project Alternative reduces the greatest number of environmental impacts. Since the CEQA guidelines require another environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative to be identified, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would 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 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 of accommodating their share of Very Low and Low (VL/L) Income housing units.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 43, Packet Page 371 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-12 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

3.1 Aesthetics

3.1-1 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not have a substantial adverse effect
on scenic vistas.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.1-2 Development under 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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.1-3 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings in nonurbanized areas or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality in urbanized areas.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.1-4 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.2 Agricultural Resources

3.2-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.

None Required No Impact N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 44, Packet Page 372 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-13
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

3.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract
None Required No Impact N/A

3.2-3: Involve other changes in the existing
environment, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use.

MM-AG-1: 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable

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
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 45, Packet Page 373 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-14 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 46, Packet Page 374 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-15
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

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).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 47, Packet Page 375 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-16 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

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).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 48, Packet Page 376 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-17
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

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 on at least an EPAapproved 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.

MM-AQ-4: Require 2010 Model Year
Compliance of Diesel Truck Engines. All
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 49, Packet Page 377 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-18 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

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

MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-4, in conjunction with
any additional project-specific mitigation measures as
needed under MM-AQ-1, would help reduce
project-generated emissions from construction and
operation of the Proposed Plan. However, because
project-generated emissions could potentially lead to
significant impacts (as discussed under Impact 3.3-1)
that conflict with the 2016 AQMP, this impact is
significant and unavoidable.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable

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

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
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 50, Packet Page 378 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-19
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 cumulativelevel 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 51, Packet Page 379 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-20 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

Implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-4
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 non-cancer 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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 52, Packet Page 380 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-21
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
personal transportation decisions, there is no feasible mitigation beyond MM-AQ-6 to address this impact.

In addition, MM-AQ-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.

3.3-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.4 Biological Resources

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.

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
special-status plant and wildlife species.

The field surveys are to be conducted
when special-status species that could
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 53, Packet Page 381 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-22 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 Mitigation Measures BIO2 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 54, Packet Page 382 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-23
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 55, Packet Page 383 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-24 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 56, Packet Page 384 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-25
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 57, Packet Page 385 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-26 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 58, Packet Page 386 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-27
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 nodisturbance 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 nodisturbance 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.

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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 59, Packet Page 387 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-28 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 60, Packet Page 388 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-29
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 are
met with the replacement roost.
f) If no active roosts are identified,
then work may commence as
planned. Survey results are valid for
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 61, Packet Page 389 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-30 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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, 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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 62, Packet Page 390 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-31
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 more than 50 meters offATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 63, Packet Page 391 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-32 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 64, Packet Page 392 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-33
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 65, Packet Page 393 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-34 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 66, Packet Page 394 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-35
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 CDFWapproved mitigation bank in the region. No compensatory mitigation is required for passive
relocation or eviction of transient, unpaired owls.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 67, Packet Page 395 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-36 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 sub-contractors.

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.

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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 68, Packet Page 396 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-37
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 BIO-1, then the
following measures will be implemented:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 69, Packet Page 397 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-38 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
• 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 70, Packet Page 398 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-39
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
• 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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 71, Packet Page 399 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-40 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

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
None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 72, Packet Page 400 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-41
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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, marshes, vernal
pools, coastal areas, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 73, Packet Page 401 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-42 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

3.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.5-1 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
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 and the findings of the
historic evaluation, including a
determination of historic significance and
eligibility for listing on local, State, or
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 74, Packet Page 402 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-43
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties are
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 75, Packet Page 403 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-44 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
considered to have a less-than-significant
effect on historic architectural resources.

3.5-2 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not 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 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
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 76, Packet Page 404 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-45
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 77, Packet Page 405 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-46 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

3.5-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not have the potential to disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

MM-CUL-3 Archaeological and Tribal
Cultural Assessments.

MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources
Awareness Training.

MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant

3.5-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not 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
MM-CUL-3 Archaeological and Tribal
Cultural Assessments.

MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources
Awareness Training.

MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 78, Packet Page 406 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-47
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 resource to a
California Native American tribe.

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 shall
incorporate the most recent
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 79, Packet Page 407 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-48 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 topcontributing 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).

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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 80, Packet Page 408 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-49
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 fiveminute 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 diesel-powered
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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 81, Packet Page 409 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-50 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 82, Packet Page 410 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-51
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 achieve the additional
two-percent reduction in GHG emissions
to meet the short-term GHG reduction
target for 2030, without further State
action, it is unlikely that local efforts alone
would be sufficient to meet carbon
neutrality by 2045 (or 85 percent below
1990 levels) 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 83, Packet Page 411 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-52 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

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.

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. 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable

3.6-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not cause wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction or
operation.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 84, Packet Page 412 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-53
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

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;
seismically related ground failure, including
liquefaction; or landslides.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.7-2 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.7-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not locate structures 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 Proposed Plan,
and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse, or create substantial
risks to life or property.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.7-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.7-5 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 85, Packet Page 413 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-54 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater.

3.7-6 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not 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 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.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 86, Packet Page 414 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-55
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 grounddisturbing 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
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 87, Packet Page 415 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-56 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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.

3.8 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 88, Packet Page 416 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-57
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
remediated consistent with the Residential
Quality Assurance (RQA) process (or equal)
and that the residential restriction has been
removed by DTSC.

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 result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the
Planning Area.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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: 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 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.
• Deploy adaptive traffic signal control
systems that dynamically respond to realtime traffic conditions at the interchanges of Fremont Street-Highway 1 and Soledad
Drive-Highway 1, giving priority to
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 89, Packet Page 417 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-58 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
evacuation traffic and improving the
efficiency of traffic flow during emergencies.

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.
.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.9-1 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not violate any federal, State, or local water
quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.9-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding onor off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite; create
or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 90, Packet Page 418 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-59
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing

3.10-1 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not physically divide an established
community.

None Required No Impact N/A

3.10-2 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

None Required No Impact N/A

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).

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.10-4 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not displace substantial numbers of
None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 91, Packet Page 419 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-60 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.

3.11 Noise

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.11-2 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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 times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
MM PF-1: 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;
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 92, Packet Page 420 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-61
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
services: fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks, or other public facilities.
• 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 93, Packet Page 421 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-62 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

3.12-2 Development under 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
None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.12-3 Development under the Proposed Plan
would not require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.13 Transportation

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.13-2 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

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 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:

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 94, Packet Page 422 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-63
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
• 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
time-off incentives to employees
who carpool, bike or walk to work;
• Providing priority parking for
carpools and vanpools.

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).

None Required Less than Significant N/A

3.13-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not result in inadequate emergency access.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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
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,
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 95, Packet Page 423 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-64 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
that supply will be available by 2030. As such,
the impact remains significant and
unavoidable even after implementation of all
feasible mitigation.
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 an additional 199.2 AFY by 2030, as
needed to support new development within
the City of Monterey that will be served by
MCWD.

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. 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.

MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures for Air Quality.

MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4 Final
Engines on Construction Equipment.

MM-AQ-4: Require 2010 Model Year
Compliance of Diesel Truck Engines.

MM-BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction
Surveys for Special Status Species.

MM-BIO-2: Worker Environmental
Awareness Training Program.

MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources
Awareness Training.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 96, Packet Page 424 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-65
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
MM-GHG-2: Construction Best
Management Practices to Minimize
GHGs.

3.14-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would
not result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves
or may serve the project that it does not
have adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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: 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 Street-Highway 1
and Soledad Drive-Highway 1 by
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 97, Packet Page 425 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
ES-66 City of Monterey
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
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 realtime traffic conditions at Fremont StreetHighway 1 interchange, giving priority to evacuation traffic and improving the
efficiency of traffic flow during emergencies.

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A

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: 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.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Less than Significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 98, Packet Page 426 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Executive Summary
City of Monterey ES-67
Table ES-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance before
Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation

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.

None Required Less than Significant N/A
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 99, Packet Page 427 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dixon Draft General Plan 2040 Executive Summary
ES-68
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 100, Packet Page 428 1 Introduction
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared on behalf of the City of Monterey (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.). This EIR analyzes potential environmental impacts of the adoption and implementation of the proposed City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, referred to as the “Proposed Plan.” This chapter outlines the purpose and overall approach to the preparation of the EIR. The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the Proposed Plan complies with CEQA. “Lead agency” is defined by Section 21067 of CEQA as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.”

1.1 Purpose of the EIR
The primary intent of CEQA is to ensure that public agency decision-makers document and consider the environmental implications of their actions in order to avoid or minimize environmental damage that could result from the implementation of a project wherever feasible, and to balance environmental, economic, and social objectives. The purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided (CEQA Section 21002.1).

PURPOSE
This EIR serves the following purposes:
• To satisfy CEQA requirements for analysis of environmental impacts by including a complete and comprehensive programmatic evaluation of the physical impacts of adopting and implementing the Proposed Plan;
• To recommend a set of measures to mitigate any significant adverse impacts; • To analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Plan; • To inform decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan prior to taking action on the Proposed Plan, and to assist City officials in reviewing and adopting the Proposed Plan; and
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 101, Packet Page 429 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-2 City of Monterey
• To provide a basis for the review of subsequent development projects and public improvements proposed within the city. Subsequent environmental documents may be tiered from the Final EIR.

The Proposed Plan consists of a regulatory framework to accommodate the future development of the city, as described in Chapter 2: Project Description. This EIR contains analysis of all potential environmental impacts expected to result from implementation of the various policies and programs identified as part of the Proposed Plan, including those that serve to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with CEQA requirements, this EIR also identifies and evaluates alternatives to the Proposed Plan, including a No Project Alternative, Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, and an Increased Workforce Housing Alternative. An environmentally superior alternative is identified as part of the Alternatives analysis.

This EIR evaluates at a programmatic level the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan given its 2031 planning horizon. It can be anticipated that conditions will change; however, the assumptions used are the best data and information available at the time of EIR preparation and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development.

INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15124(d)) require EIRs to identify the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making, and the approvals for which the EIR will be used. This EIR will inform the City, in addition to other responsible agencies, persons, and the general public, of the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Plan and the identified alternatives. The City will use the EIR as part of its review and approval of the Proposed Plan. Other agencies that may use the EIR include local and regional agencies such as the Monterey Police Department (MPD), the Monterey Fire Department (MFD), the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG); and State agencies such as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

1.2 Approach and Scope of the EIR

TYPE OF EIR
This EIR is a program EIR, defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines as: “[An EIR addressing a] series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
(1) Geographically; (2) A[s] logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) In connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental impacts which can be mitigated in similar ways.”
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 102, Packet Page 430 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Monterey 1-3
Program EIRs can be used as the basic, general environmental assessment for an overall program of future projects, policies, and related implementation actions, such as the Proposed Plan. A program EIR has several advantages. First, it provides a basic reference document to avoid unnecessary repetition of facts or analysis in subsequent project-specific assessments. Second, it allows the lead agency to look at the broad, regional impacts of a program of actions before its adoption and eliminates redundant or contradictory approaches to the consideration of regional and cumulative effects.

As a programmatic document, this EIR presents an assessment of the potential impacts of the Proposed Plan on the entirety of the Planning Area which encompasses about 8.67 square miles, shown in Figure 2.1. It does not separately evaluate subcomponents of the Proposed Plan, nor does it assess project-specific impacts of potential future developments under the Proposed Plan, all of which are required to comply with CEQA and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as applicable.

As a program EIR, the preparation of this document does not relieve the sponsors of specific projects from the responsibility of complying with the requirements of CEQA (and/or NEPA for projects requiring federal funding or approvals). As noted, individual projects are required to prepare a more precise, project-level analysis to fulfill CEQA and/or NEPA requirements. The lead agency responsible for reviewing these projects shall determine the level of review needed, and the scope of that analysis will depend on the specifics of the particular project. These projects may, however, use the discussion of impacts in this EIR as a basis of their assessment of these regional, citywide, or cumulative impacts, provided that the projects are consistent with the Proposed Plan and the data and assumptions used in this EIR remain current and valid.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREAS
Information gathered about the environmental setting is used to define relevant planning issues, determine thresholds of significance, and evaluate potential impacts. Based on the initial analysis of environmental setting and baseline conditions in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and comments on the (NOP), both of which are included in Appendix A of this DEIR, the following issues are analyzed in this program EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 103, Packet Page 431 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-4 City of Monterey
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use, Population, and Housing
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

PLANNING HORIZON
For analytic purposes in this EIR, the base year is 2023 and the horizon year representing future conditions is 2031, unless otherwise noted. In cases where current data is not available, the most recent known data is used to depict baseline conditions. The horizon year of 2031 represents the target year of the Proposed Plan when projects and programs are anticipated to be fully implemented.

ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires EIRs to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Plan that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. This EIR evaluates two alternatives, including a Relocated Housing Growth Alternative and an Increased Workforce Housing Alternative. A No Project Alternative was considered but determined infeasible, given that State law requires each city and county in California adopt an updated Housing Element every eight years and plan to accommodate its share of the regional housing need. The Proposed Plan will create the regulatory framework to accommodate the city’s regional housing need.

1.3 Planning Process and Public Involvement

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A NOP for the EIR on the Proposed Plan was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on August 02, 2023, and circulated among relevant State and local agencies, as well as to members of the public.

The City received a total of 16 comment letters, including six from State public agencies and ten comment letters from individuals or organizations during the NOP’s 30-day review period, which ended on September 04, 2023. The NOP and comments on the NOP received by the City are included as Appendix A of this EIR. Consistent with legal requirements and State guidance, an EIR Scoping Meeting was held at the Monterey Conference Center on August 7, 2023, to receive suggestions on scope and content for the EIR; solicit input 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 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 104, Packet Page 432 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Monterey 1-5
members of the public. Comments on the NOP, along with input received during public workshops and meetings over the course of the Proposed Plan’s process, have helped to identify the major planning and environmental issues and concerns and establish the framework of this EIR.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION (SB 18 AND AB 52)
Senate Bill (SB) 18, codified in California Government Code (CGC) Section 65352.3, requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan. Additionally, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires tribal cultural resources to be addressed under CEQA and established requirements for consultation with Native American tribes as part of the CEQA process, providing both federal and non-federally recognized tribes the right to formal consultation with project lead agencies (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1). In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the City contacted the NAHC on October 6, 2022 to request a consultation list of tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the city.

Upon receipt of a list of tribal contacts, the City contacted tribal representatives in July 2023 providing information about the planning process and inviting them to initiate consultation under AB 52 if desired. No response or formal request for tribal consultation has been received.

Correspondence with the NAHC and tribal contacts is included in Appendix D. Additionally, the NOP was shared with the NAHC and in August 2023, the NAHC responded with recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

The record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed and the results were positive. As such, the environmental setting in the Planning Area and the sites of known Native American archaeological resources in the Planning Area indicate that there is potential for the Planning Area to contain tribal cultural resources from past Native American activities.

DRAFT EIR REVIEW
The CEQA Guidelines establish that the public review period for a draft EIR that has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies shall be no shorter than 45 days (CCR 15105). This Draft EIR is available for review to the public and interested and affected agencies for a period of 45 days. The purpose of the review period is to obtain comments “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided and mitigated” (CCR Section 15204). The EIR and appendices are available for review within the Planning Office at 570 Pacific Street, the Library at 625 Pacific Street, and online at https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031.

Please submit comments on this Draft EIR in writing or via email to:

Christy Sabdo, AICP, Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 105, Packet Page 433 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-6 City of Monterey
Monterey, CA 93940
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 646-3758
After the close of the public review period, City staff and CEQA consultants will review the comments, respond to the comments received, and determine whether any changes are required to the EIR. The City Council will then consider certification of the Final EIR. Subsequent to certification of the Final EIR, the City Council may approve the Proposed Plan. If the City Council approves the Proposed Plan, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Clerk of Monterey County.

1.4 Other Relevant Plans and Environmental
Studies
Plans and studies relevant to the Proposed Plan include the following:
• Monterey County Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2022) • AMBAG 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2023-2031 (2022) • Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan (2022)
• City of Monterey Downtown Specific Plan (Adopted 2013; Amended 2023) • City of Monterey Climate Action Plan (2016)
• City of Monterey Local Coastal Land Use Plan (2016)
• City of Monterey Lighthouse Specific Plan (Adopted 2016; Amended 2023) • City of Monterey North Fremont Specific Plan (Adopted 2014; Amended 2016) • City of Monterey Parks & Recreation Master Plan (2016) • City of Monterey Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (2016) • City of Monterey Waterfront Master Plan (2016)
• City of Monterey Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses (2016) • City of Monterey General Plan (2005)

1.5 Organization of the EIR
This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters, plus appendices:

ES. Executive Summary. Summarizes the EIR by providing an overview of the Proposed Plan, the potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Plan, the mitigation measures identified to reduce or avoid these impacts, alternatives to the Proposed Plan, and identification of the environmentally superior Alternative.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 106, Packet Page 434 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Monterey 1-7

1. Introduction. Introduces the purpose of the EIR, explains the EIR process and intended uses of the EIR, and describes the overall organization of this EIR.

2. Project Description. Describes in detail the Proposed Plan, including its location and boundaries, purpose and objectives, and projected buildout.

3. Environmental Analysis. Analyzes the environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan.

Impacts are organized by major topic. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, significance criteria, methodology, and potential impacts.

4. Analysis of Alternatives. Presents a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Plan, provides discussion of environmental impacts associated with each alternative, compares the relative impacts of each alternative to those of the Proposed Plan and other alternatives, discusses the relationship of each alternative to the Proposed Plan’s objectives, and identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

5. CEQA Required Conclusions. Summarizes significant environmental impacts, including growth-inducing, cumulative, and significant and unavoidable impacts; significant irreversible environmental change; and impacts found not to be significant.

6. List of Preparers. Identifies the persons and organizations that contributed to the preparation of the EIR.

7. Appendices. Includes the NOP and compilation of agency and public comments received on the NOP, as well as other technical appendices including data used for environmental analysis in this EIR.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 107, Packet Page 435 2-1
2 Project Description

2.1 Introduction
Consistent with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a programmatic analysis of the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the goals, policies, and actions and the projected buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Plan).1 California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. mandates that all counties and incorporated cities prepare a general plan that establishes policies and standards for future development, housing affordability, and resource protection. State law encourages cities to keep general plans current through regular updates.

The Proposed Plan is a targeted update to the City’s 2005 General Plan, specifically the Housing, Safety, Land Use, and Circulation Elements, and would guide future land use decisions in the City of Monterey, providing a long-term vision for the city and, through its policies and implementing actions, would indicate how that vision may be achieved over the life of the document. It would be the primary policy document guiding growth and development within the City of Monterey through the planning horizon year of 2031.

Together with the Zoning Ordinance and related sections of the Municipal Code, the Proposed Plan would serve as the basis for planning-related decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.

This chapter introduces a description of the existing regional and local project setting, the purpose and objectives of the Proposed Plan, the proposed General Plan land use diagram, key data tables, a description of the Proposed Plan’s policy direction, and an outline of the projected population and employment growth rates and development patterns through the planning horizon year. This project description provides the basis for the environmental analysis in Chapter 3 and Alternatives analysis in Chapter 4.

2.2 Location and Project Boundaries
The City of Monterey is located in northern Monterey County, about 19 miles west of Salinas, 29 miles north of Big Sur, and 120 miles south of San Francisco, as shown in Figure 2-1. The City of Monterey is a coastal community of about 28,000 residents with a rich historic background and a distinctive 1 As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, program-level environmental review documents are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria. The project that is the subject of this EIR consists of long-term plans that will be implemented as policy documents guiding future development activities and City actions. Because this is a program-level EIR, this document does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual developments that may be allowed under the General Plan. Future specific projects may require separate environmental review.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 108, Packet Page 436 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
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
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
Navy School
Annex
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 2.1 Regional Location and Planning Area.mxd City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Figure 2-1: Regional Location / Planning Area Boundaries µ
UV1
UV1
UV1
£¤101
£¤101
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Pacific
Grove
MontereySeaside
Carmel
-by-the-Sea
Carmel Valley
Village
Salinas Marina
Prunedale
Elkhorn
Castroville
Aromas Las Lomas
Watsonville
Gilroy
Interlaken Amesti
Pajaro
Dunes
La Selva Beach
Day Valley
Santa
Cruz Capitola
Live
Oak
Rio
del
Mar
Aptos
Hills
Aptos
Fort Ord
National
Monument
Toro
Regional
Park
Palo Corona
Regional Park
Wilder
Ranch
State
Park
Mount
Madonna
County
Park
Monterey
Santa Cruz
San
Benito
Santa
Clara
£¤101
UV1
UV17
UV68
UV1
Map Not to Scale
µ
Regional Locator
City of Monterey
Cities/Places
Parks
County
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 109, Packet Page 437 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-3
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 northeast. Regional access is provided by California State Route 1 (Highway 1), a north-south highway that runs through the center of Monterey, as well as California State Route 68 (Highway 68), 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 and other neighboring communities, including Pacific Grove, Carmel Valley, Seaside, and Marina.

Adjacent to the City to the east is the Monterey Regional Airport, a commercial service airport offering direct service to several destinations and connecting service to numerous cities worldwide.

PLANNING AREA
The Planning Area is defined as the land area addressed by the General Plan, including land within the City limits and outside City limits that bears a relation to the City’s planning. The boundary of the Planning Area was determined in response to State law requiring each city to include in its General Plan all territory within the boundaries of the incorporated area as well as “any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning” (California Government Code Section 65300).

The Proposed Planning Area, shown in Figure 2-1, comprises a total of 5,522 acres (8.67 square miles) of incorporated land and 3.5 square miles of water within the Monterey Bay. The existing City limits include residential, commercial, and industrial developments as well as public facilities, including parks, schools, and military facilities.

2.3 Background

SETTING AND EXISTING LAND USES
Monterey is known for its stunning natural scenery and world-renowned attractions like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Cannery Row, and Fisherman's Wharf, 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-- the region's largest hospital (Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula), and Monterey Peninsula's largest shopping center (Del Monte Center). Monterey's enviable quality of life continues to make the community an attractive place to live.

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/institutional at 1,359.9 acres (24.4 percent), which encompasses all publicly owned 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 1051.4 acres (18.9 percent) of land use in City, while multi-family residential covers about 319.6 acres (5.7 percent). Parks, and open space uses occupy 912.3 acres (16.4 percent), commercial uses occupy 250.6 acres (4.5 percent), and industrial uses occupy 76.8 acres (1.4 percent).

There are approximately 5,568 acres in the current City limits in the Planning Area. Table 2-1 shows the breakdown of existing land uses in the Planning Area. Figure 2-2 shows the overall pattern of existing land uses in the Planning Area.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 110, Packet Page 438 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-4 City of Monterey
Table 2-1: Existing Land Use Summary
Land Use Acres Percent
Single-family Residential 1051.4 18.9%
Multi-family Residential 319.6 5.7%
Commercial 250.6 4.5%
Industrial 76.8 1.4%
Office 246.9 4.4%
Public/Institutional 1359.9 24.4%
Parks and Open Space 912.3 16.4%
Utilities 23.9 0.4%
Transportation & Misc. 937.5 16.8%
Vacant 389.8 7.0%
Total 5568.7 100.0%
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.

CURRENT MONTEREY GENERAL PLAN
Adopted in January 2005 and last amended in June 2020, the current General Plan established goals, objectives, policies, and actions to guide development and preservation in the city. Acting as a “constitution” for the physical development of the city, the General Plan serves as the basis of decisions concerning the development of property. It includes twelve elements that correspond to the seven topics required by California State law in force at the time it was prepared, including Urban Design, Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, Noise, Economic, Social, Historic Preservation, and Public Facilities elements. Each element incorporates the topic and relates its goals to the physical development of the community. The Proposed Plan involves updates to the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to address emerging issues and new State laws.

PRIOR PLANNING INITIATIVES
Subsequent to adoption of the 2005 General Plan, the City completed several major planning initiatives, including the Downtown Specific Plan, the North Fremont Specific Plan, and the Lighthouse Specific Plan.

The City also adopted a Multi-Family Residential Zoning Overlay to facilitate housing along Garden Road.

Each initiative is summarized below.

Downtown Specific Plan
Adopted in October 2013 and amended further in July 2023, the Downtown Specific Plan establishes a land use plan, policies, and guidelines for the development of 106 acres between Downtown and East Downtown in the City of Monterey. The purpose of the Downtown Specific Plan is to develop a clean, enticing, and safe environment that provides gathering spaces and draws visitors into the area and offers a variety of services, events, and retail establishments. It establishes nine districts and identifies several opportunity sites for commercial and residential development. The Pearl District has the potential to build housing at a higher density, while Pierce has several small lots that could ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 111, Packet Page 439 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
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 icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
NSA Monterey Pines Annex
Golf Course
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 2.2 Existing Land Use in the Planning Area1.mxd Residential
Single Family Residential
Duplex/Two Units
Multi Family Residential
Commercial
Service Station
Hotel/Motel/Lodging Commercial
General Commercial
Office
Mixed Uses
Industrial
Business Park/Light Industrial
General Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public
Hospital
Institutional
Public Facility
Schools/Educational Facility
Religious Facility
Parks/Open Space
Cemetery
Golf Course
Designated Parks, Recreation, Greenbelts
Informal Open Space
Harbor/Marina
Beach
Other
Vacant
Utilities
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use in the Planning Area
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 112, Packet Page 440 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-6 City of Monterey
also be developed for residential use. Proposed infrastructure projects include improvements to the Alvarado Mall, Simoneau Plaza, Custom House Plaza, and the addition of sidewalk seating. Downtown buildout projections include 912 residential units, with the caveat that limited water sources will restrict the scenario to 260 units, and a total of 50,000 square feet of commercial use. The Plan provides for potential conversion of six segments of one-way street into two-way traffic and relocating the MST Transit station from Simoneau Plaza to the Washington Street area.

North Fremont Specific Plan
Adopted in April of 2014 and amended further in August 2016, the North Fremont Specific Plan Area consists of approximately 47.7 acres on both sides of the 0.87-mile North Fremont Street from the eastern City limits west to Highway 1. The area is designated by the City’s General Plan as one of three “Mixed-Use Neighborhoods.” The purpose of the Plan aims to direct future population growth into mixed use areas by emphasizing attractive design concepts and development guidelines that will provide unique character, improved pedestrian experience, commercial opportunities, connections to the neighborhood, and bus transportation. Buildout projections list 130 new dwelling units on North Fremont Street and 50,000 square feet of new commercial development. The Plan encourages residential development as part of mixed-use projects and specifies alternatives for streetscapes, parking, and circulation as the area carries significant traffic from Highway 1.

Lighthouse Specific Plan
Adopted in September of 2016 and amended in June 2023, the Lighthouse Specific Plan guides the future development of the mixed-use area along Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street, containing residences, retail shops, and services. The Planning Area includes the Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street corridors, bordered by the Pacific Grove city limits at David Avenue to the Lighthouse Tunnel and connecting side streets adjacent to the Lower Presidio area. The main objective of the Lighthouse Specific Plan is to guide development of a transit-oriented mixed-use community and revitalized destination point. Buildout projections include accommodating up to 113 dwelling units (as part of the 260 units projected by the 2005 General Plan) and a 35,000-square-foot net increase in total commercial land use. The Plan includes design objectives, guidelines, and standards for land use and development provides guidance for improved bicycle boulevards, streetscapes, sewer collection, storm drainage, low impact design, and utility undergrounding.

Multifamily Residential Overlay
Adopted in 2019 and amended further in 2021, the Multifamily Residential Overlay District is intended to facilitate the provision of multifamily residential uses to address the housing shortage in the City of Monterey and to promote infill development of workforce housing, which may encourage affordable housing near jobs. The overlay applies to properties on the south side of Garden Road designated for Industrial use in the General Plan and provides owners with the option of developing multifamily housing on their sites if they choose. The overlay district sets forth development standards and regulations for multifamily uses within the overlay, including standards for private and shared open space, parking, and lighting as well as for the preservation of trees. Since adoption, four projects with a total of 180 units have been approved in the overlay.

2.4 Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed Plan
The Proposed Plan is a targeted update to the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan intended to respond to emerging issues and new State laws and guide ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 113, Packet Page 441 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-7
development and conservation within the Planning Area. As required under the CEQA Guidelines, this section provides a description of the Proposed Plan’s purpose and objectives (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15124).

PURPOSE
Under State law, all California cities, towns, and counties are required to adopt a General Plan Housing Element which establishes housing objectives, policies, and programs in response to community housing conditions and needs. The City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element has been prepared to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey and it provides 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. A key component of the Housing Element is the inventory of sites available for housing, presented in a table showing the location, size and zoning applicable to each site together with a projection of the number of housing units that could realistically be accommodated on the parcel in view of past trends and local conditions. By law, the Housing Element also includes an assessment of local housing needs, potential constraints to housing production, and fair housing issues. In view of that assessment, the Housing Element includes a program of actions to address identified needs, constraints, and fair housing issues.

As a built-out community, nestled between the California coast and the southern Santa Lucia Mountains, integrating new housing into the fabric of the Monterey community requires a thoughtful approach to land use and community character. Ensuring consistency of the Land Use Element with the newly adopted Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is also required. In addition, State law triggers requirements to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change into the Safety Element along with actions to strengthen community resilience and emergency evacuation capacity. Updated policies and actions regarding emergency evacuation can be found in the Circulation Element.

OBJECTIVES
The following are some of the specific objectives of the targeted General Plan 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 114, Packet Page 442 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-8 City of Monterey

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.

7. Maintain Existing Housing. Maintain the existing housing stock to assure high quality maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing housing resources.

11. Address Risks from Natural Hazards. Incorporate strategies to minimize loss and damage due to geologic, wildfire, flooding, and other potential hazards,

2.5 General Plan Update Process
Initiated in August 2022, the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update process involves four key phases. The first phase of the General Plan Update process focused on identifying key issues and opportunities to be addressed. The consultant team summarized existing conditions in a series of background reports that documented natural and human made hazards; analyzed regulatory, process, and market-based constraints on housing development; identified potential housing opportunity sites; and assessed fair housing conditions in Monterey. This phase also involved a series of community listening sessions to learn about opportunities and constraints from the perspective of a wide variety of community members and stakeholder groups early in the process. The results of Phase 1 activities were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in February 2023.

Building on the findings of Phase 1, the second phase of the General Plan Update process focused on evaluating different strategies for accommodating the City's assessed RHNA share and addressing natural hazards and climate vulnerabilities. This phase included a community-wide survey and pop-up outreach, which generated input from nearly 1,050 Monterey residents in March and April 2023 and informed a preliminary inventory of housing opportunity sites and key strategies to guide the Proposed Plan. The third phase of the General Plan Update involved preparation of the Draft General Plan Update and EIR and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 115, Packet Page 443 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-9
provides for public review. This phase began with the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element on August 2, 2023 for a 30-day review period, during which a community open house was held to provide an opportunity for public input on the Draft Housing Element and key strategies for the Land Use and Safety Elements. The open house also served as the scoping meeting for the Draft EIR, and community members were invited to comment on the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Update as well as solutions to address them. Following the close of the 30-day review period, a joint meeting was held before the Planning Commission and City Council to review public input and receive direction to submit the Draft Housing Element to the State for review.

State law provides for a 90-day review of the Draft Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on September 26, 2023 and during the 90-day review period preparation of the Draft Land Use and Safety Elements was completed in parallel with preparation of the Public Review Draft EIR. All three documents were released together on February 9, 2024, and were available for public review and comment between February 9, 2024 and March 25, 2024. The fourth and final phase of the process involves formal hearings for adoption of General Plan Update and certification of the EIR.

2.6 Proposed Plan Content
The Proposed Plan is a targeted update to the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan intended to guide development and conservation and to comply with new State laws that have come into force since the plan was last updated, including requirements for addressing geologic hazards, flooding, and wildland and urban fires. Additionally, the Proposed Plan will include policies and implementing actions designed to support residential development in the Lighthouse, Downtown, and North Fremont Specific Plan areas, locations within the City limits that have previously been the focus of comprehensive long-range planning efforts.

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Under State law, each city and county in California must plan to accommodate its share of the regional housing need—called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)—for the coming 8-year planning period, which runs from December 15, 2023, through December 15, 2031. The State determines the estimated need for new housing in each region of California, based on population projections and other factors including rates of vacancy, overcrowding, and cost-burden. The various regional planning agencies then allocate a target to each city or town within their jurisdiction, considering factors such as access to jobs, good schools, and healthy environmental conditions. RHNA is split into four categories representing different levels of affordability, based on area median income (AMI) in the county. The affordability categories are as follows:
• Very Low Income - Households making less than 50 percent of AMI • Low Income - Households making 50‒80 percent of AMI
• Moderate Income - Households making 80‒120 percent of AMI • Above Moderate Income - Households making more than 120 percent of AMI Amid the ongoing housing crisis in California, Monterey is required to plan for at least 3,654 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, including 1,177 Very Low-Income units, 769 Low Income units, 462 Moderate Income units, and 1,246 Above Moderate units. As required by State law, the Draft Housing Element will include an inventory of sites available for housing and a projection of the realistic capacity of the inventory for housing. The Draft Housing Element will also include a Housing Action Plan, organized ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 116, Packet Page 444 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-10 City of Monterey
around community-wide housing goals. Each goal will be supported by policies and implementing programs that describe actions the City will take to help meet its RHNA obligations.

On August 2, 2023, the Draft Housing Element was released for public review. Together with development proposals currently in the pipeline and expected to be approved and constructed within the planning period, the inventory has a total projected capacity for up to 5,787 new homes, which is sufficient to meet the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need at all income levels with a buffer. The inventory assumes a combination of strategies to ensure the City meets its RHNA obligations, including:
• Infill development on vacant and underutilized properties downtown and along commercial corridors, including North Fremont Street, Garden Road, Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Abrego Street;
• Preparation of a specific plan to guide future residential and mixed-use development in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch area, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource protection; • Facilitating construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs that provide affordable housing options on existing residential properties throughout the community; and • Development or redevelopment of several larger sites to increase the range of housing options available in Monterey.

To accommodate the City’s RHNA, the Proposed Plan would focus future development and redevelopment primarily into seven key opportunity areas withing the city as shown on Figure 2-3 and described below.

These opportunity areas are locations with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing or other types of development based on community input collected in a communitywide survey. Outside of these areas, the existing land use pattern would generally be preserved. Some infill development is anticipated on vacant sites in residential neighborhoods, together with the construction of up to 120 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) citywide. Additionally, implementation of the Proposed Plan would involve the adoption of three new zoning overlays: an educational workforce housing overlay that would permit multifamily housing to be added on Monterey Peninsula United School District (MPUSD) properties in residential neighborhoods; a congregational overlay that would permit the development of affordable housing on properties owned by religious institutions; and an employer sponsored housing overlay that would facilitate development of employee housing on properties owned by major employers in the city, subject to objective standards. Change envisioned reflects existing site constraints, such as existing long-term leases, existing development agreements, and pending development applications, as well as physical and jurisdictional constraints and market conditions.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 117, Packet Page 445 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
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
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
NSA Monterey Pines Annex
Golf Course
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 2.3 Opportunity Areas.mxd Opportunity Areas
Potential Opportunity Sites
Vacant Sites
Pipeline Projects (Residential and Mixed Use)
Underutilized Sites
Low FAR (0-0.2)
Medium Low FAR (0.21-0.4)
Very Low AV Ratio (0 - 0.5)
Low AV Ratio (0.51 - 0.70)
Medium Low AV Ratio (0.71 - 0.99)
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 2.3: Opportunity Areas
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 118, Packet Page 446 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-12 City of Monterey
Opportunity Areas
Downtown
Downtown Monterey is the city’s premier business and tourism district, featuring shopping, restaurants, office, hotels, banks, and some higher density housing. There are few vacant parcels, but there is strong potential for redevelopment of older, underutilized commercial properties that currently feature 1-story buildings and large alleys or surface parking lots. Parcel size tends to be small, less than 10,000 square feet on average, and the ownership pattern is somewhat fragmented, which poses challenges for development.

The best development opportunities can be found in the Alvarado District, where there are several adjacent clusters of underutilized commercial properties along Calle Principal and Tyler Street that offer opportunities for redevelopment. The area south of Franklin Street between Alvarado Street and El Estero Park (known as the Pearl District) is projected to be impacted by sea level rise in 2050 and parts of this area are already subject to flooding during storms. Accordingly, no sites in areas of the Pearl District subject to 100-year flood risk have been included on the inventory.

To facilitate housing development downtown, the following strategies have been incorporated into the Proposed Plan:
• Housing Element Program 1-C: Revise City land use and zoning regulations to permit building heights up to 55 feet (5 stories) in the Alvarado District in order to enhance development feasibility. (No change to permitted density or building heights in other parts of downtown). • Housing Element Program 1-C: Revise City policy and regulations to incorporate a clear statement that 100 percent residential projects are permitted throughout the downtown area, except on/adjacent to Alvarado Street per City Council resolution 21-129 C.S. • Housing Element Program 1-C: Offer municipal shared parking agreements to projects that propose at least 30 new housing units within 1,000 feet of a City-owned parking lot or structure to assist with development feasibility and encourage lot consolidation. • Housing Element Program 1-G: Partner with a non-profit developer for the construction of workforce housing on two City-owned downtown parking facilities (Lot 14 parking lot on Bonifacio Pl & Adams St and the Calle Principal Garage on Calle Principal near Bonifacio Pl) to meet the needs of lower income households in Monterey.

On this basis, the inventory assumes development of 478 new housing units downtown, including 219 that would be affordable to households making less than 80 percent of the area median income, and 259 units that would be affordable to households making above moderate income.

Lighthouse
The Lighthouse area encompasses Lighthouse Avenue, Foam Street, Wave Street and Cannery Row, roughly from Reeside Avenue to the City limit. Currently, the area features a mix of neighborhood and visitororiented businesses interspersed with housing, including 2- and 3-story apartment buildings, duplexes, and single-family homes. Portions along the coast near Cannery Row are susceptible to flooding from sea level rise, but overall risk of environmental hazard is lower here than in other areas of Monterey. The Proposed Plan identifies opportunities for redevelopment, particularly along Lighthouse Avenue and Foam Street where underutilized commercial properties with low slung buildings and larger surface parking lots are located. Clusters of underutilized parcels under common ownership on Lighthouse and Wave also represent opportunities for redevelopment. To incentivize development in the Lighthouse area, implementation of the Proposed Plan would involve updating the Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan to permit 100 percent residential projects fronting Lighthouse Avenue, as well as to offer municipal shared ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 119, Packet Page 447 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-13
parking agreements to projects that propose a minimum number of housing units in proximity to a Cityowned parking lot or structure. With these changes, the sites inventory assumes development of 296 new housing units in the Lighthouse area, including 31 units that would be affordable to households making less than 80 percent of the area median income, and 265 units that would be affordable to households making above moderate income.

Pacific/Munras/Cass
This area features an eclectic mix of hotels, small-scale offices and apartments, and single-family homes. In particular, some underutilized commercial and office properties along Pacific, Cass, Abrego, and Munras offer opportunities for housing within easy walking distance of downtown. The area has relatively low risk of environmental hazards. Current General Plan land use and zoning for the area is Commercial, which allows for development at up to 30 du/ac along Munras Avenue and the Pacific/El Dorado/Cass Street area.

Parcel size varies, with larger parcels ranging from 0.25 acres to 0.9 acres on Munras Avenue and smaller, odd-shaped parcels on Cass, El Dorado and Davis Lane. Notably, there are several clusters of small, adjacent underutilized parcels under common ownership that may be redeveloped together. To facilitate development, implementation of the Proposed Plan calls for adoption of a permit streamlining pilot project that would allow housing projects by-right in portions of Pacific/Munras/Cass areas with concentrations of housing opportunity sites. Therefore, the sites inventory assumes development of 130 new housing units in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area, including 38 units that would be affordable to households making less than 80 percent of the area median income, and 92 units that would be affordable to households making above moderate income.

North Fremont
The North Fremont corridor extends from Highway 68 north of the Monterey County Fairgrounds to the eastern City limit near Highway 218. To the north and south are single-family residential neighborhoods.

The airport approach zone extends over the western part of the corridor and higher density housing is prohibited here, which constrains the potential to add housing over the area. The approach zone ends just west of Airport Road, and along the eastern part of the corridor there are several vacant and underutilized properties. The Proposed Plan identifies existing development, such as motels, restaurants, and strip retail center with large surface parking lots as opportunities for redevelopment. The Proposed Plan envisions a walkable, mixed-use corridor that provides attainable housing options [apartments (low rise and mid-rise) and townhomes] together with retail, restaurants, and daily services in the eastern portion of the North Fremont corridor. To incentivize development in the North Fremont area, implementation of the Proposed Plan would update the North Fremont Specific Plan to increase permitted density to 45 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) fronting Fremont Street with no change in building heights and to incorporate additional incentives for consolidation of adjacent, small lots under disparate ownership. Correspondingly, the sites inventory assumes development of 373 new housing units in the North Fremont area, including 263 units that would be affordable to households making less than 80 percent of the area median income, and 110 units that would be affordable to households making above moderate income.

Del Monte Avenue
This commercial corridor runs east of Del Monte Lake to Highway 1, featuring storage and auto-oriented businesses with some large surface parking lots and undeveloped land that the Proposed Plan envisions the best opportunities for redevelopment. There is existing single and multifamily housing north of the corridor. Coastal bluffs shield the corridor from the ocean and the risk of environmental hazard in the area is relatively low. The Proposed Plan identifies a cluster of underutilized sites under common ownership offering some of the best opportunities for redevelopment. To incentivize development in the Del Monte ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 120, Packet Page 448 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-14 City of Monterey
Avenue area, implementation of the Proposed Plan would reduce parking requirements for developments within a half-mile of public transit. With this, the sites inventory assumes development of 126 new housing units in the Del Monte Avenue area, including 126 units that would be affordable to households making less than 80 percent of the area median income.

Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68
The Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 opportunity area is a 0.7-mile corridor that runs from the Monterey Pines Golf Club to Olmsted Road, between the Airport and Highway 68. The area features a mix of commercial and office development today, with notable uses that include the Monterey Herald, California State Parks Monterey District offices, Caltrans District office, Garden Place Professional Center, Shoreline Church, and the Comfort Inn. Existing development in the area consists of 1- and 2-story buildings with surface parking heavily screened from view with trees and landscaping. The Multifamily Residential Overlay District applies to the corridor, allowing the conversion of existing buildings to housing or the development of new housing at up to 30 du/ac. The Proposed Plan identifies underutilized commercial/office properties along the southern side of the corridor as opportunities for redevelopment for high-density housing, such as apartment and townhomes. To facilitate development in the Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 area, implementation of the Proposed Plan would involve amending the MultiFamily Residential Overlay to increase the maximum permitted density from 30 to 50 du/ac. With this change, the sites inventory assumes development of 515 new housing units along Garden Road, all of which would be at densities deemed affordable to households making less than 80 percent of the area median income.

Additionally, there is a large, vacant parcel owned by the Monterey City School District (MPUSD) on vacant hillside land south of the airport within the City limit. Located east of Tarpey Flats and south of the airport, the 50-acre parcel is on relatively flat terrain and is identified as a potential site for moderate- and lowincome housing in the Highway 68 Area Plan if MPUSD were to declare the property surplus. The Proposed Plan incorporates Housing Element Program 1-I, which would involve an update to the Highway 68 Area Plan to integrate mixed income housing, access and infrastructure improvements, and neighborhood services and amenities on the site. Accordingly, the inventory assumes 640 new housing units, including 64 homes affordable to lower income households over the planning period based on the City’s inclusionary requirements, 64 homes affordable to moderate income households, and 512 homes affordable to above moderate income households.

Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord
Located immediately southeast of the airport, the Ryan Ranch Area is home to Montage Health, an office park, and some light industrial businesses. New housing is prohibited in the airport approach zone which extends through the central part of the area, but there is a cluster of underutilized commercial properties north of Upper Ragsdale Road which presents opportunities for redevelopment. Immediately adjacent to the north is the former Fort Ord Military Base, where approximately 127 acres of vacant land is potentially available for development with housing and other uses. The Fort Ord area is largely outside of the airport safety zones and risk of natural hazards are lower here than in other areas of Monterey, although the presence of unexploded ordnance on the northernmost parcel requires remediation before residential development can take place. Specifically, the northernmost parcel at Fort Ord (APN 031-191-018-000) is subject to deed restrictions regarding Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC), which require remediation of hazardous materials on this property and within Boundary Road, as well as reimbursement agreements with the federal and State agencies that will provide oversight. The timeline for putting the agreements in place, engaging contractors, and completing remediation activities is expected to be approximately 60 months. However, the other more southerly parcels at Fort Ord (excluding APN 031- ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 121, Packet Page 449 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-15
191-018-000), totaling over 105 acres, can feasibly be developed during the 2023‒31 planning period.

Further, with the closure of Ford Ord, an allotment of 65-acre-feet of water was set aside for the City (an amount sufficient for 240 new homes), potentially making Fort Ord one of the more feasible locations for housing development in the near term.

Integrating new housing into this area would need to be done carefully and in a way that responds to the variety of preferences and concerns that community members expressed through the survey. Therefore, a key implementing strategy for the area, articulated in Program 1-H of the Draft Housing Element, involves the preparation of a specific plan to establish a clear vision for the areas and to guide future development and conservation, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource protection. On this basis, the inventory assumes a total of 1,660 new housing units in the Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord area, 220 of which would be made available to low-income households, 220 of which would be made available to moderate-income households, consistent with the City’s inclusionary ordinance. The balance (1,220 homes) would be affordable to above moderate-income households.

Other Sites
The inventory also assumes development of several sites outside of the opportunity areas, the development potential of which is described below.

County Courthouse Site
The County has decided to relocate the courthouse and this 4.4-acre site, located at 1200 Aguajito Road, east of Highway 1, is available for redevelopment with housing. Currently, the site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in the General Plan and zoned R-1; but if the site is declared surplus, it could accommodate higher density housing to help meet the needs of moderate, low and very low-income households. Assuming it is rezoned to R-3, the site could accommodate 130 new units affordable to low and very low income households.

Perry Lane Site
Located at 590 Perry Lane just a short walk from El Estero Park and downtown Monterey, this 1.82-acre site is available for housing. The site is currently for sale. It contains some small single-story structures and is partially located within an area of high liquefaction risk, construction techniques are available to mitigate this risk. The site is currently zoned Commercial, which allows for residential development at up to 30 du/ac. On this basis, the preliminary inventory assumes development of 50 new housing units affordable to above moderate income households.

Elks Lodge Site
Monterey Elks Lodge is located at 150 Mar Vista Drive. The 3.75-acre site contains approximately 22,000 square feet of existing buildings constructed in 1963 and has large areas of surface parking lot that could be redeveloped with housing. The site is surrounded by existing multifamily developments including the 3- story Palo Verde Apartments immediately adjacent to the west. The site itself is generally outside of mapped areas of environmental hazard, although the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone extends to the opposite site of Mar Vista Drive, uphill from the graded and developed portion of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation applicable to the site is Residential - Medium Density (MDR), which allows for 8 to 30 du/ac. Assuming the existing building and structures remain on the property and new housing is integrated ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 122, Packet Page 450 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-16 City of Monterey
onsite, the Elks Lodge property could accommodate 94 new units at a density deemed affordable to low and very low-income households by the State.

Del Monte Shopping Center
Located on three parcels with a combined area of nearly 48 acres, the Del Monte Shopping Center consists of retail shops and restaurants in single story buildings organized around large areas of surface parking.

Subject to property owner interest, a portion of the site could be developed with housing to further support the vitality of existing businesses and address local housing needs. The inventory assumes development of 150 market rate units on a portion of the property, 30 of which would be affordable to moderate and low income households consistent with the City's inclusionary requirements.

Vacant Residential Land
Vacant residential parcels within the City limit also represent opportunities for housing. In total, there are 111 parcels designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in the General Plan and zoned R-1, as well as 33 vacant parcels designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the General Plan and zoned either R-2 or R-3. These sites are available for development when new water sources become available and their capacity is reflected in the inventory.

Housing Action Plan
The Draft Housing Element includes an Action Plan, organized around six housing goals. Each goal is supported by policies and implementing programs that describe actions the City will take to help meet its RHNA obligations. A summary of Action Plan contents is provided below.

Goal 1, Increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031, is supported by 11 programs that seek to increase capacity for housing through amendments to specific plans and zoning applicable in the opportunity, as described above. Additionally, programs under this goal would involve the adoption of the three new zoning overlays described above (Educational Workforce Housing Overlay, Congregational Housing Overlay, and Employer-Sponsored Housing Overlay), as well as Housing Element Program 1-G, under which the City would seek to partner with a non-profit developer for the construction of workforce housing on two City-owned downtown parking facilities (Lot 14 parking lot on Bonifacio Pl & Adams St and the Calle Principal Garage on Calle Principal near Bonifacio Pl), and implementation of a permit streamlining pilot project to help fast-track infill housing development in core areas of the city identified for high density housing when adequate water supply becomes available.

Goal 2, Remove or reduce barriers to housing production in Monterey and address the regulatory process and market factors that limit and adversely affect affordability, is supported by programs that review and revise use permit and design review thresholds, increase flexibility in development standards, develop zoning standards to encourage smaller multi-unit housing types, reduce constraints to the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, and remove obstacles to the development of Single Room Occupancy housing and other affordable options. Programs also include revising Code to state that the Architectural Review Committee willreview residential projects for compliance with objective development and construction requirements rather than subjective design guidelines; revising the Zoning Code to ensure its parking requirements conform to the requirements applicable to areas within a half-mile of public transit; and updating the City’s density bonus ordinance to incorporate new requirements. Lastly, programs under Goal 2 seek to expand online transparency by continuously updating the online version of the City Code, plan to allocate water credits and additional supply that prioritizes affordable housing projects, and continue to work with other jurisdictions and agencies to augment the existing water supply.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 123, Packet Page 451 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-17
Goal 3, Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics such as age, sex, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin, is supported by programs that seek to further enforcement of fair housing laws and address discrimination in the building, financing, selling, or renting of housing based on protected characteristics and work collaboratively with local non-profit, public, and private sector partners to raise awareness and achieve implementation of fair housing practices. These programs are intended to promote a wider variety of housing types in High Resource areas of Monterey, expand housing choices for special needs groups throughout Monterey, and ensure that the City’s regulations, policies, practices, and procedures provide equal access to housing for all persons. Programs include partnering with a fair housing counseling group to conduct workshops and seminars about landlord and tenant responsibilities and rights, providing administrative assistance upon request to developers seeking available State and federal funding and/or tax credits for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing, and enacting a local density bonus program that offers additional density over the maximum base permitted in the Monterey City Code as an incentive for projects that meet certain requirements.

Goal 4, Take action to prevent homelessness and address the needs of unhoused people, is supported by programs that prioritize funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing stock in the community and funding to assist low-income homeowners, connect those most at risk of becoming unhoused to programs and services that will help prevent them from losing their homes, and increase access to a continuum of housing, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. Programs include connecting unhoused people with relevant services, providing workstations at the Monterey Police Department for service providers to facilitate solutions for the unhoused, establishing a rental assistance program that provides lower income renter households with recurring rental assistance at a fixed rate, and eliminating use permit requirements for supportive and transitional housing.

Goal 5, 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, is supported by programs that promote energy conservation programs and incentives, encourage the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments, and encourage the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation. Programs include the promotion of energy efficient and sustainable design, as well as evaluation of the feasibility offering incentives for residential and mixed-use projects built to green buildings standards that exceed CalGreen standards.

Goal 6, Monitor the effectiveness of housing programs to ensure that they respond to housing needs, is supported by programs that involve annual review of the City’s Available Land Inventory to ensure Monterey can accommodate its share of the RHNA throughout the planning period, annual monitoring of ADU and JADU permitting/construction trends, and requiring replacement of lower income units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a non-vacant site identified in the Housing Element.

LAND USE ELEMENT
The Proposed Plan also involves updates to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The current Land Use Element incorporates policies and standards that seek to foster compact, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods and provide housing to meet the needs of the local workforce. The Proposed Plan maintains the basic framework and objectives of the existing Land Use Element, but incorporates targeted updates ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 124, Packet Page 452 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-18 City of Monterey
needed to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation as identified in the proposed Housing Element.

Specifically, this includes:
• Updating the Commercial land use designation to clarify that multifamily residential uses are permitted in a standalone or mixed use format at up to 30 dwelling units per acre and to establish an allowable non-residential floor area ratio of between 0.25 and 1.0 FAR.; • Creating a new Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) land use classification applicable to the Downtown, Lighthouse Avenue, and North Fremont Avenue Specific Plan areas, as well as to the portion of the former Fort Ord site that is within the City limit. The MUN classification is intended to foster a mix of residential, retail, employment, entertainment, cultural, public, and personal service uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. Allowable nonresidential floor area ratio is up to 2.0 FAR and maximum permitted residential density is 30 dwelling units per acre, with allowances for higher intensity development in certain areas and under certain conditions as defined in the zoning ordinance, specific plans, or area plans; • Creating a new Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) intended to increase opportunities for housing to meet the needs of the local workforce and address a shortage of supply. Attached housing is permitted on sites within the MFR-O at densities of up to 50 dwelling units per acre; • Renaming the Industrial land use classification Employment to better reflect the range and type of uses permitted, which includes administrative and professional offices, light manufacturing, and research and development at up to 0.8 FAR. Secondary and accessory uses such as restaurants, cafes, printers, and office supply stores to serve the needs of employees and businesses are encouraged; • Renaming the Public/Semi-Public land use classification Public/Institutional to better reflect the type of facility permitted, which includes public schools, military facilities, the airport, cemetery, large public parking facilities, hospitals, museums, conference center, and some publicly-owned historic buildings;
• Amending the policy framework to reflect the vision for multifamily housing to serve the needs of the local workforce at the Old Capital site and on the 50-acre MPUSD property within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries; and further to reflect the vision for an integrated mixed use village in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 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; • Revising the projections of development potential citywide and in mixed use areas to match the projections contained in the proposed Housing Element; and • Updating the map of mixed use areas to show Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch, consistent with the proposed Housing Element.

Additionally, the proposed Land Use Element incorporates a new Airport Compatibility Overlay with performance standards oriented to protecting airport operations and ensuring public safety. The purpose of the overlay is to resolve conflicts with respect to permitted development types and intensities on properties in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport that have resulted from an update to the Airport ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 125, Packet Page 453 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-19
Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by the County in 2019. The overlay would be applied to the General Plan Land Use map as shown on Figure 2-4 and would:
• Permit continuance of existing uses and allow for new development or expansion of existing uses consistent with the ALUC infill exemption;
• Establish requirements for ALUC notification and project approval; and • Incorporate new mitigation requirements for interior noise levels by land use type.

The Draft Land Use Element incorporates a new goal and six supporting policies intended to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport and military operations. Consistent with guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, military installations in the planning area are identified and described.

SAFETY ELEMENT
Originally adopted in 2005 and amended in 2009, the current Safety Element is organized around eight goals that address seismic, geologic, flood, wildfire, and airport hazards as well as crime, hazardous materials, and emergency preparedness. The Proposed Plan would involve a comprehensive update to the background data and hazard mapping in the Safety Element to reflect current and projected conditions in the Planning Area, along with amendments and additions to policies that strengthen resilience to natural and human made hazards and enhance emergency preparedness and response. Specifically, new and amended Safety Element policies proposed for inclusion would:
• Enhance communitywide emergency preparedness through the creation of neighborhood-level emergency response plans, the organization of annual disaster preparedness training for volunteers and community members, and public awareness activities; • Strengthen emergency response with enhanced wayfinding and signage, refinements to roadway maintenance and design standards that facilitate efficient emergency evacuation, and coordination with other agencies in Monterey and the surrounding area to develop a coordinated emergency evacuation process; and
• Address wildfire risks by promoting proactive vegetation management practices on public and private property, requiring the preparation of Fire Protection Plans for new development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, including fuel breaks into the design of new subdivisions in and adjacent to wildland-urban interface areas, and incorporating actions to mitigate risk in areas with existing development that does not meet current state and/or locally adopted fire safety standards.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The Proposed Plan incorporates a comprehensive update to the Circulation Element, organized around 11 key goals that seek to promote an integrated multimodal transportation system that provides a range of safe, equitable, and efficient options for mobility and supports the reduction of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. Pursuant to the Complete Streets Act (2008), the Draft Circulation Element incorporates strategies for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets. The Draft Circulation Element also establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts, includes strategies to prioritize safety over congestion management, and outlines a framework for effectively managing parking supply while encouraging reduced auto travel.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 126, Packet Page 454 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
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
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Research
NSA Monterey Pines Lab
Golf Course
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Land Use Element\Map 6 General Plan Land Use.mxd Residential
Very Low Density Residential (R-VLD)
Low Density Residential (R-LD)
Medium Density Residential (R-MD)
Mixed Use
Commercial (C)
Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN)
Employment (E)
Other
Public/Institutional (P-I)
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS)
Highway 68 Area Plan
Overlays
Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O)
Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O)
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 2-4: General Plan Land Use
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 127, Packet Page 455 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-21

2.7 Buildout Projections
Buildout refers to the estimated amount of new development and corresponding growth in population and employment that is likely to take place under the Proposed Plan through the horizon year of 2031 based on the proposed land use designations. Buildout estimates should not be considered a prediction for growth, as the actual amount of development that will occur through 2031 is based on many factors outside of the City’s control, including changes in regional real estate and labor markets and the decisions of individual property owners. Therefore, buildout estimates represent one potential set of outcomes rather than definitive figures. Additionally, the designation of a site for a specific land use in the Proposed Plan does not guarantee that a site will be developed or redeveloped at the assumed density during the planning period, as future development will rely primarily on each property owner’s initiative. Outside of the City limits, lands remain under the development control of Monterey County unless annexed.

For this EIR, buildout projections assume housing development and population growth consistent with the capacity projections in the Draft Housing Element and employment growth consistent with the increment in the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the planning period.

Methodology and Assumptions
In projecting the buildout for the 8-year planning horizon of the Proposed Plan, existing development, current development projects, and new development were considered. These were derived as follows.

Existing Development
To establish existing population, housing units, and jobs in the Planning Area, data from the United States Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance (DOF) was utilized. DOF 2023 was used to identify single-family residential units, multifamily residential units, and population. Employment data from the 2020 U.S. Census represents the best available estimate of jobs in Monterey, broken into detailed employment categories.

Pipeline Projects
A list of pipeline projects, or current major development projects under review, recently approved, or under construction, was provided by City. There are 24 pipeline projects in Monterey, which, if all are approved and constructed, are expected to generate a total of 503 new housing units during the planning period, including 110 very low, low, and moderate income housing units and 393 above moderate income housing units as shown on Figure 2-5. Buildout assumes that all pipeline development will occur during the planning period.

New Development
Housing Capacity
To identify potential sites for new housing, a parcel-based analysis of properties within the City limits was conducted using County Assessor data. Vacant sites were identified, along with underutilized non-vacant sites with potential for redevelopment within the planning period and any surplus City-owned sites. Two primary metrics were used to identify underutilized parcels: assessed value ratio (A/V) and low as-built floor area ratio (FAR). A/V ratio considers the relationship between the value of the land and the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 128, Packet Page 456 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
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
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
Navy School
Annex
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 2.5 Pipeline Projects.mxd Sites available for Housing
Above Moderate Income
Very Low/Low/Moderate Income
Mixed Income
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
µ
Figure 2.5: Pipeline Projects
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 129, Packet Page 457 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-23
improvements constructed on it. Where the value of the land is worth substantially more than the value of the structures on it, there is an incentive for the owner to redevelop with new uses that command higher rents or sales prices. Similarly, a low FAR means that the square footage of buildings is small compared to the overall size of the site, indicating the potential for redevelopment with other uses. A commercially zoned property containing a low-slung shopping center with large areas of surface parking could be considered underutilized, particularly if vacancy rates are high. Areas where vacant and underutilized sites cluster are locations where change is most foreseeable over the planning period and as such are an important focus of planning activities.

The opportunity sites were ranked by viability for development with housing in consideration of the prevailing land use characteristics and hazards and organized into five tiers. Tier 1 sites are those with indicators that signal the strongest redevelopment potential, and which are also least encumbered by natural and human made hazards. Tier 5 sites are those with some indication of redevelopment potential, but which are constrained by hazards. This tiering helped identify viable non-vacant sites to accommodate lower income RHNA, in view of State requirements for additional analysis to justify their inclusion on the Housing Element sites inventory. Based on this analysis, seven "opportunity areas" where change is foreseeable over the planning period were identified (see Figure 2-3) and a community survey was conducted to solicit feedback to help plan where new housing should be located and how to achieve other community objectives. Overall, the survey results indicated broad support for new housing in all the opportunity areas, and an inventory of sites available for housing was developed and refined with further input from community members and City decision-makers. Figure 2-6 shows the location of sites on the inventory.

Guidance from the State requires that the projections for the realistic capacity of eligible sites be made on the basis of past performance in the jurisdiction or the surrounding region. Accordingly, a survey of recently constructed projects in Monterey and surrounding communities was conducted to establish average asbuilt densities that can be applied to determine the realistic capacity of sites included in the inventory. Based on the results of the survey, the following densities have been used to project realistic capacity: 56 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in the Alvarado District Downtown; 29‒42 dwelling units per acre for non-vacant sites along commercial corridors; and 16‒29 du/ac in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area, based on the average density of existing housing in the area. For vacant residential lots in low density neighborhoods, a typical rate of one unit per lot was assumed.

Buildout Population
To forecast future population in 2031 with buildout of the Proposed Plan, a projection of new residents was added to the existing 2023 baseline population from DOF estimates, assuming an average household size of

1.94 persons and a residential vacancy rate of 9.5 percent in the city per 2023 DOF estimates for the City of Monterey. DOF estimates represent the latest available data for the planning area.

Job Growth
To forecast 2031 employment under the Proposed Plan, the number of new jobs projected in the RTP/SCS was added to the 2021 employment baseline estimate from the U.S. Census, the latest available data on employment in the planning area. The RTP/SCS allocates job growth to various Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the city. While total citywide projected increase in employment from the RTP/SCS was maintained, the allocation between TAZs was adjusted to account for land use and zoning changes proposed to accommodate the City's RHNA share. Some areas of the city that were projected to be employment growth areas in the RTP/SCS, such as Garden Road and the Elk’s Lodge site, are now envisioned as opportunity areas for housing growth. Therefore, job growth assumed in the RTP/SCS was ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 130, Packet Page 458 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
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
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
Navy School
Annex
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 2.6 Sites Available for Housing.mxd Sites available for Housing
Above Moderate Income
Very Low/Low/Moderate Income
Mixed Income
Opportunity Areas
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
µ
Figure 2.6: Sites available for Housing
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 131, Packet Page 459 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-25
reallocated from TAZs in these areas to TAZs in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Del Monte opportunity areas, consistent with the Proposed Plan Land Use Map and Housing Element Sites Inventory.

Citywide Buildout Projections
Table 2-2 shows the growth in population, housing, and employment projected to result from buildout of the Proposed Plan in 2031. Projected increases reflect pipeline projects, and new development projections.

For the purpose of a conservative estimate of potential environmental impacts, this Draft EIR considers 10,125 new residents, 5,800 new housing units, and 1,995 new jobs at buildout in 2031.

Table 2-2: Projected Buildout (2031)
Existing Net New Future (2031)
Population 26,845 10,104 36,949
Housing Units 13,825 5,787 19,612
Jobs 22,246 1,991 24,237
Jobs - Housing Ratio 1.60 -- 1.24
Source: AMBAG, 2022; DOF, 2023, US Census, 2023.

2.8 Intended Uses of the EIR
This EIR examines the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Proposed Plan and identifies mitigation measures required to address significant impacts, as necessary. As no specific developments are proposed as part of the Proposed Plan, this EIR is a programmatic EIR and does not evaluate the potential environmental impacts of specific, individual development proposals that may be allowed under the Proposed Plan subsequent to its adoption. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the Proposed Plan and this EIR, and adequate project-level environmental review will be conducted as required under CEQA. Projects successive to this EIR include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Approval and funding of major public projects and capital improvements • Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed General Plan
• Property rezoning consistent with the proposed General Plan Update • Development plan approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits
• Permit issuances and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects • Development agreement processes and approvals

TIERING
This EIR is a program-level EIR and, as such, once it is certified, subsequent projects consistent with the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Project may tier from it to streamline environmental review. Pursuant to State law and the CEQA Guidelines,2 to the extent that environmental impacts were analyzed in a 2 (PRC Sections 21093, 21094; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168, 15152) ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 132, Packet Page 460 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-26 City of Monterey
program EIR at a sufficient level of detail to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site-specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project, subsequent development projects may rely on a program EIR. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the proposed General Plan and this EIR. Subsequent project-level environmental review will only be required to analyze and mitigate project- or site-specific impacts not considered in the program EIR from which a subsequent project is tiered.

REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Implementation of the Proposed Plan will require additional regulatory actions by the City of Monterey, including amendments to the Zoning Code to ensure consistency across documents. Additionally, the Proposed Plan will require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council. Future, subsequent development under the Proposed Plan may require approval of federal, State, and responsible or trustee agencies that may rely on this programmatic EIR for decisions in their areas of expertise.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 133, Packet Page 461 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Monterey 2-27
This page is intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 134, Packet Page 462 City of Monterey 3.1-1

3.1 Aesthetics
This section evaluates the potential impacts to aesthetics that could arise from implementation of the Proposed Plan. The analysis includes possible impacts to scenic resources, visual character, and visual quality, as well as those arising from the possible introduction of new sources of light and glare.

One response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was related to topics addressed in this section.

The comment emphasized the importance of preserving the natural beauty found in Monterey.

Environmental Setting

PHYSICAL SETTING
Most communities identify scenic resources as important visual assets that contribute to community identity. These resources can include landforms, trees, water features, and the built environment in so far as they enhance and define the visual character of a landscape. Scenic resources include natural and open spaces, as well as the built environment, particularly if certain architecture is of historic or artistic value.

Visual quality is defined as the overall visual impression or attractiveness of an area based on the scenic resources, both natural and built. The attributes of visual quality include variety, vividness, coherence, uniqueness, harmony, and pattern. Viewshed is a term used to describe a range of resources and their context that relate to what people can see in the immediate environment in terms of foreground, middle ground, and background distances.

Impacts to visual quality are perceived by different viewer types and to different degrees, depending on the viewer exposure. Different land uses, such as open space or commercial districts, derive value from the quality of their settings and, for the purposes of this study, include regionally designated scenic highways, city gateways, and surrounding land features. Viewers driving in the city might be exposed to the dramatic hills or the marshlands along the Bay as they travel. Their exposure would vary based on proximity and ability to see the viewshed. Scenic resources are of particular importance relative to the way viewer sensitivity may be impacted. This sensitivity is determined by two measures: exposure and awareness. Exposure is the relative proximity of potential viewers to a given project implemented under the Proposed Plan, and awareness indicates the attention and focus viewers bring to the experience of the area.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 135, Packet Page 463 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-2 City of Monterey
Existing Visual Conditions
Located in northern Monterey County, the City of Monterey is a small-scale community beside the Bay, framed by a forested hill backdrop and drawing its characterfrom a rich historical background, certain commercial enterprises, and natural scenic beauty. Though the Planning Area is urbanized, the scenic and aesthetic environment of Monterey and the Peninsula stems from its two dominant features: the coastline and the central ridge of wooded hills.

Natural Features
The Planning Area is bounded by two dominant features: on the south by pine-covered ridgeline and to the north by the crescent-shaped southerly end of Monterey Bay. The series of wooded canyons, which radiate from the ridge to the Bay, are separated by a series of mesas. Each mesa is isolated from the others, allowing the natural separation of various types of land uses. The Monterey Peninsula Airport is located on the most easterly mesa. On the next mesa to the west are the Josselyn Canyon and Fisherman’s Flats, Deer Flats Park, and Aguajito Oaks residential subdivisions. Next is the Del Monte Golf Course. Isolated by canyon and wooded areas to the west is the higher density navy housing development called La Mesa Village. Alta Mesa is an adjacent residential area bordered by two wooded greenbelts. The same pattern runs through Monterey Vista and Old Town (formerly known as Monte Regio) to the Presidio, although this part of the city has been developed more into single-family homes.

Many of the canyons act as the circulation links serving the mesas. Highway 68, Josselyn Canyon Road, Aguajito Road, Iris Canyon Drive, and Pacific Street all run through canyons, which connect with Fremont Street. The beauty of Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway) stems from its location in a wooded canyon. These roads thus serve the mesas as wooded, park-like drives, and provide aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sensitive open space within the city. Monterey growth has developed the following physical features: Downtown commercial on the flatter old marsh area, lighter commercial and medium-density residential on the sloping mesas, neighborhoods separated by the wooded canyons, and low-density residential in the steep wooded foothills.

Scenic Entryways and Corridors
The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element establishes that all major roads leading to Monterey are scenic corridors. The setting of each varies, and their sum imparts a strong and lasting impression of natural beauty. Additionally, there is one State-designated Scenic Highway and one eligible scenic highway in the Planning Area. According to maps produced by the California Department of Transportation Scenic Highways Mapping Project, the State-designated scenic highway is Highway 1, from Marina State Beach to Carmel-By-the Sea and Point Lobos Nature Reserve. The eligible highway segment is Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway), from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive. Highway 68 stems from its location in a wooded canyon. Scenic entryways and corridors provide tree-lined, picturesque roads that contribute to the city's aesthetic charm and its environmentally sensitive open space.. Figure

3.1-1 shows scenic entryways and corridors in or near the Planning Area.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 136, Packet Page 464 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-3
Highway 1
State Route 1 (Highway 1) is the major highway in the Monterey Peninsula that travels north-south and runs along the Pacific coastline. Highway 1 runs through the middle of Monterey and has views of the wooded hillsides and the coastline.

Monterey-Salinas Highway
The Monterey-Salinas Highway (California State Route 68 or Highway 68) runs from the easternmost part of Monterey near Ryan Ranch to the north and intersects with Highway 1 in central Monterey. Highway 68 is known for its rolling meadows, steep hillsides, and high ridges, and is the scenic entrance for those visiting from the Salinas area.

Munras Avenue
Munras Avenue runs north to south from El Dorado Street to Soledad Drive, where it becomes an on-ramp for North Highway 1. Munras Avenue is a scenic entrance for those visiting the Del Monte Shopping Center and various visitor accommodation facilities along the street.

Del Monte Avenue
As mentioned above, Del Monte Avenue is the City’s main entry point and carries vehicles to the City’s commercial, business, and tourism centers. Del Monte Avenue enters the Planning Area from the east. At Washington Street, Del Monte Avenue connects with the Lighthouse Tunnel to provide access to New Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Cannery Row, and the City of Pacific Grove.

Aguajito, Jacks Peak, and Monhollan Roads
Aguajito Road travels north from the Highway 1 Gate near 17 Mile Drive through the Jack’s Peak neighborhood, passing by La Mesa Village, the Monterey County Courthouse, and ending at Fremont Street by Monterey Peninsula College. Jacks Peak Road leads to Jacks Peak County Park, which overlooks the Monterey Peninsula. Aguajito Road leads to Monhollan Road near the Deer Flats neighborhood. Monhollan Road provides connection to Olmsted Road and then to the scenic entrance of Highway 68.

Pacific Street
Pacific Street runs parallel to Munras Avenue, running north from Soledad Drive, passing by Monterey Public Library and City Hall, and merging with Lighthouse Avenue closer to the water.

Pacific Street runs north to south in Monterey, providing an alternate route to those travelling via Munras Avenue.

Lighthouse Avenue
Lighthouse Avenue is predominately a commercial street with buildings located at the back of sidewalk. The street is one of the gateways into the City of Pacific Grove that borders Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 137, Packet Page 465 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-4 City of Monterey
North Fremont Street
North Fremont Street was the previous regional transportation corridor before Highway 1 was constructed. It has a center median, dedicated bike path, four lanes of traffic (two in each direction) and various older commercial buildings. This street is an emerging gateway into the community and needs to be revitalized.

Scenic Vistas
The General Plan Urban Design Element also identifies a number of vistas, which focus on Monterey’s most scenic amenities. Scenic vistas are described below and include school campuses, Monterey Bay Park, Wharf and Cannery Row, Del Monte Lake at Naval Postgraduate School, Highways 1 and 68, Del Monte Avenue from Seaside to Washington Street, and the Lighthouse Curve. Figure 3.1-2 shows scenic vistas in or near the Planning Area.

Campuses
Monterey Peninsula College
Monterey Peninsula College (MPC) campus is a scenic vista for those entering Monterey via Highway 1 North. MPC is an 85-acre campus with an array of open space and greenery located at the intersection of Fremont Street and Aguajito Road. MPC is a public community college providing educational programs and services to approximately 13,000 students annually at the Monterey campus and off-campus locations. MPC is situated within one-half mile of other scenic vistas including Del Monte Lake and Fisherman’s Wharf.

Naval Postgraduate School
The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) is a scenic vista for those travelling east-west along Del Monte Avenue, as well as those travelling north on Highway 1. NPS is a public graduate school operated by the Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSA Monterey) that features Del Monte Lake (City scenic vista), various campus facilities, and open space throughout. NPS provides postgraduate degrees for military personnel and is a significant military research center in Monterey, located along Del Monte Avenue between Sloat Avenue and Palo Verde Avenue. NPS is an active United States Navy installation.

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
The Defense Language Institute (DLI) Foreign Language Center at the Presidio of Monterey is a scenic vista located between New Monterey and Downtown Monterey. The Presidio of Monterey is an active United States Army installation that features classrooms and faculty offices lined with wooded scenery. The DLI’s Foreign Language Center serves as the primary language instruction facility for all branches of the military.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 138, Packet Page 466 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
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 Hilltop Park 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 icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Monhollan R
Ag
d
uajito Rd
Jac ks Peak Rd
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
Hwy 1 to
Marina State Beach
Hwy 1 to
Carmel-by-the-Sea and
Point Lobos Nature Reserve
Hwy 68 to
Fort Ord National Monument
and River Road Scenic Drive
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Local Scenic Entryways
and Corridors
Scenic Highways/Corridors
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 3.1-1: Scenic Corridors
µ
Data Source: Monterey General Plan, 2005; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 139, Packet Page 467 kj
kj
kj
kj
kj kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
Pacif ic Oce an
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
De l Monte
Be ach Monte re y
Harbor
Jack s
Ballpark
Oak Ne wton Park
Hilltop Park
And Ce nte r
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Com m unity Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Be ach Park
Soldie r
Fie ld
Lark in School Park
Ve te rans
Me m orial Park Huck le be rry
Hill Nature
Pre se rve
Don Dahve e Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
De l Monte
Be ach
Monte re y
State Be ach
Fishe rm an's
Flat Gre e nbe lt
El Este ro
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
Monhollan R
A
d
guajito Rd
Jac ks Peak Rd
Trinity
Christian
High School
Bay Vie w
Acade m y
Lowe r Cam pus
NSA Monte re y Pine s
Golf Course
U S Arm y
Pre sidio of
Monte re y
NSA Monte re y
La Me sa
Villag e
NSA
Monte re y
Be achfront
NSA Naval
Postg raduate
School
NSA
Monte re y
Navy School
Anne x
Monte re y
Pe ninsula
Colle g e
Naval
Postg raduate
School
De fe nse
Lang uag e
Institute
Fishe rm an’s
Wharf
Monte re y
Bay Park
De l Monte
Lak e
Bay Vie w
Acade m y
U ppe r Cam pus
Monte re y
High
School
Walte r Colton
Middle School
Monte Vista
School
La Me sa
Ele m e ntary
School Monte re y Bay
Charte r
School
(Foothill Cam pus)
Canne ry Row
Lighthouse Curve
De l Monte
Ave nue
Monte re y
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
kj Scenic Vista Location
Scenic Vista Route
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 3.1-2: Scenic Vistas
µ
Data Source : Monte re y Ge ne ral Plan, 2005; City of Monte re y, 2022; Monte re y County GIS, 2022; Dye tt & Bhatia, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 140, Packet Page 468 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-7
Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
The following Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) schools around Monterey are identified as scenic vistas: La Mesa School, Monte Vista Elementary School, and Monterey High School. Views of La Mesa School highlight a wooded neighborhood with vast open space atop La Mesa Village. Monte Vista Elementary School is surrounded by trees and vegetation with open space sprinkled throughout. Monterey High School is a scenic vista for those travelling along Herrmann Drive. Monterey High School is surrounded by greenery and open space as well.

Monterey Bay Park
Monterey Bay Park offers views of the Monterey Bay and Monterey Bay Coastal Trail. Monterey Bay Park is located adjacent to Monterey Municipal Beach and Monterey State Beach along Del Monte Avenue between Figueroa Street and Sloat Avenue. The 3.9-acre park includes turf and landscaped areas, sand volleyball courts, picnic and BBQ facilities, and parking. The City has removed a number of structures to open up views to the water and has developed the park area for public use.

Fisherman’s Wharf and Cannery Row
Scenic vistas Fisherman’s Wharf and Cannery Row are major commercial areas within the Planning Area that offer views of businesses in Fisherman’s Wharf fishing and boating enterprises, while Cannery Row views consist of many visitor-serving business and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which serves as a major attraction for Monterey.

Del Monte Lake at NSA Monterey Naval Postgraduate School Del Monte Lake is a large surface water body and a key entrance feature found in the City of Monterey, located within the NSA Monterey Naval Postgraduate School. The 2005 General Plan calls for coordination with NSA Monterey to allow use of Del Monte Lake as a historic public view and recreation resource.

Freeway
Highway 1 and Highway 68 are the two major freeways that run thru the Planning Area. Highway 1 is the major highway in the Monterey Peninsula that travels north-south and runs along the Pacific coastline. Highway 1 travels through the middle of Monterey and has views of the wooded hillsides and the coastline. Highway 68 runs from the easternmost part of Monterey near Ryan Ranch to the north and intersects with Highway 1 in central Monterey. Highway 68 is known for its rolling meadows, steep hillsides, and high ridges, and is the scenic entrance for those visiting from the Salinas area.

Del Monte Avenue
Del Monte Avenue is the City’s main entry point and carries vehicles to the City’s commercial, business, and tourism centers. Travelling along Del Monte Avenue presents City scenic vistas of NPS, Del Monte Lake, and Monterey Bay Park. Del Monte Avenue enters the Planning Area from ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 141, Packet Page 469 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-8 City of Monterey
the east. At Washington Street, Del Monte Avenue connects with the Lighthouse Tunnel to provide access to New Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Cannery Row, and the City of Pacific Grove. The north side of the tunnel connects to Lighthouse Curve, which leads to Lighthouse Avenue and the Cannery Row area via Foam Street.

Lighthouse Curve
Travelling along the Lighthouse Curve presents views of the Monterey Bay and Presidio of Monterey. Lighthouse Curve connects Downtown Monterey to the Lighthouse area and is presently divided with two travel lanes southbound and three travel lanes northbound. Lighthouse Curve is the City’s most heavily traveled street and experiences severe congestion with some long-term backups from both directions on critical approaches.

Light and Glare
Glare refers to the discomfort or impairment of vision experienced when a person is exposed to a direct or reflected source of light, causing objectionable brightness greater than that to which the eyes are adapted. Sources of glare in urban settings include sunlight reflected in the windows of buildings, including glass façades, and cars. Lighted signs on multi-story buildings are another source of light. Existing development and motor vehicles produce light and glare throughout Monterey. Primary existing sources of light are streetlights, parking lot lights, and automobile headlights.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
No existing federal regulations pertain to visual resources in City of Monterey.

State
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a state scenic highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity of the view, as described in Guidelines for Official Designation of Scenic highways (Caltrans 1995).
• Vividness is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression on the viewer.
• Intactness refers to the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions, such as buildings, structures, equipment, and grading.
• Unity describes the extent to which development is sensitive to and visually harmonious with the natural landscape.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 142, Packet Page 470 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-9
Caltrans has designated one State-designated Scenic Highway and one eligible scenic highway in the Planning Area. The State-designated scenic highway is Highway 1, from Marina State Beach to Carmel-by-the-Sea and Point Lobos Nature Reserve, and a segment of Highway 68 (MontereySalinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive. The eligible highway segment is Highway 68, from Asilomar Ave to Route 101.

California Solar Shade Control Act.

Under the California Solar Shade Control Act (Public Resource Code Sections 25980-25986), no property owner shall allow a tree or shrub to be placed or to grow so as to cast a shadow greater than 10 percent at any one time between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM over an existing solar collector used for water heating, space heating or cooling, or power generation on an adjacent property. These limitations apply to the placement of new trees or shrubs, and do not apply to trees and shrubs that already cast a shadow upon that solar collector. The location of a new solar collector is required to comply with local building and setback regulations but must be set back not less than five feet from the property line and must be no less than 10 feet above the ground.1 Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones
The Building Energy Efficient Standards (California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code) specify outdoor lighting requirements for residential and non-residential development. The intent of these standards is to improve the quality of outdoor lighting and help reduce the impacts of light pollution, light trespass, and glare. The standards regulate lighting aesthetics, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on U.S. Census Bureau population figures, and the areas can be designated as LZ0 (very low), LZ1 (low), LZ2 (moderate), LZ3 (moderately high), or LZ4 (high). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter in order to protect the areas from new sources of light pollution and light trespass. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, portions of Monterey are defined as already developed areas or already developed clusters and are therefore designated as Lighting Zone 3 and Lighting Zone 4 per the California Energy Commission outdoor lighting zone classification standards.

Local
City of Monterey General Plan 2005 (General Plan)
In the Monterey General Plan, the City addresses visual character and quality and scenic resources primarily in the Urban Design and Open Space Elements. The Monterey General Plan includes the following goals and policies related to aesthetics and visual character:
1 California Codes, Public Resource Code Sections 25980-25986 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=15.&title=&part =&chapter=12.&article=).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 143, Packet Page 471 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-10 City of Monterey
Urban Design Element
Goal a. Balance natural resources and public use of the shoreline and Bay, based on natural features, historic setting, maritime activities, and public access.

Policy a.7. Protect the rugged coastline and open up the view to the water and rocky shore as much as possible while also respecting historic resources and building footprints over the water, as noted in the Cannery Row Local Coastal Program.

Policy a.9. Enhance the visual qualities of the Monterey Bay Coastal Trail. Preserve and enhance views from the Trail to natural features as much as possible and encourage access from the trail to the Bay.

Goal b. Preserve the wooded skyline and foothills, which provide the southern and eastern framework for the City, including areas within and beyond the City limits.

Goal c. Respect and retain the wooded canyons as distinctive natural features, as the natural separation of neighborhoods, as locations for scenic roadways, and as recreational opportunities.

Goal f. Maintain existing vistas and seek to improve new vista points seen from roadways, parks, and other public spaces. Collaborate with other agencies to protect city vistas and scenic amenities.

Policy f.1. Campuses. Maintain large campuses as open space amenities within Monterey (e.g., Monterey Peninsula College, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Language Institute, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and private school and college sites). Fencing and walls on these large sites should be screened by landscape elements, rather than being placed between landscape elements and streets or vistas.

Policy f.2. Monterey Bay Park. Complete Monterey Bay Park.

Policy f.3. Wharf and Cannery Row. Maintain and enhance vistas.

Policy f.4. Del Monte Lake at Navy School. Open up and maintain the vista of Del Monte Lake from Del Monte Avenue.

Policy f.5. Freeway. Preserve and enhance the view of the bay, the dunes, Laguna Grande, Roberts Lake, and wooded hillsides.

Policy f.6. Del Monte Avenue. Screen the commercial area along Del Monte Avenue from Seaside to Washington Street.

Policy f.7. Lighthouse Curve. Preserve and enhance views of the Presidio and the Harbor.

Policy f.9. Discourage high levels of ambient light and maintain night skies where stars can be seen.

Goal h. Protect and enhance scenic entrances, which follow a parkway concept.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 144, Packet Page 472 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-11
Policy h.10. Developments visible from Scenic Entrances should blend into the natural surroundings and not detrimentally impact significant natural features such as the wooded ridgeline, hilltops, etc.

HIGHWAY 1
Policy h.11. Maintain existing vistas of the city, forest, bay and dunes.

Policy h.18. Screen buildings close to the Highway with native vegetation, such as Monterey pines, oaks, and cypress.

MONTEREY-SALINAS HIGHWAY
Policy h.21. Screen buildings close to the Highway with native vegetation, such as Coast Live Oak.

Policy h.22. Maintain the scenic corridor.

DEL MONTE AVENUE
Policy h.24. Enhance the excellent scenic value in the central portion by the Naval Postgraduate School, and make the scenic resources more evident to the public.

AGUAJITO, JACKS PEAK, AND MONHOLLAN ROADS
Policy h.26. Maintain a low-speed scenic road and retain the informal and natural quality.

PACIFIC STREET
Policy h.28. Maintain the natural setting of upper Pacific Street and the street tree canopy along lower Pacific Street.

Open Space Element
Goal a. Preserve the Monterey Bay as the City’s most significant natural resource.

Policy a.3. Protect the views into Monterey Bay.

Goal b. Recognize the importance of the shoreline and beaches in providing access to the Monterey Bay as well as preserving specific areas for habitat conservation.

Policy b.4. Protect views of the Monterey Bay from Monterey Bay and Shoreline Parks.

The City of Monterey addresses the following goals and policies related to aesthetics and visual character in various commercial, coastal, and neighborhood plans.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 145, Packet Page 473 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-12 City of Monterey
Commercial Plans
Cannery Row Conservation District
The purpose of the Cannery Row Conservation District Design Program is to maintain and preserve the traditional and historic character of the Cannery Row destination, providing guidance for improvement projects, new buildings, and alterations to existing structures. The following design principles convey community policies about the aesthetics and visual resources.

Principle 7. Consider view opportunities throughout the Cannery Row Conservation District.

East Del Monte Avenue Area Plan
East Del Monte Avenue Area Plan aims to implement General Plan policies focused on protecting and enhancing scenic gateways along Del Monte Avenue and screening commercial uses through design, landscape, and parking standards such as reducing street parking. The following design standards are related to aesthetics and visual character of Del Monte Avenue, separated by Policy Areas as noted in the Area Plan.

AREA 1, 2, & 4
• All rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view, screened, or otherwise treated to minimize visual impacts. Recommended treatments include: (a) modification of roof design to minimize equipment visibility, (b) choosing an unobtrusive location and screening using materials and colors complementary to the structure, and (c) choosing an unobtrusive location and coordinating colors with roof and building colors. • Signs shall not be directed toward Highway 1. This standard includes signs which nominally conform to sign standards based on local street frontages, but are intended to be seen from Highway 1.
• Signs shall not be directed to the Recreation Trail or Del Monte Avenue. Signs shall not be located on the fence facing the Recreation Trail. Signs shall not be located between the fence and the Recreation Trail.
• Trees and shrubs shall not be pruned so that signs and uses are visible from Del Monte Avenue.

AREA 4 ONLY
Buildings fronting on Del Monte Avenue shall provide visual variety. Warehouse-type buildings with large, flat wall surfaces are not allowed. Visual variety can typically be provided in the following manner:
1) Use of variety of building materials
2) Use of pitched roofs and/or variety of roof designs
3) Use of offsets or varied setbacks
Setback from Del Monte Avenue shall be a minimum of ten feet with an average setback of fifteen feet. This setback shall be landscaped.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 146, Packet Page 474 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-13
Fencing visible from Del Monte Avenue or Highway 1 shall provide visual variety and a decorative appearance. This can typically be done by one or more of the following methods:
1) Use or more than one building material
2) Change of height
3) Use of offsets or varied setbacks
4) Use of decorative pilasters
Signs shall not be directed toward Highway 1. This standard includes signs which nominally conform to sign standards based on local street frontages but are intended to be seen from Highway

1. AREA 5 ONLY
Development visible from Highway 1 shall be screened by dense landscaping or fencing.

Coastal Plans
Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan
The Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan seeks to guide development in the area with adherence to the California Coastal Act provisions as related to water supply, hazards, aesthetic resources, public access, public recreation, commercial uses, and circulation. The following policies are related to aesthetics and visual character found in the plan.

COASTAL VISUAL RESOURCES
a) Preserve and enhance coastal overviews by establishing a punctuated, low-rise skyline respecting the visual forms of the old canneries with roof surfaces of varying sizes, shapes, and heights broken by skylights, towers, vertical stacks, dormer vents and other projections.
b) As part of new private development on presently vacant and private lands, provide viewpoints along the shoreline. Improvements to and an access easement over the viewpoint are to be required as a condition of the new development. As provided for by Section 30212 of the Coastal Act, this access shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability.

Del Monte Beach Coastal Land Use Plan
Del Monte Beach Coastal Land Use Plan establishes policies related to habitat preservation, coastal erosion, land use designations, and public access. The following LCP policies specifically address the protection and enhancement of coastal visual resources.

1. The City shall cooperate with the U.S. Navy and State Parks to protect and restore the significant vegetation on and behind the back dunes of the Naval Postgraduate School and State Parks property, to maintain this highly scenic corridor along Del Monte Avenue and the Recreation Trail/Transportation Corridor.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 147, Packet Page 475 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-14 City of Monterey

31. The landform, eucalyptus row and remnant oaks on the back dune ridge and outer slopes paralleling Del Monte Avenue shall be protected to maintain the visual qualities of this important landscape element for the local entry view, the Recreation Trail/Transportation Corridor, and views from northbound State Route 1 (proposed scenic highway).

Area Plans
Highway 68 Area Plan
Highway 68 is eligible for the State Scenic highway system; however, only the part from Highway 1 to the Salinas River is designated by Caltrans as a scenic highway. Recognizing the value of the area’s scenic character, the Highway 68 Plan seeks ways to protect this environmental resource.

Goal A. To preserve the scenic character of the area.

Policy 1. Open space shall be planned to preserve, conserve, and maintain natural resources, rare and endangered plant species, and physical features of the area.

Policy 2. Large continuous expanses of native vegetation and trees should be conserved as the most suitable habitat for maintain abundant and diverse wildlife.

Policy 3. Trees shall be preserved wherever possible and, where appropriate, trees of indigenous nature shall be added.

Policy 4. Development should be oriented to the natural terrain by encouraging innovation in site design, grading technique, building types, and spacing of buildings.

Policy 5. Clustering shall be required where appropriate and feasible.

Policy 6. A mixture of building heights shall be encouraged providing that heights are compatible with the terrain and rural character of the area.

Policy 7. Architectural review of projects shall be required to insure visual compatibility of the development with the surrounding area.

Monterey City Code
Chapter 31 of the City Code regulates the size, type, and location of signs. The purpose of the chapter is to protect and enhance the character and setting of the City of Monterey against visual blight by preventing a proliferation of signs that will detract from, and obscure, the scenic qualities of the City of Monterey and its individual buildings and neighborhoods.

Chapter 37, Preservation of Trees and Shrubs, is intended to preserve Monterey’s image of a smallscale residential community beside the Bay, framed by a forested hill backdrop and drawing its charm from a rich historical background, certain commercial enterprises, and natural scenic beauty. Trees within the city significantly contribute to this image. The Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 148, Packet Page 476 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-15
Chapter 38, Article 13 of the City Code establishes a design and development control overlay district. The specific purpose of the District is to ensure appropriate review for projects in areas of environmental sensitivity or where urban design and site planning considerations are judged important. Three subdistricts are established under this District, including a Design Control overlay district (D1), Development Control overlay district (D2), and a Historic Development Control overlay district (D3).

Chapter 38, Article 14 establishes the ‘S’ Special Setback Overlay District which is intended to provide a mechanism for increasing setbacks along scenic streets and highways and the shoreline of Monterey Bay, El Estero, and Roberts Lake to protect natural resources and to achieve a visually pleasing relationship between buildings and the environment where they are located.

Chapter 38, Article 25 of the City Code outlines architectural review procedures and submittal requirements for developments. The purpose of architectural review is to promote orderly development, to ensure high quality design that is harmonious with its surroundings, to implement the General Plan, as well as area or neighborhood plans, and to preserve and promote the visual character of the city.

Chapter 38, Part IV outlines regulations applying in all districts. Section 38-111 includes performance standards. Mirror or highly reflective glass shall not cover more than 20 percent of a building surface visible from a street unless an applicant submits information demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that use of such glass would not significantly increase glare visible from adjacent streets or pose a hazard for moving vehicles. In addition, parking structures and all project lighting shall be screened so the light source will not be visible off site.

Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plan Objective Design Standards In 2023, the City of Monterey adopted objective design standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans. The purpose of these design standards is to retain some control of building design and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods in the Downtown and Lighthouse area. The design standards are organized by subject for each Specific Plan area, which include site planning, topography, open space, public utilities and building services/trash, equipment areas, parking, building design, mass and scale, colors, building materials, lighting, signs, landscaping, and lastly, fences/walls.

Single-Family Dwelling Design Review Areas Guidelines
In 1987, the City of Monterey published guidelines for single family dwellings design review areas.

The purpose of these design review guidelines is to assure that all single-family residences in design review areas of the City of Monterey are of good design and appropriate mass and scale to their site, setting, and neighborhood. The guidelines are an expression of the policy of the Architectural Review Committee and represent the standards that the committee will use in evaluation of new single-family residential construction in design review areas.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 149, Packet Page 477 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-16 City of Monterey
Impact Analysis
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed Plan would:

Criterion 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Criterion 2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; Criterion 3: In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point); Or, if the project is in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?; or
Criterion 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Appreciation of aesthetics and visual resources is generally subjective by nature, and therefore the extent of visual impact associated with adoption and implementation of the Proposed Plan can be difficult to quantify. In addition, it is difficult to estimate the impact future development would have on scenic resources, since individual development projects can be designed to be compatible with and/or enhance the aesthetic quality of an area. As such, this analysis was based on the overall amount of new development at buildout of the Proposed Plan, the potential location of new development, and policies and standards in the Proposed Plan.

RELEVANT PROPOSED GOALS AND POLICIES
The Proposed Plan contains the following goals and policies relevant to aesthetics. The full text of proposed Housing Element programs is included in Appendix A for reference:

Housing
Housing Goal #1. Increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031.

Policy 1.2 Promote infill development in adopted Specific Plan areas where high density residential development can be accommodated in proximity to employment, shopping, transit, recreation, and other services.

Policy 1.3 Promote development of a variety of housing types, sizes, and densities that meet community needs based on the suitability of the land, including the availability of ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 150, Packet Page 478 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-17
infrastructure, the provision of adequate services, and recognition of environmental constraints.

Program 1-B Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments.

Program 1-E Education Workforce Housing Overlay.

Program 1-F Congregational Overlay.

Program 1-K Employer Sponsored Housing.

Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update.

IMPACTS
Impact 3.1-1 Development under the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less than Significant) The Planning Area contains a wide range of scenic resources that contribute to the unique and distinctive character of the community. Chief among these are the coastline and the central ridge of wooded hills that define the local scenic environment. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element identifies scenic entryways and corridors as important scenic resources, along with important scenic vistas. Scenic entryways and corridors include all major roads leading into Monterey. Additionally, Highway 1 is a State-designated Scenic Highway from Marina State Beach to Carmel By the Sea and Point Lobos Nature Reserve, and a segment of Highway 68 (MontereySalinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive is an eligible State scenic highway. Scenic vistas include: large campuses with open space amenities, including Monterey Peninsula College, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Language Institute, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and private school and college sites; the vista of Del Monte Lake from Del Monte Avenue; the Wharf and Cannery Row; Monterey Bay Park; the view of the Bay, the dunes, Laguna Grande, Roberts Lake, and wooded hillsides; and views of the Presidio and the Harbor. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would allow development within and adjacent to these scenic entryway, corridors, and vistas, including development along Highway 1, Highway 68, Cannery Row, Del Monte Avenue and on the campuses of MPUSD schools. A significant impact would occur if development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would have a substantial adverse effect on any of these scenic vistas or resources.

The 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies intended to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. Policies a.7, and a.9 call for protection and enhancement of views to and from specific unique shoreline environments (i.e., Cannery Row and Monterey Bay Coastal Trail). Policies f.1 through f.7 under the Vistas section of the Element call for maintaining and expanding existing views of vistas to Monterey Bay Park, Fisherman’s Wharf and Cannery Row, Del Monte Lake and other visual features as seen from roadways such as Highway 1, Del Monte Avenue, Lighthouse Curve, parks, and other public spaces. Open Space Element policies a.3 and b.4 address preservation of views into Monterey Bay and Policy c.2 calls for preservation of greenbelts that form the visual backdrop to the city.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 151, Packet Page 479 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-18 City of Monterey
Moreover, there are guidelines and policies found in various commercial, coastal, and area plans designed to preserve scenic vistas from potential development in the Planning Area. Cannery Row Conservation District Principle 7 calls for consideration of view opportunities in Cannery Row, while establishing directives for construction of new buildings. The East Del Monte Avenue Area Plan provides design standards for buildings fronting Del Monte Avenue, which include direction on visual variety and signage. The Cannery Row Coastal Land Use Plan outlines policies related to coastal visual resources that aim to preserve and enhance coastal overviews (Policy a), while other policies require improvements to viewpoints as part of new private development on presently vacant and private lands (Policy b). The Del Monte Beach Coastal Land Use Plan describes Del Monte Avenue as a local entry view for travelers exiting from southbound Highway 1 and cites policies to maintain this scenic vista (Policy1 & 2). Lastly, the Highway 68 Area Plan sets out a goal to preserve the scenic character of the area (Goal A), with policies (Policies 1 to 7) that ensure visual compatibility of the development of the surrounding area. In addition, the City Code enforces a variety of protection measures for scenic vistas. Chapter 37 is intended to preserve Monterey’s image of a small-scale residential community beside the Bay, framed by a forested hill backdrop and natural scenic beauty. The Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable. Chapter 38, Article 14 establishes the ‘S’ Special Setback Overlay District which is intended to provide a mechanism for increasing setbacks along scenic streets and highways and the shoreline of Monterey Bay, El Estero, and Roberts Lake to protect natural resources and to achieve a visually pleasing relationship between buildings and the environment where they are located. Chapter 38, Article 25 of the City Code outlines architectural review procedures and submittal requirements for developments. The purpose of architectural review is to promote orderly development, to ensure high quality design that is harmonious with its surroundings, to implement the General Plan, as well as area or neighborhood plans, and to preserve and promote the visual character of the city. The sevenmember Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviews all aspects of a Proposed Plan that deal with the outside appearance. The ARC also analyzes landscape areas and planting, architectural style, bulk, mass, and color to make sure they conform with adopted guidelines.

Program 1-E in the proposed Housing Element would involve the adoption of an Education Workforce Housing Overlay to permit multifamily housing development by right at up to 30 du/ac on urban infill sites owned by the MPUSD subject to objective design and development standards.

Views of these sites and the open space they contain are identified as scenic vistas in the 2005 General Plan. There are eight MPUSD school sites in the City of Monterey that range in size from approximately 0.5 acres to several acres in size. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in up to 100 housing units for MPUSD faculty and staff on some or all of the eight sites. Housing may be accommodated in existing or new buildings, but recreational open space for school activities would remain. As such, the overall amount of development would not be substantial in relation to the area of land and the number of sites on which it would be constructed. Further, the overlay and standards proposed as part of Program 1-E would be designed to integrate the new housing onto MPUSD sites in a context sensitive manner, recognizing that many of the sites are located in established residential neighborhoods. Therefore, implementation of Program 1-E would not substantially degrade scenic vistas on MPUSD campuses and associated impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 152, Packet Page 480 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-19
Overall, with implementation of General Plan policies and existing City regulations substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources in the Planning Area would be minimized to the extent practicable and associated impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 3.1-2 Development under 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. (Less than Significant)
As described above, Highway 1 is a State-designated Scenic Highway from Marina State Beach to Carmel-by-the-Sea and Point Lobos Nature Reserve, and a segment of Highway 68 (MontereySalinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive is an eligible State scenic highway. The Proposed Plan would allow development adjacent to these segments as they pass through the Planning Area, and a significant impact would result if scenic resources within the segments would be substantially damaged.

The General Plan establishes a framework of policies to preserve and protect scenic resources along these highway segments. Goal h of the Urban Design Element requires the protection and enhancement of scenic entrances within the city. Policy h.10 states that developments visible from scenic entrances should blend into the natural surroundings and not detrimentally impact significant natural features such as the wooded ridgeline, hilltops, etc. Specific to Highway 1, Policy h.11 requires the maintenance of existing vistas of the city, forest, Bay and dunes, while Policy h.18 requires developments close to the highway be screened with native vegetation, such as Monterey pines, oaks, and cypress. Specific to Highway 68, Policy h.22 requires the maintenance of the scenic corridor while Policy h.21 requires developments close to the highway be screened with native vegetation, such as Coast live oak. Additionally, the City Code establishes standards and procedures that would guide development within the designated and eligible highway segments, including Chapter 31 which establishes standards to control the size, type and location of signs, and Chapter 37, which establishes standards and procedures for the preservation of trees which contribute to the natural scenic beauty and character of the Planning Area.

Compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would minimize the potential for significant impacts to scenic resources with State-designated and eligible Scenic Highways.

Associated impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 3.1-3 Development under 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 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 153, Packet Page 481 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics

3.1-20 City of Monterey
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas. (Less than Significant)
Pursuant to CEQA, the City of Monterey is an "urbanized area."2 As such, a significant impact would result if the Proposed Plan would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would involve zoning amendments to facilitate development of housing as needed to meet the City's RHNA obligations and to ensure compatibility and public safety in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport. Zoning amendments would include updates to the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue specific plans to incorporate strategies to assist with the financial feasibility of high density infill housing development, including reduced parking requirements and provisions for permitting density above 30 du/ac (Program 1-C); amendments to the Multifamily Housing Overlay to facilitate high density housing on Garden Road; adoption of an educational workforce housing overlay (Program 1-E) to permit faculty and staff housing on MPUSD properties; adoption of a congregational overlay to allow affordable housing on church properties; adoption of a specific plan with design and development standards for the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area; and amendments to the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site.

All development would be required to comply with the applicable zoning standards.

Further, as described above, continued implementation of policies from the 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element would help ensure that new development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would not substantially degrade the scenic character of the Planning Area. These policies include Policy h.10, which states that developments visible from scenic entrances should blend into the natural surroundings and not detrimentally impact significant natural features such as the wooded ridgeline, hilltops; Policy h.11, which requires the maintenance of existing vistas of the city, forest, Bay and dunes; Policy h.18, which requires developments close to the highway to be screened with native vegetation, such as Monterey pines, oaks, and cypress; Policy h.22, which requires the maintenance of the scenic corridor; and Policy h.21, which requires developments close to the highway to be screened with native vegetation, such as Coast Live Oak. Therefore, overall, compliance with applicable zoning regulations and General Plan policies would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 3.1-4 Development under the Proposed Plan would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant) Existing developed areas in the city currently generate light and glare, and new development that would be facilitated by the Proposed Plan could result in increased light and glare. Some elements of the built environment, such as parking lots, commercial buildings, and signs, may emit light for 24 hours a day. New sources of daytime glare could include new buildings with reflective surfaces, 2 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, ch. 3, § 15387 (“CEQA Guidelines”).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 154, Packet Page 482 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.1: Aesthetics
City of Monterey 3.1-21
such as office buildings with glazed windows. Such light and glare could affect residential areas, as well as areas frequented by wildlife.

Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in significant new development in the Highway 68 Plan Area and the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area, which contain large undeveloped areas under existing conditions, thereby increasing light and glare in and around these locations.

Other development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would generally be in areas with urban development where sources of light and glare exist already. General Plan Policy f.9 would apply to all development associated with implementation of the Proposed Plan This policy seeks to discourage high levels of ambient light and maintain night skies where stars can be seen. Projects are reviewed for consistency with this policy if the project requires Architectural Review.

Additionally, development located in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District would be required to adhere to the applicable standards of Section 38-99.7 (G),), which requires new sources of light to be directed downward to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties and that an exterior lighting plan be prepared; as well as Section 38-111(D), which establishes standards for the use of glass and building materials to minimize light and glare. The City Code also contains lighting standards for parking facilities. Additionally, the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, adopted as Chapter 9 of the City Code, includes a nonresidential mandatory light pollution reduction measure that establishes maximum allowable light and glare standards for outdoor lighting systems for new nonresidential projects (2022 California Green Building Standards Code,

5.106.8 Light pollution reduction). Further, the General Plan Urban Design Element Policy f.9 discourages high levels of ambient light to maintain night skies where stars can be seen. Specifically for the Lighthouse area, development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with lighting standards in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would ensure that development under the Proposed Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with increased light and glare.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 155, Packet Page 483 City of Monterey 3.2-1

3.2 Agricultural Resources
This section assesses potential environmental impacts on agricultural resources from future development under the Proposed Plan, including those related to farmland as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency; agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts; and the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.

This section describes existing agricultural resources in the Planning Area, as well as relevant federal, State, and local regulations and programs.

There were no NOP comments related to agricultural resources.

Environmental Setting

PHYSICAL SETTING
Farmland Classification
The California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) classifies farmland into the following categories based on soil type and current land use:
• Prime Farmland. Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when managed (including water management) according to current farming methods. Prime Farmland must have been used for the production of crops within the last three years. • Farmland of Statewide Importance. Land other than Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production. Similar to Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance must have been used for crop production within the last three years.
• Unique Farmland. Land that does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, but which is currently used for the production of specific high economic value crops (as listed in the last three years by the California Department of Food and Agriculture). It has the special combination of location, soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop (e.g., oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes, and cut flowers) when treated and managed according to current farming practices.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 156, Packet Page 484 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources

3.2-2 City of Monterey
• Farmland of Local Importance. Land that is either currently producing crops or has the capability to do so. It is land other than Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, but it may be important to the local economy due to its productivity.
• Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for livestock grazing.

However, for the purpose of environmental review, CEQA defines Farmland as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 Prime Agricultural Land
The California Association Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) describes "Prime agricultural land" as an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre. e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years.2
Agricultural Context
In the State of California, productive farmland acreage has been gradually declining, due primarily to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Between 1984 and 2010, the area of farm and grazing lands in the state declined by more than 1.4 million acres, including a loss of 662,000 1 Public Resources Code Section 21060.1
2 CALAFCO and American Farmland Trust. February 2018. State of the Art on Agricultural Preservation. Available:
https://calafco.org/sites/default/files/documents/CALAFCO_AFT%20White%20Paper%20on%20Ag%20Preservatio n_Feb%202018%28REV%29.pdf. Accessed: January 17, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 157, Packet Page 485 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.2-3
acres of Prime Farmland, the farmland type with the best soils for agricultural production.3 While the average annual acreage count has been decreasing since 1984, Monterey County has seen an increase in the total area of farmland between 2012 and 2017, gaining approximately six percent.4 The Planning Area is located in Monterey County, which ranked 4th out of 58 California counties for gross value of agricultural production at $4,426,625.5 The county's top four commodities by gross value in 2018 were Strawberries, Lettuce (Romaine), Lettuce (Head), and Broccoli. There are 1,340,142 acres of farmland in Monterey County.6 Approximately 62 percent of this farmland is used as pastureland while 27 percent is cropland, five percent is woodland, and 6 percent is other kinds of uses. However, areas of farmland in the county are concentrated along the Salinas River Valley, as opposed to the primarily urbanized land of the City of Monterey.7 Planning Area Overview
While the greater county contains productive and lucrative farmlands, such as in the North County, Greater Salinas, and Central Salinas Valley, the City of Monterey is a developed part of the County with large areas dedicated to open space and much less land in agricultural use. Figure 3.2-1 illustrates the locations of lands within the Planning Area classified as farmland by the FMMP. As shown, the vast majority of the Planning Area is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land or Other Land with a one portion of the area classified as Grazing Land. There are no areas of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance within the Planning Area. Per LAFCO’s definition, there is no prime agricultural land mapped in, or adjacent to, the City’s Sphere of Influence.8
3 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2015. California Farmland Conversion Report 2015. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/2010- 2012/FCR/FCR%202015_complete.pdf. Accessed: March 16, 2022. 4 United States Department of Agriculture. 2017. Census of Agriculture County Profile, Monterey County California.

Available:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/California/cp06053.pdf . Accessed: October 15, 2023.
5 California Department of Food & Agriculture. 2020. California Agricultural Statistics Review 2019-2020. Available:
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2020_Ag_Stats_Review.pdf. Accessed: October 10, 2023. 6United States Department of Agriculture. 2017. Census of Agriculture County Profile, Monterey County California.

Available:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/California/cp06053.pdf . Accessed: October 10, 2023.
7 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed: October 23, 2023. 8 LAFCO of Monterey County. 2011. City of Monterey 2011 Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review.

Available: https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/72896/636851477784100000. Accessed:

October 23, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 158, Packet Page 486 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
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
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 3.2-1 Agricultural Resources.mxd Farmland Classification
Grazing Land (G)
Urban and Built-Up Land (D)
Other Land (X)
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 3.2-1: Agricultural Resources
Data Source: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP); 2018; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. µ
Note: No Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance or Unique Farmalnd found within Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 159, Packet Page 487 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.2-5
An approximately 150-acre area within the Planning Area is designated as Grazing Land. The Grazing Land is located in the southeastern part of the Planning Area, just south of Highway 68.

There is one site identified for housing development under the Proposed Plan that is also located in a part of the Planning Area designated as Grazing Land. This site is a 50-acre parcel owned by the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD). The Highway 68 Area Plan Update envisions a mix of up to 300 low- and moderate-income housing units on this property and will identify portions the site for low-medium density housing, high density housing, and open space preservation.

According to the Monterey City Code, there is no agricultural zoning district in the city. As shown in Figure 3.2-2, the area designated as Grazing Land in the Planning Area is currently zoned as a Planned Community (PC) District, given that it falls within the Highway 68 Area Plan Planning Area. Further, there are no Williamson Act contracts in place within or adjacent to the Planning Area.9

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Regulations
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps soils and farmland uses to provide comprehensive information necessary for understanding, managing, conserving, and sustaining the nation's limited soil resources. In addition to many other natural resource conservation programs, the NRCS manages the Farmland Protection Program, which provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA joins with state, tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation easements or other interests from landowners.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S. Code Section 4201 and 7 Code of Federal Regulations 658
The NRCS oversees the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code [USC] Section 4201 et seq.; see also 7 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 658). The FPPA (a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill) is national legislation with the following stated purpose: "to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses." The FPPA applies to projects and programs that are sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the federal government and does not apply to private construction projects subject to federal permitting and licensing, projects planned and completed without assistance from a federal agency, federal projects related to national
9 Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office - GIS. 2016. Williamson Act Contracts. Available:
https://montereyco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9aa9d5bf30904f3c904eb5fe869f62b7.

Accessed: October 23, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 160, Packet Page 488 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
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
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
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
Visitor Accomodation Facility
Planned Community
Industrial
Open Space
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 3.2-2: Current Zoning
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 161, Packet Page 489 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.2-7
defense during a national emergency, or projects proposed on land already committed to urban development. The FPPA spells out requirements to ensure federal programs to the extent practical are compatible with state, local, and private programs, and policies to protect farmland and calls for the use of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to aid in analysis.

State Regulations
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation FMMP classifies farmland into five different categories based on soil type and current land use, as described above in the Physical Setting. The minimum mapping unit is 10 acres, unless specified.10
CEQA Section 21095 and CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, together, define Prime, Unique, and Farmland of Statewide Importance as “Farmland,” whose conversion may be considered a significant impact.

California Farmland Conservancy Program
The California Farmland Conservancy Program (Public Resources Code Section 10200 et seq.) supports the voluntary granting of agricultural conservation easements from landowners to qualified nonprofit organizations, such as land trusts, as well as local governments. Conservation easements are voluntarily established restrictions that are permanently attached to property deeds, with the general purpose of retaining land in its natural, open-space, agricultural, or other condition while preventing uses that are deemed inconsistent with the specific conservation purposes expressed in the easements. Agricultural conservation easements define conservation purposes that are tied to keeping land available for continued use as farmland. Such farmlands remain in private ownership and the landowner retains all farmland use authority, but the farmland is restricted in its ability to be subdivided or used for non-agricultural purposes, such as urban uses.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.) of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, provides a tax incentive for the voluntary enrollment of agricultural and open space lands in contracts between local government and landowners. The contract restricts the land to agricultural and open space uses and compatible uses defined in State law and local ordinances. An agricultural preserve, which is established by local government, defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into contracts with landowners. Local governments calculate the property tax assessment for lands under contract based on the actual use of the land rather than the potential land value assuming full development.

Williamson Act contracts are effective for periods of 10 years and longer. The contract is automatically renewed each year, maintaining a constant, 10-year contract, unless the landowner 10 California Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. Accessed at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 162, Packet Page 490 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources

3.2-8 City of Monterey
or local government files to initiate non-renewal. Should that occur, the Williamson Act would terminate 10 years after the filing of a notice of non-renewal. Only a landowner can petition for a contract cancellation. Tentative contract cancellations can be approved only after a local government makes specific findings and determines the cancellation fee to be paid by the landowner. There are no Williamson Act contracts located within the Planning Area.

The State of California has the following policies regarding public acquisition of and locating public improvements on lands in agricultural preserves and on lands under Williamson Act contracts (Government Code Section 51290-51295):
• Avoid locating federal, State, or local public improvements and improvements of public utilities, and the acquisition of land, in agricultural preserves; • Locate public improvements that are in agricultural preserves on land other than land under Williamson Act contract; and
• Any agency or entity proposing to locate such an improvement, in considering the relative costs of parcels of land and the development of improvements, consider the value to the public of land, particularly prime agricultural land, in an agricultural preserve.

Farmland Security Zone Contracts
Since 1998, another option in the Williamson Act Program has been established with the creation of Farmland Security Zone contracts. A Farmland Security Zone is an area created within an agricultural preserve by a board of supervisors upon the request of a landowner or group of landowners. Farmland Security Zone contracts offer landowners greater property tax reduction and have a minimum initial term of 20 years. Like Williamson Act contracts, Farmland Security Zone contracts renew annually unless a notice of non-renewal is filed. Potential cancellation of Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts would be addressed in subsequent projectlevel documents.

Open Space Subvention
Under the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971, the State has provided annual subvention payments to counties for foregone property tax revenue due to Williamson Act contracts. The Budget Act of 2009 virtually eliminated these payments for the 2009-10 fiscal year. While partial funding was restored for the 2010-11 fiscal year, long-term State support to counties for agricultural land conservation is uncertain. Despite the elimination of most payments from the State, the California Department of Conservation has continued to release status reports of lands under Williamson Act contracts, with the most recent release occurring in 2015.

Solar Use Easements
In 2011, California passed Senate Bill (SB) 618 (Chapter 596, Statutes of 2011) authorizing property owners under Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contracts to rescind the contract and simultaneously enter into a solar-use easement. Solar-use easements require the land to be used for solar photovoltaic facilities for a term of 20 years.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 163, Packet Page 491 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.2-9
Local Regulations
Monterey City Code
The City of Monterey Zoning Code (Chapter 38 of the City Code) does not include an Agricultural District, but it does include a definition of agricultural use. Section 38-18 defines the Agricultural and Extractive Use Classification as (A) Animal Husbandry, Limited – typical uses include grazing, ranching, dairy farming, and horse breeding and training. This classification excludes poultry and pig farming; (B) Crop Production – raising and harvesting of tree crops, row crops, or field crops on an agricultural or commercial basis, including packing and processing; and (C) Mining and Processing – places or plants primarily devoted to surface or subsurface mining of metallic and nonmetallic minerals, or gas, together with essential on-site processing and production of only nonmetallic mineral products. Typical places are borrow pits, quarries, oil and gas wells, or concrete batch plants.

Impact Analysis
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would:

Criterion 1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
Criterion 2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; Criterion 3: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Farmland resources and Williamson Act contract data within the Planning Area were assessed based on the California Department of Conservation FMMP, a biennial report and mapping resource on the conversion of farmland and grazing land. Using these sources, the Proposed Plan was analyzed for potential conversion of Farmland, conversion of Williamson Act contract lands, and other changes resulting from the Proposed Plan that may result in the conversion of farmland to urban uses.

RELEVANT PROPOSED GOALS AND POLICIES
The Proposed Plan contains the following goals and policies relevant to agricultural resources. The full text of proposed Housing Element programs is included in Appendix B for reference:

Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 164, Packet Page 492 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources

3.2-10 City of Monterey

IMPACTS
Impact 3.2-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use. (No Impact) As noted above, there are no active agricultural activities within the Planning Area. Further, according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), there are no areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Planning Area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Plan would have no impact on the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. As a result, there would be no impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use resulting from implementation the Proposed Plan.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 3.2-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
As discussed in the Regulatory and Environmental Setting sections, there are currently no areas zoned for agricultural uses and no Williamson Act contracts within the Planning Area. As shown in Figure 3.2-2, the area designated as Grazing Land in the Planning Area is currently zoned as a Planned Community (PC) District, given that it falls within the Highway 68 Area Plan Planning Area. The Proposed Plan would not change the current General Plan land use or zoning designation in this area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Plan would have no impact with respect to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Impact 3.2-3 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. (Significant and Unavoidable) As noted above, 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, as described above and shown on Figure 3.2-1, a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area is classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. As depicted in Figure 2.2 of Chapter 2: Project Description of this DEIR, the Grazing Land is currently identified as vacant in data from the Monterey County Assessor and there are no active agricultural uses in this area. Further, Map 3 (Land Use Map) in the existing ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 165, Packet Page 493 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.2: Agricultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.2-11
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.

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. Program 1-I of 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.

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.

Mitigation Measures
MM-AG-1: 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.

Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

Nevertheless, Farmland is a finite and irreplaceable resource, and therefore not directly mitigable.

Even with the acquisition of comparable land or a conversation 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 166, Packet Page 494 City of Monterey 3.3-1

3.3 Air Quality
is section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for air quality. It also describes impacts related to air quality that would result from implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Plan) and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. is section has been prepared using methods and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). e section describes existing air quality in the region, the Proposed Plan’s contribution to localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter, regional concentrations of ozone precursors, impacts from vehicular emissions that have regional effects, and the exposure of sensitive receptors to Plan-generated toxic air contaminants (TACs). Appendix E includes a detailed summary of the data used in this analysis.
ere was one response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding topics covered in this section:
e Department of the Navy, Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSA Monterey) commented that Del Monte Avenue and Aguajito Road are prime commuting corridors for their properties and air quality impacts due to traffic should be considered along these roadways.

Environmental Setting

PHYSICAL SETTING
e City of Monterey encompasses a 8.67-square-mile area along the southern shore of Monterey Bay within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). Ambient air quality is affected by climatological conditions, topography, and the types and amounts of pollutants emitted. e following sections summarize how air pollution moves through the air, water, and soil within the air basin, and how it is chemically changed in the presence of other chemicals and particles. is section also summarizes regional and local climate conditions, existing air quality conditions, and sensitive receptors that may be affected by project-generated emissions.

Although the primary factors that determine air quality are the locations of air pollutant sources and the amount of pollutants emitted from those sources, meteorological conditions and topography are also important factors. Atmospheric conditions,such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. Unique geographic features throughout the state define fieen air basins with distinctive regional climates.
e NCCAB covers more than 5,100 square miles and consists of Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. e northwestern portion of the air basin is dominated by the Santa Cruz ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 167, Packet Page 495 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-2 City of Monterey
Mountains. e southern extent of these mountains, together with the Diablo Range along the northeastern boundary, form Santa Clara Valley, which extends from the northeastern edge of the air basin southward, where it transitions to San Benito Valley, which runs northwest to southeast along the eastern side of the Gabilan Range. Salinas Valley extends from the City of Salinas to the northwest to south of King City, between the Gabilan Range to the east and Sierra de Salinas and Santa Lucia Mountains to the west.
e Monterey Bay coastal climate is primarily characterized by west-northwest and northwesterly winds, driven by high pressures offshore and low pressures in the warm inland areas that produce a relatively strong cross-coast pressure gradient. During dry-season months (May to October) when the North Pacific high-pressure system is located at its more northern location, the mean wind direction is from the west northwest/northwest. e mean wind direction changes to a more westerly direction during wet-season months (November to April) when the high-pressure region shis south. Wind speeds range from an average of about 4.5 to 6.7 miles per hour (mph) in January to about 7.8 to 8.9 mph in April to June.1
Like other maritime climates, air temperatures in the Monterey Bay subregion are moderated by the bay, with considerable day-to-day persistence and seasonal mean temperature variations of about 41 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Climate data from the Monterey national weather station, located just northwest of the Monterey Regional Airport, was used to characterize varying climate conditions.

Peak maximum summer temperatures typically occur in August, with a high of 67.3°F and a low of

54.5°F on average. Peak minimum winter temperatures typically occur in January, with a high of

57.8°F and a low of 41.8°F on average. Rainfall varies widely from year to year, with an average annual precipitation of 17.84 inches, falling primarily between December and March.2 Pollution potential is relatively high in this subregion during the summer and fall, when high pressure dominates and results in inversions with low mixing depths and coastal wind patterns that inhibit air movement. e northwest-southeast orientation of the mountainous ridges in the region also tends to restrict and channel onshore air currents during the summer, particularly during the aernoon and evening. In the fall, weaker winds and shallow marine layer result in a relatively stationary air mass that allows pollutants to build up over the period of a few days. North or east winds during this season may also develop to transport pollutants from the San Francisco Bay area and Central Valley into the NCCAB, adding to the locally emitted pollutant mix.3 Air quality in the NCCAB is generally good during the winter and early spring due to the shi in wind direction and general absence of persistent inversions. Air pollution sources include light and heavy industry, and 1 Wendell Nuss, “Climate & Meteorology, I. General Meteorological Conditions” [from “Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Site Characterization”], Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Bibliographic Database, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996, Last reviewed: September 8, 2023, https://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/clim1.html.
2 National Centers for Environmental Information, Summary of Monthly Normals 1981-2010 [Generated on November 20, 2023 for Station: Monterey NWSFO, CA US USC00045802], Climate Data Online, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/datasets/NORMAL_MLY/stations/GHCND:USC00045802/detail. 3 Monterey Bay Air Resources District, 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan [Adopted by District Board of Directors on March 15, 2017], https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 168, Packet Page 496 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-3
motor vehicles. Increases in motor vehicle traffic and congestion may increase pollution in the subregion as well as that of its neighboring subregions.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
e federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants. Ozone is considered a regional pollutant because its precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. Particulate matter (PM) is both a regional and local pollutant. e primary criteria pollutants generated by the Proposed Plan are ozone precursors, including nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROGs), CO, and PM.4
All criteria pollutants can have human health effects at certain concentrations. e ambient air quality standards for these pollutants are set to protect public health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety (Clean Air Act [CAA] Section 109). Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants, and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards. Principal characteristics and possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the primary criteria pollutants generated by the project are discussed below.

Ozone
Ozone (O3, or “smog”) is a photochemical oxidant that is formed when ROG and NOX (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. ROG, more broadly referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs),5 are compounds made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle use is the major source of hydrocarbons.

Other sources of ROG are emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. e two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas that forms from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. 4 As discussed above, there are also ambient air quality standards for SO2, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particulates. However, these pollutants are typically associated with industrial sources, which are not included as part of the project. Accordingly, they are not evaluated further. Most emissions of NOx are in the form of nitric oxide (NO). Conversion to NO2 occurs in the atmosphere as pollutants disperse downwind. Accordingly, NO2 is not considered a local pollutant of concern for the project and is not evaluated further. Source: Reşitoğlu, Ibrahim A. 2018. NOx Pollutants from Diesel Vehicles and Trends in Control Technologies.

Published November 5. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.81112. Available: https://www.intechopen.com/books/diesel-andgasoline-engines/no-sub-x-sub-pollutants-from-diesel-vehicles-and-trends-in-the-control-technologies. Accessed:

July 1, 2021.
5 EPA formerly defined the regulated organic compounds in outdoor air as “Reactive Organic Gases” (ROGs), intended to specifically refer to reactive chemicals; however, EPA later revised this terminology to “Volatile Organic Compounds” (VOCs) to more broadly encompass organic (carbon) compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions (i.e., contribute to ozone) in both indoor and outdoor air.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 169, Packet Page 497 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-4 City of Monterey
In addition to serving as an integral participant in ozone formation, NOX also directly acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens.

Ozone poses a higher risk to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma), children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors. Exposure to ozone at certain concentrations can make breathing more difficult, cause shortness of breath and coughing, inflame and damage the airways, aggravate lung diseases, increase the frequency of asthma attacks, and cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths.6 e concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual aer a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion (ppb) of ozone and a 50 percent decrease in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggests that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8-hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 ppb.7 In addition to human health effect, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. Ozone can also act as a corrosive and oxidant, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products and other materials.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. In the study area, high CO levels are of greatest concern during the winter, when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground-level temperature inversions from evening through early morning. ese conditions trap pollutants near the ground, reducing the dispersion of vehicle emissions. Moreover, motor vehicles exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. e primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain. ere are no ecological or environmental effects of CO at or near existing background CO levels.8
Particulate Matter
PM consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized: respirable coarse particles with an aerodynamic 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Ground-level Ozone Basics,” Last updated June 2, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics#wwh. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Health Effects of Ozone in the General Population,” Last updated April 20, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patients-health/health-effects-ozone-general-population. 8 California Air Resources Board, “Carbon Monoxide & Health,” Accessed November 28, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 170, Packet Page 498 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-5
diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), and respirable fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading. PM is considered both a local and a regional pollutant.

Particulate pollution can be transported over long distances and may adversely affect humans, especially people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease. Other symptoms of exposure may include nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Depending on composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain.9

OTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
e California Air Resources Board (CARB) has also established the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates, vinyl chloride, and visibilityreducing particles. ese pollutants are not addressed by federal standards. Below is a summary of the pollutants and a description of their physical properties, health and other effects, sources, and the extent of the problems.

Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions oen are associated with geothermal activity, oil and gas production, refining, sewage treatment plants, and confined animal feeding operations. H2S in the atmosphere will likely oxidize into SO2, which can lead to acid rain. At low concentrations, H2S may cause irritation to the eyes, mucous membranes, and respiratory system, dizziness, and headaches.

In high concentrations (800 parts per million can cause death), H2S is extremely hazardous, especially in enclosed spaces. e Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the primary responsibility for regulating workplace exposure to H2S.

Sulfates
Sulfates are another particulate product that results from the combustion of sulfur‐containing fossil fuels; however, the majority of ambient sulfates is formed in the atmosphere. When SO2 comes in contact with oxygen it precipitates out into sulfates. e health effects associated with SO2 and sulfates more commonly known as sulfur oxides (SOX) include respiratory illnesses, decreased pulmonary disease resistance, and aggravation of cardiovascular diseases. When acidic pollutants and particulates are also present, SO2 tends to have an even more toxic effect. Increased PM derived from SO2 emissions also contributes to impaired visibility. In addition to particulates, sulfur trioxide and sulfate ion are precursors to acid rain. SOX and NOX are the leading precursors to acid rain, which can lead to corrosion of human‐made structures and cause acidification of water bodies. 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM),” Last updated August 23, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 171, Packet Page 499 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-6 City of Monterey
Visibility-Reducing Particles
Visibility-reducing particles consist of PM generated from a variety of natural and manmade sources and vary greatly in shape, size, and chemical composition. Some haze-causing particles (e.g., windblown dust and soot) are directly emitted into the air, whereas others are formed in the air from the chemical transformation of gaseous pollutants (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon particles), which are the major constituents of fine PM. ese fine particles, caused largely by the combustion of fuel, can travel hundreds of miles and cause visibility impairment. California has been labeled unclassified for visibility—CARB has not established a method for measuring visibility with the precision and accuracy needed to designate areas attainment or nonattainment.

Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl chloride is a colorless, sweet‐smelling gas at ambient temperature. Landfills, publicly owned treatment works, and polyvinyl chloride production are the major identified sources of vinyl chloride emissions in California. Polyvinyl chloride can be fabricated into several products, such as pipes, pipe fittings, and plastics. In humans, epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl chloride exposure to development of liver angiosarcoma, a rare cancer, and have suggested a relationship between exposure and lung and brain cancers.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Although ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, no ambient standards exist for TACs. Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to increase the risk of developing cancer or because of their acute or chronic health risks. For TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, CARB has consistently found that there are no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk-free. Individual TACs vary greatly in the risks they present.

At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.

TACs are identified in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93000, and their toxicity is studied by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). e primary TACs of concern associated with the Proposed Plan are asbestos, benzene, diesel PM, inorganic lead, and perchloroethylene.

Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to several naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals, found in its natural state in rock or soil. Before the adverse health effects of asbestos were identified, asbestos was widely used as insulation and fireproofing in buildings because of its heat resistance and strong insulating properties, and it can still be found in some older buildings. e inhalation of asbestos fibers into the lungs can result in a variety of adverse health effects, including inflammation of the lungs, respiratory ailments (e.g., asbestosis, which is scarring of lung tissue that results in constricted breathing), and cancer (e.g., lung cancer and mesothelioma, which is cancer of the linings of the lungs and abdomen). e U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned use of most asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs) in 1977 due to their link to mesothelioma. As a result, present sources of ACMs are primarily buildings that were constructed prior to 1977.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 172, Packet Page 500 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-7
Benzene
Benzene (C6H6) is a known carcinogen ubiquitously emitted by the marketing and burning of gasoline. Although benzene is treated as a substance without a carcinogenic threshold, health effects other than cancer are not expected to occur at usual ambient levels; however, in areas with elevated benzene levels, such as near gasoline dispensing facilities, the added lifetime cancer risk from ambient air benzene exposure ranges from 22 to 170 cases per million for every part per billion.10 Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel PM is a type of fine PM generated by diesel-fueled equipment and vehicles such as those used for freight and goods movement, construction, and industrial activities. Short-term exposure to diesel can cause acute irritation (e.g., eye, throat, and bronchial), neurophysiological symptoms (e.g., lightheadedness and nausea), and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough and phlegm). e U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that diesel exhaust is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.”11
Inorganic Lead
Although lead (Pb) is a naturally occurring mineral formed in the earth’s crust, “inorganic lead” refers to substances that do not contain carbon but include metallic lead and is considered a potential human carcinogen. More than cancer, however, ambient air exposure to inorganic lead PM at levels below the CAAQS could lead to significant health concerns including neurodevelopmental effects in children and increases in blood pressure and related cardiovascular conditions in adults.

Although leaded automobile (on-road) fuel has been banned in the U.S. since 1995, major sources of outdoor inorganic lead emissions in California include stationary point and area source fuel combustion, aircra fuel combustion, industrial metal melting, autobody refinishing, cement manufacturing, and incineration. Inorganic lead emissions may deposit and accumulate in soil for many years, and lead-contaminated dust particles could become airborne by wind and agricultural activities.

Indoor concentrations of airborne lead are typically a result of outdoor air particle infiltration, but activities that disturb lead-based paint, such as remodeling or paint removal, can release large amounts of lead-bearing particles into the air. Lead has been banned for use in residential paint since 1978, but housing units built prior to this date are likely to contain lead-based paint.

Additionally, lead-based paints are still allowed in industrial, military, and marine applications.

Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene (C2Cl4, also known as tetrachloroethylene, “perc,” or PCE) is a nonflammable, colorless liquid used as a solvent for a wide variety of industrial and commercial activities including 10 California Air Resources Board and Department of Health Services, Report to the Scientific Review Panel on Benzene, November 27, 1984, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/id/summary/benzene.pdf. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Diesel Engine Exhaust; CASRN N.A., February 28, 2003, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0642_summary.pdf#nameddest=woe.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 173, Packet Page 501 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-8 City of Monterey
dry cleaning, degreasing, paints and coatings, adhesives, aerosols, printing inks, silicones, rug shampoos, and laboratory solvents. A large majority of perchloroethylene emissions result from dry cleaning and degreasing operations. It is a potential carcinogen that may also cause acute toxic health effects, including skin and eye irritation, burns, blistering, and elevated heart rate, as a result of prolonged exposure. Massive acute doses or chronic exposure can affect the central nervous system or liver. However, average ambient or indoor air exposures to perchloroethylene is not expected to have noncarcinogenic chronic health effects.12 ODORS
Odors is a pollutant concern in the NCCAB that represents emissions of one or more pollutants that are a nuisance to healthy persons and may trigger respiratory illnesses. Pollutants associated with objectionable odors include sulfur compounds and methane. Typical sources of odors include landfills, rendering plants, chemical plants, agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, and refineries. Odors are a complex problem that can be caused by minute quantities of substances, but the nuisance level of an odor may vary due to subjectivity.According to MBARD guidelines, projects that would emit pollutants associated with objectionable odors in substantial concentrations could result in significant impacts if odors would cause injury, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or would endanger the comfort, health, or safety of the public; such projects should assess the impact on existing or reasonably foreseeable sensitive receptors using a protocol determined with MBARD.

EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
Ambient Criteria Pollutant Concentrations
ere are seven MBARD-operated ambient air quality monitoring stations located in NCCAB to monitor progress toward air quality standards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and CAAQS. e NAAQS and CAAQS are discussed further below, under the Regulatory Setting section. ere are no monitoring stations in the City of Monterey. e nearest monitoring station is approximately 12 miles southeast in Carmel Valley; however, the Salinas station (approximately 16 miles northeast) is used to characterize ambient air quality because it is more representative of climate and meteorological conditions in Monterey. Table 3.3-1 summarizes data for criteria air pollutant levels from the Salinas monitoring station from 2020 to 2022, the most recent three-year period for which there is complete data, except for PM10 where no data were available. Table 3.3-1 shows that PM2.5 concentrations were in violation of federal standards in 2020.

Federal and state standards for other pollutants were not exceeded. ese existing PM2.5 violations of ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to this pollutant may experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.
12 California Air Resources Board and Department of Health Services, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking: Staff Report/Executive Summary – Proposed Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant, August 1991, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/id/summary/perchlor.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 174, Packet Page 502 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-9
Sources: California Air Resources Board, iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics – Top 4 Summary (2020-2023), Monterey County, Salinas-#3), https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php., 2023; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Outdoor Air Quality Data, Monitor Values Reports (Carbon Monoxide, 2020-2022, Monterey County, Salinas 3), Last updated August 22, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.

Table 3.3-1: Ambient Air Quality (Salinas Monitoring Station, 2020-2022) Pollutant Standards 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.073 0.064 0.057
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.057 0.052 0.049
Number of days standard exceeded a
CAAQS 1-hour (> 0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 8-hour (> 0.070 ppm) 0 0 0
NAAQS 8-hour (> 0.070 ppm) 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 1.6 7.5 6.7
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.2 1.3 1.3
Number of days standard exceeded a
NAAQS 1-hour (> 35.0 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (> 20.0 ppm) 0 0 0
NAAQS 8-hour (> 9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 8-hour (> 9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.032 0.027 0.030 State second-highest 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.028 0.027 0.028 Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.004 0.003 –
Number of days standard exceeded a
CAAQS 1-hour (0.180 ppm) 0 0 0
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) b, c
National maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 87.0 19.7 23.8 National second-highest 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 81.4 19.6 17.7 State maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 87.0 19.7 23.8 State second-highest 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 81.4 19.6 17.7 National annual average concentration (µg/m3) 6.8 4.8 5.1 State annual average concentration (µg/m3) 6.8 6.8 5.1
Measured number of days standard exceeded a
NAAQS 24-hour (> 35 µg/m3) 9 0 0
Notes:
a. An exceedance is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard. b. National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods.
c. State statistics are based on approved local samplers and local conditions data. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. ppm = parts per million; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; µg/m3
= micrograms per cubic meter, mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter, – = no data available ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 175, Packet Page 503 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-10 City of Monterey
Existing TAC Sources and Health Risks
e MBARD regulates TACs from new or modified sources under Rule 1000 and a Board-approved protocol, which apply to any source that requires a permit to construct or operate and has the potential to emit carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic TACs. Noncarcinogenic TAC sources must apply reasonable control technology. Carcinogenic TAC sources are also required to install best control technology and reduce cancer risk to less than one incident (of contracted cancer over the course of a lifetime) per 100,000 population. In addition, if a new or modified source of hazardous emissions is within 1,000 feet from a school site, MBARD is required to notify families of enrolled children and all persons within 1,000 feet of the source before approving any permits. If a project involves purchasing or constructing a new school site, the lead agency must consult MBARD to identify facilities that emit hazardous air pollutants within one-quarter mile of the site.

Existing facilities are regulated by MBARD Rule 1003, Air Toxic Emissions Inventory and Risk Assessments, which requires that potential noncancer health effects from acute and chronic exposure to toxic emissions are compared to reference exposure levels. Any increased cancer risk resulting from an existing facility’s emissions must be less than one incident per 100,000 population.

According to the EPA’s AirToxScreen Mapping Tool (based on 2019 emissions), there are 20 facilities that emit TACs in Monterey, including gasoline dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, and military facilities. Table 3.3-2 shows the existing stationary emission sources within the Planning Area.

Tetrachloroethylene, a byproduct of dry cleaning, represents nearly the entire share of TACs emitted by these facilities, followed far behind by benzene from gas stations. However, the greatest health risks in the area are posed by formaldehyde and carbon tetrachloride. Cumulatively, cancer risk is low overall, ranging from about 10 to 20 cases of contracted cancer over a lifetime per million population. Noncancer hazard indices for respiratory, neurological, liver, kidney, and immunological risks are also well below the threshold beyond which adverse noncancer effects are likely to occur.13
Aside from stationary sources, emissions of TACs in and around the Planning Area are also generated from mobile sources, which include on-road and off-road vehicles. High-volume roadways and those used for goods movement are more likely to be frequented by diesel-fueled vehicles, and certain commercial or industrial uses may also attract heavy-duty vehicle trips, idling, and/or loading activities that emit diesel or other exhaust pollutants. CARB considers “high-volume roadways” as those that have traffic in excess of 100,000 vehicles on an average day (per California Public Resources Code Section 21151.8).
14 Truck emissions are also more likely to be concentrated along the City’s designated truck routes, including portions of Highway 1, Highway 68, Highway 218, Del Monte Avenue, Fremont Street, Pacific Street, Munras Avenue/Abrego Street, Washington Street, Franklin Street, Tyler Street, Lighthouse Avenue, Foam Street, David Avenue. 13 United States Environmental Protection Agency, AirToxScreen Mapping Tool, Air Toxics Screening Assessment, Last Updated May 2, 2023, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a2eea9c204004158a85a18371d6883bc. 14 California Air Resources Board Research Division, Technical Advisory: Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways, California Environmental Protection Agency, April 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2017-10/rd_technical_advisory_final.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 176, Packet Page 504 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-11
e City identifies “major thoroughfares,” which are roadways that carry through traffic and provide a network connecting to the State highway system, within its transportation network in its Circulation Element. ese major thoroughfares complement the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s Congestion Management Plan and include:
• Foam Street, from Lighthouse Avenue to City Limit
• Lighthouse Avenue, from Washington Street to City Limit • Del Monte Avenue, from Washington Street to City Limit • Fremont Street, from Camino Aguajito to Abrego Street • North Fremont Street, from City Limit to Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway) • Munras Avenue/Abrego Street, from Fremont Street to Via Zaragoza Table 3.3-2: Existing Stationary Sources and Emissions within the Planning Area Facility Name
2019 Facility Emissions (tons)
Tetrachloroethylene Benzene
7-Eleven Store 23135 - 0.003
7-Eleven Store 37983 - 0.006
Alliance Mart - 0.004
Chevron Station 9-1060 - 0.007
The Corner Store Co. - 0.004
Country Club Cleaners 1.288 -
Department of the Army – POM - 0.001
Evelyn’s Continental Cleaners 0.508 -
Lucky Zone Inc. - 0.002
Mark J. & Carolyn A. Pappas - 0.001
Mobil/Tesoro 68167 - 0.010
Monterey 76 - 0.004
Monterey Bay Gas & Mini Mart - 0.002
Naval Postgraduate School - 0.003
Neptune Oil - 0.003
One Hour Martinizing-Monterey 1.561 -
Quick Stop Markets, Inc. Station 90 - 0.003
Rainbow Cleaners 0.644 -
Selby Petroleum Inc. - 0.002
United Pacific 5686 - 0.009
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019 AirToxScreen: Assessment Results, May 2, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/AirToxScreen/2019-airtoxscreen-assessment-results.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 177, Packet Page 505 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Selby Petroleum Inc.

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 Dr
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper RagsdaleDr
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
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
7-Eleven
Store 23135
Rainbow
Cleaners
One Hour
Martinizing-Monterey
Country Club Cleaners
Alliance
Mart
7-Eleven
Store 37983
Mobil/Tesoro
68167
Chevron Station
9-1060
United Pacific
5686
Lucky
Zone Inc.

Corner Store
Co. (The)
Department Of
The Army - POM
Evelyns
Continental
Cleaners
Mark J. &
Carolyn A.

Pappas Naval
Postgraduate
School
Quik Stop
Markets, Inc.

Station 90
Monterey Bay Gas
& Mini Mart
Neptune Oil
Monterey 76
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 3.3-1 Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors and Emissions Sources.mxd Emissions Sources
Existing CO Hotspot
Potential Future CO Hotspot
Designated Truck Route (Mobile Sources)
500-foot Buffer from Truck Route
Existing Stationary Source
300-foot Buffer from Stationary Source
Area Source (Land Uses)
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive Land Uses
Sites Available for Housing
City of Monterey
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Figure 3.3-1: Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors and Emissions Sources µ Data Source: Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), 2023; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019 AirToxScreen: Assessment Results, May 2, 2023; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 178, Packet Page 506 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-13
An increase in vehicle trips associated with population and employment growth under the Proposed Plan may exacerbate existing TAC emissions sources and CO hotspots or lead to new ones. For example, motor vehicles may spend more time idling at intersections or road segments that experience heavy traffic and/or delays, as measured by peak-hour volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios,15 concentrating local levels of PM, diesel, and CO from vehicular emissions. According to MBARD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) CO Protocol, urban street canyons and intersections or road segments near stationary sources of CO where the project would generate substantial traffic or areas with substantial heavy-duty truck traffic should also be studied. Based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) modeling conducted for the Proposed Plan, the V/C ratio at three of the ten intersections studied in the Planning Area currently indicates that volume exceeds capacity, including:
• Josselyn Canyon Road/Highway 68
• Olmsted Road/Highway 68
• Camino Aguajito/Aguajito Road/Fremont Street
Additionally, according to VMT modeling, projected V/C ratios indicate that congestion would worsen compared to existing conditions at nine of the ten intersectionsin the future, with or without the Proposed Plan. Under the Proposed Plan, these would include:
• Camino El Estero/Del Monte Avenue
• Abrego Street/Fremont Street
• English Avenue/Del Monte Avenue
• Canyon Del Rey Boulevard-Highway 218/Fremont Street
• Josselyn Canyon Road/Highway 68
• Olmsted Road/ Highway 68
• Monterra Road/Highway 218/Highway 68
• Canyon Del Rey Boulevard-Highway 218/General Jim Moore Boulevard • Camino Aguajito/Aguajito Road/Fremont Street
In addition, air and maritime activities associated with the Monterey Regional Airport, U.S. Navy properties, and the harbor are also potential sources of TACs. ere are no existing or proposed railways in the Planning Area. Figure 3.3-1 shows the existing mobile sources in the Planning Area.

Locations of Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive land uses are defined as locations where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the air quality standards (i.e., 24-hour or 8-hour).

Typical sensitive land uses include residences, hospitals, and schools. Parks and playgrounds, where sensitive receptors (e.g., children and seniors) are present may also be considered sensitive land uses.
15 MBARD’s recommended screening methodology for CO hotspots and the California Department of Transportation CO Protocol use level-of-service (LOS) metrics to identify potential CO hotspots. V/C ratios are used to identify locations where vehicle idling, congestion, and delay may lead to increased air pollution.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 179, Packet Page 507 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-14 City of Monterey
e principal land uses in the Planning Area are residential, commercial, industrial, parks and open space, and public/semi-public (military). Detached single-family homes are the most dominant development within the city, and residential neighborhoods are generally clustered east of Pacific Street and south of Lighthouse Avenue, between the NSA Monterey Naval Postgraduate School and El Estero Park, south of Highway 68 and east of Sylvan Road, and in the eastern portion of the city on both sides of North Fremont Street. Other potential places in the Planning Area where sensitive receptors may gather include schools and parks that are distributed throughout the Planning Area, typically close to residential areas. ese sensitive receptors are most likely to be exposed to air pollutants and TACs in areas where they interface with concentrations of commercial and industrial uses; areas bordering commercial or industrial uses include along Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Street, Munras Avenue/Abrego Street, Del Monte Avenue, and North Fremont Street.

Regional Attainment Status
Local monitoring data are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified for the ambient air quality standards, as defined below. Table 3.3-3 summarizes the attainment status of Monterey County; the only pollutant for which Monterey County has nonattainment status is PM10.
• Nonattainment: assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations consistently violate the standard in question.
• Maintenance: assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations exceeded the standard in question in the past but are no longer in violation of that standard. • Attainment: assigned to areas where pollutant concentrations meet the standard in question over a designated period of time.
• Unclassified: assigned to areas where data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard in question.

Table 3.3-3: Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for Monterey County portion of the NCCAB
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (8-hour) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Lead Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (No Federal Standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (No Federal Standard) Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles (No Federal Standard) Unclassified Sources: California Air Resources Board, Area Designations for Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2022, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 180, Packet Page 508 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-15
Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the project area is regulated through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. ese agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. e agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the air basin are discussed below.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards e EPA is responsible for implementing national air quality programs, as governed by the federal Clean Air Act, which was first enacted in 1963 and most recently amended in 1990. e Clean Air Act establishes primary and secondary NAAQS for the six criteria air pollutants [ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead] discussed in the Environmental Setting section; the NAAQS are shown in Table 3.3-4. e primary standards protect public health and the secondary standards protect public welfare. e Clean Air Act also requires each state to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. States with nonattainment areas must revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the Clean Air Act and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, EPA may prepare a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards require substantial improvements in fuel economy and reductions in emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, as well as greenhouse gases, from vehicles sold in the United States. The CAFE standards regulate how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel, with standards for light-duty vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks) and separately for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and engines. The light-duty vehicle fuel economy standards are established for model years through 2026, and standards for model years 2027-2032 were proposed on July 28, 2023. Heavy-duty vehicle standards are established for model years through 2027, and proposed standards apply to model years 2030-2035 (with 2027 standards applying to interim model years). In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NHTSA released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for public comment in September 2023. If finalized, the proposal would require an industry fleet-wide average of approximately 58 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2032, by increasing fuel economy by two percent year-over-year for passenger cars, four percent year-over-year for light trucks, and 10 percent year-over-year for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 181, Packet Page 509 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-16 City of Monterey
The proposal is intended to provide gas cost savings, conserve energy, and provide flexibility to industry using available fuel-saving technologies.16
Table 3.3-4: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant
Average Time California
Standards
National Standards a
Primary Secondary
Ozone
1-hour 0.09 ppm None b None b
8–hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Particulate Matter (PM10)
24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual mean 20 µg/m3 None None
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
24-hour None 35 µg/m3 35 µg/m3
Annual mean 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8-hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None
1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm None
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Annual mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm
1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm None
Sulfur Dioxide c (SO2)
Annual mean None 0.030 ppm None
24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppm None
3-hour None None 0.5 ppm
1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm None
Lead
30-day Average 1.5 µg/m3 None None
Calendar quarter None 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3
3-month average None 0.15 µg/m3 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 None None
Visibility-reducing Particles 8-hour –d None None
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm None None
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm None None
16 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Corporate Average Fuel Economy,” U.S. Department of Transportation, last updated September 28, 2023, accessed November 21, 2023, https://www.nhtsa.gov/lawsregulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 182, Packet Page 510 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-17
Table 3.3-4: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant
Average Time California
Standards
National Standards a
Primary Secondary
Notes:
a. National standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are intended to protect public health, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare and the environment.
b. The federal 1-hour standard of 12 parts per hundred million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced because it was employed for such a long period and is a benchmark for SIPs. c. The annual and 24-hour NAAQS for SO2 only apply for 1 year after designation of the new 1-hour standard to those areas that were previously in nonattainment for 24-hour and annual NAAQS. d. CAAQS for visibility-reducing particles is defined by an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer—visibility of 10 miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent.

CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2016, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf.

Emission Standards for On-road Heavy-Duty Vehicles
In December 2000, EPA signed the Heavy-Duty Highway Program, which established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new heavy-duty highway engines. In December 2022, EPA finalized the Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, part of the Clean Trucks Plan (consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order 140937) to further reduce air pollution from heavy-duty engines and vehicles by establishing new, more stringent emission standards that apply to a wider range of heavy-duty engine operating conditions and must be met for a longer period of when these engines operate on the road. e final rulemaking sets new numeric standards and changes key provisions of the existing heavy-duty emission control program to reduce emissions of NOx, PM, hydrocarbons, CO, and TACs from heavy-duty engines beginning no later than model year 2027. EPA estimates that the final rule will reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in 2040 by more than 40 percent and almost 50 percent by 2045, with corresponding decreases in ambient concentrations of pollutants such as ozone and PM2.5.17 Emission Standards for Off-Road Diesel Engines
EPA has adopted multiple tiers of emission standards that regulate all new nonroad (off-road) diesel engines used in machines such as excavators and other construction equipment; farm tractors and other agricultural equipment; forklifts; airport ground service equipment; and generators, pumps, compressors, and other utility equipment. Tier 1 standards were phased in on newly manufactured 17 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, 88 Fed. Reg. 4296 (January 24, 2023) (to be codified at 40 CFR Parts 2, 59, 60, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1027, 1030, 1031, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, 1066, 1068, and 1090). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR2023-01-24/pdf/2022-27957.pdf ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 183, Packet Page 511 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-18 City of Monterey
equipment from model years 1996 through 2000, Tier 2 standards apply to model years 2001 through 2006, and Tier 3 standards apply to model years 2006 through 2008. Tier 4 standards, which integrate engine and fuel controls as a system to gain the greatest emission reductions and require manufacturers to produce engines with advanced emission-control technologies, were phased in from model years 2008 through 2015 and apply to all model years thereafter. To prevent damage to emission control devices by sulfur, EPA has also adopted requirements for in-use diesel fuel to decrease sulfur levels (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel) by more than 99 percent, with a maximum sulfur concentration of 15 parts per million.

Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs, federally referred to as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. e health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage; or short-term acute affects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches.

For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 3.3-4). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure. EPA and CARB regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum available control technology or best available control technology for air toxics to limit emissions.
e Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (“TSCA,” 15 USC §2601 et seq.) provides EPA with the authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions addressing production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint. e TSCA was updated by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act of the 21st Century in 2016, requiring additional enforcement measures, risk-based chemical assessments, increased public transparency, and more consistent funding. Demolition and/or renovation activities are subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP,” 40 CFR Part 63), as required by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments. For example, demolition of existing facilities that contain asbestos would be subject to the asbestos NESHAP regulations to protect the public by minimizing the release of asbestos fibers during activities involving the processing, handling, and disposal of ACM.

EPA also addresses certain HAPs and common sources through specific regulations, such as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which built on the 1971 prohibition of lead-based paint in federally funded, built, or rehabilitated residential structures and cooking, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 184, Packet Page 512 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-19
drinking, or eating utensils (42 USC Ch. 63, §4831). Under these laws, homes and child-occupied facilities such as day care centers and kindergartens built prior to 1978 are subject to additional requirements to prevent lead-based poisoning. Lead is also regulated by the TSCA and NESHAPs for primary and secondary lead smelting as well as other NESHAPs that control lead that is emitted along with other HAPs.

STATE REGULATIONS
California Clean Air Act and California Ambient Air Quality Standards In 1988, the state legislature adopted the California Clean Air Act, which established a statewide air pollution control program. Under this act, all air districts in the state are required to meet the CAAQS by the earliest practical date, with increasingly stringent requirements for areas that require more time to achieve the standards (rather than by precise attainment deadlines). e CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility-reducing particles, and vinyl chloride. e CAAQS and NAAQS are listed together in Table 3.3-4. CARB and regional air districts bear responsibility for achieving California’s air quality standards. e standards are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans, which are incorporated into the SIP. In California, EPA has delegated authority to prepare SIPs to CARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts, such as MBARD. CARB has traditionally established state air quality standards, maintained oversight authority for air quality planning, developed programs for reducing emissions from motor vehicles, developed air emissions inventories, collected air quality and meteorological data, and approved SIPs.
e California Clean Air Act substantially increases the authority and responsibilities of air districts by designating air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requiring air districts to prepare air quality plans, and granting air districts the authority to implement transportation control measures. e act also emphasizes control over “indirect and area-wide sources” of air pollutant emissions, giving local air pollution control districts explicit authority to regulate indirect sources and establish air toxic control measures.

AirborneToxic Control Measures
CARB has developed multiple airborne toxic control measures (ATCMs), which are codified in the California Code of Regulations, to reduce air emissions from TAC emissions sources that adversely affect public health. e ATCMs focus on reducing emissions from on- and off-road mobile sources—such as school buses, solid waste collection vehicles, diesel-powered portable engines, transport refrigeration units, port and intermodal rail yard equipment, and ocean-going vessels— as well as stationary sources – such as gas stations, dry cleaners, medical waste incinerators, construction and grading operations, metal melting, and chrome plating shops, automobile service shops, and others.

Low-Emission Vehicle Program
CARB adopted the first Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations in 1990 (now referred to as the LEV I regulations), requiring manufacturers to introduce progressively cleaner light- and mediumATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 185, Packet Page 513 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-20 City of Monterey
duty vehicles for model years 1994 through 2003. LEV I included tiers of increasingly more stringent exhaust emissions standards for low-emission vehicles, a mechanism for requiring manufacturers to phase in a progressively cleaner mix of vehicles year-over-year, and a requirement that a specific percentage of passenger cars and light-duty trucks be zero-emission vehicles with no exhaust or evaporative emissions. In 2012, CARB adopted the LEV III regulations as part of the Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking package, which also includes the state’s zero-emission vehicle regulation, to establish increasingly stringent emission standards for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases for new passenger vehicles through the 2025 model year.18
Toxic Air Contaminant Regulation
e California Health and Safety Code defines TACs as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. CARB has formally identified over 200 substances and groups of substances as TACs.
19 Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to the brain and nervous system, and respiratory disorders. California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act, otherwise known as the “Tanner Act”) and AB 2588 (the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987, or “Hot Spots Act”). AB 1807 created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics, whereby the California OEHHAis required to develop guidelines that provide the scientific basis for the values used to assess the health risks of emissions exposure from facilities and new sources.20 AB 2588 supplements this program by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks.

Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation
On November 17, 2022, CARB approved amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation (Off-Road Regulation) (initially adopted in 2007) to further reduce emissions from all diesel-fueled equipment or alternative-fuel diesel equipment with a compression-ignition engine greater than 25 horsepower (e.g., tractors, bulldozers, backhoes) as well as dual-fuel equipment. e amendments, which will phase in starting in 2024 through 2036, will require fleets to phase out use of the oldest and highest polluting off-road diesel vehicles in California, prohibit the addition of high-emitting vehicles to a fleet, and require use of R99 or R100 renewable diesel in off-road diesel vehicles used in construction, mining, industrial operations, and other industries. CARB expect that the amendments will generate additional reductions in over 31,000 tons of NOx and more than 2,700 tons of PM2.5 from 2024 through 2038 – half of which are expected within the first five years of implementation (by 2029).
18 California Air Resources Board, “Low-Emission Vehicle Program,” accessed November 22, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-emission-vehicle-program/about. 19 California Air Resources Board, “CARB-Identified Toxic Air Contaminants,” accessed November 22, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants 20 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015,
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 186, Packet Page 514 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-21
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Guidance
In 2005, CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, which is intended to encourage local land use agencies to consider health risks from air pollution before approving new sensitive receptor sites (such as homes or day care centers). Adverse air quality impacts may be overlooked when siting new sensitive receptors because such projects do not need air quality permits as industrial or stationary sources of air pollution are required to obtain. CARB makes “advisory” siting recommendations (i.e., buffer distances) for new sensitive land uses near freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing stations, as excerpted below:
• Freeways and High-Traffic Roads. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
• Dry Cleaners using Perchloroethylene. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district. • Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.21 ese recommendations were established based on data showing that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as much as 80 percent with the recommended separation; however, local agencies should consider conducting site-specific studies about potential health risks and balancing land use decisions to meet housing and climate objectives, among other goals, as appropriate.

LOCAL REGULATIONS
Monterey Bay Air Resources District
At the local level, responsibilities of air quality districts include overseeing stationary-source emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality stations, overseeing agricultural burning permits, and reviewing air quality–related sections of environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). e air quality districts are also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws and for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are met. e Proposed Plan falls under the jurisdiction of MBARD, which has local air quality jurisdiction over projects in the NCCAB including Monterey County. 21 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective [Table 1-1], April 2005, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/221458-6/attachment/UNr-g159CWr0G4DR8q6daNdAKT3RJTd8gGQCfz4wqFfl-eNdZNQEqjf8tfls1x6Gsae7YqpXwtFIZBd0.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 187, Packet Page 515 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-22 City of Monterey
Air Quality Management Plan
MBARD has also adopted air quality management plans (AQMPs) toward meeting CAAQS, the most recent of which was the 2016 AQMP, adopted in March 2017, that updates the prior AQMP (the 2012 Triennial Plan) based on a review of air quality trends analysis, emissions inventory, and mobile source programs between 2012-2015.22 e 2016 AQMP reports only on the attainment of the ozone CAAQS, for which the NCCAB was in nonattainment or nonattainment-transitional status until 2020. As shown in Table 3.3-3, the NCCAB has maintained attainment for ozone CAAQS since 2020. e NCCAB has been in attainment of the NAAQS for ozone since 2012, including aer the national standard was revised in 2015. e 2016 AQMP update builds on information developed in past AQMPs to document MBARD’s progress toward attaining the ozone CAAQS (for which the basin was in nonattainment at the time of adoption); therefore, some sections of the 2008 AQMP and 2012 Triennial Plan are incorporated by reference for elements that have not been updated. As such, the 2016 AQMP does not specifically include control measures. In fact, findings from the 2016 AQMP report that control measures have not been implemented or have been marginally effective since 2008, and MBARD has committed to further evaluating control measures for the next update of the AQMP. Instead, the 2016 AQMP focuses on regional planning strategies as a means of making progress toward attaining the 8-hour ozone standard – specifically, through grant programs that will reduce ROG and NOx emissions by offering incentives to reduce emissions from transportation sources, marine vessels, agricultural irrigation pumps, and vehicles. Key programs and rules identified in the 2016 AQMP that have and are anticipated to continue reducing emissions while population increases include: CARB’s Low Emission Vehicle Program, CARB’s Off-Road Motor Vehicle Program, CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, Pavley Fuel Standards (AB 1493), Rule 432 (Emissions from Electric Power Boilers), Rule 1002 (Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, and Rule 426 (Architectural Coatings).

In addition, MBARD recognizes the importance of regional efforts in reducing regional pollutants. ese efforts include regional land use and transportation planning, such as under SB 375 (Sustainable Communities Act of 2008) (described further below), and other greenhouse gas emissions reductions regulations and programs that help reduce mobile and area source emissions.

Senate Bill 656 Implementation Plan
In 2005, MBARD prepared a report on the attainment of the California PM Standards in the NCCAB to fulfill the requirements of SB 656 to reduce public exposure to particulate matter. As shown in Table 3.3-3, the NCCAB is an attainment area for PM2.5 but is a nonattainment area for PM10. However, until SB 656 was adopted in 2003, there was no requirement for local air districts in nonattainment to adopt control measures to make progress toward achieving the CAAQS for PM10.

As such, MBARD prepared the SB 656 Implementation Plan separately from the AQMP with a list of the most readily available, feasible, and cost-effective control measures that could be implemented by the air district to reduce ambient levels of PM. ere are 13 control measures included in the 2005 report, such as agricultural best management practices focused on agricultural tilling and unpaved roads, grant incentive programs for implementing PM10 fugitive dust control measures, 22 Monterey Bay Air Resources District, 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan, Adopted on March 15, 2017, https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 188, Packet Page 516 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-23
mineral processing and cement manufacturing best management practices, an ACTM for naturally occurring asbestos, and an ATCM for agricultural pumps.23 District Rules and Regulations
In addition, MBARD also adopts rules and regulations to improve existing and future air quality. e Proposed Plan may be subject to the following district rules. • Regulation 2, Permits (Rules 200-220). is regulation establishes the procedures, standards, and requirements for review and permit issuance for air pollution sources and control equipment toward attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and CAAQS under the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. Rules that are most relevant to the Proposed Plan include: 200 (Permits Required), 207 (Review of New or Modified Sources), 213 (Continuous Emissions Monitoring), 216 (Permit Requirements for Wastewater and Sewage Treatment Facilities), 217 (Annual Review of Permits), 218 (Title V: Federal Operating Permits), and 220 (Agricultural Diesel Engine Registration). • Regulation 4, Prohibitions (Rules 400-441). is regulation establishes the requirements and standards that limit air pollutant emissions from various operations and stationary sources. Rules that are most relevant to the Proposed Plan, by the pollutant type addressed, include:
- Particulate Matter and general air pollution: 403 (Particulate Matter), 423 (New Source Performance Standards), 438 (Open Outdoor Fires), 436 (Title V: General Prohibitory Rule)
- Ozone Precursors (ROGs/VOCs, NOx): 404 (Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides), 416 (Organic Solvents), 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt), 426 (Architectural Coatings), 429 (Applications of Nonarchitectural Coatings), 433 (Organic Solvent Cleaning), 434 (Coating of Metal Parts and Products), 441 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters)
- Toxic Air Contaminants (Diesel, Asbestos, Lead): 418 (Transfer of Gasoline into Stationary Storage Containers), 439 (Building Removals), 424 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
- Odors: 402 (Nuisances)
• Regulation 10, Toxic Air Contaminants (Rules 1000-1010): is regulation outlines guidance for evaluating and controlling TAC emissions and their potential health risks.

Rules that are most relevant to the Proposed Plan include: 1000 (Permit Guidelines and Requirements for Sources Emitting Toxic Air Contaminants), 1002 (Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks), 1003 (Air Toxics Emissions Inventory and Risk Assessments), 1008 (Air Toxic Control Measures), 1009 (Burning of Treated Wood), 1010 (Air Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines). 23 Monterey Bay Air Resources District, 2005 Report on Attainment of the California Particulate Matter Standards in the Monterey Bay Region, [Senate Bill 656 Implementation Plan], December 1, 2005, https://www.mbard.org/files/b0f496297/358+%281%29.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 189, Packet Page 517 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-24 City of Monterey
CEQA Guidance
In 2008, MBARD developed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in alignment with California’s SIP for the NCCAB (1994 Maintenance Plan and Contingency Control Measures for the Monterey Bay Region). e CEQA Air Quality Guidelines includes recommended screening processes and advisory emission thresholds for criteria air pollutants and health-based risk thresholds for TACs to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance (for significance criteria and regulatory requirements/guidance current to February 2008) of a project’s emissions. 24 ese
thresholds are shown in Table 3.3-6. It is noted that because the MBARD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were developed in 2008, some of the referenced standards and guidance are no longer applicable. For example, the CO screening procedure refers to LOS standards that are no longer used for CEQA transportation impact analysis per SB 743. Alternative methods based on State (e.g., CARB and Caltrans’ CO Protocol) guidance have been supplemented as applicable.

MBARD has also adopted Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (henceforth referred to as the “CEQA Implementation” document), last revised in February 2016, that outlines the district’s approach to implementing CEQA when MBARD is the lead agency. is document includes air quality thresholds of significance that are recommended for CEQA review of projects, including plans, within the NCCAB. e criteria pollutant emissions thresholds are based on the offset requirements in Rule 207 (Review of New or Modified Sources), while air toxics thresholds are based on current rules and regulations (i.e., Rules 1000 and 1003) used to evaluate human health impacts from toxics. A proposed project will not have a significant air quality effect on the environment if the criteria (described under the Significance Criteria section below) are met.

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
e Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the metropolitan planning organization and council of governments for the Monterey Bay Area that performs regional transportation planning and manages the region’s transportation demand model in coordination with regional transportation planning agencies, transit providers, and other stakeholders and organizations with interest in or responsibility for transportation planning and programming across San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties. AMBAG also prepares regional housing, population, and employment forecasts that are utilized in a variety of regional plans, including the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), in compliance with SB 375. e Final 2045 MTP/SCS and Final 2022 Regional Growth Forecast were adopted in June 2022. Since December 2010, AMBAG no longer provides consistency determinations for air quality; however, MBARD uses the growth projections from the MTP/SCS to prepare the emission inventory of the AQMP. e 2016 AQMP uses the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast prepared by AMBAG. Table 3.3-5 shows the subregional population, housing, and employment forecasts for Monterey in 2030 and 2035 from both the 2014 and 2022 Regional Growth Forecasts. In general, AMBAG projects that the City of Monterey will represent a smaller 24 Monterey Bay Area Air Resources District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Adopted October 1995, Last Revised February 2008, https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 190, Packet Page 518 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-25
share of Monterey County’s population and housing over time through 2035, while the city’s share of countywide employment will increase slightly.25
Table 3.3-5: Subregional Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts for Monterey
2014 Regional Growth Forecast 2022 Regional Growth Forecast Geography 2030 2035 2030 2035
Population
AMBAG Region 856,000 885,000 824,992 842,189
Monterey County 479,487 495,086 467,068 476,028
City of Monterey 29,743 30,647 28,650 a 29,032 a
Percent county share 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1%
Housing Units
AMBAG Region 295,936 303,245 288,386 296,352
Monterey County 154,585 157,992 153,852 159,100
City of Monterey 13,750 14,001 13,920 b 14,209 b
Percent county share 8.9% 8.9% 9.0% 8.9%
Employment
AMBAG Region 362,900 372,800 418,132 425,845
Monterey County 216,486 222,137 249,613 253,918
City of Monterey 33,597 34,828 42,506 43,452
Percent county share 15.5% 15.7% 17.0% 17.1%
Notes:
a. Includes both civilian population and population from the Presidio of Monterey Defense Language Institute (DLI) and Naval Postgraduate School. DLI and Naval Postgraduate School population is projected to remain relatively the same, at 3,421, while the Monterey balance is projected to grow slightly to 25,611 by 2035.
b. Includes housing for both civilian and DLI and Naval Postgraduate School populations. DLI and Naval Postgraduate School housing is projected to remain relatively the same, at 432, while the Monterey balance is projected to grow slightly to 13,777 by 2035.

Source: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Appendix A: 2022 Regional Growth Forecast, 2022; Appendix A: 2014 Regional Growth Forecast, 2014. 25 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2014 Regional Growth Forecast Technical Documentation, [2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Appendix A], Adopted June 11, 2014, https://ambag.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/FINAL%20Adopted%20Forecast%20and%20Documentation_0.pdf; Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2022 Regional Growth Forecast Technical Documentation, [2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Appendix A], Adopted June 15, 2022, https://ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/REVISED_PDFAAppendix%20A_2022%20RGF.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 191, Packet Page 519 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-26 City of Monterey
City of Monterey General Plan
e current City of Monterey was adopted in 2005 and last amended in June 2019. Aside from the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation elements included in the Proposed Plan (2031 General Plan Update), the current General Plan includes goals, policies, and programs that are associated with air quality, excerpted below.

Conservation Element
Goal c. Air Quality: Reduce fixed source and transportation-based air pollution.

Policy c.1. Reduce air pollution generated by motor vehicles by encouraging the use of public transit, car-pooling, bicycles, and walking as alternatives. Policies to achieve these goals are found in the Circulation Element.

Policy c.2. Consider air quality impacts resulting from proximity of residential, commercial and industrial development in the City's development review process, primarily the California Environmental Quality Act.

Policy c.3. Promote cooperation with local and State agencies to develop programs to reduce sources of air pollution.

Monterey City Code
e Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Monterey (Monterey City Code) Section 38- 111(C) establishes performance standards regulating odors in all zoning districts such that “no use, process, or activity shall produce objectionable odors that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of a site.”
Impact Analysis

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Plan would:

Criterion 1: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
Criterion 2: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Criterion 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; Criterion 4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 192, Packet Page 520 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-27
is section presents the emission thresholds that can be used to evaluate the significance level of the primary pollutants of concern discussed in the Environmental Settings section, as well as thresholds and guidance for evaluating potential odors associated with the Proposed Plan.

Local Air District Thresholds
Both MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and CEQA Implementation documents provide recommendations for determining the significance of air quality impacts from a project. Given that both documents use similar criteria, the thresholds from the CEQA Implementation document are used because it is more recently updated (2016, compared to 2008) and therefore better reflects current regulations and best practices. Consistency with 2016 AQMP (Criterion 2) is qualitatively determined based on alignment of policy objectives, in addition to quantitative evaluation based on consistency with AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecasts that are accounted for in the 2016 AQMP’s emissions inventory. Odor impacts (Criterion 4) are also assessed qualitatively, based on consistency with applicable regulations, due to the lack of project-specific information associated with the Proposed Plan.

Project-generated emissions analyzed under Criteria 1 and 3 are generally evaluated using quantitative approaches. MBARD suggests that the Proposed Plan would have a less-thansignificant air quality impact if project-generated criteria pollutant emissions from construction (including exhaust and fugitive dust) and operation (including all mobile, area, and stationary sources) would be less than the emissions thresholds shown in Table 3.3-6. In particular, the Proposed Plan should not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment (i.e., PM10, as shown in Table 3.3-3), and ultimately, should not cause or contribute to a violation of any CAAQS or NAAQS shown in Table 3.3-4. Finally, the Proposed Plan should not exceed MBARD’s adopted health risk public notification thresholds, meaning that project-generated TAC emissions would not exceed a hazard index of 1.0 for acute or chronic impacts and would not exceed a cancer risk of 10 in one million.

Lead agencies must consider, using quantitative analysis whenever possible, both primary (construction, stationary, and mobile source) and secondary (indirect or growth-inducing) impacts of a project. e Proposed Plan is quantitatively evaluated based on the operation of anticipated land use and transportation changes, in addition to policies that help reduce operational emissions from area-wide stationary and mobile sources. Construction-related emissions cannot feasibly be quantified due to lack of project-level information at this time; however, potential and reasonably foreseeable impacts due to construction of projects that may occur as a result of the Proposed Plan are qualitatively assessed for significance. Future individual projects are subject to project-level CEQA review, and projects with emissions in excess of the thresholds shown in Table 3.3-6 would be expected to have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality because an exceedance of the thresholds is anticipated to contribute to CAAQS and NAAQS violations. e MBARD’s project-level thresholds were developed to analyze emissions generated by a single project, and thus, do not lend well to an evaluation of emissions from a land use plan being evaluated at a programmatic level. Large-scale land use plans that consist of numerous individual projects will, by their nature, produce more criteria pollutants than single projects, even if the plans include efficiency measures to reduce future emissions. Use of the project- level thresholds to evaluate land use plans may therefore unfairly penalize the plans, yielding a significant and unavoidable ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 193, Packet Page 521 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality

3.3-28 City of Monterey
conclusion simply due to scale. However, because a comparison to the project-level thresholds is informative to the analysis of the Proposed Plan’s impacts to air quality and given the absence of programmatic-level guidance from MBARD, this analysis is based on the provided project-level thresholds.

Table 3.3-6: MBARD Project-Level Air Quality Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Category/Source Pollutant Emissions Threshold Criteria Pollutants
Construction (exhaust and fugitive dust) +
Operation (all mobile, area, and stationary
project sources)1
NOx
ROG
PM10
PM2.5
CO
137 pounds per day
137 pounds per day
82 pounds per day
55 pounds per day
550 pounds per day
Toxic Air Contaminants
Cancer Risk
Acute or Chronic Impacts
Carcinogenic
Noncarcinogenic
10 in one million

1.0 hazard index2
Notes:

1. Same emissions thresholds apply to both construction and operation of the project. Exceedance of the listed emissions thresholds from construction, operation, or the sum of both would be considered a significant impact.

2. MBARD defines non-cancer risk (hazard index) as an indicator of potential health hazard of a substance with regard to its non-cancer effects, where such effects are assumed to not occur if exposure remains below a reference exposure limit (REL). RELs describe acute and chronic exposure limits (i.e., one-hour maximum and annual average concentrations). Specifically, exposure equal to the REL is a hazard index score of 1.0, and a hazard index score of 2.0 means that the concentration of air toxics is two times more than the exposure level that causes adverse health effects. Substances that cause adverse health effects to the same organs are added together to determine hazard index scores.

Monterey City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Monterey City Council
July 16, 2024