Sources: Monterey Bay Air Resources District, Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, 2016. https://www.mbard.org/files/7b79ff940/WatermarkRemovedFebruary2016MBUAPCD_CEQA+Implementation+Guidelines%28u pdate+to+1996+document%29.pdf
MBARD prepares the AQMP to attain NAAQS and CAAQS based on regional growth projected by AMBAG, and the AQMP is designed to accommodate and offset emissions due to regional growth through basin-wide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.
According to MBARD, projects related directly to population growth will generate populationrelated emissions (e.g., motor vehicles, residential heating and cooling emissions). Populationrelated projects, such as the Proposed Plan, that are consistent with AMBAG’s regional forecasts are considered consistent with the AQMP. As discussed in the Regulatory Settings section, the 2016 AQMP incorporates AMBAG’s 2014 Regional Growth Forecasts, as shown in Table 3.3-5.
Health-Based Thresholds for Project-Generated Pollutants of Human Health Concern
e California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (6 Cal. 5th 502), also known as the Friant Ranch Decision, established that air quality analyses must provide enough detail “for the public to translate the bare [criteria pollutant emissions] numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such a translation is not possible at this time.” e court’s decision notes that environmental documents must attempt to connect a project’s air quality ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 194, Packet Page 522 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-29
impacts to specific health effects or explain why it is not technically feasible to perform such an analysis.
All criteria pollutants generated by the Proposed Plan would be associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma, lower respiratory problems). Criteria pollutants can be classified as either regional pollutants or localized pollutants. Regional pollutants can be transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source. Localized pollutants affect ambient air quality near the emissions source. Ozone is considered a regional criteria pollutant, whereas CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are localized pollutants. PM can be both a local and a regional pollutant, depending on its composition. The primary criteria pollutants of concern generated by the Proposed Plan would be ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), CO, and PM (including diesel). The sections that follow discuss thresholds and analysis considerations for regional and local project-generated criteria pollutants with respect to their human health implications.
Regional Project-Generated Criteria Pollutants
Adverse health effects from regional criteria pollutant emissions, such as ozone precursors and PM, generated by the Proposed Plan are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). Therefore, ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone on a regional scale. Emissions of ROG and NOX generated in an area may not correlate to a specific ozone concentration in that same area. Similarly, some types of PM may be transported over long distances or formed through atmospheric reactions. As such, the magnitude and locations of specific health effects from exposure to increased ozone or regional PM concentrations are the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region, as opposed to a single individual project. Moreover, exposure to regional air pollution does not guarantee that an individual will experience an adverse health effect. As discussed above, there are large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses to air pollutants. These differences are influenced, in part, by the underlying health condition of an individual, which cannot be known.
OEHHA has conducted epidemiological studies on the health effects of particulate matter in California and is working on additional studies concerning other widespread air pollutants identified in the Clean Air Act. ese studies are centered on OEHHA’s legislative mandates to ascertain the air pollution constituents most strongly liked to disease and identify subpopulations most vulnerable to the impacts of pollutants. is research, however, has not yet led to conclusive findings that reliably relate project-level source emissions and health risks. Likewise, models and tools, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) Multi-Pollutant Evaluation Method,26 have been developed to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions to potential community health impacts but are limited in their applicability to reasonably correlate project-level emissions to specific health consequences. at is, although such models are capable of quantifying ozone and any secondary PM formation and associated health effects, these tools were developed to support regional planning and policy analysis and have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations induced by individual projects. erefore, 26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Multi-Pollutant Evaluation Method Technical Document, 2016 Update, November 2016, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/mpem_nov_dec_2016-pdf.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 195, Packet Page 523 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-30 City of Monterey
translating project-generated criteria pollutants to the locations where specific health effects could occur or the resultant number of additional days of nonattainment is not possible with any degree of accuracy.
The technical limitations of existing models (e.g., for correlating project-level regional emissions to specific health consequences) are recognized by air quality management districts throughout the state, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), both of which provided amici curiae briefs in the Friant Ranch litigation. SJVAPCD’s brief acknowledged that health risk assessments for localized TACs, such as diesel, are common; however, “it is not feasible to conduct a similar analysis for criteria air pollutants because currently available computer modeling tools are not equipped for this task.”27 The brief further notes that emissions solely from the Friant Ranch Project, which equate to less than 0.1 percent of total NOX and VOCs in the valley, is not likely to yield valid information and that any such information would not be “accurate when applied at the local level.” SCAQMD’s brief similar states that “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozonelevels.”28 As discussed above, air districts develop region-specific CEQA thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations as well as attainment or nonattainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS. e NAAQS and CAAQS are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates there are known safe concentrations of criteria pollutants. Although recognizing that air quality is a cumulative problem, air districts typically consider projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions that are below the thresholds to be minor in nature. Such projects would not adversely affect air quality or exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS.
Emissions generated by the Proposed Plan could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone and secondary PM, which, at certain concentrations, could lead to increased incidences of specific health consequences. Although these health effects are associated with ozone and particulate pollution, the effects are a result of cumulative and regional emissions. erefore, the Proposed Plan’s incremental contribution cannot be traced to specific health outcomes on a regional scale, and a quantitative correlation of project-generated regional criteria pollutant emissions to specific human health impacts is not included in this analysis. It is foreseeable that unmitigated construction-related and operational emissions of ozone precursors and PM, in excess of the thresholds in Table 3.3-6, could contribute to cumulative and regional health impacts.
In such cases, all feasible mitigation would be applied, and emissions would be reduced to the extent possible.
27 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party in Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P., April 13, 2015, https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/7-s219783-ac-san-joaquinvalley-unified-air-pollution-control-dist-041315.pdf. 28 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and [Proposed] Brief of Amicus Curiae, April 13, 2015, https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf; For example, SCAQMD’s analysis of its 2012 Air Quality Attainment Plan showed that the modeled NOx and ROG reductions of 432 and 187 tons per day, respectively, reduced ozone levels by only 9 parts per billion.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 196, Packet Page 524 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-31
Localized Project-Generated Criteria Pollutants andToxic Air Contaminants Localized pollutants generated by a project can affect populations near the emissions source.
Because these pollutants dissipate with distance, emissions from individual projects can result in direct and material health impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. In this Dra EIR, the analysis of impacts on human health focuses only on those localized pollutants with the greatest potential to result in a significant, material impact on human health: localized CO, PM (discussed because it is considered both a regional and local pollutant), and TACs (including asbestos, benzene, diesel, lead, and perchloroethylene). is approach is consistent with the current state-of-practice and published guidance by local air districts, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), OEHHA, and CARB. resholds for each pollutant are identified below.
Carbon Monoxide
Heavy traffic congestion can contribute to high levels of CO, and individuals exposed to such hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. As shown in Table 3.3-6, MBARD considers an exceedance of 550 pounds of direct CO emissions per day from area-wide or stationary point sources (e.g., industrial operations) as substantial air emissions that would have a significant impact on local air quality. Figure 3.3-1 shows the locations of industrial and other land uses that may emit substantial air pollutants. Such uses would be regulated by MBARD rules and permits as described in the Regulatory Setting.
Indirect (mobile source) hot spots of CO are expected to be quantitively analyzed for projects that meet project-level screening criteria representing potentially significant impacts, to determine if indirect source emissions would cause an exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors. According to MBARD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, potentially significant impacts may occur where traffic volume and/or congestion would increase with the project’s traffic and thereby potentially cause or contribute to a local CO hot spot. If screening results indicate CO hot spots may occur, quantitative modeling should be conducted. It is noted that four of the five screening criteria are dependent on now-obsolete LOS standards and are no longer appropriate for determining CEQA impacts under SB 743; however, the final criteria (substantial heavy-duty traffic or substantial traffic along urban street canyons or near a major stationary source of CO) remains valid. Localized CO emissions cannot be quantified at this time because sufficient project-specific details are not available for the programmatic Proposed Plan, and as such, the Proposed Plan’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to CO hot spots are discussed qualitatively.
Localized Particulate Matter
As presented in Table 3.3-6, MBARD has established project-level emissions thresholds for PM, where direct emissions from construction activities or project operation exceeding 82 pounds of PM10 or 55 pounds of PM2.5 per day would constitute a significant impact.Although the NCCAB is in nonattainment status for PM10, PM hot-spot analysis is not required in the NCCAB because the basin is an attainment area for PM2.5. Furthermore, the Proposed Plan is a programmatic land use plan including the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation elements of the Monterey General Plan; accordingly, it does not include the types of projectsthat would require a PM hot-spot analysis, such as new highways and new bus and rail terminals or transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles. It is noted, however, that local concentrations of PM2.5 near Monterey ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 197, Packet Page 525 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-32 City of Monterey
(measured at the Salinas air monitoring station) have at times exceeded the CAAQS, as discussed in the Environmental Settings section (Table 3.3-1). In the absence of project-level data, localized impacts of PM emissions as a result of the Proposed Plan are therefore qualitatively discussed with respect to the Proposed Plan’s effect on substantial increases of PM emissions near existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors. Proximity will be determined within 500 feet, based on research findings indicating that people who live, work, or attend school within about 500-600 feet downwind from heavily traveled roadways or along corridors with significant trucking traffic or rail activities appear to have an increased incidence and severity of health problems (e.g., asthma onset and aggravation, cardiovascular disease, reduced lung function, impaired lung development) that may be related to air pollution from roadway traffic.29 Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are categorized as carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the physiological degradation associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts will not occur, while permissible exposure levels are established for noncarcinogenic TACs on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Asbestos, benzene, and perchloroethylene are carcinogenic. Diesel has both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects but does not have a threshold below which no significant adverse health effects are anticipated.
Inorganic lead is also considered carcinogenic but is more significantly associated with noncancer effects (neurotoxicity, increased blood pressure and related cardiovascular effects); however, it does not have a safe exposure level.
As discussed in the Regulatory Settings section, TACs are addressed by ATCMs, which are locally adopted and enforced by MBARD to reduce exposure below safe exposure levels, if applicable, or otherwise incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize TAC emissions.
MBARD Rule 1000 requires new or modified sources of carcinogenic TACs to install BACT and reduce cancer risk to less than one incident per 100,000 population, and new or modified sources of noncarcinogenic TACs must apply reasonable control technology. Under Rule 1003, existing facilities must assess potential noncancer health effects from acute and chronic exposure to toxic emissions compared to reference exposure levels, where increased cancer risk must be less than one incident per 100,000 population. Carcinogenic TAC emissions, whether from construction or operation of a project, that can result in a cancer risk greater than one incident per 100,000 population are considered significant.
Odors
According to MBARD, projects which would emit pollutants 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. Because people have mixed reactions to odors, the nuisance level of an odor varies.
Monterey City Code Section 38-111(C) establishes performance standards for odors regulating uses in all zoning districts. Further, sources that emit odors are subject to MBARD permitting authority, 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions, [EPA420-F-14-044], Office of Transportation and Air Quality, August 2014, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NFFD.PDF?Dockey=P100NFFD.PDF.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 198, Packet Page 526 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-33
regulated under Rule 402 (Nuisances). Consistent with California Health and Safety Code Sections 41509, 41700, and 41705, MBARD Rule 402 is an explicit prohibition against sources creating public nuisances, including odors (except from certain agricultural operations), while operating within the NCCAB.
As discussed in the Regulatory Settings section, CARB has identified several types of land uses as being commonly associated with odors, such as landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and animal processing centers. As a programmatic land use plan, the Proposed Plan may encompass some of these types of land uses; however, the Proposed Plan does not itself specifically propose any new sources of odors or sensitive receptors. As such, potential odor impacts are evaluated based on a proximity analysis of common odor sources and existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors.
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Plan were assessed and quantified (where applicable) using standard and accepted soware tools, methodologies, and emission factors. A summary of the methodology is provided below.
Construction
As discussed in Chapter 2: Project Description of this Dra EIR, the Proposed Plan would facilitate development of a mix of uses including a range of housing options, as well as other non-residential and mixed-use spaces across the approximately 5,522-acre Planning Area. Implementation of the Proposed Plan could ultimately result in the net new development of 119 single-family homes, 120 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and 5,548 multifamily residential units in addition to approximately 2,746,400 sf of research and development, 1,639,400 sf of retail, 344,100 sf of educational, 173,100 sf of public, 126,400 sf of industrial, and 56,200 sf of other business uses.30 e land uses that could be developed under the Proposed Plan would generate construction-related emissions from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust, fugitive dust from land clearing and material movement, and offgassing emissions from paving and application of architectural coatings. e specific size, location, construction techniques and scheduling that would be utilized for each future individual development project occurring within the Planning Area from implementation of the Proposed Plan is not currently known. With an anticipated buildout year of 2031, development of the various land uses associated with the Proposed Planwould occur over an extended period of time and would depend on factors such as local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. As such, without specific project-level details it is not possible to develop a refined construction inventory.31 Consequently, the determination of construction air quality impacts for 30 e air quality modeling analysis is conducted based on the incremental difference in development anticipated through the Proposed Plan buildout year. e amount of development is calculated based on employment density (square feet of building area per employee or job), using the methodology provided by the Southern California Association of Governments. Land use changes used in air quality modeling are consistent with transportation modeling analysis in this EIR.
31 Project-level information includes details such as the size and scale of the project to be constructed, construction schedule, equipment fleet, construction worker crew estimates, and demolition, and grading quantities.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 199, Packet Page 527 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-34 City of Monterey
each individual development project, or a combination of these projects, would require the City to speculate regarding such potential future project-level environmental impacts. us, in the absence of the necessary construction information required to provide an informative and meaningful analysis, the evaluation of potential construction-related impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Plan is conducted qualitatively in this EIR.
Operations
Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, including mobile-, energy-, and area-source emissions, were quantified for the Proposed Plan. As stated in Chapter 2: Project Description, buildout of the Proposed Plan included existing development, pipeline development, and new development. e land uses categorized as “existing development” would remain unchanged through 2031, land uses categorized as “pipeline development” included approved projects or specific plan areas that have not yet been constructed but are expected to be developed by 2031, and “new development” includes the future development within the Planning Area resulting from the Proposed Plan. Since existing development would remain unchanged, the air quality analysis focuses on the net change in development which would include the land uses associated with the pipeline and new development categories.
Operational Mobile Source Emissions
On-road mobile-source emissions include criteria pollutant emissions from vehicles. Criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles were estimated using the most recent version of the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.21 (last updated December 5, 2023), which incorporates emission factors from EMission FACtor model version 2021 (EMFAC2021), and daily vehicle trips and daily VMT from as described in the Section 3.13:
Transportation. Daily trips and VMT accounted for trip reductions achieved by land use and transportation network changes resulting from the Proposed Plan, including bicycle and pedestrian network improvements and mixed-use design. However, it is noted that the transportation modeling reflects the built-in parameters of AMBAG’s Regional Travel Demand Model, which is only current to 2018 and may not reflect more recent transportation projects that may affect the Planning Area. According to project transportation modeling, the Proposed Plan would result in a net increase of 16,242 daily trips and daily VMT of 247,740 at full buildout. ese inputs were used to scale CalEEMod default inputs to the project’s local land use transportation context (see Appendix H for inputs).
Operational Area, Energy, and Stationary Source Emissions Area and energy emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Area sources include emissions from wood and natural gas combustion in fireplaces, use of landscape maintenance equipment, repainting of buildings, and consumer products (cleaners, detergents, degreasers, etc.). Energy sources include the combustion of natural gas for building heating and hot water. Area- and energysource emissions for the industrial land uses to be removed were quantified using a baseline year of 2023. e Proposed Plan’s emissions were estimated using a buildout year of 2031. Because operational details for each individual development project proposed under the Proposed Plan are currently unknown, CalEEMod defaults were assumed based on the anticipated land uses; landscape area was estimated at 10 percent where inputs were manually required (except for mobile ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 200, Packet Page 528 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-35
homes), and all other associated inputs (e.g., special landscape area) were maintained. Stationary sources such as emergency generators and boilers that would be developed for each individual development project, or a combination of these projects, would be subject to the permitting requirements by MBARD; however, MBARD rules and regulations were not modeled, given that they are assumed to remain the same in both existing and proposed scenarios. Stationary sources are discussed qualitatively, because details of future projects and their stationary sources are currently unknown.
RELEVANT PROPOSED GOALS AND POLICIES
e Proposed Plan contains the following goals and policies relevant to air quality. e full text of proposed Housing Element programs is included in Appendix B for reference:
Housing Element
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.
Program I-C Specific Plan Updates.
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.
Policy 5.1 Promote energy conservation and incentives, including those offered by Central Coast Community Energy.
Policy 5.2 Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments to conserve resources and reduce housing costs.
Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation, including green building practices, the use of recycled materials, and the recycling of construction and demolition debris.
Program 5-A Energy Efficient Design.
Program 5-B Green Building Incentives.
Program 5-C Sustainable Design.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 201, Packet Page 529 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-36 City of Monterey
Land Use Element
Goal A Establish a compact, sustainable land use and development pattern with boundaries defined by the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Monterey Bay.
Policy A.8 Reinforce the visual, pedestrian, and bicycle connection between City neighborhoods and the Bay so that residents have exceptional non-automobile access to the Bay.
Goal B Create and nurture a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods in Monterey.
Policy B.1 Develop and implement specific plans and zoning to guide development in the mixed use neighborhoods, recognizing that each mixed use neighborhood is unique and requires tailored development and design standards, multi-modal improvements, and infrastructure financing strategies.
Policy B.5 Create an attractive, safe environment for bicycles and pedestrians that promotes "micro-mobility" and connectivity to and within the mixed use neighborhoods.
Circulation Element
Goal A A transportation network that is complemented by land uses that are easily accessible by walking, bicycling, or utilizing transit.
Policy A.1 Continue to apply land-use planning tools and strategies that support the City's circulation goals and direct growth to areas best served by alternative modes of transportation.
Policy A.2 Continue to use land-use policies to concentrate development within walking distance of the transit system.
Policy A.3 Encourage transit/pedestrian oriented (TOD/POD) designs in mixed-use neighborhoods.
Policy A.4 Update the parking and transportation fund, which is used to fund transportation improvement projects and non-infrastructure programs as outlined in the City’s multimodal plan.
Policy A.5 Encourage mixed-use development to maximize the shared use of on-site parking spaces.
Policy A.6 Incorporate uses such as retail, office, or residential into the design of public parking structures.
Policy A.10 Require proposed developments to provide ADA improvements, sidewalks or pedestrian connections, bicycle facilities, or transit facilities which would provide active transportation access to the development.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 202, Packet Page 530 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-37
Policy A.11 Consider the compatibility of proposed land use developments with the establishment of future rail service into the City of Monterey.
Goal B A safe and well-maintained roadway system that efficiently moves people and goods across all modes of transportation.
Policy B.1 Create and maintain a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation.
Policy B.2 Consider the needs of buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians when planning any road improvements.
Policy B.4 Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements over vehicle convenience.
Policy B.5 Implement the City’s multimodal plan to integrate and implement the circulation element policies and update as needed.
Goal C A safe, reliable, connected and integrated bicycle transportation network that encourages bicycling as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.
Policy C.1 Design bicycle facilities that take into account users of all abilities and ages.
Policy C.2 Increased bicycle connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.
Policy C.3 Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities to provide viable alternatives to automobile travel.
Policy C.4 Prioritize connections to the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail (MPRT) as a primary route for active transportation.
Policy C.5 Identify commuter routes, which provide more direct bicycle connections for residents and visitors.
Policy C.6 Establish and maintain a current list of bicycle improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a connected bicycle transportation network.
Policy C.7 Enhance public awareness of bicycling laws and the proper use of bikeways through enforcement, bicycle safety programs, and bikeway design.
Policy C.8 Support implementation of regional active transportation networks, such as the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) and Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST), which connect pedestrians and bicyclists from Monterey to the greater Monterey Bay Area.
Policy C.9 Require development projects to provide on-site facilities such as bicycle parking, storage and showers, provide connections to existing and future planned facilities, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 203, Packet Page 531 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-38 City of Monterey
dedicate land to expand existing facilities or provide new facilities such as sidewalks/multi-use paths and/or bicycle lanes, or contribute to the cost of improvements. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Goal D A safe, accessible, connected and integrated pedestrian transportation network that encourages walking as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.
Policy D.1 Design pedestrian facilities that take into account users of all abilities and ages.
Policy D.2 Design intersections to improve pedestrian safety and mobility.
Policy D.3 Increase pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.
Policy D.4 Establish and maintain a current list of pedestrian improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a continuous pedestrian network throughout the City.
Policy D.5 Establish Crosswalk Guidelines which provide standards for the strategic placement of pedestrian crossings throughout the City in the City’s multimodal plan, as well as the basis for relocating and eliminating crosswalks.
Policy D.6 Continue to identify and prioritize projects which would improve accessibility for all pedestrians, such as ADA ramps, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk widenings or any other transportation infrastructure improvement that could improve accessibility.
Policy D.7 Require that development projects provide internal pedestrian connections and linkages to adjacent public streets, neighborhoods and community facilities.
Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Goal E An integrated multi-modal transportation network that supports and encourages transit use, including Bus, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Rail.
Policy E.1 Promote the use of transit service as an attractive alternative for residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy E.2 Encourage use of the MST Trolley service to connect visitors between Downtown Monterey and Cannery Row.
Policy E.3 Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) on changes to the local transit service.
Policy E.4 Install transit priority system, where feasible, in collaboration with MST.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 204, Packet Page 532 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-39
Policy E.5 Collaborate with MST and area jurisdictions to improve access to transit.
Policy E.6 Collaborate with MST to provide attractive amenities at transit stops in the City.
Policy E.7 Protect the potential for future rail transportation by supporting the efforts of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to provide additional passenger rail service.
Policy E.8 Require development projects to enhance access to transit. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Goal F A transportation network which supports the reduction of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
Policy F.1 Adopt vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts for CEQA, in accordance with SB 743.
Policy F.2 Establish thresholds of significance for proposed developments, land use plans, transportation projects, and any other plans or development projects.
Policy F.3 Establish a Transportation Impact Analysis Guide for the analysis of transportation impacts for CEQA purposes and a Local Transportation Analysis to ensure compliance with other goals and policies identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and City’s multimodal plan.
Goal G Parking that efficiently utilizes existing facilities and encourages a reduction in auto travel.
Policy G.1 Adopt parking programs that maximize occupancy of public parking spaces by employees and/or visitors to minimize parking impacts in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Policy G.2 Implement a demand-based pricing structure for public parking.
Policy G.3 Establish appropriate time limits for parking in commercial business districts to support local businesses and encourage use of the MST Trolley.
Policy G.4 Improve utilization of existing parking and create new parking opportunities, such as shared parking, through partnerships and cooperation in order to meet parking needs with fewer total spaces.
Policy G.5 Consider pedestrian safety and mobility, when designing pedestrian ways through parking lots to enable pedestrians to reach their destinations in a safe manner.
Policy G.6 Maintain the supply of existing visitor recreational vehicle parking supply, on the Waterfront, Depot, Marina and Breakwater parking lots.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 205, Packet Page 533 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-40 City of Monterey
Policy G.7 Establish and maintain the residential permit parking program.
Policy G.8 Incorporate bicycle parking in parking lots and garages for both public and private development.
Policy G.9 Promote a “Park Once” system that encourages visitors to park once and walk, bike or use transit to travel in Monterey.
Policy G.10 Partner with the schools and universities to reduce the parking impact on residential parking supply.
Policy G.11 When incorporating directional and variable message signs (VMS) redirect visitor traffic to the Downtown Parking garages and encourage the use of the MST Trolley, when Cannery Row Parking is at capacity.
Goal K An air transportation system that is integrated with a multimodal surface transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods while maximizing positive economic impacts.
Policy K.1 Work with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District and hospitality industry to provide direct and affordable connections between the Monterey Regional Airport and their destinations, through car/ride-share, transportation network companies (TNC), hotel shuttle, or other means.
Policy K.7 Plan for a multimodal facility in central Monterey that supports and encourages the use of airport shuttles, regional transit, and local transit.
IMPACTS
Impact 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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable)
e Proposed Plan is located in the NCCAB, which is regulated by MBARD. Although the NCCAB has achieved and is currently maintaining attainment status for ozone standards, in the past, the air basin was in violation of both federal and California standards for ozone. MBARD’s AQMP was prepared as an attainment plan for ozone and is still the applicable air quality plan for the Proposed Plan. Although not part of the AQMP, MBARD’s SB 656 Implementation Plan addresses reduction of PM, including PM10 and PM2.5. As shown in Table 3.3-3, the NCCAB is currently in nonattainment of the CAAQS for PM10. As such, the following analysis discusses the Proposed Plan’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone and PM10.
Construction
Construction of land use developments allowable under the Proposed Plan, as mentioned above and described in Chapter 2: Project Description, would occur intermittently within the Planning ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 206, Packet Page 534 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-41
Area throughout the course of the eight-year buildout period. As such, it is anticipated that in any given year, multiple land use development projects would be constructed within the Planning Area.
However, the precise effects of construction activities associated with buildout of the Proposed Plan cannot be accurately quantified at this time because the timing and intensity of future development projects is not known, and assumptions regarding market conditions, site constraints, land availability, and property owner interest for future development would require speculation.
Nevertheless, construction associated with new land use developments under the Proposed Plan would result in the temporary generation of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), CO, and PM emissions that could result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality within the Planning Area.
Construction-related emissions would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust, fugitive dust emissions from land clearing, soil movement, and demolition, and off-gassing emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt paving, though the amount of emissions would vary substantially depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment, number of personnel, wind and precipitation conditions, and soil moisture content.
As noted previously, MBARD has established project-level thresholds to analyze emissions generated by a single project. Although the construction emission impacts associated with each new individual development under the Proposed Plan would be short-term in nature (relative to the buildout year) and limited to the period when construction activity is taking place for that particular development, the concurrent construction of multiple individual development projects could generate combined criteria pollutant emissions on a daily basis that may exceed MBARD’s projectlevel thresholds. In addition, depending on the size and scale of an individual development project, along with its construction schedule and other parameters, there may also be instances where the daily construction emissions generated by a single development project within the Planning Area could also exceed MBARD’s criteria pollutant thresholds. ese emissions could contribute to ozone formation and other air pollution, which at certain concentrations, can contribute to short- and long-term human health effects. Housing Element Program 5-C would help reduce construction emissions by restricting use of HFCs in mechanical equipment and building materials, using sustainable and recyclable materials, requiring a City-approved construction waste management plan, using local materials, and implementing construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts. However, it is not guaranteed that this program would be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, and as such, construction emissions from the Proposed Plan could result in a potentially significant impact on air quality.
Operations
Operation of the Proposed Plan at buildout has the potential to result in air quality impacts from area, energy, and mobile source emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Table 3.3-7 summarizes the daily operational emissions of the Planning Area under existing conditions and compares them with estimated future emissions under buildout of the Proposed Plan in 2031, including Proposed Plan policies with quantifiable mitigation such as integration of affordable and below market rate housing, improvement of bicycle infrastructure, parking reductions, exceedance of energy efficiency standards, and cleaner energy (Housing Element programs 2-I, 5-A, and 5-B and Circulation policies C.6, C.9, and G.2). It is noted that the Proposed Plan also includes policies that cannot be quantified but would help further reduce emissions, but they are not accounted for in the emissions shown in Table 3.3-7. Under this conservative estimate, the Proposed Plan’s ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 207, Packet Page 535 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-42 City of Monterey
operational emissions would exceed MBARD’s project-level significance thresholds for all pollutants except NOx. e increase in ROG and CO emissions is primarily attributed to energy consumption, while area source emissions, specifically on-road fugitive dust, account for nearly all PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
As discussed above, MBARD’s project-level thresholds were developed to analyze emissions generated by a single project and so offer an extremely conservative evaluation of emissions from an entire programmatic land use plan such as the Proposed Plan. However, they are included in this analysis for informational purposes. In the absence of plan-level significance thresholds, operational air quality impacts of the Proposed Plan are also qualitatively evaluated for consistency with the 2016 AQMP to determine whether criteria pollutant emissions attributed to population and economic growth are significant. Impact 3.3-2 provides the 2016 AQMP consistency analysis based on the requirements of MBARD’s CEQA Implementation document. e analysis demonstrates that the Proposed Plan would support the goals of the 2016 AQMP and include all applicable control measures, but population growth resulting from the Proposed Plan does not align with AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecasts, and the magnitude of growth could potentially result in significant impacts on air quality. is is further supported by the quantified operational emissions, which are estimated to increase for all criteria pollutants, especially PM. Daily emissions of PM10, for which the NCCAB is currently in nonattainment, could be 58 percent higher and over one thousand times the daily emissions threshold under the Proposed Plan compared to existing conditions, and PM2.5 emissions are also a significant magnitude higher than the threshold. is increase is primarily attributed to area source emissions, specifically on-road fugitive dust, which is a product of CalEEMod default roadway and vehicle characteristics and CARB’s unmitigated unpaved road statewide emission inventory method. Due to the increase in VMT (consistent with discussion in Section 3.13: Transportation), these default inputs yielded a very conservative (i.e., high) estimate for PM dust emissions the Planning Area.
As discussed under Impact 3.3-2, the Proposed Plan includes policies that would minimize criteria air pollutant emissions primarily from mobile and energy sources by fostering bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and supporting sustainable land use patterns, including mixed-use design and increased density. ese policies align with MBARD’s recommended measures that mitigate indirect source (motor vehicle) emissions, including locating indirect sources (e.g., shopping centers, office buildings) near transit stations, promoting high-density development within onequarter mile of a transit station, encouraging mixed-use (residential and commercial) and infill development, encouraging general densification of residential and commercial land uses, and working towards a jobs-to-housing balance. e Proposed Plan incorporates all of these strategies, such as through the Housing Element’s revised Multifamily Overlay, call for Specific and Area Plan Updates, and placement of job growth near new housing opportunities (i.e., mixed-use neighborhood design). MBARD also recommends site design measures to reduce individual projects’ energy demand and VMT, including solar or energy-efficient systems (lighting, heating, cooling, appliances), incorporation of pedestrian facilities (paths/trails) into site design, provision of bicycle facilities (bike lockers, racks, paths/trails, showers and lockers), and inclusion of retail or service uses with commercial or industrial projects – all of which are features of the Proposed Plan (Housing Element Programs 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C and Circulation Element policies A.2, A.3, C.9, D.7, E.8, and G.8).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 208, Packet Page 536 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-43
Table 3.3-7: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions with Proposed Plan Daily Emissions1 (pounds per day)
Analysis Condition/Source ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Existing
(2023)
Area 138 117 794 153,289 15,340
Energy 1,349 116 1,891 40 40
Mobile 13 223 136 18 18
Total 1,500 456 2,821 153,347 15,398
Proposed
Plan2
(2031)
Area 143 86 797 241,714 24,188
Energy 1,682 140 2,458 42 42
Mobile 16 287 174 23 23
Total 1,841 513 3,429 241,779 24,253
Net Change 341 57 608 88,432 8,855
Threshold3 137 137 550 82 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes Yes Yes
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter Notes:
1. Emission outputs from CalEEMod are generated for both the summer and winter seasons, with emission levels differing slightly for the pollutants in each season. Emission levels of ROG and NOx tend to be generally higher during the winter while emissions of CO tend to be generally higher in the summer.
Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 remain the same during both seasons. The maximum emissions for each pollutant over the course of the summer and winter seasons are shown in this table.
2. Proposed Plan scenario includes mitigations from policies that could be quantified in CalEEMod, using conservative inputs for a conservative estimate.
3. MBARD’s project-level thresholds were developed to analyze emissions generated by a single project and so offer an extremely conservative evaluation of emissions from an entire land use plan such as the Proposed Plan.
Source: See Appendix H for modeling files.
Although reductions were not quantified for the air quality modeling in this EIR, Proposed Plan policies that reduce vehicle use would also substantially decrease generation of on-road fugitive dust, which CalEEMod classifies as an area source. Stationary area sources associated with future development would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD (such as Rules 403 and 438, which establish PM emissions limits and requirements and standards for outdoor fires, respectively) to reduce associated health risks and air quality impacts. Although the Proposed Plan would reduce the severity of growth-oriented criteria pollutants, individual projects may still generate emissions exceeding the MBARD’s project-level thresholds. Accordingly, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with development under the Proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on air quality and mitigation would be required.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 209, Packet Page 537 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-44 City of Monterey
Mitigation Measures
MM-AQ-1: Project-Level Air Quality Analysis. e City shall require that applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall compare their project size with the MBARD screening sizes (Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) appropriate to their project for criteria air pollutants generated during constructions and operations. If the project is less than the screening sizes for the project type, then the project is not required to conduct a project-level analysis of operational and construction emissions, unless construction would involve:
• Demolition;
• Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously) or construction would occur simultaneous with other Proposed Plan development; • Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development);
• Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or • Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.
Projects that exceed the screening sizes or include the above activities would be required to evaluate the project’s emissions and compare them to MBARD daily thresholds for construction and/or operation, as applicable. If the project-level analysis results in exceedances of MBARD construction thresholds, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 shall be implemented, as well as any project-specific measures.
If the project’s emissions are reduced to levels below MBARD thresholds with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
MM-AQ-2: MBARD Basic Construction Mitigation Measuresfor Air Quality. e City shall require implementation of the following basic construction mitigation measures, as feasible, as a condition of approval of grading permits.
1. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.
2. Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 miles per hour).
3. Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days).
4. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas aer 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.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 210, Packet Page 538 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-45
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. is person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. e phone number of Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) shall also be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).
14. Limit the area under construction at any one time.
MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4 Final Engines on Construction Equipment. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all 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 EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engine.
Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. CARB regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years.
Applicants must conduct recordkeeping of equipment verification documents for construction equipment and the City has the right to review equipment logs.
MM-AQ-4: Require 2010 Model Year Compliance of Diesel Truck Engines. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines, but no less than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year as set forth in the CARB’s EMFAC database. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that a good faith effort to locate such engines was conducted.
Applicants must conduct recordkeeping of truck verification documents and the City has the right to review truck logs.
As shown in Table 3.3-7, 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. Operational emissions would be reduced by MM-VMT-1 (see Section 3.13: Transportation), substantially reducing on-road PM emissions, which are the largest source of Proposed Plan PM10 and PM2.5.
However, even with these mitigation measures, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s projectlevel thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the non-attainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. erefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 211, Packet Page 539 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-46 City of Monterey
Significance aer Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.3-2 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Significant and Unavoidable)
e Clean Air Act requires that a SIP or an air quality control plan be prepared for areas with air quality violating the NAAQS. e SIP sets forth the strategies and pollution control measures that states will use to attain the NAAQS. e California Clean Air Act requires attainment plans to demonstrate a five percent per year reduction in non-attainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. e current air quality plan for the NCCAB is the 2016 AQMP. As described in the Significance Criteria section above, consistency with MBARD’s 2016 AQMP means that the Proposed Plan does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP (i.e., disrupting or hindering control measures) or otherwise being inconsistent with the AQMP’s primary purpose of achieving attainment status for ozone (i.e., by exceeding MBARD’s emissions thresholds). In addition, the Proposed Plan should be consistent with AMBAG’s regional projections.
Support Progress toward Attainment Status for Ozone
e primary purpose of the AQMP is to achieve attainment status for ozone for the NCCAB. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, ozone precursors include ROG and NOx, the primary sources of which are motor vehicles and area-wide sources such as asphalt paving and household products. e Proposed Plan’s land use framework and transportation strategies would support regional attainment of the ozone CAAQS and NAAQS through policies that would lessen mobilesource emissions by reducing VMT, encouraging transit, enhancing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and supporting sustainable land use patterns with increased density and mixed-use development (Circulation policies A.1, B.5, C.6, C.9, D.4, D.7, and E.8 and Land Use policies A.1, A.2, A.4, B.1, and B.5). Housing Element Programs 5-B and 5-C would encourage and facilitate sustainable building design and practices that meet or exceed CALGreen requirements, including use of cleaner equipment and materials, during construction and throughout operation. Housing Element policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and Program 5-A would also reduce energy consumption, thereby minimizing energy emissions, which are the most significant source of ROG emissions (see Table
3.3-7). erefore, the Proposed Plan would support the AQMP’s primary purpose to achieve attainment status for ozone.
Support Implementation of Control Measures
As previously stated, 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.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 212, Packet Page 540 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-47
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). As discussed above, the Proposed Plan land use and transportation policies support emissions reductions from mobile sources, while Housing Element policies support emissions reductions from energy sources. ese policies or programs would support or complement pollutant control measures and 2016 AQMP programs. erefore, the Proposed Plan would not disrupt or hinder implementation of the AQMP and would support the applicable control measures to meet the plan’s primary goals.
Align with Regional Growth Forecasts
MBARD uses AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecasts to account for projected change in regional criteria pollutant emissions. e 2016 AQMP is based on the 2014 Regional Growth Forecasts. As shown in Table 3.3-5, AMBAG projected extremely modest growth in Monterey, with only 904 more people between 2030 and 2035, reaching a population of 30,647 in 2035. It is noted that the updated 2022 Regional Growth Forecast population projections are even less, with an increase of only 382 in Monterey between 2030 and 2035.
As discussed in Chapter 2: Project Description, the Proposed Plan would result a population increase of 10,125 over the eight-year planning period, reaching approximately 37,000 at buildout in 2031. is differs significantly from AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecasts (both 2014 and 2022), and as a result, ozone precursor emissions from the Proposed Plan are not accommodated within the 2016 AQMP, indicating a potentially significant conflict with the 2016 AQMP. However, the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast (and by extension the 2016 AQMP) does not account for current regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) requirements mandated by the State. e Proposed Plan is designed to accommodate its fair share of RHNA and also includes an additional “buffer” of housing unit capacity beyond the minimum RHNA requirements, in accordance with the No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Sec. 65863). As a result, the Proposed Plan would achieve a more balanced jobs-to-housing ratio, which broadly supports the objectives of the 2016 AQMP.
Conclusion
As described above, the Proposed Plan is broadly consistent with the policy objectives of the AQMP. e focus on mixed-use and infill development in land use and transportation policies as well as Housing Element policies and programs in the Proposed Plan would help reduce pollutant emissions in the Planning Area and support 2016 AQMP programs and control measures for attainment and maintenance of ozone NAAQS and CAAQS. Additionally, the Proposed Plan meets legal requirements to accommodate RHNA and would improve the jobs-to-housing balance by providing more housing near employment opportunities. However, because the magnitude of growth associated with buildout of the Proposed Plan exceeds the level of growth that is incorporated into the 2016 AQMP, ultimately resulting in a cumulative net increase in ozone precursors and PM (as discussed under Impact 3.3-1), this impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 213, Packet Page 541 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-48 City of Monterey
Mitigation Measures
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.
Significance aer Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.3-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where an exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks for individuals. Typical sensitive receptors are residences, hospitals, and schools. Parks and playgrounds where sensitive receptors (e.g., children and seniors) are present would also be considered sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the Planning Area at residences, schools, and parks. Development of the Proposed Plan has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to health effects from regional criteria pollutants, CO hot spots, localized concentrations of PM, and TACs including diesel, asbestos, lead, benzene, and perchloroethylene. ese pollutants are addressed separately in greater detail below.
Criteria Air Pollutants
As discussed in Impact 3.3-1, the Proposed Plan would contribute to existing and future air pollution, including substantial levels of daily ozone precursors, CO, and PM emissions. However, these emissions represent only a fraction of basin-wide air pollution, and the specific magnitude and location of any potential changes in regional ozone or secondary PM formation is unknown.
As such, impacts from these additional emissions, as well as their associated health consequences, cannot be quantified with any level of certainty because of the dynamic and complex nature of regional pollutant formation and distribution (e.g., meteorology, emissions sources, sunlight exposure). Similar limitations exist with respect to precisely modeling project-level health consequences of directly emitted PM. However, it is known that public health will continue to be affected in the NCCAB until the region attains the CAAQS or NAAQS. Given that the Proposed Plan would contribute an overall increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants, the Proposed Plan has a potentially significant impact regarding exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Continuous engine exhaust may elevate localized CO concentrations, resulting in hot spots.
Receptors exposed to CO hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. CO hot spots are typically observed at heavily congested intersections where a substantial number of gasoline-powered vehicles idle for prolonged durations. As discussed in the Environmental Setting and consistent with impacts discussed in Section 3.13: Transportation, local CO concentrations may be generated or exacerbated due to an increase of vehicle idling and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 214, Packet Page 542 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-49
congestion (where traffic volumes exceed capacity) at nine study intersections (mapped in Figure
3.3-1) under the Proposed Plan and may represent a CO hot spot under MBARD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as discussed in the Regulatory Settings. As mapped in Figure 3.3-1, at least three of the CO hot spots identified in the Planning Area are in proximity to Housing Element sites, and as such, future sensitive receptors reasonably foreseeable under the Proposed Plan may be exposed to localized CO concentrations. Existing regulatory programs such as CAFE and Advanced Clean Cars regulations would help reduce CO emissions from mobile sources, along with proposed policies in the Circulation Element that would help reduce potential CO hot spot concentrations by improving bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure and facilities especially within mixed-use neighborhoods that make it safe and convenient to travel using non-automotive modes of transportation including biking, walking, and using transit. However, it is uncertain whether impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels as a result of these policies and given that operation of the Proposed Plan would result in an increase of daily CO emissions, this impact is potentially significant.
Diesel and Localized Particulate Matter
As described in the Environmental Setting, PM is considered both a regional and local air pollutant, primarily associated with industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. e primary source of diesel PM in the Planning Area is also from on- and off-road mobile sources (internal combustion engines). Figure 3.3-1 shows the location of potential area sources (industrial land uses) and existing mobile sources in the Planning Area as well as the extent of the corresponding 500-foot buffer from mobile sources. Although the Proposed Plan does not propose specific projects, sites available for housing in the Housing Element are both adjacent to industrial land uses, such as those along Garden Road and in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch area, as well as within the 500-foot buffer zones from designated truck routes. Given the expected increase in PM emissions (as discussed under Impact 3.3-1), there is potential for future sensitive receptors under the Proposed Plan to be exposed to substantial concentrations of localized PM as well as diesel.
Construction activities of future development projects under the Proposed Plan would also generate diesel and PM that could expose existing sensitive receptors to significant health risks, especially given proposed policies that encourage infill development. In the absence of detailed site-specific information, diesel and PM concentrations and associated health risks (e.g., excess cancer risks) cannot be accurately quantified. Depending on the size and scale of an individual development project, along with its construction schedule and proximity to receptors, there may also be instances where diesel emissions could result in cancer or non-cancer health risks that exceed the MBARD’s thresholds, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Asbestos and Lead
As described in the Environmental Setting, existing structures constructed prior to 1977 may contain asbestos, and those constructed prior to 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Demolition of such buildings resulting from development under the Proposed Plan may release airborne asbestos or inorganic lead particulates and expose adjacent sensitive receptors. However, all demolition activities would be subject to EPA’s asbestos NESHAPs, if asbestos is present at the existing facilities, and MBARD requires approval for renovation and demolition projects to prevent uncontrolled emissions of asbestos under MBARD Rules 424 and 439 and Regulation 10. Lead exposure would ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 215, Packet Page 543 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-50 City of Monterey
be regulated by NESHAPs and TSCA requirements in addition to MBARD Rule 439. Consequently, regulatory mechanisms exist that would ensure that impacts from asbestos- and lead-containing materials, if present during demolition under the Proposed Plan, would be less than significant.
Benzene and Perchloroethylene
As mentioned in the Environmental Setting, benzene and perchloroethylene are TACs that may be used by certain area sources such as dry cleaners and gasoline dispensing facilities that are present throughout the Planning Area. ese TACs are regulated by NESHAPs and MBARD regulations, including Rules 418 and 424 and Regulation 10, which would apply to existing and new sources.
While the Proposed Plan does not include specific projects, the Housing Element includes an inventory of sites for future residential development that are located along major corridors such as North Fremont Street (see Figure 3.3-1), which includes six existing stationary sources. Further, policies that encourage mixed-use and infill development, such as Circulation Policy A.6 that would incorporate uses such as retail, office, or residential into public parking structures, may result in exposure of sensitive receptors to mobile and area sources of benzene and/or perchloroethylene within the 300-foot buffer recommended by CARB. However, it is noted that not all dry cleaners use perchloroethylene, and CARB considers a 50-foot separation sufficient for typical gasoline dispensing facilities (less than 3.6 million gallons per year). Given the potential for reasonably foreseeable sensitive receptors to be exposed to known sources of these TACs, this impact is potentially significant.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Proposed Plan ultimately would result in the net new development of up to approximately 5,800 new housing units in locations generally indicated on Figure 3.3-1. e Proposed Plan is also expected to result in approximately 2,746,400 sf of research and development, 1,639,400 sf of retail, 344,100 sf of educational, 173,100 sf of public, 126,400 sf of industrial, and 56,200 sf of other business uses throughout the Planning Area but concentrated along existing commercial corridors and targeted growth areas, as encouraged by mixed-use and infill development policies. Such development would include area-wide sources of criteria air pollutant emissions (as shown in Table 3.3-7) 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. ese 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. As such, these impacts are significant and unavoidable.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 216, Packet Page 544 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
City of Monterey 3.3-51
Mitigation Measures
MM-AQ-5: Require Future Projects Proposing Stationary Sources of TACs Located within 1,000 Feet of Receptors to Perform a Health Risk Assessment. e City shall require that all applicants proposing development of projects that would involve the installation of stationary sources of TACs within the Planning Area and within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by the MBARD, shall prepare a site-specific health risk assessment (HRA). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than the MBARD project-level and cumulative-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed the project-level or cumulative-level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant in coordination with the City and shall implemented by the applicant to reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable in order to achieve levels below MBARD’s thresholds.
MM-AQ-6: Require Air Quality Equipment to Minimize Health Risks. e City shall require that all applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area that includes new development of residential projects and other new land use developments which would site new sensitive receptors such as schools and daycares in commercial buildings and within 1,000 feet of road segments with an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of greater than 10,000 vehicles per day (based on the most current data from Caltrans’ Traffic Census Program), to install indoor air quality equipment, such as enhanced air filters (air filters rated at a minimum efficiency reporting value [MERV] 13 or higher) or equivalent mechanisms, to minimize health risks for future receptors.
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. erefore, 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 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. erefore, aer mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Significance aer mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 217, Packet Page 545 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.3: Air Quality
3.3-52 City of Monterey
Impact 3.3-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant)
Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and oen generating citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Land uses typically associated with odor complaints include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Odor impacts from such sources on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, and schools, warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, work sites, and commercial areas. As a programmatic land use plan, development pursuant to the Proposed Plan may involve some of these types of land uses; however, the Proposed Plan does not itself specifically propose any new sources of odors or sensitive receptors. As such, potential odor impacts are evaluated based on a proximity analysis of common odor sources and existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors. Potential odor emitters during operations would include exhaust from vehicles and fumes from the reapplication of architectural coatings as part of ongoing building maintenance. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures.
Although such brief exhaust- and paint-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not be atypical of developed urban areas and would not affect a substantial number of people or rise to the level of a significant impact under CEQA. In addition, future developments within the Planning Area would be required to comply with the odor performance standards required by Monterey City Code Section 38-111(C), as well as permitting requirements under MBARD Rule 402 (Nuisances).
Accordingly, impacts would be reduced the maximum extent practicable and would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 218, Packet Page 546 City of Monterey 3.4-1
3.4 Biological Resources
The section describes existing biological resources in the Planning Area, including habitats, wetlands and other waters, critical habitat, and special-status species, as well as relevant federal, state, and local regulations and programs. It also identifies impacts related to biological resources that would result from implementation of the Proposed Plan and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate.
There were four responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding topics covered in this section. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) submitted comments and recommendations regarding special-status animal and plant species. Additionally, LandWatch submitted comments regarding the impact on biological resources from siting housing units in Fort Ord because of the presence of Rein orchids, wetlands and vernal pools, sensitive natural communities, other rare plant listings, and the California Tiger Salamander. Two comments from individuals expressed interest in preservation of biological resources. These comments are addressed in the impacts section and incorporated into the following analysis.
Environmental Setting
PHYSICAL SETTING
Climate
Most of the habitats located in the Planning Area are affected by summer fog. The summer fog zone results from a marine influence consisting of regular summer fog and associated cool temperatures, high winds, and mild winter temperatures, with very few frosts. This combination of physical and climatological conditions provides for diverse and unique flora and fauna.1 1 City of Monterey General Plan Update FEIR. October 11, 2004. Accessed: December 14, 2023.
Available:https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/General-Plan/GeneralPlan-Final-EIR.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 219, Packet Page 547 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-2 City of Monterey
Soil Types
A relatively large percentage of the Planning Area contains soil series that display similar characteristics. These include the Arnold Series, the Santa Ynez, Santa Lucia, and Reliz Series, and the Narlon Series. These soils, in combination with local microclimate conditions, are selective factors that affect the upland plant and animal associations present in the Planning Area.2
Habitat Types
Due to the nature and diversity of the soils and specific climactic factors within the Planning Area, the inland habitats support many rare and endemic special status plant and wildlife species. In addition, the region is the southern and northernmost range for many of the state’s flora and fauna, creating a diverse and complex mosaic of biotic communities. As shown in Figure 3.4-1, habitat types within the Planning Area include primarily Monterey pine forest, oak woodland, grassland, urban forest, chaparral and scrub, coastal foredune, and central dune scrub. Each of these habitat types are detailed below:3
Monterey Pine Forest
Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) forests are recognized as a unique and dominant feature within the Planning Area. It exists in only three native stands in California: Point Año Nuevo, Cambria, and the Monterey Peninsula. There are three relatively large and healthy stands of Monterey pine forest in the Planning Area: Huckleberry Hill Nature Preserve, the Old Capitol Site (adjacent to the southern side of Highway 1), and along the ridge that forms the southern boundary of the Planning Area (from Highway 1 to the eastern side of Jack’s Peak Regional Park). This species also occurs in mixed stands through the Planning Area. The understory of the Monterey pine forest can support a diverse group of flowering plants and ferns.
Relatively undisturbed Monterey pine forests provide roosting sites, nesting sites, escape cover, migration and dispersion corridors, and foraging habitat for wildlife species. Much of the Monterey pine forest has been urbanized. Urbanization has resulted in a low native species population and diversity, and a high population of species able to adapt to the urban environment. A fungal pathogen called pine pitch canker (Fusarium moniliforme subglutinans) is a disease that currently threatens the existing Monterey pine forest.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 220, Packet Page 548 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
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
NSA Monterey Pines Annex
Golf Course
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Annual Grassland
Central Dune Scrub
Coastal Foredune
Coastal Prairie
Coastal Scrub
Maritime Chaparral
Mixed Monterey Pine Forest
Monterey Pine Forest
Oak Savanna
Oak Woodland
Sparse Vegetation/Bare Soil
Riparian/Wetland
Golf Course
Urban/Non-Vegetation
Stream/Creek
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 3.4-1: Habitat Types
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 221, Packet Page 549 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-4 City of Monterey
Oak Woodland
Oak woodland is the most abundant habitat type within the Planning Area. Oak woodland habitats within the Planning Area consist almost entirely of Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). This is a widespread species, occurring in a fifty-mile swath inland. Oak woodlands provide important nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for a large number of small birds, raptors and bats, as well as a variety of common mammals, and several species of reptiles and amphibians.
Much of California’s oak woodlands have been removed and the remaining stands are under pressure from development and agriculture. In recent years a large numbers of Coast live oaks in several coastal counties of California and southern Oregon have been dying from a pathogen referred to as sudden oak death syndrome. However, there have been no confirmed cases within the City of Monterey. Oak savannas occur where the oaks are more widely spaced due a combination of lack of available moisture, and low-intensity frequent fires.
Urban Forest
An urban forest stand is a former natural forest stand that is now adjacent to or in association with developed areas. Urban forest stands can also occur in vacant lots, greenbelts, and city parks. These stands are generally one to 20 acres in size and represent fragmented forest areas. Dominant native tree species within the urban forest habitat are Coast live oak, Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) and Monterey pine. California buckeye (Aesculus californica), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), and acacia (Acacia sp.) are less dominant. The understories in the centers of urban forests or in well managed, relatively undisturbed urban forests are often more similar to the natural forest understory. Common wildlife species that occur within the urban forests are those that are adapted to heavily disturbed and developed areas, including striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudachris regilla), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus).
Grasslands
The majority of the grasslands found within the Planning Area are dominated by annual invasive species. Grasslands provide marginal habitat for a variety of birds, small mammals, predatory animals such as foxes, reptiles, and raptors. Both the valley needlegrass grassland and the coastal prairie occur within the Planning Area. Some types of grasslands may occur adjacent to each other and share common species. In the eastern portion of the Planning Area, south of Highway 68, large areas of native perennial grassland have existed historically.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 222, Packet Page 550 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-5
Chaparral
Moderate to low growing evergreen and drought resistant shrubs with scattered trees and patchy herbaceous communities characterizes chaparral. Maritime chaparral occurs in areas where coastal fog and moderate temperatures effectively improves available moisture. Soft-leafed, drought deciduous shrubs dominate coastal sage scrub. Chaparral typically requires more moisture than coastal sage scrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub typically form on shallow soils, along dry rocky slopes and ridges or relic sand dunes. Chaparral supports a great diversity of wildlife species.
Examples include birds, small mammals, and predators such as gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Maritime chaparral is very limited in its distribution within the Planning Area and occurs primarily in the Highway 68 and Fort Ord area.
Coastal Foredunes
The coastal foredune habitat occupies the active sands between the mean high tide and the more stabilized back dunes. It contains variable associations of low-growing herbaceous species and grasses in moving and recently stabilized dunes near the shoreline. Plant cover is less than ten percent. Generally, there are only five or so plant species that occupy this habitat, and usually only one or two are dominant. Few animals rely completely on the coastal dunes for their survival, but many species utilize them. Wildlife species in the coastal foredune habitat include a variety of shorebirds and invertebrates - many of the same species, which occur in the sandy beach intertidal habitat.
Coastal Prairie
California coastal prairie, also known as northern coastal grassland, is a grassland plant community of California and Oregon in the temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands biome. This ecosystem is found along the Pacific Coast, from as far south as Los Angeles in Southern California to southern Oregon. It typically stretches as far inland as 100 km and occurs at altitudes of 350 m or lower.
This ecosystem can also be characterized by topographic features including sea bluffs, uplifted grassy bald hills, hillside slopes, lowland grasslands, and coastal marine terraces. Coastal prairies are home to many grassland-dependent mammals, birds, insects, and reptiles including elk, badgers, pocket gophers, grasshopper sparrows, savannah sparrows, meadowlarks, red-tail hawks, white-tail kites, golden eagles, western fence lizards, skinks, rare butterflies and moths, and a variety of other insects.
Central Dune Scrub
The central dune scrub is densely vegetated habitat consisting of low or erect woody shrubs on stable dunes with herbaceous species in the open areas. The central dune scrub has greater plant density, more cover, more species, and woodier species when compared to coastal fore dunes. The central dune scrub habitat is listed as high priority for inventory in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 223, Packet Page 551 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-6 City of Monterey
A variety of species commonly occur within this habitat, including several special-status species.
The variety of wildlife species in the central dune scrub is relatively low, but include special-status wildlife species. The central dune scrub is also listed as a high priority habitat for inventory in the CNDDB by CDFW.
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as:
• Species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Act or designated as candidates for listing; • Species that are listed as rare (plants), threatened, or endangered under the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Endangered Species Act or designated as candidates for listing;
• Wildlife species designated as species of special concern or fully protected by the CDFW; • Plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR), designated as List 1A, List 1B, List 2, and List 3 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, online edition; • Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet the criteria” for listing); and/or
• Bat species ranked by the Western Bat Working Group as species with a “moderate” or “high” designation status under CEQA.4
Information regarding the occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the Planning Area was obtained from a query of the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB is regularly updated to track occurrences of previously documented special-status species; however, it contains only those records that have been submitted to CDFW. Therefore, there may be additional occurrences of special-status species within the area that have not yet been surveyed and/or mapped. A lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area does not imply that the species does not occur or that there is a lack of diversity in that area.
Based on the records search, 26 special-status plant species and 13 special-status wildlife and fish species were identified as having the potential to occur in the Planning Area. The CNDDB is regularly updated to track occurrences of previously documented special-status species; however, it contains only those records that have been submitted to CDFW. Therefore, there may be additional occurrences of special-status species within the area that have not yet been surveyed 4 Western Bat Working Group. 2017. Species Matrix, Based on the Western Bat Working Group Workshop Held in Reno, Nevada, February 9–13, 1998. Available: http://wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/. Accessed:
May 27, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 224, Packet Page 552 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-7
and/or mapped. A lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area does not imply that the species does not occur or that there is a lack of diversity in that area. In addition, species shown in Figure 3.4-2 have the potential to occur outside the area delineated in the figure.
Table 3.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Planning Area Scientific Name Common Name Status1
Allium hickmanii Hickman's onion
Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri Hooker's manzanita
Arctostaphylos montereyensis Toro manzanita
Arctostaphylos pajaroensis Pajaro manzanita
Arctostaphylos pumila sandmat manzanita
Castilleja ambigua var. insalutata pink Johnny-nip
Central Maritime Chaparral Central Maritime Chaparral
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Monterey spineflower FT Clarkia jolonensis Jolon clarkia
Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis seaside bird's-beak SE, CRPR Ericameria fasciculata Eastwood's goldenbush
Erysimum ammophilum sand-loving wallflower
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Monterey gilia FE, ST
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia
Malacothamnus palmeri var. involucratus Carmel Valley bush-mallow Microseris paludosa marsh microseris
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens northern curly-leaved monardella Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads
Pinus radiata Monterey pine
Piperia yadonii Yadon's rein orchid FE
Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil FE, SE
Rosa pinetorum pine rose
Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris
Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 225, Packet Page 553 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-8 City of Monterey
Table 3.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Planning Area Scientific Name Common Name Status1
Trifolium polyodon Pacific Grove clover CRPR
Trifolium trichocalyx Monterey clover FE, SE
Notes:
1 FP = state fully protected under Fish and Game Code; FE = federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); FT = federally listed as threatened under ESA; FC = a candidate for listing under ESA; SE = state listed as endangered under CESA; ST = state listed as threatened under CESA; SC = a candidate for listing under CESA; SSC = state Species of Special Concern; CRPR = California Rare Plant; SR = state listed as Rare pursuant to Native Plant Protection Act of 1977; ICP = California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority; WL= CDFW watch list
Source: CNDDB GIS Data, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023 Table 3.4-2: Special-Status Animal Species with the Potential to Occur in the Planning Area
Scientific Name Common Name Status1
Anniella pulchra Northern California legless lizard SSC Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC
Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee SC
Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover FT, SSC Coelus globosus globose dune beetle
Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail SSC
Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population
FC
Euphilotes enoptes smithi Smith's blue butterfly FE
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat FE
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail ST, FP Rana boylii pop. 6 foothill yellow-legged frog - south
coast DPS
Proposed Federally
Endangered, SE
Sorex ornatus salarius Monterey shrew SSC
Taxidea taxus American badger SSC
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 226, Packet Page 554 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-9
Table 3.4-2: Special-Status Animal Species with the Potential to Occur in the Planning Area
Scientific Name Common Name Status1
1 FP = state fully protected under Fish and Game Code; FE = federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); FT = federally listed as threatened under ESA; FC = a candidate for listing under ESA; SE = state listed as endangered under CESA; ST = state listed as threatened under CESA; SC = a candidate for listing under CESA; SSC = state Species of Special Concern; CRPR = California Rare Plant; SR = state listed as Rare pursuant to Native Plant Protection Act of 1977; ICP = California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority; WL= CDFW watch list
Source: CNDDB GIS Data, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2023 Sensitive Habitats
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined by the federal Endangered Species Act as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management and protection. Western snowy plover critical habitat occurs along the coast of Monterey and Yadon’s piperia critical habitat occurs in a small portion of Jacks Peak Park within Monterey, as designated by USFWS. No proposed sites for development overlap with designated critical habitat within the Planning Area. Critical habitat for Yadon’s piperia also occurs just west of the City limits.
Wildlife and Habitat Connectivity
The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California was designed to support land use planning and transportation. The report was produced by a multidisciplinary team of representatives from 62 agencies, along with a smaller technical advisory team and steering committee. The report includes a statewide essential habitat connectivity map, data collected to delineate areas shown on the map, recommendations for correcting the fragmentation caused by roads, and guidance for developing and implementing local and regional connectivity plans. Analysis was conducted to determine where mitigation would be most effective and how best to enhance connectivity while lessening vehicle/wildlife collisions.5 5 Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 227, Packet Page 555 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monarch - California
Overwintering
Population
Hickman's
Onion
American
Badger
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
Monterey
Pine
Monterey Pine
Monterey
Spineflower
Monterey
Spineflower
Central
Maritime
Chaparral
Sandmat
Manzanita
Sandmat
Manzanita
Sandmat
Manzanita
Eastwood's
Goldenbush
Eastwood's
Goldenbush
Eastwood's
Goldenbush
Eastwood's
goldenbush
Foothill
Yellow-Legged
Frog - South
Coast DPS
Marsh
Microseris
Central
Maritime
Chaparral
Pajaro
Manzanita
Monterey
Pine Forest
Woodland
Woollythreads
Monterey
Shrew
Yellow Rail
Western
Bumble Bee
Hoary Bat
Kellogg's
Horkelia
Jolon Clarkia
Central
Maritime
Chaparral
Monterey
Shrew
Eastwood's
Goldenbush
Seaside
Bird's-beak
Yadon's
Rein Orchid
Burrowing
Owl
Sandmat
Manzanita
Pine Rose
Northern
Curly-leaved
Monardella
Toro
Manzanita
Yadon's
Rein
Orchid
Pajaro Manzanita
Sandmat
Manzanita
Globose
Dune Beetle
Yadon's Rein
Orchid
Hickman's
Cinquefoil
Eastwood's
Goldenbush
Pine Rose
Pink
Johnny-nip
Marsh
Microseris
Hickman's
Onion
Santa Cruz
Microseris
Hooker's
Manzanita
Northern
California
legless lizard
Yadon's
Rein Orchid
Yadon's
Rein
Orchid
Pacific
Grove
clover
Northern
California
Legless Lizard
Hickman's
Onion
Hickman's
Onion
Monterey
Spineflower
Monterey
Gilia
Carmel Valley
Bush-Mallow
Pink
Johnny-nip
Yadon's
Rein Orchid
Monterey
Clover
Yadon's
Rein
Orchid
Pine
Rose
Yellow
Rail
Smith's Blue
Butterfly Sand-loving
Wallflower
Monterey
Spineflower
Monterey
Pine
Monterey Pine Forest
Monterey
Gilia
Northern
Curly-leaved
Monardella
Santa
Cruz
Clover
Yadon's
Rein
Orchid
Seaside
Bird's-beak
Yadon's
Rein
Orchid
Sandmat
Manzanita
Hickman's
Onion
California
Black
Rail
Western
Snowy
Plover
Monterey
Spineflower
San Franciso
Collinsia
Pink
Johny-nip
Obscure
Bumble Bee
Carmel Valley
Bush-Mallow
Obscure Bumble Bee
Western Bumble Bee
Monterey
Shrew
Hutchinson's
Larkspur
Maple-leaved
Checkerbloom
Monterey
Shrew
Hooker's Manzanita
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Figure 3.4-2: Special Status Species
Occurences
µ
Plants
Threatened/Endangered Species
Gowen Cypress
Hickman's Cinquefoil
Monterey Clover
Monterey Gilia
Monterey Spineflower
seaside Bird's-beak
Smith's Blue Butterfly
Yadon's Rein Orchid
Other Species
Carmel Valley Bush-Mallow
Central Maritime Chaparral
Eastwood's Goldenbush
Hickman's Onion
Hooker's Manzanita
Hutchinson's Larkspur
Jolon Clarkia
Kellogg's Horkelia
Maple-leaved Checkerbloom
Marsh Microseris
Monterey Pine
Monterey Pine Forest
Northern Curly-leaved Monardella
Pacific Grove Clover
Pajaro Manzanita
Pine Rose
Pink Johnny-nip
Saline Clover
Sand-loving Wallflower
Sandmat Manzanita
Santa Cruz Clover
Santa Cruz Microseris
San Francisco Collinsia
Woodland Woollythreads
Toro Manzanita
Animals
Threatened/Endangered Species
California Black Rail
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog - South Coast DPS
Smith's Blue Butterfly
Western Snowy Plover
Other Species - Animals
Other Species
American Badger
Burrowing Owl
Globose Dune Beetle
Hoary Bat
Monarch - California Overwintering Population
Monterey Shrew
Northern California Legless Lizard
Obscure Bumble Bee
Salinas Harvest Mouse
Western Bumble Bee
Western Pond Turtle
Yellow Rail
City of Monterey
Data Source: CNDDB, 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 228, Packet Page 556 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-11
The Planning Area has limited habitat connectivity, as indicated by CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observations System Habitat Connectivity Viewer and shown in Figure 3.4-3.7 However, Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 and Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord sites do fall under Areas of Conservation Emphasis (ACE) and are designated as ‘Connections with Implementation Flexibility’. Further, these same sites also fall under California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC) areas as designated by CDFW. In addition, there are several CEHC small natural areas located throughout the Planning Area that overlap with several proposed sites for development.
Wetlands and Other Waters
There are wetlands and other waters within the Planning Area. Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season. Water saturation (hydrology) largely determines how the soil develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions that favor the growth of specially adapted plants (hydrophytes) and promote the development of characteristic wetland (hydric) soils. Other waters encompass feature types that contain or convey water, including marine, estuarine, riverine, and lacustrine features.
Wetlands and other waters provide a multitude of ecological, economic, and social benefits. They provide habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants; allow for groundwater recharge; reduce flooding; and support cultural and recreational activities.
As discussed within the Regulatory Setting section below, technical standards for delineating wetlands and other waters have been developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the USFWS. Based on existing information from the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (2021), there are riverine (other water) features within the Planning Area. The Planning Area is dissected by a number of small creeks and streams that flow directly or indirectly to Monterey Bay. Lake El Estero and Del Monte Lake are the two largest surface water bodies in the city, while Laguna Grande and Roberts Lake, located in the City of Seaside, border the northern Planning Area boundary. Lake El Estero and Del Monte Lake are receiving bodies for several of the streams that flow through the city. Historically, these estuary systems varied from a tidally influenced marine system to a brackish water lake. These features support (or have the potential to support) seasonal wetland vegetation within their beds and riparian vegetation along their banks; however, this does not preclude future identification of wetlands during site-specific studies. 7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. n.d. Biogeographic Information and Observation System. Version 5.96.99. Available: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?bookmark=648. Accessed:
May 28, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 229, Packet Page 557 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch
Opportunity Area
50 Acres
MPUSD
Site
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
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
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
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Essential Connectivity Areas - California Essential Habitat Connetivity More Permeable
Less Permeable
Terrestrial Connectivity - ACE
Connectivity Rank
3 - Connections with Implementation Flexibility
1 - Limited Connectivity Opportunity
Natural Areas Small - California Essential Habitat Connectivity Stream/Creek
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 3.4-3: Habitat Connectivity Areas
Data Source: BIOS6, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2023; 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 230, Packet Page 558 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-13
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administer the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). FESA requires each agency to maintain lists of imperiled native species and affords substantial protections to these “listed” species. NMFS’ jurisdiction under FESA is limited to the protection of marine mammals, marine fishes, and anadromous fishes; all other species are subject to USFWS jurisdiction.
USFWS and NMFS may “list” a species if it is endangered (at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future). Section 9 of FESA prohibits the “take” of any wildlife species listed as endangered and most species listed as threatened. Take, as defined by FESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3).
FESA includes exceptions to general take prohibition that allow an action to be carried out, despite the fact that the action may result in take of listed species where conservation measures are included for the species. Section 7 of FESA provides an exception for actions authorized (e.g., under a Section 404 permit), funded, or carried out by a federal agency, and Section 10 provides an exception for actions that do not involve a federal agency.
Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation’s waters, including wetlands, lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Clean Water Act holds that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; issuance of such permits constitutes its principal regulatory tool.
The USACE is authorized to issue Section 404 permits, which allow the placement of dredged or fill materials into jurisdictional waters of the United States under certain circumstances. The USACE issues two types of permits under Section 404: general permits, which are either nationwide permits or regional permits, and standard permits, which are either letters of permission or individual permits. General permits are issued by the USACE to streamline the Section 404 permitting process for nationwide, statewide, or regional activities that have minimal direct or cumulative environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. Standard permits are issued for activities that do not qualify for a general permit because they may have more than a minimal adverse environmental impact.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 231, Packet Page 559 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-14 City of Monterey
Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401
Under the Clean Water Act Section 401, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the State in which the discharge would originate. Therefore, all projects that have a federal component and may affect State water quality, including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit, must also comply with Clean Water Act Section 401 and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In California, Section 401 certification is handled by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The City of Monterey falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB. The Central Coast RWQCB must certify that the discharge will comply with State water quality standards and other requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), as amended, implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful, as is taking of any parts, nests, or eggs of such birds (16 United States Code 703).
Take is defined more narrowly under the MBTA than under FESA and includes only death or injury involving individuals of a migratory bird species or its eggs. As such, take under the MBTA does not include the concepts of harm and harassment, as defined under FESA.
Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan for Former Fort Ord (1997) The Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Former Fort Ord was signed into effect by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1997 to promote the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of habitat and populations of HMP species while allowing development of properties that promotes economic recovery after closure of Fort Ord. It provides management guidelines and specifications for all parcels on the 28,000-acre Fort Ord property, a portion of which is within the Planning Area. The HMP identifies the following principal management categories:
• Habitat Reserve - no development allowed; management goal is conservation and enhancement of threatened and endangered species;
• Habitat Corridor - land between major reserve areas; to be managed to promote connections between conservation areas;
• Development with Reserve Areas or Development with Restrictions - lands slated for development that contain inholdings of reserve or require specific restrictions to protect biological resource values; management of reserve inholdings must match that for habitat reserves, while management in developable areas must proceed with certain specific restrictions identified in this HMP;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 232, Packet Page 560 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-15
• Borderland Development Areas Along NRMA Interface - area abutting the Natural Resource Management Area that are slated for development; management of these lands includes no restrictions except along the development/reserve interface; • Development - no management restrictions are contained in the HMP; some plans for salvage of biological resources from these lands may be specified; and • Future Road Corridors - lands with habitat reserve set aside for future road development; to be managed as habitat reserve unit road development occurs.
The HMP Map for Former Fort Ord, updated in 2005, shows that the majority of land on the property that is within the Planning Area is within the Development category, with a portion in the northwest of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area identified as Habitat Reserve.
State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
Administered by the CDFW, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of listed species and also species formally under consideration for listing in California, referred to as candidate species. Under CESA, “take” means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” (California Fish and Game Code Section 86.) Under this definition, in contrast to FESA, CESA does not prohibit “harm” to a listed species. Furthermore, take under CESA does not include “the taking of habitat alone or the impacts of the taking.” However, the killing of a listed species that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and not the primary purpose of the activity constitutes take under CESA. CESA does not protect insects but, with certain exceptions, does prohibit take of plants on private land.
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act was enacted to implement broad-based planning and provide effective protection and conservation of California’s wildlife heritage while allowing appropriate development and growth. The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act does not focus on only listed species. It is broader in its orientation and objectives compared with FESA and CESA. The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act encourages local, State, and federal agencies to prepare comprehensive conservation plans that maintain the continued viability of species and biological communities that have been affected by human changes to the landscape. The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act provides for incidental take authorization such that covered activities resulting in incidental take of listed species may be carried out without violating CESA. Permits issued under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act can also be broad and may include both listed species and non-listed species.
State Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600–1616
The CDFW has jurisdictional authority over streams and lakes, as well as wetland resources associated with these aquatic systems, under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.
The CDFW has the authority to regulate work that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 233, Packet Page 561 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-16 City of Monterey
flow of, or substantially change or use any material from, the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake or deposit or dispose of debris waste or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake” (California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.). An entity that proposes to carry out such an activity must first inform the CDFW. Where the CDFW concludes that the activity will “substantially adversely affect an existing (2014) fish or wildlife resource,” the entity proposing the activity must negotiate an agreement with the CDFW that specifies terms under which the activity may be carried out in a way that protects the affected wildlife resource.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California Water Code Section 13260 requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the State to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements [WDRs]).” Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act definition, waters of the State are “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State.” Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the State, the reverse is not true. Accordingly, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the State, regardless of whether the USACE has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA Section 404. If USACE determines that a wetland is not subject to regulation under Section 404, CWA Section 401 water quality certification is not required. However, the RWQCB may impose WDRs if fill material is placed into waters of the State.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CNPPA) prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California, take of rare and endangered plants, and the sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers to the CNPPA, which ensures that State-listed plant species are protected when State agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. In that case, plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA but rather under CEQA.
Local Regulations
City of Monterey General Plan 2005 (General Plan)
The City of Monterey General Plan 2005 (General Plan) includes the following goals and policies associated with biological resources:
Conservation Element
Goal b. Protect creeks, lakes, wetlands, beaches, and Monterey Bay from pollutants discharged to the storm drain system.
Policy b.1. Continue public education and outreach programs to eliminate use of storm drains for dumping hazardous or inappropriate wastes, such as used motor oil.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 234, Packet Page 562 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-17
Policy b.2. Minimize particulate matter pollution with erosion and sediment control in waterways and on construction sites and with regular street sweeping on City streets.
Policy b.3. Minimize development or removal of vegetation on areas particularly susceptible to erosion, such as steep slopes, and require programs to minimize erosion when development occurs in these areas.
Policy b.4. Retain and restore wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats, which provide remediation for degraded water quality.
Goal d. Protect the character and composition of existing native vegetative communities. Conserve, manage, and restore habitats for endangered species, and protect biological diversity represented by special-status plant and wildlife species.
Policy d.1. Protect existing native plants and promote the use of locally occurring, native vegetation for public and private landscaping and revegetation efforts.
Program d.1.1. Develop a public education program promoting the use of native plants 69 and addressing major plant diseases. The materials shall include a list of recommended species for planting and the California Exotic Pest Plant list, and shall address prevention and management strategies for vegetation pathogens such as pitch canker and sudden oak disease.
Policy d.2. Discourage the use of plant species on the California Exotic Pest Plant Council lists.
Program d.2.1. Discourage the use of invasive plant species (those listed on Exotic Pest Plant List A and B within publicly owned and within moderate- and high-value habitats (see map); and those listed on List A in any location) by public and private entities in landscape planting plans submitted for review.
Policy d.3. Protect existing sensitive habitats by careful planning to avoid and/or mitigate significant impacts to habitat areas identified as having high and moderate biological values.
Policy d.4. Protect and manage habitats that support special-status species, are of high biological diversity, or are unusual or regionally restricted. Prepare biotic reports or habitat management plans as needed to ensure protection of habitat values.
Policy d.5. Reduce biotic impacts to a less-than-significant level on project sites by ensuring that mitigation measures identified in biotic reports are incorporated as conditions of approval for development projects. Compliance with the City Tree Ordinance is the mechanism that will be used to address impacts of tree removals. As mitigation for significant impacts, avoidance, replacement, restoration of habitats on- or off-site, or other measures may be required.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 235, Packet Page 563 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-18 City of Monterey
Policy d.6. Within identified habitat areas with high biological value, the City will provide for a focused evaluation of areas identified as appropriate habitat for special-status species during the project review and approval process.
Program d.6.1. Prepare a Monterey Pine Management Plan for the Monterey pine forest existing in the City. The goal of this plan is to prevent further genetic contamination and preserve the health and viability of the forest.
Program d.6.2. Prepare a Dune and Beach Restoration and Management Plan. This plan will provide a long-term strategy to retain or improve the condition of this resource within the dunes and beaches.
Program d.6.3. Prepare a Riparian and Stream Corridor Restoration and Management Plan. The plan should coordinate efforts between the various government agencies and property owners.
Program d.6.4. Consider developing a habitat impact mitigation fee to restore high-value biological areas.
Program d.6.5. Provide information to the public about special-status species and the habitats that support them.
Program d.6.6. Proceed with Master Plan for Ed Ricketts Underwater Park.
Open Space Element
Goal a. Preserve the Monterey Bay as the City’s most significant natural resource.
Policy a.1. Support industries that contribute to the appreciation of the Monterey Bay’s resources, including, but not limited to, the commercial fishing industry and research activities, and tourism.
Policy a.2. Protect the marine habitats of Monterey Bay in cooperation with State and Federal agencies.
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.1. Maintain the City shoreline and beaches for recreation use and support facilities.
Policy b.2. Preserve the City’s active use areas adjacent to the Monterey Bay, including, but not limited to, the wharves, boat access facilities, and piers.
Policy b.3. Support Navy and other efforts to restore the dunes adjacent to Del Monte Avenue for habitat conservation purposes, including the Navy property east of Sloat Avenue.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 236, Packet Page 564 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-19
Policy b.4. Protect views of the Monterey Bay from Monterey Bay and Shoreline Parks Policy c.1. Maintain greenbelts as open space.
Policy c.2. Coordinate with the County to preserve greenbelts, which form the backdrop of Monterey.
Policy c.3. Work with the County and others to preserve Monterey Pines where possible.
Goal d. Preserve and improve lakes and waterways as important visual, habitat, flood protection, and recreation resources.
Policy d.1. Continue to preserve Lake El Estero, Del Monte Lake, Roberts Lake, Laguna Grande, Washerwoman’s Pond, and Lagunita Mirada as visual open space features.
Policy d.2. Recognize that Del Monte Lake is a key entrance feature into the City of Monterey and work with U.S. Naval Postgraduate School to remove physical and visual barriers to the lake.
Policy d.3. Maintain the lakes and waterways as flood control features for the City.
Policy d.4. Protect native plants, animals, and native habitats in Lake El Estero, Del Monte Lake, and Laguna Grande.
Policy d.5. Continue to support and enhance the public use of the City's lakes. Manage nonnative wildlife such as Canadian Geese.
Policy d.6. Continue to allow active recreational use of the lakes.
Policy d.7. Work with the City of Seaside to preserve and enhance Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande.
Goal e. Ensure streams continue to function as natural flood control channels and habitat for native plants and animals.
Policy e.1. Maintain the City's streams by controlling erosion.
Policy e.2. Restore vegetation adjacent to streams with native plants to ensure a balanced ecosystem (which may include removal of non-native species).
Policy e.3. Encourage pedestrian access along streams where appropriate.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 237, Packet Page 565 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-20 City of Monterey
Policy a.1. Conserve and enhance the environment of the beaches and sand dunes as natural attractions, and improve public access consistent with dune preservation goals. Integrate the beaches and dunes into a continuous natural setting.
Policy a.2. Develop for active park and beach use, but minimize parking and building intrusion into the park. Marina, Shoreline Park, Wharves, and Breakwater Policy a.3. Retain active waterfront activities, including commercial and sport fishing, working wharves, boat access, and boat repair, which show Monterey’s historic interface with the Bay.
Maintain a natural appearance and maritime use of the water’s edge.
Policy a.4. Keep random mooring concept intact in the outer harbor because of its special scenic value.
Policy a.5. Do not overcrowd the harbor with boat slips and moorings. A limited number of boat slips and moorings are appropriate where they help maintain the visual qualities of the maritime setting. San Carlos Beach Park.
Policy a.6. Maintain views, active park use, and the rocky shoreline at San Carlos Beach Park.
Cannery Row.
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.8. Preserve and maintain the natural environment of the Ed Ricketts underwater park and tidelands.
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.
Policy b.1. The visual skyline and foothills beyond the city limits should be under the City’s control.
One method of achieving this would be annexation. The City should engage in active collaboration with other governmental agencies and advocate for preservation of the forested areas.
Policy b.2. New development in the ridge areas should be sensitively located to preserve the forested setting. Development in the ridge areas should not silhouette against the skyline.
Policy b.3. Trees in forested areas should be preserved, and denuded areas should be reforested where feasible.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 238, Packet Page 566 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-21
Policy b.4. Foothill areas can be preserved by allowing low-density development, or clustered development with open space.
Policy b.5. Development in forested areas should not create obvious holes in the forest.
Policy b.6. Trails in forested areas are encouraged to allow for passive public enjoyment of the natural setting.
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.
Policy c.1. Maintain the canyons and their native vegetation throughout their lengths.
Goal d. Maintain lakes and waterways, and natural drainage.
Policy d.1. Discourage proliferation of surface parking and other hard surface, man-made improvements at Lake El Estero.
Policy d.2. Coordinate with the Naval Postgraduate School to allow use of Del Monte Lake as an historic public view and recreation resource.
Policy d.3. Coordinate with the City of Seaside to assure that Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande remain as marsh habitat and scenic resources for both Seaside and Monterey.
Monterey City Code
Chapter 31.5, Article 2 of the City Code is Monterey’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect and enhance water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with federal and state legislation. Section 31.5-18 outlines watercourse protection measures. Watercourse protection shall be identified in the development planning stage of real property by the person or entity owning the property through which a watercourse passes, in order to retain creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas that provide habitat, and to remediate degraded water quality. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, preservation and setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulatory permit authorities.
Chapter 37, the Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance, is intended to preserve Monterey’s image of a small-scale 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 239, Packet Page 567 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-22 City of Monterey
All public or private construction projects requiring acquisition of a building permit shall comply with the tree protection guidelines established by the City in order to safeguard and protect any trees affected by said construction (Ord. 3424 § 13, 2009).
It shall be unlawful for any person to cut, prune, top, damage or remove, or cause to be cut, pruned, topped, damaged or removed, any tree or shrub in any City-owned park, green belt or other public area unless pursuant to a permit issued by the City Forester. In addition, it shall be unlawful to damage or remove, or to cause the damage or removal of, any tree in the public right-of-way unless pursuant to a permit issued by the City Forester.
In addition, any application for a permit to cut, prune, top or remove, or cause to be cut, pruned, topped or removed, any tree on public property for the purpose of view enhancement shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions set forth in the City’s view trimming guidelines, in addition to any other permit application requirements established by the City. (Ord. 3424 § 13, 2009),).
The “local landmark tree” category establishes a process for reviewing and recommending trees that should be protected and preserved because of their outstanding size, prominence, and/or health. Setback variations and variance applications are considered to assist preservation where landmark trees may constrain reasonable development of permitted uses. Existing development on similar sites in the same zone and having similar topographic and vegetation characteristics shall be considered when determining reasonable development on property containing landmark trees.
Local landmark trees may be removed in situations where the tree is determined to be unhealthy, present a safety hazard, or prevents reasonable development of permitted uses on the property as set forth in Paragraphs 37-10 and 37-11 within chapter 37 of the City Code.
Impact Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Plan would:
Criterion 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus 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; Criterion 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 240, Packet Page 568 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-23
Criterion 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Criterion 4: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; Criterion 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
Criterion 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, community conservation Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The Proposed Plan’s Planning Area was compared against existing biological conditions to determine potential impacts on biological resources that could result from implementation of the Proposed Plan. No field studies or other research were conducted for preparation of this Draft EIR because existing resources contained information on all pertinent aspects of biological resources in the Planning Area at an appropriate level of detail for a program-level environmental assessment.
The CDFW submitted comments regarding baseline natural resource information and specialstatus species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in or near the Planning Area which informed the analysis. Information regarding the occurrences of these special-status species within the boundaries of the Planning Area was obtained from a query of the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Future project-specific detailed biological surveys may be necessary to confirm the presence or absence of sensitive resources on future development sites.
Impacts associated with future development as a result of the Proposed Plan implementation are analyzed qualitatively at a program level.
RELEVANT PROPOSED GOALS AND POLICIES
The Proposed Plan contains the following goals and policies relevant to biological resources. The full text of proposed Housing Element programs is included in Appendix B for reference:
Housing Element
Housing Goal #1. Increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031.
Policy 1.3 Recognizing that infill development alone will not be sufficient to meet the City's RHNA obligations, plan holistically to integrate new housing in context sensitive ways on larger vacant properties in the southeast of Monterey to take advantage of opportunities where they exist.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 241, Packet Page 569 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-24 City of Monterey
Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Rach Specific Plan.
Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update.
IMPACTS
Impact 3.4-1 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
A range of special-status species have been documented in and around the Planning Area, as described above in the Environmental Setting and listed in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. The extent of existing development and human activity within the Planning Area limits the potential for specialstatus species occurrence. Areas that may provide habitat for special-status species are located primarily in the open space and undeveloped habitat types, including in Monterey pine forest, oak woodland, grasslands, coastal dune scrubs, and chaparral areas.
As shown in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, there are 26 special-status plant species and 13 special-status wildlife species with potential to occur within the Planning Area. However, buildout of the Proposed Plan would focus future development and redevelopment primarily into previously developed areas of Monterey. Many of the special-status species with potential to occur in the Planning Area, including seven plant species and six animal species, have not been documented on or near the Proposed Plan’s sites identified for housing development. As shown in Figure 3.4-1, only a select number of special-status species have been documented on or near the Proposed Plan’s sites identified for housing development. These species include seven animal species which are the hoary bat, Monterey shrew, western bumble bee, yellow rail, burrowing owl, Northern California legless lizard, Smith's blue butterfly, and 19 plants species which are the Kellogg's horkelia, woodland woollythreads, Jolon clarkia, Monterey pine, seaside bird's-beak, Eastwood's goldenbush, Pajaro manzanita, Central Maritime Chaparral, Hickman's onion, marsh microseris, pink Johnnynip, Yadon's rein orchid, pine rose, Monterey gilia, Hickman's cinquefoil, sandmat manzanita, Monterey spineflower, Toro manzanita, and northern curly-leaved monardella.
Implementation of the Proposed Plan would focus future development and redevelopment primarily in previously developed portions of the city, limiting the potential for significant adverse impacts on special-status species and sensitive natural communities. However, given the extent of biological resources throughout the community, future development under the Proposed Plan could have a significant direct or indirect impact on special-status species if it would result in the removal or degradation of the species or suitable habitat. If future development were to substantially degrade or remove suitable habitat for special-status species or result in adverse ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 242, Packet Page 570 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-25
impacts on special-status individuals, there could be significant impacts on special-status species.
This could occur because of construction activities or from ongoing operation and/or maintenance of a project.
The General Plan Conservation Element outlines requirements for development to conserve, manage, and restore habitats for endangered species, and protect biological diversity represented by special-status plant and wildlife species (Goal d). Specifically, policies d.1 and d.3 require the protection of existing native plants and sensitive habitat. Policy d.4 requires the protection and management of habitats that support special-status species, are of high biological diversity, or are unusual or regionally restricted. Developments must prepare biotic reports or habitat management plans as needed to ensure protection of habitat values. Policy d.5 requires the reduction of biotic impacts to a less-than-significant level on project sites by ensuring that mitigation measures identified in biotic reports are incorporated as conditions of approval for development projects. As mitigation for significant impacts, avoidance, replacement, restoration of habitats on- or off-site, or other measures may be required. These policies and regulations would serve to reduce impacts on special-status species and their habitats.
To further address potential impacts to special status species, Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require site assessments by a qualified professional for development applications that may adversely affect sensitive biological resources, is required. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require implementation of a worker environmental awareness training program to train construction staff on the needs of protecting sensitive biological resources and the ramifications for not complying with applicable laws. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require the installation of temporary flagging or barrier fencing to protect sensitive biological resources adjacent to the work area as warranted based on the findings of the site assessment completed pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Further, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 through BIO-12 outline additional construction requirements to ensure the protection of special-status plant species, nesting bird species, bat species, the burrowing owl, Western bumble bee, Northern California legless lizard, Smith's blue butterfly, Monterey shrew, and the American badger, as warranted based on the findings of the site assessment. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and adherence to existing policies and local regulations, as discussed above, the impacts of future development under the Proposed Plan on special-status species would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special Status Species. Prior to grounddisturbing activities and during the appropriate identification periods for specialstatus plants and wildlife listed in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, project applicants proposing development on sites with the potential for special-status species to occur shall engage a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting surveys for subject species in Monterey County to conduct field surveys within work areas and the immediately adjacent areas to determine the presence of habitat for ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 243, Packet Page 571 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-26 City of Monterey
special-status plant and wildlife species. The field surveys are to be conducted when special-status species that could occur in the area are evident and identifiable, generally during the blooming or breeding period. For special-status plants, field surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities”..” One or more surveys shall be conducted as needed to account for different special-status species identification periods. The results of field surveys shall be summarized in an accompanying report documenting all proposed work areas and the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by development. Additionally, the report shall outline where species and/or habitat-specific mitigation measures (as required under Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-12) are required. This report will provide the basis for any applicable permit applications and consultations with regulatory agencies where incidental take may occur.
MM-BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program. If it is established pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 that special status species occur on the site, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, and for the duration of construction activities, the project proponent shall demonstrate that it has in place a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for all construction workers at the project site. All construction workers shall attend the Program prior to participating in construction activities. The Program shall be developed and conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in Monterey County. The training may be presented in video form. The Program shall include:
● Information on the life history of wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during construction activities and legal protection status of each species;
● The definition of “take” under the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act;
● Measures the project proponent/operator is implementing to protect the species; and
● Specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid take of wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act.
MM-BIO-3: Install Temporary Flagging or Barrier Fencing to Protect Sensitive Biological Resources Adjacent to the Work Area. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist with prior experience for subject species in Monterey County shall identify and flag or fence sensitive biological habitat on-site to ensure it is avoided during construction and pre-construction activities. Flagging or fencing shall be installed prior to site preparation activities and remain in place for the duration of construction activities.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 244, Packet Page 572 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-27
MM-BIO-4: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Special-Status Plant Species. If necessary pursuant to the results of surveys conducted under Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the work area shall be modified to the extent feasible to avoid indirect or direct impacts on special-status plants. Special-status plant species shall be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a no disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special status plant species. If complete avoidance of special-status plants is not feasible, at a minimum the special-status plant species shall be relocated on-site, at least 20 feet away from construction directly relating to the project. All site preparation, seed/cutting/root collection, grow-out, and plant installation shall be conducted by a landscape company approved by the City of Monterey with experience working on restoration projects and within the habitats present on-site.
Following the relocation, the plantings/seedingsshall be monitored annually for five years or longer by a botanist paid for and hired by the Project proponent to determine the success of the relocation. For individual plants, success criteria is the establishment of new viable occurrences equal to or greater in number than the number of plants impacted, for at least three years without supplemental care such as watering. On-site maintenance of the relocated plants shall be contracted to a landscaping company which will also be paid for and hired by the Project proponent. An annual report by a botanist detailing the success of the relocation shall be drafted and submitted to all responsible agencies (e.g., CDFW, USFWS) for their review. If success criteria are not met, management of the relocated plants will be modified as needed, but management and reporting shall continue until success criteria are met.
MM-BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Bird Species. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. Surveys should also cover a sufficient area around each future project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by a project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, a qualified biologist shall continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from each future project. If behavioral changes occur, all work will be halted causing that change and consultation with CDFW will be conducted for additional avoidance and minimization measures.
If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, then a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 245, Packet Page 573 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-28 City of Monterey
bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors will be implemented. These buffers shall remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival.
Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction areas would be concealed from a nest site by topography. A qualified biologist shall advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.
MM-BIO-6: Disturbance to Bat Species. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for bats which shall take place during the maternity roosting season (defined as: April 1 through August 31) within riparian habitat and any old wooden buildings within a project site. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to removal of trees, snags, or buildings within the project area.
Ultrasonic acoustic surveys and/or other site appropriate survey method may be performed to determine the presence or absence of bats utilizing the project site as roosting or foraging habitat. Additionally, the following measures shall be implemented to lessen impacts to bats:
a) If special-status bat species are detected during surveys, species and roost specific mitigation measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist.
Such measures may include postponing removal of trees, snags, or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species appropriate roosting habitat within, or adjacent to the project site.
b) Trees, snags, and buildings may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season without performing preconstruction bat surveys. c) Felled trees shall remain on the ground for 24 hours prior to being removed or chipped.
d) For all buildings to be demolished, internal entrance surveys shall be performed by a qualified bat biologist no less than 14 days prior 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 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 246, Packet Page 574 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-29
similar structure shape and thermal properties are met with the replacement roost.
f) If no active roosts are identified, then work may commence as planned.
Survey results are valid for 30 days from the survey date. Should work commence later than 30 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. No preconstruction bat surveys are required for work conducted between the hibernation season and maternity season (i.e., September 1 through October 31).
MM-BIO-7: Disturbance to Burrowing Owl. If feasible, 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, decommissioningrelated ground disturbing activities shall begin outside of the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1 through August 31).
If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities of the project site and surrounding areas to 150 meters in accordance with the methods outlined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or most recently adopted guidance. The first preconstruction survey will cover all areas within 150 meters of the portion of the site in which construction is scheduled to start. Surveys will be phased based on the construction schedule such that the surveys are conducted no more than 14 days ahead of the start of ground disturbance in new areas. If no occupied breeding or wintering owl burrows are identified, no further mitigation will be required. If occupied burrows are identified on the site or within 150 meters, one of the following actions shall be taken: (1) permanent avoidance of the burrow or (2) establishment of a temporary avoidance buffer followed by passive relocation and compensatory mitigation for loss of habitat in conjunction with the measures below:
• If an occupied wintering burrow is discovered during preconstruction surveys, a 50-meter buffer area shall be established around the burrow until the owl leaves on its own (if the burrow is more than 50 meters offsite 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 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 247, Packet Page 575 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-30 City of Monterey
buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW and monitored at the discretion of a qualified biologist. If the 50-meter buffer cannot be maintained for the duration of occupancy by the owl, owls may be excluded from an occupied wintering burrow in accordance with the conditions of the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls.
• If an occupied nesting burrow is discovered during preconstruction surveys, an avoidance buffer of 200 meters shall be established around the burrow location and maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest has fledged or is no longer active (a 200-meter avoidance buffer is appropriate for low intensity impacts near nesting burrows during breeding season [CDFW 2012]). No project activities shall take place within the 200-meter buffer during the time in which it is in place. A smaller buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW and monitored at the discretion of a qualified biologist.
• If an occupied burrow cannot be avoided, and the burrow is not actively in use as a nest, a 200-meter buffer shall be established until the burrowing owls can be excluded from burrows in accordance with the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is based on the recommendations made in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or most recently adopted guidance and shall include the following information for each proposed passive relocation:
o Confirmation by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other species;
o Type of scope to be used and appropriate timing of scoping; o Occupancy factors to look for and what shall guide determination of vacancy and excavation timing;
o Methods for burrow excavation;
o Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia onsite; o Methods for photographic documentation of the excavation and closure of the burrow; and
o Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take. Methods for assuring the impacted site shall continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and fossorial mammals.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 248, Packet Page 576 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-31
If an occupied burrow is identified off-site within 150 meters and passive exclusion is deemed necessary to protect the owls, burrowing owls may be excluded from burrows if permission is granted by the landowner, and in accordance with the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls. If burrowing owls cannot be excluded from an off-site burrow and it is not feasible to maintain an avoidance buffer as stated above, coordination will be conducted with CDFW to determine appropriate measures to minimize impacts to off-site burrowing owls.
Such measures could include, but are not limited to: (1) installation of barriers between the construction or decommissioning area and the occupied burrows to block noise and views of construction or decommissioning equipment and personnel, and (2) regular monitoring by a qualified biologist to determine if construction or decommissioning activities are resulting in disturbance of the owls that could lead to nest abandonment or harm to adult owls or their young. If such disturbance was occurring, the biological monitor would have the authority to halt construction activities until further modifications could be made to avoid disturbance of the owls.
If burrowing owl pairs are passively relocated, compensatory mitigation for lost wintering/breeding habitat shall be provided either through dedication of 6 acres of suitable habitat (per pair of relocated owls) at an off-site location in accordance with the conditions of the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan or through purchase of credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank in the region. No compensatory mitigation is required for passive relocation or eviction of transient, unpaired owls.
If permanent avoidance buffers are established, such areas shall be managed for the duration of the project to preserve current values as foraging habitat for burrowing owl. Management shall include: (1) exclusion of all project activities throughout the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases, including staging, parking, driving, or dumping; (2) vegetation management by grazing or mowing to preserve open, low-growing vegetation; (3) fencing to discourage human incursion; (4) signage identifying the area as a biologically sensitive area managed for burrowing owl, and; (5) a worker education and awareness program for all personnel working on the site including contractors and 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.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 249, Packet Page 577 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-32 City of Monterey
The surveys shall occur when temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), on sunny days with wind speeds below 8 miles per hour, and at least 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset. Surveyors shall conduct transect surveys focusing on detection of foraging bumble bees and underground nests using visual aids such as binoculars. If no western bumble bees or potential western bumble bees are detected, no further mitigation is required. If potential western bumble bees are seen but cannot be identified, the applicant shall obtain authorization from CDFW within 14 days prior to groundbreaking to use nonlethal netting methods to capture bumble bees to identify them to species. If protected bumble bee nests are found, they shall be protected in place until they are no longer active as determined by a licensed entomologist. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to groundbreaking within 14 days of completing the take avoidance survey.
MM-BIO-9: Disturbance to Northern California Legless Lizard. If the Northern California Legless Lizard is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the project area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then the following measures will be implemented:
Immediately prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant will conduct a clearance survey in suitable habitat within the project work area for Northern California legless lizards. The project biologist may establish Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (WEF) to keep the species from entering the work area. If the Northern California legless lizard is observed during construction, measures will be taken to avoid the individual(s) and the species will be allowed to leave on its own volition or will be relocated outside of the work area by the project biologist. Clearance surveys will be conducted daily unless the project biologist determines that the surveys are no longer necessary.
MM-BIO-10: Disturbance to Smith’s Blue Butterfly. If the Smith’s blue butterfly is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the project area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then the following measures will be implemented:
• Project areas within the range of these species will be surveyed by a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant for seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), the butterfly’s host plant. • Host plants within the occupied habitat will be marked with high visibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no construction activities will occur within 10 feet of these plants.
• If complete avoidance of the host plant is not feasible, then the species shall be relocated on-site pursuant to the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 250, Packet Page 578 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-33
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 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.
Significance after mitigation: Less than significant
Impact 3.4-2 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant)
As noted above in the Environmental Setting, the Planning Area includes riparian habitat located along a number of small creeks and streams that flow directly or indirectly to Monterey Bay, which is considered a sensitive natural community and habitat for sensitive wildlife species located throughout the Planning Area. Implementation of the Proposed Plan could have a significant impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities if future development under the Proposed Plan results in the removal or degradation of the habitat.
As discussed under Impact 3.4-1, implementation of the Proposed Plan would focus future development and redevelopment primarily into previously developed areas of the city, limiting the potential for disruption to undeveloped habitat areas. In addition, areas with sensitive natural communities, such as riparian/wetlands and USFWS-designated critical habitat, are located primarily in the open space designations for the Planning Area and do not overlap with proposed sites for development. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Plan would generally not result ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 251, Packet Page 579 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-34 City of Monterey
in the degradation or removal of any riparian or other sensitive habitat identified within the Planning Area.
Further, the City of Monterey General Plan and City Code include policies and regulations that aim to minimize or avoid adverse effects from development that is adjacent to riparian areas and sensitive natural communities. General Plan Conservation Element policies b.1 through b.4. aim to protect creeks, lakes, wetlands, beaches, and Monterey Bay from pollutants discharged to the storm drain system. Specific strategies include minimizing particulate matter pollution with erosion and sediment control in waterways and on construction sites, minimizing development or removal of vegetation on areas particularly susceptible to erosion, requiring programs to minimize erosion when development occurs in these areas, and retaining and restoring wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats.
General Plan Open Space Element Policy a.2 requires the protection of the marine habitats of the Monterey Bay. Policy b.3 requires efforts to restore the dunes adjacent to Del Monte Avenue for habitat conservation purposes and Policy c.1 maintains greenbelts as open space. Further, polices d.1 through d.4 require the continued preservation of lakes in the Planning Area while protecting native plants, animals, and native habitats adjacent to these water resources. Similarly, policies e.1 and e.2 maintain the city’s streams by controlling erosion and restore vegetation adjacent to streams with native plants to ensure a balanced ecosystem. Further, Section 31.5-18 of the Monterey City Code requires that watercourse protection measures be identified in the development planning stage of real property by the person or entity owning the property through which a watercourse passes, in order to retain creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas that provide habitat, and to remediate degraded water quality. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, preservation and setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulatory permit authorities.
Therefore, with implementation of these policies and adherence to local regulations, as discussed above, the impacts of future development under the Proposed Plan on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.4-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or 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. (Less than Significant)
As described in the Environmental Setting, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (2021) listed riverine (other water) features within the Planning Area. The Planning Area is dissected by a number of small creeks and streams that flow directly or indirectly to Monterey Bay. These features ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 252, Packet Page 580 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-35
support (or have the potential to support) seasonal wetland vegetation within their beds and riparian vegetation along their banks and are considered federally protected, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the Proposed Plan could have a significant impact on federally protected wetlands if future development under the Proposed Plan results in the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or otherwise degradation of the habitat.
As discussed under Impact 3.4-1, future development under the Proposed Plan would take place primarily in previously developed areas of the city, which limits the potential for disruption to undeveloped wetland habitat in the Planning Area. Development within the Coastal Zone is also regulated through the California Coastal Act, which guides how the land along the coast of California is developed or protected from development. The Act emphasizes the importance of the public being able to access the coast, and the preservation of sensitive coastal and marine habitat and biodiversity. It also dictates that development be clustered in areas to preserve open space, and that coastal agricultural lands be preserved.
Future development under the Proposed Plan would also be subject to the requirements of Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permitting requirements, which would limit and/or mitigate impacts from projects that would discharge pollutants or dredged or fill materials into waters of the state, including wetlands. Future development would also be subject to the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, which would require any project that could substantially divert or obstruct the flow of, substantially change or use any material from, or deposit debris into a river, stream, or lake to agree to measures that would protect existing fish or wildlife resources.
Additionally, General Plan Open Space Element policies a.2, d.1, d,2, d.3, and e.1 require the protection and preservation of the marine habitats of Monterey Bay as well as the lakes, streams, and waterways in the Planning Area. Further, Conservation Element Policy b.4 requires the retainment and restoration of wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats, which provide remediation for degraded water quality. In the General Plan Urban Design Element, Policy d.1 discourages proliferation of surface parking and other hard surface, man-made improvements at Lake Estero. In addition, Policy d.3 requires coordination with the City of Seaside to assure that Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande remain as marsh habitat and scenic resources for both Seaside and Monterey.
In addition, Chapter 31.5, Article 2 of the City Code requires the protection and enhancement of water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with federal and State legislation. Watercourse protection shall be identified in the development planning stage of real property by the person or entity owning the property through which a watercourse passes, in order to retain creeks, wetlands, and riparian areas that provide habitat, and to remediate degraded water quality. Such considerations include, but are not limited to, preservation and setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and riparian habitats in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulatory permit authorities. With implementation of these policies and adherence to local regulations, as discussed above, impacts of future development under the Proposed Plan would be less than ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 253, Packet Page 581 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-36 City of Monterey
significant in regard to direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means of degradation of wetland habitat.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.4-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant)
The Planning Area is located largely in areas with limited opportunity for habitat connectivity, as indicated by CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observations System (BIOS) Habitat Connectivity Viewer.9 However, portions of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area and the Highway 68 Area Plan area are within locations designated as having Connections with Implementation Flexibility, meaning they have connectivity importance, but have not been identified as channelized areas, species corridors, or habitat linkages. Generally, though, BIOS data indicates that the areas of Connections with Implementation Flexibility within the City are less permeable to wildlife and are not priority areas for habitat connectivity. In this area, Highway 68 and Highway 1 are significant existing barriers to wildlife migration. The Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Former Fort Ord (1997) established three habitat corridors to provide avenues for wildlife and plant dispersal and genetic interchange among four larger habitat conservation within the 28,000-acre area of the former Fort Ord property. None of the habitat corridors are located within the Planning Area and the closest corridor is approximately 3 miles north of Ryan Ranch.
While the Proposed Plan would not involve development within any of the habitat corridors identified in the HMP and would only occur within locations identified as development areas in the HMP, development in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area would occur adjacent to the North-South Road Conservation Area identified in the HMP and development on the 50-acre MPUSD site within the boundaries of the Highway 68 Area Plan would occur adjacent to a large area of natural open space. Development in these areas may result in disturbance to these movement habitats, causing fragmentation of wildlife movement corridors. However, Proposed Plan Programs 1-H and 1-I envision that new development would be integrated into portions of these areas while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat.
Additionally, General Plan policies and City regulations adopted to preserve and protect movement through habitat in the wooded skyline, foothills, wooded canyons, lakes, streams, waterways, and 9 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), Essential Connectivity Areas - California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC), accessed on December 20 at: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?bookmark=648
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 254, Packet Page 582 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-37
greenbelts within the Planning Area would apply, reducing the potential impacts related to wildlife migration.
General Plan Urban Design Element policies b.2 through b.5 require new developments to be sensitively located to preserve the forest setting and not create obvious holes in the forest. Further, Policy b.4 ensures that foothills are preserved by allowing low-density development, or clustered development with open space. Policy h.1 requires significant natural features, including wildlife habitat and natural vegetation, within scenic corridors to be preserved under new development.
Similarly, polices c.1 through c.3 in the Open Space Element require that future developments maintain greenbelts as open space and preserve Monterey Pines where possible. Policy g.2 also promotes linking open spaces to provide habitat connection.
In addition, the General Plan Conservation Element outlines requirements for development to conserve, manage, and restore habitats for endangered species, and protect biological diversity represented by special-status plant and wildlife species (Goal d). Specifically, policies d.1 and d.3 require the protection of existing native plants and sensitive habitat. Policy d.4 requires the protection and management of habitats that support special-status species, are of high biological diversity, or are unusual or regionally restricted. Developments must prepare biotic reports or habitat management plans as needed to ensure protection of habitat values. Policy d.5 requires the reduction of biotic impacts to a less-than-significant level on project sites by ensuring that mitigation measures identified in biotic reports are incorporated as conditions of approval for development projects. Further, Policy d.6 outlines that within identified habitat areas with high biological value, the City will provide for a focused evaluation of areas identified as appropriate habitat for special-status species during the project review and approval process. Development under the Proposed Plan would also be required to comply with the provisions of the Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Chapter 37), reducing the potential for loss of trees that provide nesting habitat for native wildlife—specifically, bats, and native resident and migratory birds. These policies and regulations would serve to reduce impacts on special-status species and their habitats.
In addition, as discussed under Impact 3.4-3, future development under the Proposed Plan would be subject to the requirements of Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permitting requirements, which would limit and/or mitigate impacts from projects that would discharge pollutants or dredged or fill materials into waters of the state, including wetlands. Future development would also be subject to the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, which would require any project that could substantially divert or obstruct the flow of, substantially change or use any material from, or deposit debris into a river, stream, or lake to agree to measures that would protect existing fish or wildlife resources.
As such, future development within the Planning Area would be subject to the Proposed Plan’s programs, local regulations, and General Plan goals and policies related to biological resources that involve preserving and protecting open space; preserving natural resources, including plant, animal, and fish habitats; protecting wetlands; and protecting and enhancing streams and creeks.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 255, Packet Page 583 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
3.4-38 City of Monterey
Compliance with these policies and regulations would ensure the preservation of natural resources in the Planning Area and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.4-5 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant) A significant impact would occur if the Proposed Plan would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. General Plan Urban Design Element Policy b.2 requires new developments preserve the city’s forested setting while Policy b.3 requires that trees in forested areas be preserved, and denuded areas should be reforested where feasible. Policy g.5 requires the protection of existing Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and Coast live oak trees in urban and historic contexts, replanting when removal is necessary, and retaining the health of the stands. Further, Conservation Element Policy d.1 requires the protection of existing native plants and promotes the use of locally occurring, native vegetation for landscaping and revegetation efforts. Policy d.5 requires the compliance of the City’s Tree Ordinance as the mechanism that will be used to address impacts of tree removals. As mitigation for significant impacts, avoidance, replacement, restoration of habitats on- or -off-site, or other measures may be required.
In the Monterey City Code, Chapter 37 is the City’s Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance and the only local ordinance applicable to Impact 3.4-5. The ordinance is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable. Compliance with the City’s tree ordinance would help ensure that the impacts of the Proposed Plan on any local policies protecting biological resources would also be less than significant. For example, migratory birds are associated with areas with foraging, nesting, and roosting habitats present; as with most urbanized environments, landscape features within the Planning Area such as trees, shrubs, parklands, and human-built structures (e.g., bridges, buildings etc.) could serve as habitat for nesting or roosting birds.
Chapter 37 requires that any application for a permit to cut, prune, top or remove, or cause to be cut, pruned, topped or removed, any tree on public property for the purpose of view enhancement shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions set forth in the City’s view trimming guidelines, in addition to any other permit application requirements established by the City (Ord. 3424 § 13, 2009). Further, no person shall remove, damage or relocate, or cause to be removed, damaged or relocated, any tree on any private property within the city unless the City Forester has issued a permit. If it is determined after inspection of the property by the City Forester, Community Development Department, or Appeals Hearing Board that the adverse effects of tree removal can be mitigated, conditions may be imposed on the removal that can include replacement, payment in lieu of replacement, or maintenance and care programs. Development pursuant to the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 256, Packet Page 584 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.4: Biological Resources
City of Monterey 3.4-39
Proposed Plan may need to trim, prune or remove trees; however, all development projects would be required to comply with the aforementioned policies and regulations. As a result, the Proposed Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and a less than significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.4-6 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (Less than Significant Impact) A significant impact would occur if a project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. There are no Habitat Conservation Plans in Monterey County.10 The Installation-Wide Multispecies HMP for Former Fort Ord applies to the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area. As discussed above, the majority of land on the property that is within the Planning Area is within the Development category, where there are no management restrictions. A portion in the northwest of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area identified as Habitat Reserve, where no development is allowed. Program 1-H in the proposed Housing Element would involve preparation of a specific plan to integrate mixed use development in a portion of the First Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat. The specific plan and any subsequent development that it permits would be required to be consistent with the HMP, including its management guidelines and specifications.
Therefore, no impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
10 CDFW. 2021. Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). California Regional Conservation Plans Map. <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline>. Accessed: July 25, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 257, Packet Page 585 City of Monterey 3.5-1
3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for cultural and tribal cultural resources. It also describes impacts related to historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources (including human remains) that would result from implementation of the Proposed Plan and identifies mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. Cultural resources refer broadly to prehistoric and historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites exhibiting important historical, cultural, scientific, or technological associations. This definition extends to tribal cultural resources which refer to sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. For the purposes of CEQA, cultural resources are separated into three subcategories: historical resources, archaeological resources, and Native American tribal resources and remains. Appendix C and D include relevant background materials related to cultural resources and tribal consultation, respectively.
There was one response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding topics covered in this section. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments which have been incorporated into the following analysis.
Environmental Setting
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Planning Area is underlain by a major geologic feature, the Salinian Block, which in turn is underlain by granitic basement rock. The Salinian Block is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas Fault and on the southwest by the Palo Colorado-San Gregorio Fault. The block is approximately 50 miles wide and 300 miles long. The types of soils and geologic formations that underlie the city are varied, ranging from unconsolidated dune sands along Monterey Bay to exposed granite and sandstone.1
ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING
At the time of Euro-American contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Rumsen language, which is part of the Costanoan/Olhone language family (Levy 1978:485).
The Native Rumsen people lived in the area for thousands of years before Euro-Americans landed on Monterey's shores. The mild weather of the Central Coast, along with the bounty of fish and wildlife at the Bay made this area an important part of Rumsen life. Several of their village sites have 1 City of Monterey General Plan Update DEIR. July 14, 2004. Accessed: December 11, 2023. Available:
https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Planning/General-Plan/20-General-Plan-DEIR.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 258, Packet Page 586 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-2 City of Monterey
been identified within the Planning Area and there are Native American resources within or adjacent to the Planning Area that are referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976, Howard 1979), notably in areas marginal to Monterey Bay and inland near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine. Overall, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the Planning Area.
HISTORIC SETTING
The Planning Area contains a rich array of historic resources that are significant in California, national, and international historic contexts. These include prehistoric settlements, the seat of Spanish and Mexican colonial government, the site of California’s Constitutional Convention, development of California’s worldwide tourism industry, and more than 200 years of West Coast military history. Much of the city’s economic activity takes place in historic areas or areas with a significant number of historic buildings, including downtown, Cannery Row, Fisherman’s Wharf (i.e., Wharf 1), the Presidio of Monterey, Naval Postgraduate School, and Custom House Plaza.
Cultural and Historic Resources
In order to determine the presence or absence of cultural and historical resources within the Planning Area and the surrounding vicinity, a records search and literature review was requested at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State University. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records and historic maps, and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the town. Appendix C lists and describes all historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources NWIC identified in the Planning Area. A historic resource is a building, structure, object, prehistoric or historic archaeological site, or district possessing physical evidence of human activities over 50 years old. Historic resources are often designated and listed on the national, State, or a local register, making them eligible for certain protections or other benefits.
Nationally and State-Listed Resources
Early Monterey County maps indicated numerous buildings and structures, including bridges, piers or wharfs, a racetrack, railroads, and cemeteries within the Planning Area (1895 Monterey Sanborn Maps and 1913 Monterey USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle). The State Office of Historic Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists 963 recorded buildings and structures within the Planning Area. Additionally, NWIC documents 202 recorded buildings and structures and four districts. The districts include the Presidio of Monterey, El Castillo (Old Presidio), Old Del Monte Hotel District, and Monterey Old Town. There are 34 bridges listed within the Planning Area. Figure 3.5-1A presents the locations of these resources along with their historic status. In addition to recorded resources, as yet unevaluated buildings and structures over 50 years in age within the Planning Area may also be of historic value.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 259, Packet Page 587 j
jj
jjjjj
jj
j
j
j
jj
j
j
j
j
j
jj
j
j
j
j
jj
jjj
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
jj
j jj
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j j
j
j
j
j j jj
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j j
j j j
j
j
jj j
j
j
kjkjkj kj
kj
kjkj
kj
kj
kjkj
kjkj
kjkj kj
kj
kj
kj
kjkj
kjkjkjkjkjkjkj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj kj
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte Monterey Beach 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
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
Black, Mary House
& Studio Complex
Lou Ellen
Parmelee
House
Larkin House G. T.
Marsh & Sons
Pacific
Biological
Laboratories
Royal Presidio
Chapel of
San Carlos
U S Custom
House
Stevenson
House
St Johns
Episcopal
Chapel
James W.
Finch House
Josiah Merritt
Adobe
W Franklin St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
A brego 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 Dr Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 3.5-1A Historic Resources - NWIC.mxd kj Listed in the National Register (NR)
kj Listed in the California Register (CR)
j Determined Eligible for Listing in National
(NR) or California (CR) Registers
j Appears Eligible for National (NR) or
California (CR) Registers
Old Town Monterey Historic District
- Listed in the National Register (NR)*
Presidio of Monterey District -
Determined Eligible for Listing in National (NR)
or California (CR) Registers
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
j
j
jj
j
jjjjj
jj j
j
j
j j
j
jj
jj
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
jj
j
j
j
j
j
j
jj
j
j kjkjkj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kjkj
kj
kj
kj
kj kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kjkj
kjkjkjkj
kj kj
kj
kjkj
kj
kj
kj kj Pacific S t
W Franklin St
Munras Ave
W Franklin St Tyler St
Presidio of Monterey
Figure 3.5-1A: Historic Resources - NWIC
Data Source: Monterey City and County, OHP BERD Listings Dated 9/23/22; CHRIS, Northwest Information Systems (NWIC), 2022; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. * Exact Location Unknown. Location is Approximate.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 260, Packet Page 588 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-4 City of Monterey
Locally-Designated Resources
There are 73 locally designated Monterey City Historic Properties as represented and listed in Figure 3.5-1B. Historic zoning has been applied to these properties (Chapter 38, Article 15 of the Monterey City Code). Any building, property or object with historic significance is eligible for historic zoning. To qualify as a historic property, a building must be at least 50 years old and must meet one or more of the following criteria for designation: a historic event, person, design or information potential. The purpose of the historic zoning is to preserve the exterior of designated buildings and in some cases to preserve building interiors. Some examples of these historic properties include civic buildings such as Colton Hall and many historic homes that now operate as museums such as the First Brick House and the Cooper Molera Adobe.
To aid in the identification of these properties, the following reports and studies have been conducted over the past twenty years:
• Alta Mesa Historic Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey (2020) • New Monterey Historic Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey (2013) • National Historic Landmark District and Downtown Areas Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey (2012)
• Oak Grove Reconnaissance Survey Report (2007)
• Upper Old Town Reconnaissance Survey Report (2007)
• Lower Old Town Reconnaissance Survey (2006)
• City Historic Resource Overlay Cannery Row Cultural Resources Survey (2001) • Historic Master Plan (2000)
Archaeological Resources
CEQA defines unique archaeological resources as an artifact, object or site that can help answer important scientific questions, is an exemplary illustration of its type, or is associated with an important prehistoric or historic event or person (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21083.2[g]). The Planning Area falls within the contact-period lands of at least two aboriginal tribal groups. These groups are known ethnographically as Costanoan and Esselen, which are the names given to their language or language family. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric information regarding Costanoan and Esselen speakers comes from the records of early Spanish explorers, mission documents, the works of ethnographers and linguists, and from Native American descendants.
The cultural history of the Central California coast and inland region area has, until recently, been poorly documented. Since 1970, however, hundreds of surveys have been conducted and more than 60 archaeological sites have been excavated in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties, with more than 200 radiocarbon dates reported. Most of this work was undertaken to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Investigations of 19 sites along the northern shore of Monterey Peninsula confirmed the existence of two archaeological “populations” in the area of ethnographic Rumsen Costanoans.
Over time, archeological investigations within the Planning Area have resulted in the recording of approximately 29 prehistoric archeological sites.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 261, Packet Page 589 !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
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
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
¬«56
¬« ¬«55
46 ¬«58
¬«59 ¬«50
¬« ¬«50 53
¬«57 ¬«63
¬«62
¬«73
¬«65 ¬«67
¬«38
¬«60
¬«66
¬«71
¬«5
¬«19
¬«10
¬«31
¬«8
¬«6 ¬« ¬«49
29 ¬«7
¬«64
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
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 3.5-1B Historic Resources - Local.mxd !( Historic Property
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
«¬7
«¬2
«¬8
«¬37
«¬27
«¬47
«¬64
«¬72
«¬69
«¬31
«¬1
«¬14
«¬26
«¬29
«¬39
«¬21
«¬12
«¬45
«¬51
«¬«¬11
22 «¬3
«¬16
«¬16
«¬42
«¬41
«¬ «¬43 «¬15 54
«¬52
«¬20
«¬36
«¬34
«¬9
«¬13
«¬45
«¬17
«¬28
«¬44
Del Monte Blvd
«¬23«¬40«¬18
«¬32
«¬33
«¬68
«¬25
«¬25
«¬4 Pacific S t
W Franklin St
Munras Ave
W Franklin St Tyler St
ID NAME ID NAME
1 Casa Abrego 38 Casa Joaquin Soto
2 Casa Alvarado 39 Stevenson House
3 Casa Alvarado 40 Stokes Adobe
4 Casa Amesti 41 Casa de la Torre
5 Casa Bonifacio 42 Vasquez Adobe
6 Casa Boronda 43 Whaling Station
7 Underwood Brown Adobe/Few Memorial Hall 44 Duarte Store 8 Casa Buelna 45 Thomas Cole House
9 Capitular Hall 46 Mariposa Hall
10 Casa Work Adobe/La Mirada 47 Sherman Rose Inn
11 Colton Hall/Jail 48 State Theatre
12 Cooper-Molera Adobe 49 Santa Catalina Hacienda
13 Custom House 50 Greene Estate-Consuelos
14 JACL Hall 51 Bergschicker House
15 Doud House 52 Perry House
16 Estrada Adobe 53 Lou Ellen Parmelee Victorian
17 First Brick House 54 Mayo Hayes O'Donnell Library
18 First Federal Court 55 Ed Rickett's Lab
19 First French Consulate 56 Carmel Canning Co. Warehouse 20 California First Theater 57 Wm. O. Stevens House
21 General Fremont's Headquarters 58 James Chappell House 22 Gordon House 59 Monterey Peninsula Hospital
23 Casa Gutierrez 60 Greene House and Studio
24 House of the Four Winds 61 Greene Carriage House (Stables) 25 Larkin House 62 1111 Franklin Street
26 Casa Madariaga 63 Casa Solazar
27 Merritt House 64 Frisbee/DeVoe House
28 Casa del Oro 65 Henry Hoover Cottage
29 Casa Pacheco 66 Charles Rollo Peters Estate
30 Pacific House 67 Carmel Martin House/Old Monterey Inn 31 Royal Presidio Chapel 68 Monterey Hotel
32 Rodrigues-Osio Adobe 69 Railroad Passenger Depot
33 Casa Sanchez 70 Monterey Museum of Art
34 Casa Serrano 71 Dormody House
35 Sherman Headquarters 72 530 West Franklin Street
36 Casa Soberanes 73 Finch House
37 Casa Jesus Soto
Figure 3.5-1B: Historic Resources - Local/City
Data Source: Monterey City Historic Properties, 2022; 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 262, Packet Page 590 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-6 City of Monterey
The analysis of potential cultural resources impacts in the Planning Area is based upon a comprehensive records search conducted at the NWIC, located at Sonoma State University on June 16, 2023. The records search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources within the Planning Area. According to the 2023 NWIC records search, the Planning Area contains 81 recorded archaeological resources, including thirty-nine 39 recorded Native American archaeological resources, and 42 historic-period archaeological resources. In addition, there are three Informal Resources; C-874, C-1301, and C-1554. These sites include two historic refuse scatters, and site of the Armed Forces YMCA at the first presidio. Informal Resources are those resources not recorded on DPR 523A primary record forms and not submitted in CHRIS standard format to an Information Center (IC) by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). There have been 450 cultural resource studies that include portions of the City of Monterey General Plan Update Planning Area. According to research there is a high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the Planning Area.
Tribal Cultural Resources
A tribal cultural resource is a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a tribe that is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), included in a local register of historical resources, or otherwise determined to be significant by the lead agency of an environmental review process.
The 2023 NWIC records search revealed that based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Monterey County have been found in areas marginal to Monterey Bay and inland near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. As described above, given the similarity of these environmental factors and the archaeological sensitivity of the area, there is a high potential for unrecorded tribal cultural resources to be within the Planning Area.
Native American Consultation
To determine sensitivity for Native American resources within the Planning Area, consultation with NAHC and local Native American groups was conducted. NAHC was contacted on October 6, 2022, with a request for the following information:
l CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52)
l General Plan (SB 18) – per Government Code Section 65352.3 l Identification by NAHC of any Native American resources within the subject lands that are listed in the Sacred Lands File
A response from NAHC was received on November 1, 2022, and stated that a search of the Sacred Lands File identified sacred lands in the vicinity of the Planning Area was positive.
The response from NAHC also included the following list of individuals and tribal representatives who might have an interest in the Proposed Plan:
• Valentin Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 263, Packet Page 591 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-7
• Irene Zwierlein, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista • Patrick Orozco, Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe
• Tom Little Bear Nason, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County • Ann Marie Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Kanyon Sayers-Roods, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Louise Miranda-Ramirez, Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen
• Kenneth Woodrow, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band • Isaac Bojorquez, Kakoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of Big Sur Rancheria • Dee Dee Ybarra, Rumsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone
These individuals and tribal representatives were sent formal notification under SB 18 on December 19, 2022 and under AB52 on July 12, 2023. No responses were received from any of the individuals and tribal representatives and no Native American tribes shared knowledge of tribal cultural resources.
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Regulations
Although the Proposed Plan is not anticipated to require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRHP and federal guidelines related to the treatment of cultural resources are relevant for the purposes of determining whether cultural resources, as defined under CEQA, are present and guiding the treatment of such resources. The sections below summarize the relevant federal regulations and guidelines.
National Historic Preservation Act and National Register of Historic Places The National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470f) requires federal agencies to consider effects on historic properties when projects involve federal funding or permitting or occur on federal land. The National Historic Preservation Act establishes the NRHP, which provides a framework for resource evaluation and informs the process of determining impacts on historic properties, which can also be considered historical resources under CEQA.
The NRHP is the nation’s official comprehensive inventory of historic properties. Administered by the National Park Service, the NRHP includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, a historic property that is more than 50 years of age is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets any one of the four eligibility criteria and retains sufficient historical integrity. A resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it can be demonstrated that it is of “exceptional importance” or a contributor to a historic district. NRHP criteria are defined in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990 to provide for the protection of Native American graves. The act conveys to Native American’s of demonstrated lineal descent, the human remains, including the funerary or religious items, that are held by federal agencies and federally supported museums, or that have been recovered from federal lands. NAGPRA makes the sale or purchase of Native American remains illegal, whether or not they were derived from federal or Native American lands.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 264, Packet Page 592 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-8 City of Monterey
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA, as codified in PRC Section 21000 et seq. and implemented through the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.), is the principal statute governing the environmental review of projects in the state. In order to be considered a historical resource, it generally must be at least 50 years old. Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. A historical resource includes:
l A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.);
l A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant;
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR; not included in a local register of historical resources, pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k); or identified in a historical resources survey meeting the criteria of PRC Section 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource, as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and indicating which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). Certain resources are determined by CEQA to be automatically included in the CRHR, including California properties formally eligible for or listed in the NRHP.
To be eligible for the CRHR as a historical resource, a resource must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following evaluative criteria, as defined in PRC Section 5024.1(c):
1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 265, Packet Page 593 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-9
2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.
4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
As with the NRHP, a significant historical resource must possess integrity in addition to meeting the significance criteria to be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR. Consideration of integrity for evaluation of CRHR eligibility follows the definitions and criteria from the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin 15.
California Historic Resources
OHP offers four different registration programs, including the California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, CRHR, and the NRHP. Each registration program is unique in the benefits offered and procedures required. If a resource meets the criteria for registration, it may be nominated by any individual, group, or local government to any program at any time.
Resources do not need to be locally designated before being nominated to a state program nor do they need to be registered at the state level before being nominated to the National Register. The California Register includes buildings and architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Resources on the California Register have met criteria for designation or have been included due to their presence on the NRHP, the State Historical Landmark program, or the California Points of Historical Interest program.
State Historical Landmark Program
California Historical Landmarks are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of several criteria. The resource must be the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region; associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on California history; or be a prototype of, or outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement, or construction, or be one of the more notable works or best surviving work in a region of a pioneer, designer, or master builder.
California Points of Historical Interest
California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events of local (city or county) significance, having anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Criteria are the same as those for Historical Landmarks but directed to local areas. Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the California Register. No historical resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point; if a Point is subsequently granted status as a Landmark, the Point designation will be retired.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 266, Packet Page 594 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-10 City of Monterey
California Government Code Section 65040.2(g)
California Government Code Section 65040.2(g) provides guidelines for consulting with Native American tribes for the following: (1) the preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts on places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the PRC; (2) procedures for identifying through NAHC the appropriate California Native American tribes; (3) procedures for continuing to protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects; and (4) procedures to facilitate voluntary landowner participation to preserve and protect the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects.
Senate Bill 18
Signed into law in September 2004, and effective March 1, 2005, SB 18 permits California Native American tribes recognized by the NAHC to hold conservation easements on terms mutually satisfactory to the tribe and the landowner. The term “California Native American tribe” is defined as “a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC.” The bill also requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county’s general plan, the city or county consult with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 also applies to the adoption or amendment of specific plans. This bill requires the planning agency to refer to the California Native American tribes specified by the NAHC and to provide them with opportunities for involvement.
Assembly Bill 52
Tribal cultural resources were originally identified as a distinct CEQA environmental category with the adoption of AB 52 in September 2014. For all projects subject to CEQA that received a notice of preparation, notice of negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015, AB 52 requires the lead agency on a proposed project to consult with the geographically affiliated California Native American tribes. The legislation creates a broad new category of environmental resources, “tribal cultural resources,” which must be considered under CEQA. AB 52 requires a lead agency to not only consider the resource’s scientific and historical value but also whether it is culturally important to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 defines tribal cultural resources as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the criteria of PRC Section 5024.1(c) (CEQA Section 21074).
AB 52 also sets up an expanded consultation process. For projects initiated after July 1, 2015, lead agencies are required to provide notice of the proposed projects to any tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area that requested to be informed by the lead agency, following PRC Section 21018.3.1(b). If, within 30 days, a tribe requests consultation, the consultation process must begin before the lead agency can release a draft environmental document. Consultation with the tribe may include discussion of the type of review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe. The consultation process will be deemed concluded when either (1) the parties agree to mitigation ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 267, Packet Page 595 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-11
measures or (2) any party concludes, after a good-faith effort, that an agreement cannot be reached.
Any mitigation measures agreed to by the tribe and lead agency must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document. If a tribe does not request consultation, or to otherwise assist in identifying mitigation measures during the consultation process, a lead agency may still consider mitigation measures if the agency determines that a project will cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource.
Assembly Bill 168
AB 168, adopted in September 2020, provides additional protection for tribal cultural resources as defined in AB 52. This bill applies in situations where a developer seeks to streamline approval under SB 35 and, in doing so, bypass CEQA requirements. AB 168 rectifies a loophole in SB 35 that allowed developers to apply for fast-tracked approval without notifying Native American tribes affiliated with the project area. Instead, under AB 168 projects would be ineligible for SB 35 and subject to CEQA if (1) the site of the proposed development is a tribal cultural resource that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register list, (2) the local government and the California Native American tribe do not agree that no potential tribal cultural resource would be affected by the proposed development, or (3) the local government and California Native American tribe find that a potential tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed development and the parties do not document an enforceable agreement regarding the methods, measures, and conditions for treatment of those tribal cultural resources, as provided.
California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98
The treatment of Native American human remains is regulated by PRC Section 5097.98, as amended by Assembly Bill 2641, which addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects remains, and appoints the NAHC to resolve disputes. In addition, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 includes specific provisions for the protection of human remains in the event of discovery, and Section 7052 makes the willful mutilation, disinterment, or removal of human remains a felony. The Health and Safety Code is applicable to any project where ground disturbance would occur.
Sections 5097–5097.6
Sections 5097–5097.6 of the California PRC outline the requirements for cultural resource analysis prior to the commencement of any construction project on state lands. The state agency proposing the project may conduct the cultural resource analysis or they may contract with the State Department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, this section stipulates that the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public lands is a misdemeanor. It prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a permit (expressed permission) on public lands and provides for criminal sanctions. This section was amended in 1987 to require consultation with the California NAHC whenever Native American graves are found. Violations for the taking or possessing remains or artifacts are felonies.
Sections 5097.9-991
The PRC Section 5097.9-991, regarding Native American heritage, outlines protections for Native American religion from public agencies and private parties using or occupying public property.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 268, Packet Page 596 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-12 City of Monterey
Also protected by this code are Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines located on public property.
Local Regulations
City of Monterey General Plan 2005 (General Plan)
The Monterey General Plan envisions the Planning Area as a small-scale 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. The General Plan Historic Preservation Element contains a range of policies and programs for the protection of historic resources within the Planning Area. The City’s Historic Preservation Program provides the overall structure for policy and protection programs. Policies a.1 (which includes eight implementing programs) through a.3 promote maintenance of a preservation program, encourage collection and preservation of historic artifacts, and require maintenance of City-owned historic building consistent with Federal standards. Policy b.1 and its 12 implementing programs call for the coordination of historic preservation activities among all involved agencies. Implementation of new development consistent with these policies would reduce impacts on historic resources to a less than significant level. Restoration and protection of historic buildings is also promoted through General Plan Urban Design Element policies e.1 through e.3 which seek to protect and enhance the setting of historic buildings, address consistency of design of new development with existing historic buildings and maintain existing and develop new paths of history.
Urban Design Element
Goal e. Historic buildings, gardens, districts, and their settings should continue to be protected and restored, keeping the flavor of the past.
Policy e.1. Protect and enhance the setting of historic buildings.
Policy e.2. Respect and enhance the setting of historic buildings.
Policy e.3. Maintain the downtown of history and develop additional paths of history in areas like Cannery Row, Presidio of Monterey and other historic areas.
Historic Preservation Element
Goal a. Preserve historic and cultural resources in Monterey, including buildings, sites, landscapes, artifacts, and memories.
Policy a.1. Maintain a balanced preservation program with plans, surveys, ordinances to preserve historic resources, and incentives, including permit streamlining, to balance the added costs of maintaining historic resources.
Program a.1.1. Maintain the Historic Master Plan with review and updates at fiveyear intervals.
Program a.1.2. Encourage historic zoning and Historic Districts in areas that are eligible. Consider City-initiated historic zoning and Districts for resources with state, national, and international significance.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 269, Packet Page 597 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-13
Program a.1.3. Complete the City-wide historic survey program and maintain upto-date surveys of potentially historic resources.
Program a.1.4. Develop a Master Plan for the lower Presidio of Monterey Historic Park.
Program a.1.5. Develop a Master Plan for the Royal Presidio Site in conjunction with the Diocese of Monterey
Program a.1.6. Encourage the identification and preservation of historic landscapes, including incentives for preservation.
Program a.1.7. Maintain and update the City’s historic incentive programs to support historic property owners, including grant programs, land use incentives, flexible zoning and parking standards, property tax relief, Historic Building Code, and expedited processing for historic resources.
Policy a.2. Encourage the collection and preservation of artifacts, print materials, oral histories, and ephemera.
Program a.2.1. Maintain and expand the historic collection at the Library California Room.
Program a.2.2. Support cultural museums, learning and interpretive centers, and libraries that preserve, store, protect, and make artifacts available for public display and study.
Policy a.3. Maintain City-owned historic buildings in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources.
Policy a.4. Utilize the CEQA process for projects located in archaeologically sensitive areas to identify and mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources.
Monterey City Code
The Monterey City Code includes the City’s Historic Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 38, Article 15 of the Monterey City Code). Article 15’s purpose is to implement Urban Design Overview, the Historic Preservation Element and Economic Element of the General Plan; the historic preservation provisions of adopted neighborhood plans; to promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, and protection of historic resources; to enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses, including design and color, do not detract from the historic resources; to encourage and promote public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the city’s history; to promote appreciation and use of historic resources; to encourage preservation of resources, which may potentially be considered eligible for historic zoning; to promote public awareness of the benefits of preservation; and to encourage public participation in identifying and preserving historical resources, thereby increasing community pride in the city’s cultural heritage.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 270, Packet Page 598 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-14 City of Monterey
As established by the ordinance, the City maintains a list of surveyed properties with potential to meet the criteria for historic zoning as identified in an Intensive Survey. Article 15 outlines land use regulations for these properties with and without historic zoning. In addition, Section 38-74b of Article 15 outlines land use regulations for properties without historic zoning. These include regulations for alteration and demolition, such as an alteration review by the Community Development Director and an intensive survey for demolition. As listed below, there are three types of historic zoning per the Monterey City Code:
Landmark Zoning (H-1)
This zoning applies to properties which meet the National criteria defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and the property is the first, last, only, rare, or most significant resource of its type in the region. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the H-1 Landmark zoning district may be applied to adobe resources built prior to 1879 and other previously “H” zoned resources as of the date of the ordinance adoption which may not meet National Register integrity standards.
City Historic Resource Zoning (H-2)
This zoning applies to properties that meet National Register criteria defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and to properties that meet the criteria for listing on the California Register that would be recognized as resources with local historic importance and their historic importance would not generally be recognized outside the immediate area of the Monterey Peninsula. This designation requires the owner’s consent. The criteria are presumed to be met unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
Historic District Overlay Zoning (H-D)
This zoning is intended to identify and protect geographical areas with a concentration of historic resources, where preservation of the individual historic resources and their historic setting is important to understanding Monterey’s history. H-D Historic District zoning may be applied to a geographic area which meets National Register criteria in National Register Bulletin 15 or California Register criteria for districts.
Impact Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Plan would:
Criterion 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5;
Criterion 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5,
Criterion 3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries,
Criterion 4: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 271, Packet Page 599 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-15
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
IMPACTS
Impact 3.5-1 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired (Guidelines Section 15064.5). (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) A significant impact would occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in substantial adverse changes to historical resources through demolition, alterations, changes in ownership, and accidents caused by construction activities. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in up to 5,800 new homes and 1,995 new jobs in Monterey by 2031. Buildout would occur primarily in previously developed areas of the city, including areas with recorded historic resources. As shown in Figures 3.5-1A and 3.5-1B and described above, there are numerous recorded historic buildings and structures located throughout the Planning Area. In addition, as yet unevaluated buildings and structures older than 50 years in the Planning Area are potentially eligible for listing as historic resources. Chapter 38, Article 15 of The Monterey City Code establishes regulations and procedures regarding the treatment of historic and potentially historic resources. These provisions establish three types of historic zoning: H-1 Landmark Overlay Zoning; H-2 City Historic Resource Overlay Zoning; and H-D Historic District Overlay Zoning.
Within the H-1 and H-2 zoning overlays, a Historic Permit is required for any alteration or demolition. A Historic Permit for alteration may be issued only upon a finding that the proposed work is consistent with an adopted Historic Preservation Report describing a program for preservation of the resource consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. A permit for demolition may only be issued if a resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repairs or stabilization are not feasible or if denial of the application will deprive the property owner of the economically viable use of the property, after application of financial, land use and other incentives available to the property. Relocating a historic resource is an acceptable alternative to demolition if findings are made that the move is required to prevent destruction of the resource at its former location, that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historic resource, and that the resource retains its historic features ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 272, Packet Page 600 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-16 City of Monterey
and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment, and that the receiving lot and the former lot are appropriately rezoned.
Chapter 38, Article 15 also establishes requirements and procedures for properties that do not have historic zoning but that have been identified in a Reconnaissance Survey or Intensive Survey, or which are determined to potentially meet the criteria for Historic Zoning by the Community Development Director. Unless found to be exempt or unless it is determined that the property does not meet the Criteria for Historic Zoning, these properties are also required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
Table 3.5-1 shows 5 properties included on the inventory of sites available for housing in the proposed Housing Element that have historic zoning and three properties on the inventory that are eligible for listing on the National and California Registers, but which do not have historic zoning.
Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that any alteration proposed on these properties would conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and that demolition would be avoided to the extent practicable. Thus, the significance of these historic resources would not be materially impaired as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5., and associated impacts to these historic resources would be less than significant.
Additionally, Table 3.5-1 includes one property at 479 Alvarado Street on the housing sites inventory that appears eligible for listing on the National and California Registers, but which does not have historic zoning. Under existing regulations, this property would also be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties unless it is determined that the property does not meet the Criteria for Historic Zoning, and as such associated impacts would be less than significant.
As noted above, there are numerous properties more than 50 years old in the Planning Area that have not yet been evaluated for historic significance and that may be eligible for listing on local, State, or national registers. The General Plan includes policies that can reduce impacts on potential resources, including Historic Preservation Element Policy a.1, which requires the City to maintain a preservation program to preserve and promote maintenance of historic resources; Program a.1.3 that calls for completion of a citywide historic survey; and Policy a.3 that requires the maintenance of City-owned historic buildings in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources. However, to further address potential impacts to significant historic resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is recommended, requiring that project sponsors proposing development on a property with structures more than 50 years old evaluate the properties for historic significance. In the event that historic resources are identified, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is recommended, requiring evaluation for potential direct and/or indirect effects on the identified historic resource(s) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, and as appropriate, avoidance or minimization of impacts to historic structures. Therefore, overall, compliance of existing regulations and implementation of proposed mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce the impact of implementation of the Proposed Plan on historical resources to a less than significant level.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 273, Packet Page 601 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-17
Table 3.5-1: Proposed Plan Sites that Contain Historic Resources Address Historic Name Historic Status Current
Zoning
546 Dutra St Vasquez Adobe Locally Listed; Listed in the California Register (CR) (1D)
PC-D-H1
543 Lighthouse
Ave
Determined Eligible for Listing in
National (NR) or California (CR)
Registers (2S2)
PC-LH-H2
300 Cannery Row Aeneus Sardine Packing
Building and Storehouse
Determined Eligible for Listing in
National (NR) or California (CR)
Registers (2S2)
CR
200 Glenwood
Circle
Park Lane Senior Living
Apartments
Determined Eligible for Listing in
National (NR) or California (CR)
Registers (2S2)
PC
470 Tyler Street T A Works Opera House &
Theater Building, Multiple
Com
Appears Eligible for National (NR)
or California (CR) Registers (3S)
PC-D
479 Alvarado
St/482 Tyler
Street
Round Table Pizza Appears Eligible for National (NR)
or California (CR) Registers (3S)
PC-D
801 Lighthouse
Ave # 109
Mariposa Hall Locally Listed PC-LH-H2
543 Lighthouse
Ave
Monterey Peninsula
Hospital
Locally Listed PC-LH-H2
537 Houston St Sherman Rose Inn Locally Listed PC-D-H2
Source: NWIC, 2023; City of Monterey National Historic Landmark District and Downtown Area Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey, 2012.
Mitigation Measures
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 national registers. On the basis of this evaluation, if it is determined ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 274, Packet Page 602 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-18 City of Monterey
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 lessthan-significant level pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. Projects that conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are considered to have a less-than-significant effect on historic architectural resources.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Impact 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. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
A significant impact would occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would cause an adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As described in the Environmental Setting, there are known prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the Planning Area. Early Monterey County maps indicate numerous buildings and structures, including bridges, piers or wharfs, a racetrack, railroads, and cemeteries within the project area (1895 Monterey Sanborn Maps and 1913 Monterey USGS 15- minute topographic quadrangle). Given this, there is a high potential for unrecorded historicperiod archaeological resources to be within the Planning Area. Future development projects or public works activities allowed under the Proposed Plan may involve grading, excavation, overland vehicle travel, or other ground-disturbing activities, or could facilitate public access to archaeological sites, which could disturb or damage unknown archaeological resources. The impact of such activities would be considered significant if they were to cause a substantial adverse change to the archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 275, Packet Page 603 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-19
To address the potential for impacts to archaeological resources, including as yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is recommended, which would require an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including a site survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, for development and redevelopment proposals in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas within the City of Monterey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is also recommended for developments in areas with a high potential for uncovering archaeological deposits or tribal cultural resources. This measure requires construction personnel to receive cultural awareness training on existing regulations and unanticipated discovery protocol. Additionally, in the case of accidental discovered of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is also recommended, requiring the immediate suspension of soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and an assessment of the significance of the discovery by a qualified archeological consultant, together with measures to preserve any resource that retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. Overall, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-3 Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Assessments. For projects in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas of the Planning Area, the City shall require project proponents to submit an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources prepared by a qualified archeological consultant prior to project approval. The assessment shall include a site survey, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, and if warranted by the results of the assessment, recommendations for avoidance or mitigation in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, as applicable. Recommendations may include establishing conservation easements; preservation in situ of the resource; capping or covering archaeological sites; planning open space to incorporate archaeological sites; or excavation. If, on the basis of the assessment, it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.
MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 276, Packet Page 604 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-20 City of Monterey
MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery. In the event of accidental discovery of an archeological or tribal cultural resource during soils-disturbing activity of any project pursuant to the Proposed Plan, the project sponsor shall immediately suspend any soilsdisturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant to whether the discovery is an archeological resource retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. If it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies.
Mitigation strategies may include preservation in situ of the resource, a monitoring program, a testing program, or an interpretation program.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact 3.5-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in up to 5,800 new homes and 1,995 new jobs in Monterey by 2031. Human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Plan. There are several cemeteries located within the Planning Area, including Cemetery El Encinal at 798 Fremont Street, the San Carlos Cemetery at 792 Fremont Street, and the Presidio of Monterey Main Post Cemetery. These facilities are designated as Open Space on the Zoning Map where certain limited types of development are permitted with a use permit. Given high potential for unrecorded historicperiod archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area, it is possible that subsurface construction activities associated with the Proposed Plan, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the protocols established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 would be required. Compliance with these existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 through CUL-5 would further reduce any potential impact on archaeological resources, including human remains, through cultural awareness training for construction personnel on unanticipated discovery protocol. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-3 Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Assessments.
MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training.
MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 277, Packet Page 605 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Monterey 3.5-21
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact 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 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. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The results of the NWIC records search indicate that there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the City limits, especially in the vicinity of Monterey Bay in the area between Point Alones and Laguna Del Rey, near intermittent and perennial watercourse.
Therefore, future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Plan could result in indirect impacts through grading, overland construction vehicle travel, or other grounddisturbing activities, or through facilitation of public access to culturally significant sites. The impact of such activities would be considered significant if they were to cause a substantial adverse change to the resources as defined by PRC Section 21074. As previously discussed, the response from the NAHC stated that a search of the Sacred Lands File to identify sacred lands in the Planning Area was positive. Further, according to the NWIC records search, the City of Monterey contains 39 recorded Native American archaeological resources. While the exact location of these resources is not public information, consultation with the tribes per SB 18 and AB 52 provides the opportunity for Native American tribes to identify if known resources could be compromised by implementation of the Proposed Plan. Such consultation is also intended to arrive at consensus regarding mitigation measures or ways to avoid a significant effect on tribal cultural resources. As detailed in the Environmental Setting, local tribal representatives were sent formal notification under SB 18 on December 19, 2022 and under AB52 on July 12, 2023. No responses or formal requests for tribal consultation have been received as documented in supporting materials and correspondence located in Appendix D of the DEIR.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 278, Packet Page 606 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.5: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
3.5-22 City of Monterey
To address the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is recommended, which would require an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including a site survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, for development and redevelopment proposals in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas within the City of Monterey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is also recommended for developments in areas with a high potential for uncovering archaeological deposits or tribal cultural resources.
This measure requires construction personnel to receive cultural awareness training on existing regulations and unanticipated discovery protocol. Additionally, in the case of accidental discovered of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is also recommended, requiring the immediate suspension of soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and an assessment of the significance of the discovery by a qualified archeological consultant, together with measures to preserve any resource that retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. Overall, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-3 Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Assessments.
MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training.
MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 279, Packet Page 607 City of Monterey 3.6-1
3.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and
Climate Change
is section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It also describes impacts related to GHG emissions that would result from implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Plan) and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate.
There were seven public comments in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix B) regarding issues related to energy, climate change, and GHG emissions. Caltrans requested that the EIR address climate change impacts on the capacity of State Highway System and local roadways to serve as evacuation routes and emergency access in the face of anticipated regional increase in wildfires, precipitation, and storm surge (See also EIR Section 3.13: Transportation; Impacts related to wildfire are evaluated in EIR Section 3.15: Wildfire.). One member of the public stated that the EIR should include updated information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Two members of the public requested that the EIR look at impacts on water supply, also discussed in EIR Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality. Members of LandWatch provided comments regarding GHG emissions due to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and water supply concerns. These comments are addressed in the Impacts section and incorporated into the following analysis.
Environmental Setting
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND GREENHOUSE GASES
e process known as the “greenhouse effect” keeps the atmosphere near Earth’s surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life forms. e greenhouse effect is created by sunlight that passes through the atmosphere. Some of the sunlight striking Earth is absorbed and converted to heat, which warms the surface. e surface emits a portion of this heat as infrared radiation, some of which is re-emitted toward the surface by GHGs. Human activities that generate GHGs increase the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of Earth.
Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, resulting in a rise in global surface temperatures – a process commonly referred to as “global warming.” Higher global surface temperatures, in turn, have caused widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere—collectively referred to as “climate change”—with evidence of observed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 280, Packet Page 608 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-2 City of Monterey
changes such as heat waves, heavy precipitation, droughts, tropical cyclones, rising mean sea level, retreating glaciers, and other changes in the ecosystem.1 e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. e IPCC estimates that humaninduced warming reached approximately 1.1 degree Celsius (°C) above 1850-1900 levels in 2010- 2019. Near-term global warming is expected to increase by about 1.5°C by 2040. Under an intermediate GHG emissions scenario (representing a plausible socioeconomic future scenario where GHG emissions remain around current levels until the middle of the 21st century), global warming is expected to rise to 3°C (i.e., approximately 37.4°F) by 2100.2 Large increases in global temperatures could have substantial adverse effects on the natural and human environments worldwide and in California.
Greenhouse Gases
e principle anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons. Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic sources. e primary GHGs of concern associated with the Proposed Plan are CO2, CH4, and N2O, described below.
• Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) combustion, solid waste decomposition, plant and animal respiration, and chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. • Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.
Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. • Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas to simplify reporting and analysis. Current best practice uses the global warming potential (GWP) of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). is method compares each gas to that of the same mass of CO2, which by definition has a global warming potential of 1. In comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 27-30, and N2O 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Summary for Policymakers,” Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)] (Geneva, Switzerland, 2023): 1-34, https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001.
2 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 281, Packet Page 609 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-3
has a GWP of 273.3 HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are sometimes called high-GWP gases because they trap substantially more heat than CO2, with GWPs in the thousands or tens of thousands.4 e California Air Resources Board (CARB) recognizes the importance of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) (described in the Regulatory Setting section) and reducing these emissions to achieve the State’s overall climate change goals. SLCP have atmospheric lifetimes on the order of a few days to a few decades, and their relative climate forcing impacts, when measured in terms of how they heat the atmosphere, can be tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times greater than that of CO2.5 Given their short-term lifespan and warming impact, short-lived climate pollutants are measured in terms of CO2e using a 20-year time period. e use of GWPs with a time horizon of 20 years captures the importance of the short-lived climate pollutants and gives a better perspective as to the speed at which emission controls will affect the atmosphere relative to CO2 emission controls. e Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP Reduction Strategy), as discussed in the Regulatory Setting, addresses CH4, HFC gases, and anthropogenic black carbon. CH4 has lifetime of 12 years and a 20-year GWP of 72. HFC gases have lifetimes of 1.4 to 52 years and a 20-year GWP of 437 to 6,350. Anthropogenic black carbon has a lifetime of a few days to weeks and a 20-year GWP of 3,200. e Proposed Plan’s emission sources are not major contributors of HFC and black carbon; thus, they are not discussed herein.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting
A GHG inventory is a quantification of all GHG emissions and sinks (a process, activity, or mechanism that removes a GHG from the atmosphere) within a selected physical and/or economic boundary. GHG inventories can be performed on a large scale (e.g., for global and national entities) or on a small scale (e.g., for a building or person). Although many processes are difficult to evaluate, several agencies have developed tools to quantify emissions from certain sources. Table 3.6-1 outlines the mostrecent global, national, statewide, and local GHG inventories to help contextualize the magnitude of potential project-related emissions.
3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2021: e Physical Science Basis [Table 7.15], Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M.
Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)] (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press): 2021, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Understanding Global Warming Potentials,” Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Last updated April 18, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmingpotentials#Learn%20why. 5 California Air Resources Board, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, March 14 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/final_slcp_report%20Final%202017.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 282, Packet Page 610 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-4 City of Monterey
Table 3.6-1: Recent Global, National, State, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories
Emissions Inventory Total Emissions (MTCO2e)
2021 United Nations Global Inventory1 52,800,000,000
2021 United Nations Global Inventory – United States1 6,340,228,290 2020 CARB State Inventory 369,200,000
2020 AMBAG Regional GHG Emissions Inventory 5,099,042
2020 AMBAG Community-wide Inventory – City of Monterey2 227,061 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Notes:
1. Excludes removal of atmospheric carbon due to land use, land use change, and forestry.
2. Includes only GHG emissions from community sources, excluding emissions from City (municipal) government facilities and operations.
Sources: UN Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report, 2022; 6 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change GHG Data
Time Series – Annex I;7 CARB California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, 2022;8 AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS Final EIR, 2022;9 AMBAG, Draft City of Monterey 2020 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory10 e City of Monterey prepared its first GHG emissions inventory as part of a regional initiative to establish 2005 baseline inventories and measure progress toward the AB 32 target for 2020. Since then, AMBAG has developed updated GHG inventory reports for local jurisdictions, including for inventory years 2010, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2020. According to the 2020 Community-wide GHG Emissions Inventory prepared by AMBAG for the City of Monterey, the primary sources of GHG emissions in Monterey are transportation (65.3 percent), commercial/industrial energy use (16.6 percent), and residential energy use (13.3 percent). Solid waste contributes only 4.8 percent, and wastewater contributes less than one percent. In total, energy use represents 30 percent of GHG 6 United Nations Environment Programme, Emissions Gap Report 2022: e Closing Window — Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies — Executive Summary, Nairobi, 2022, https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report2022. 7 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - Time Series – Annex I [Last inventory year 2021], Accessed December 28, 2023, https://di.unfccc.int/time_series?_gl=1*3vcm6r*_ga*NjE1NjIwMzgxLjE3MDE0NTQxOTE.*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MT cwMTQ1OTM1Ny4yLjAuMTcwMTQ1OTM1OC4wLjAuMA.
8 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020, October 26, 2022, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf. 9 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Environmental Impact Report, June 2022, https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2022- 06/AMBAG%202045%20MTP%20SCS%20RTP%20FEIR%20June%202022-PDF-A.pdf. 10 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Dra City of Monterey 2020 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory, July 2022, https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Sustainability/ClimateChange/CoM-Dra-2020-Community-wide-GHG-Inventory-Report.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 283, Packet Page 611 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-5
emissions and predominantly consists of natural gas use by commercial/industrial uses (42.1 percent) and residential uses (40.1 percent), with electricity making up the remaining 17.8 percent.11 Table 3.6-2 shows the change in Monterey’s GHG emissions from 2005 to 2020. Overall, communitywide GHG emissions have declined since 2005, with a 29 percent reduction below 2005 levels in 2020. e greatest reduction in 2020 is from the energy sector, primarily from commercial/industrial energy use. e transportation sector has seen consistent reductions over time. Other sectors have fluctuated, especially water, mostly attributed to the small amount of emissions in this category.
Table 3.6-2: City of Monterey Community Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, 2005- 2020
Emissions (MTCO2e)
Sector 2005 2010 2015 2020
Transportation 184,086 163,093 164,570 148,281
Energy 123,957 127,601 102,868 67,722
Commercial/Industrial 80,387 84,258 69,664 37,588
Residential 43,570 43,343 33,204 30,134
Waste 13,215 9,361 9,341 10,972
Water 68 71 61 87
Total 321,326 300,126 276,840 227,061
Percent below 1990 levels2
(273,127 MTCO2e) -18% -10% -1% 17%
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Notes:
1. 2005 Baseline from the City of Monterey Draft 2020 GHG Inventory Report differs from the 2005 baseline included in the City of Monterey Climate Action Plan due to difference in calculation methodology; all inventory years shown in this table are from the same source to allow accurate comparison.
2. Estimated as 15% below 2005 levels, as used in the City of Monterey Climate Action Plan due to the absence of accurate local data for 1990.
Source: AMBAG, Draft City of Monterey 2020 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 2022.
In the absence of sufficient, accurate data to calculate levels of GHG emissions in 1990, local jurisdictions are allowed to use the earliest GHG inventory to serve as a proxy for 1990; based on guidance from CARB, the City of Monterey uses 15 percent below the 2005 inventory as an estimate of 1990 levels.12 In other words, the 1990 level of GHG emissions from the City of Monterey is about 11 City of Monterey, City Council Study Session Presentation: Climate Change Update, October 26, 2022, https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Sustainability/Climate-Change/Climate-Change-SSOctober-2022.pdf. 12 City of Monterey, Climate Action Plan, March 2016 [Adopted June 2016], https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Sustainability/Climate_Action_Plan.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 284, Packet Page 612 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-6 City of Monterey
273,127 MTCO2e. Table 3.6-2 shows the percent reduction from 1990 levels, including that Monterey met (and exceeded) the AB 32 target of achieving 1990 levels by 2020.
Potential Climate Change Effects
Climate change is a complex process that has the potential to alter local climatic patterns and meteorology. Although modeling indicates that climate change will result in sea level rise (both globally and regionally) as well as changes in climate and rainfall, among other effects, there remains uncertainty about characterizing precise local climate characteristics and predicting precisely how various ecological and social systems will react to any changes in the existing climate at the local level. Regardless of this uncertainty, it is widely understood that substantial climate change is expected to occur in the future, although the precise extent will take further research to define. e California Climate Change Assessment documents the effect of climate change throughout the state, including rising temperatures and associated extreme heat events, changing precipitation patterns and potential for flooding and drought, declining Sierra Nevada snowpack levels and associated impacts on water supply, coastal sea level rise, and compounded effects of climate impacts such as greater risk for wildfire.13ese climate change effects pose direct and indirect risks to public health, as people will experience earlier death and worsening illnesses. Indirect impacts on public health include increased vector-borne diseases, stress and mental trauma due to extreme events and disasters, economic disruptions, and residential displacement.14 ENERGY
Energy resources in the State of California include natural gas, electricity, water, wind, oil, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources. Energy production and energy use both result in the depletion of nonrenewable resources, such as oil, natural gas, and coal, and result in the emissions of pollutants. is section discusses the existing conditions related to energy statewide, regionally, and in the Planning Area.
State Energy Resources and Use
California has a diverse portfolio of energy resources that produced 2,152 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) in 2021.15 Excluding offshore areas, California ranked seventh in the nation in crude oil (petroleum) production in 2022, producing the equivalent of 765.9 trillion BTUs. California ranked second in total renewable energy generation, with 1,053.6 trillion BTUs. Other energy sources in California include natural gas (160.8 trillion BTUs) and nuclear (172.1 trillion BTUs).
Additionally, due to the mild Mediterranean climate and strict energy-efficiency conservation requirements, California has lower energy consumption rates than most parts of the United States.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), California consumed 13 California Natural Resources Agency, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report, January 16, 2019, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018- 013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf.
14 Ibid.
15 U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Energy Profile, Last updated September 21, 2023, https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 285, Packet Page 613 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-7
approximately 7,359 trillion BTUs of energy in 2021. California’s per capita energy consumption of 198 million BTUs is one of the lowest in the country and is ranked 48th in the nation for 2021.
In 2021, natural gas made up the greatest share of energy consumption (2,172.8 trillion BTUs or
31.2 percent); followed by motor gasoline (1494.9 trillion BTUs or 21.5 percent); distillate and jet fuel (950.2 trillion BTUs or 13.7 percent); renewable energy, including hydroelectric power, biomass, and other renewables (814.3 trillion BTUs or 11.7 percent); and interstate electricity (623.9 trillion BTUs or 9.0 percent); with the balance coming from a variety of other sources. Of the natural gas consumed, industrial uses consumed approximately 34.2 percent, followed by electric power generation (30.7 percent), residential uses (21.4 percent), commercial uses (11.4 percent), and transportation uses (2.2 percent).
In 2021, the transportation sector consumed the highest quantity of energy (2,783.9 trillion BTUs or 41.2 percent), followed by the industrial (1,595.5 trillion BTUs or 23.6 percent), residential (1,228.5 trillion BTUs or 18.2 percent), and commercial (1,156.8 trillion BTUs or 17.1 percent) sectors. Per capita energy consumption in general is declining because of improvements in energy efficiency and design. However, despite this reduction in per capita energy use, the State’s total overall energy consumption (i.e., non-per capita energy consumption) is expected to increase over the next several decades as a result of growth in population, jobs, and vehicle travel.
Regional Energy Resources and Use
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides natural gas and electricity services to the majority of Northern California, including the City and the project site. PG&E’s service extends from Eureka to Bakersfield (i.e., north to south) and from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean (i.e., east to west).
PG&E purchases gas and power from a variety of sources, including other utility companies. PG&E also obtains energy supplies from power plants and natural gas fields in northern California. PG&E operates a grid distribution system that channels all power produced at the various generation sources into one large energy pool for distribution throughout the service territory. PG&E provides all of the natural gas and electric infrastructure in Monterey County and in the City of Monterey.
However, Central Coast Community Energy (3CE, formerly Monterey Bay Community Power) provides electricity to customers throughout Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Barbara counties using PG&E infrastructure unless individuals choose to opt out of the program, at which point, the default electricity provider is PG&E (or Southern California Edison [SCE] for southern Santa Barbara County).
As a Community Choice Aggregator under Assembly Bill (AB) 117 (2002), 3CE is the official electricity provider for the City of Monterey. 3CE’s power comes from a mix of various sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and biowaste, and hydroelectric generation resources. 3CE delivers power to its customers via existing utility infrastructure owned by PG&E (or SCE in southern Santa Barbara County). 3CE allows customers to choose between two different electricity product operations: 3CE Choice, which contains about 35.8 percent renewable resources as ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 286, Packet Page 614 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-8 City of Monterey
electricity sources, and 3CE Prime, which contains 100 percent renewable resources as electricity sources.16
In Monterey County, a total of 115 million therms of natural gas were consumed in 2021, which is
0.5 percent of the State’s total consumption in 2021.
17 In 2021, natural gas in Monterey County was
primarily consumed by the non-residential sector (53.8 percent), followed by the residential sector (46.2 percent). In 2021, Monterey County consumed a total of 2,480.9 million kilowatt-hours(kWh) of electricity, which is about 1.0 percent of the State’s total consumption (247.3 billion kWh).18 In the county, electricity was primarily consumed by the non-residential sector (71.0 percent), followed by the residential sector (29.0 percent) in 2021.
Planning Area Energy Resources and Use
e approximately 5,522-acre Planning Area is comprised of public and quasi-public uses (24.4 percent), residential uses (24.6 percent), parks and open space (16.4 percent), commercial uses (4.5 percent), and industrial uses (1.4 percent). About 5.2 percent of the Planning Area is vacant land. e energy consumption analysis in this EIR is based on the change in energy consumption from future development under the Proposed Plan (pipeline projects and new development) compared to energy consumed by existing development. Assumptions are consistent with the air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation analyses. PG&E provides natural gas to the Planning Area, and 3CE provides electricity using PG&E infrastructure, unless individuals choose to opt out of the 3CE, in which case PG&E provides electricity.
CITY OF MONTEREY GHG REDUCTION AND ADAPTATION EFFORTS
On October 26, 2022, the Monterey City Council received an update on the City’s progress toward its climate objectives and the GHG reduction targets established in the 2016 Climate Action Plan (CAP), described further in the Regulatory Settings below.19,20 e staff report provides an update on the mitigation/adaptation measures that the City has undertaken since the passage of AB 32 as well as makes recommendations for future areas of focus. Recent or planned mitigation/adaptation efforts since adoption of the CAP include:
16 Central Coast Community Energy, 2022 Power Content Label, version September 2023, https://3cenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/09/PCL-Postcard-2023Sep-final-web.pdf. 17 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County [Retrieved for Monterey County, All Sectors, 2021], Retrieved on December 1, 2023, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. 18 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County [Retrieved for Monterey County, All Sectors, 2021], Retrieved on December 1, 2023, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 19 K.Cole, T. Terrasas, F.Roveri, Council Agenda Report: Climate Change Update, Council Special Meeting [Council Study Session], City of Monterey, October 26, 2022,
[https://isearchmonterey.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/AGENDAREPORT.DOCX?meetingId=5179&documentType=Agenda&itemId=34013&publishId=21645&isSection=false. 20 City of Monterey. March 2016. Climate Action Plan. Available:
https://monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Sustainability/Climate_Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed: January 17, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 287, Packet Page 615 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-9
• In 2018, the City became a founding member of 3CE (described above), which is on track to provide 100-percent renewable energy by 2030. About 96 percent of eligible accounts in the City of Monterey are enrolled.
• e City is considering larger solar panel installation projects where excess power can be generated at the Ryan Ranch Corporation yard utilized to offset power usage at other City properties.
• e City has transitioned all light-duty passenger vehicles to electric or hybrid vehicles and is planning to transition the remaining trucks and other heavier-duty vehicles. • e City has approved a larger electric vehicle project at Municipal Wharf 1 (Fisherman’s Wharf, located at Washington Street and Del Monte Avenue) for 17 Tesla electric vehicle superchargers.
• e City continues to invest in its adaptive traffic signal system, which is estimated to result in a yearly reduction of 20 tons of criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxide, reactive organic gases, and particulate matter; see EIR Section 3.3: Air Quality for more information), once all primary corridors are running on an adaptive system.
• In 2018, the City adopted an ordinance (Ord. 3590 §5) to ban disposable food service ware. • e City received funds from the Caltrans Adaptation Planning Grant and subsequently conducted a study (“Adapting a reatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise”) that showed where the greatest sea level rise impacts will be felt. is study provided a variety of recommendations for sea level rise adaptation strategies that will inform preferred alternatives.
• Future considerations may include providing infrastructure and charging stations to support use of electric vehicles, as well as adopting building electrification and efficiency standards that would incentivize or require the transition to an all-electric built environment.
Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse gases are broadly regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act (42 USC §7401 et seq.
Section 202[a]), especially where motor vehicles and large stationary sources are concerned.
Primarily, the EPA is responsible for measuring greenhouse gas emissions through the annual Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks report and the GHG Reporting Program; reducing emissions through regulatory initiatives and partnership programs; and conducting analyses and research to continually improve energy efficiency and clean energy policies and programs.
In 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13990 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis), which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and bolster resilience to impacts of climate change, among other objectives. In response, EPA has is considering rulemaking proposals that would affect some of the nation’s largest ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 288, Packet Page 616 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-10 City of Monterey
sources of climate- and health-harming pollution, such as the transportation, oil and natural gas, and power sectors. ese rules would build on recent regulations and efforts such as those that limit chemicals with high GWPs, such as HFCs, revisions to emissions and fuel use standards for new light- and heavy-duty motor vehicles (described below), updated GHG emission limits from fossil fuel-fired power plants, and continual improvements to the GHG Reporting Program.21 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
e 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 GHGs, from vehicles sold in the U.S. e 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. e light-duty vehicle fuel economy standards are established for model years through 2026, and heavy-duty vehicle standards are established for model years through 2027. Current standards are expected to result in more than three billion tons of GHG emissions reductions (overall) through 2050. 22 e next phase of standards, applying to model year 2027 and beyond, are currently underway. In parallel, EPA is planning to establish a rule for multi-pollutant emissions standards under the Clean Air Act and other efforts to speed the transition of light-duty vehicles toward zero-emissions, consistent with EO 14037 (Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks).
Carbon Pollution Standards and Clean Power Plan
On August 3, 2015, the EPA finalized the Carbon Pollution Standards, which established national limits on the amount of carbon pollution that new, modified, and reconstructed power plants would be allowed to emit. On the same date, the EPA also finalized the Clean Power Plan, setting national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants.
Energy Policy Act and Energy Independence and Security Act e Energy Policy Act of 2005 (52 USC §13201 et seq.) addresses energy production, energy consumption and security, energy efficiency, energy resources including renewable energy, energy tax incentives, and climate change technology. e act also provides loan guarantees for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that reduce GHG emissions. e Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, Public Law 110-140) aims to move the U.S. toward greater energy independence and security, increase production of clean renewable fuels, protect consumers, increase energy efficiency, promote research on GHG reductions, improve energy performance of the federal government, and improve vehicle fuel economy. e EISA reinforces EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, signed by President Bush in 2007). EPA develops, implements, and revises regulations and voluntary 21 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change Regulatory Actions and Initiatives,” Last Updated on July 20, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/climate-change-regulatory-actions-and-initiatives. 22 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 289, Packet Page 617 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-11
programs under the EISA through the CAFE Standards (described above), federal vehicle fleets, Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) (described below), biofuels infrastructure, and carbon capture and sequestration.23
Renewable Fuel Standards Program
As authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanding on the EISA, the RFS Program establishes annual standards to reduce GHG emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing reliance on imported oil by reducing the quantity of petroleum-based transportation, heating oil, or jet fuel with biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, or total renewable fuel. EPA updated the RFS for 2023-2025 in June 2023; the final rule includes steady growth of biofuels for use in the nation’s fuel supply during this time period.24 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Emissions Guidelines
In 2016, EPA updated the 1996 New Source Performance Standards to reduce emissions of methanerich landfill gas. e 2016 Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills are implemented via a federal plan (issued in 2021) that includes the same elements as required for a state plan: identification of implementation mechanisms, inventory of designated facilities, emissions inventory and limits, compliance schedules, process for EPA/state review of design plans for site-specific gas collection and control systems, monitoring and reporting requirements, and public hearing requirements.
STATE
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and Statewide GHG Objectives Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the State government for approximately two decades. GHG emission targets established by the State legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32) and then reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Senate Bill [SB] 32, 2016), consistent with the target in EO B-30-15. EO S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The State has achieved its goal for 2020 and is on track to achieving the goal for 2030, with ambitious plans (per EO B-55-18 and AB 1279 of 2022) to meet a more stringent goal of statewide carbon neutrality as soon as possible but no later than 2045 and maintain net negative emissions thereafter, ahead of the previously established goal for 2050. As detailed in AB 1279, the State’s carbon neutrality goal translates to a reduction of GHG emissions to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels.
AB 32 also authorized CARB to administer the State’s Cap-and-Trade program, which covers GHG sources that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year, such as refineries, power plants, and 23 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act,” Last updated April 25, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act. 24 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Final Renewable Fuels Standards Rule for 2023, 2024, and 2025,” Last updated September 21, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/final-renewable-fuelsstandards-rule-2023-2024-and-2025.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 290, Packet Page 618 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-12 City of Monterey
industrial facilities. The Cap-and-Trade Regulation establishes a declining limit on these major sources, which cover approximately 80 percent of the State’s GHG emissions, as an economic incentive for significant investment in cleaner, more efficient technologies. All covered entities in the Cap-and-Trade Program are still subject to existing air quality permit limits for criteria and toxic air pollutants.
AB 32 Scoping Plan
Per AB 32, CARB prepares a Scoping Plan that lays out the State’s path to achieving its GHG emissions reduction targets. Most recently, the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emissions target for 2030 and “substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals.”25 It also identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., industry, transportation, electricity generation), as well as places new emphasis on transitioning natural and working lands from a net emissions source (due to wildfires) to a carbon sink (via carbon sequestration). Unlike previous updates, the 2022 Scoping Plan does not include specific recommendations for local GHG emissions reductions targets or efficiency metrics (which were previously provided on a per capita and per service population basis). Rather, the 2022 Scoping Plan’s Appendix D: Local Actions provide recommendations that focus on plans, measures, policies, and actions that local jurisdictions can take to ensure alignment with State climate goals. ese “priority GHG reduction strategies” address transportation electrification, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, and building decarbonization as the primary, most effective ways that local jurisdictions can contribute to statewide GHG emissions reduction. e 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that local jurisdictions adopt these strategies as part of CEQA-qualified climate action plans (CAPs) and thereby be consistent with the State’s Scoping Plan. Methods of determining consistency with the Scoping Plan are discussed in the Impacts Analysis section below.
State CEQA Guidelines
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides guidance to lead agencies for determining the significance of environmental impacts pertaining to GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that a lead agency should make a good-faith effort that is based, to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions that would result from implementation of a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) also states that, when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, a lead agency should consider: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared with existing conditions, (2) whether the project’s GHG emissions would exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency has determined to be applicable to the project, and (3) the extent to which the project would comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. e California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (62 Cal. 4th 204), known as the “Newhall Ranch decision,” confirmed that there are multiple 25California Air Resources Board. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: e Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November. Pages 1, 3, 5, 20, 25, and 26. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: August 16, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 291, Packet Page 619 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-13
potential pathways for evaluating GHG emissions consistent with CEQA. Several air quality management agencies throughout the state have also draed or adopted varying threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents. Common threshold approaches include (1) compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, (2) performance-based reductions, (3) numeric “bright-line” thresholds, (4) efficiency-based thresholds, and (5) compliance with regulatory programs. While the Newhall Ranch decision upheld use of the Scoping Plan’s statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions as a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, if applied to a local project, the EIR must provide supporting evidence that the project emissions relate to the Scoping Plan. (See Tsakopoulos Investments v. County of Sacramento (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 280.)
Low Carbon Fuel Standards
Approved in 2009 and implemented beginning in 2011, the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) are one of the early action measures of the AB 32 Scoping Plan to reduce statewide GHG emissions by improving vehicle technology, reducing fuel consumption, and increasing transportation mobility options. e LCFS assess direct emissions associated with producing, transporting, and using fuels and indirect emissions such as from land use changes for biofuels. Transportation fuel providers that must demonstrate that the mix of fuels they supply for use in California meets the LCFS carbon intensity standards for each annual compliance period. e LCFS were last updated in 2020 and reflect carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030, in line with SB 32.
Pavley Rules (AB 1493) and Advanced Clean Cars Program
Building on AB 1493 (also known as “Pavley I”), which requires CARB to adopt light-duty vehicle emissions standards beginning in 2009, the Advanced Clean Cars Program (formerly referred to as “Pavley II”) combines several regulations, including the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) criteria and GHG regulations and the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) regulation, into a single package. Advanced Clean Cars I, adopted in 2012, addressed vehicle model years 2015 through 2025 and was developed in coordination with EPA and NHTSA to harmonize GHG and fuel economy standards. e Advanced Clean Cars II regulations were adopted in 2022, imposing increasingly stringent lowemission and zero-emission vehicle standards for model years 2026 through 2035. Advanced Clean Cars II implements EO N-79-20, issued in September 2020, that established a statewide goal that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035, 100 percent of medium-and heavy-duty vehicles in the State will be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible, and 100 percent of all drayage trucks will be zero-emission by 2035 where feasible. EO N-79-20 also establishes a goal to transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible. Amendments to Advanced Clean Cars II, including updates to tailpipe GHG emissions standard and limited revisions to the LEV and ZEV regulations, were proposed in October 2023 and are currently under consideration.26 26 California Air Resources Board, “Advanced Clean Cars Program – About,” Accessed December 12, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 292, Packet Page 620 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-14 City of Monterey
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (SB 454, SB 123, and EO B-48-18) In complement to the Advanced Clean Cars Program, CARB’s Electric Vehicle Supplement Equipment (EVSE or EV Charging Station) Standards Regulation establishes requirements for EV charging stations to implement SB 454 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Open Access Act of 2013).
Signed in 2018, EO B-48-18 includes a $2.5-billion initiative to construct 250,000 vehicle charging stations and 200 hydrogen fueling stations in California by 2025. In July 2023, SB 123 modified SB 454 to better harmonize with the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program established in 2022, and the legislation also grants the California Energy Commission (CEC) authority to develop a new regulation that will supersede the current CARB-adopted rule.27 Vehicle Miles Traveled Metrics (SB 743)
Per SB 743 (2013), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) implemented changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, including the addition of Section 15064.3, which requires CEQA transportation analyses to move away from a focus on vehicle delay and level of service (LOS). In support of these changes, OPR published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which recommends that the determination of the transportation impact of a project be based on whether project-related VMT per capita (or VMT per employee) would be 15 percent lower than that of existing development in the region.OPR’s technical advisory explains that this criterion is consistent with Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code, which states that the criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”28
Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078 and SB 107) and 100 Percent Clean Energy Act (SB 100)
e Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) were established in 2002 under SB 1078 and accelerated in 2006 under SB 107. e RPS requires increasing proportions of energy production from renewable sources including solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass generation. Electricity providers, such as PG&E, have been required to increase their renewable portfolio by one percent year over year. SB 100 (the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018) updated the RPS to ensure that by 2030, at least 60 percent of California’s electricity is renewable. e legislation also sets a 2045 goal of powering all (100 percent) retail electricity sold in California and State agency electricity needs with renewable and zero-carbon resources.
Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (SB 350) established clean energy, clean air, and GHG reduction goals. Specifically, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030, utilizing RPS eligible resources (described above). To double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas by 27 California Air Resources Board, “Electric Vehicle Supple Equipment (EVSE) Standards,” Accessed December 12, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-evse-standards. 28 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 293, Packet Page 621 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-15
2030, SB 350 also requires large utilities to submit integrated resource plans (IRPs) that detail how they will meet their customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and ramp up the use of clean energy resources. The CPUC, CARB, and CEC coordinate to support transportation electrification. They also identify and assess barriers to and opportunities for solar photovoltaic energy generations, access to other renewable energy, barriers to energy efficiency and weatherization investments, barriers to contracting opportunities for local small businesses, and access to zero- and near-zero-emission transportation options – specifically for low-income customers, including those in disadvantaged communities.
AB 802, also signed into law in 2015, supports SB 350 by authorizing the CEC to create a building energy-use benchmarking and disclosure program to improve the development and evaluation of policy and programs and the state’s energy infrastructure planning efforts. AB 802 also authorizes electrical and gas corporations to provide financial incentives to their customers that increases the energy efficiency of existing buildings based on all estimated energy savings and energy usage reductions.29
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (also referred to as the Energy Code). The CEC updates the Energy Code every three years with more stringent design requirements to reduce energy consumption, resulting in lower GHG emissions. The 2022 Energy Code, which was adopted in August 2021 and took effect on January 1, 2023, encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electricready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. The 2022 Energy Code also introduces new requirements for low-rise multifamily buildings. According to the Impact Analysis of the 2022 Energy Code, the 2022 update would save 5,472 giga BTUs (GBTUs) of site energy, 1,565 gigawatthours (GWh) of electric energy, 14.39 million therms of gas energy, 46,782 giga time-dependent valuation energy, 2,954 GBTUs of hourly source energy, and 285,214 MTCO2e per year over the 2019 Energy Code, while also providing an annual non-coincident peak demand reduction of 123 megawatts (MW).30
Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11)
CCR, Title 24, Part 11 constitutes the California Green Building Standards Code, known as CALGreen, which is the nation’s first mandatory green building standards code developed by the California Building Standards Commission (CSBSC) in 2007 to meet the goals of AB 32. CALGreen applies to nonresidential structures including new buildings or portions of new buildings, additions and alterations, and all occupancies where no other state agency has the authority to adopt green 29 California Energy Commission, “Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act – SB 350,” Accessed December 13, 2023, https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean-energy-and-pollution-reductionact-sb-350. 30 California Energy Commission, 2022 Energy Code Impact Analysis (TN #: 250892), [Prepared by NORESCO and Frontier Energy], June 30, 2023, Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2023/impact-analysis-2022- update-california-energy-code.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 294, Packet Page 622 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-16 City of Monterey
building standards applicable to the occupancies. e code features: regulations for energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, environmental quality, and more; mandatory provisions for commercial, residential, and public school buildings; appendices with voluntary provisions for all of these occupancies, plus hospitals; and residential and nonresidential provisions. Voluntary measures are oen referred to by their level of achieving enhanced construction or incorporation of additional green building measures beyond the minimum mandatory requirements; “Tier 1” requirements are more stringent than the base mandatory provisions, and “Tier 2” achieves an even higher standard. CALGreen undergoes triennial updates, mostly recently including the 2022 CALGreen Code, which took effect on January 1, 2023.
Solid Waste Diversion (AB 939 and AB 341)
In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. AB 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent, while the 50-percent disposal reduction mandate established under AB 939 still applies to cities and counties. Although California’s infrastructure currently only diverts about half of the state’s waste stream and is not large enough to handle the large amount of potentially recyclable materials collected by local governments and partners in the solid waste industry, the State has shifted focus on reducing GHG emissions that have the most immediate impact on climate (i.e., SLCP).
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SB 1383) In 2016, SB 1383 directed CARB to approve and implement the SLCP Reduction Strategy to achieve 40 percent reduction in CH4, 40 percent reduction in HFC gases, and 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, relative to 2013 levels by 2030. SB 1383 also establishes targets for reducing organic waste in landfills (50 percent reduction in organic waste disposal relative to 2014 levels by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025) as well as CH4 emissions from dairy and livestock operations (40 percent reduction relative to the livestock and dairy sectors’ 2013 levels by 2030).
CARB adopted the SLCP Reduction Strategy in March 2017 as a framework for achieving the CH4, HFC, and anthropogenic black carbon reduction targets set by SB 1383. The SLCP Reduction Strategy includes 10 measures to reduce SLCPs, which fit within a wide range of ongoing planning efforts throughout the state. For example, in 2019, CARB and CalRecycle proposed new and amended regulations to CCR Title 14 and Title 27 that set forth minimum standards for organic waste collection, hauling, and composting that took effect on January 1, 2022. Since then, 75 percent of California communities report they have residential organic waste collection in place. According to CalRecycle, California now has 206 organic waste processing facilities, with 20 more on the way.31
31 CalRecycle, “California’s Climate Progress on SB 1383,” Accessed December 13, 2023, https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/progress/.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 295, Packet Page 623 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-17
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) and 2018Water Conservation Legislation (SB 606 and AB 1668)
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) requires all water suppliers to increase their water use efficiency and establishes the “20x2020 Water Use Targets” to reduce per capita urban water use by 20 percent as of December 31, 2020. Reductions in water consumption reduce the amount of energy, as well as the emissions, associated with conveying, treating, and distributing the water; emissions from wastewater treatment are also reduced.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) collects data and monitors compliance with water use targets and objectives established by SB X7-7 in addition to other reporting requirements (e.g., validated distribution system water loss audits, Urban Water Management Plans, and Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinances). DWR, in coordination with the State Water Board, also implements the 2018 Water Conservation Legislation (AB 1668 and SB 606), which establish standards to exceed SB X7-7 targets and establish a new framework for long-term improvements in urban water use efficiency and drought planning. The standards do not apply to certain commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water uses that are separately subject to CII water use performance measures.
REGIONAL
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
e Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization and council of governments that coordinates planning and programming with the three counties and 18 local jurisdictions within the tri-county Monterey Bay Region. AMBAG oversees metropolitan-level transportation planning; manages the regional transportation demand model; and prepares regional housing, population, and employment forecasts that are utilized in a variety of regional plans.
As determined by CARB, the first per-capita GHG emissions reduction targets for the Monterey Bay Region were three percent by 2020 and six percent by 2035 from 2005 levels. Pursuant to SB 375, AMBAG adopted an SCS into their metropolitan transportation plan (MTP), entitled “Monterey Bay Area Mobility 2035,” in 2010, known as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 MTP/SCS). e 2040 MTP/SCS (“Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2040”) was adopted in June 2018, and the most recent strategic update was adopted in June 2022, entitled “Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045” but generally referred to as the 2045 MTP/SCS. It is noted that the 2050 MTP/SCS update is currently underway. e current 2045 MTP/SCS envisions a resilient and sustainable future made possible by coordinating transportation investments with land use patterns to reduce GHGs by providing more direct access to destinations as well as providing alternative transportation options. Two key strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS include focused growth in high-quality transit corridors and provision of more travel choices as well as a safe and efficient transportation system, in addition to improved access to jobs and education. e 2045 MTP/SCS also supports job creation through economic development, ensures the region’s economic competitiveness through strategic investments in freight, and improves environmental outcomes for the region’s residents by 2045.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 296, Packet Page 624 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-18 City of Monterey
ere are six goal areas, each with corresponding policies, that address the regional vision: Access and Mobility, Economic Vitality, Environment, Healthy Communities, Social Equity, and System Preservation Safety. e 2045 MTP/SCS acknowledges that one of the plan’s primary goals is to reduce per capita GHG emissions over the next 25 years but that projected population increase will likely result in an absolute growth in demand to move people and goods. Performance measures defined in the 2045 MTP/SCS align with the GHG emissions reduction targets set by CARB: three percent per capita reduction for 2020 and six percent per capita reduction for 2045.32 Monterey Bay Air Resources District
e Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in the Monterey Bay Area, including Monterey County. Its role is discussed further in EIR Section 3.3: Air Quality. MBARD has issued advisory annual GHG emission thresholds that help determine the level of significance of a stationary source project’s cumulative GHG emissions, outlined in its Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Implementation document), adopted in 1996 and last revised in 2016.33 A proposed stationary source project (those that would require an Air District permit to operate) would not have a significant GHG impact if operation of the project would both directly and indirectly emit less than the significance level of 10,000 MTCO2e per year, or if the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 (b)(3)).
MBARD has also adopted CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, adopted in 1995 and last revised in 2008, to help CEQA lead agencies with determining a project’s impact on air quality. Although Chapter
12.0 of the guidelines is reserved to address “Climate Change and Assessment of Project Impacts from Greenhouse Gases,” MBARD has not developed any content for the chapter at this time and therefore has not issued any guidance regarding GHGs.
LOCAL
United Nations Urban Environmental Accords
e City of Monterey signed the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords (UEA) in 2007. e UEA lists 21 strategies and related actions for green communities that address energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health, and water. Action 3 32 Association of Monterey Bay Governments, June 2022, 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045), Final June 2022, https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/REVISED2_AMBAG_MTPSCS_Final_EntireDocument_PDFA_Updated041923.pdf. 33Monterey Bay Air Resources District, Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopted April 1996, Last Revised February 2016,
https://www.mbard.org/files/7b79ff940/WatermarkRemovedFebruary2016MBUAPCD_CEQA+Implementation+Gui delines%28update+to+1996+document%29.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 297, Packet Page 625 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-19
of the UEA encourages cities to conduct GHG emissions inventories and adopt a citywide GHG reduction plan to reduce the jurisdiction’s emissions by 25 percent below baseline levels by 2030.
United States Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
e City Council signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement on July 9, 2007. e agreement includes a series of recommendations and a goal to inventory GHG emissions in municipal operations and the community, set reduction targets, and create an action plan. City government actions span multiple departments and disciplines, categorized by topic area (e.g., water, environmental health, urban design, transportation, urban nature, waste, and energy). e CAP documents the City’s progress from 2007 to 2016 in these areas and provides recommendations for additional approaches needed to fully address the issues.
City of Monterey General Plan
e current City of Monterey General Plan 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 goals, policies, and programs that are associated with GHGs and energy are 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.
Goal e. Energy: Encourage the effective and efficient use of energy in all its critical forms by public and private users alike.
Policy e.1. Encourage energy sources, which provide part or all of the energy needed for buildings.
• Program e.1.1. Consider aesthetically compatible independent energy sources in existing residential and commercial structures. • Program e.1.2. Encourage energy retrofitting in existing residential and commercial structures.
Policy e.2. Educate the public about energy conservation. • Program e.2.1. Support public education activities that dramatize costsaving benefits of energy conservation to local consumers. • Program e.2.2. Encourage the hotel, motel, and restaurant associations to maintain an energy conservation program on a continual basis.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 298, Packet Page 626 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-20 City of Monterey
Policy e.3. Work with other local, state, and federal agencies, public utilities, and community organizations to implement energy conservation and longer-range renewable energy development programs.
Monterey City Code
e City of Monterey adopted by reference the 2022 CALGreen Code and 2022 Energy Code (described above) into the Monterey City Code (Ord. 3656, 2022), which are the current versions of the model codes for green building and energy standards. e Monterey City Code also includes other ordinances that support reduction of GHG emissions such as expedited building permit processes for electric vehicle charging stations (Ord. 3575, 2017) and solar systems (Ord. 3520 §2, 2015), as well as waste reduction measures (Ord. 3590 §5, 2018) and water efficient landscapes (Ord. 3545 §11, 2016; Ord. 3444 §1, 2010).
City of Monterey Climate Action Plan
e City of Monterey Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in June 2016 and includes a 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventory, a 2012 GHG emission inventory, and GHG emissions reductions strategies for both community-wide and municipal (government operations) emissions.
According to the CAP, the total GHG emissions inventory (from both community and municipal sources) was 327,422 MTCO2e for the 2005 baseline and 301,814 MTCO2e for the 2012 update, representing a 7.8 percent reduction.
e City has established four GHG emissions reduction targets, using 2005 as a proxy for 1990 baseline levels in the absence of accurate data for 1990: (1) 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32; (2) 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, consistent with the UEA; (3) seven percent below 2005 levels by 2012, consistent with the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement; and (4) 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, consistent with EO S-3-05. GHG reduction measures quantified in the City of Monterey’s CAP include statewide policies, including implementation of Pavley and Low Carbon Fuel Standards (described above) and City-controlled transportation measures to reduce VMT. e VMT reduction measures were developed based on policies, strategies, and actions from the City’s General Plan (2005, described further below) and implementation of improvements identified in the Citywide Transportation and Parking Plan.
Based on a review of the 2005 Monterey General Plan goals and policies and strategies outlined in the UEA and the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, the CAP recommends that government-related operations (which saw a 29.7-percent reduction from 2005 to 2012) serve as a model for the community (which only decreased by 7.8 percent over the same time period). For example, the City purchases 100 percent of its electricity (for municipal operations) from a renewable energy source provider. Community engagement strategies would strive to implement these successes at the community level, while infrastructure investment strategies would focus on adaptive planning efforts to reduce tailpipe emissions and increase energy efficiency. e CAP also identifies existing activities that contribute to local climate adaptation and priority steps for ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 299, Packet Page 627 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-21
adaptation planning. While the adopted CAP recommends that the City develop a comprehensive Climate Adaptation Plan, the CAP itself does not contain adaptation strategies.34 Impact Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Plan would:
Criterion 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment;
Criterion 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs;
Criterion 3: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or,
Criterion 4: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
GHG Emissions Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 directs lead agencies to “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In alignment with existing laws and regulations (as described in the Regulatory Settings), OPR guidance suggests that lead agencies may take a qualitative or quantitative approach to analyze potential significance of climate change impacts on the environment.
Unlike criteria air pollutants, which are generally considered regional or local concerns, GHGs are global pollutants that are driving global climate change. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes, and continuous GHG emissions generated worldwide cumulatively contribute to past, present, and future carbon in the atmosphere. Accordingly, generation of GHG emissions by the Proposed Plan are assessed cumulatively, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, where feasible. e Newhall Ranch decision establishes that lead agencies must reasonably substantiate the applicability of quantitative statewide emissions thresholds, such as those provided in the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans, in determining the significance of GHG impacts from a project – especially in consideration of the specific location and scope of the project. As discussed in the Regulatory Setting, existing State laws and regulations have continued to shi the trajectory of statewide GHG 34 City of Monterey, Climate Action Plan, [Adopted June 2016], March 2016, https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Sustainability/Climate_Action_Plan.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 300, Packet Page 628 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-22 City of Monterey
emissions downward, most recently aiming for carbon neutrality by 2045. In response, regulatory programs like the Advanced Clean Cars Program, the Cap-and-Trade program, LCFS, and RPS are examples of market-based approaches that target reductions from significant emissions sources and specific sectors throughout the state. Such regulations are expected to continue to impact local GHG emissions inventories; however, they are not considered sufficient or appropriate measures for mitigating a project’s impacts, and local jurisdictions have limited influence over such actions.
Rather, recent State guidance encourages local jurisdictions to support statewide objectives to reduce GHG emissions through climate action planning and land use control. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan recommends adoption of a CEQA-qualified CAP and incorporation of key project attributes that reduce GHGs by electrifying transportation, reducing VMT, and decarbonizing buildings.35 OPR guidance also maintains that a “land use development project that produces low VMT, achieves applicable building energy efficiency standards, uses no natural gas or other fossil fuels, and includes Energy Star appliances where available, may be able to demonstrate a less‐thansignificant greenhouse gas impact associated with project operation.” As discussed in the Regulatory Settings, there are three quantitative emissions thresholds commonly used to determine the significance level of a project’s GHG impacts. ese thresholds and their limitations are described below:
• Efficiency-based thresholds are useful for assessing projects of various types, sizes, and locations because they can be expressed on a per-capita basis for residential projects, a peremployee basis for commercial project, or a per-service-population (the sum of jobs and residents) basis for a mixed-use project. Although CARB provided efficiency metrics in the 2017 Scoping Plan (6.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2050), these are no longer supported in the 2022 Scoping Plan. • Numeric bright lines (i.e., not-to-exceed values) provide clear quantitative thresholds, but they are correspondingly specific and therefore limited to certain conditions and applications. For example, the City of Monterey CAP quantified the amount of GHG reductions needed to achieve the established targets, but these numbers are based on the City’s 2012 GHG Inventory, which has since been updated by AMBAG for the City of Monterey in a dra document titled City of Monterey 2020 Community-Wide GHG Inventory (Dra 2020 GHG Inventory).
• Performance-based thresholds (e.g., percent reductions from baseline) are established by AB 32, SB 32, EO S-3-05, and EO B-55-18 and are useful for tracking progress toward targets, such as those adopted in the City of Monterey CAP. is is the most applicable threshold for the Proposed Plan. It is noted that this approach requires an accurate “applesto-apples” comparison between the baseline (e.g., 1990 or 2005) and analysis year emissions in order to properly contextualize the performance levels; it is assumed that quantification 35 CARB has only developed recommendations for proposed plans and residential and mixed-use (with at least twothirds residential square footage) development project types at this time and “plans to continue to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future.” California Air Resources Board, “Section 3.2: Evaluating Plan-Level and Project-Level Alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG Analyses,” 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D: Local Actions, November 2022, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-localactions.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 301, Packet Page 629 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-23
methods (described further below) are sufficient to analyze the general magnitude, under a conservative estimate, of the Proposed Plan’s impact.
Given the programmatic nature of the Proposed Plan and the corresponding a lack of sufficient information about specific project details, comprehensive and precise levels of GHG emissions cannot be quantified for the Proposed Plan to accurately determine significance based on quantitative thresholds alone. As required under CEQA, GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Plan have been estimated (as feasible), disclosed, and discussed relative to these metrics, but evaluation of the Proposed Plan’s impacts is ultimately assessed in combination with the qualitative analysis.
Qualitative thresholds include compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy and compliance with applicable regulatory programs. e qualified GHG reduction strategy is the City of Monterey CAP, adopted in 2016. Most, but not all, of the existing State laws and regulations pertaining to GHGs are incorporated into the CAP and its GHG reductions targets, which are established for 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050. e CAP describes existing City efforts that have reduced business-asusual emissions in 2012—some of which have lapsed and are no longer relevant to the Proposed Plan—and includes recommended GHG reduction strategies involving community engagement and infrastructure investment. As described in the Regulatory Setting, applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include AB 32, SB 32, EO S3-05, EO B-55-18, the 2022 Scoping Plan, and SB 375. According to CARB and OPR, consistency with State efforts for transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization would constitute compliance with these regulations and result in a less-than-significant impact.
Consistency with SB 375 is also assessed qualitatively, and conflict with any applicable strategies of AMBAG’s 2045 MTP/SCS would constitute a significant impact. e Proposed Plan must align with both qualitative and quantitative criteria to have a less-than-significant impact.
Energy Thresholds
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for determining whether a project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As stated in Appendix F, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. e Proposed Plan would have a less-than-significant impact if it includes the following means of achieving this goal:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption.
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
e Proposed Plan would have a less-than-significant impact if it is consistent with applicable State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans as discussed above under Regulatory Setting.
State plans include the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, LCFS, Energy Code standards, SB 350, and SB 100. Each of these plans contain required standards related to energy efficiency and renewable energy development. Local plans that address energy efficiency and are designed to achieve the State’s RPS mandates include PG&E’s and 3CE’s 2022 IRPs and the City’s CAP. e current City of Monterey General Plan Conservation Element also includes goals and policies that relate to energy use and reduction.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 302, Packet Page 630 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-24 City of Monterey
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Greenhouse gas and energy impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Plan were assessed and quantified (where applicable) using standard and accepted soware tools, methodologies, and emission factors. A summary of the methodology is provided below.
Construction
As discussed in Chapter 2: Project Description of this Dra EIR, the Proposed Plan would facilitate development of a mix of uses including a range of housing options, as well as other non-residential and mixed-use spaces across the approximately 5,522-acre Planning Area. Implementation of the Proposed Plan could ultimately result in the net new development of up to 5,800 new homes, including single-family homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and multifamily residential units in addition to approximately 2,746,400 sf of research and development, 1,639,400 sf of retail, 344,100 sf of educational, 173,100 sf of public, 126,400 sf of industrial, and 56,200 sf of other business uses.36 e land uses that could be developed under the Proposed Plan would generate construction-related GHG emissions from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, employee and haul truck trips, and electricity consumption. e specific size, location, construction techniques and scheduling that would be utilized for each future individual development project occurring within the Planning Area from implementation of the Proposed Plan is not currently known. With an anticipated buildout year of 2031, development of the various land uses associated with the Proposed Plan would be expected to be spread over an extended period of time and would depend on factors such as local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations.
Without specific project-level details, it is not possible to develop a refined construction inventory.
Consequently, the determination of construction GHG impacts for each individual development project, or a combination of these projects, would require speculation regarding such potential future project-level environmental impacts. us, in the absence of the necessary construction information required to provide an informative and meaningful analysis, the evaluation of potential construction-related GHG impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Plan is conducted qualitatively in this Dra EIR.
Operations
Long-term operational activities of the Proposed Plan would result in GHG emissions from area, energy, mobile, water, and waste sources. As stated in Chapter 2: Project Description, buildout of the Proposed Plan includes existing development, pipeline development, and new development. e land uses categorized as “existing development” would remain unchanged through 2031, land uses categorized as “pipeline development” include projects that are being reviewed or have been approved by the City but are not yet constructed, and “new development” includes the future development within the Planning Area. Since existing development would remain unchanged, the 36 GHG modeling analysis is conducted based on the incremental difference in development anticipated through the Proposed Plan buildout year. e amount of development is calculated based on employment density (square feet of building area per employee or job), using the methodology provided by the Southern California Association of Governments. Land use changes used in GHG modeling are consistent with transportation and air quality modeling analysis in this EIR.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 303, Packet Page 631 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-25
GHG analysis focuses on the net change in development, including the land uses associated with the pipeline and new development categories.
GHG emissions from area, energy, mobile, water, and waste sources were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.21. Land use and transportation inputs into CalEEMod were scaled to the Proposed Plan and are consistent with those used in the air quality and transportation analyses (Sections 3.3 and 3.13 of this EIR); unless otherwise noted, CalEEMod default inputs and assumptions were retained. Please refer to Appendix H for detailed summary of data utilized in this analysis and CalEEMod output files.
Area sources included emissions from natural gas combustion in residential fireplaces and use of landscape maintenance equipment. e annual activity of natural gas combustion in residential fireplaces and landscaping equipment. Energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for building heating and hot water, as well as the use of electricity.37 Mobile sources are a product of the Proposed Plan’s scaled daily vehicle trips and VMT and CalEEMod’s default emissions factors and vehicle fleet mix, which are derived from CARB’s EMissions FACtor (EMFAC) 2021 model (version 1.0.1). Water and wastewater emissions are related to the energy required to supply, distribute, and treat as well as direct emissions from wastewater treatment systems. Solid waste emissions are associated with disposal and landfill gas capture rates (defaulting to statewide averages). CalEEMod version 2022.1.21 also includes GHG emissions from refrigerants, or HFCs.
Energy
As included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, environmental considerations in the assessment of energy consumption impacts include the following considerations:
• e degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. • e effect of the project on energy resources.
• e project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
Energy impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Plan were assessed and quantified, where applicable, using standard and accepted soware tools and techniques. e Proposed Plan’s energy consumption was quantified in CalEEMod, with the same inputs and methodology as described above for GHG emissions. Quantified energy consumption includes electricity and natural gas that would be consumed by residences and commercial buildings, in addition to the gasoline and diesel fuel that would be consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Planning Area, based on an annual VMT of 85,965,780. 38 Existing conditions and future
37 Electricity emissions for the Proposed Plan were modeled in CalEEMod using emission factor assumptions for PG&E rather than 3CE. e intensity factors applicable to PG&E are slightly different than those applicable to 3CE.
Specifically, the 2031 forecasted intensity factor used for modeling for PG&E is 203.983 lb/MWh compared to 6.63 lb/MWh for 3CE. As a result, the electricity emissions modeled for the Proposed Plan are slightly higher than what would be modeled using assumptions for 3CE. us, the electricity emissions modeled for the Proposed Plan are conservative and the significance conclusions are not affected by the difference in emission factor assumptions. 38 Annual VMT based on daily VMT of 247,740 and 347 days of operation per year. Information provided by Kimley Horn Associates.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 304, Packet Page 632 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-26 City of Monterey
conditions under the Proposed Plan were quantified and subtracted to calculate the net change in energy consumption from future development under the Proposed Plan. Evaluation of energy impacts is focused on this change; this assumption is consistent with the air quality, GHG, and transportation analyses.
RELEVANT PROPOSED GOALS AND POLICIES
Housing Element
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.
Program 1-A Inventory of Available Sites.
Program 1-B Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments.
Program 1-C Specific Plan Updates.
Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update.
Housing Goal #2. Remove or reduce barriers to housing production in Monterey and address the regulatory, process, and market factors that limit and adversely affect affordability.
Program 2-E Revise Parking Requirements.
Program 2-F Update Density Bonus Ordinance.
Program 2-I Inclusionary Zoning.
Program 2-J Water Distribution Policy.
Program 2-K Addressing Water Supply Constraints.
Housing Goal #4. Take action to prevent homelessness and address the needs of unhoused people.
Policy 4.1 Preservation and Rehabilitation. Continue to prioritize funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing stock in the community and funding to assist low-income homeowners with home repair, rehabilitation, and accessibility improvements that keep people in their homes.
Program 4-C Housing Rehabilitation Program.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 305, Packet Page 633 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-27
Policy 5.1 Promote energy conservation programs and incentives, including those offered by Central Coast Community Energy.
Policy 5.2 Encourage the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments to conserve resources and reduce housing costs.
Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that promote energy conservation, including green building practices, the use of recycled materials, and the recycling of construction and demolition debris.
Housing Goal #5. Continue to promote sustainability and energy efficiency in residential development to lower energy use through energyefficient urban design and through better design and construction in individual projects.
Program 5-A Energy Efficient Design.
Program 5-B Green Building Incentives.
Program 5-C Sustainable Design.
Land Use Element
Goal A Establish a compact, sustainable land use and development pattern with boundaries defined by the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Monterey Bay.
Policy A.1 Foster an integrated mix of employment, housing, educational, visitor-oriented, entertainment, recreational and open space uses throughout the city to support a complete community.
Policy A.2 Balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally.
Policy A.3 Promote a range of residential densities throughout the community to encourage a mix of housing types in varying price ranges and rental rates.
Policy A.4 Focus new development primarily in commercial districts and mixed use neighborhoods so as to support the vitality of existing businesses, optimize the use of utility infrastructure, and reduce vehicle trip frequency, length, and associated emissions.
Goal B Create and nurture a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods in Monterey.
Policy B.1 Develop and implement specific plans and zoning to guide development in the mixed use neighborhoods, recognizing that each mixed use neighborhood is ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 306, Packet Page 634 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-28 City of Monterey
unique and requires tailored development and design standards, multi-modal improvements, and infrastructure financing strategies.
Policy B.5 Create an attractive, safe environment for bicycles and pedestrians that promotes "micro-mobility" and connectivity to and within the mixed use neighborhoods.
Circulation Element
Goal A A transportation network that is complemented by land uses that are easily accessible by walking, bicycling, or utilizing transit.
Policy A.1 Continue to apply land-use planning tools and strategies that support the City's circulation goals and direct growth to areas best served by alternative modes of transportation.
Policy A.2 Continue to use land-use policies to concentrate development within walking distance of the transit system.
Policy A.3 Encourage transit/pedestrian oriented (TOD/POD) designs in mixed-use neighborhoods.
Goal B A safe and well-maintained roadway system that efficiently moves people and goods across all modes of transportation.
Policy B.1 Create and maintain a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation.
Policy B.12 Encourage implementation of the adopted City Traffic Calming Program (TCP) through neighborhood traffic calming plans.
Goal C A safe, reliable, connected and integrated bicycle transportation network that encourages bicycling as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.
Policy C.2 Increased bicycle connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.
Policy C.3 Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities to provide viable alternatives to automobile travel.
Policy C.5 Identify commuter routes, which provide more direct bicycle connections for residents and visitors.
Policy C.6 Establish and maintain a current list of bicycle improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a connected bicycle transportation network.
Policy C.8 Support implementation of regional active transportation networks, such as the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) and Monterey Bay Sanctuary ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 307, Packet Page 635 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-29
Scenic Trail (MBSST), which connect pedestrians and bicyclists from Monterey to the greater Monterey Bay Area.
Policy C.9 Require development projects to provide on-site facilities such as bicycle parking, storage and showers, provide connections to existing and future planned facilities, dedicate land to expand existing facilities or provide new facilities such as sidewalks/multi-use paths and/or bicycle lanes, or contribute to the cost of improvements. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Goal D A safe, accessible, connected and integrated pedestrian transportation network that encourages walking as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.
Policy D.3 Increase pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.
Policy D.4 Establish and maintain a current list of pedestrian improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a continuous pedestrian network throughout the City.
Policy D.7 Require that development projects provide internal pedestrian connections and linkages to adjacent public streets, neighborhoods and community facilities.
Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Goal E An integrated multi-modal transportation network that supports and encourages transit use, including Bus, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Rail.
Policy E.1 Promote the use of transit service as an attractive alternative for residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy E.4 Install transit priority system, where feasible, in collaboration with MST.
Policy E.5 Collaborate with MST and area jurisdictions to improve access to transit.
Policy E.8 Require development projects to enhance access to transit. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Goal F A transportation network which supports the reduction of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
Policy F.1 Apply vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts for CEQA, in accordance with SB 743.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 308, Packet Page 636 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-30 City of Monterey
Policy F.2 Apply VMT thresholds of significance for proposed developments, land use plans, transportation projects, and any other plans or development projects in the Move Monterey Plan (MMP).
Goal G Parking that efficiently utilizes existing facilities and encourages a reduction in auto travel.
Policy G.2 Implement a demand-based pricing structure for public parking.
Policy G.3 Establish appropriate time limits for parking in commercial business districts to support local businesses and encourage use of the MST Trolley.
Policy G.4 Improve utilization of existing parking and create new parking opportunities, such as shared parking, through partnerships and cooperation in order to meet parking needs with fewer total spaces.
Policy G.8 Incorporate bicycle parking in parking lots and garages for both public and private development.
Policy G.9 Promote a “Park Once” system that encourages visitors to park once and walk, bike or use transit to travel in Monterey.
Goal H A transportation network supported by projects and programs that work towards zero collisions involving serious or fatal injuries.
Policy H.2 Prioritize transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Policy H.3 Prioritize transportation projects at locations which have been identified as high collision intersections/segments.
Policy H.8 Collaborate with Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), Monterey Fire Department (MFD) and Monterey Police Department (MPD) on education and enforcement programs, including promoting “Safe Routes to School” Programs.
Goal J A transportation network that is more efficient through the use of demand management and intelligent transportation technology.
Policy J.3 Encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to address vehicle congestion and parking demand by implementing strategies such as: telecommuting, travel mode changes, reducing trips taken, re-routing trips, and re-timing when trips are taken.
Policy J.4 Establish a list of recommended programs and strategies for implementing TDM in the City’s multimodal plan to address vehicle congestion, vehicle miles travelled mitigation and parking demand.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 309, Packet Page 637 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-31
Policy J.6 Support the implementation and maintenance of a Citywide traffic signal adaptive system.
Policy J.7 Support the implementation of fiber communication to interconnect the traffic signal network to a traffic signal management system.
IMPACTS
Impact 3.6-1 Development under the Proposed Plan would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Significant and Unavoidable)
As described above, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are used to evaluate the Proposed Plan’s impact due to generation of GHG emissions. e following analysis compares the estimated GHG emissions with quantitative thresholds, then qualitatively assesses compliance with the City of Monterey CAP and the 2022 Scoping Plan. Consistency with the 2045 MTP/SCS is evaluated under Impact 3.6-2.
As discussed in the Regulatory Setting, the City of Monterey CAP was adopted in 2016 and includes reduction targets and measures that align with State regulations and guidance that were current at the time (AB 32, the 2008 Scoping Plan, SB 375, EO S-3-05), in addition to recommendations from the U.N.’s UEA and the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. e targets are expressed in terms of performance-based reductions, relative to 2005 levels (which serves as a baseline in lieu of 1990 due to a lack of sufficient data), as follows: seven percent by 2012, 15 percent reduction by 2020, 25 percent reduction by 2030, and 80 percent reduction by 2050. e CAP does not reflect more recent targets for statewide carbon neutrality, translating to 85 percent reduction, by 2045 as established by EO B-55-18, AB 1279, and the 2022 Scoping Plan. As described in the Environmental Setting, the City of Monterey CAP established its 2020 reduction target based on CARB guidance (in the 2008 Scoping Plan) that 1990 levels would be approximately 15 percent below 2005 levels.
Based on this estimate and data from Monterey’s Dra 2020 GHG Inventory (prepared by AMBAG), Monterey exceeded the AB 32 target of achieving 1990 levels by 2020, with 17 percent reductions below the estimated 1990 levels in 2020 (shown in Table 3.6-2). As such, the environmental setting for the Proposed Plan is characterized by a preexisting trend of declining levels of GHG emissions and demonstrated progress toward the regulatory goal for 2030.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the Proposed Plan would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions. Sources of direct emissions include mobile vehicle trips, on-site natural gas combustion, landscaping activities, and refrigerants. Indirect emissions would be generated by building electricity consumption, waste and wastewater generation, water use, and solid waste. Unmitigated operational emissions for existing and 2031 buildout conditions (without quantifiable policies) are summarized in Table 3.6-
3. e modeled emissions for unmitigated buildout conditions are a conservative estimate of the Proposed Plan’s impact on GHGs because they do not account for Proposed Plan projects and policies such as those that would reduce emissions as a result of reduced VMT from improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure and demand-based parking pricing for public parking ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 310, Packet Page 638 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-32 City of Monterey
(Circulation Policy G.2); promote infill development due to integration of affordable and below market rate housing (Housing Element Program 2-I); and reduce carbon intensity of energy usage through energy efficiency and renewable energy (Housing Element programs 5-A and 5-B). Further, the quantified emissions do not account for additional supportive measures that cannot be quantified due to lack of sufficient data and other variable dependencies (i.e., scope, level of impact) such as effectiveness of providing bike parking, traffic calming measures, and improving transit access, safety, and comfort (Circulation Element policies C.9, B.12, and E.8). Additionally, it is noted that certain measures (e.g., increase in residential and job densities, provision of transit-oriented development, provision of end-of-trip bicycle facilities, and more) were not available to quantify in CalEEMod due to the Proposed Plan’s land use types, land scale, and/or locational context.
Table 3.6-3: Unmitigated Proposed Plan Operational Emissions (Annual) Analysis Condition
Emissions (metric tons)
Source CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Existing Area 20,200 2 1.21 40 20,640
Energy 10,889 12 0 - 11,207
Mobile 80,377 10 1 - 80,847
Waste 5,979 222 5 - 13,125
Water 2,141 214 - - 7,491
Refrigerants - - - 102 102
Total 119,586 460 7 142 133,412
Unmitigated
Proposed
Plan
Area 26,654 1 1.38 29 27,133
Energy 11,439 13 0 - 11,768
Mobile 102,847 12 1 - 103,443
Waste 7,457 281 7 - 16,480
Water 2,848 285 0 - 9,963
Refrigerants 128 128
Total 151,245 592 9 157 168,915
Notes:
1. R refers to refrigerants, or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Source: See Appendix H for modeling files.
As shown in Table 3.6-4, annual unmitigated operational emissions under the Proposed Plan would increase by 35,504 MTCO2e at full buildout in 2031. Quantified mitigations resulting from the Proposed Plan policies described above would modestly reduce this amount by 294 MTCO2e, almost exclusively due to transportation mitigation measures that would reduce CO2 emissions. ese mitigations were estimated using conservative inputs (e.g., the minimum suggested input values, corresponding to a lower level of efficacy) for the applicable quantifiable measures available in CalEEMod.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 311, Packet Page 639 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-33
Table 3.6-4: Mitigated Proposed Plan Operational Emissions by Emissions Source Emissions (MTCO2e)
Analysis Condition Area Energy Mobile Waste Water Refrig. Total Existing 20,640 11,207 80,847 13,125 7,491 102 133,411
Proposed Plan, Unmit. 27,133 11,768 103,443 16,480 9,963 128 168,915 Change +6,493 +561 +22,596 +3,355 +2,472 +26 +35,504
Quantified Mitigations -57 0 -237 0 0 0 -294
Proposed Plan, Mit. 27,076 11,768 103,206 16,480 9,963 128 168,621 Percent Share 16% 7% 61% 10% 6% 0.1% 100%
Notes:
1. Unmit. = Unmitigated; Mit. = Mitigated; Refrig. = Refrigerants.
2. Mitigated Proposed Plan conditions include quantifiable proposed policies that reduce operational emissions from Unmitigated Proposed Plan conditions.
Source: See Appendix H for modeling files.
Table 3.6-5 shows how the Proposed Plan’s performance-based metrics compare with reduction targets established by the City and the State. At a minimum, the Proposed Plan would need to meet the 2030 target, which is within the planning period. Although existing operational emissions are on track to meet the target of 40 percent below 1990 levels (or 25 percent below 2005 levels), the Proposed Plan would generate additional emissions that would lower the performance metric to about 38 percent below 1990 levels in 2031 and therefore would conflict with the City’s or the State’s established target for 2030. Given the net increase in emissions and inability to meet the 2030 target, the Proposed Plan could have a potentially significant impact due to generation of GHGs. e following sections present the sector-by-sector analysis of GHG impacts to provide more context and identify opportunities for mitigation, consistent with OPR and CARB guidance.
Mobile-Source Emissions
GHG emissions associated with on-road mobile sources are generated from future residents and workers living and working within the Planning Area. As shown in Table 3.6-4, emissions from mobile sources by far represent the largest source (61 percent) of the Proposed Plan’s emissions. e 22,596-MTCO2e increase in mobile-source emissions is primarily driven by the additional VMT expected as a result of population and employment growth at full buildout of the Proposed Plan (as presented in Chapter 2: Project Description).
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 312, Packet Page 640 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-34 City of Monterey
Table 3.6-5: GHG Reduction Targets and Performance-Based Metrics Year/Source Percent Below 1990 Levels1
GHG Emissions Reduction Targets
2030 (City of Monterey CAP, SB 32)2 40%
2045 (EO B-55-18) 85%
2050 (City of Monterey CAP, EO S-3-05) 80%
GHG Emissions Estimates
2023 Existing 51%
2031 Mitigated Proposed Plan 38%
Notes:
1. 1990 levels are derived from 2005 levels reported in the City of Monterey Draft 2020 GHG Inventory prepared by AMBAG. See note below for methodology.
2. The City of Monterey CAP establishes GHG reduction targets relative to the 2005 baseline, which is estimated to be 15% above 1990 levels. The 2030 goal of 25% reduction below 2005 is therefore equivalent to 40% reduction below 1990 levels.
In its Scoping Plan, CARB acknowledges that reductions in VMT are essential to meet the State’s long-term climate change goals, in both absolute and per capita terms. As noted above, the Proposed Plan includes a suite of policies that would prioritize alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, bicycling, and walking, to reduce per capita VMT. Based on transportation modeling results provided by the Proposed Plan’s transportation engineers, VMT (in absolute terms) is expected to increase compared to existing (2023) conditions, with or without the Proposed Plan.
Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in a higher total VMT at buildout compared to future conditions without the Proposed Plan, primarily due to the greater amount of population (residential) growth, which would contribute to a higher number of vehicle trips. In addition, transportation modeling results show that the average home-based trip length is expected to increase for the Planning Area overall as a result of the Proposed Plan. Both of these factors (vehicle trips and trip length) would contribute to higher absolute VMT. It is noted, however, that transportation modeling was conducted using the most recent (2018) version of AMBAG’s Regional Travel Demand Model, which only accounts for transportation projects from the MTP adopted by AMBAG as of June 2018 and other related built environment variables that can be programmed into the model, such as proximity to transit and mixed-use designs which result in quantifiable reductions in daily trips and VMT.
Proposed Plan policies that support VMT reductions through factors that the model is not sensitive to (such as connectivity within neighborhoods, presence of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, limited parking supply, and transportation demand management [TDM] measures) are therefore not reflected in the VMT estimates. As a result, population growth under the Proposed Plan would contribute to an increase in VMT per capita, as shown in Table 3.6-6, as well as an increase in VMT per service population. e Proposed Plan Housing Element is designed to accommodate the City’s assessed share of projected regional growth, and as such, an increase in absolute VMT is expected; however, the proposed land use strategy is designed to help reduce the impact of this growth by reducing VMT per capita and per service population by creating a better jobs-housing balance. Proposed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 313, Packet Page 641 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-35
policies would help achieve this by encouraging higher-density and mixed-use developments where appropriate, connectivity between neighborhoods and to transit, and walkable design that complements the existing natural and built environment to reduce VMT (Land Use policies A.1, A.2, and A.4). e Proposed Plan further provides the policy framework to guide future development toward land uses that support walking, biking, and transit ridership (Land Use Element policies B.1 and B.5 and Circulation Element policies A.1, A.2, and A.3). In fact, residential growth as a result of the proposed land use strategy would result in a reduction in emissions per capita, from 5.0 in 2023 to 4.6 in 2031 under the Proposed Plan.
Table 3.6-6: Per Capita and Per Service Population Metrics Measurement Existing (2023) Proposed Plan (2031)
Population 26,845 36,949
Service Population 49,091 61,186
VMT (daily) 157,209 247,640
per Capita 5.9 6.7
per Service Population 3.2 4.0
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e per year) 133,411 168,621
per Capita 5.0 4.6
per Service Population 2.7 2.8
Notes:
1. Service population is the sum of residents plus jobs (employees). Population and jobs are consistent with Chapter 2: Project Description.
2. VMT shown is the average daily VMT provided by Kimley Horn Associates, and per capita and per service population metrics are calculated using the values in the table, consistent with the Project Description.
In addition to the proposed land use strategy, the Circulation Element of the Proposed Plan includes multiple policies to reduce the demand for vehicle travel within and through the Planning Area, as well as work with local, regional, and State agencies to implement regional transportation improvements that encourage the use of non-automobile travel modes. e Proposed Plan promotes active transportation by making bicycle and pedestrian travel safer and more convenient (Circulation Element policies C.2, C.3, C.6, C.8 D.3, D.4, D.7, and H.8), and it provides multimodal and transit alternatives to single-occupant vehicles by supporting transit facilities and services (Circulation Element policies E.1, E.4, 3.5, and E.8). To discourage auto travel, the Proposed Plan includes parking strategies (Circulation Element policies G.2, G.8, and G.9) and TDM measures (Circulation Element policies J.3 and J.4). In addition, the Circulation Element explicitly includes proposed policies that seek to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions (i.e., VMT) by adopting VMT metrics for CEQA transportation impacts per SB 743, establishing thresholds of significance for future development projects and plans, and providing guidance for ensuring future development under the Proposed Plan would be CEQA-compliant and support the VMT-reducing proposed policies described above (Circulation Element policies F.1, F.2, and F.3).
If adopted, the City shall implement all policies identified in the Housing, Land Use, and Circulation Elements of the Proposed Plan to reduce the demand for automobile travel within and through the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 314, Packet Page 642 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-36 City of Monterey
Planning Area, as well as work with local and regional agencies to implement regional transportation improvements.
Although the implementation of Proposed Plan strategies can be expected to reduce the VMT per capita (and 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 resulting from implementation of the Proposed Plan are unknown at this time. As shown in Table 3.6-5, an additional two percent reduction below 1990 levels is required for the Proposed Plan to achieve both the City’s and the State’s near- and long-term climate goals for 2030 and beyond.
Area-Source Emissions
As shown in Table 3.6-4, the Proposed Plan would generate about 6,493 MTCO2e more than existing conditions due to area sources, which include gasoline-powered landscaping equipment (e.g., trimmers, mowers) and natural gas combustion in residential woodstoves/fireplaces. Although proposed policies encourage sustainable design and green building standards (Housing Element Programs 5-B and 5-C), there are no measures, including in the CAP or Scoping Plan, that specifically address use of landscaping equipment or fireplaces. e Scoping Plan generally discusses landscaping as a component of urban forestry efforts that would help reduce carbon at the local level, and these areas would be subject to State requirements for water-efficient landscaping practices. As transportation sector emissions are reduced toward the 2030 goal, CARB expects that residential woodstoves/fireplaces will be one of a few remaining sources of black carbon emissions.
MBARD does not prohibit residential woodstoves/fireplaces, although outdoor open fires are regulated.
OPR guidance recommends that land use development projects strive to avoid fossil fuels.39 e extent to which the Proposed Plan would result in new fossil-fuel-powered landscaping equipment or residential woodstoves/fireplaces is unknown. Consequently, there is a possibility that new development could result in fossil fuel use and associated GHG emissions throughout implementation of the Proposed Plan, thereby potentially conflicting with the City’s and State’s 2030 reduction goals, OPR guidance, and the State’s long-term emission reduction trajectory towards carbon neutrality by 2045.
Energy Emissions
As shown in Table 3.6-4, the Proposed Plan would generate about 561 MTCO2e more than existing conditions due to energy consumption. GHG emissions from energy sources include combustion of natural gas for cooking and heating, as well as electricity provided by 3CE or PG&E. e Proposed Plan outlines strategies to reduce energy demand and fossil fuel use, while increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. ese strategies include transitioning to cleaner fuels, increasing efficiency in existing buildings, and replacing gas appliances with electric in the 39 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Discussion Dra CEQA and Climate Change Advisory. December.
Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20181228-Discussion_Dra_Climate_Change_Adivsory.pdf. Accessed: August 16, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 315, Packet Page 643 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-37
residential and commercial sectors (Housing Element Programs 5-A, 5-B, and 5-C) and align with the key project features that reduce GHGs in the 2022 Scoping Plan (i.e., local actions that support the State’s climate goals for 2030 and beyond). Although proposed programs/policies encourage and incentivize use of renewable energy, energy-efficient and sustainable design, and CALGreen standards, it is unknown whether future development projects within the Planning Area would ultimately be designed with natural gas appliances. As such, it was conservatively assumed all development used natural gas for heating and cooking, which is reflected in the emissions included in Table 3.6-3. is conservative estimate also assumes that the electricity provider would be PG&E, which has a significantly higher carbon intensity factor than 3CE (more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MWh compared to nearly zero, respectively). Under these quantified assumptions, the continued consumption of fossil fuels by operation of the Proposed Plan in the energy sector prior to and beyond 2030 would generate GHG emissions from fossil-fueled energy sources and could conflict with the City’s and State’s climate goals.
Waste Emissions
As shown in Table 3.6-4, the Proposed Plan would generate about 3,355 MTCO2e more than existing conditions due to generation of solid waste. Solid waste may be disposed in landfills or diverted for recycling, composting, or reuse. GHG emissions from landfills are generated through anaerobic breakdown of material. e Scoping Plan aims to reduce waste emissions by diverting waste away from landfills through waste reduction, re-use, composting, and material recovery, as mandated by AB 341 recycling and SB 1383/AB 1826 organic waste reduction requirements. e Proposed Plan does not include policies that specifically address waste; however, future development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with Monterey City Code (Chapter 14) requirements for solid waste, recycling, and composting. Compliance with these regulations and existing City efforts to achieve zero waste in the community would support the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) strategy and landfill waste reduction goals, but it is unknown whether these efforts would be sufficient to offset the increase in waste emissions generated by the Proposed Plan to a less-thansignificant level.
Water and Wastewater Emissions
As shown in Table 3.6-4, water is the smallest category of emissions (other than refrigerants, which are a near-negligible source) in Monterey, with about 2,472 additional MTCO2e generated by the Proposed Plan compared to existing conditions. Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute water and wastewater. e amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of water. Additional wastewater emissions include CH4 and N2O, although these are generated by wastewater treatment at individual wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). e Proposed Plan does not include construction or expansion of new WWTPs. New sources of water supply are anticipated to become available during the planning period (but are not within the scope of the Proposed Plan); however, development of the sites in the Housing Element would require expanded water supply, including but not limited to the Cal-Am Desalination Plant and Phase 2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery. . GHG emissions generated during the delivery and treatment of water to service the new development would add to current emissions levels, though this increase would be moderated by water conservation methods in the new development projects, as described in Housing Element Program 2-K.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 316, Packet Page 644 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-38 City of Monterey
e Scoping Plan outlines objectives and goals to reduce GHGs in the water sector through water conservation and efficiency strategies, including use of drought-tolerant landscaping, stormwater capture, and water recycling. Regulations have further targeted water supply and water conservation (e.g., SB X7-7) through building and landscaping efficiency (e.g., Title 24). e Proposed Plan would support sustainable building and landscape design, as well as sustainable water use and irrigation practices through Housing Element 5-B. However, given the need for additional water supply to serve new housing and the overall net increase in estimated emissions, the Proposed Plan may conflict with the City’s and State’s climate goals due to water consumption and wastewater generation.
Stationary-Source Emissions
Stationary sources associated with future development projects would be subject to MBARD permitting requirements and project-level thresholds. Stationary-source GHG impacts for each individual development project, or a combination of these projects, would require the City to speculate regarding such potential future project-level environmental impacts. Because the GHG emissions related to stationary sources at buildout of the Proposed Plan is currently unknown, the Proposed Plan could exceed project-level thresholds and conflict with the Scoping Plan.
Construction
As described in the Methodology and Assumptions section above, construction-generated emissions cannot be quantified at this time due to a lack of sufficient, project-specific data; however, it is expected that multiple development projects would occur throughout the Proposed Plan’s planning period.
Plans are encouraged to incorporate feasible BMPs to reduce GHGs generated by construction activities and are evaluated based on their potential to conflict with statewide emission reduction goals. Housing Element Program 5-C encourages environmentally sensitive construction practices, including requiring large project applicants to submit a construction waste management plan for City approval and restricting use of HFCs in mechanical equipment and building materials.
Program 5-C also promotes use of construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts as well as use of locally or regionally available materials – both of which are standard construction BMPs for reducing construction-related GHG emissions. Construction and demolition activities are also regulated under CALGreen, which requires all permitted residential and non-residential construction, demolition, and additions/alterations projects to recycle or salvage a minimum 65 percent of nonhazardous construction materials from the project, as supported by Housing Element Program 5-B. Neither MBARD nor CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan offer specific recommendations regarding reducing GHGs from construction, and the Proposed Plan includes measures that would mitigate emissions as feasible. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether these measures would be sufficient to reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels.
Conclusion
GHG emissions from operation of the Proposed Plan would result in a net increase compared to existing conditions, primarily attributed to mobile sources. Although emissions would decrease on a per capita basis, the increase in overall emissions would translate to a decrease in performanceATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 317, Packet Page 645 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-39
based metrics such that it would conflict with both the City’s and the State’s target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030—a target year that is within the Proposed Plan’s planning period—as established in the City of Monterey CAP and CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan. Proposed policies that can be quantified would contribute a reduction of less than 300 MTCO2e (under a conservative estimate) and are not sufficient to offset the estimated increase in operational emissions.
Despite this net increase, the Proposed Plan’s policies represent a suite of land use and building strategies that would reduce emissions from area sources, building energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. However, there is no guarantee that all voluntary sustainability features and practices will be incorporated into the designs and construction of all future developments to reach the maximum reductions possible. is is a potentially significant impact, particularly as new development will coincide with water service expansion and would continue to use natural gas for building heating and cooking, appliances, and woodstoves/fireplaces, and gasoline or other fossil fuels in landscaping equipment prior to and beyond 2030. e magnitude of water consumption, waste generation, and natural gas and gasoline use for energy and area sources within the Planning Area cannot be known at this time, and thus there is a possibility that such use of fossil fuels could be considered substantial.
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 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. However, quantified transportation measures are insufficient to offset increased mobile-source emissions, and it is uncertain whether additional voluntary measures that reduce VMT and electrify transportation would be adequate to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. As a result, the Proposed Plan’s mobile-source GHG emissions would conflict the City’s and State’s climate change planning goals.
Overall, the Proposed Plan includes policies that would reduce GHG impacts, in line with CARB and OPR guidance, but the magnitude of effect of such measures is unknown and therefore cannot be assumed to reduce the increase in operational emissions to a less-than-significant level. erefore, the Proposed Plan would have a significant impact, and the following mitigation measures would be required.
Mitigation Measures
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. e 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. e CAP Update shall incorporate the most recent communitywide GHG Inventory and strategies that would achieve at least an additional two percent reduction by 2030 to ensure citywide target of 40 percent reduction. e CAP shall target top-contributing emissions sectors (especially the transportation sector, which represents more than 60 percent of ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 318, Packet Page 646 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-40 City of Monterey
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. e CAP shall also incorporate a CEQA checklist to streamline project approval and encourage use of CARB’s recommended key project attributes that reduce GHGs (as included in the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan).
MM-GHG-2 Construction Best Management Practices to Minimize GHGs. All applicants within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines):
• Ensure alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. • Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (A five-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [CCR, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site and develop an enforceable mechanism to monitor idling time to ensure compliance with this measure.
• 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 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.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 319, Packet Page 647 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-41
• Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control since substantial amounts of energy can be consumed during the pumping of water.
Although implementation of the mitigation measures above would help significantly reduce GHG emissions generated during construction and operation of the Proposed Plan and may achieve the citywide GHG reduction target (potentially revised in an updated CAP), without further State action, it is unlikely that local efforts alone would be sufficient to meet carbon neutrality by 2045 and thereby reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Moreover, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan indicates that carbon sequestration from natural and working lands will not be enough to attain carbon neutrality, and doing so will require research, development, and implementation of additional measures. CARB maintains authority to adopt regulations as necessary to meet future GHG targets under SB 32, EO S-3-05, EO B-55-18, and AB 1279, but the specific path to carbon neutrality is unknown and dependent on development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available.; therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Significance Aer Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Impact 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. (Significant and Unavoidable)
City of Monterey CAP
As discussed in Impact 3.6-1, the City’s CAP establishes four GHG reduction targets (for years 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050), one of which occurs during the Proposed Plan’s planning period. Based on the quantified estimate of operational emissions (Table 3.6-3), the Proposed Plan would generate GHGs at a level that does not meet the 2030 target and would therefore conflict with the City’s CAP.
CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
As described in the Regulatory Setting, the CARB Scoping Plan is a framework for achieving AB 32 and subsequent regulations, including SB 32, EO S-3-05, and EO B-55-18. While State programs including RPS, LCFS, Advanced Clean Cars, Cap-and-Trade, and others will help achieve the State’s near- and long-term climate change goals, local actions are more limited in scope and influence. As such, local jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt CAPs and use land use control to support electrifying transportation, reducing VMT, and decarbonizing buildings. e CARB 2022 Scoping Plan suggests that a project including all key project attributes in these categories would have a lessthan-significant impact. Table 3.6-7 below assesses whether the Proposed Plan is consistent with these project attributes.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 320, Packet Page 648 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-42 City of Monterey
Table 3.6-7: Consistency with CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential and MixedUse Project Attributes to Reduce GHGs Key Project Attribute Proposed Plan Programs/Policies Consistent? Transportation Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure
that, at minimum, meets the most
ambitious voluntary standard in the
California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen) at the time of
project approval.
CALGreen is adopted into the Monterey City
Code, and the Proposed Plan further reinforces
these standards by incentivizing residential and
mixed-use projects to exceed CALGreen
requirements (Housing Element Program 5-B).
Yes
Reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses
and reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land
that is presently served by existing
utilities and essential public services
(e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).
Housing Element Policy 1.2 promotes infill
development with access to employment, retail,
transit, recreation, and other services. The Land
Use Element further supports compact,
sustainable land use and development patterns
within the Planning Area (Land Use Element
Policy A.4).
Yes
Does not result in the loss or
conversion of natural and working
lands.
Housing Element Policy 1.3 and Program 1-A
(the Housing Sites Inventory) include
development in southeast portions of the
Planning Area that are designated as Grazing
Land (as mapped in discussed in Section 3.2:
Agricultural Resources).
No
Consists of transit-supportive
densities (minimum of 20 residential
dwelling units per acre), or
Is in proximity to existing transit
stops (within a half mile), or
Satisfies more detailed and stringent
criteria specified in the region’s SCS.
The existing Medium Density Residential,
Commercial, and Commercial Mixed Use of the
Land Use Element allow densities greater than
20 dwelling units per acre, and the new
Multifamily Residential Overlay increases density
to 50 dwelling units per acre. Infill development
is encouraged (see above), and most (but not all)
Housing Element Sites are within a half mile of
transit. Consistency with the SCS is discussed
below.
Yes
Reduces parking requirements by:
• Eliminating parking
requirements or including
maximum allowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of
parking spaces to residential
units or square feet); or
• Providing residential parking
supply at a ratio of less than
one parking space per
dwelling unit; or
Housing Program 2-E would reduce parking
requirements to one space per unit for all units
within a half-mile of transit and would revise
parking regulations, as necessary, to remove
constraints to affordable housing. However, it is
uncertain whether future revisions would
eliminate parking requirements or reduce ratios
to less than one space per unit.
No
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 321, Packet Page 649 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-43
Key Project Attribute Proposed Plan Programs/Policies Consistent? • For multifamily residential
development, requiring
parking costs to be
unbundled from costs to
rent or own a residential
unit.
At least 20 percent of units included
are affordable to lower-income
residents.
Housing Element Program 2-I would establish an
Inclusionary Zoning requirement for 20 percent
of units in any project with more than six units
to be permanently affordable to moderate- and
low-income residents. Housing Element
Program 1-A would ensure that the City meets
RHNA obligations, including a minimum of 53
percent of lower-income units.
Yes
Results in no net loss of existing
affordable units.
Housing Element Program 2-I includes
development of at least 1,946 lower-income
units, and Housing Element Policy 4.1 and
Program 4-C would help lower-income residents
stay in their homes.
Yes
Building Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without
any natural gas connections and does
not use propane or other fossil fuels
for space heating, water heating, or
indoor cooking.
The Proposed Plan does not include specific
development projects, other than pipeline
projects. Future development would comply with
Housing Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and
Programs 5-A and 5-B that encourage energy
efficiency, including use of renewable energy
from 3CE, and green building practices beyond
CALGreen requirements. However, such
voluntary measures cannot be guaranteed at a
project level.
No
Source: CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D: Local Actions [Table 3], 2022.
As demonstrated above, the Proposed Plan supports many of the key project attributes but would conflict with the following three: Prevent loss/conversion of natural and working lands; eliminate parking requirements, reduce the ratio to less than one space per unit, or unbundle parking from housing costs; and use all-electric appliances with no natural gas consumption. 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2045 MTP/SCS is the AMBAG region’s long-range transportation plan for coordinating development between regional transportation planning agencies, transit providers, local jurisdictions, and others interested in or responsible for transportation planning and programming. The 2045 MTP/SCS complies with the requirements of SB 375, and the MTP/SCS is designed to meet the GHG reduction targets set by CARB for the Monterey Bay region, including a six percent per capita reduction (relative to 2005 levels) by 2035 through land use and transportation planning. Specifically, strategies focus housing and employment growth in urbanized areas, protect sensitive habitat and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 322, Packet Page 650 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-44 City of Monterey
open space, and invest in a transportation system with more effective and diverse transportation options. There are 68 specific strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS that AMBAG recommends local jurisdictions to consider to successfully implement the SCS. Table 3.6-8 assesses whether the Proposed Plan is consistent with applicable strategies.
Table 3.6-8: Consistency with AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS Implementation Strategies Strategy Proposed Plan Programs/Policies Consistent?
Economic Development
Encourage infill housing by working with local
jurisdictions to update municipal policies, such
as reduced fees tax credits or exemptions,
graduated density bonuses, and reduced
parking requirements for redevelopment,
affordable housing, or mixed use in
Opportunity Areas.
The Proposed Plan includes infill housing
(Housing Element Policy 1.2), updated
density bonuses (Housing Element
Program 2-F), reduced parking
requirements (Housing Element
Program 2-E and Circulation Element
Policy G.4), affordable housing (Housing
Element Programs 1-A and 2-I), and
mixed-use (Land Use Element Policies
A.1, A.4, and B.1).
Yes
Land Use & Housing
Prioritize corridor investment projects along
high quality transit corridors that serve
multiple modes of travel in the development
of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and
Regional Transportation Plans. Supportive
investments include enhancements for high
quality transit, technology development,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements and
safer intersections.
The Circulation Element supports
regional efforts for high-quality transit
(Circulation Element Policies E.4, E.5,
and E.8), technology development
(Circulation Element Policies J.6 and J.7),
bicycle and pedestrian improvements
(Circulation Element Policies C.6, C.9,
D.4, and D.7), and safer intersections
(Circulation Element Policies H.2 and
H.3).
Yes
Continue to work with local jurisdictions on
long range land use planning by refining the
land use typologies for the region and better
defining opportunity areas.
Land Use Element Policy B.1 and
Housing Element Programs 1-B and 1-C
call for specific plan updates and land
use strategies focused on mixed-use
neighborhoods, commercial districts, and
complete communities within identified
opportunity areas.
Yes
Prioritize projects for funding that are
consistent with the Sustainable Communities
Strategy goals and/or that have complete
streets elements per the adopted Sustainable
Communities Strategy and Regional Complete
Streets Guidelines in order to encourage use
if active transportation options for short trips
and improve quality of life.
Circulation Element Policy B.1 would
create and maintain complete streets,
supported by active transportation
options and convenient access
envisioned by Policies A.1, A.2, and A.3.
Yes
Investment in safe bicycle and pedestrian
routes that improve connectivity and access
to common destinations, such as connections
Circulation Element Policies C.3 and D.2
improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
and mobility, supported by enhanced
Yes
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 323, Packet Page 651 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-45
Strategy Proposed Plan Programs/Policies Consistent?
between residential areas and schools,
employment centers, neighborhood shopping,
and transit stops and stations, supporting
efforts throughout the region to improve
connectivity and realize public health benefits
from these investments.
multimodal access to meet community
needs (Circulation Element Policies A.1,
C.2, D.3, and Land Use Element Policy
B.5).
Environment
Consider climate change in all functions of
government and across public and private
sectors.
As discussed under Impact 3.6-1, the
Proposed Plan seeks to increase energy
efficiency, support transition to
renewable energy, and reduce VMT,
water consumption, and waste
generation. The Proposed Plan supports
regional coordination across the public
sector and encourages and/or
incentivizes cooperation from the
private sector.
Yes
Maximize the use of natural lands, such as
wetlands at the coast and agricultural and
conservation lands, to help absorb the
impacts of climate change. Wetlands can be
natural buffers against rising seas and
destructive storm surges. Agricultural and
conservation lands, often in more rural
communities, can serve as natural fire breaks
against increased wildfires. Protected natural
lands can also help absorb greenhouse gas
emissions while providing many other societal
benefits.
The Highway 68 Area Plan Update
(Housing Element Program 1-I) would
involve development on a portion of a
50-acre vacant parcel of land, previously
identified for development in the
Highway 68 Area Plan while preserving
much of the rest of the Highway 68 Area
in its current undeveloped state. Open
space conservation and tree
preservation policies in the Highway 68
Area Plan, General Plan, and City Code
would continue to apply, minimizing the
loss of natural lands. Development of
the 50-acre MPUSD parcel may involve
the loss of land classified by the FMMP
as Grazing Land (see Section 3.2:
Agricultural Resources), however, the
parcel is not currently in active
agricultural use nor is it zoned for
agricultural uses. All development on the
parcel would be within the City limit on
land previously designated for
development and would locate new
housing in proximity to the Ryan Ranch
business park and other employment
uses on Garden Road, potentially
reducing commute times and distances
for people employed in those locations.
As such, Program 1-I would not conflict
with the 2045 MTP/SCS infill
development goals.
Yes
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 324, Packet Page 652 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-46 City of Monterey
Strategy Proposed Plan Programs/Policies Consistent?
Transportation
Improve safety and security at crosswalks,
transit stops and along main access routes to
transit, including rural areas, with higher
priority for low income, minority and high
crime areas.
Circulation Element Policies H.2 and H.3
would prioritize of high-collision
intersections and segments to enhance
pedestrian and bicycle safety.These
improvements would be coordinated in
the City’s multimodal transportation
plan.
Yes
Collaborate with jurisdictions and employers
to provide local community shuttles or
circulators that serve transit-oriented
development, high quality transit stops and
neighborhood commercial centers providing
an incentive for residents and employees to
make trips on transit.
Circulation Element Policies A.3, E.1, G.3,
and G.9 support transit-oriented
developments served by high-quality
transit and alternative modes of
transportation to serve the needs of
residents, employees, and visitors.
Yes
Encourage the use of traffic operational
strategies and intelligent transportation
systems to improve traffic flow that will
provide lower-cost alternatives to road
expansion.
Circulation Element Policy B.12
implements the City’s Traffic Calming
Program, and Circulation Element
Policies J.3, J.4, J.6, and J.7 would
implement technology and TDM
strategies to improve traffic flow.
Yes
Coordinate with Central Coast Community
Energy and Monterey Bay Air Resources
District to provide programs that install
charging stations for workplaces, multi-unit
dwelling communities, and medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles throughout the region.
Housing Element Policy 5.1 and Housing
Element Programs 5-A and 5-B support
3CE efforts to conserve energy and
transition to renewable energy, as
required and encouraged by CALGreen
and the Energy Code.
Yes
Monitor the region’s EV efforts, including the
number of charging stations, greenhouse gas
reductions, energy use, air quality and
pollution impacts, and EV-ready cities.
As discussed in Section 3.3: Air Quality
and under Impacts 3.6-1, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4,
the Proposed Plan supports renewable
energy, energy efficiency, and GHG
reduction strategies. EV requirements
are part of CALGreen, which are
included in Housing Element Program 5-
B.
Yes
Source: AMBAG 2045 MTP/SCS [Table 4-1], 2022.
As evaluated in Table 3.6-8, the Proposed Plan would be consistent with the applicable strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS.
Consistency with Other State Regulations
As discussed above, systemic changes will be required at the state level to achieve California’s future GHG reduction goals. Regulations, such as future amendments and updates to the State’s lowcarbon and renewable energy, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste reduction regulations will be necessary to attain the magnitude of reductions required for the State’s goals.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 325, Packet Page 653 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-47
New development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with these regulations, and vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon-intensive due to statewide compliance with future LCFS amendments and increasingly stringent RPS. us, for the foreseeable future, the Proposed Plan would not conflict with any other applicable State-level regulations pertaining to GHGs.
Conclusion
Overall, the Proposed Plan would be consistent with policies and plans that encourage energy conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainability, as it would concentrate new development within the City limit on land previously identified for development and as it would improve the jobshousing ratio and promote walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, reducing per capita VMT and associated vehicle trips. However, implementation of the Proposed Plan could result in GHG emissions that exceed targets established in the City and State plans. While accommodating the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need for the 2023-31 planning period is a legal requirement under State law, these exceedances nevertheless represent a conflict with plans, policies, and regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Mitigation Measures
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. erefore, even aer 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.
Significance aer Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Impact 3.6-3 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. (Less than Significant) Development facilitated by the Proposed Plan would involve the use of energy during construction and operation. Energy use during construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Longterm operation of development projects would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. In addition, the increase in vehicle trips and operation of the regional transportation system associated with potential development could increase fuel consumption.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 326, Packet Page 654 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-48 City of Monterey
Construction
Construction and maintenance of future land use development envisioned under the Proposed Plan would result in short-term consumption of energy resulting from the use of construction equipment and processes. CALGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of future development envisioned by the Proposed Plan and would minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Proposed Housing Element Programs 5-B and 5-C would ensure that construction and operation of projects facilitated by the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with relevant provisions of CALGreen and the Energy Code (as adopted into the Monterey City Code), as well as the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, which would further avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.
Operation
Operation of the development facilitated by the Proposed Plan would consume natural gas and electricity for building heating and power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements. Additionally, the increase in VMT associated with potential development and daily operation of the regional transportation system would use energy in the form of fuel consumed by propulsion of passenger vehicles, including automobiles, vans and trucks, and transit vehicles, including buses and trains.
Energy consumption under the Proposed Plan is based on the net increase in energy consumption.
Electricity and natural gas would be consumed by residences and commercial buildings. Gasoline and diesel would be consumed by vehicles traveling to and from the Proposed Plan’s land uses and are based on an annual VMT of 85,965,780. e quantified change in energy consumption associated with the Proposed Plan (future Proposed Plan buildout conditions minus existing conditions) is shown in Table 3.6-9.
As shown in Table 3.6-9, operation of development associated with implementation of the Proposed Plan would increase the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. Electricity consumption would increase by 333,678 million BTU per year in 2031, while natural gas consumption would increase by 248,888 million BTU per year. Direct transportation energy demand would also increase by 307,445 million BTU per year through the consumption of gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles. Total energy consumption in the Planning Area would increase by 889,612 million BTU per year in 2031, which translates to 112.1 million BTU per capita and 67.7 million BTU per service population. Given that the Proposed Plan is a programmatic land use plan that includes 5,085,575 square feet of non-residential development, including industrial and healthcare uses that are substantially more energy intensive than residential uses, the per service population metric is most applicable.
Multiple proposed programs and policies would help minimize the occurrence of inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during operation of development facilitated by the Proposed Plan. Housing Element Program 2-K supports water efficiency and conservation, and Housing Element Policy 5.3 and Housing Element Program 5-C promote waste reduction, which would reduce energy consumed via water delivery and waste management. Multiple policies in the Circulation Element would improve the availability of alternative transportation modes by ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 327, Packet Page 655 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-49
coordinating with regional transit providers (policies C.8, E.4, and E.5), improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (policies C.3, C.6, C.9, D.4, and D.7), and promoting TDM measures (policies J.3 and J.4), therefore helping to reduce congestion and overall demand for transportation fuels.
Additionally, Housing Element Program 5-B would incentivize new residential and mixed-use developments to exceed minimum requirements of CALGreen, such as provision of electric vehicle charging stations. e Proposed Plan also identifies infill development and creative reuse and redevelopment of existing sites as the primary means for accommodating future growth. By placing services and amenities close to where people live and work, the land use scenario envisioned by the Proposed Plan would minimize the need to drive and reduce per capita energy consumption and GHGs. Although development under the Proposed Plan would increase total energy consumption in the Planning Area, this estimate was quantified under the assumption that electricity would be provided by PG&E. Housing Element Policy 5.1 and Program 5-A would increase use of 3CE and thereby significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuel resources. Implementation of the Proposed Plan policies listed above would result in indirect energy conservation—such as the promotion of alternative transportation, water conservation, and waste reduction—as well as promote greater energy efficiency in communitywide operations and development. Furthermore, the Proposed Plan contains a land-use strategy that actively promotes infill mixed-use and transit-oriented development, which would result greater energy efficiency overall for Planning Area residents, businesses, and operations. erefore, while total energy consumption in the Planning Area is conservatively estimated to increase with the operation of development under the Proposed Plan and pipeline projects, the Proposed Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. erefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Table 3.6-9: Energy Consumption from Proposed Plan Development Energy Source Annual Consumption1 Million BTU per Year
Electricity (GWh)
Existing 375.14 1,280,023
Proposed Plan (Mitigated) 472.93 1,613,701
Change +97.79 +333,678
Natural Gas (Mcf)
Existing 838.87 860,680
Proposed Plan (Mitigated) 1,085.33 1,109,168
Change +242.19 +248,488
Transportation Fuels (gallons)2
Existing 8,563,268 1,111,682
Proposed Plan (Mitigated) 10,931,515 1,419,127
Change +2,368,247 +307,445
Total Change in Energy Consumption - 889,612
Per Capita Energy Consumption3 - 112.1
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 328, Packet Page 656 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.6-50 City of Monterey
Table 3.6-9: Energy Consumption from Proposed Plan Development Energy Source Annual Consumption1 Million BTU per Year
Per Service Population Energy Consumption4 - 67.7
GWh = gigawatt-hour; Mcf = million cubic feet
Notes:
1. Provided in GWh, Mcf, and gallons, respectively.
2. The gasoline and diesel values represent the Proposed Plan’s fuel consumption.
3. Based on a Planning Area buildout population of 36,949 residents.
4. Based on a Planning Area buildout population of 36,949 residents and 24,237 employees.
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Impact 3.6-4 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant)
State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans that apply to the Proposed Plan are discussed above under Regulatory Setting. State plans include the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, LCFS, Energy Code standards, SB 350, and SB 100. Each of these plans contain required standards related to energy efficiency and renewable energy development. Local plans that address energy efficiency and are designed to achieve the State’s RPS mandates include PG&E’s and 3CE’s 2022 IRPs and the City’s CAP. e current City of Monterey General Plan Conservation Element also includes goals and policies that relate to energy use and reduction. As discussed under Impact 3.6-3, implementation of the Proposed Plan would increase energy consumption relative to existing conditions. However, the Proposed Plan includes multiple policies that support sustainability through energy efficiency, water conservation, waste reduction, and promotion of alternative transportation. Future development under the Proposed Plan would be subject to increasingly robust regulations to meet the State’s renewable energy mandates and would be required to comply with Energy Code and CALGreen requirements. Development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. As a result, it would benefit from renewable energy development and increases in energy efficiency. Specifically, vehicles and energy use from increased VMT and average daily trips within the Planning Area and the state is expected to become increasingly more efficient as a result of the regulations included in the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, which address average fuel economy and commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. Building energy efficiency is also anticipated to increase as a result of compliance with CALGreen and the Energy Code, which are expected to move toward zero net energy for newly constructed buildings, and shi toward 100-percent renewable energy under SB 350 and SB 100 regulations. e Proposed Plan supports the transition to renewable energy by promoting 3CE (proposed Housing Element Program 5-A), which would continue to pursue procurement of renewable energy sources to meet its RPS portfolio goals and to comply with State regulations. As noted in its 2022 IRP, 3CE intends to achieve 100-percent renewable portfolio mix by 2030. e City’s CAP includes energy-related measures including AMBAG’s Energy Watch program, PG&E’s renewable energy purchasing program, and building and infrastructure (i.e., lighting and heating/cooling system) retrofits; only the retrofit efforts continue to be relevant to the Proposed Plan and are supported by proposed Housing Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 that promote energy conservation programs, design, and practices. erefore, buildout of the Proposed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 329, Packet Page 657 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.6: Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of Monterey 3.6-51
Plan would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 330, Packet Page 658 City of Monterey 3.7-1
3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for geology, soils, and seismicity, including those related to geologic and seismic hazards and soil stability. It also describes impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity that would result from implementation of the Proposed Plan and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate.
No responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) were received regarding geologic or soils issues.
Environmental Setting
PHYSICAL SETTING
Geology and Soils
Regional Geology
The City of Monterey is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, a relatively geologically young and seismically active region on the western margin of the North American plate.1 The ranges and valley trend northwest, sub-parallel to the San Andreas fault. The Coast Ranges are composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary strata. The northern and southern ranges are separated by a depression containing the San Francisco Bay.
Planning Area Geology
The Planning Area is located in a region with numerous faults and high seismicity.2 The seismic setting in the region is dominated by stress associated with the collision between the Pacific tectonic plate and the North American tectonic plate. The San Andreas Fault system is the boundary between these two tectonic plates, which extends nearly 700 miles along a northwest trend from Mexico to offshore northern California and about 50 miles wide. The San Gregorio Fault, which is also part of the San Andreas Fault System and almost entirely offshore, extends 250 miles from 1 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. (Note 36.) Available; https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. Accessed:
October 23, 2023.
2 Department of Emergency Management, County of Monterey. n.d. Earthquake. Available:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/administrative-office/office-of-emergencyservices/ready-monterey-county/hazard-ready/earthquakes. Accessed: October 24, 2023 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 331, Packet Page 659 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-2 City of Monterey
Point Año Nuevo to San Gregorio, crossing Monterey Bay.3 In addition, the Monterey BayTularcitos Fault zone extends around 50 miles from near Santa Cruz across Monterey Bay to near the Sierra de Salinas crest.4
Topography
The Planning Area has varied topography and mostly lies approximately 16 feet above sea level.5 Directly south of the Planning Area, Jacks Peak County Park and the northern portions of the Santa Lucia Mountain range rises steeply above the low-lying flatlands of the Planning Area. Areas along Monterey Bay tend to be flat, but are sloped towards the Bay. Upland areas of the city have intermittent stream channels that have created mesas, which slope towards the Bay.6 The eastern portion of the Planning Area also consists of pockets of moderate elevation extending from Monterey Veterans Memorial Park, along with the sand dunes on the edge of Del Monte Beach.
Steeper slopes in the Planning Area are located along stream channels and within hillside areas, with a few of areas with slopes exceeding 25 percent.7
Soil Properties
Soil is generally defined as the unconsolidated mixture of mineral grains and organic material that mantles the land surfaces of the earth. The characteristics of soil reflect the five major influences on their development: topography, climate, biological activity, parent (source) material, and time.
Table 3.7-1 and Figure 3.7-1 show the surface soil types in the Planning Area that have been mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). As shown in Table 3.7-1, Narlon loamy fine sand, Baywood sand, and Chamise channery loam are the predominant soil units within the Planning Area. In addition, the Arnold, Santa Ynez, and Narlon soils are moderately to highly expansive. Expansive soils can shrink and swell in response to the presence of water, causing foundation and wall cracks, heaving sidewalks, and creating flaws in paved areas. Expansive soils underly the majority of the western portion of the Planning Area, a small portion of the southeastern portion, and a few areas surrounding the Monterey Regional Airport. Generally, projects in areas with expansive soils may require special building foundations or grade preparation, such as the removal of expansive soils and replacement with engineered soils. 3 Ryan, H.F., Ross, S.L., Graymer, R.W. n.d.. Earthquakes, Faults, and Tectonics. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1198/chapters/037-046_Earthquakes.pdf. Accessed: October 23, 2023. 4 Bryant, W.A. June, 2001. Monterey Bay- Tularcitos fault zone, Tularcitos section (Class A) No. 62c. U.S. Geological Survey. Available:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/qfault/show_report_AB_archive.cfm?fault_id=62§ion_id=c. Accessed:
October 24, 2023.
5 Maplogs.com. 2023. Elevation of Monterey, CA, USA. Available:
https://elevation.maplogs.com/poi/monterey_ca_usa.24759.html. Accessed: October 24, 2023. 6 City of Monterey. July, 2004. City of Monterey General Plan Update Draft EIR. 7 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 332, Packet Page 660 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-3
Table 3.7-1: Soil Types in the Planning Area
Soil Unit
Slope
Percentage
Approximate Percentage
of the Planning Area Portions of Planning Area
Narlon loamy fine sand 2-9% 28.40% Eastern and Central
Baywood sand 2-15% 15.20% Northern/Central
Chamise channery loam 9-15% 7.30% Central
Sheridan coarse sandy loam 5-15% 4.60% Eastern
Narlon loamy fine sand 15-30% 4.50% Eastern
Xerorthents, loamy 15-50% 4.40% Southeastern
Santa Ynez fine sandy loam 15-30% 3.70% Southeastern
Arnold-Santa Ynez complex 9-30% 3.50% Eastern
Dune land 0-3% 2.90% Northern/Central
Sheridan coarse sandy loam 15-30% 2.90% Eastern and Central Santa Lucia channery clay loam 15-30% 2.80% Southern and eastern Santa Lucia channery clay loam 30-50% 2.30% Southern and eastern Arnold loamy sand 9-20% 2.10% Central
Sheridan coarse sandy loam 30-75% 2.00% Eastern
Gazos silt loam 15-30% 1.90% Western
Oceano loamy sand 2-15% 1.70% Central
Tangair fine sand 2-9% 1.60% Central
Santa Ynez fine sandy loam 15-30% 1.20% Southeastern
Chamise channery loam 15-30% 1.10% Central
Gazos silt loam 30-50% 1.10% Eastern
Pfeiffer fine sandy loam 2-9% 0.60% Central
Santa Lucia-Reliz association 30-75% 0.40% Southeastern Aquic Xerofluvents 0-5% 0.30% Central and southeastern
Elder very fine sandy loam 2-9% 0.30% Southeastern
Santa Ynez fine sandy loam 9-15% 0.20% Southern
Xerorthents, dissected 50-65% 0.20% Southern
Coastal Beaches 0.80% Central/Northern
Water 0.60% Central
Badland* 0.20% Southeastern
Pits and Dumps** 0.20% Eastern
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 333, Packet Page 661 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-4 City of Monterey
Table 3.7-1: Soil Types in the Planning Area
Soil Unit
Slope
Percentage
Approximate Percentage
of the Planning Area Portions of Planning Area
Sources: Web Soil Survey, Natural Conservation Service 2019. * Badland is moderately steep to very steep barren land that is dissected by many intermittent drainage channels.
Ordinarily, the areas are not stony. Badland is most common in semiarid and arid regions where streams and surface runoff have cut into soft bedrock such as shale. Local relief generally ranges from 10 to 200 meters in height.
Potential runoff is very high and erosion is active.9
** Dumps are areas of smoothed or uneven accumulations or piles of waste rock and general refuse. Some dumps that are closely associated with pits are mapped as a complex map unit of dumps and pits. Pits are open excavations from which soil and commonly underlying material have been removed, exposing either rock or other material.
Common kinds of pits are those that result from mining, gravel operations, and quarries. Pits are often closely associated with dumps.10
Seismicity
Regional Faults
Generally, earthquakes occur when tectonic plates of the Earth’s crust collide or slide past one another along their boundaries or faults, and accumulated stress is released, resulting in seismic slippage. California is particularly susceptible to such plate movements, notably, the largely horizontal or “strike-slip” movement of the Pacific Plate as it impinges on and slides past the west margin of the North American Plate. The performance of man-made structures during a major seismic event varies widely due to a number of factors: location with respect to active fault traces or areas prone to liquefaction or seismic-induced landslides; the type of building construction (i.e., wood frame, unreinforced masonry, non-ductile concrete frame); the proximity and magnitude of the seismic event; and many other factors. In general, evidence from past earthquakes shows that wood frame structures tend to perform well, especially when their foundations are properly designed and anchored. Older, unreinforced masonry structures, on the other hand, do not perform as well, especially if they have not undergone appropriate seismic retrofitting. Applicable building code requirements include seismic requirements that are designed to ensure the satisfactory performance of building materials under seismic conditions. 9 National Soil Survey Handbook. Legend Development and Data Collection. Accessed: January 16, 2024. Available:
https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/44259.wba.
10 Ibd.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 334, Packet Page 662 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 3.7-1 Soil Types.mxd Af, Aquic Xerofluvents
AkD, Arnold loamy sand, 9 to 20 percent slopes, MLRA 15 Ar, Arnold-Santa Ynez complex
Ba, Badland
BbC, Baywood sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
CaD, Chamise channery loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, MLRA 15 CaE, Chamise channery loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 15 Cm, Coastal beaches
Df, Dune land
EbC, Elder very fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
GfE, Gazos silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
GfF, Gazos silt loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes
NcC, Narlon loamy fine sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
NcE, Narlon loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes
OaD, Oceano loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
PdC, Pfeiffer fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Pm, Pits and Dumps
Rb, Rindge muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14
SfE, Santa Lucia channery clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 15 SfF, Santa Lucia channery clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, MLRA 15 Sg, Santa Lucia-Reliz association
ShC, Santa Ynez fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
ShD, Santa Ynez fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes ShE, Santa Ynez fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes SoD, Sheridan coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes SoE, Sheridan coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 15 SoG, Sheridan coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes TaC, Tangair fine sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
W, Water
Xc, Xerorthents, dissected
Xd, Xerorthents, loamy
City of Monterey
Figure 3.7-1: Soil Types
Data Source: Soil Survey (SSURGO Databases), USDA, 2022; 2018; 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 335, Packet Page 663 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-6 City of Monterey
Monterey is located west of the San Andreas fault system, a complex of active faults forming the boundary between the North American and Pacific lithospheric plates. Movement of the plates relative to one another results in the accumulation of strain along the faults, which is released during earthquakes. Numerous moderate to strong historic earthquakes have been generated in northern California by the San Andreas fault system. This level of active seismicity poses a relatively high seismic risk for Monterey. Other regional faults include the the Palo Colorado-San Gregorio fault located southwest of the region, Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault located seaward of the City of Seaside, and the Calaveras-Paicines Fault located northeast of the region.11 The San Andreas fault system includes numerous faults found by the California Geological Survey (CGS) considered under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act to be active (i.e., to have evidence of fault rupture in the past 11,000 years). Active regional faults include the San Andreas and Calaveras faults. The Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989 was the largest major earthquake that occurred on the San Andreas Fault in the last 50 years with a Richter Magnitude (M6.9). The epicenter was located approximately 50 miles north of Monterey Bay. The earthquake caused damage to the Moss Beach access road and Moss Landing in North Monterey County, and was felt as far as San Diego and western Nevada. The Loma Prieta Earthquake caused 63 casualties, injured 3,757 persons, and created an estimated $6.8 billion in direct damages.12 The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities estimates that there is a 72 percent chance that a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake will occur in the greater San Francisco Region, which includes the Monterey Bay, between 2014 and 2044.13 The probability of a 6.7 magnitude or greater earthquake occurring along the Palo Colorado-San Gregoria fault is 10 percent by 2032, and along the Calaveras-Paicines Fault is 7.4 percent between 2014 and 2044.14
Planning Area-Specific Seismicity
A complex interaction of tectonic forces, geologic materials, soils, topography, and groundwater conditions affect the nature of seismic hazards at any site. The Navy Fault and Sylvan Thrust are part of the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zones and the Del Rey Oaks Section of the Chupines cross the Planning Area. In addition, three active faults listed above have been identified within 40 11 County of Monterey. March 2022. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 1. Available:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/administrative-office/office-of-emergencyservices/hazard-mitigation/2022-mjhmp. Accessed: October 25, 2023. 12 California Department of Conservation. n.d. The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/loma-prieta. Accessed: October 26, 2023 13 Field, E.H., and 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2015, UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system. U.S. Geological Survey 2015–3009, Available :
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3009/pdf/fs2015-3009.pdf. Accessed: January 5, 2024. 14 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 336, Packet Page 664 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-7
miles of the Planning Area, all of which are not zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.15, 16
Figure 3.7-2 shows the fault zones within the Planning Area. The Navy Fault runs north-south directly through the center of the Planning Area crossing the intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 68. The Navy Fault Segments of the Sylvan Thrust run east, intersecting the Navy Fault south of the Planning Area and curving towards southwestern portion of the Planning Area. In addition, segments of the Del Rey Oaks section of the Chupines Fault run north south through the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. These faults are potentially active but not known to be active at this time and are not considered Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones.17 Therefore, potential for surface rupture within the Planning Area is minimal.
The nearest Alquist-Priolo hazard zone is associated with the San Andreas Fault, approximately 26 miles northeast of the Planning Areas, as well as the Calaveras Fault, approximately 35 miles northeast of the project site. The next nearest fault zones are the Hayward Fault Zone and the Greenville Fault, both approximately 60 miles to the northeast.18,19 The largest earthquake on the Hayward fault occurred in 1868 with an epicenter south of San José, California.20 Surface fault rupture occurred along the Hayward fault from Fremont to San Leandro. The magnitude of the earthquake is estimated at 6.8. Two earthquakes occurred on the Greenville Fault in 1980 that exhibited surface fault rupture and creep at the surface. On January 24, 1980, an earthquake of Richter Magnitude 5.5 (M5.5) occurred about 100 miles northeast of the Planning Area. On January 26, 1980, a second quake, M5.8, occurred in the vicinity of Frick Lake, which is also about 100 miles northeast of the Planning Area. The earthquakes caused injuries and property damage. The damage included shattered windows, merchandise shaken from store shelves, mobile homes knocked off their foundations, swayed and cracked buildings, and snapped gas lines. 15 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (website). Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed: June 2, 2021. 16 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States.
Available: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults?qtscience_support_page_related_con=4#qt-science_support_page_related_con. Accessed: May 4, 2021. 17 City of Monterey, 2005. Monterey General Plan Update Draft EIR. 18 CGS, 2021.
19 USGS, 2021.
20 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. The Hayward Fault—Is It Due for a Repeat of the Powerful 1868 Earthquake? August. (FS 2008-3019.) Available: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3052/fs20183052.pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 337, Packet Page 665 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
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 Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, Monterey Bay Section (Navy Fault) Chupines Fault Zon e, Chupines Fault, Del Rey Oaks Section Chupines Fault Zone, Seaside
Fault, Del Rey Oaks Section
Chupines Fault Zone, Ord Terrace Fault, Del Rey Oaks Sect Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, Seaside-M
onterey Section (Navy Fault)
Monterey Bay-Tula rcitos Fault Zone, Se a side-Mon terey Section (Sylva n Thrust) Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, Seaside-Monterey
Section (Hatton Canyon Fa
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Latest Quaternary (<15,000 years)
Late Quaternary (< 130,000 years)
Undifferentiated Quaternary (< 1.6 million years)
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Figure 3.7-2 Fault Zones
µ
Data Source: Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, USGS, Revised 2018; 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 338, Packet Page 666 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-9
Seismic and Geological Hazards
Seismic Shaking
Seismic ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake. Ground shaking is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is determined by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the rupture, and local geologic conditions. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic energy at a given point and varies with distance from the epicenter and local geologic conditions. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) is the most commonly used scale for measurement of the subjective effects of earthquake intensity.
Earthquake size is generally quantitatively measured in terms of moment magnitude. A rupture of the Hayward fault is considered capable of generating a moment magnitude (MW) 7.4 earthquake.24 In addition, earthquakes on any of the local faults or on other faults located in the vicinity or region could produce significant seismic shaking within the Planning Area.25 Surface Fault Rupture
Surface fault rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. The location of surface fault rupture can be assumed to be along an active or potentially active fault trace. As discussed above, the faults in the Planning Area are not known to be active at this time, which reduces the risk for surface fault rupture. While the San Andreas Fault has a history of surface fault rupture in the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta, the nearest surface fault rupture occurred about 30 miles outside of the Planning Area.26 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated, granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes a temporary loss of strength, which can cause ground displacement or ground failure. Since saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. The Planning Area includes areas of moderate and high liquefaction susceptibility.
While most of the Planning Area has a low susceptibility, several small areas adjacent to creeks and streams spreading out from the Bay have high susceptibility, as shown in Figure 3.7-3. In addition, there is high and moderate susceptibility along the central and eastern coast of the Planning Area.
Regional mapping is only a general analysis; site specific analysis would identify specific liquefaction risk, which is influenced by the depth to groundwater and soil type. 24 Watt, J., Ponce, D., Parsons, T., and Hart, P. 2016. Missing Link Between the Hayward and Rodgers Creek Faults.
Science Advances (Volume 2, no. 10). Available: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/10/e1601441.full 25 City of Monterey, 2004. Monterey General Plan Update Draft EIR. 26 USGS, 2018.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 339, Packet Page 667 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-10 City of Monterey
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading refers to a type of landslide that forms on gentle slopes and has rapid fluid-like movement. Factors determining the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading are soil type, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Locations within the Planning Area that have high liquefaction susceptibility, as shown on Figure 3.7-3, have the highest risk of lateral spreading if they occur adjacent to an open face or slope.
Landslides
The strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally where unstable slope conditions already exist. A landslide is the downhill movement of masses of earth material under the force of gravity. The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope include the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock, the geometry of the slope (height and steepness), rainfall, and the presence of previous landslide deposits. Landslide susceptibility in the Planning Area ranges from low to high as shown in Figure 3.7-4. There is moderate and high landslide hazard in the southeastern and southern boundary outside of the Planning Area. There are also a few small areas of moderate landslide susceptibility in the southwestern portion of the Planning Area where new housing is proposed. However, because these areas are found in small portions, landslide risk within the Planning Area is not significant.
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion is the process by which soil materials are worn away and transported to another area, either by wind or water. Not accounting for slope and groundcover factors, soils high in clay have low susceptibility to erosion because they are resistant to detachment. Coarse textured soils, such as sandy soils, also have low erosion potential despite their easy detachment, because of low runoff.
Medium textured soils, such as the silt loam soils, are moderately susceptible to erosion, while soils with a high silt content are the most susceptible.27
The soils in the City of Monterey with the highest susceptibility to water erosion exist in the western and central portion of the city. Narlon soils are predominant in the western, gently sloping areas as well as in steeper hillside areas, posing moderate to high erosion potential.28 Baywood soils are found mainly in the central, gently sloping portions of the Planning Area posing slight to moderate erosion potential. Depending on the slopes of Sheridan soils, found also in the western hilly portions of the Planning Area, erosion potential is slight to high. Dune land, located just on the margin of Monterey Bay areas poses the most severe erosion risk. 27 Institute of Water Research (IWR). 2002. K Factor. Available: http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/kfactor.htm Accessed:
October 26, 2023.
28 City of Monterey. 2004. Monterey General Plan Update Draft EIR.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 340, Packet Page 668 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
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 Navy
La Mesa
Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
US Coast
Guard
Station
US Navy
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\Fig 3.7-3 Liquefaction Risk.mxd Liquefaction Susceptibility
High
Moderate
Low
Variable
City of Monterey
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Figure 3.7-3 Liquefaction Risk
µ
Data Source: Liquefaction Data, County of Monterey, 2014; 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 341, Packet Page 669 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
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
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Landslide Susceptibility
High
Moderate
Low
City of Monterey
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Figure 3.7-4 Landslides Hazard
µ
Data Source: Landslide Layer, County of Monterey, 2018; ; 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 342, Packet Page 670 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-13
Coastal Erosion
Coastal erosion is the wearing away of land along the coast due to natural activity or human influences, resulting in the loss of beach, shoreline, dune, or cliff material. 29 Coastal erosion hazards are influenced by sea level, wave patterns, storm patterns, but can also be influenced by human activity such as dredging.
30 Coastal erosion along Monterey Bay can create hazardous conditions, threatens dune habitat, and poses a threat to the agriculture and tourism industries.31 Historic coastal erosion events in the county include: erosion and terrace loss in Carmel between 1982 and 1983 and substantial dune erosion in the Fort Ord area in Marina between 1997 and 1998 as a result of El Niño events; isolated cliff failures throughout the county in 1989 resulting from the Loma Prieta Earthquakes; and significant erosion in the Big Sur area due to winter storms in 2017. Sea level rise and extreme weather are likely to exacerbate erosion risk. In Monterey, average erosion rates range from about one to two feet per year, creating a moderate degree of risk.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils have shrink-swell capacity, meaning they may swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Expansive soils can be hazardous to built structures, and may cause cracks in building foundations, distortion of structural elements, and warping of doors and windows. The higher the clay content of a soil, the higher its shrink-swell potential.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) analyzes the shrink-swell potential of each soil type based on its linear extensibility and clay content and categorizes it as “low,” “moderate,” “high,” or “very high.” Where the shrink-swell classification is moderate to very high, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, utilities, roads, and other structures and the gradual cracking, settling, and weakening of older buildings could create potential safety concerns and financial loss. As shown in Figure 3.7-1 and described in Table 3.7-1, the majority of the Planning Area is underlain with the Narlon loamy fine sand, Baywood sand, and Chamise channery loam, which are low to moderately expansive.32 Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically. This typically is due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. While the County of Monterey Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies that drought could lead to increase pumping of groundwater wells and increase land subsidence risks, the county does not currently demonstrate significant risk for sinking due to low ground water levels.33 The USGS California Water Science Center maps of historical and current recorded subsidence does not identify the City of Monterey as an area that 29 Department of Emergency Management, County of Montery. n.d. Coastal Erosion. Available:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/administrative-office/office-of-emergencyservices/ready-monterey-county/hazard-ready/coastal-erosion. Accessed: October 26, 2023. 30 Ibid.
31 County of Monterey. 2022. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 1 32 United States Department of Agriculture. (2023). Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey.
Available: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: October 26, 2023 33 County of Monterey. 2022. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 1 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 343, Packet Page 671 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-14 City of Monterey
has experienced subsidence.34, As a result, there is a low potential for subsidence to occur in the Planning Area.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossil remains or traces of past life forms, including vertebrate and invertebrate species as well as plants. Paleontological resources are considered significant if they are identifiable vertebrate fossils; uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils; or other data that provide information important to the scientific record. Paleontological resources are older than the middle Holocene (i.e., older than approximately 5,000 years).
The Planning Area is located in the Monterey Bay Peninsula, which forms part of the northern portion of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. 35 The area is bounded by the
Pacific Ocean to the west and the Great Valley Geomorphic Province to the east.
Geologic units in the northern portion of the Peninsula are primarily Holocene Older Dune Sand and Dune Sand, with Pleistocene Aromas Sand lying further inland. The Planning Area is underlain with Holocene marine terrace deposits and the Miocene Monterey Formation.36 According to a records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology specimen search, Pleistocene-age deposits in Monterey County have yielded numerous fossils, including Cetotherium (extinct genus of baleen whales) from the Miocene-age formation, Bison (genus of bison), Camelops (extinct genus of camel), and Squatina (genus of angel sharks) from the Pleistocene-age Aromas Sand, and Straitolamia (extinct genus of sharks).37 Therefore, paleontological resources could be discovered in the Planning Area during ground disturbance.
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Regulations
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
Federal laws codified in United States Code Title 42, Chapter 86, were enacted to reduce risks to life and property from earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program. Implementation of these 34 USGS. n.d. Areas of Land Subsidence. Available: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidenceareas.html. Accessed: October 26, 2023. 35 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. (Note 36.) Available; https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note-36.pdf. Accessed: May 3, 2021.
36 Wagner, D.L., Greene, H.G., Saucedo, G.J., Pridmore, C.L. 2002. Geologic Map of the Monterey 30’x60’ Quadrangle and Adjacent Areas, California. California Department of Conservation. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Regional-GeologicMaps/RGM_001/RGM_001_Monterey_2002_Plate3of3.pdf. Accessed: October 26, 2023. 37 University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2020. Advanced Specimen Search, Monterey County. Available:
https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/cgi/ucmp_query2. Accessed: October 26, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 344, Packet Page 672 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-15
requirements are regulated, monitored, and enforced at the State and local levels. Key regulations and standards applicable to the Proposed Plan are summarized below.
U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Program
The USGS created the Landslide Hazard Program in the mid-1970s; the primary objective of the program is to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving our understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The federal government takes the lead role in funding and conducting this research, whereas the reduction of losses due to geologic hazards is primarily a state and local responsibility.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) (Public Law 106-390) amended the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 to establish a Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and new requirements for the federal post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). DMA2K encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning.
It promotes sustainability and seeks to integrate state and local planning with an overall goal of strengthening statewide hazard mitigation. This enhanced planning approach enables local, tribal, and state governments to identify specific strategies for reducing probable impacts of natural hazards such as floods, fire, and earthquakes. In order to be eligible for hazard mitigation funding after November 1, 2004, local governments are required to develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) that incorporates specific program elements of the DMA2K law. The City of Monterey participated in the County of Monterey Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, as described under Local Regulations, below.
State Regulations
California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, also known as the State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP), was approved by FEMA in 2018.38 The SHMP outlines present and planned activities to address natural hazards. The adoption of the SHMP qualifies the State of California for federal funds in the event of a disaster. The State is required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, described above, to review and update its SHMP and resubmit for FEMA approval at least once every 5 years to ensure the continued eligibility for federal funding. The SHMP provides goals and strategies which address minimization of risks associated with natural hazards and response to disaster situations. The SHMP notes that the primary sources of losses in the state of California are fire and flooding; and while earthquakes occur less frequently, they account for the greatest combined losses.
38 CalOES. 2018. California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/002-2018-SHMP_FINAL_ENTIRE-PLAN.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2023 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 345, Packet Page 673 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-16 City of Monterey
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) is Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC incorporates the International Building Code, a model building code adopted across the United States. The CBC is updated every three years, and the current 2022 version took effect January 1, 2023. With the exception of certain additions, deletions, and amendments, the City adopted the CBC by reference pursuant to Chapter 9, Article 1 of the City of Monterey City Code.
Through the CBC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction.
Of particular relevance, Chapter 16 of the CBC contains specific requirements for structural (building) design, including seismic loads. Chapter 18 of the CBC includes requirements for soil testing, excavation and grading, and foundation design. The 2022 CBC (based on the 2021 International Building Code) has been amended and adopted as the Building Code of the City of Monterey, regulating the erection, installation, alteration, repair, relocation replacement, addition to use or maintenance of buildings within the City.
California Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures used for human occupancy. The main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards, such as ground shaking or landslides. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist–Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults, and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are then distributed to all affected cities, counties and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction.
Generally, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited as discussed above under Environmental Setting, the San Andrea Fault, zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, is approximately 26 miles northeast of the Planning Area.39 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 2690–2699.6 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a Seismic Hazard Zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted, and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. Geotechnical investigations conducted within Seismic Hazard Zones must incorporate standards specified by the CGS Special Publication 39 State of California. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 1972. Available:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=7.5.&lawCode=PRC.
Accessed: January 16, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 346, Packet Page 674 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-17
117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards. There are no Seismic Hazard Zones within the Planning Area.40
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) includes State and interstate routes within California. Any work within the right-of-way of a federal or State transportation corridor is subject to Caltrans regulations governing allowable actions and modifications to the right-of-way. Caltrans standards incorporate the CBC and contain numerous rules and regulations to protect the public from seismic hazards such as surface fault rupture and ground shaking. In addition, Caltrans standards require that projects be constructed to minimize potential hazards associated with cut and fill operations, grading, slope instability, and expansive or corrosive soils, as described in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). Caltrans and local project sponsors, as part of the project development and delivery process, are obligated to conduct paleontological studies in response to federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. For example, Section 305 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (20 USC 78, 78a) gives authority to use federal funds to salvage archaeological and paleontological sites affected by highway projects.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administer the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The NPDES permit system was established as part of the Federal Clean Water Act to regulate both point source discharges and non-point source discharges to surface water of the United States, including the discharge of soils eroded from construction sites. The NPDES program consists of characterizing receiving water quality, identifying harmful constituents (including siltation), targeting potential sources of pollutants (including excavation and grading operations), and implementing a comprehensive stormwater management program. Construction and industrial activities typically are regulated under statewide general permits that are issued by the SWRCB. Additionally, the SWRCB issues Water Discharge Requirements that also serve as NPDES permits under the authority delegated to the RWQCBs, under the Clean Water Act. See EIR Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality, for more information about the NPDES.
California Public Resources Code
Sections 5097–5097.6 of the California Public Resources Code outline the requirements for cultural resource analysis prior to the commencement of any construction project on state lands. The state agency proposing the project may conduct the cultural resource analysis or they may contract with the State Department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, this section stipulates that the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public lands is a misdemeanor. It prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a permit (expressed permission) on public lands and provides for criminal 40 State of California. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. 1990. Available:
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/prc/2690-2699.6.html. Accessed: January 16, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 347, Packet Page 675 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-18 City of Monterey
sanctions. As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
Local Regulations
City of Monterey General Plan 2004 (General Plan)
The City of Monterey General Plan (General Plan) includes the following goals and policies associated with geology, soils, and seismicity:
Conservation Element
Goal b. Protect creeks, lakes, wetlands, beaches, and Monterey Bay from pollutants discharged to the storm drain system.
Policy b.2. Minimize particulate matter pollution with erosion and sediment control in waterways and on construction sites and with regular street sweeping on City streets.
Policy b.3. Minimize development or removal of vegetation on areas particularly susceptible to erosion, such as steep slopes, and require programs to minimize erosion when development occurs in these areas.
Open Space Element
Goal e. Ensure streams continue to function as natural flood control channels and habitat for native plants and animals.
Policy e.1. Maintain the City's streams by controlling erosion.
County of Monterey Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan In March 2022, the City of Monterey participated with 12 incorporated municipalities, 5 special districts, and the County of Monterey to prepare an updated multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan to suit the local needs and capabilities of the county. The County of Monterey MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concern for the county, including drought and water shortage, earthquakes, pandemic/epidemic, wildfire, localized stormwater flooding, severe winter storms and aging and limited road infrastructure. The MJHMP identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risks associated with these hazards.
Monterey City Code
Chapter 9, Article 1 of the City of Monterey City Code adopts the 2022 California Building Code in its entirety excepting certain additions, deletions, and amendments. As discussed above, the CBC regulates seismic design, the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, analysis of slope instability, requirements for drainage and grading, and other aspects of building design and construction that relate to geology, soils, and seismicity.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 348, Packet Page 676 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-19
Chapter 9, Article 5 provides requirements to reduce earthquake hazards for unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs), including undertaking structural analysis by a civil or structural engineer or architect and sending a letter indicating the owner’s compliance with the minimum earthquake standards adopted by the City.
Chapter 9, Article 7 includes regulations regarding flood hazard protection, and defines provisions aimed at reducing erosion damage and hazards. The purpose of this chapter is to minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects, to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard, to insure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and to insure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. This chapter includes standards of construction (9-71.1), standards for manufactured homes (9-71.4), and standards for coastal high hazard areas (9-71.5).
Chapter 30, Article 1, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, includes regulations regarding connection to city sewer system, maintenance of sanitary sewer laterals, and sewer overflows. This chapter defines private sanitary sewer collection system, sanitary sewer, and wastewater.
Chapter 31.5, Article 2, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, provides provisions to protect and enhance the water quality of waters of the State and waters of the United States, and to protect water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with Federal, State, and regional regulations. Specifically, this ordinance stipulates regulations for new development aligned with NPDES General Permit (No. CAS000004 Waste Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discharges from Small MS4s), as well Central Coast RWQCB PostConstruction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects (Resolution No.
R3-2013-0032). The ordinance requires all construction site owners and contractors to implement storm water management practices (BMPs), which prevent pollutants generated during construction from leaving the construction site and entering the City's storm water system during wet or dry weather.
Impact Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Plan would:
Criterion 1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42),
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking,
iii. Seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction, or ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 349, Packet Page 677 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-20 City of Monterey
iv. Landslides;
Criterion 2: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; Criterion 3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; Criterion 4: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; Criterion 5: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; or
Criterion 6: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
This evaluation of geologic, soils, and seismic hazard conditions was completed using published geologic, soils, and seismic maps and studies from USGS and CGS. In order to reduce or mitigate potential hazards from earthquakes or other local geologic hazards, implementation of the Proposed Plan would be governed by existing regulations at the federal, state, and local levels, including existing Monterey General Plan (General Plan) policies and provisions. These regulations require that a proposed project design reduce potential adverse soils, geological, and seismicity effects to the extent feasible. Compliance with these regulations is required, not optional. These provisions ensure that development will continue to be completed in compliance with local and State regulations.
Paleontological Resources
An evaluation of impacts on paleontological resources was completed using published geologic maps from CGS (Wagner, Bortugno, & McJunkin, 1991) and database query at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2021), following procedures outlined in the Standard Guidelines provided by the Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revisions Committee of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010).41, 42, 43
The Standard Guidelines include procedures for the investigation, collection, preservation, and cataloguing of fossil-bearing sites, including the designation of paleontological sensitivity. The Standard Guidelines are widely accepted among paleontologists and are followed by most investigators. The Standard Guidelines identify the two key phases of paleontological resource 41 Wagner, Bortugno, & McJunkin, 1991.
42 University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2021. 43 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Available: https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed: June 4, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 350, Packet Page 678 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-21
protection as (1) assessment and (2) implementation. Assessment involves identifying the potential for a project site or area to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources that could be damaged or destroyed by project excavation or construction. Implementation involves formulating and applying measures to reduce such adverse effects.
For the assessment phase, the Standard Guidelines prescribe the following steps:44 l Identify the geologic units that would be affected by the project, based on the project’s depth of excavation—either at ground surface or below ground surface, defined as at least 5 feet below ground surface.
l Evaluate the potential of the identified geologic units to contain significant fossils (paleontological sensitivity).
l Identify impacts on paleontologically sensitive geologic units as a result of near-term and longer-term construction and operation that involve ground disturbance. l Evaluate impact significance.
The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units identified in the study area is classified according to four categories: SVP defines the level of potential as one of four sensitivity categories for sedimentary rocks: High, Undetermined, Low, and No Potential. 45 l High Potential. Assigned to geologic units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered; and sedimentary rock units suitable for the preservation of fossils (“middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones…fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.”). Paleontological potential consists of the potential for yielding abundant fossils, a few significant fossils, or “recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data.”
l Undetermined Potential. Assigned to geologic units “for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment.” In cases where no subsurface data already exist, paleontological potential can sometimes be assessed by subsurface site investigations. l Low Potential. Field surveys or paleontological research may allow determination that a geologic unit has low potential for yielding significant fossils (e.g., basalt flows).
Mitigation is generally not required to protect fossils. l No Potential. Some geologic units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites). Mitigation is not required.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 351, Packet Page 679 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-22 City of Monterey
Geologic units at the project site were identified through California Geological Survey regional maps.46 Determination of presence of paleontological resources in the units was based on the fossil record as documented by the University of California Museum of Paleontology.47 For the implementation phase, the Standard Guidelines states that evaluation must identify impacts on significant paleontological resources and formulate and implement measures to mitigate potential impacts relative to the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that would be disturbed.48 For the purposes of this analysis, an impact on paleontological resources was considered significant and to require mitigation if it would result in any of the following:
• Damage to or destruction of vertebrate paleontological resources. • Damage to or destruction of any paleontological resource that:
§ Provides important information about evolutionary trends, including the development of biological communities;
§ Demonstrates unusual circumstances in the history of life; § Represents a rare taxon or a rare or unique occurrence; § Is in short supply and in danger of being destroyed or depleted; § Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
§ Provides information used to correlate strata for which it may be difficult to obtain other types of age dates.
RELEVANT PROPOSED GOALS AND POLICIES
The Proposed Plan contains the following goals and policies relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity.
Goal A: Protect life and property from natural and humanmade hazards.
Policy A.1: Require that new development be sited and designed to minimize risks from seismic events, including fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.
Policy A.2: For new development within seismic and geologic hazard zones, including existing landslide areas, areas of high and moderate risk of landslide (Map 14) and liquefaction (Map 15) risk as well as areas within 660 feet of an identified fault in the late or latest quaternary category (Map 12), require that project proponents submit geotechnical investigation reports prepared by qualified professionals and demon-stration that the project conforms to all mitigation measures recommended by the reports prior to City approval.
46 Wagner, Bortugno, & McJunkin, 1991.
47 University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2021. 48 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 352, Packet Page 680 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-23
Policy A.3: Require that buildings intended for human occupancy and critical facilities be set back a safe distance (as determined by a qualified geologist) from surface traces of active and potentially active faults. Potentially active faults should be treated the same as active faults until detailed geotechnical data is submitted demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that a fault is not active.
Policy A.4: Ensure that structures intended for human occupancy are designed and constructed to retain their structural integrity when subjected to seismic activity, in accordance with the California Building Code.
Policy A.5: Establish a program to inventory and evaluate earthquake hazards in existing buildings, especially buildings with unreinforced masonry (URME and explore measures to encourage building owners to upgrade and retrofit structures to render them seismically safe.
Policy A.6: Continue to regulate development on hillsides where average slope is greater than 15 percent.
Policy A.7: When creating new lots of record sloped areas of 25 percent or greater shall not count towards the minimum lot size.
Policy A.8: Prohibit new development on existing lots of record where average slope is 25 per-cent or greater. Minimal encroachment into 25 percent or greater slope may be permitted by the Planning Commission subject to a use permit if it is designed and located to minimize impacts to adjoining property and public right-of-way that could occur due to inadequate grading and drainage control, visual appearance, and removal of trees and vegetation. To permit such encroachment, the Planning Commission must find that the amount and location of 25 percent or greater slope area so severely restricts the development potential of the lot that prohibiting de-velopment on 25 percent or greater slope deprives such property of privileges en-joyed by other similar properties or is such a minor encroachment that an excep-tion to this prohibition is warranted.
Policy A.9: Minimize grading in hillside areas and require erosion prevention by revegetation or other acceptable methods.
Policy A.10: Permit grading operations only in areas scheduled for immediate construction or paving.
Policy A.11: In order to maximize soil and slope stability and erosion prevention, minimize excavation, grading, cutting, or filling during construction; require erosion pre-vention as a strategy in the planning and design of grading operations; and avoid or minimize removal of ground cover, vegetation, and canopies.
Policy A.12: Require an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) or a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by local, regional or state regulations.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 353, Packet Page 681 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-24 City of Monterey
Policy A.13: Require engineering geology or slope stabilization reports when the excavation and/or grading planned have the potential for slope instability or potential to cre-ate unstable slope or soil conditions.
IMPACTS
Impact 3.7-1 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not expose residents, visitors, and employees, as well as public and private structures, to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. (Less than Significant) Fault Rupture
For the Proposed Plan, a significant impact due to fault rupture could occur if new structures were constructed within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, or within an active or potentially active known fault. As discussed above, there are no Alquist-Priolo Fault zones in or near the Planning Area; however, several potentially active faults pass through the Planning Area, as displayed on Figure 3.7-2. The Navy Fault runs north-south directly through the center of the Planning Area crossing the intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 68. The Navy Fault Segments of the Sylvan Thrust run east, intersecting the Navy Fault south of the Planning Area and curving towards southwestern portion of the Planning Area. In addition, segments of the Del Rey Oaks section of the Chupines Fault run north south through the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. These faults are potentially active, but not known to be active at this time. In a seismically active area such as the Monterey Bay Area, there is a small chance that future faulting could occur in areas where no faults previously had been mapped. However, compliance with California Building Code regulations incorporated in the Monterey City Code and implementation of General Plan Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of loss or damage dure to fault rupture.
California Building Code earthquake protection standards apply to all newly constructed structures as well as older pre-code buildings that need to be reinforced in order to lessen the impact of a severe seismic event. Additionally, Safety Element Policy a.2 requires the treatment of all land within 660 feet of an identified fault to be treated as having high seismic hazard until an acceptable geotechnical investigation indicates they should be treated otherwise, while Policy a.3 requires that buildings and structures be set back from active and potentially active faults. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and continued implementation of Safety Element policies would reduce potential impacts from surface fault rupture to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, the Proposed Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to adverse effects from fault rupture.
Ground Shaking
A significant impact due to ground shaking could occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would permit construction in an area that would experience ground shaking, such that substantial damage or harm to buildings or people could result. Generally speaking, fault activity has the potential to result in ground shaking, which can be of varying intensity depending on the magnitude of the event, the epicenter distance, the response of geologic materials, and the design ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 354, Packet Page 682 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-25
and construction quality of structures. Ground shaking tends to be more severe in softer sediments such as alluvial deposits than in bedrock materials, because in alluvial deposits surface waves can be amplified causing a longer duration of ground shaking. Areas where bedrock is exposed or located at relatively shallow depth tend to experience surface waves from an earthquake as more of a sharp jolt, compared to other areas. The Planning Area’s proximity to active local faults place it at risk for strong ground shaking. As discussed above under Seismic Shaking, the Planning Area could experience very strong (MM-VIII) to violent (MM-IX) seismic shaking if a moment magnitude (MW) 7.4 earthquake were to occur along the San Andreas fault.
As discussed above, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act regulates structures intended for human habitation in order to minimize damage due to seismic ground shaking. Additionally, development occurring under the Proposed Plan would be required to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the 2022 California Building Code, adopted and incorporated into the Monterey City Code. The California Building Code contains the latest seismic safety requirements to resist ground shaking through modern construction techniques, which are periodically updated to reflect the most recent seismic research. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential impacts from ground shaking to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, associated impacts would be less than significant.
Liquefaction
A significant impact due to liquefaction could occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in construction in areas of elevated liquefaction risk such that substantial damage or harm to buildings or people could result. As discussed above under Liquefaction, and shown in Figure 3.7- 3, the Planning Area includes areas of moderate and high liquefaction susceptibility, generally located adjacent to creeks and streams which drain to the Bay.
Potential impacts from ground failure resulting from liquefaction would be addressed through sitespecific geotechnical studies prepared in accordance with California Building Code requirements as adopted in Chapter 9, Article 1 of the City Code and standard industry practices. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the preparation of a preliminary soil report, engineering geologic report, geotechnical report, and supplemental ground-response report. As described in Chapter 18, Seismic Design Category C requires analysis of slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable to faulting or lateral spreading. Categories D, E, and F require additional analyses as well as mitigation measures to be considered in structural design. While seismic hazards cannot be eliminated completely, adherence to the State and local regulatory requirements would minimize potential exposure of people and new structures to seismic hazard by requiring incorporation of hazard mitigation measures into project design. Therefore, impacts due to liquefaction are less than significant.
Landslides
Implementation of the Proposed Plan could have a significant impact due to landslides if new development were to be located in areas with high landslide risk such that substantial damage or harm to buildings or people could result. Landslides may occur on slopes of 15 percent or less; however, the probability is greater on steeper slopes that exhibit old landslide features such as steep slopes or banks, slanted vegetation, and transverse ridges. Landslide-susceptible areas are ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 355, Packet Page 683 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-26 City of Monterey
characterized by steep slopes and downslope creep of surface materials. As discussed above under Landslides, landslide susceptibility in the Planning Area ranges from low to high as shown in Figure
3.7-4. There is moderate and high landslide hazard in the vicinity of the southeastern and southern boundary of the Planning Area. There are also a few small areas of moderate landslide susceptibility in the central portion of the Planning Area, near Skyline Drive, Glenwood Circle, and Santa Catalina School. While most of the Planning Area is in an area of low landslide susceptibility, there are some sites identified for development that experience moderate landslide risk.
Development on these sites and in areas with slope stability hazards would be subject to the provisions of the California Building Code, adopted and incorporated into the City Code,which regulate analysis of slope instability and requirements for drainage and grading. In addition, any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs) such as avoidance of land-disturbing activities during the wet weather season, protection of existing vegetation, use of slope and slope stabilization BMPs, and containment of construction waste onsite.
Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and landslide risk.
Compliance with these NPDES and local City Code regulations would reduce impacts related to landslides. Associated impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.7-2 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant) Topsoil refers to the uppermost layer of soil, which have the highest concentration of organic matter, and where most biological soil activity occurs. Implementation of the Proposed Plan could have a significant impact due to soil erosion or loss of topsoil if associated construction and development activities could expose soils to the effects of erosion, which could hinder proper drainage and stormwater management. Erosion control, particularly during grading, is necessary to avoid downstream sedimentation and flooding. Once disturbed, through the removal of vegetation, asphalt, or an entire structure, exposed and stockpiled soils could be affected by wind and water. As discussed above under Soil Erosion, the Planning Area is located on Narlon soils predominantly in the western, gently sloping areas, as well as the steeper hillside areas, which pose a moderate to high erosion potential. Baywood soils found mainly in the central, gently sloping portions of the Planning Area pose a slight to moderate erosion potential. Depending on the slopes of Sheridan soils, found also in the western hilly portions of the Planning Area, erosion potential is slight to high. Dune land, located just on the margin of Monterey Bay area poses the most severe erosion risk.
Any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 356, Packet Page 684 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-27
by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs) such as avoidance of land-disturbing activities during the wet weather season, protection of existing vegetation, use of slope and slope stabilization BMPs, and containment of construction waste on-site. Individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the SWPPP also must include BMPs to control contamination of surface flows and potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion.
Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and sedimentation and restrict non-stormwater discharges from construction sites as well as any release of hazardous materials. As a performance standard, the selected BMPs would represent the best available, economically achievable technology and the best conventional pollutant control technology.
Additionally, continued implementation of General Plan Conservation Element policies would further help to minimize potential impacts. Conservation Element Policy b.2 requires regular street sweeping on City streets to control sedimentation and stormwater flows that could cause erosion.
Conservation Element Policy b.3 would minimize development on or removal of vegetation from areas particularly susceptible to erosion, such as steep slopes, and require actions to minimize erosion when development occurs in these areas. Accordingly, compliance with applicable codes and regulations and continued implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that the risk of substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss resulting from implementation of the Proposed Plan will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 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. (Less than Significant)
Liquefaction and landslide hazards associated with implementation of the Proposed Plan are examined under Impact 3.7-1, while potential impacts related to expansive soils are discussed below under Impact 3.7-3. Development associated with the implementation of the Proposed Plan could be located on a geologic unit or soils that are susceptible to lateral spreading. As discussed above under Lateral Spreading, the factors determining the potential for lateral spreading are liquefiable soils and the proximity to an open face or slope. As shown in Figure 3.7-3, locations within the Planning Area that have high liquefaction susceptibility have the highest risk of lateral spreading.
The southeastern portion of the Planning Area, along the Highway 68 corridor and within the 50- acre MPUSD site, are underlain by liquefiable soils. The areas around El Estero Lake and Del Monte Lake provide an open face for lateral spreading. However, these open faces are located some ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 357, Packet Page 685 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-28 City of Monterey
distance from opportunity areas and therefore, while both these areas pose some risk of lateral spreading, it is not expected to be a significant risk.
Development associated with the implementation of the Proposed Plan could be located on soils that pose a low risk of subsidence. As discussed above under Subsidence, the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas can cause land to displace vertically. However, the USGS California Water Science Center does not identify the City of Monterey as an area that has experienced subsidence, and none of the projects which could be constructed under the Proposed Plan would withdraw groundwater, oil, or natural gas in a quantity great enough to result in subsidence.49 Therefore, subsidence is unlikely to result from construction created under the Proposed Plan. The City Code requires that a detailed soil and geological investigation report be prepared at the filing of a tentative map for every subdivision (Article 5). Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code also establishes administrative procedures, minimum standards of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for ensuring stable soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 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. (Less than Significant)
A significant impact could occur if new development under the Proposed Plan would locate structures in areas on top of expansive soil that would create substantial risk to life or property. As described above, expansive soils, which swell and shrink as they gain and lose moisture and can result in damage to overlying structures, underly the majority of the western portion of Monterey, a small area in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area, and a few areas surrounding the Monterey Regional Airport. Section 33-81(e) of the Monterey City Code requires the preparation of a geologic soils report prepared by a civil engineer who is registered by the State unless the City has knowledge as to the soil qualities of the soil of the subdivision or lot. Based on that report or prior knowledge of soil conditions, if presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects is determined, a site-specific soils investigation which recommends corrective action to prevent structural damage to each dwelling proposed to be constructed on the expansive soil is required. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that expansive soil-related impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
49 USGS. n.d. Areas of Land Subsidence. Available: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidenceareas.html. Accessed: October 26, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 358, Packet Page 686 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
City of Monterey 3.7-29
Impact 3.7-5 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Less than Significant) A significant impact could occur if new development under the Proposed Plan would locate structures in areas without connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system and on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. The City Code (Chapter 30-1.1) requires that every building be connected to the public sewer system maintained by the sanitary district. In the event that the use of septic tanks is permitted during development under the Proposed Plan, compliance with all requirements outlined in Chapter 30, Article 1, of the City Code would be required. As a result, related impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.7-6 Implementation of the Proposed Plan would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The geologic units exposed at and below ground surface in the Planning Area are composed primarily of Holocene Older Dune Sand and Dune Sand, with Pleistocene Aromas Sand lying further inland. These units are known to have yielded scientifically important fossils. Based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) methods described under Methodology and Assumptions above, this geologic unit is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Because paleontological resources are located below ground surface, ground disturbing activities such as excavating, grading, and resurfacing could affect any paleontological resources present, including destruction of the resource.
A significant impact would occur if implementation of the Proposed Plan would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
Construction enabled by the Proposed Plan would involve ground-disturbing activities that could extend into paleontologically sensitive geologic units. Therefore, construction enabled by the Proposed Plan would disturb a geologic unit with high paleontological sensitivity and accordingly has potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. In addition, any operations or maintenance activities that would involve ground disturbance also has potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. The potential for destruction of unique paleontological resources is considered a significant impact. To further address potential impacts to paleontological resources, any project applicant pursuing construction under the Proposed Plan would be required to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, which prohibits the willful excavation, removal, destruction, injury, or defacing of any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site. Any project applicant pursuing construction under the Proposed Plan would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which require training to construction staff regarding paleontological resources and which establish protocols to follow in the event of the discovery of an unidentified paleontological resource, respectively.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 359, Packet Page 687 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.7: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.7-30 City of Monterey
Through the conformance to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
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 grounddisturbing construction activities begin employment after the initial training has occurred, the construction supervisor shall ensure that they receive the worker awareness training as described above.
The applicant shall complete a standard form/affidavit confirming the timing of the worker awareness training to the City. The affidavit shall confirm the project’s location, the date of training, the location of the informational handout display, and the number of participants. The affidavit shall be transmitted to the City within five business days of conducting the training.
MM GEO-2: Halt Construction, Maintenance, or Landscaping Activity in Case of Finding Paleontological Resources, Evaluate Find, and Excavate Find. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activity, applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall cease all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery ceases until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is potentially significant, the project applicant shall ensure a qualified paleontologist shall excavate the find in compliance with state law, document the find, and arrange for curation at a depository, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is not significant, then the project will continue without delay.
Significance after mitigation: Less than significant
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 360, Packet Page 688 City of Monterey 3.8-1
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section assesses potential environmental impacts from future development under the Proposed Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials, including those associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; hazardous materials use in the vicinity of a school; upset conditions involving established hazardous materials sites; airport hazards; and emergency planning. This section provides context regarding hazardous materials, airport hazards, and emergency management in the Planning Area as well as relevant federal, state, and local regulations and programs.
There was one response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding topics covered in this section. The organization LandWatch recommended the City address site contamination by hazardous materials in the Fort Ord sites. This response is addressed in this section and incorporated into the following analysis.
Environmental Setting
PHYSICAL SETTING
Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical properties, may pose a hazard to human health or the environment. Under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: (1) toxicity, (2) ignitability, (3) corrosivity, and (4) reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, and Article 3).
A hazardous material is defined in CCR Title 22 as:
[a] substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed (CCR Title 22 Section 66260.10).
Hazardous materials in various forms can result in death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, or damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Hazards to human health and the environment can occur during the production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials are often released as a result of motor vehicle or equipment accidents, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 361, Packet Page 689 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-2 City of Monterey
underground or aboveground storage tank failure or because of chemical accidents during industrial use. Hazardous substances released into the environment have the potential to leach into soils, surface water, and groundwater. Hazardous materials are commonly used in commercial, agricultural and industrial applications.
Due to the nature of their use, residential and office uses typically do not pose significant hazardous material impacts. Hazardous materials are not typically handled in significant amounts and materials typically used for such activities as cleaning and maintenance typically do not present a risk to the community. Industrial and commercial land uses have a higher likelihood of hazardous materials impacts. Industrial land use can encompass a wide range of business operations that have the potential to create hazardous materials impacts. Industrial facilities store hazardous materials in underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or aboveground storage tanks, and in designated storage locations. Age and improper maintenance of storage tanks are common causes of soil and groundwater contamination. Improper handling and storage of hazardous material containers can lead to hazardous material emergency incidents.
Commercial locations can include vehicle repair sites, gasoline fueling stations, and dry-cleaning facilities. Like industrial facilities, some commercial sites store hazardous materials in storage tanks and in designated areas within the facility. Hazardous materials spills and leaks in vehicle repair and fueling locations can lead to hydrocarbon-impacted soil and groundwater. Improper storage and use of hazardous materials in dry cleaning facilities can lead to volatile organic solventcontaminated soil and groundwater.
Hazardous Materials Transport
Within the Planning Area, hazardous materials may be transported by vehicle along roadways or through transmission lines such as pipelines. Major transportation routes include State Highway 1, State Highway 68, Del Monte Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Lighthouse Avenue. According to the US Department of Transportation’s (US DOT) National Pipeline Mapping System, natural gas pipelines bisect portions of the Planning Area along State Highway 1 near Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula, along Munras Avenue followed into Fremont Street, Highway 68, and Del Monte Avenue.1
Hazardous Materials Sites
Sites where hazardous chemical compounds have been released into the environment can pose threats to human and ecologic systems’ health. Both historic and current activities may result in the release, leak, or disposal of toxic substances on or below the ground surface, where they can then contaminate soil and ground water. Disturbance of the ground through grading or excavation can result in exposure of these chemicals to the public. Improper handling of contaminated sites may result in further exposure via airborne dust, surface water runoff, or vapors. 1 US Department of Transportation. National Pipeline Mapping System. Available:
https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/. Accessed: December 7, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 362, Packet Page 690 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-3
The Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)2 that implements hazardous materials and hazardous wastes regulations in the city through six programs: Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP), Hazardous Waste Generator (HW), On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment (Tiered Permitting), Underground Storage Tank (UST), California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP), and Aboveground Petroleum Storage.
State agencies document and regulate potentially hazardous sites. The provisions in Government Code Section 659.62.5, enacted in 1985, are commonly referred to as the Cortese List.3 A site’s presence on the list has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. One site, the Owl Cleaners, listed in Table 3.8-1:
Contaminated Sites within the Planning Area, is considered a Cortese List site. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese list are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on the Internet websites of the boards or departments that are referenced in the statute, including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and State Department of Health Services (DHS).
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates cleanup activities at Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites. LUST sites are those undergoing cleanup due to an unauthorized release from an underground storage tank (UST) system. A UST System is a tank and any underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10 percent of its combined volume underground. UST regulations apply to underground tanks and piping storing any type of hazardous substance, with some exemptions.
As part of Government Code Section 65962.5 requirements, the SWRCB also tracks the following types of sites:
• Solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the DTSC. • Cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials.
The DTSC regulates hazardous waste generation and treatment, oversees cleanup of existing contamination, and promotes ways to reduce the amount hazardous waste generated. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 the California Health and Safety Code and the California 2 County of Monterey Health Department. CUPA Programs – Environmental Health. Available:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/health/environmental-health/hazardous-materialsmanagement/cupa-programs. Accessed: December 7, 2023. 3 The following resources include facilities meeting “Cortese List” requirements:
• List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC’s EnviroStor database • List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from SWRCB’s GeoTracker database • List of solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels. • List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from SWRCB. • List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 363, Packet Page 691 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-4 City of Monterey
Code of Regulations. Hazardous waste requirements cover handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, source reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.
The Planning Area includes 16 hazardous materials sites (under oversight of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) and the DTSC), as shown in Figure 3.8-1 and detailed in Table 3.8-1. The one Cortese List site is also shown in Figure 3.8-1 and listed in Table 3.8-
1. Some of the sites listed have received closure by the applicable oversight agency and may not represent substantial hazardous materials exposure risks, while some may represent potential threats to groundwater and/or constraints to development. Table 3.8-1 lists site name and address, along with the database it was identified in and a summary of the site status. Additionally, there are two federal Superfund sites in the vicinity of the Planning Area, but not located within the City of Monterey: a site located at Fort Ord York School and another at Fort Ord Del Rey Oak Development. The information found in Table 3.8-1 is dynamic and with time a site’s status can change, new sites can appear, etc. The listed sites were sites found within the Planning Area at the time this document was prepared.
Fort Ord Superfund Sites
Fort Ord served primarily as a United States Army training and staging facility for infantry troops from 1917 until it closed in 1994.4 The former Army base covers approximately 28,000 acres between the Monterey Bay and the greater Salinas River Valley, bounded Monterey Bay to the west, the City of Sand City, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks to the southwest, Highway 68 to the southeast, and native landscapes of the upper elevations to the north. Approximately 18,000 acres will be preserved as permanent open space under the jurisdictions of the Federal Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Parks and Recreation.5 The remaining 10,000 acres are under now under the jurisdictions of Monterey County, the cities of Monterey, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, and Marina, two universities, and the United States Army, who share the responsibilities of fulfilling the vision of the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan (BRP).
The former Fort Ord was listed as a “Superfund” National Priorities List of Hazardous Waste Sites in 1990. Hazardous and toxic waste materials and sites at the former Fort Ord base consist of a wide variety of materials including industrial chemicals, petrochemicals, domestic and industrial wastes (landfills), asbestos and lead paint in buildings, above- and underground storage tanks, and ordnance and explosives (OE), including unexploded ordnance (UXO). The identification, remediation, and disposal of hazardous waste associated with the Superfund cleanup process of Fort Ord takes place under the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA). The Army is responsible for conducting the Superfund cleanup process, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency for regulatory enforcement and oversight of Superfund activities. The Army is also required to submit findings to the California EPA. Successful reuse of the former Fort Ord base requires the Army to clean up each parcel on the base to the level required for its intended use, including residential uses, as designated by the BRP unless that use is in conflict with other statutes, regulations, and commitments.
4 United States Army Fort Ord Cleanup. 2023. Fort Ord and BRAC History. Available:
https://fortordcleanup.com/about/fort-ord-and-brac-history/. Accessed: December 14, 2023. 5 City of Monterey. 2023. Fort Ord Property Development. Available:
https://monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/planning_projects/fort_ord_property_developm ent.php. Accessed: December 14, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 364, Packet Page 692 !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S
S S
S
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Geotracker Sites
") Lust Cleanup Sites
") Cleanup Program Sites
") Military Cleanup Sites
") Military UST Sites
S Closed Sites
Envirostor Sites
!( Federal Superfund
!( State Response
!( Voluntary Cleanup
!( Military Evaluation
School
Quarter-mile School Buffer
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Figure 3.8-1: Hazardous Materials Sites
µ
Data Source: Geotracker, State Water Resources Control; Board, 2023; Envirostor, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 365, Packet Page 693 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-6 City of Monterey
Table 3.8-1. Contaminated Sites in the Vicinity of Planning Area Site Name Address Type Description and Site Status
Geotracker Sites
191 Lighthouse Ave 191 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed 7-Eleven Store #16747 1212 Fremont LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed A-1 Rents 2330 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Abandoned Warehouse 425 Elder St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Alliance Mart 2109 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed American Tin Cannery
Redevelopment Project
125 Ocean View
Boulevard
Cleanup Program
Site
Open - Site Assessment
Anderson Prop (Scandia
Volvo) 1661 Del Monte Blvd
LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed
Arco #0365 400 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Avis Rent A Car System Inc Monterey Airport LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Beacon Service Station 700 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Bianchi Site 600 Franklin St E LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed BP #11166 (Former) 401 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed BP #11168 (Former) 312 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Breakwater Cove Marina 32 Cannery Row LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed British Motors 735 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed California Bank Trust 439 Alvarado St. LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Cannery Row 653 Cannery Row LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Chevron Bulk Plant 0706
(Former) 205 Ramona Ave
Cleanup Program
Site
Completed - Case Closed
Chevron Service #91060 351 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed City Of Monterey 851 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Cochran Autoshop Site 417 Figueroa St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Corner Store 398 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Corral De Tierra Service Hwy 68 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Country Club Cleaners 2242 N. Fremont Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
Couroc 1725 Contra Costa LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Couroc Property 1725 Contra Costa St
Cleanup Program
Site
Completed - Case Closed
Dana Property 501 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 366, Packet Page 694 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-7
Site Name Address Type Description and Site Status
Days Inn 1440 Del Monte Blvd Cleanup Program
Site Completed - Case Closed
Del Monte Aviation 100 Sky Park Drive LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Del Monte Shopping Center 1410 Del Monte Center Cleanup Program Site
Open - Verification
Monitoring
Del Rey Car Wash 810 Canyon Del Rey LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Diaz Property 1561, 1563, &1569
Del Monte Boulevard
Cleanup Program
Site Open - Site Assessment
Dimaggio's Classic Cleaners 124 Central Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
Dougherty's Auto Paint 288 Pearl St (3) LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Dougherty's Auto Paint 288 Pearl St (2) LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed El Estero Car Wash 590 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Former Alliance Gas 1201 Forest Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Former Chevron #9-3887 1300 Mark Thomas
Dr LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed
Former Exxon 7-0227 1042 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Former Exxon 7-0228 595 Munras Avenue LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Former Furniture Mart 425 Pacific St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Former Shell Station 1290 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Former Sudden Service/Vapor
Dry Cleaners 951 Del Monte Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open – Remediation Former Tom's Monterey Auto
Repair 870 Abrego Street Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment Fort Ord - Building 509
(Pom Annex) Bldg 509 Fort Ord Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed Fort Ord - Fort Ord - Site 39 General Jim Moore Blvd. Military Cleanup Site Open – Remediation Fort Ord - Px Service
Station (Pom Annex)
Bldg 4220 NorthSouth Rd Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed Goodyear 1224 Forest Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Grove Laundry 166 12th Street Cleanup Program
Site Open - Inactive
H & B Properties 2090 Fremont St N LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Honda Kawasaki Of
Monterey 915 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Honest Engines 553 Munras Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 367, Packet Page 695 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-8 City of Monterey
Site Name Address Type Description and Site Status
Kern Property 316 Prescott Cleanup Program
Site Completed - Case Closed
Komatsu Property 1102 Fremont Blvd LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Love Chevrolet 3 Geary Plz LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Lower Del Monte Dunes
(Former Texaco Bulk
Terminal)
Del Monte Dune Site Cleanup Program
Site Completed - Case Closed
Lower Dunes 205 Ramona Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Luce Meats 1009 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Market Place 435,484,501 Cannery
Row LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed
Marriot Hotel 350 Calle Principal LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Mission Mortuary 450 Camino El Estero LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Mobil Service Station 10-
422 1152 Forest Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey City Disposol
Service 808 Tioga Rd LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey County SPCA Po Box 3058 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Fire Dept 351 Madison LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Naval Post
Graduate School
Military Cleanup
Site Completed - Case Closed
Monterey Peninsula Airport Olmstead Rd Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Peninsula Airport
District 200 Fred Kane Road LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Peninsula College 980 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Peninsula Unified
School 540 Canyon Del Rey LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Reg Water
Pollution Oceanview & Coral LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Monterey Regional Airport 200 Fred Kane Drive Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment
Monterey Sand Co 625 Elder Street LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Mumford Property 1301 Fremont Blvd LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Nan's Mini Market 701 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Navy Exchange Bldg 348 Naval
Postgraduate School LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 368, Packet Page 696 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-9
Site Name Address Type Description and Site Status
One Hour Martinizing 724 Lighthouse Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open – Remediation
Pacific Bell Yard 234 Ramona Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Pacific Gas & Electric 2311 Garden Rd LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Pacific Grove Apts. 1012 Pacific Grove
Lane
Cleanup Program
Site Completed - Case Closed
Pacific Grove Fire
Department 600 Pine Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Pacific Grove Naval
Reserve Center - Pacific
Grove Naval Reserve
Center
Military Cleanup
Site Completed - Case Closed
PG&E Former Monterey
Manufactured Gas Plant 498 Del Monte Ave. Cleanup Program Site Completed - Case Closed Phil's Exxon 2100 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Presidio of Monterey -
Aafes Gas Station Building
230
Bldg 230 Presidio of
Monterey Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed
Presidio of Monterey -
Building 270 (Tanks 1-5)
Bldg 270 Fitch &
Private Bolio Rd Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed Presidio of Monterey -
Building 422
Bldg 422 Presidio of
Monterey Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed
Presidio of Monterey -
Building 610
Bldg 610 Presidio of
Monterey Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed
Presidio of Monterey -
Building 650
Bldg 650 Presidio of
Monterey Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed
Presidio of Monterey -
Building 650 Unknown Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed Presidio of Monterey -
B141 P.O. Box 5004 Military Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Presidio of Monterey -
Presidio-Monterey Bldg. 832 2nd Phase Military UST Site Completed - Case Closed Property Of O'Neal 456 Pine St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Quaestar Inc 2101 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Recovery Center (Chomp) 576 Hartnell St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Rod & Ros 1898 Fremont LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Russo's Marine Fueling Station Del Monte & Figueroa Cleanup Program Site
Open. - Assessment &
Interim Remedial Action.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 369, Packet Page 697 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-10 City of Monterey
Site Name Address Type Description and Site Status
Salinas River National
Wildlife Hwy 1 & Salinas River LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Salinas River Wildlife
Refuge
South Side Of Salinas
River LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed
San Carlos Beach Cannery Row LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Sand City Pumping Station 1 Bay St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Saucito Land Co. 474 Alvarado St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Saucito Land Co. Central & Eardley LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Shell 687 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Shell Oil #135140 5Th St & San Carlos LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Shell Service Station 1600 Canyon Del Rey LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Shell Service Station 1083 Fremont Blvd LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Sherwin-Williams Company 505 Tyler St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed The General Store 617 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Tosco (Former Unocal) #
4242 1140 Forest Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Tosco - Facility #0424 398 Fremont St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Tosco - Facility #5643 1401 Munras Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Tosco - Faility #05432 899 Hawthorne St LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed U.S. Coast Guard 100 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed U.S. Naval Postgraduate
School Old Naval Air Facility LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Unknown El Bosque LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Unknown 550 Franklin St E LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Unocal Service Station
#3342 650 Lighthouse Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Unocal Services Station
#4242 1140 Forest Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Unocal Station #3582 2045 Fremont St. LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Unocal Station #3660 1600 Fremont Blvd. LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Usa Gasoline Station #42 2338 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Usda Hwy 1 Pacific Valley LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Val Strough Honda 1 Heitzinger Plz LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Victory Toyota 5 Heitzinger Plz LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 370, Packet Page 698 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-11
Site Name Address Type Description and Site Status
Washington Mutual BankMonterey 468 Washington St Cleanup Program Site
Completed - Case Closed.
Listed with land use
restrictions.
Wayside Garage 1532 Del Monte Blvd LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Z & S Auto Sales 1179 Del Monte Ave LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Envirostor Sites
Embassy Suites Hotel 1441 Canyon Del Rey
Blvd State Response Certified O&M - Land Use Restrictions Only Fort Ord York School
Agreement
5 Miles N Of Monterey,
Ca Federal Superfund Active
Fort Ord-Del Rey Oaks
Development Del Rey Oaks Federal Superfund Active
Monterey Peninsula Airport 200 Fred Kane Drive Military Evaluation Refer: RWQCB Naval Auxiliary Air Station,
Monterey
200 Fred Kane Drive,
Suite 200 Military Evaluation No Further Action
Carmel Cleaners SWC of Junipero Street
& 3rd Avenue State Response Active
Pacific Grove Naval
Reserve Center Pacific Grove Military Evaluation No Further Action Point Pinos Lighthouse 98 Asilomar Avenue State Response Certified O&M - Land Use Restrictions Only
Fort Ord Amb Training Area Military Evaluation Inactive - Needs Evaluation Monterey Bay Sediments Military Evaluation Inactive - Needs Evaluation Monterey Naval
Postgraduate School 1 University Circle Military Evaluation Refer: RWQCB Owl Cleaners 153 Webster Street State Response Active
PG&E, Monterey Station SWC of Figueroa Street
& Del Monte Avenue Voluntary Cleanup Active
Presidio of Monterey Lighthouse Ave. & Kit
Carson Rd. Military Evaluation Refer: RWQCB
Source: Geotracker, SWRCB, 2023; EnviroStor, DTSC, 2023 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 Army base. Five of the seven parcels are designated Mixed Use Neighborhood on the proposed General Plan Land Use map (Figure 2- 4) and one is designated Parks, Recreation and Open Space. Additionally, three of the five Mixed Use Neighborhood parcels are identified as sites available for housing in the proposed Housing Element to help meet the City’s RHNA obligations: APNs 031-191-016-000 (36.9 acres AKA: Army Corps Parcel E29b.3), 031-191-003-000 (32.8 acres AKA: Army Corps Parcel E29b.2), and 031-191- 006-000 (24 acres AKA: Army Corps Parcel L4.1 and L4.2) for a total of 93.7 acres. None of the ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 371, Packet Page 699 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-12 City of Monterey
parcels identified for housing in the Housing Element are in need of remediation or disposal of hazardous waste. The northernmost parcel within the City limit at Fort Ord APN 031-191-018-000 (22.47 acres AKA: Army Corps Parcel E29.1) that has been excluded as a site in the Housing Element is designated as Mixed Use Neighborhood on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and prior to redevelopment, State and local regulations would require remediation.
Aerially Deposited Lead
Aerially deposited lead is a common hazardous materials issue in urban areas. Soils adjacent to major roadways often contain elevated concentrations of lead. The lead deposition is the result of airborne particulates and surface water runoff associated with automobile tailpipe emissions prior to the time lead was phased out of vehicle fuels and from lead wheel weights. The DTSC Statewide Agreement For Caltrans for Reuse of Aerially Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils suggest that lead is generally found within 30 feet of the edge of the pavement and within the top six inches of the soil. In some cases, the lead is as deep as two to three feet below the surface.6 Properties located adjacent to major roadways such as State Highway 1 and 68, Del Monte Avenue, and Munras Avenue may contain elevated concentrations of lead in exposed surface soils, which could pose a health hazard to construction workers and users of the properties. Exposure of construction workers or future site occupants to lead in soil could result in adverse health effects, depending on the duration and extent of exposure.
Hazardous Materials in Building Materials
Hazardous materials, such as lead and asbestos, may be found in building materials and disturbed during demolition and renovation activities associated with development or redevelopment. Lead compounds were commonly used in interior and exterior paints until they were banned in 1978.
Prior to the 1980s, building materials often contained asbestos fibers, which were used to provide strength and fire resistance until they were banned. In addition, other common items present in buildings, such as electrical transformers, fluorescent lighting, electrical switches, heating/cooling equipment, caulking, and thermostats can contain hazardous materials, which may pose a health risk if not handled and disposed of properly.
Demolition of buildings has the potential to release lead particles, asbestos fibers, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and/or other hazardous materials to the ground or air where they may be inhaled or ingested by construction workers and the general public. Federal and State regulations govern the demolition of structures where lead or material containing lead is present. During demolition, lead-based paint that is securely adhering to wood or metal may be disposed of as demolition debris, which is a non-hazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a California and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities where lead-based paint is present. 6 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. Statewide Agreement for Caltrans for Reuse of Aerially Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils. Available: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/31/2017/11/CaltransStatewide_FS_ADLAgreement_0316.pdf ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 372, Packet Page 700 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-13
Federal, State, and local requirements also govern the removal of asbestos or suspected asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs), including the demolition of structures where asbestos is present.
Under the Asbestos Program, the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) requires that demolition projects obtain MBARD approval prior to issuance of local building permits for renovation and demolition projects. The Monterey Building and Safety Division enforces this requirement, which is intended to minimize the release of asbestos during demolition activities.
Workers conducting asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with State and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Fluorescent lighting tubes and ballasts, computer displays, and several other common items containing hazardous materials are regulated as “universal wastes” by the State of California. Universal waste regulations allow common, low-hazard wastes to be managed under less stringent requirements than other hazardous wastes. Management of some other special hazardous wastes is governed under the DTSC hazardous waste rules.
Schools
The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) serves the City of Marina, Sand City, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks, and the City of Monterey.7 MPUSD consists of two preschools, three transitional kindergarten through 8th grade schools, seven elementary schools, two middle schools, three comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school. The Planning Area is served by four MPUSD schools, as shown in Table 3.12-2. These schools include La Mesa Elementary School, Monte Vista Elementary School, Monterey High School, and Walter Colton Middle School.
There are two other private schools in Monterey: Trinity Christian High School (680 Belden Street), serving ninth through twelfth graders and San Carlos School (450 Church Street), serving kindergarten through eighth grade. There are two charter schools in Monterey, Monterey Bay Charter School Foothill Campus (1700 Via Casoli), serving kindergarten through second grade and Bay View Academy Lower and Upper Schools (222 Casa Verde Way and 190 Seeno Street), serving kindergarten through eighth grade. In addition, Monterey Peninsula College (MPC) is a public community college in Monterey (980 Fremont Street).
Airport Hazards
Risks associated with airport operations include those to people and property located in the vicinity of the airport in the event of an accident, and those to the safety of persons aboard an aircraft. The Monterey Regional Airport is located along Highway 68, near Garden Road, adjacent to the Planning Area nestled between opportunity areas North Fremont, Garden Road/Highway 68/Airport, and Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch. The Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for the Monterey Regional Airport in February 2019, which is intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents near 7 Monterey Peninsula Unified School District. 2023. About Us. Available:
https://www.mpusd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1019885&type=d&pREC_ID=1305113. Accessed: August 21, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 373, Packet Page 701 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-14 City of Monterey
the public use airports in the county, as well as airport users.8 The Airport Safety Zones associated with runway activities and airport influence areas for the Monterey Regional Airport do overlap with the Planning Area, as shown on Figure 3.8-2. These Airport Safety Zones include 1. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), 2. Inner Approach/Departure Zone (IADZ), 3. Inner Turning Zone (ITZ),
4. Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ), 5. Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ), 6. Airport Property Zone (APZ), and 7. Airport Influence Area (AIA).
Emergency Management and Response
The Monterey Police Department (MPD) services the City of Monterey with emergency response services. MPD participates in the California State Mutual Aid System, which facilitates interjurisdictional police force collaboration for emergency services. Additionally, the Monterey Fire Department (MFD) provides fire services and fire protection for a service area that includes the City of Monterey, the U.S. Army Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center at the Presidio of Monterey, the Naval Postgraduate School and their housing located at La Mesa Village, as well as the cities of Sand City, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, and the Monterey Peninsula Airport.9 The City participated in the update to the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MCMJHMP) in 2022, which was prepared by Monterey County Office of Emergency Services. MCMJHMP includes hazard risk assessments, countywide mitigation actions, and a plan maintenance strategy. In addition, the City maintains a network of evacuation routes designated in the 2005 General Plan Safety Element and the proposed Safety Element. These routes facilitate evacuation in the event of an emergency and are shown in Figure 3.15-3 Evacuation Routes in Draft EIR Section 3.15: Wildfire. The figure illustrates that primary access to Monterey is limited to two main transportation corridors (Highway 1 and Highway 68), which is a constraint to emergency evacuation capacity in the event of a major hazard event. The City of Monterey Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will be activated as needed to respond to storm or other emergency impacts as they arise.
Wildlands Fires
Government Code Sections 51175-89 advise the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to identify areas, or zones, of very high fire hazard severity potential under the Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These zones are mapped and identified based on expected burn probabilities, potential fuels over a 30-to-50-year time period, and their correlated expected fire behavior, to better predict the possible vegetation fire exposure to buildings and developments. Under the FRAP, CAL FIRE categorizes upland areas in the south and southwest of the Planning Area as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Just south of the City limits, a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in a State Responsibility Area exists, as shown on Figure 3.15-2.
8 Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, 2019. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Avaliable:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/75251/638218188294130000. Accessed: December 11, 2023.
9 City of Monterey. About (Fire). Available: https://monterey.org/city_hall/fire/about/index.php, Accessed: August 21, 2023.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 374, Packet Page 702 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icDr
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
US Army
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Navy School
Annex
1 2
4 1
2 4
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 1
4 2
2 5
7 6
6 6
6 6
7 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Airport Safety Zones
1 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
2 Inner Approach/Departure Zone (IADZ)
3 Inner Turning Zone (ITZ)
4 Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ)
5 Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ)
6 Airport Property Zone (APZ)
7 Airport Influence Area (AIA)
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Figure 3.8-2 Airport Safety Zones
µ
Data Source: Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2019; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 375, Packet Page 703 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-16 City of Monterey
REGULATORY SETTING
Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are extensively regulated by federal, State, regional and local regulations, with the major objective of protecting public health and the environment. In general, these regulations provide definitions of hazardous substances; identify responsible parties; establish reporting requirements; set guidelines for handling, storage, transport, remediation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes; and require health and safety provisions for both workers and the public, such as emergency response and worker training programs. Sites which are subject to these regulations are identified on periodically updated published lists at the federal, state, and local levels; the regulated sites include underground storage tank (UST) locations. The major regulations relevant to the Proposed Plan are summarized in the following subsections.
Federal Regulations
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a U.S. EPA-administered program to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (42 United States Code 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan. This plan (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) mission is to ensure the safety and health of American workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA establishes and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in 29 CFR 1910.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 376, Packet Page 704 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-17
Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100–185) U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials regulations cover all aspects of hazardous materials packaging, handling, and transport. Some of the topics covered include Parts 107 (Hazard Materials Program), 130 (Oil Spill Prevention and Response), 172 (Emergency Response), 173 (Packaging Requirements), 174 (Rail Transportation), 176 (Vessel Transportation), 177 (Highway Transportation), 178 (Packaging Specifications), and 180 (Packaging Maintenance).
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 was included under SARA law and is commonly referred to as SARA Title III. EPCRA was passed in response to concerns regarding the environmental and safety hazards proposed by the storage and handling of toxic chemicals. EPCRA establishes requirements for federal, state, and local governments, tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and Community Right-to-Know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. SARA Title III requires states and local emergency planning groups to develop community emergency response plans for protection from a list of Extremely Hazardous Substances (40 CFR Appendix B). The Community Right-to-Know provisions help increase the public’s knowledge of and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and their release into the environment. In Union City, the Environmental Programs Division/CUPA collects EPCRA Tier II data.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) of 1975 was created to provide adequate protection from the risks to life and property related to the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by improving regulatory enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation.
State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991. It unified California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and brought the California Air Resources Board, SWRCB, RWQCB, CalRecycle, DTSC, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and Department of Pesticide Regulation under one agency. These agencies were placed under the Cal/EPA “umbrella” for the protection of human health and the environment to ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. Their mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment and ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. CalEPA also manages the Unified Program and has certified the Union City Environmental Programs Division as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to implement state hazardous materials requirements within the jurisdiction.
Accidental Release Prevention Law/California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) SB 1889 established the merging of federal and State of California programs governing the accidental airborne release of chemicals listed under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Effective January 1, 1997, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 377, Packet Page 705 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-18 City of Monterey
CalARP replaced the previous California Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) and incorporated the mandatory federal requirements. CalARP addresses facilities containing specified hazardous materials that, if involved in an accidental release, could result in adverse off-site consequences. CalARP defines regulated substances as chemicals that pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive. The Union City Environmental Programs Division/CUPA administers the CalARP program.
Hazardous Materials Worker Safety Requirements
Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) and the federal OSHA are the agencies responsible for ensuring worker safety in the workplace. Cal OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices. In California, Cal OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations; Cal OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.
California Labor Code (Division 5, Parts 1, 6, 7, and 7.5) The California Labor Code is a collection of regulations that include regulation of the workplace to ensure appropriate training on the use and handling of hazardous materials and operation of equipment and machines that use hazardous materials. Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 2.5, ensures that employees who are in charge of handling hazardous materials are appropriately trained and informed with respect to the materials they handle. Division 5, Part 7, ensures that employees who work with volatile flammable liquids are outfitted with appropriate safety gear and clothing.
Department of Toxic Substances Control and Cortese List DTSC, a department of Cal/EPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transport, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.
California Government Code 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSClisted hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by SWRCB as having UST leaks or a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites with a known migration of hazardous waste/material.
State of California Emergency Plan, 2017
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, State, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the California Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including CalEPA, the California Highway Patrol, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and RWQCB.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 378, Packet Page 706 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-19
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead state agency for the assessment of health risks posed by environmental contaminants. The OEHHA implements provisions of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Proposition 65 requires the governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The proposition protects California citizens and the state’s drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm and informs the public about potential exposures to such chemicals.
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages more than 50,000 miles of California's highway and freeway lanes, provides inter-city rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highway and freeway lanes and inter-city rail services.
State Water Resources Control Board
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each with a RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for protecting the quality of the state’s surface and groundwater supplies, while the regional boards are responsible for developing and enforcing water quality objectives and implementation plans. The Planning Area is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The act authorizes the SWRCB to enact state policies regarding water quality in accordance with the U.S. EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303. The SWRCB regulates the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances in construction projects. Permits and/or other action by the SWRCB may be required if contamination of water or soils occurs during the construction associated with the Proposed Plan. In addition, the act authorizes the SWRCB to issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for projects that would discharge to State waters.
California Public Resources Code Section 2115.4
Public Resources Code Section 21151.4 regulates hazardous materials near schools. Public Resources Code Section 21151.4 prohibits the certification of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project involving the construction or alteration of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle extremely hazardous air emissions in a quantity greater than a certain threshold, within one-quarter mile of a school.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 379, Packet Page 707 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-20 City of Monterey
Local Regulations
CalEPA’s Unified Program (CUPA)
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave CalEPA the authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management and regulatory program, commonly referred to as the Unified Program. The purpose of this program is to consolidate and coordinate six different hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs, and to ensure that they are consistently implemented throughout the state. CalEPA oversees the Unified Program with support from the DTSC, SWRCB, the CalOES, and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. State law requires counties, and allows local agencies, to implement the Unified Program. The agency in charge of implementing the program is called the Certified Unified Program Agency or CUPA. Monterey County’s Environmental Health Bureau is the designated CUPA for Monterey. As the Certified Unified Program Agency, the Environmental Programs Division administers the following Unified Programs:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plan) Program • California Accidental Release Prevention Program
• Underground Storage Tank Program
• Hazardous Waste Generator Program
• Hazardous Waste On-Site Treatment Programs
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau
Monterey County’s Environmental Health Bureau, Hazardous Materials Management Services (HMMS) is designated as the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). This agency is responsible for inspecting facilities in the County to verify proper storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The HMMS administers programs for Hazardous Materials Business Plans, hazardous waste generator requirements, underground storage tanks, aboveground petroleum storage, prevention of accidental releases (California Accidental Release Prevention program), and hazardous materials management plans.
Monterey County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Jurisdictions in Monterey County have developed and maintained an (HMP) to reduce risks from natural disasters that complies with federal requirements for hazard mitigation planning.
Participating jurisdictions include the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, Soledad, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD), Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD), Monterey One Water (M1W), and Moss Landing Harbor District. During this planning project, local leaders, special districts, and the community have worked in tandem to identify risks, assess capabilities, and formulate a strategy to reduce disaster vulnerability. The HMP details the use of these policies, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 380, Packet Page 708 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Monterey 3.8-21
programs, projects, and other activities to protect life and property by reducing the potential for future damages and economic losses from known hazards and to create a risk and vulnerability assessment that focuses on local hazards of concern.
Monterey County Emergency Operations Plan
The Monterey County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), adopted in November 2020, addresses response and recovery efforts and discusses principles, concepts, and procedures that the Office of Emergency Services and its partners use during an emergency in the event of erosion, floods, tsunamis, dam failure, hazard materials, wildfires, earthquakes, landslides, and windstorms.
Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users near the airport, while supporting the continued operation of the airport. Much of the Planning Area is within Airport influence Area (AIA), as shown in Exhibit 1B of the Monterey Regional ALUCP. The Airport Safety Zones associated with runway activities and airport influence areas for the Monterey Regional Airport overlap with the Planning Area, as shown on Figure 3.8-3 of this document and Exhibit 4C of the ALUCP. These Airport Safety Zones include 1. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), 2. Inner Approach/Departure Zone (IADZ), 3. Inner Turning Zone (ITZ), 4. Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ), 5. Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ), 6. Airport Property Zone (APZ), and 7. Airport Influence Area (AIA). Pursuant to ALUCP Policy 4.1.10.1, all proposed land use policy actions that affect property within the AIA must be sent to the Airport Land Use Commission for a Consistency Determination. Additionally, Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP outlines the maximum densities, intensities, required open space land requirements, prohibited uses, and other development conditions for proposed development within the Airport Safety Zones.
Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) Base Reuse Plan
Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) adopted the Base Reuse Plan (BRP) in June 1997 and republished a digital format of the BRP in September 2001. The BRP focuses on the broad concepts for redevelopment of the former Fort Ord Military Reservation and issues related to integrating the former Fort Ord property into the regional economy of the Monterey Peninsula. The Reuse Plan Elements contains a set of integrated goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the land use jurisdictions: City of Seaside, City of Marina, City of Monterey, and Monterey County. Hazardous and Toxic Materials Safety Policy B-1 requires the City to work with the U.S. Army and all contractors to ensure safe and effective removal and disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, the U.S. Army has led groundwater and munitions clean-up efforts with some munitions removal conducted and completed under FORA direction. Under the 1986 Defense Environmental Restoration Program, the Department of Defense is responsible for cleanup of former munitions sites. The U.S. Army conducted lead removal at the beach firing ranges, and FORA, California State University Monterey Bay, and others have conducted lead and asbestos removal from buildings.
Discovered objects that resemble munitions or explosives on or near former Fort Ord property are to be reported to the US Army, US EPA, California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), and the Seaside Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) Program using the Fort Ord Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) incident recording program.
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 381, Packet Page 709 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8-22 City of Monterey
Monterey City Code
Chapter 13, Article 2, Clean Up of Hazardous Substances, outlines definitions and clean-up responsibility for spills or release of any hazardous substances. Section 13-6 defines “hazardous substances or material” which include any material listed in Sections 66680 and 66685 of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pollutants, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) as either a flammable liquid, a Class “II” combustible liquid or a Class “III-A” combustible liquid. Section 13-
6.1 details that responsible parties should take all actions necessary to remedy the effects of any unauthorized discharge, spill, or release of any hazardous substances. The Monterey Fire Department will also mitigate, or authorize mitigation, of all hazardous material release incidents which endanger the public safety of the citizens of Monterey or which create a public nuisance.
Chapter 31.5, Article 2, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, serves to protect and enhance the water quality of waters of the State and waters of the United States, and protect water bodies. Specifically, Section 31.5-21, Notification of Spills, requires any person responsible for a facility or operation that results in a release of a hazardous material must notify emergency response officials of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services, the City’s department of Plans and Public Works, and the City’s Engineering Division.