Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 7 of 22)

Overall, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative is projected to result in approximately 8,115 new residents, 4,183 housing units, and 1,991 new jobs in Monterey by 2031.

INCREASED WORKFORCE HOUSING ALTERNATIVE
The Increased Workforce Housing Alternative is designed to address significant and unavoidable impacts related to employment vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and the loss of agricultural grazing land within the Highway 68 Plan area. While per capita VMT would improve significantly under the Proposed Plan, robust employment growth would mean that a large number of people - many of them low wage earners employed in the hospitality and tourism sectors - would continue to commute into the Planning Area for work each day, resulting in a significant employment VMT impact. Therefore, this Alternative would involve land use and zoning changes to further increase workforce housing development in proximity to job centers and achieve an equal number of jobs and housing units in Monterey in 2031.

Specifically, this Alternative would replace office and visitor-serving uses with high density housing in the following locations: Downtown, Cannery Row, Lighthouse Avenue, North Fremont Street, Pacific Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Abrego Street. Additionally, it would transform Del Monte Avenue into a high-density residential corridor, and reduce projected job growth at Fort Ord while also increasing multifamily housing at Fort Ord adjacent to the Ryan Ranch Business Park, a major employment center within the Planning Area. Under this Alternative, development of the 50-acre MPUSD site and other housing development envisioned under the Highway 68 Area Plan would not proceed and grazing land would remain in its current state; however, the new Airport Compatibility Overlay would be adopted, and policies related to land use, safety, and circulation would be adopted to address new State laws and emerging issues, as with the Proposed Plan.

Overall, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative is projected to result in approximately 19,070 new residents, 9,830 housing units, and 921 new jobs in Monterey by 2031.

Table 4-1 provides a comparison of projected buildout for the Proposed Plan and No Project, Relocated Housing Growth, and Increased Workforce Housing Alternatives.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 580, Packet Page 908 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-4 City of Monterey
Table 4-1: Alternatives Buildout Comparison
Proposed Plan No Project Relocated
Housing Growth
Increased
Workforce
Housing
Existing (2023)
Housing Units 13,825 13,825 13,825 13,825
Population 26,845 26,845 26,845 26,845
Jobs 22,734 22,734 22,734 22,734
Net New
Housing Units 5,787 511 4,183 9,830
Population 10,1981 9911 8,1151 19,0701
Jobs 1,991 1,991 1,991 921
Total (2031)
Housing Units 19,612 14,336 18,008 23,655
Population 37,043 27,836 34,960 45,915
Jobs 24,725 24,725 24,725 23,655

1. Based on assumption of 1.94 people per household (per U.S. Census Bureau, 2020) and housing vacancy rate of 9.4% (California Department of Finance, 2023).

Sources: Dyett & Bhatia, 2024; California Department of Finance, 2023.

4.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated in
Detail in this EIR
One alternative to the Proposed Plan that could avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts of the Proposed Plan was considered, a Reduced Development Alternative. However, as described below, this Alternative was determined to be infeasible and therefore is not analyzed further.

REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
To address significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT, GHG emissions, and water supply, a Reduced Development Alternative was considered, involving more housing than the No Project Alternative but less housing than the Relocated Housing Alternative. The Reduced Development Alternative would not involve new residential or non-residential development either at Fort Ord or within the Highway 68 Plan area, instead concentrating new growth in previously developed portions of the Planning Area. However, while a reduction in service population under this Alternative would reduce future demand for water and result in lower total VMT and associated GHG emissions, this Alternative would not meet the basic project objectives as it would not accommodate the City's assessed share of the regional housing need. Consequently, this Alternative was found to be infeasible and is not analyzed further.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 581, Packet Page 909 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-5

4.3 Impact Analysis of Alternatives

NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer residential uses compared to the Proposed Plan.

While this Alternative would have less overall development, the development that does occur would differ in scale and density from the Proposed Plan. While the overall amount and location of development would differ from the Proposed Plan, the design standards and guidelines that the Proposed Plan would adhere to can be assumed to be similar. As with the Proposed Plan, the Alternative would comply with the General Plan, City Code, Specific and Neighborhood Plans, and City’s Objective Design Standards that regulate aesthetics and visual character and enforce protection measures for scenic corridors and entryways. Overall, impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources would remain less than significant. Given that there would be a lesser amount of development under the No Project Alternative, overall aesthetic impacts would be lessened compared to the Proposed Plan.

Agricultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would involve development of 511 additional new housing sites primarily on underutilized commercial and residentially zoned sites, as identified in the Fifth Cycle Housing Element. None of the housing sites identified are located within the Highway 68 Plan area and as such there would be no conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, this Alternative would avoid the impacts to agricultural resources that would occur under the Proposed Plan and there would be no associated impacts.

Air Quality
Impacts under the No Project Alternative related to air quality during construction would be lower than those of the Proposed Plan because the overall amount of development proposed would be reduced. This would result in a shorter duration for construction activities. As with the Proposed Plan, it is likely that the No Project Alternative would implement policies or programs that would support or complement pollutant control measures and 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) programs.

Similar to the Proposed Plan, it is assumed that individual developments would implement similarly applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.3 of the EIR as necessary to reduce air quality impacts under the No Project Alternative. Future projects that exceed MBARD’s project emissions thresholds would incorporate project-specific mitigation measures (as necessary) and address project-level sources of criteria air pollutants. Operational emissions would be reduced by commute trip reduction programs, substantially reducing on-road PM emissions. However, even with these mitigation measures, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to remain significant and unavoidable, but less than that of the Proposed Plan.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 582, Packet Page 910 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-6 City of Monterey
Biological Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, residential development in the Planning Area would not include the housing units in the Fort Ord and Highway 68 area and would proceed at fewer sites and lower densities compared to the Proposed Plan. Because the No Project Alternative would still allow development at Fort Ord and properties within the Highway 68 Area Plan study area, including construction and demolition, the Alternative would have similar biological resources impacts compared to those of the Proposed Plan. However, impacts would be reduced given that less development would occur under this Alternative. As such, biological resource impacts under the No Project Alternative would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation related to special-status species and wildlife movement and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative biological resources impacts. It is assumed that individual developments would implement similarly applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.4 of the EIR as necessary to reduce biological resources impacts under the No Project Alternative.

Cultural, Tribal, and Historic Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed as envisioned under the Proposed Plan. Excavation, grading, or demolition activities in the Planning Area would still occur, as such impacts would be roughly equivalent to the Proposed Plan. It is assumed that individual developments would implement similarly applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.5 of the EIR as necessary to reduce cultural, tribal, and historic resources impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, applicable State and local regulations presented in Chapter

3.5 of this EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce cultural, tribal, and historic resources impacts under the No Project Alternative.

Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change
Given the overall lower amount of development, it is likely that energy usage would be lower under the No Project Alternative compared to the Proposed Plan. However, the No Project Alternative would promote a land-use strategy that is lower density, which would result in reduced energy efficiency overall for Planning Area residents and operations as compared to the Proposed Plan.

Even so, overall impacts would be less than significant. Compared to the Proposed Plan, the No Project Alternative would have a lower degree of energy impacts.

Under the No Project Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed as envisioned under the City’s current 2005 General Plan, which includes City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and Land Use Element, with 511 housing units. This option includes industrial development at Fort Ord and development anticipated by the Highway 68 Area Plan. Demolition and construction activities, as well as new operational sources of GHG emissions, would still occur throughout the Planning Area. Given the reduced amount of development compared to the Proposed Plan, this Alternative would thus be expected to have a shorter duration for construction activities, which would result in reduced impacts from construction-related emissions. It is assumed that applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.6 of the EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce construction-related GHG emissions impacts under the No Project Alternative. Operation of land uses supported by the Alternative would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions similar to that of the Proposed Plan. However, given there is significantly ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 583, Packet Page 911 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-7
less development under this Alternative, GHG emissions would be reduced, but not necessarily on a per capita basis. Even so, this operational impact is expected to be less than significant under the No Project Alternative, compared to the significant and unavoidable impact under the Proposed Plan.

Overall, greenhouse gas impacts would be lessened compared to the Proposed Plan. However, it is not possible to quantify the precise extent of reductions for the majority of the measures for a planlevel analysis. It is likely that GHG emissions from mobile sources would still conflict with goals of SB 743 under the No Project Alternative and it would have a significant and unavoidable impact.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under the No Project Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed as envisioned under the City’s current 2005 General Plan, which includes the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element Update and Land Use Element, with 511 housing units. This option includes industrial development at Fort Ord and development envisioned in the Highway 68 Area Plan. Excavation, grading, or demolition activities in the Planning Area would still occur at sites identified for development under the Proposed Plan. Because the No Project Alternative envisions development at reduced intensities compared to the Proposed Plan, the No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts related to landslides, soil erosion, and unstable soils compared with the Proposed Plan. Buildout under the No Project Alternative would result in less than significant project-level impacts and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with implementation of existing State and local regulations. Therefore, compared to the Proposed Plan, geology and soil impacts would be further reduced under this Alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Plan because construction would have similar risks, associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials, and would be subject to the same site remediation requirements as the Proposed Plan. As with the Proposed Plan, the construction and operation of housing generally does not involve the release -- accidental or otherwise -- of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public. Further, existing regulatory programs associated with handling hazardous materials during construction and operation of the site would decrease potential impacts. Therefore, compliance with the appropriate State and federal regulations on transportation and disposal of hazardous materials would lead to a less than significant impact, with impacts similar, but reduced as compared to the Proposed Plan. Impacts related to the hazard of wildfire are addressed in the Wildfire section below.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar impacts on hydrology, drainage, and water quality would result from the No Project Alternative compared with the Proposed Plan because excavation, grading, and demolition would still be required for demolition of existing buildings and new construction at the sites. Therefore, the potential impacts under the No Project Alternative on hydrology, drainage, and water quality would be similar or slightly reduced compared to those of the Proposed Plan. With implementation of existing State and local regulations, project-level and cumulative impacts related to hydrology, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 584, Packet Page 912 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-8 City of Monterey
drainage, and water quality under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant and less than impacts under the Proposed Plan.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Under the No Project Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed as envisioned under the City’s current 2005 General Plan, which includes the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element and Land Use Element. The previously adopted Housing Element’s goals in the 2005 General Plan include providing opportunities for new housing development, particularly in mixed-use neighborhoods in the Downtown, Lighthouse/Foam, and North Fremont areas, creating transitoriented housing. Like the Proposed Plan, this Alternative would support mixed-use, infill, and higher density development around the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont areas, as well as other opportunity areas. The No Project Alternative’s vision for the Planning Area is consistent with the regional goals for transit-oriented development identified in Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045, the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Monterey Bay area. Further, all future residential development occurring within the city under the No Project Alternative would be required to be evaluated in accordance with local regulations, including the General Plan and City Code.

Neither the Proposed Plan nor the No Project Alternative introduces physical barriers that would divide an established community. The Proposed Plan and Alternative would not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would facilitate residential development consisting primarily of small scale within the City limit; it would result in no impact with respect to physically dividing an existing community. The implementation of both the Proposed Plan and No Project Alternative would facilitate construction of new housing; however, the No Project Alternative would not result in sufficient housing to meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA obligations. As such, the resulting increase in population and housing units would not be considered substantial unplanned growth as it would be consistent with regional planning projections, and it would occur incrementally. Further, both the Proposed Plan and No Project Alternative involve infill development within the city limit. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would result in a less than significant impact associated with population growth, either directly or indirectly. Because development of the same character would still occur in the Planning Area, although to a lesser extent, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts related to land use, population, and housing compared to the Proposed Plan, which would result in less than significant project-level impacts and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with implementation of existing State regulations as well as adherence to local policies and regulations.

Noise and Vibration
Buildout of the No Project Alternative would result in significantly fewer housing units than the Proposed Plan and would not meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA obligations. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would result, meaning reduced impacts would occur under this Alternative as compared to the Proposed Plan. This Alternative would include all City of Monterey General Plan policies and City Code regulations to implement construction noise control measures. Average daily traffic volumes on area roadways would be ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 585, Packet Page 913 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-9
reduced under this Alternative as compared with the Proposed Plan because this Alternative would result in fewer housing units. Overall, noise and vibration impacts under this Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of applicable local regulations and reduced compared to the Proposed Plan.

Public Services and Recreation
Buildout of the No Project Alternative would accommodate fewer residents and housing units compared to the Proposed Plan and would not meet the 2023-2031 RHNA requirement. Therefore, this Alternative would generate slightly reduced demand for fire, police, school, and library services compared to the Proposed Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, as under the Proposed Plan.

Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in the construction of new neighborhood parks; however, the General Plan and City Code have various goals and policies to ensure adequate park and recreational space is provided throughout the city. Therefore, impacts related to parks may be slightly reduced compared to the Proposed Plan, given the lower population under this Alternative, and would be less than significant.

Transportation
The No Project Alternative would involve substantially less housing development but the same amount of employment-related development as the Proposed Plan. Thus, while it would result in a reduction in the severity of the already less than significant per capita VMT impact projected for the Proposed Plan, it would result in a significant employment VMT impact similar to the Proposed Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VMT-1, under which the City would implement a commute reduction program, would reduce this impact; however, as with the Proposed Plan the reduction would not be 15 percent below existing employment VMT and as such the impact would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation. The No Project Alternative impact on consistency with circulation system plans would remain less than significant, similar to the Proposed Plan, because other planning documents, such as the General Plan, Specific and Neighborhood Plans, and City’s Objective Design Standards would continue to be applicable under this Alternative. Similarly, the impacts on transportation hazards, and emergency access would remain less than significant because the Planning Area would continue to be consistent with applicable codes.

Utilities
The No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on utilities and service systems than those associated with the Proposed Plan and would not meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA obligations.

The No Project Alternative would result in a reduction of impacts (e.g., need for additional/expanded facilities and services) to the Planning Area. However, utilities and service systems would still need to be accounted and provided for development under the existing General Plan just as with the Proposed Plan. Regardless, all new developments would be subject to review and evaluation for capacity needs and availability of service at the time the project development was brought forward for consideration. Even so, the Alternative would still generate demand that may require additional water supply and facilities to meet the City’s demands; therefore, it is conservatively assumed the Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the provision of new and expanded water facilities and water supply.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 586, Packet Page 914 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-10 City of Monterey
Wildfire
In comparison with the Proposed Plan, the No Project Alternative has a reduced development footprint within the Planning Area, only needing sites to accommodate the City’s previous Housing Element with 511 housing units. As with the Proposed Plan, the development under this Alternative would be required to adhere to State and local plans and regulations, including the City’s Safety Element policies. Compliance with these policies will ensure that development in the Planning Area is resilient to the risk of a wildfire under the Alternative. As with the Proposed Plan, impacts from wildfire are considered less than significant for the No Project Alternative. However, impacts would be further reduced under this Alternative since a smaller population under buildout would be less susceptible to wildfire risks and improve evacuation times.

RELOCATED HOUSING GROWTH ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in fewer housing units within the Planning Area compared to the Proposed Plan, including the development of only (industrial) employment uses at Fort Ord. Outside of the Fort Ord area, housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors. While the overall amount of development would be less than the Proposed Plan, the design standards and guidelines that the Proposed Plan would adhere to can be assumed to be similar. As with the Proposed Plan, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would comply with the General Plan, City Code, and specific plans that regulate development and enforce protection measures for scenic vistas, corridors, and entryways. Overall, impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources would remain less than significant. Given that there are fewer sites identified for development in this Alternative, overall aesthetic impacts would be less than the Proposed Plan.

Agricultural Resources
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in fewer housing units within the Planning Area compared to the Proposed Plan, including the development of only industrial (employment) uses at Fort Ord. Outside of the Fort Ord area, housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors. Under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, residential development in the Planning Area would proceed and would include the 50-acre Monterey Peninsula Unified School District site. Because the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would proceed with housing sites that would convert Farmland to non-agricultural use, the Alternative would have equivalent agricultural resources impacts compared to those of the Proposed Plan. As such, this Alternative would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which is a significant and unavoidable impact.

Air Quality
Impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative related to air quality during construction would be similar to those of the Proposed Plan but slightly less because the overall amount of development proposed would be decreased. This would result in a smaller duration for construction activities. As with the Proposed Plan, it is likely that the Relocated Housing Growth ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 587, Packet Page 915 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-11
Alternative would implement policies or programs that would support or complement pollutant control measures and 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) programs. Similar to the Proposed Plan, it is assumed that individual developments would implement similarly applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.3 of the EIR as necessary to reduce air quality impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative. Future projects that exceed MBARD’s project emissions thresholds would incorporate project-specific mitigation measures (as necessary) and address project-level sources of criteria air pollutants. Operational emissions would be reduced by commute trip reduction programs, substantially reducing on-road PM emissions. However, even with these mitigation measures, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to remain significant and unavoidable, but less than that of the Proposed Plan.

Biological Resources
Under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, development in the Planning Area would not include housing on sites in the former Fort Ord military base. Fort Ord would develop with industrial (employment) uses as allowed by the current General Plan. Because the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would still allow development within Monterey, including construction and demolition, the Alternative would have similar biological resources impacts compared to those of the Proposed Plan, but fewer impacts near Fort Ord and South Boundary Road. However, since development is concentrated at greater densities within already developed areas rather than at Fort Ord, impacts on special-status species that may occur near the city limits would be reduced as compared to the Proposed Plan. As such, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in lessthan significant impacts related to special-status species and wildlife movement and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative biological resources impacts. Therefore, applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.4 of the EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce biological resources impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative.

Cultural, Tribal, and Historic Resources
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in fewer housing units within the Planning Area compared to the Proposed Plan, including the development of only industrial (employment) uses at Fort Ord. Outside of the Fort Ord area, housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors. The Highway 68 Area Plan would continue to apply to future development along the Highway 68 corridor including the MPUSD site could accommodate a school, 300 below market rate housing units and parks/open space uses.

Excavation, grading, or demolition activities in the Planning Plan would still occur within previously developed areas of the Planning Area and as required for employment uses at Fort Ord.

Equivalent to the Proposed Plan, all housing development in the Planning Area would be required to comply with all applicable local regulations, such as the City Code’s Historic Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 38, Article 15), as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. As such, cultural resource impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would be equivalent to the Proposed Plan and result in less than significant impacts with mitigation and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 588, Packet Page 916 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-12 City of Monterey
cultural resources impacts. Therefore, applicable State and local regulations and mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.5 of this EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce cultural, tribal, and historic resources impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative.

Energy, GHG Emissions, and Climate Change
Given the overall lower amount of development, it is likely that energy usage would be lower under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative compared to the Proposed Plan. Otherwise, the general land use pattern would remain the same compared to the Proposed Plan. As such, the Alternative would have a slightly lower degree of energy impacts. Under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, demolition and construction activities, as well as new operational sources of GHG emissions, would still occur throughout the Planning Area. Given the slightly reduced amount of development compared to the Proposed Plan, this Alternative would thus be expected to have a shorter duration for construction activities, which would result in reduced impacts from construction-related emissions. It is assumed that applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.6 of the EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce construction-related GHG emissions impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative. Operation of land uses supported by the Alternative would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions similar to that of the Proposed Plan. However, given there is slightly less development under this Alternative, GHG emissions would be reduced. However, this operational impact is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable under this Alternative, equivalent to the Proposed Plan.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in fewer housing units within the Planning Area compared to the Proposed Plan, including the development of only industrial (employment) uses at Fort Ord. Outside of the Fort Ord area, housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors. Excavation, grading, or demolition activities in the Planning Area would still occur at sites identified for development. Since the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would still allow development at roughly the same intensities as the Proposed Plan, the Alternative would have similar impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources compared with the Proposed Plan. As such, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in less than significant project-level impacts and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with implementation of existing State and local regulations. Applicable mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 presented in Chapter 3.7 of this EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would be less than those of the Proposed Plan because construction of housing units ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 589, Packet Page 917 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-13
would not occur at the Fort Ord opportunity area, which is in proximity to remediation sites.

However, construction impacts under the Alternative would have similar risks, associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials, and would be subject to the same site remediation requirements as the Proposed Plan. As with the Proposed Plan, the construction and operation of housing generally does not involve the release -- accidental or otherwise -- of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public. Further, existing regulatory programs associated with handling hazardous materials during construction and operation of the site would decrease potential impacts. Therefore, compliance with the appropriate State and federal regulations on transportation and disposal of hazardous materials would lead to a less than significant impact, with impacts similar but reduced as compared to the Proposed Plan. Impacts related to the hazard of wildfire are addressed in the Wildfire section below.

Hydrology and Water Resources
Similar impacts on hydrology, drainage, and water quality would result from the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative compared with the Proposed Plan because excavation, grading, and demolition would still be required for demolition of existing buildings and new construction at the sites.

Therefore, the potential impacts under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative on hydrology, drainage, and water quality would be similar compared to those of the Proposed Plan. With implementation of existing State and local regulations, project-level and cumulative impacts related to hydrology, drainage, and water quality under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would be less than significant and roughly equivalent impacts under the Proposed Plan.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in fewer housing units within the Planning Area compared to the Proposed Plan, including the development of only industrial (employment) uses at Fort Ord. Outside of the Fort Ord area, housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors. However, like the Proposed Plan, this Alternative would support mixed-use, infill, and higher density development within established areas of the Planning Area. The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative’s vision for the Planning Area is consistent with the regional goals for transit-oriented development identified in Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045, the integrated land use/transportation plan for the three-county Monterey Bay region. Further, all future residential development occurring within the Planning Area under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would be required to be evaluated in accordance with local regulations, including the General Plan and City Code.

Neither the Proposed Plan nor the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative introduce physical barriers that would divide an established community. The Proposed Plan and the Alternative would not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Implementation of the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would facilitate residential and mixed-use development primarily consisting of infill development on underutilized sites and ADUs within the City limit; it would result in no impact with respect to physically dividing an existing community. Because development of the same character would still occur in the Planning Area, although to a lesser extent, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would have similar impact related to land use, population, and housing compared to the Proposed Plan, which would result in less than significant project-level impacts and a less than cumulatively ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 590, Packet Page 918 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-14 City of Monterey
considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with implementation of existing State regulations as well as adherence to local policies and regulations.

Noise and Vibration
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in fewer housing units within the Planning Area compared to the Proposed Plan, including the development of only industrial (employment) uses at Fort Ord. Outside of the Fort Ord area, housing growth would be shifted to the downtown area and key commercial corridors. Therefore, similar construction and associated construction noise and vibration would result, meaning roughly equivalent impacts would occur under this Alternative as compared to the Proposed Plan. This Alternative would include all City of Monterey General Plan policies and City Code regulations to implement construction noise control measures. As a result, construction noise and vibration levels would be slightly less under this Alternative compared with the Proposed Plan. Overall, noise and vibration impacts under this Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of applicable local regulations and mitigation and roughly equivalent as compared to the Proposed Plan.

Public Services and Recreation
Buildout of the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would accommodate fewer residents and housing units compared to the Proposed Plan. Therefore, this Alternative would generate slightly less demand for fire, police, school, and library services compared to the Proposed Plan. Impacts would be less than significant, as opposed to less than significant with mitigation under the Proposed Plan due to the elimination of housing sites at the Fort Ord opportunity area.

Implementation of the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would not result in the construction of new neighborhood parks; however, the General Plan and City Code have various goals and policies to ensure adequate park and recreational space is provided throughout the city. The City Code requires developers to dedicate parkland which would help ensure that population growth associated with the Proposed Plan would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities. However, impacts related to parks may be slightly increased compared to the Proposed Plan given the higher population under this Alternative, but impacts would still be less than significant.

Transportation
This Alternative would involve increased housing development in the western part of the Planning Area, particularly downtown and along key commercial corridors, some of which are major transit routes. Increased density along transit routes would be expected to increase transit ridership; however, this Alternative would result in approximately 27 percent fewer housing units than the Proposed Plan but the same amount of job growth. As such, the jobs-housing ratio would increase to 1.37 under this Alternative as compared 1.26 under the Proposed Plan, meaning that more people employed in the Planning Area would need to commute to work from outside Monterey each day, leading to a slight increase in VMT. A qualitative assessment of this Alternative conducted by transportation engineers Kimley-Horn and Associates estimates that this Alternative would result in a less than significant per capita VMT impact as with the Proposed Plan, and a similarly significant and unavoidable employment VMT impact. Under the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, the impact on consistency with circulation system plans would remain less than ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 591, Packet Page 919 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-15
significant, similar to the Proposed Plan, with adherence to existing regulations and codes.

Similarly, the impacts on transportation hazards and emergency access would remain less than significant because the Planning Area would continue to be consistent with applicable codes.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in reduced demand for utilities and service systems than under the Proposed Plan. Notably, it would avoid a significant and unavoidable impacts related to the availability of water supply from the Marina Coast Water District at Fort Ord; however, as with the Proposed Plan it would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the availability of water supply from Cal-Am, as it cannot be said with certainty that new sources of supply beyond groundwater will reliably be available to serve projected need from the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative in 2031. The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative would result in a reduction of impacts (e.g., need for additional/expanded facilities and services) to the Planning Area.

Wildfire
In comparison with the Proposed Plan, the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative has the same number of housing units as the Proposed Plan, with no housing units concentrated in the Fort Ord opportunity area. As with the Proposed Plan, the development under this Alternative would be required to adhere to State and local plans and regulations, including the City’s Safety Element policies. Compliance with these policies will ensure that development in the Planning Area is resilient to the risk of a wildfire under the Alternative. However, as with the Proposed Plan, Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase evacuation capacity at constrained locations. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether evacuation impacts will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable for the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, and impacts would be equivalent to the Proposed Plan.

INCREASED WORKFORCE HOUSING ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed with more housing units throughout Monterey than envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with exception of the 50-acre MPUSD site. While the overall amount of housing development would be more than the Proposed Plan, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would comply with the General Plan, City Code, and specific plans that regulate development and enforce protection measures for scenic vistas, corridors, and entryways. Overall, impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources would remain less than significant. Given that there are more units identified for development in this Alternative, overall aesthetic impacts would be roughly equivalent or more than the Proposed Plan.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 592, Packet Page 920 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-16 City of Monterey
Agricultural Resources
Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed with more housing units throughout Monterey than envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with exception of the 50-acre MPUSD site. Under the Proposed Plan, development of housing on the 50-acre site would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to nonagricultural use, which is a significant and unavoidable impact. Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, residential development in the Planning Area would not proceed with the Highway 68 Area Plan including the 50-acre Monterey Peninsula Unified School District site.

Because this Alternative would not proceed with housing sites that would convert grazing land to non-agricultural use, the Alternative would not have similar agricultural resources impacts compared to those of the Proposed Plan. As such, agricultural resources impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would result in no impact related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, as opposed to the significant and unavoidable impact under the Proposed Plan.

Air Quality
Impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative related to air quality during construction would be similar to those of the Proposed Plan. Construction-related impacts would increase because the overall amount of development proposed would be increased. However, operational air quality impacts would be substantially reduced because of increased walkability and reduced automobile commutes with a 1:1 jobs-housing ratio. As with the Proposed Plan, it is likely that the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would implement policies or programs that would support or complement pollutant control measures and 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) programs.

However, even with these mitigation measures, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s projectlevel thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment of PM10 in the NCCAB.

Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to remain significant and unavoidable, but roughly equivalent to that of the Proposed Plan.

Biological Resources
Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed with more housing units as envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with exception of the 50- acre MPUSD site. Because the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would still allow development within Monterey, including construction and demolition, the Alternative would have similar biological resources impacts compared to those of the Proposed Plan, but reduced impacts near the 50-acre MPUSD site and Highway 68 area. However, since development is concentrated at greater densities within the city and at Fort Ord, impacts on special-status species that may reside ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 593, Packet Page 921 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-17
near the Highway 68 area would be less than that of the Proposed Plan. As such, biological resource impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to special-status species and wildlife movement and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative biological resources impacts. Therefore, applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.4 of the EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce biological resources impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative.

Cultural, Tribal, and Historic Resources
Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed with more housing units as envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with exception of the 50- acre MPUSD site. Excavation, grading, or demolition activities in the Planning Plan would still occur within previously developed areas of the Planning Area. Equivalent to the Proposed Plan, all housing development in the Planning Area would be required to comply with all applicable local regulations, such as the City Code’s Historic Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 38, Article 15), as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. As such, cultural resource impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative cultural resources impacts. Therefore, applicable State and local regulations and mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.5 of this EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce cultural, tribal, and historic resources impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative.

Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change
Given the overall increased amount of development, it is likely that energy usage would be increased under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative compared to the Proposed Plan. However, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would promote a land use strategy that is higher density, which would result in greater energy efficiency overall for Planning Area residents and operations as compared to the Proposed Plan. Even so, overall impacts would be less than significant.

Compared to the Proposed Plan, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would have a greater degree of energy-related impacts.

Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed with more housing units as envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with exception of the 50- acre MPUSD site. Demolition and construction activities would still occur throughout the Planning Area. This Alternative would thus be expected to have a similar duration for construction activities, which would result in roughly equivalent or greater impacts from construction-related emissions.

Operation of land uses supported by the Alternative would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions similar to that of the Proposed Plan. However, given that development would be more concentrated within commercial corridors in this Alternative, per capita GHG emissions may be reduced due to more compact development patterns compared to the Proposed Plan. Applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.6 of the EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce construction-related and operational GHG emissions impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 594, Packet Page 922 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-18 City of Monterey
Overall, greenhouse gas impacts would be increased compared to the Proposed Plan with greater amounts of development. However, it is not possible to quantify the precise extent of reductions for the majority of the measures for a plan-level analysis. Even so, given that the alternative would result in an evenly balanced 1:1 jobs housing ratio, which would reduce the need for many employed in Monterey to commute long distances by car to work each day, GHG emissions from mobile sources would be reduced. However, since it is conservatively assumed that the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable employment VMT impact, it is also assumed that GHG emissions from mobile sources would still conflict with goals of SB 743 and it would have a significant and unavoidable impact, albeit one with reduced severity compared with the Proposed Plan.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed with more lower income housing units throughout Monterey than envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with exception of the 50-acre MPUSD site. Excavation, grading, or demolition activities in the Planning Area would still occur at sites identified for development. Since the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would still allow development in a similar land use pattern and just at higher intensities than the Proposed Plan, the Alternative would have similar impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources compared with the Proposed Plan.

As such, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would result in less than significant projectlevel impacts and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts with implementation of existing State and local regulations. Applicable mitigation measures presented in Chapter 3.7 of this EIR would be implemented as necessary to reduce impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity under the Increase Workforce Housing Alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Plan because construction would occur at the Fort Ord opportunity area, which is in proximity to remediation sites. However, construction impacts under the Alternative would have similar risks, associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials, and would be subject to the same site remediation requirements as the Proposed Plan. As with the Proposed Plan, the construction and operation of housing generally does not involve the release -- accidental or otherwise -- of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public. Further, existing regulatory programs associated with handling hazardous materials during construction and operation of the site would decrease potential impacts. Therefore, compliance with the appropriate State and federal regulations on transportation and disposal of hazardous materials would lead to a less than significant impact, with impacts similar to the Proposed Plan. Impacts related to the hazard of wildfire are addressed in the Wildfire section below.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar impacts on hydrology, drainage, and water quality would result from the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative compared with the Proposed Plan because excavation, grading, and demolition would still be required for demolition of existing buildings and new construction ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 595, Packet Page 923 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-19
at the sites. Therefore, the potential impacts under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative on hydrology, drainage, and water quality would be similar compared to those of the Proposed Plan. With implementation of existing State and local regulations, project-level and cumulative impacts related to hydrology, drainage, and water quality under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would be less than significant and roughly equivalent impacts under the Proposed Plan.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, development in the Planning Area would proceed as envisioned under the Proposed Plan, with the addition of the development of more housing units throughout the Planning Area. As noted above, the Increased Workforce Housing alternative would fulfill the City’s RHNA obligations of accommodating their share of income categories.The Increased Workforce Housing Alternative’s vision for the Planning Area is consistent with the regional goals for transit-oriented development identified in Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045, the integrated land use/transportation plan for the three-county Monterey Bay region. Further, all future residential development occurring within the Planning Area under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would be required to be evaluated in accordance with local regulations, including the General Plan and City Code.

Neither the Proposed Plan nor the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would introduce physical barriers that would divide an established community. The Proposed Plan and the Alternative would not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Implementation of the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would facilitate residential and mixed-use development primarily consisting of infill development on underutilized sites within the city limit; it would result in no impact with respect to physically dividing an existing community. Because development of the same character would still occur in the Planning Area, at a slightly higher density, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would have a similar impact related to physical barriers, which would result in less than significant project-level impacts. The Alternative would have similar cumulative impacts with implementation of existing State regulations, as well as adherence to local policies.

Noise and Vibration
Buildout of the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would result in more development of housing units as the Proposed Plan, except for the housing development at the 50-acre MPUSD.

Therefore, increased short-term construction and associated construction noise and vibration would result, meaning slightly increased impacts would occur under this Alternative as compared to the Proposed Plan. This Alternative would include all City of Monterey General Plan policies and City Code regulations to implement construction noise control measures, as well as mitigation measures proposed in Chapter 3.11 of this EIR. Overall, noise and vibration impacts under this Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of applicable local regulations and mitigation and slightly increased as compared to the Proposed Plan.

Public Services and Recreation
Buildout of the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would accommodate more residents and housing units compared to the Proposed Plan. Therefore, this Alternative would generate ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 596, Packet Page 924 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-20 City of Monterey
substantially more demand for fire, police, school, and library services compared to the Proposed Plan. However, given the increase in development, a new public safety facility and fire station would still be needed under the Alternative, and impacts would still be similar to the Proposed Plan and less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative could result in the construction of new neighborhood parks; however, the General Plan and City Code have various goals and policies to ensure adequate park and recreational space is provided throughout the City. The City Code requires developers to dedicate parkland which would help ensure that population growth associated with the Proposed Plan would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities. As such, impacts related to parks may be slightly increased compared to the Proposed Plan given the higher population under this Alternative, but impacts would still be less than significant.

Transportation
The Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would substantially increase the supply of housing within the Planning Area, catering in particular to the needs of the local workforce. It would result in an evenly balanced 1:1 jobs housing ratio, which would reduce the need for many employed in Monterey to commute long distances by car to work each day. Additionally, by locating housing in and adjacent to major employment centers within Monterey, including the downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, and Garden Road opportunity areas as well as the Ryan Ranch Business Park, this Alternative would likely result in reduced internal trip length and volume. A qualitative assessment of this Alternative conducted by transportation engineers Kimley-Horn and Associates estimates that this Alternative would result in a less than significant per capita VMT impact as with the Proposed Plan, and an improved employment VMT result. Given that the assessment was qualitative and VMT modeling was not performed for the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, a conclusive finding for employment VMT cannot be made. Therefore, conservatively it is assumed that the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable employment VMT impact, albeit one with reduced severity as compared to the Proposed Plan. Under the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative, the impact on consistency with circulation system plans would remain less than significant, similar to the Proposed Plan, with adherence to existing regulations and codes. Similarly, the impacts on transportation hazards and emergency access would remain less than significant because the Planning Area would continue to be consistent with applicable codes.

Utilities
As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, there could be sufficient water in the Cal-Am supplies if planned new sources come online. However, it cannot be said with certainty that these new sources will be operational in the future as envisioned; thus, impacts on water supply under the Proposed Plan would be significant and unavoidable. However, there would be sufficient wastewater treatment, power and telecommunications, and solid waste disposal capacity to serve development under the Proposed Plan in 2031. Because the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would involve more development than the Proposed Plan, it would further exacerbate pressure on Cal-AM and MCWD water supplies and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under this Alternative, though there would be sufficient wastewater treatment, power and telecommunication, and solid waste disposal capacity for development pursuant to this Alternative. Further, subsequent developments would still be required to comply with applicable ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 597, Packet Page 925 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-21
State and local regulations as well as related General Plan policies, which require water conservation policies and programs to cut water demand. Therefore, overall, this Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to utilities and services systems and would have a substantially increased impact as compared to the Proposed Plan, given the greater amount of development and associated total water demand involved.

Wildfire
In comparison with the Proposed Plan, the Increased Workforce Housing has more housing units than the Proposed Plan, only with no units within the 50-acre MPUSD site and overall increased housing throughout the city. The MPUSD site is located adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), and as such wildfire risks would be reduced with no development at this site under this Alternative. However, evacuation impacts may increase with increased development under this Alternative. As with the Proposed Plan, the development under this Alternative would be required to adhere to State and local plans and regulations, including the City’s Safety Element policies, which would require developments to be built to a higher standard of fire protection.

Compliance with these policies will ensure that development in the Planning Area is resilient to the risk of a wildfire under the Alternative. However, as with the Proposed Plan, Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase evacuation capacity at constrained locations. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether evacuation impacts will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable for the Alternative, and impacts would be roughly equivalent to the Proposed Plan.

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

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

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

The No Project Alternative reduces the greatest number of environmental impacts. Since the CEQA guidelines require another environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 598, Packet Page 926 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-22 City of Monterey
Alternative to be identified, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. This is because it avoids the Proposed Plan’s significant and unavoidable impact pertaining to agricultural resources and reduces the severity of significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. However, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would not meet all the project objectives. While it would support most of the project objectives, including those related to housing production, fair housing access, and addressing the needs of disadvantaged segments of the population, it would not support local economic vitality to the same extent as the Proposed Plan. The Relocated Housing Growth Alternative also has nominally reduced the number of impacts compared to the Proposed Plan, although it would have a worse impact on an already significant and unavoidable impact on water supply. This Alternative also would not meet the City’s RHNA obligations of accommodating their share of Very Low and Low (VL/L) Income housing units.

Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts for Alternatives
Level of Significance
Impact Proposed Plan No Project
Alternative
Relocated
Housing Growth
Alternative
Increased
Workforce
Housing
Alternative

3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.1-1 Scenic Vistas LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.1-2 State Scenic Highways LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, -

3.1-3 Public Views LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, -

3.1-4 Light and Glare LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, -

3.2 Agricultural Resources

3.2-1 Convert Farmland (FMMP) NI NI, = NI, = NI, =

3.2-2 Williamson Act NI NI, = NI, = NI, =

3.2-3 Farmland Conversion SU NI, - SU, = NI, -

3.3 Air Quality

3.3-1 Air Quality Plan SU SU, - SU, - SU, =

3.3-2 Increase in Criteria Pollutant SU SU, - SU, - SU, =

3.3-3 Sensitive Receptors SU SU - SU - SU =

3.3-4 Odors LTS LTS, = LTS, = LTS, =

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4-1 Special-Status Species LTSM LTSM, - LTSM, - LTSM, =

3.4-2 Sensitive Habitat LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.4-3 Wetlands LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.4-4 Wildlife Corridors LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.4-5 Policies and Ordinances LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.4-6 HCPs LTS NI, - NI, - LTS, =

3.5 Cultural, Tribal, and Historic Resources
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 599, Packet Page 927 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-23
Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts for Alternatives
Level of Significance
Impact Proposed Plan No Project
Alternative
Relocated
Housing Growth
Alternative
Increased
Workforce
Housing
Alternative

3.5-1 Historic Resources LTSM LTSM, = LTSM, = LTSM, =

3.5-2 Archaeological Resources LTSM LTSM, = LTSM, = LTSM, =

3.5-3 Human Remains LTSM LTSM, = LTSM, = LTSM, =

3.5-4 Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM LTSM, = LTSM, = LTSM, =

3.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change

3.6-1 Generate GHG Emissions SU SU, - SU, = SU, +

3.6-2 Conflict with an Applicable Plan,
Policy, or Regulation
SU SU, - SU, = SU, -

3.6-3 Wasteful, Inefficient, and
Unnecessary Energy
LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, +

3.6-4 Conflict with Renewable Energy
or Energy Efficiency
LTS LTS, = LTS, = LTS, =

3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

3.7-1 Seismic Hazards LTS LTS, = LTS, = LTS, =

3.7-2 Soil Erosion LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.7-3 Unstable Soils / Expansive Soils LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.7-4 Expansive Soils LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.7-5 Septic Systems LTS LTS, = LTS, = LTS, =

3.7-6 Paleontological Resources LTSM LTSM, = LTSM, = LTSM, =

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.8-1 Transport, Use, or Disposal of
Hazardous Materials
LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.8-2 Release of Hazardous Materials LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS

3.8-3 Hazardous Waste near School LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS

3.8-4 Hazardous Materials Site LTSM LTS, - LTS, - LTSM, =

3.8-5 Airport LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, =

3.8-6 Emergency and Evacuation LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, =

3.8-7 Wildfire LTSM LTS LTSM LTSM, =

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.9-1 Water Quality Standards LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.9-2 Groundwater Supplies LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.9-3 Drainage Pattern LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.9-4 Flood, Tsunami, Seiche Hazard LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, = ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 600, Packet Page 928 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
4-24 City of Monterey
Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts for Alternatives
Level of Significance
Impact Proposed Plan No Project
Alternative
Relocated
Housing Growth
Alternative
Increased
Workforce
Housing
Alternative

3.9-5 Water Quality Control Plan LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing

3.10-1 Divide Community NI NI, = NI, = NI, =

3.10-2 Conflict with Any Land Use
Plan
NI NI, = NI, = NI, =

3.10-3 Growth Inducement LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, +

3.10-4 Displacement LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, +

3.11 Noise and Vibration

3.11-1 Noise Standards LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, +

3.11-2 Vibration LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, +

3.11-3 Airports LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, +

3.12 Public Services and Recreation

3.12-1 Fire, Police, Schools, Parks, or
Other Public Facilities
LTSM LTS, - LTSM, = LTSM, +

3.12-2 Use of Neighborhood,
Regional or Recreational Facilities
LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.12-3 Construction or Expansion LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.13 Transportation

3.13-1 Circulation System Plan LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.13-2 VMT SU SU, - SU, = SU, -

3.13-3 Traffic Hazards LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.13-4 Emergency Access LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, =

3.14 Utilities and Service Systems

3.14-1 Relocation or Expansion of
Utilities
SU SU, - SU, - SU, +

3.14-2 Water Supply SU SU, - SU, - SU, +

3.14-3 Wastewater Treatment LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, +

3.14-4 Solid Waste Reduction Goals LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, +

3.14-5 Conflict with Solid Waste
Regulations
LTS LTS, - LTS, - LTS, +

3.15 Wildfire

3.15-1 Emergency
Response/Evacuation
SU LTS, - SU, = SU, -

3.15-2 Wildfire Risks LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, -
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 601, Packet Page 929 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
City of Monterey 4-25
Table 4-2: Summary of Impacts for Alternatives
Level of Significance
Impact Proposed Plan No Project
Alternative
Relocated
Housing Growth
Alternative
Increased
Workforce
Housing
Alternative

3.15-3 Infrastructure LTSM LTS, - LTSM, = LTSM, -

3.15-4 Flooding or Landslides LTS LTS, - LTS, = LTS, -
Notes:

NI = No Impact
LTS = Less than Significant
LTSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
+/-/= = Impact of the alternative is greater than, less than, or similar to the impact of the Proposed Plan ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 602, Packet Page 930 City of Monterey 5-1
5 CEQA Required Conclusions
This section presents a summary of the impacts of the Proposed Plan in several subject areas specifically required by CEQA, including growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes. These findings are based, in part, on the analysis provided in Chapter 3: Environmental Settings and Impacts.

5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR “discuss the ways in which the Proposed Plan could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e)). This analysis must also consider the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as improvements in the regional transportation system.

Growth-inducing impacts, such as those associated with job increases that might affect housing and retail demand in surrounding jurisdictions over an extended time period, are difficult to assess with precision, since future economic and population trends may be influenced by unforeseeable events such as business development cycles and natural disasters. Moreover, long-term changes in economic and population growth are often regional in scope; they are not influenced solely by changes or policies related to a single city or development project, particularly in an urbanized region such as the Monterey Bay Area. Business trends are influenced by economic conditions throughout the state and country, as well as around the world.

Another consideration is that the creation of growth-inducing potential does not automatically lead to growth. Growth occurs through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sector. These investment patterns reflect, in turn, the desires of investors to mobilize and allocate their resources to development in particular localities and regions. These factors, combined with the regulatory authority of local governments, mediate the growth-inducing potential or pressure created by a Proposed Plan. Despite these limitations on the analysis, it is still possible to qualitatively assess the general potential growth-inducing impacts of the Proposed Plan.

PROJECTED GROWTH
The Proposed Plan is a targeted update to the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan intended to respond to emerging issues and new State laws and guide development and conservation within the Planning Area through 2031. The Plan would largely not involve extending infrastructure, utilities or public services outside of the City limits; on the contrary, it would concentrate new residential and employment development primarily into key opportunity areas of the city, including downtown, the Lighthouse area, Pacific/Munras/Cass, ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 603, Packet Page 931 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-2 City of Monterey
Del Monte Avenue, Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68, and Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord. Most of these areas are already served by existing infrastructure, apart from Highway 68 sites and Fort Ord which would consist of greenfield and brownfield development. Outside of these areas, the existing land use pattern would be preserved, with some infill development anticipated on vacant sites in residential neighborhoods.

Population
The current population within the city is estimated to be 26,845. With the Proposed Plan, the city would accommodate a total population of approximately 36,949 people, representing a 38 percent increase from the existing population. This represents an average annual growth rate of 4.7 percent over eight years in the Planning Area, along with an increase in the number of housing units and jobs by 5,787 units and 1,991 jobs, respectively.

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

Although the population within the Planning Area is projected to increase substantially, the Proposed Plan is largely consistent with the overarching regional growth goals identified by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the planning period. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, AMBAG’s Moving Forward Monterey Bay 2045 promotes compact mixed-use infill development within walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that are close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities. To ensure consistency, the Proposed Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally.

It also incorporates "complete streets" strategies and seeks to promote safety and security along transit access routes. Additionally, the Proposed Plan would support the performance outcomes identified in the MTP/SCS, in that it would improve per capita VMT, increase the percentage of the population in proximity to transit, and promote active transportation (See Section 3.10: Land Use, Population, and Housing Table 3.10-4).

The Proposed Plan is also consistent with the General Plan’s sustainable growth goals. The proposed Land Use Element builds on the key themes of the 2005 General Plan with a policy framework and land use classifications that seek to establish a compact, sustainable land use and development pattern and to create and nurture a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods in Monterey. A new Mixed Use Neighborhood classification which would apply to locations identified in the existing General Plan to accommodate high density infill housing, including the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan Areas, as well as in Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area. In addition, while the Highway 68 sites would introduce ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 604, Packet Page 932 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-3
greenfield development in the Planning Area, the Highway 68 Area Plan Update would facilitate development of mixed income housing, access and infrastructure improvements, and neighborhood services and amenities on the site. Portions of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) Site would be identified for low-medium density housing, high density housing, and open space preservation. The Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan would also foster the creation of a mixed-use village on a portion of the site to provide housing, jobs, schools, shops, services and recreation for future residents while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat. By guiding the majority of the City’s growth and development within the Planning Area, infill and clustered development would be prioritized, and public space areas would be preserved and enhanced; by nature, the Project would therefore reduce potential for uncontrolled growth and associated impacts.

Increase in Regional Housing Demand
In the urbanized context of the Monterey Bay Area, housing and employment demand are somewhat fluid across municipalities. As the employment base in the Monterey Bay Area continues to increase, more people may be drawn to live in Monterey even if they work in other nearby cities, or vice versa. As a result, housing demand may continue to increase in Monterey and within the Planning Area. AMBAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) attempts to balance regional housing demand across Monterey County cities, and all municipalities are required to provide a “fair share” of housing. According to the Final 2023–2031 RHNA, AMBAG has determined that Monterey’s fair share of regional housing need for the 2023 to 2031 period would be 3,654 units. To ensure that housing is available to meet the needs of future residents under the Proposed Plan, the Proposed Plan involves updating its Housing Element to accommodate its assessed share of the regional housing need and provide policies and programs to facilitate construction and address other local housing needs.

Jobs/Housing Ratio
A desirable city-wide jobs-to-housing ratio is often defined as a ratio greater than 1.0 but less than

1.5. Because most households have more than one wage earner, ratios below 1.0 suggest that residents are required to commute to jobs outside of their area of residence, and ratios greater than

1.5 suggest that employers are not able to house their workers within the jurisdiction, requiring workers to commute into the area. Theoretically, a balanced jobs-to-housing ratio would reduce the need for people to commute in or out of the city for work. In reality, the match of education, skills, and interests is not always accommodated within the boundaries of one community, and regional interdependencies almost always result in at least some inter-city commuting. A city cannot dictate the residential location of future employees who may work in the Planning Area.

Further, a city’s center would be expected to have a somewhat higher jobs-to-housing ratio than the city as a whole.

Based on the estimated buildout of the Proposed Plan, the jobs-to-housing balance in the Planning Area in 2031 would shift from 1.60 in 2023 to 1.24 in 2031, as shown in Table 5-1. Given that the job-to-housing ratio is projected to be 1.24 for Monterey in 2031 under the Proposed Plan buildout, and that concentrating employment uses near opportunity areas with planned housing growth is consistent with regional and statewide land use and sustainability goals, the estimated jobs-toATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 605, Packet Page 933 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-4 City of Monterey
housing ratio in the Planning Area in 2031 would not be expected to induce substantial new unplanned residential growth in areas surrounding the Planning Area.

Public Facilities and Services
Public services for the Planning Area, including police, fire protection, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation, are currently provided by the Monterey Police Department (MPD), Monterey Fire Department (MFD), Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), Monterey Public Library, and the City of Monterey Parks and Recreation Department, respectively. Development under the Proposed Plan would be in compliance with all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. Based on projected growth, the need for a new public safety facility is projected, which would include MPD, the Monterey Fire Department Administrative Facility, Monterey Fire Station 11, an Emergency Operations Center, an additional resource building, and parking for the co-located buildings. In addition, the Library Board endorsed a 31,000-square-foot renovation and expansion of the Monterey Public Library at its current location, which would help to address the demand for library services generated by the Plan.1
Under the Proposed Plan, MPUSD anticipates that there would be a need for new/expanded school facilities in the district. However, development under the Proposed Plan would also be required to comply with SB 50, which mandates statutory school facilities fees for residential developments.

Compliance with SB 50 would financially offset impacts on MPUSD capacity and would provide funding for potential future school facility development needs associated with the Proposed Planrelated population increase. As future buildout occurs under the Proposed Plan, the City will evaluate operations and deployment of services to efficiently use resources, ensure sufficient staffing to serve all new development and associated population growth in the Planning Area, and monitor the need for new facilities or additional equipment needed to provide adequate public services to future and existing residents.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT GROWTH
As described above, the Proposed Plan facilitates growth in the Planning Area, and this direct growth is analyzed throughout this EIR. Impacts from direct growth on infrastructure such as public services and utilities, the transportation system, and natural resources are identified, based on the buildout of the Proposed Plan. Some of the identified effects of growth are significant and unavoidable. In general, future development under the Proposed Plan would be subject to additional site-specific environmental review under CEQA, with tiering and streamlining opportunities as provided for under State law.

Indirect growth can result from the construction of infrastructure, such as the extension of utilities or the construction of new roadways connecting urban centers to greenfield areas. In such cases, this extension of infrastructure to serve one property can facilitate the subsequent development of other intervening properties, effectively inducing additional growth indirectly. However, any greenfield or brownfield development envisioned at the Highway 68 sites and Fort Ord would still 1 City of Monterey. 2020. Monterey Public Library Feasibility Study. Available:
https://monterey.org/MPLibrary/Documents/Get%20Involved/Library%20Facility%20Feasibility%20Study.pdf.

Accessed: August 30, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 606, Packet Page 934 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-5
be located within the City limits and prioritize clustered and mixed-use development. Given the location of the Planning Area within an urbanized portion of the Monterey Bay Area, the potential for this type of indirect growth does not exist. Further, while the availability of new jobs around the city may invite more people to move to Monterey or adjacent jurisdictions, the increase of jobs in the city could reduce the need for residents to commute farther for work and encourage more people to take transit instead of driving alone, consistent with overarching regional and State objectives for sustainable development and reduction of GHG emissions and VMT.

5.2 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA requires that an EIR examine cumulative impacts. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), a cumulative impact “consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” Furthermore, the analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself butshall “reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)).

In order to assess cumulative impacts, an EIR must analyze either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. Because it is a long-range, programmatic plan for an entire city and surrounding area, the Proposed Plan represents the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the Planning Area, and this analysis uses the summary projections of the Proposed Plan. This future scenario incorporates the likely effects of surrounding regional growth.

Several analyses presented in Chapter 3: Environmental Settings and Impacts represent cumulative analyses of issues through the Proposed Plan horizon year of 2040 because they combine the anticipated effects of the Proposed Plan with anticipated effects of regional growth and development. By their nature, the air quality, transportation, noise, energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change analyses presented in Chapter 3 represent a cumulative analysis, because the effects specific to the Proposed Plan cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region as well. The cumulative conclusions are summarized there, and where applicable, significant unavoidable impacts are listed in Section 5.3, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Other cumulative impacts are identified below.

AESTHETICS
The cumulative geographic context for aesthetics is the Planning Area as well as view corridors, view sheds, or scenic resources in the immediate vicinity and visible from the Planning Area.

The scenic resources in the Planning Area and immediate vicinity are the views of the coastline and the central ridge of wooded hills that define the local scenic environment. A significant cumulative impact would result if development facilitated in and adjacent to the Planning Area in combination with other development in the vicinity blocked these views. The 2005 General Plan Urban Design ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 607, Packet Page 935 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-6 City of Monterey
Element includes numerous policies intended to preserve and enhance scenic resources within the Planning Area. Moreover, there are policies and standards found in various specific plans, the local coastal plan, and neighborhood plans designed to preserve scenic vistas from potential development in the Planning Area. Therefore, foreseeable development in these areas is not likely to result in structures tall enough to block scenic views and vistas. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused into the previously developed areas, although the 50- acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Monterey County's Sixth Cycle Housing Element identifies the capacity for 1,324 new homes on four sites immediately south of the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary and southeast of the 50-acre MPUSD site in unincorporated Monterey County. These County sites are physically removed from potential development sites within the Planning Area, and implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 1-E would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context sensitive manner.

Therefore, in combination with 2005 Urban Design Element policies implementation of Program 1-E would not substantially degrade scenic vistas along Highway 68 and associated impacts would be less than significant. Overall, with implementation of General Plan policies and existing City regulations substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources in and around the Planning Area would be minimized to the extent practicable and associated impacts would be less than significant.

As described above, Highway 1 is a State-designated Scenic Highway from Marina State Beach to Carmel and Point Lobos Nature Reserve, and a segment of Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive is an eligible State scenic highway. The Proposed Plan would allow development adjacent to these segments as they pass through the Planning Area, and a significant impact would result if scenic resources within the segments would be substantially damaged. The General Plan establishes a framework of policies to preserve and protect scenic resources along these highway segments. Goal h of the Urban Design Element requires the protection and enhancement of scenic entrances within the city. Additionally, the City Code establishes standards and procedures that would guide development within the designated and eligible highway segments, including Chapter 31 which establishes standards to control the size, type and location of signs, and Chapter 37, which establishes standards and procedures for the preservation of trees which contribute to the natural scenic beauty and character of the Planning Area. Compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would minimize the potential for cumulative impacts to scenic resources with State-designated and eligible Scenic Highways. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the Proposed Plan in combination with other development in the vicinity would introduce new sources of light within the cumulative geographic context, including light spillover from buildings, outdoor security lights, lighted signs, streetlights, and vehicle headlights, in addition to glare produced by reflective surfaces and unshielded equipment. A significant impact would occur if these new sources of light had an adverse impact on day and nighttime views in the area. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in significant new development in the Highway 68 Plan Area and the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area, which contain large undeveloped areas under existing conditions, thereby increasing light and glare in and around these locations. Other development pursuant to the Proposed Plan would generally be in areas with urban development where sources of light and glare exist already. General Plan Policy f.9 would apply to all development associated with implementation of the Proposed Plan This policy seeks to discourage high levels of ambient light and maintain night skies where stars can be seen. Projects ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 608, Packet Page 936 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-7
are reviewed for consistency with this policy if the project requires Architectural Review.

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

5.106.8 Light pollution reduction). Compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would ensure that cumulative impacts associated with increased light and glare would be less than significant.

Development under the Proposed Plan would be consistent with applicable policies and standards for new development as well as regulations governing scenic quality in the urbanized area, including the City Code and General Plan. Impacts from the Proposed Plan, in conjunction with other plans and projects in the region, that could conflict with existing zoning or other regulations which govern scenic quality are not cumulative in nature.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The cumulative geographic context for agriculture is the Planning Area. While the Planning Area contains historical grazing land, it does not include any prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or Williamson Act contracts. As a result, there would be no significant cumulative impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, Williamson Act contracts, or conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. However, there is a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. Within this area classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land, the Highway 68 Area Plan identifies a 50-acre site as a potential location for housing development. While the development of housing on the 50-acre site would be consistent with the Highway 68 Area Plan and while there are no active agricultural activities on the site today, this would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which would represent a permanent loss of such land. As such, the Proposed Plan’s contribution to cumulative agricultural resources impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

AIR QUALITY
As described in the Significance Criteria in Section 3.3, 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 emitting 137 or more of ROG or NOx). In addition, the Proposed Plan should be consistent with AMBAG’s regional projections.

The primary purpose of the AQMP is to achieve attainment status for ozone for the NCCAB. The Proposed Plan’s land use framework and transportation strategies would support regional attainment of the ozone CAAQS and NAAQS through policies that would lessen mobile-source ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 609, Packet Page 937 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-8 City of Monterey
emissions by reducing VMT, encouraging transit, enhancing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and supporting sustainable land use patterns with increased density and mixed-use development.

Therefore, 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. Consequently, this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Development under the Proposed Plan would include area-wide sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and may also result in the installation or operation of new stationary sources of TACs (e.g., emergency generators). Additionally, traffic congestion is projected to increase as indicated by increased volume to capacity rations seen in VMT modeling for the Proposed Plan (as discussed in Section 3.13: Transportation) and could therefore exacerbate existing cumulative health risks.

Both new and existing sensitive receptors near these stationary sources and roadways may therefore be exposed to substantial levels of criteria air pollutants or CO hot spots in addition to significant health risks from TACs. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to BACT requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant. However, they may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PM concentrations, especially given the existing nonattainment status for PM10 and the expected increase in PM emissions due to the Proposed Plan. As such, these impacts are conservatively assumed to be considerable.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Development associated with the Proposed Plan through the horizon year of 2031 could contribute to the loss of natural lands in the Planning Area, with potential effects on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands, wildlife and fish movement corridors, and invasive species. The extent of existing development and human activity within urbanized portions of the Planning Area limits the potential for special-status 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. Thus, future development within the Planning Area has the potential to have significant impacts on biological resources. In particular, there are several specialstatus species known to occur throughout the Planning Area that could be impacted by housing development. Impacts would be further reduced through Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would require site assessments by a qualified professional for development applications that may adversely affect sensitive biological resources. 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. Further, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 through BIO-12 outline additional construction requirements to ensure the protection of special-status plant and animal species.

Development in the Planning Area would also be required to adhere to the existing Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Chapter 37). The ordinance is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable. Compliance with the City’s tree ordinance ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 610, Packet Page 938 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-9
would help ensure that the impacts of the Proposed Plan on any local policies protecting biological resources would also be less than significant. Additionally, development resulting from the Proposed Plan, as well as future development projects that could occur within the Planning Area or in the vicinity of the Planning Area, would be subject to the requirements of biological resource protection laws, including FESA, CESA, MBTA, and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as protection policies and provisions in the City’s General Plan and City Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Proposed Plan’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

CULTURAL, TRIBAL, AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The cumulative geographic context for cultural, historic, and tribal cultural resources is the City of Monterey. If the Proposed Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Monterey, would result in the loss of or adverse changes to multiple historic or cultural resources a significant cumulative impact could result. However, as described in Section

3.5 of this Draft EIR, the City of Monterey General Plan and the City Code provide a framework for the preservation of cultural and historic resources. At the time development or redevelopment projects are proposed, any project-level CEQA document would need to identify potential impacts on known or potential historic sites and structures. Such project-level review in combination with the Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires that all proposed development within the Planning Area undergo additional investigation to determine the project-level impact on the built environment’s historical resources, would ensure that the Proposed Plan’s incremental contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

There are known prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the City of Monterey. The Planning Area has a high potential for encountering deposits associated with known resources or as-yet undocumented resources. Anticipated development projects under the Proposed Plan may involve grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities, which could have a cumulative impact on unknown archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that developers in the Planning Area receive cultural resources awareness training and halt work if cultural resources are encountered. Further, any adverse effects to archaeological resources shall be mitigated as specified by PRC Section 21083.2 Thus, compliance with mitigation measures and General Plan policies, as well as applicable local, State, and federal laws, would ensure that the Proposed Plan’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

All development projects allowed under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with State laws pertaining to the discovery of human remains and disposition of Native American burials; therefore, the Proposed Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to human burials. There are known Native American tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area, and development projects allowed under the Proposed Plan may result in the identification of unrecorded tribal cultural resources given the historic occupation of the area. Future projects that would not otherwise qualify for an exemption under CEQA would be required to comply with the provisions of AB 52 to incorporate tribal consultation into the CEQA process. Therefore, the Proposed Plan’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 611, Packet Page 939 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-10 City of Monterey

ENERGY AND GHG EMISSIONS
Construction and operation of the Proposed Plan would result in the consumption of energy resources. However, as discussed in Section 3.6 under Impact 3.6-3, implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in direct and indirect energy conservation, such as encouraging green building techniques, water conservation, and waste reduction, would promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Furthermore, the Proposed Plan contains a land-use strategy that actively promotes infill mixed-use development where appropriate, which would result in greater energy efficiency overall for Planning Area residents and operations. In addition, 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 Title 24 standards and CALGreen requirements. As discussed in Impact 3.6-4, the Proposed Plan would thus support and reflect the increasingly stringent State and local goals and regulations that seek to increase energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and prioritize renewable energy – reinforcing that the Proposed Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

By their nature, the greenhouse gas emissions impacts analyzed in Chapter 3 represent a cumulative analysis because the effects specific to the Proposed Plan cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region as well. Please see Section 3.6, Impact Analysis, for a discussion of cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions. Even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
The cumulative geographic context for geology and soils consists of development sites within the Planning Area and nearby properties in the immediate vicinity. Although regional geographies can be similar, in general, geology and soils impacts do not typically combine such that a larger geographic context would be involved. Depending on subsurface conditions, slopes, and other factors, each cumulative project would require different levels of grading, cut-and-fill, and excavation. In addition, each cumulative project would be required to comply with the General Plan, City Code, Proposed Plan, and California Building Standards Code requirements. The standards presented in these documents require that a site-specific geotechnical investigation be prepared which would include design recommendations to reduce each cumulative project’s impacts. Similar seismic safety standards would apply to the cumulative projects. For these reasons, project building under the Proposed Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on geology and soils.

Therefore, no significant cumulative impact exists in the geographic context for geology, soils, and seismicity.

All significant paleontological resources are unique and nonrenewable resources. Unlike archaeological resources, which are site-specific, paleontological resources can occur throughout a sensitive geologic unit, regardless of location. Therefore, the geographic context for paleontological resources encompasses the complete extent of geologic units with high or undetermined paleontological sensitivity that underlie the Planning Area. As noted in Section 3.7, there are some ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 612, Packet Page 940 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-11
geologic units in the Planning Area considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. This future development, in combination with other foreseeable developments in the identified geographic context, has the potential to encounter and damage or destroy previously unknown paleontological resources during both construction and operation. However, Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of paleontological resources. In addition, mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 require worker awareness training and to halt construction activity in case of finding paleontological resources. Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Plan to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The cumulative geographic context for hazards and hazardous materials consists of sites within the Planning Area and nearby properties in the immediate vicinity. In general, only projects occurring in the immediate vicinity to the Planning Area are considered due to the limited potential impact area associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Similar to sites within the Planning Area, reasonably foreseeable projects in the Proposed Plan’s surroundings could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites. However, the handling and transportation of hazardous materials by all projects (including projects within the Planning Area) would be regulated under federal, State and local authority and no significant cumulative impact would occur. Furthermore, hazardous waste generated during construction of any project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with regulations such as the ones described under the Regulatory Setting. In addition, impacted sites under development would undergo remediation under oversight of applicable state and local agencies, effectively reducing the amount of contamination found in the cumulative project area. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For each of the reasonably foreseeable projects under consideration, various project-specific measures (such as the ones identified for the Proposed Plan) would be implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. For these reasons, the Proposed Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative hazards or hazardous materials impact.

HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY
The context for surface hydrology and water quality is the Central Coast Hydrologic Region. The context for groundwater hydrology is the three groundwater basins in Monterey County. Thus, overall, the cumulative geographic context for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is geographic and a function of whether impacts could affect surface water features/watersheds, the City’s storm drainage system, or groundwater resources, each of which has its own physical boundary. Future development in the geographic context for hydrology and water quality would be required to comply with regulations and policies including NPDES Construction General Permit adopted by the SWRCB; Central Coast RWQCB’s NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for MS4 discharges; Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; and local municipal codes. For these reasons, under the Proposed Plan, in combination with other past, present, and ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 613, Packet Page 941 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-12 City of Monterey
reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality.

Potential growth in the Monterey Bay watershed would likely not degrade water quality as the Proposed Plan primarily consists of development into key areas of the city. Outside of these areas, the existing land use pattern would be preserved, with some infill development anticipated on vacant sites in residential neighborhoods. General Plan policies would also ensure that development protects and restores riparian habitat and ensure natural channel processes in the watershed. All new developments are required to handle stormwater in a manner that ensures that flood flows will not increase or be redirected to other areas. Similar to the Proposed Plan, all future development in the geographic context for hydrology and water quality would be required to adhere to Monterey County General Plan policies and local municipal codes related to protecting water resources. Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Plan to the cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable.

LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING
The cumulative context for land use is the City of Monterey. The cumulative geographic context for population and housing is the Monterey Bay Area. Projects that could have the effect of physically dividing an established community—such as a major new road, highway, or similar infrastructure—tend to have a singular rather than cumulative impact. However, a significant impact could occur if new development in the Planning Area in combination with foreseeable development in the city would physically divide an established community. The Proposed Plan does not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier as described above and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would in fact improve connectivity in the Planning Area through implementation of proposed Circulation and Land Use Element policies that foster walkable, mixed-use areas and increased use of bicycle, transit, and active transportation. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Plan on the division of an existing community would be less than significant.

Impacts from plans and projects in the region that could conflict with existing plans, including the City’s adopted specific plans, are not cumulative in nature. The Proposed Plan is consistent with the General Plan’s and specific plan’s goals for the Planning Area and includes provisions to amend the City Code in order to ensure consistency. Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Plan to the cumulative impact on land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
The cumulative geographic context for noise and vibration is the Planning Area and the immediate vicinity. The noise analysis represents cumulative analyses of issues through the Proposed Plan because it combines the anticipated effects of the Proposed Plan with anticipated effects of growth and development within the City and the Monterey Bay region through 2031. By its nature, the noise analysis represents a cumulative analysis, because it accounts for the contribution that citywide and regional growth will make to the noise environment within the Planning Area through modeling that factors in road and construction traffic generated from projects throughout the wider region. Consequently, the impact significance conclusions discussed in Section 3.11 are representative of cumulative impacts.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 614, Packet Page 942 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-13
The Proposed Plan would result in both short-term and long-term changes to the existing noise environment in the Planning Area. Construction activities, including traffic, demolition, and reconstruction, would generate ambient and groundborne noise. However, there are a variety of policies, codes, and regulations in place to prevent substantially adverse impacts, particularly to sensitive land uses. The General Plan Noise Element and Section 38-112.2 of the City Code establish noise/land use compatibility standards as well as exterior noise standards. In addition, policies would limit the hours of noise generating construction activities as a condition of project approval.

All new construction would be required to comply with noise restrictions which regulate the time and intensity of construction in the City Code as well as requirements from the California Building Code and CalGreen Code.

Together, these policies, regulations, and noise level restrictions would ensure that cumulative adverse noise and vibration impacts associated with construction be attenuated to a less than significant impact. The Proposed Plan would result in no impact from airport noise, and therefore, its impact on noise and vibration would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The geographic context for all police and park services is the City of Monterey and the geographic context for fire services is the Monterey Fire Department (MFD) service area, which includes the City of Monterey, the U.S. Army Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center at the Presidio of Monterey, the Naval Support Activity Monterey Naval Postgraduate School and their housing located at La Mesa Village, as well as the cities of Sand City, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, and the Monterey Peninsula Airport. The geographic context for school services is the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) service area which includes the City of Marina, Sand City, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks, in addition to City of Monterey.

The Monterey Police Department (MPD) has not established service ratios or response time goals at this time. However, the increased local population generated by implementation of the Proposed Plan may increase the need for police services. However, MPD has existing plans in place to increase staffing over the next five to ten years from 53 to 60 officers and to acquire two additional patrol vehicles. In addition, MPD and MFD have plans to develop a new joint public safety facility, which would be sufficient to accommodate increased MPD staffing and equipment needed to accommodate the increase in calls for service anticipated with buildout of the Proposed Plan.

Therefore, no additional new or physically altered police facilities over and above those already planned would be required as a result of the Proposed Plan. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The increased local projected population would likely result in a subsequent increase in fire and emergency medical service calls to the service area compared to existing conditions. Despite a steady increase in calls for service since 2016, MFD does not have plans to increase staffing or equipment levels over the next eight years. Current staffing and equipment levels provide an adequate number of staffing for fires, medical, or rescue situations and would be sufficient to handle the potential increase in incidents in infill areas with buildout of the Proposed Plan.2 However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PF-1 is recommended which would reduce the potential 2 G. Panholzer, personal communication, July 26, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 615, Packet Page 943 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-14 City of Monterey
environmental impacts associated with construction of the new public safety facility to the maximum extent practicable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Public schools are provided by school districts to areas within their jurisdictions. While districts may have cross jurisdictional boundaries, school services are still provided at the local, rather than regional level. Project applicants for development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with SB 50, which mandates statutory school facilities fees for residential and commercial developments. Compliance with SB 50 would financially offset impacts on the MPUSD capacity and would provide funding for potential future school facility development needs associated with the projected population increase. However, the District stipulated that the construction of 5,800 new units would require MPUSD to expand existing facilities and potentially alter current lease agreements with private and/or charter schools in order to meet the projected increased enrollment.

Therefore, the MPUSD anticipates that there would be a need for new/expanded school facilities in the district. Even so, construction of new school facilities would be subject to separate project-level CEQA review at the time the design is proposed in order to identify and mitigate project-specific impacts as appropriate. Future facilities will be able to tier from this EIR to identify and mitigate site specific impacts if and when design of those facilities is complete. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Several agencies provide park and recreation services in the region, including counties, cities, and special districts. Given the extensive amount of parkland in Monterey, the service ratio far exceeds the maximum defined in State law3 and therefore no ratio requiring new parkland has been set.

Further, considering Monterey’s current level of service, quality, and type of facilities, as well as maintenance of a relatively stable population over time, the Parks Master Plan determined that the City does not have a need to develop more parks. The City of Monterey has existing plans for considerations of upgrading aging facilities, however, detailed design of the new park facilities has not yet been completed, so site specific impacts cannot be evaluated at this time. Even though the City has determined that it does not have a need to develop more parks to service the local population, new parks could possibly be added to the MPUSD 50-acre site and the Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord Specific Plan area. The environmental impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and GHG emissions during construction and operation of park facilities have been considered throughout this EIR. Detailed design of any potential facility expansion or construction has not yet been considered, so site specific impacts cannot be evaluated at this time. However, construction of new park facilities would be subject to separate project-level CEQA review at the time the design is proposed in order to identify and mitigate project-specific impacts as appropriate.

Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Plan to the cumulative impact on public services and recreation would not be cumulatively considerable.

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

Buildout of the Proposed Plan would result in increased development in the Planning Area and 3 Under the Proposed Plan, the City would still maintain a total park service ratio of 19 acres per 1,000 residents. Per the Quimby Act, the State defined minimum service ratio is five acres per 1,000 residents.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 616, Packet Page 944 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-15
would generate additional vehicle trips on the local and regional roadway network. The General Plan Circulation Element includes policies that seek to improve mode share and reduce the impact of new traffic on alternative transportation modes. Development under the Proposed Plan would be consistent with such policies and regulations by increasing housing opportunities in already developed areas which is an integral part of VMT reduction and encouraging transportation alternatives, such as walking and biking. However, as outlined in Section 3.13, employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact under the Proposed Plan and mitigation is required.

Although the implementation of Mitigation Measure VMT-1 can be expected to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area and reduce the magnitude of the impact, their effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this EIR conservatively assumes that these impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Future development anticipated by the Proposed Plan would generate additional demand for water and wastewater, stormwater, solid waste services, power, and telecommunications services. The cumulative effects on water quality and groundwater are discussed above in the Hydrology and Water Quality section; this evaluation focuses on impacts on the water supply and treatment and distribution systems. Water to the Planning Area is supplied by California American Water (Cal Am) and managed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). The MPWSP Ocean Desalination Plant is anticipated to provide a drought-proof supply. With the addition of these supplies, it is expected that supply will exceed demand during normal years through 2050. The new supply sources will help provide a secure and reliable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula and reduce the need for stringent demand reduction measures to close the gap between supply and demand. While a supply deficit is anticipated until new supplies are available, after new supplies are available, there will be adequate supply to serve projected demand (including projected demands for RHNA housing). Until the new supplies come online, Cal Am will use its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) measures to maintain demand below the available supply. Compliance with State regulations mandating water conservation measures discussed in Chapter 3.14 of this EIR, including the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Part 11, Title 24), the California Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations), Assembly Bill (AB) 1668, and Senate Bill (SB) 606 would reduce demand from new development to the extent practicable, and implementation of proposed Housing Element Program 2-J, through which the City will prioritize available water supply for affordable housing projects, and Program 2-K through which the City will continue to work with Cal Am and MPWMD to expand sources of supply will also help to minimize impacts associated with inadequate water supply. However, as it cannot be said with certainty that there will be adequate water supply to serve the cumulative projected need for the Cal Am service area including the Planning Area in 2031 even in the event of a multiple dry year scenario during the planning period, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from the implementation of the Proposed Plan in combination with other general plans and housing elements in the Cal Am service area and the contribution of the Proposed Plan would be cumulatively considerable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 617, Packet Page 945 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-16 City of Monterey
With regards to wastewater treatment and distribution, the Planning Area is served by Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant (RTP) which serves the following jurisdictions: Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, and Seaside; the Castroville Community Services District; Marina Coast Water District; Boronda County Sanitation District; and Monterey County.

As detailed in Section 3.14, the agency’s average daily dry weather flows have consistently been below the permitted dry weather treatment capacity. The Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant experiences an average daily flow of 18.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and has the capacity to treat and discharge 29.6 MGD. The estimated flow with buildout of the Proposed Plan in 2031 is

0.93 MGD, which represents 3.14 percent of the 29.6 MGD total available capacity. Therefore, the Regional Treatment Plant has adequate capacity to serve the 2031 population service area and the impact is not cumulatively considerable.

Storm drainage facilities within Monterey County are operated and maintained by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. The cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside maintain the urban runoff system and natural drainage courses for their respective jurisdictions. In the City of Monterey, stormwater drains flow directly to local creeks, estuaries, and to Monterey Bay without treatment. Future developments within the Planning Area must meet the requirements of the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP), City of Monterey NPDES Phase II permit with the California State Water Board, the City Code, and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements. With compliance to these regulations, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Solid waste from Monterey is primarily sorted at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill (MPL) and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in unincorporated Salinas, operated by ReGen Monterey and any waste not recycled or composted is disposed. ReGen Monterey also processes commercial and residential organics at the MPL and MRF. As demonstrated in Section 3.14, the Proposed Plan is estimated to result in a net increase in solid waste generation of approximately 82,643 tons per year, or 226.4 tons per day. The annual solid waste generated by the Proposed Plan would be approximately 0.17 percent of the permitted remaining capacity of the landfill (48.5 million tons) and the daily solid waste generated by the Proposed Plan would be approximately 6.5 percent of the permitted daily capacity of the landfill (3,500 tons). The Proposed Plan would not be a substantial contributor to the City’s solid waste at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Therefore, the Proposed Plan’s contribution to this potentially significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Existing overhead and underground electrical lines extend throughout the Planning Area and were originally installed to serve the variety of existing land uses. PG&E and Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) is expected to be able to meet overall demand for electricity and natural gas for all its customers, including Monterey County, in the future.4 PG&E will continue to maintain and upgrade its electrical and natural gas distribution systems as needed based on future demand trends. For electricity, this includes local and regional distribution lines, undergrounding or poles where needed, and transformer stations. For natural gas, this includes local and regional pipelines 4 Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation (PG&E), 2023. 2023 General Rate Case. Available:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 618, Packet Page 946 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-17
and transmission stations. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Plan on power infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable.

WILDFIRE
The cumulative geographic context for wildfire consists of sites within the Planning Area and nearby properties in the immediate vicinity. The Proposed Plan would generate an increase in daily trips as detailed in Section 3.13 of this EIR, which may have an impact on emergency access and may conflict with the County’s adopted emergency response and evacuation plans. However, any development must be constructed in accordance with federal, state, regional, and local requirements, which are intended to ensure the safety of county residents and structures to the extent feasible. Compliance with these standard regulations would be consistent with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and Monterey County’s Emergency Operations Plan. Further, implementation of the proposed Safety Element, which includes policies associated with wildfire risk and evacuation would further reduce risks. Even so, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Plan may impair an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan there would be a cumulatively considerable impact.

Additionally, while the projected population in the Planning Area would increase the number of people potentially exposed to impacts from wildfire, the Proposed Plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Planning Area. New development would be subject to the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. A Fire Protection Plan would be required for construction and development in areas designated as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and/or Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone per the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 13, Article 1). Construction would also be required to meet CBC requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. The Board of Forestry, via CCR Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. Therefore, compliance with local and state regulations and plans pertaining to wildfire would help reduce impacts regionally; the Proposed Plan’s contribution to wildfire risks is not considered cumulatively considerable.

5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Significant unavoidable impacts are those that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. According to CEQA Guidelines 15126.2(b), an EIR must discuss any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided under full implementation of the proposed program, including those that can be mitigated, but not to a less than significant level. The analysis in Chapter 3 determined that the Proposed Plan would result in significant impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, utilities, and wildfire and that, even with implementation of mitigation measures, would remain significant and unavoidable.

These impacts are summarized below:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 619, Packet Page 947 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-18 City of Monterey

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The City of Monterey is located in an urbanized part of Monterey County and there are no active agricultural uses within the Planning Area. However, there is a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. Within this area classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land, the Highway 68 Area Plan identifies a 50-acre site as a potential location for housing development. While the development of housing on the 50-acre site would be consistent with the Highway 68 Area Plan and while there are no active agricultural activities on the site today, this would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which is a potentially significant impact. Even with Mitigation Measure AG-1 which requires the project applicant to offset the loss of such lands, farmland is a finite and irreplaceable resource, and therefore not directly mitigable. Beyond limiting the area in which growth is permitted, there are no feasible mitigation measures for agricultural land conversion that would also fulfill the objectives of and implement the Proposed Plan. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

AIR QUALITY
Under the Proposed Plan, it is estimated that energy-source emissions of ROG and CO and areasource emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 may have significant impacts. MM-AQ-1 would require projects that exceed MBARD’s project emissions thresholds to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures (as necessary) and address project-level sources of criteria air pollutants.

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 project-level thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the non-attainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Further, development under the Proposed Plan would include area-wide sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and may also result in the installation or operation of new stationary sources of TACs (e.g., emergency generators). Additionally, traffic levels are expected to increase due to the Proposed Plan (as discussed in Section 3.13: Transportation) and would therefore exacerbate existing cumulative health risks. Both new and existing sensitive receptors near these stationary sources and roadways may therefore be exposed to substantial levels of criteria air pollutants or CO hot spots in addition to significant health risks from TACs. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to BACT requirements.

These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant. However, they may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PMconcentrations, 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 620, Packet Page 948 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-19

ENERGY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND CLIMATE CHANGE
GHG emissions from operation of the Proposed Plan would result in a net increase compared to existing conditions, primarily attributed to mobile sources. Despite this increase, the Proposed Plan’s policies represent a suite of land use and building strategies that would reduce emissions from area sources, building energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation.

However, there is no guarantee that all voluntary sustainability features and practices will be incorporated into the designs and construction of all future developments to reach the maximum reductions possible. Lastly, mobile sources make up a large majority of the Proposed Plan’s overall emissions as well as the increase in emissions relative to existing conditions. Although the City’s direct influence over these emissions is limited, the Proposed Plan incorporates local land use strategies that promote VMT reduction, resulting in a decrease in VMT per capita. Overall, the Proposed Plan includes policies that are designed to reduce GHG impacts, in line with CARB and OPR guidance. Additionally, recommended Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require the use of construction period best management practices for the control of construction related GHG emissions, while Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require an update to the City Climate Action Plan to identify and incorporate additional GHG reduction strategies to achieve an additional two percent reduction in emissions to achieve an overall reduction of 40 percent by 2030. Nevertheless, the magnitude of effect of the additional cap measures cannot be known with certainty at this time, and there therefore cannot be assumed to reduce the increase in operational emissions to a lessthan-significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact even after implementation of all feasible mitigation.

TRANSPORTATION
As detailed in Section 3.13, employment-based land uses have a potentially significant impact under the Proposed Plan and mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure VMT-1 would require implementation of commute trip reduction programs for employers in the city with more than 50 employees. Employers can choose from a range of commute-reduction strategies that include ridesharing, discounted transit, bicycling, vanpool, or guaranteed ride home. Although the implementation of Mitigation Measure VMT-1 can be expected to reduce the total VMT per service population generated by typical uses in the Planning Area and reduce the magnitude of the impact, their effectiveness cannot be accurately estimated for the expected developments in the Planning Area, because the detailed characteristics of these future development and/or the specific strategies implemented by these future developments cannot be known at this time. Thus, this EIR conservatively assumes that the VMT reduction due to implementation of these strategies would not be adequate to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water service for the majority of the Planning Area is provided by Cal-Am; however, approximately 135 acres of land at Fort Ord is within the MCWD service area. Cal-Am projects there will be sufficient water when new sources come online. However, it cannot be said with certainty that these new sources will be operational in the future as envisioned; thus, impacts on water supply under the Proposed Plan would be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the reactivation of the MCWD pilot seawater desalination plant could potentially add 300 AFY of additional supply, reactivation ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 621, Packet Page 949 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-20 City of Monterey
is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Monterey and there is no reasonable plan to reactivate the plant at this time. Further, while Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project is anticipated to deliver additional water to the Seaside Basin, the project has not been proven to provide its full projected capacity, particularly during dry years. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact on water supply is considered significant and unavoidable.

In addition, implementation of the Proposed Plan would also require the construction and extension of public sewer and stormwater conveyance infrastructure to areas not currently served by existing facilities, including the 50-acre MPUSD site in the Highway 68 Plan area and portions of Fort Ord. Construction or expansion of infrastructure to these areas could potentially result in environmental impacts. Construction period impacts are analyzed at a programmatic level throughout this Draft EIR. While construction period impacts related to soil erosion and noise can be mitigated to a less than significant level, construction period impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, and greenhouse gas emission would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.

WILDFIRE
An evacuation route capacity analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates for the Proposed Plan concluded that, on a systemwide basis, roadways in the Planning Area would have adequate capacity for an evacuation. Even so, the analysis concluded that under this multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network. This is a potentially significant impact; therefore, mitigation measure MM-WF-1, which involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, is required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. However, the highway onramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.

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

5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental
Changes
CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to consider whether “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). “Nonrenewable resources” refers to the physical features of the natural environment, such as land or waterways, and resources that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity.

A resource commitment is considered irretrievable when the use or consumption of the resource is neither renewable nor recoverable for use by future generations. Irreversible changes and irretrievable commitments of non-renewable resources anticipated by the Proposed Plan include the issues listed below. The Proposed Plan would involve two types of resources: (1) general ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 622, Packet Page 950 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
City of Monterey 5-21
industrial resources including fuels and construction materials; and (2) project-specific resources such as land, biotic, and cultural resources at the building sites.

COMMITMENT/CONSUMPTION OF NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Implementation of the Proposed Plan could result in the long-term commitment of various resources to urban development. While the Proposed Plan itself would not directly entitle or result in any new development, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Proposed Plan, which acts as a blueprint for growth and development in the Planning Area over the next 8 years, could result in significant irreversible impacts related to the commitment of non-renewable and/or slowly renewable natural and energy resources, such as:
• Air Quality: Increases in vehicle trips resulting from buildout of the Proposed Plan would potentially contribute to long-term degradation of air quality and atmospheric conditions in the region. Technological improvements in automobiles, including the growth of the electric vehicle market share, may lower the rate of air quality degradation in the coming decades. Nonetheless, vehicle trips resulting from implementation of the Proposed Plan could result in the irreversible consumption of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, natural gas, and gasoline for non-electric automobiles and longterm degradation of air quality. • Water Consumption: To the extent that the Proposed Plan would accommodate new population and jobs, it would increase the demand for water and place a greater burden on water supply. As such, with the change in demand resulting from the Proposed Plan, the increase would represent an irreversible environmental change, as use of this resource would increase.
• Energy Sources: Residential and non-residential developments use electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products for lighting, heating, and other indoor and outdoor power demands, while automobiles use both oil and gas. New development anticipated by the Proposed Plan would result in increased energy use for the operation of new buildings and for transportation. This new development would therefore result in an overall increased use of both renewable and nonrenewable energy resources. To the extent that new development uses more nonrenewable energy sources, this would represent an irreversible environmental change.
• Agricultural Resources: The City of Monterey is located in an urbanized part of Monterey County and there are no active agricultural uses within the Planning Area. However, there is a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. Within this area classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land, the Highway 68 Area Plan identifies a 50-acre site owned by MPUSD as a potential location for housing development. While there are no active agricultural uses at this site, implementation of the Proposed Plan could nonetheless result in the conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses. This loss may be considered an irreversible environmental change.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 623, Packet Page 951 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR
Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions
5-22 City of Monterey

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED COMMITMENTS
Irreversible environmental changes could also occur during the course of constructing development projects anticipated by the Proposed Plan. New construction would result in the consumption of building materials (such as lumber, sand and gravel), natural gas, and electricity, water, and petroleum products to process, transport and build with these materials. Though it is possible for construction equipment to be fueled by renewable sources over the course of the Proposed Plan buildout, the timing and availability of these energy sources is unknown.

Construction equipment running on fossil fuels would be needed for excavation and the shipping of building materials. Due to the non-renewable or slowly renewable nature of these resources, this represents an irretrievable commitment of resources.

However, development allowed under the Proposed Plan would not necessarily result in the inefficient or wasteful use of resources. Compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as existing and Proposed Plan policies and standard conservation features would ensure that natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent feasible. It is possible that new technologies or systems will emerge, or become more cost-effective or user-friendly, to further reduce the reliance upon non-renewable natural resources. Nonetheless, future activities related to implementation of the Proposed Plan could result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 624, Packet Page 952 6 List of Preparers
A list of contributing City staff and consultant team members, their titles, and affiliations, is provided below.

City of Monterey
• Hans Uslar, City Manager
• Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
• Levi Hill, Planning Manager
• Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner
• Christine Davi, City Attorney
• Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant, EIT
Consultants
Dyett and Bhatia
• Andrew Hill, Principal
• Clare Kucera, Associate
• Karen Chavez, Planner
• Bryn McKillop, Planner
• Mayu Tanaka, Senior Associate
• Isha Bhattarai, Senior GIS Specialist
• Jason Castaneda, GIS Specialist
• Claire Villegas, Project Assistant
Kimley-Horn Associates
• Frederik Venter, PE
• Michael Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP
• Ayberk Kocatepe, PhD
• Chris Gregerson, PE, TE, PTP, PTOE
Salter
• Jeremy Decker, PE, Vice President
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 625, Packet Page 953 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 626, Packet Page 954 SCH #2023080034
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Volume 2a: Technical Appendix A
February 9, 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 627, Packet Page 955 In association with:

Kimberly-Horn Associates
Salter
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
Volume 2a
February 9, 2024
Public Review Draft
Prepared for the City of Monterey
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 628, Packet Page 956

APPENDIX
A

NOP AND COMMENT

LETTERS
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 629, Packet Page 957 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 630, Packet Page 958

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice of Preparation.....................................................................................................................A-1 Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Comment Letter.................................. A-10 Monterey County Housing and Community Development Comment Letter.................A-15 Department of the Navy Comment Letter...............................................................................A-17 Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Comment Letter ........................A-24 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Comment Letter ............................A-26 California Department of Fishland and Wildlife (CDFW) Comment Letter.....................A-29 Open House Scoping Comments.............................................................................................A-39 Land Watch Comment Letter....................................................................................................A-45 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 631, Packet Page 959 City of Monterey
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR– Notice of Preparation Page 1 of 9

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Program Environmental Impact Report
Monterey General Plan Update
Date August 2, 2023
To Reviewing Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations Subject Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update and Scheduling of a Scoping Meeting on August 7, 2023 The City of Monterey will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (the Project). The Project, its location, and potential environmental effects are described below.

Public agencies and members of the general public are invited to provide comments in writing as to the scope and content of the EIR. Specifically, the City needs to know the views of Responsible and Trustee Agencies as to the potentially significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that are germane to each agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the Project. Responsible Agencies will need to use the EIR prepared by the City when considering permits or other approvals for the Project.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, responses must be sent at the earliest possible date, but no later than the close of the NOP review period, which runs as follows: August 2, 2023 through September 4, 2023. Please send written responses to Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner, City of Monterey at the address shown below. Public agencies providing comments are requested to include a contact person for the agency.

PROJECT TITLE: City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update LEAD AGENCY CONTACT:

Christy Sabdo, AICP, Associate Planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (831) 646-3758
PROJECT SPONSOR:

City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 632, Packet Page 960 City of Monterey
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR– Notice of Preparation Page 2 of 9 PROJECT LOCATION AND CONTEXT:

Located in northern Monterey County, about 19 miles west of Salinas, 29 miles north of Big Sur, and 120 miles south of San Francisco, as shown in Figure 1, the City of Monterey is a coastal community of about 27,000 residents with a rich historic background and a distinctive small-town feel. The city occupies 8.7 square miles of land between the southern shore of Monterey Bay and the forested ridgeline of the foothills, bordered by the City of Pacific Grove to the northwest and the City of Seaside to the northeast. Known for its stunning natural scenery and world-renowned attractions like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Cannery Row, and Fisherman's Wharf, tourism is a pillar of the local economy. Monterey is also home to four educational institutions—U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Peninsula College, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, and the U.S. Army Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center-- the region's largest hospital (Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula), and Monterey Peninsula's largest shopping center (Del Monte Center).

Monterey's enviable quality of life continues to make the community an attractive place to live.

Regional access is provided by California State Route 1 (Highway 1), a north-south highway that runs through the center of Monterey, as well as California State Route 68 (Highway 68), an east-west highway that serves as a major route between Salinas and Monterey Peninsula. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides connections at the Monterey Transit Plaza to the Salinas Transit Center and other neighboring communities, including Pacific Grove, Carmel Valley, Seaside, and Marina.

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

Environmental Setting
The setting of the planning area is largely urbanized; however, natural resources are an integral part of the city’s setting, economy, and physical development. Monterey features an array of natural habitats and protected areas that are home to abundant wildlife, from marine wildlife and ecosystems, to the coastal beaches, rocky bluffs, and sand dunes, to upland oak and pine forests and chaparral habitats. Notable flora and fauna that occur in the area include the Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, Hutchinson's larkspur, Tidestrom’s lupine, Gairdner's yampah, the San Joaquin kit fox, the Salinas kangaroo rat, and the silver-sided legless lizard as well as numerous other rare, threatened, and endangered species.

While the natural setting of Monterey helps define the character of the community, it also holds potential for natural hazards that pose risk to human life and property. As shown in Figure 2, upland areas in the south and southwest of the city are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), based on the presence of vegetation that is highly flammable and extremely dry during the summer months. There are areas of high liquefaction risk along the course of creeks that drain from the hills to the Bay, and there is an area of high landslide susceptibility in the hills near Fisherman's Flats Greenbelt. Low lying areas downtown and along Del Monte Avenue are subject to flooding and coastal inundation. Coastal erosion is common along much of the Monterey coastline, which could increase with sea level rise.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 633, Packet Page 961 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
US Navy
Beachfront
Monterey Pines
Golf and RV Park
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
US Navy
Research
Lab
US Navy
La Mesa
Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Don Dahvee
Park Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
US Coast
Guard
Station
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
A brego St
Army St
Cam Agu ajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Mason Rd
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Leahy Rd Glenwood Cir
Scen i c Dr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Figure 1: Planning Area
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\NOP\Map 1 Planning Area.mxd City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Military Facilities
Park
Water
Pacific
Grove
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Gonzales
Marina
Seaside
Salinas
Hollister
Watsonville
Aromas
Carmel Valley
Village
Castroville
Del Monte
Forest
Interlaken
La Selva Beach
Las Lomas
Pajaro
Prunedale
Monterey
Monterey
San B enito
Santa
Clara
Santa Cruz
UV1
UV68
UV1
UV156
UV68
UV1
UV1
£¤101
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Regional Locator
Map Not to Scale
µ
µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 634, Packet Page 962 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
AÔ
A»
A§
A§
AÔ A§
AÔ
A§
1 2
4 1
2 4
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 1
4 2
2 5 Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Navy
La Mesa
Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio
Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale Dr
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Figure 2: Environmental Hazards
Data Source: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Recommended by CALFIRE, 2007; Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Adopted by CAL FIRE, 2007; National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA 2017; Liquefaction Data, County of Monterey, 2014; Landslide Layer, County of Monterey, 2018; : Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2019; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\NOP\Map 2 Environmental Hazards.mxd Environmental Constraints
100 Year Coastal Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
High Liquefaction Susceptibility
High Landslide Susceptibility
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard
Airport Safety Zones (1-5)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Very High (LRA)
Very High (SRA)
High (SRA)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 635, Packet Page 963 City of Monterey
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR– Notice of Preparation Page 5 of 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The Proposed Project involves updates to the Housing, Land Use, and Safety Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan to address emerging issues and new State laws. Key project components are summarized below.

Draft Housing Element
Under State law, each city and county in California must plan to accommodate its share of the regional housing need - called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) - for the coming 8-year planning period, which runs from December 15, 2023, through December 15, 2031. The State determines the estimated need for new housing in each region of California, based on population projections and other factors including rates of vacancy, overcrowding, and cost-burden. The various regional planning agencies then allocate a target to each city or town within their jurisdiction, considering factors such as access to jobs, good schools, and healthy environmental conditions. RHNA is split into four categories representing different levels of affordability, based on area median income (AMI) in the county. The affordability categories are as follows:
• Very Low Income - Households making less than 50 percent of AMI • Low Income - Households making 50-80 percent of AMI
• Moderate Income - Households making 80-120 percent of AMI • Above Moderate Income - Households making more than 120 percent of AMI Amid the ongoing housing crisis in California, Monterey is required to plan for at least 3,654 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, including 1,177 Very Low-Income units, 769 Low Income units, 462 Moderate income units, and 1,246 Above Moderate units. As required by State law, the Draft Housing Element will include an inventory of sites available for housing and a projection of the realistic capacity of the inventory for housing. The Draft Housing Element will also include a Housing Action Plan, organized around communitywide housing goals. Each goal will be supported by policies and implementing programs that describe actions the City will take to help meet its RHNA obligations.

On June 20, 2023, the Monterey City Council approved a preliminary inventory of sites for housing, developed with extensive community input and shown on Figure 3. Together with development proposals currently in the pipeline and expected to be approved and constructed within the planning period, the inventory has a total projected capacity for 5,802 new homes, which is sufficient to meet the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need at all income levels with a buffer. The inventory assumes a combination of strategies to ensure the City meets its RHNA obligations, including:
• Infill development on vacant and underutilized properties downtown and along commercial corridors, including North Fremont Street, Garden Road, Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Abrego Street;
• Preparation of a specific plan to guide future residential and mixed-use development in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch area, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource protection; • Facilitating construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs that provide affordable housing options on existing residential properties throughout the community; and • Development or redevelopment of several larger sites to increase the range of housing options available in Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 636, Packet Page 964 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
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
Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Navy
La Mesa
Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Garden Road/
Airport
Fort Ord/
Ryan Ranch
North Fremont
Delmonte Downtown
Pacific/Munras/
Cass
Lighthouse
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Ab rego St
Cam
Agu ajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dor ad o St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Agu ajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Figure 3: Preliminary Housing Sites Inventory
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\EIR\NOP\Map 3 Preliminary Housing Sites Inventory.mxd Sites available for Housing
Above Moderate Income
Very Low/Low/Moderate Income
Mixed Income
Opportunity Areas
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Parks and Recreation
Water
Fairgrounds
µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 637, Packet Page 965 City of Monterey
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR– Notice of Preparation Page 7 of 9 The projected capacity of the sites, summarized in Table 1 by area, is based on a survey of recently constructed projects in Monterey and surrounding communities, conducted to establish average asbuilt densities that represent the realistic capacity of sites included in the inventory.

Table 1 – Summary of RHNA Capacity Projections
Income Category Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Above Moderate
Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 216 241 457
North Fremont 0 218 24 86 328
Garden Road 0 356 0 0 356
Lighthouse 0 31 11 254 296
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 420 1,680 2,100
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density
Residential 33 33
ADUs 120 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 108 383 491
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 290 350 640
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monte Shopping Center 150 150
Heritage Harbor Office Complex 90 90
Subtotal 431 1,939 879 2,553 5,802
Total by RHNA Category 2,370 3,432 5,802
Inclusionary Requirement
(20%)1 244
Adjusted Total RHNA2 2,614 3,188 5,802
RHNA 2,408 1,246 3,654
Buffer 206 1,942 1,498

8.56% 155.84%
1 Infill sites that do not meet the site suitability criteria established by the State are assumed to develop with market rate housing and that capacity has been assigned to above moderate income households. However, the City has adopted an Inclusionary Ordinance which requires that 20 percent of new units in projects of six or more units be affordable to moderate and low income households. Therefore, 20 percent of the total above moderate infill development capacity has been reallocated to moderate, low, and very low-income households.
2 Adjusted Total RHNA is the sum of Total by RHNA Category and the Inclusionary Requirement.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 638, Packet Page 966 City of Monterey
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR– Notice of Preparation Page 8 of 9 Draft Safety, Land Use, and Circulation Elements
As an urbanized community, nestled between the California coast and the Santa Lucia Mountains, integrating new housing into the fabric of Monterey will require a thoughtful approach to land use and community design. In parallel with the Housing Element Update, State law triggers requirements to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change into the Safety Element along with actions to strengthen community resilience and emergency evacuation capacity. At the same time, the Land Use Element will be updated to ensure consistency with the newly adopted Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and the Circulation Element will be updated to incorporate strategies for multi-modal mobility and roadway safety, comply with new State law, and introduce new guidelines and metrics for evaluating transportation impacts.

PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The Program EIR will evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Project. Consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), the following environmental resource categories will be analyzed in relation to the Project:
• Aesthetics and Visual Resources
• Agricultural and Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural
Resources
• Energy, Climate Change, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Geology, Soils and Seismicity
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use, Population, and Housing
• Noise and Vibration
• Public Facilities and Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
All of the resource categories listed above will be considered in the EIR; however, given the local context of Monterey, the following issues will be central to the environmental analysis:
§ Adequate water supply to serve the projected future population of Monterey upon implementation of the Project is a critical consideration, and a Water Supply Assessment will be requested from water purveyors Cal Am (i.e., all City properties except Fort Ord property) and the Marina Coast Water District (e.g., Fort Ord property in City of Monterey) to inform the analysis in the EIR. The potential environmental impacts that could result from the construction of water and sewer infrastructure needed to support the population at buildout will also be analyzed.
§ Given the presence of historic resources throughout the city, the potential for new development to adversely affect historic resources will require careful consideration.

Additionally, there are many properties in the city which are "age-eligible" for historic designation, meaning they are over 50 years old and require some level of evaluation to determine whether or not they are historically significant. Impacts to these potentially historic resources will also need to be analyzed.
§ Monterey contains natural habitats and protected areas that are home to a wealth of flora and fauna. As such, the EIR will need to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, particularly in the south and southeast of the city where significant new housing and mixeduse development is envisioned. Rigorous analysis will be required to identify potential ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 639, Packet Page 967 City of Monterey
General Plan Update EIR– Notice of Preparation Page 9 of 9 impacts and inform mitigation strategies that can reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.
§ Portions of the former Fort Ord Military Base were found to have Unexploded Ordnances (UXO), and while the site has been cleared of UXO to a level that permits light industrial uses, the EIR will need to identify areas that have not yet received approval for residential use and recommend mitigation as appropriate.
§ With major transportation routes, including Highway 1 and Highway 68, running through Monterey, the potential for adverse air quality and noise effects on sensitive populations such as children and seniors will need to be evaluated closely. § Potential impacts related to airport hazards and noise in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport will need careful assessment.
§ Areas along the coastline and near El Estero Park, Del Monte Lake, and Laguna Grande Park are subject to flooding, tidal inundation, and coastal erosion. Careful consideration of risk in view of these conditions will be required.
§ With parts of Monterey located in Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones delineated by CalFire, parts of the community are subject to wildfire risk and associated impacts will need to be analyzed and mitigated.

Resources categories for which it can be clearly demonstrated that no significant impacts would result from Project implementation may be "scoped out" of the EIR analysis, pursuant to CEQA Section 15082. Accordingly, given that there are no mineral extraction operations or mineral resources of economic value classified under the Surface Mining and Geology Act within the City, it is assumed that mineral resources will be discussed briefly in the EIR and “scoped out.” SCOPING MEETING:

A scoping meeting will be conducted on Monday August 7, 2023, to collect oral comments from agencies and members of the public regarding the scope and content of the EIR in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9.

EIR Scoping Meeting on the Monterey General Plan Update Monday August 7, 2023, from 6:00p.m. to 8:30p.m.

Monterey Conference Center
1 Portola Plaza, Monterey, CA 93940
For project information, please visit the Project website:
haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031
Please contact Christy Sabdo at (831) 646-3758 or [email protected] with any questions regarding this notice or the scoping meeting.
_________________________________________ _________________________ Levi Hill, Planning Manager Date
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 640, Packet Page 968 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 641, Packet Page 969 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 642, Packet Page 970 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 643, Packet Page 971 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 644, Packet Page 972 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 645, Packet Page 973 8/22/23, 2:46 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Jensen, Fionna <[email protected]>
Tue 8/22/2023 1:05 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Hi Chirsty,
On behalf of the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, please refer to the Draft General Plan update to the ALUC for a consistency determination with the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Along with the application materials, the City will be required to prepare and submit a comprehensive justification letter detailing why the Draft General Plan Update is consistent with the ALUCP.

Thank you,
Fionna Jensen
Senior Planner
County of Monterey, Housing and Community Development (HCD) 1441 Schilling Place, 2nd Floor, Salinas CA 93901
Main: [(831)%20755-5025](831) 755-5025 | Direct: [(831)-796-6407](831) 796-6407 | Accela Citizens Access From: Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:11 AM
To: Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update [CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the County. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ]
Hello -
The City of Monterey will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project involves updates to the Housing, Land Use, and Safety Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan to address emerging issues and new State laws.

Responsible Agencies will need to use the EIR prepared by the City when considering permits or other approvals for the Project.

NOP Review Period - Due to the time limits mandated by State law, responses must be sent at the earliest possible date, but no later than the close of the NOP review period, which runs as follows:

August 2, 2023 through September 4, 2023. Please send written responses to Christy Sabdo, Associate ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 646, Packet Page 974 8/22/23, 2:46 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Planner, City of Monterey at the address shown in the attached NOP. Public agencies providing comments are requested to include a contact person for the agency.

EIR Scoping Meeting and Draft Housing Element Open House to be held Monday, August 7, 2023 from 6 - 8:30pm at the Monterey Conference Center, 1 Portola Plaza, Monterey.

Registration is encouraged, but not required at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/youre-invited-to-acommunity-open-house-tickets-681797192757? aff=oddtdtcreator&utm_source=postcard&utm_medium=mailer&utm_campaign=monterey-openhouse-080723 See attached Notice of Preparation.

For more information, please visit the Monterey 2031 Project website: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031
Respectfully,
Christy
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-3758 (direct) |
[email protected] | have your say | city website
www.monterey.org
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 647, Packet Page 975 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 648, Packet Page 976 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 649, Packet Page 977 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 650, Packet Page 978 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 651, Packet Page 979 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 652, Packet Page 980 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 653, Packet Page 981 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 654, Packet Page 982 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 655, Packet Page 983 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 656, Packet Page 984 CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
(805) 549-3101 | FAX (805) 549-3329 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
September 5, 2023
MON/Var
SCH#2023080034
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
COMMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) – MONTEREY, CA
Dear Ms. Sabdo:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the public comment period for the City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and State planning priorities.

Caltrans strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California’s roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network’s diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance safety on the transportation network. These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work.

Caltrans has the following comments:

Traffic Impact Studies
• New developments resulting from the general plan update should provide a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) based Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Please use the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 657, Packet Page 985 • The TIS may also need to identify the proposed project’s near-term and long-term safety or operational issues, on or adjacent any existing or proposed State facilities. • Any improvements within Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) from future development projects will be required to comply with Caltrans Highway Design Manual guidelines and standards.
• Any pedestrian facility enhancements from future housing development projects that are within Caltrans’ R/W will need to comply with Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-06.

Complete Streets and Mobility Network
Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. Caltrans supports improved transit accommodation through the provision of Mobility Hub facilities, improved bicycle and pedestrian access and safety improvements, signal prioritization for transit, ramp improvements, or other enhancements that promote a complete and integrated transportation system. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and the City of Monterey is encouraged.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve California’s Climate Change target, Caltrans is implementing Complete Streets and Climate Change policies into State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects to meet multi-modal mobility needs. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City Monterey to evaluate potential Complete Streets projects.

Bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access during construction is important. Mitigation to maintain bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access during construction is in accordance with Caltrans’ goals and policies.

Land Use and Smart Growth
Caltrans recognizes there is a strong link between transportation and land use.

Development can have a significant impact on traffic and congestion on State transportation facilities. In particular, the pattern of land use can affect both local VMT and the number of trips. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation system integrated through applicable “smart growth” type land use planning and policies. The City of Monterey should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement necessary ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 658, Packet Page 986 improvements at intersections and interchanges where the agencies have joint jurisdiction.

Right-of-Way
Per Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed land surveyor is required if they are being destroyed by any construction.

Any work performed within Caltrans R/W will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W prior to construction.

Climate Adaptation
Climate change’s impact on the State Highway System (SHS) and local roadways should be addressed given the forecasted regional increase in wildfires, precipitation, and storm surge. The SHS is the backbone of most county-level evacuation plans and often provides the only high-capacity evacuation routes from communities. Further, the SHS serves as the main access routes for emergency responders, and may serve as a physical line of defense such as a firebreak or an embankment against floodwaters, etc.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, or need further clarification on items discussed above, please contact me at (805) 835-6543 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,
Chris Bjornstad
Associate Transportation Planner
District 5 Local Development Review
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 659, Packet Page 987 September 11, 2023
Christy Sabdo, AICP, Associate Planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
[email protected]
(831) 646-3758
Subject: City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Project) Notice of Preparation (NOP)
SCH No.: 2023080034
Dear Christy Sabdo:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a notice of preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Monterey for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. While the comment period may have ended, CDFW would appreciate if you would still consider our comments.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & Game Code, Section 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, Section 21070; CEQA Guidelines Section 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., Section 1802).

Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 660, Packet Page 988 specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, Section 21069; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, Section 1600 et seq.).

Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include Sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Monterey
Objective: The Proposed Project involves updates to the Housing, Safety, Land Use, and Circulation Elements of the City of Monterey General Plan. The Proposed Project is both a policy document and an implementation tool for implementing the City's General Plan. It contains goals, policies, and programs to guide future housing development of up to 5,802 units within the approximately 8.7-square-mile Planning Area that encompasses the entire city. Implementation will include amendments to the City's Municipal Code.

Location: City of Monterey
Timeframe: Unspecified
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 661, Packet Page 989

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Monterey in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document for this Project.

The NOP indicates that the DEIR for the Project will consider potential environmental effects of the proposed Project to determine the level of significance of the environmental effect and will analyze these potential effects to the detail necessary to make a determination on the level of significance. The DEIR will also identify and evaluate alternatives to the proposed Project. When a DEIR is prepared, the specifics of mitigation measures may be deferred, provided the lead agency commits to mitigation and establishes performance standards for implementation.

Special-Status Species
Based on aerial imagery and species occurrence records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023a), the proposed Planning Area is known to and/or has the potential to support special-status species, and these resources need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities. CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special status species including, but not limited to, the State endangered and federally endangered Monterey clover (Trifolium trichocalyx), the State and federally endangered Hickman's cinquefoil (Potentilla hickmanii), the State endangered seaside bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. Littoralis), the State candidate endangered Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentali), the State threatened Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. Arenaria), the State threatened and fully protected California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), and the species of special concern American badger (Taxidea taxus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus), Monterey shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius), and yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis).

Special-Status Plant Species
There is potential for multiple special status plant species to occur within the Planning Area (CDFW 2023a). CDFW recommends that the DEIR for the General Plan update include a cumulative impacts analysis of the reasonably foreseeable future projects to be implemented within the Plan Area on all special-status plant species. CDFW also recommends that each project site for projects implemented within the Planning Area be surveyed for special-status plants by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 662, Packet Page 990 (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline) during biological technical studies completed in support of the future CEQA documents tiered from this General Plan. CDFW recommends that the plant surveys be floristic and utilize a known reference site for each plant listed above in order to provide for a high level of confidence in the effort and results.

CDFW recommends special status plant species 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 buffers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine appropriate minimization and mitigation measures for impacts to specialstatus plant species. If a State or federally listed plant species is identified during botanical surveys, it is recommended that consultation with CDFW and/or the USFWS be conducted to determine permitting needs.

Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentali)
Western bumble bee (WBB) has the potential to be found in most locations on or within the vicinity of the Planning Area. WBB was once commonly found in the western United States, Canada, North Dakota, and throughout Alaska, however, it now appears to be absent from most of these areas as there has been a 93% decline in occupancy in the last two decades. WBB primarily nest in late February through late October underground in abandoned small mammal burrows but may be found under brush piles, in old bird nests, and in dead trees or hollow logs (Williams et al. 2014, Hatfield et al. 2015). Overwintering sites utilized by WBB mated queens include soft, disturbed soil (Goulson 2010), or under leaf litter or other debris (Williams et al. 2014). Therefore, potential ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with future projects implemented under this General Plan may significantly impact local WBB populations.

CDFW recommends that the DEIR for the General Plan update include a cumulative impacts analysis of the reasonably foreseeable future projects to be implemented within the Plan Area. In addition, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for WBB and their requisite habitat features using the CDFW survey protocol during their colony active period (highest detection probability) from April to September (CDFW 2023b) as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the future CEQA documents for projects tiered from this General Plan.

CDFW recommends that the future CEQA documents then evaluate impacts resulting from potential ground- and vegetation-disturbing activities that may result from any future project. If WBB need to be captured or handled as part of the survey effort, please note that a 2081(a) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFW will be needed (CDFW 2023b).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 663, Packet Page 991 California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) Occurrences of California black rail (CBR) have been documented within the Planning Area according to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2023a).

The majority of recorded populations for this species have been found from San Pablo Bay to southern California and Arizona. CBR live predominately near water in marsh areas where plants such as pickleweed, gumplant, alkali bulrush, and cattails are found (Evens et al. 1991; Conway and Sulzman 2007). They typically place their nests a couple of inches above shallow water, on moist soil, or among dense vegetation (Spautz et al. 2005).

CDFW recommends that a desk level habitat assessment for CBR be conducted by a qualified biologist knowledgeable with CBR as part of the DEIR prepared for this General Plan update and that any potentially suitable habitat areas be included as part of a cumulative impacts analysis conducted for this species for the reasonably foreseeable future projects to be tiered from this General Plan. CDFW then recommends that future project sites be surveyed by a qualified biologist for the potential presence of this species as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the future CEQA document. If the species is found, CDFW should be consulted to identify and implement appropriate avoidance and minimization measures to avoid any impacts to this species. CBR is fully protected, therefore, no “take”, incidental or otherwise, can be authorized by CDFW.

States Species of Special Concern
American badger (Taxidea taxus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus), Monterey shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius), and yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) have the potential to occur within the General Plan Planning area. These species have been documented to occur within and surrounding the Planning area, which supports requisite habitat elements (CDFW 2023a). Each of these species should be included in the cumulative impacts analysis conducted as part of this General Plan update with specific recommendations for focused surveys conducted by a qualified biologist for future projects tiered from this General Plan.

Nesting birds
CDFW recommends that all projects tiered from this General Plan occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities must occur during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15), each future project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of their project does not result in a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes as referenced above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 664, Packet Page 992 To evaluate future project-related impacts on nesting birds, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct an assessment of nesting habitat during biological surveys in support of each project’s CEQA document, and then conduct pre-activity 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.

CDFW also recommends that surveys 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, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from each future project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of nonlisted bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of nonlisted raptors. These buffers are advised to 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. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

Cumulative Impacts
Given that a General Plan serves primarily as a planning tool and that future projectlevel CEQA documents are expected to be tiered from it, CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all potential biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the General Plan, including those whose impacts are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the any future project, even if those impacts are expected to be relatively small (i.e. less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 665, Packet Page 993 Environmental Data
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

Filing Fees
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, Section 753.5; Fish & G. Code, Section 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, Section 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP to assist the City of Monterey in identifying, analyzing, and mitigating the implementation of the General Plan’s impacts on biological resources.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). Please see the enclosed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) table which corresponds with recommended mitigation measures in this comment letter. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Evelyn Barajas-Perez, Environmental Scientist, at (805) 503-5738 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
ec:

CESA [email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 666, Packet Page 994

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed August 2023.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023b. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species, (available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline).

Conway, C. and C. Sulzman. 2007. Status and Habitat Use of the California Black Rail in the Southwestern USA. Wetlands, 27(4), 987-998.

Evens, J., G. Page, S. Laymon, and R. Stallcup. 1991. Distribution, relative abundance and status of the California black rail in western North America. The Condor 93:952–66.

Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behavior, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press, New York. 317pp.

Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2015. Bombus crotchii.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Williams, P., R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 208pp.

Spautz, H., N. Nur, and D. Stralberg. 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) Distribution and Abundance in Relation to Habitat and Landscape Features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. USDA Forest Service.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 667, Packet Page 995 Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
PROJECT: City of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Project) SCH No.: 2023080034

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

MEASURE

STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
Mitigation measure: Special-Status
Plant Species
Botanical Surveys
Mitigation measure: Western bumble
bee
Western bumble bee Habitat Assessment
Mitigation measure: California black
rail
California black rail Habitat Assessment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 668, Packet Page 996 Mitigation measure: States Species of
Special Concern
State Species of Special Concern Habitat
Assessment
Mitigation: Nesting Birds
Nesting Bird Habitat Assessment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2CA7AE48-FDFE-41A1-A142-CAC7FEE5960C ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 669, Packet Page 997 Name: Email: ____________ _
Topic:

Topic: S (,1, f�

J.,.n;
f
,,
�J�
JS
d,'Jtn·ub (lie"' /rt� 'f"°"< � I AAk,'b,+- �
1h-,i wk s I
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 670, Packet Page 998 Name: Email:

Topic:

1.Cl
(I
SQ\a.dc, D¥SWt'Ah: heY l ScMc\MµJ: '{\J\°'Y')c.Pi/r\1·--)__ - in Fvr±Oo:l panel ,£,-tv,u \o� ot f.A1t15v1-h'cJY1 oY @It lop eLtt(/'Jh,e.N -
' I (¾ V }2-t\ N, �� :fs;\J L, - J\A 9,1(\Q baA1&, betn Sow - Pl/ilJni"j doc c d 1:1 &\-1.o v\ \ cl Na lllf p0 (h. ·fnv- 11 /I ,11-8' II f;,of af6v ada hu.,, to Ji ¾
Topic:

Topic:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCOPING COMMENTS
Please fill out this card to let us know about environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIR as well as solutions to address them. You can also submit comments by email to Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner, at [email protected]. Comments will be accepted until 5:00pm September 4, 2023 1 s -+��f e.., c... plan 6n
Oind % p,au,d..L +� l6uJ 1nc0yn� P-,R(Yil)L b� �
0 flC e., 'f ½ au,
yYI Q [1{) tJ 1111 o HJJY\J I no+ foi:· $•/4 � 'I-1--efll ✓<n ev;c+
mo� � 1/IUL,(�f� /uni 1�0�
!--lo uJ /JJ ,I/ f h. NMl h!J tA", ;"/10, � pqtof /4 r and L,J h O o llJ n-S ;J-- 7 6-.J, // /I b /JI' 1 'I cd-e_ Aol{-O 1 "'j { 4J ,-t-/, 1flcxnJ--r'vrJ -k /0"r1d /no/,o J ar puM1c_ Jou1.0i,1.3 _"> ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 673, Packet Page 1001 Topic:
----,!��-.-L:::.��'.......c\,�s� Email: Q e i c__ d

ENVIRONMENTAL
� (}VV14r

IMPACT REPORT
'7>y e-rJct/Le_

SCOPING
�

COMMENTS
Please fill out this card to let us know about environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIR as well as solutions to address them. You can also submit comments by email to Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner, at [email protected]. Comments will be accepted until 5:00pm September 4, 2023 Name: A d(,,,l,lv\, Ema i I: ----=cot,_6_C,,, . _i""_..::,:§c.___r1--_C_ot_f'_,_C_D_M __ _ Topic:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCOPING COMMENTS
Please fill out this card to let us know about environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EIR as well as solutions to address them. You can also submit comments by email to Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner, at [email protected]. Comments will be accepted until 5:00pm September 4, 2023 �s�;t�rc f /f;:;se Manafl:±en+ f;;:aq l
, 11 p a re Li r,u /--1-h a ( h e. n u_;
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 675, Packet Page 1003 8/22/23, 4:18 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 LandWatch comments on the City of Monterey Public Review Draft Housing Element Michael DeLapa <[email protected]>
Tue 8/22/2023 3:55 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;Oncall Planning <[email protected]> Cc:Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>;City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]> 2 attachments (3 MB)
LandWatch comments on Monterey HE.pdf; EcoDataLab Fort Ord Housing Site Comments.pdf; You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important RE: Comments on the City of Monterey Draft Housing Element and on the Scope of Its CEQA Review City of Monterey Housing Team:

LandWatch has reviewed the City of Monterey Public Review Draft Housing Element. We support your ambitious goal to “increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031.” LandWatch supports almost all of the policies and programs that the City proposes. Many of the programs would simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs. Our detailed comments (attached) propose modifications to some programs to make them even more effective.

Although in other instances the City has shown leadership in addressing climate change and other environmental impacts, the plan to locate 2,100 housing units on the former Fort Ord — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — is a significant step backward. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would contribute to significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles travelled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater ovedraft. Indeed, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development because Marina Coast Water District has no committed plan to supply water and is bound by a settlement agreement not to supply additional hookups with non-groundwater sources for residential projects in Fort Ord.

Other cities – Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Carmel among them – will meet their RHNA obligations without this kind of sprawl by focusing on infill. Monterey can as well. LandWatch’s analysis demonstrates that expanding onto open space on the former Fort Ord is unnecessary if the City simply recognizes that its own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Because meeting the City’s RHNA does not require providing sites for 2,100 units on the former Fort Ord, we ask that the Housing Element EIR assess potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed Fort Ord development.

We attach specific comments on the draft Housing Element as well as References to supporting materials from the Campus Town EIR and MCWD/LandWatch/Keep Fort Ord Wild legal settlement.

Analysis of Monterey Site Inventory showing feasible alternative to Fort Ord sprawl Ben Gould, President, EcoDataLab, letter to Michael DeLapa, August 22, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 676, Packet Page 1004 8/22/23, 4:18 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Map of biological resources on the City’s properties on the former Fort Ord Please confirm receipt of LandWatch’s comments.

Best regards,
Michael
Please subscribe to the LandWatch newsletter, "like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. ________________________
Michael D. DeLapa
Executive Director
LandWatch Monterey County
[email protected]
650.291.4991 m
Subscribe • Facebook • Twitter
Remember LandWatch in your will
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 677, Packet Page 1005 P.O. Box 1876, Salinas, CA 93902-1876 | 831-759-2824 | www.landwatch.org | [email protected] August 7, 2023
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: Comments on the City of Monterey Draft Housing Element and on the Scope of Its CEQA Review
City of Monterey Housing Team:

LandWatch has reviewed the City of Monterey Public Review Draft Housing Element. We support your ambitious goal to “increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031.” LandWatch supports almost all of the policies and programs that the City proposes. Many of the programs would simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs. Our detailed comments below propose modifications to some programs to make them even more effective.

Indeed, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development because Marina Coast Water District has no committed plan to supply water and is bound by a settlement agreement not to supply additional hookups with non-groundwater sources for residential projects in Fort Ord.

Other cities – Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Carmel among them – will meet their RHNA obligations without this kind of sprawl by focusing on infill. Monterey can as well.

LandWatch’s analysis demonstrates that expanding onto open space on the former Fort Ord is unnecessary if the City simply recognizes that its own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 678, Packet Page 1006 2 Because meeting the City’s RHNA does not require providing sites for 2,100 units on the former Fort Ord, we ask that the Housing Element EIR assess potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed Fort Ord development.

A. The Site Inventory cannot legally rely on Fort Ord sites due to the lack of any plan for water supply; and it should not rely on Fort Ord sites due to biological resource, VMT, and hazardous materials impacts that must be assessed and mitigated through conditions or alternatives.

We are concerned with the policies and programs being relied upon to provide an adequate site inventory, which rely heavily on sprawl development into the former Fort Ord. Specifically of concern is Policy 1.3 and Program 1-H; ● 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.
● Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan, with its “Objective: 2,100 new housing units, including 210 homes affordable to moderate-income households and 210 homes affordable to lower income households
The goal to site 2,100 new units in that Fort Ord/Ryan Ran Specific plan, represents nearly 60% of the 3,654-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. LandWatch would support development on Ryan Ranch where basic infrastructure is in place. However, to the extent that the City relies on sites on vacant, greenfield land on the former Fort Ord, it will need to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts to biological resources, hazardous materials, water resources, and Vehicle Miles Traveled —impacts that would not occur on infill properties and non-vacant land in the urbanized portions of the City. Inclusion of Fort Ord areas as future residential growth areas in this 6th Cycle housing element would require substantial CEQA review of these impacts and evaluation of alternative development scenarios to avoid or lessen these impacts.

1. The City cannot legally rely on Ford Ord sites due to lack of a planned water supply.

As for water, properties on the former Fort Ord proposed for residential service by MCWD can only be served by non-groundwater sources due to the 6,160-unit cap on new residential units served by groundwater, a limitation that does not apply to land within the already urbanized areas of the City. The rationale for this limitation is the well-known ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 679, Packet Page 1007 3 condition of overdraft and seawater intrusion caused by excessive coastal area groundwater pumping.

As the City of Seaside acknowledged in its approval of the Campus Town project, after approval of the Campus Town project itself, there were only 10 units remaining in the 6,160 unit cap. (Campus Town FEIR, pp. 3-169 to 3-170.) That unit cap remains in force despite the termination of the Fort Ord Reuse Agency by virtue of a settlement agreement between MCWD, LandWatch, and Keep Fort Ord Wild.

The Site Inventory admits without any analysis that the City is on notice of this settlement agreement from an earlier letter from LandWatch, even while it admits that at most there are “water credits” for only 240 units.

Fort Ord also has water credits sufficient for 240 new homes today, making it one of the more feasible locations for housing development in the near term, although the City has received correspondence from land Watch about a settlement agreement applicable to the site that may affect development potential. (Draft HE, p. 3-16.) However, in order to count a site in its inventory, the City must demonstrate that utilities, including water supply, are either available or planned:

Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development.
(Gov. Code, § 65583.2(b)(5)(B).) Clearly there is no existing “mandatory program or plan” to supply water for 2,100 units in Fort Ord, since the Site inventory admits that there is at most some unspecified source of “water credits” to support only 240 units. And any agreement with the now defunct Fort Ord Reuse Agency for “water credits” is no longer an enforceable “mandatory program or plan.” Indeed, the only applicable mandatory program at this point is the LandWatch-MCWD-Keep for Ord Wild settlement agreement, which bars MCWD from supplying any further groundwater-based water supply hookups after the next ten units are entitled to MCWD water anywhere in the former Fort Ord. And MCWD does not have a “mandatory program or plan” to provide a non-groundwater supply to Monterey for its Fort Ord land.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 680, Packet Page 1008 4 In sum, the discussion of the Fort Ord water supply issue in the draft Housing Element is insufficient. At bottom, the City simply cannot count on the Fort Ord sites because there is no water supply available or committed through a mandatory program or plan.

Even if there were a committed plan to supply water to Fort Ord development, the City would have to disclose significant groundwater impacts in a CEQA review of the Housing Element, including the cumulative impacts associated with depletion of the aquifer, lowering groundwater levels, and seawater intrusion. There is no current committed mitigation for these impacts.

2. The City should not rely on Fort Ord sites due to hazardous materials.

Moreover, if this 6th Cycle housing element were to include Fort Ord sites, the City would need to address site contamination by hazardous materials. (See HE, p. 3-16 [“the presence of unexploded ordnance requires remediation before residential development can take place“].) First, the Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) requires that any amount of soil over 10 cubic yards remain on the same parcel it comes from (see Fort Ord Cleanup). Second, there are a number of questions that would have to be addressed in a CEQA review of the Housing Element if it relies on residential development of Fort Ord land:
• Were the areas being proposed for residential development in housing elements also designated for residential development in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan? • Was the level of Army cleanup of Fort Ord soils guided by the then-intended uses for specific areas? For example, were areas intended for residential use cleaned up to a higher level than areas intended for industrial use? • Has the soil on lands now being proposed for residential development in housing elements been contaminated?
• If the soils in areas now being proposed for residential use in housing elements were previously contaminated, were the soils cleaned up before the land was transferred to the City?
o If it was cleaned up,
§ Was it cleaned up to a level suitable for residential use, or just for other uses (e.g., industrial or commercial use)? If not, on whom would the cost of incremental cleanup to residential standards fall? § What restrictions remain on the use of the land, e.g., § allowable use limitations
§ off-site transport of soils,
§ excavation protocols
§ additional testing and cleanup for excavated sites
§ construction worker protections,
§ capping soils
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 681, Packet Page 1009 5 § What costs will accommodating these restrictions impose on future development? For example, if excavated soils cannot be removed from sites, what cost would be imposed to retain this presumably contaminated soil on site? Would this restrict the amount of land that could be developed?
• Is additional cleanup required? If so, what entity would be responsible for the cleanup, e.g., the current landowner (e.g., the city) or the purchaser (e.g., the developer)?
• Is there a monitoring program in place for soils and waters under lands now being proposed for residential use? What is the purpose of the monitoring? For example, could the monitoring trigger additional cleanup? If so, what entity would be responsible?
If any of the land proposed for residential development in Fort Ord has been contaminated and has not been fully cleaned up for residential uses without restrictions, or if there are additional costs associated with land use restrictions, then an EIR for a Housing Element that includes Fort Ord lands should evaluate alternatives to developing this land.

Alternatives should include (1) siting development on uncontaminated sites, including urban infill sites in the already urbanized portions of Monterey, and (2) where contaminated sites are used, minimizing the development footprint by using clustered, compact development instead of low-density development.

3. The City should not rely on Fort Ord sites due to biological resource impacts.

The Fort Ord sites contain sensitive biological resources, including special status species, to which development would cause significant impacts. If the City includes Fort Ord land in the Site Inventory, the City would be required to assess those impacts in the Housing Element EIR and to propose mitigation or alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts found to be significant. The attached map identifies some of the biological resource constraints.

Rein Orchids: Populations of three species of rein orchid occurs in the Pine Woods (see map). Two of these species have special status.
a. Yadon’s piperia (Piperia yadonii) – CRPR Rank 1B.1 - ESA endangered b. Michael’s piperia (Piperia michaelii) – CRPR Rank 4.2 c. Denseflower Piperia (Piperia elongata) – no special status Wetlands and vernal pools: A large natural wetland exists on the western edge of the city’s Fort Ord land. The area indicated in the attached map was inundated in May 2023. Several native plant species occur there that are indicators of vernal pools and other wetlands.

Impacts to this wetland would need to be mitigated through protection of equivalent wetland elsewhere. However, given the presence of a vernal pool specialist (Hickman’s ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 682, Packet Page 1010 6 popcornflower), an equivalent protectable wetland is unlikely to be available. So, it is unlikely that this wetland could be allowed to be developed or impacted by surrounding development.

Wetland species present include:
d. Brodiaea hyacinthina (white brodiaea)
e. Brodiaea terrestris (Dwarf brodiaea)
f. Cyperus eragrostis (tall flatsedge)
g. Eleocharis macrostachya (pale spikerush)
h. Isolepis cernua (slender clubrush)
i. Juncus bufonius (Toad rush)
j. Juncus phaeocephalus (Brown-headed rush)
k. Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. hickmanii (Hickman's popcornflower) – CRPR Rank 4.2
l. Triglochin scilloides (flowering-quillwort)
m. Trifolium variegatum (White-tipped clover)
Sensitive Natural Communities: Sensitive Natural Communities are jointly defined by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as the formal means of defining rare plant communities as recognized by State law.

A number of SNCs and preliminarily SNCs occur in the City’s Fort Ord lands. They have not been precisely mapped, but the attached map provides an indication based on mapping by the CalVeg program. Some interpretation is necessary. In particular, any plant community on Fort Ord with a prominent Arctostaphylos (manzanita) species is a current or pending SNC named for that species. In turn, most areas mapped as a form of “chaparral” in the City’s Fort Ord land would contain prominent Arctostaphylos and be considered sensitive under state law. The expected SNCs include:
n. 37.321.00: Arctostaphylos hookeri Alliance (possible in area) o. 37.318.00: Arctostaphylos pumila Alliance
p. 37.211.12: Ceanothus cuneatus – (Arctostaphylos spp.) Maritime q. 45.570.04: Juncus phaeocephalus Association
r. 41.080.01: Leymus triticoides Association
s. 42.005.00: Trifolium variegatum Alliance
t. Pending: Arctostaphylos tomentosa Alliance
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 683, Packet Page 1011 7 Other rare plant listings: Within the above SNCs in the City’s lands on Fort Ord, several plant species occur that themselves have their own special status at the species or subspecies level. A partial list is:
u. Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri (Hooker's manzanita) – CRPR 1B.2 v. Arctostaphylos montereyensis (Toro manzanita) – CRPR 1B.2 w. Arctostaphylos pumila (Sandmat manzanita) – CRPR 1B.2 x. Ceanothus rigidus (Monterey ceanothus) – CRPR 4.2
y. Chorizanthe douglasii (Douglas’ spineflower) – CRPR 4.3 z. Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens (Monterey spineflower) – CRPR 1B.2 – ESA threatened
aa. Ericameria fasciculata (Eastwood's golden fleece) – CRPR 1B.1 California Tiger Salamander: Most of the City’s Fort Ord lands are within 2 km of a known breeding pool for California Tiger Salamander (CTS) – see map. The closest land is approximately 950 m away from a known breeding pool. All lands are with 2 km of either known or potential breeding pools (USFWS Biological Opinion 2017).

Although the Army’s disposal of the land to the City for development purposes is addressed by the Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan (1997), it does not exempt the city from compliance with other applicable state and federal laws and regulations (USFWS Biological Opinion 2017).

It is possible that the city would need to acquire an Incidental Take Permit from the State and that a condition of this permit would be setting aside land in a conservation easement to mitigate the loss of upland CTS habitat. This is what occurred at East Garrison in 2013 in relation to development near known CTS breeding habitat.

Steep slopes: Slopes steeper than 25% occur on a substantial portion of the City’s Fort Ord lands. These slopes and a substantial toe area beneath them would be difficult to develop, both from a regulatory and physical perspective.

4. The City should not rely on Fort Ord sites due to increased vehicle miles traveled and associated climate change impacts.

Both the Office of Planning and Research and the City of Monterey have previously recognized that VMT that is not at least 15% below the regional average is a significant ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 684, Packet Page 1012 8 transportation impact under SB 743. To meet current GHG reduction targets, the California Air Resources Board now requires that local Climate Action Plans result in “VMT per capita reduced 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045.”1

As the attached letter from Ben Gould of EcoDataLab demonstrates, residential development on the Former Fort Ord would likely cause significant transportation impacts in the form of vehicle miles travelled well above the regional average. VMT represents the largest source of GHG in the County and thus the largest cause of climate change impacts.

The 2022 AB 32 Scoping Plan holds local governments accountable to avoid sprawl:

Local government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within their jurisdiction are critical to achieving the State’s long-term climate goals, and can also provide important cobenefits, such as improved air quality, local economic benefits, healthier and more sustainable communities, and improved quality of life. Indeed, a substantial portion of California’s GHG reduction potential comes from activities over which local governments have authority or influence.2
CARB identifies VMT reduction as one of the three most priority efforts that local governments can take to align their policies with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.3 An agency
cannot find its plans consistent with AB 32, and thus cannot find GHG impacts less than significant, without taking steps to minimize VMT. Minimizing VMT requires that jurisdictions “[p]reserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert ‘greenfield’ land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements).”4

5. CEQA disclosures and alternatives
1 California Air Resources Board, 2022 AB 32 Scoping Plan, November2022, App. D, p.

16. 2
Id., App. D, p. 1.
3 Id., App. D, p. 9.
4 Id., App. D, p. 12.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 685, Packet Page 1013 9 In sum, there are substantial habitat, water supply, hazardous materials, and VMT constraints on Fort Ord development sites. If the City chooses to include any vacant Fort Ord land in the Housing Element site inventory, the EIR for its Housing Element must disclose the significant impacts related to habitat, water supply, VMT, and hazardous materials and must propose and evaluate alternatives that avoids or minimizes the use of Fort Ord land in order to reduce those impacts.

B. The City has a feasible alternative to reliance on Fort Ord land and this alternative is already implicit in the Site Inventory.

As explained below, the City could meet its RHNA requirements without relying on the Fort Ord sites. Accordingly, we suggest that Program 1-H be revised to call for a specific plan just for the Ryan Ranch sites, and not the Fort Ord sites. Omission of Fort Ord sites will greatly simplify the required CEQA review of the Housing Element. However, even if the City does decide to include some Fort Ord sites and, as is inevitable, there are potentially significant environmental impacts from this greenfield sprawl, CEQA requires that the City evaluate alternatives that would reduce or avoid these impacts. (14 C.C.R, § 15126.6.)
As set out in the attached analysis, such an alternative is feasible.

The attached analysis starts with the bottom line from Table 3-4 in the Site Inventory, which aggregates the affordable and above moderate-income unit sites the Site Inventory identifies for each opportunity area or other site. It then first subtracts the 2,100 units that the Site inventory collectively assigns to nine parcels identified as "Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord" without disaggregating the units by parcel. It then adds back the units assumed for the three Ryan Ranch parcels, making the same assumption about the realistic development capacity per acre as the Site Inventory makes for the nine parcels in Fort Ord and Ryan Ranch. The point of these two steps was to net out the assumed Fort Ord units from the Site Inventory’s bottom line totals.

The analysis then determines whether there is a surplus or shortage for the high-density sites available for very low, low, and moderate-income units (collectively, “affordable units”). It also determines if there is a surplus or a shortage for the lower density sites available only for above moderate-income units, assuming that the above moderateincome units could only be built on lower density sites. However, as discussed below, the above moderate-income units could also be built on high-density sites, so the “shortage” of low-density sites for above moderate-income units can be made up using any surplus of high-density sites.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 686, Packet Page 1014 10 After elimination of the Fort Ord sites, with no further revisions to the Site Inventory’s assumptions, there would be a 377-unit shortage in affordable unit sites, but there would continue to be a 478-unit surplus in above moderate-income unit sites and an overall surplus of 101 units.

However, the Site Inventory’s analysis does not accurately identify all high-density sites available for affordable units. The Site Inventory is in fact is internally inconsistent because it states that high-density sites along commercial corridors and the Downtown area are all available for affordable units (p. 3-7), but it then fails to count all of the highdensity sites toward affordable units in the Lighthouse, North Fremont, and Downtown opportunity areas and in the Del Monte Shopping Center site. (HE, pp. 3-11, 12, 17, 24.) Instead, the Site Inventory arbitrarily assigns some of the units in high-density sites to above moderate-income units and reduces the number available to affordable units. This makes no sense because any urban infill site meeting the Mullin density of 20 units per acre is presumptively eligible for affordable unit development. And, indeed, the Site Inventory does assume all units could be affordable at other opportunity areas on commercial corridors and at other large sites outside of the opportunity areas that can attain Mullin densities. (HE, pp. 3-13 [Garden Road], 3-15 [Del Monte corridor], 3-17 [Elks Lodge, County Courthouse].) The fact that some currently unknown portion of these sites might instead be used for above moderate-income units does not mean that the City should arbitrarily conclude that they will be. At this point, the City’s job is to identify sufficient sites for affordable units and separately to verify that there will be sufficient sites for above moderate-income units.

Accordingly, the attached analysis corrects the allocation of units as between high-density sites that can accommodate affordable units and lower-density sites that can only accommodate above moderate-income units. The analysis makes this correction in the Lighthouse, North Fremont, and Downtown opportunity areas and in the Del Monte Shopping Center site where some units were unnecessarily restricted to the above moderate-income category even though these sites could be developed at sufficient density to support either affordable or above moderate-income units. The Site Inventory states that commercial corridor sites are assumed to accommodate 29 units per acre and Downtown sites are assumed to accommodate 55 units per acre. (Draft HE, p. 3-7.) The Site Inventory states that any site attaining the Mullin densities, which for Monterey are 20 units per acre, should be counted toward the very low and low income unit RHNA. (Draft HE , p. 3-7.) Thus, all of the sites in the Lighthouse, North Fremont, and Downtown opportunity areas and in the Del Monte Shopping Center can accommodate affordable units, and none are restricted to above moderate-income units. Indeed, this assumption was made for all of the other high-density sites, including the Garden Row and Del Monte ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 687, Packet Page 1015 11 corridor opportunity areas and the County Courthouse, and Elks Lodge sites. (Draft HE, pp. 3-13, 3-15, 3-17.)
Next, the analysis adds units that could be developed on seven City-owned parking lots that are within the opportunity areas. The City owns 25 parking lots with a total acreage of 37 acres. Nine of those 25 parking lots (8 acres) are located within the Opportunity Areas.

Of those nine, seven parking lots (7 acres) are not listed in the Site Inventory. All of these locations are in a commercial corridor and within 0.5 mile distance to a major public transit stop. Those in the Lighthouse opportunity area are assumed to be developable at 29 units per acre and those in the Downtown area at 55 units per acre, per the Site Inventory assumptions. (HE, p. 3-7.) The following parking lots should be included in the Site Inventory:

Lighthouse Opportunity Area at 29DU/AC:
• Foam St. & David Ave. 1.1 Acre (32 units)
• Wave/CR1: 2.26 Acre (66 units)
Total: 98 units
Downtown Opportunity Area at 55 DU/AC:
• Lighthouse Ave. & Municipal Wharf 2: 1.32 Acre (73 units) • Tyler St. & Franklin St.: 0.647 Acre (35 units)
• Tyler St. & Franklin St.:1.38 Acre (71 units)
• #1 Jefferson St. & Calle Principal: 0.32 Acre (17 units) • # 2 Jefferson St. & Calle Principal: 0.19 Acre (10 units) Total: 206 units
Grand Total: 304 potential units
All of these parking lot units are at densities that qualify them to be counted toward affordable units.

Finally, the analysis determines the shortage or surplus of units on (1) sites that can qualify for affordable units and (2) sites that can only qualify for above moderate-income units.

The analysis demonstrates that these adjustments to the Site Inventory, all but one of which were actually called for by the Site Inventory’s own logic of treating high-density sites as suitable for affordable housing, result in a surplus of 663 sites suitable for affordable units and a shortage of 258 sites that are suitable only for above moderateincome units.

However, a “shortage” of sites that are suitable only for building above moderate-income units does not mean that there are insufficient sites for these units because they can also be ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 688, Packet Page 1016 12 built on high-density sites, which can support either affordable or above moderate-income unit sites. Thus, the important constraint in developing the Site Inventory is first to identify sufficient sites for affordable units. If, as the analysis shows, there is a surplus of highdensity affordable unit sites, then some of that surplus can be used to accommodate above moderate-income unit sites. Thus, the City may seek in its Site Inventory to selectively identify some of the high-density sites for above moderate-income units to demonstrate that there will be sufficient sites for both affordable and above moderate-income sites.

Since there is an overall surplus of 405 units, this should be possible. The attached analysis shows that if 300 high-density units are allocated to above moderate income units, there would be a 363-unit surplus of affordable units and a 42-unit surplus of above moderate income sites.

However, we recommend that the City forego the arbitrary allocation of high-density sites as between affordable and above moderate-income units and simply note that up to 663 units on the high-density sites may be developed for above moderate-income units without reducing available sites for affordable units below the RHNA. In practice, the City is required to track the use of the high-density sites identified as suitable for affordable units by non-affordable units in the future to ensure compliance with the no-net-loss rule (Gov. Code, § 65863), and the City proposes to do this through Program 6-A (HE, p. 4-19.) The City could rezone additional sites or adopt a program to restrict available high-density sites to affordable units if 663 of the available high-density sites were to be developed with above moderate-income units.

In sum, simply by consistently recognizing that all of its high-density sites are available to affordable units, the City can meet its RHNA goals without development on Fort Ord – even without adding additional parking lot sites. City-owned parking lots provide an additional buffer. If the Site Inventory were to include all of the City-owned parking lots within the opportunity areas, there would be an additional 304 units as a buffer. This figure is conservative since it is based on the 29-unit per acre density assumed for commercial corridor opportunity areas and the 55-unit per acre density assumed for the Downtown opportunity area, whereas Policy 1-G proposes affordable housing development on two City-owned parking lots at up to 100 units per acre. Furthermore, the City owns another 16 parking lots totaling 29 acres, some of which are partially within the opportunity sites. Some of these sites could also be identified for high-density housing in the Site Inventory, creating an even larger buffer.

Finally, even if some additional sites were needed from Fort Ord for a larger buffer, it is clear that the City does not need all 2,100 sites assumed in the Site Inventory, of which only 20% are assumed to be affordable. At most, the City might need a few hundred additional sites. Limiting Fort Ord development to a few hundred tightly clustered highATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 689, Packet Page 1017 13 density units contiguous to Ryan Ranch might avoid significant biological resource impacts and minimize impacts related to water and hazardous materials.

Accordingly, the City must evaluate at least two alternatives to mitigate effects of the greenfield sprawl that would be caused by sprawl onto Fort Ord: (1) an alternative that forgoes any development on Fort Ord and (2) an alternative that develops only a few hundred units, tightly clustered in an area of minimal biological resource impacts.

Please consider the points made above to be comments on the Notice of Preparation of the EIR for the General Plan Update.

C. Comments on policies and programs

1. Program 1-B Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments.

LandWatch supports the proposal for the MFR overlay areas to increase densities from 30 to 50 units per acre and to remove the requirement for covered parking. The overlay district was intended to facilitate conversion of industrial Zoned areas to housing and provides “development standards that are somewhat less stringent than otherwise applicable to multi-family development.” (HE, p. C33.)
We recommend that the program include expansion of the MFR overlay from the Garden Road area to all of the opportunity areas identified in the Site Inventory in order to encourage MFR development in these areas. There appears to be no reason to impose more stringent development standards outside the Garden Road area.

The proposal to “consider establishing a minimum density for the area when adequate water supply becomes available” should be clarified by deleting the phrase “when adequate water supplies become available.” As the Housing Element acknowledges, when water supplies are limited, units cannot be built. (HE, p. C-33.)However, the City can consider and establish minimum densities in advance of the expected availability of additional water supplies (e.g., the Pure Water Monterey Expansion in 2025), and it should do so.

2. Program 1-C Specific Plan Updates.

LandWatch supports the systematic review and updating of the existing Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue specific plans to increase permitted density and height and to liberalize parking mandates. This work should be coordinated with Program 2-D, which calls for establishing objective development standards for specific plan areas and other areas.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 690, Packet Page 1018 14 3. Program 1-D Permit Streamlining Pilot Project.

LandWatch strongly supports the proposed pilot project to streamline permitting to fast track infill projects, particularly the proposal for by-right ministerial permitting. We recommend that the pilot program area include not just the Downtown opportunity area but also the North Fremont, Lighthouse, and Del Monte opportunity areas where the Site Inventory identifies similar concentrations of infill MFR sites and similar opportunities to fast track housing projects.

We recommend that the City use this pilot program to move toward an eventual system of by-right ministerial permitting for multi-family infill development in all zones that permit any residential uses. Qualifying developments that meet the objective zoning, design review, and use standards should be permitted through ministerial review and without any requirement for a conditional use or other discretionary permit.

Qualifying projects should be limited to infill sites, e.g., as defined by Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(2) [SB 35] or Public Resources Code Section 21094.5(e)(1)(B) [CEQA infill exemption]. Limiting the program to infill sites should simplify CEQA review for the adoption of the program itself.

The City should continue to require discretionary review of projects on specified sites that are environmentally sensitive, e.g., habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; farmland of statewide and local importance; wetlands; earthquake/seismic hazard zones; federal, state, and local preserved lands, NCCP and HCP plan areas, and conservation easements; riparian areas; Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) facilities and sites; landslide hazard, flood plains and, floodways; and wildfire hazard as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (See, e.g., Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(B) through (K) [sites excluded from ministerial permitting in SB 35].) The City could address concerns for gentrification and historic resources by continuing to require discretionary review for projects on existing affordable housing, mobile home sites, or historic resources. (See, e.g., Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(7), (10) [SB 35].) Application, design review, and expiration terms could be based on the language used to implement SB 35. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(b), (c), (e).) Ministerial permitting of residential projects in infill areas of Monterey is appropriate because CEQA review should be accomplished at the program rather than the project level. That is, CEQA review should take place when the City amends its General Plan or zoning code, not when a developer comes to the City with a conforming project.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 691, Packet Page 1019 15 4. Program 1-E Education Workforce Housing Overlay.

LandWatch strongly supports this program, which would provide by-right permitting of school district housing. By-right permitting is a logical extension of AB 2295, which already limits project review to objective standards.

5. Program 1-F Congregational Overlay.

LandWatch strongly supports this program to provide by-right ministerial permitting to housing projects undertaken by faith-based communities on 12 identified sites.

We suggest that the City consider expanding the program to include other infill sites where MFR housing is undertaken by religious institutions. Qualifying sites could be identified using the criteria in SB 35, which applies only to infill projects on sites that are not environmentally sensitive and that do not eliminate historic resources or existing affordable housing. (See Gov. Code § 65913.4(a).)

6. Program 1-G Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities.

LandWatch supports using City-owned lots for housing. As discussed above, there are many more City-owned lots that could be made available.

7. Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan.

As detailed above, the City cannot legally and should not, as a prudential matter, rely on Fort Ord sites to meet its RHNA obligations. Accordingly, Program 1-H should be limited to Ryan Ranch.

8. Program 2-B Permit Thresholds for Multi-Family Projects.

LandWatch supports the proposal to provide at least the same level of liberality in MFR permitting as afforded to other projects, including the elimination of use permits and nonobjective development and design reviews.

We understand that the objective of this Program is to remove barriers to smaller MFR projects. Other programs applicable to larger MFR projects should also result in by-right or streamlined permitting of MFR projects.

9. Program 2-C ARC Review.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 692, Packet Page 1020 16 LandWatch supports this program to eliminate subjective design review. By itself the program should streamline permitting somewhat.

The City should move toward exclusive reuse of objective standards for both design review and development review. Objective standards are an important prerequisite for byright permitting, which should be expanded to apply to essentially all MFR infill projects.

10. Program 2-D Revise Adopted Plans with Objective Standards.

LandWatch supports revising existing specific plans to ensure that development standards are objective. It is not clear from the language of the program that the intent is to establish that all applicable policies and standards be objective. The program should be clarified to provide that it will eliminate all subjective development and design review policies and standards in these specific plan areas.

The City should also consider eliminating subjective development standards and policies for infill housing projects outside these specific plan areas.

11.Program 2-E Revise Parking Requirements.

LandWatch supports liberalizing parking mandates, including going beyond the parking mandate reductions now required by state law. Where possible, the City should reduce or eliminate parking requirements.

The City should also consider requiring that new development unbundle parking so that tenants pay for it separately. Unbundling parking can substantially reduce demand for parking and reduces VMT.

12.Program 2-F Update Density Bonus Ordinance and Program 3-C Local Density Bonus.

Program 2-F proposes to revise the local ordinance to comply with new state mandates, and Program 3-C proposes to offer additional bonus for small lot consolidations.

We support both programs.

In preparation to accommodate proposals under AB 2011 and SB 6, we also recommend extending the density bonus program to all commercial zones.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 693, Packet Page 1021 17 We also recommend that the implementing ordinance for the State Density Bonus Law include an additional density bonus that goes beyond the state requirements in order to more effectively promote affordable housing development. For example, the City could provide a local density bonus greater than the state DBL bonus, e.g., a 50% bonus for projects providing 8% very low-income units instead of the state DBL’s 27.5% bonus. Such an approach is being taken by Sand City, which is proposing a 250% density bonus as long as 15% of the units are affordable to lower income households. In addition, the City could increase the number of concessions given at specified levels of affordability beyond the number mandated by the State DBL.

13.Program 2-I Inclusionary Zoning.

Program 2-I proposes to amend the inclusionary housing ordinance to mandate that its existing 20% affordability requirement be met by providing 10% very low and low income units and 10% moderate income units, which the housing element states is the typical practice.

LandWatch suggests that there is no need for this program if the existing practice already attains its objective.

Furthermore, adoption of any amendment to an inclusionary housing ordinance after September 15, 2017 that mandates more than 15% affordable units, as does Monterey’s, will make the amended ordinance subject to HCD review and may require the City to prepare an economic feasibility study and to limit the affordable mandate to 15%. (Gov. Code, § 65850.01.) Sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.

14.Program 2-J Water Distribution Policy and Program 2-K Addressing Water Supply Constraints.

Program 2-J should be amended to reflect the fact that the Cal-Am has in fact entered the water purchase agreement for the Pure Water Monterey Expansion and that there will be sufficient water supplies to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

Program 2-K should be amended to clarify that the City does not support, or at least does not take a position on, Cal-Am’s controversial effort to impose an unnecessary and very expensive desalination project on its ratepayers. At minimum, the first bullet point should be revised as follows:

Support efforts by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and the California American Water Company (Cal-Am) to pursue the Sand City ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 694, Packet Page 1022 18 desalination plant, Pebble Beach water recycling facility, and new lawful rights in the Carmel River; . . . ..

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Regards,
Michael DeLapa
Executive Director
Attachments
Analysis of Monterey Site Inventory showing feasible alternative to Fort Ord sprawl Ben Gould, President, EcoDataLab, letter to Michael DeLapa, August 22, 2023.

Map of biological resources
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 695, Packet Page 1023 19 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 696, Packet Page 1024 20 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 697, Packet Page 1025 21 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 698, Packet Page 1026 22 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 699, Packet Page 1027 23 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 700, Packet Page 1028 24 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 701, Packet Page 1029 25 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 702, Packet Page 1030 26 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 703, Packet Page 1031 27 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 704, Packet Page 1032 1 Map of biological resources
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 705, Packet Page 1033 Campus Town Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2018021079
prepared by
City of Seaside
Community and Economic Development Department
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, California 93955
Contact: Kurt Overmeyer, Economic Development Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
437 Figueroa Avenue, Suite 203
Monterey, California 93940
February 2020
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 706, Packet Page 1034 Campus Town Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2018021079
prepared by
City of Seaside
Community and Economic Development Department
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, California 93955
Contact: Kurt Overmeyer, Economic Development Manager
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
437 Figueroa Avenue, Suite 203
Monterey, California 93940
February 2020
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 707, Packet Page 1035 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 708, Packet Page 1036 Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Final EIR Contents........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process...................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval .............................................................. 1-2

1.4 Draft EIR Recirculation Not Required.............................................................................. 1-2 2 Topical Response ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Water Master Response ................................................................................................. 2-1 3 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR.................................................................................. 3-1 4 Amendments to the Draft EIR..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Amendments to the Draft EIR......................................................................................... 4-1 5 References.................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Appendices
Appendix E Revised Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Appendix K Revised Transportation Analysis
Appendix N NOP Distribution List and Read Receipts
Appendix O Arborist Report
Appendix P Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Appendix Q Construction Health Risk Assessment
Appendix R Supplementary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Memorandum Appendix S Historic Resources Evaluation Memorandum
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 709, Packet Page 1037 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 710, Packet Page 1038 1 Introduction

1.1 Final EIR Contents
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) is an informational document prepared by the City of Seaside to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Campus Town Specific Plan and associated entitlements (“Proposed Project” or “Project”). The Final EIR becomes final upon certification by the City’s decision-making body, consequently, additional modifications to the Final EIR may be provided up until the time of certification.

As prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the lead agency, the City of Seaside, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This document, together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for this Project. This Final EIR includes individual responses to each letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.

The City of Seaside has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final EIR also includes amendments to the Draft EIR consisting of changes suggested by certain comments, as well as minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR includes the following contents:
 Section 1: Introduction
 Section 2: Topical Responses
 Section 3: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR; which also includes a list of all commenters and public comment letters
 Section 4: Amendments to the Draft EIR
 Section 5: References
 Appendices; which includes revised appendices as well as new appendices

1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process
The City published and distributed a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 on July 8, 2019. The public comment period closed on August 22, 2019.

The Draft EIR was made available on the City’s website, as well as at four locations in the City Seaside open to the public, including:
 Oldemeyer Center, 986 Hilby Avenue, Seaside, California  City of Seaside, Planning Division, 440 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, California  Seaside Branch Library, 550 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, California  Seaside Creates, 656 Broadway Avenue, Seaside, California ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 711, Packet Page 1039

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090), the City will consider certifying the Final EIR as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA. Following Final EIR certification, the City will consider making findings of fact for each significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091), adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (CEQA Guidelines Section 15097), and approving the Proposed Project or an Alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092).

1.4 Draft EIR Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires Draft EIR recirculation when “significant new information.” Significant new information is defined as including:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The comments, responses, and Draft EIR amendments presented in this document do not constitute such “significant new information;” instead, they clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. For example, none of the comments, responses, and Draft EIR amendments disclose new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project, or new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the Proposed Project’s significant effects.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 712, Packet Page 1040 2 Topical Response
This section presents a detailed response to comments related to hydrology and water quality, where commenters provided similar general statements of concern on this topic. Responses to specific comment letters may refer the commenter to the topical response presented herein.

As a general introduction, it should be noted that the Final EIR’s conclusions on the character and significance level of environmental impacts are supported by substantial evidence, which is presented in the Draft EIR and further clarified in this Response to Comments document. The City acknowledges that some commenters disagree with some conclusions in the Draft EIR. Consistent with the intent of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for its implementation, this Final EIR also includes the differing opinions presented by the commenters. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15151), disagreement among commenters, including experts, does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts; this is done in this Response to Comments document.

2.1 Water Master Response
I. Summary of Draft EIR Comments
There are three recurring issues relating to water raised by the comments to the Draft EIR. First, several commenters raise concerns regarding the 6,600 acre-feet per year (AFY) FORA water allocation. Second, several commenters argue that the Draft EIR fails to address seawater intrusion and water supply reliability. Third, the comments assert that the 6,660 AFY FORA water allocation does not represent a “water right” and that it does not represent “wet,” or actual available water.

This Master Water Response will address these recurring issues, and responses to individual comments may refer to this Master Water Response for more detailed analysis of the issues raised therein.

A number of commenters have also asked for highly detailed regional water planning data associated with this specific project. However, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 subdivision (a), “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.” “An EIR need not include all information available on a subject. An EIR should be ‘analytic rather than encyclopedic’ and should emphasize portions ‘useful to the decision-makers and the public.’” (Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729, 748.) With respect specifically to water issues, as the Supreme Court has explained, “CEQA…does not require a city or county, each time a new land use development comes up for approval to reinvent the water planning wheel…When an individual land use project requires CEQA evaluation, the urban water management plan’s information and analysis may be incorporated in the water supply and demand assessment.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.) Additionally, it is beyond the scope of the EIR to provide the regional water balance data and analyses requested by the commenters. (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 713, Packet Page 1041 Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 [“The FEIR was not required to resolve the [existing] overdraft problem, a feat that was far beyond its scope”].) Commenters are advised to review the Draft EIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section

4.16, Utilities and Service Systems; Draft EIR Appendix M (Water Supply Assessment); and the Marina Coast Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”) which was incorporated by reference. In addition, please see the responses to individual comments raising water-related issue.

II. Water Reliability
This master response addresses the comments and questions about the Project’s proposed water source, including its history. As explained in greater detail below, the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation is a reliable source of water, and the Draft EIR has disclosed sufficient information for the decisionmakers and general public to make informed decisions regarding the Project.

Many of the comments take issue with the EIR’s use of the 6,600 AFY FORA Water Allocation. The 6,600 AFY allocation is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well (Draft EIR Section 4.16.1). Under the “Agreement between the United States of America and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency concerning Annexation of Fort Ord into Zones 2 and 2A of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Agreement No. A-06404”, dated September 21, 1993, the District (successor to the United States) may withdraw up to 6,600 AFY from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for use in the District’s Ord Community service area. Use of the 6,600 AFY allocations is supported by (1) the statutory baseline procedures provided under Public Resources Code Section 21083.8.1 (Draft EIR Sections 3.3 and 4.16.1), and (2) MCWRA’s LongTerm Management Plan and the groundwater sustainability planning process which are designed to ensure the reliability of the 6,600 AFY (Draft EIR page 4.16-20; Appendix M1, Section 5.3 [“Reliability of Water Supply and the Regional 6,600 AFY Allocation”]). Furthermore, many individual water users, utilize significantly less water than allocated.1 For example, in 2017, only 1,598.33 AFY was utilized, despite nearly 4,316.44 AFY being allocated out of the 6,600 AFY.

The project is located in the Monterey Subbasin which is north of the Seaside Subbasin (or, interchangeably, “Subareas”). As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.16-1, “[t]he Plan Area is served by MCWD” and “[a]ll of MCWD’s wells are located within the Monterey Subbasin....” (Draft EIR page

4.16-11). MCWD’s wells utilize the 400-foot Aquifer and the 900-foot Deep-Aquifer (Draft EIR page

4.16-1).

A. Monterey Subbasin – Background Information
This master response summarizes basic publicly available information about the Monterey Subbasin as background for its discussions about reliability.

The Monterey Subbasin is located in northern coastal Monterey County and is a subbasin of the greater Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (“Salinas Valley Basin”) (Draft EIR page 4.9-2). The broader Salinas Valley Basin lies between the San Joaquin Valley and the Pacific Ocean, stretching from the headwaters of the Salinas River to its mouth at the Monterey Bay. The Salinas Valley drains approximately 5,000 square miles (Draft EIR Figure 4.9-2). 1 https://www.fora.org/Reports/AR/AnnualReport2019-Full.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 714, Packet Page 1042 The Monterey Subbasin underlies the City of Marina, a portion of the Ord Community, and a portion of the City of Seaside (including the Project). The Subbasin extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Sierra de Salinas Mountains. It borders the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin to its northeast and the Seaside Basin to the southwest, underlying 30,854 acres of land in total. (See Draft EIR Figure 4.16-

2.) The Monterey Subbasin includes portions of three aquifers: the 180-foot Aquifer, the 400-foot Aquifer, and the 900-foot Aquifer (also known as the Deep Aquifer). It is believed that the 180- and 400-foot Aquifers are recharged laterally from the East Side Subbasin and the Forebay Subbasin. (See MCWD, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan at page 37 [June 2016] [“2015 Plan”].)2 In addition, the 180- and 400-foot Aquifers are connected hydraulically at certain locations and may be recharging the 900-foot Aquifer, which shows seasonal variations similar to the aquifers above. (Id.) As discussed below, the Monterey Subbasin is designated by the state as a medium-priority basin, which pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), must be managed pursuant one or more groundwater sustainability plans that must be adopted and submitted for review by the Department of Water Resources prior to January 31, 2022.

The Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”) is a county water district formed in 1960. MCWD withdraws about 4,200 acre-feet of groundwater per year (“AFY”) from the Monterey Subbasin.

MCWD’s pumping equates to a tiny fraction, less than one percent, of the 524,000 AFY total average annual Salinas Valley Basin withdrawals (2015 Plan: page 38). On average, 25 percent of total Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin withdrawals occur in the Pressure Subarea, which includes the Monterey Subbasin. (See Brown and Caldwell, State of Salinas River Groundwater Basin Report at ES-8 [December 10, 2014] [“State of Basin Report”].)3 MCWD owns and operates three wells in its Central Marina service area and five in its Ord Community service area, all of which are within the Monterey Subbasin (Draft EIR page 4.9-5; Appendix M, pages 22–23). MCWD well locations are shown in Figure 2.2 of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. (See 2015 Plan at pages 9 and 45 [MCWD Wells -10, -11, and -12 draw from the Deep Aquifer].) B. Monterey Subbasin – Historical Management
The reliability of the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation has been insured by the long-term management and planning of the Monterey Subbasin.

MCWRA’s role in the management of the Monterey Subbasin dates back to the late 1940s (see GMP page 1-3). In 2006, MCWRA developed a groundwater management plan to address groundwater challenges and develop future groundwater projects in the Salinas Valley Basin (see GMP page 1-8).

MCWRA implemented a groundwater monitoring network, precluded new pumping from the aquifers primarily impacted by seawater intrusion, actively managed surface water for groundwater recharge purposes, and developed water recycling projects to deliver recycled water in-lieu of groundwater (see GMP pages 1-3, 1-8, 4-2 and Draft EIR page 4.16-20).

In February 2019, MCWRA more fully integrated surface water planning into its groundwater management, adopting the Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan (“LTMP”)4 (see Draft EIR pages 4.16-19 through 20). The LTMP sets forth strategies, both currently employed and future goals, which are designed to manage the Salinas River and its interaction with groundwater resources within the Salinas Valley. Key strategies discussed in the LTMP are:
2 Available at https://www.mcwd.org/docs/agenda_minutes/2016-06-06_board/Item%2011-A%20- %20MCWD%20Draft%202015%20UWMP%20v20160520.pdf.
3 Available at https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/hornbeck_cgb_6_a/21/. 4 Available at http://www.salinasrivermanagementprogram.org/.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 715, Packet Page 1043  Enhancing on- and off-channel groundwater percolation zones. (LTMP page 4-6.)  Establishing a geographic planning framework for the Salinas River that includes groundwater management considerations. (LTMP page 4-6.)
 Studying the interaction between Salinas River surface flow and groundwater. (LTMP page 4-

14.)
C. Monterey Subbasin – Statutory Requirements for Management The reliability of the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation is further ensured by compliance with statutory requirements for groundwater management.

SGMA requires that groundwater basins in California be managed sustainably by 2040 (see Water Code Sections 10720-10736.6). Consistent with SGMA’s requirements, the Salinas Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“SVBGSA”) was created as a groundwater sustainability agency (“GSA”) for much of the Salinas Valley Basin (see Draft EIR page 4.16-20). In the Monterey Subbasin, the MCWD also elected to be a GSA within its jurisdictional boundaries. Both GSAs are developing groundwater sustainability plans (“GSP”) for the portions of the Subbasin within their respective jurisdictional areas, which plans are due in 2022.5 The two GSAs will also be required by SGMA to enter into a coordination agreement to coordinate their respective GSPs for the Subbasin (see Water Code Section 10727[b][3]). SVBGSA will also coordinate its GSP for the Monterey Subbasin with the GSPs it is developing for five other subbasins within the Salinas Valley Basin under SVBGSA’s jurisdiction6 (see SVBGSA, Draft Salinas Valley: Valley-Wide Integrated Groundwater Sustainability Plan at page 1 [January 2019]).7
D. Seaside Subbasin – Background Information
Prior to 2016, the Project area was considered by California’s Department of Water Resources to be underlain by the “Seaside Area Subbasin.” However, in 2016, boundaries were revised such that the previous “Seaside Area Subbasin” was divided into the above-described Monterey Subbasin and the Seaside Subbasin. MCWD does not operate any wells in the Seaside Subbasin. However, the Seaside Subbasin underlies the Bayonet and Black Horse golf courses, on which some of the recycled water and storage in lieu programs will occur under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.

The Seaside Subbasin is located in northern coastal Monterey County. It underlies the City of Seaside, as well as the Cities of Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, and portions of unincorporated county areas, including the southern portions of the former Fort Ord and the Laguna Seca Area. The boundaries of the Seaside Subbasin are, generally, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Salinas Valley to the north, the Toro Park area to the east, and Highways 68 and 218 to the south (see Draft EIR Figure 4.16-2). There are several subareas of the Seaside Basin, including the Coastal subarea and the Laguna Seca subarea. In total, the Seaside Basin contains 52,030 acre-feet of usable storage. The Seaside Basin is technically a subbasin of the broader Salinas Valley Basin, but for clarity we refer to it herein as the Seaside Subbasin. It is one of approximately two dozen groundwater basins in California that have been adjudicated by the courts and are now subject to judicial management. 5 The Monterey Subbasin is not subject to critical overdraft. 6 SVBGSA’s draft GSP for the 180/400-foot Aquifer Subbasin, which adjoins the Monterey Subbasin to the north and is impacted by significant seawater intrusion, proposes demand management actions, including a voluntary fallowing program and mandated pumping restrictions. See SVBGSA, Draft Chapter 9, Projects and Management Actions, 180/400-Foot Aquifer Subbasin GSP at 10, 16 (August 2019).

Available at https://svbgsa.org/groundwater-sustainability-plan/180-400-ft-aquifer. 7 Available at https://svbgsa.org/groundwater-sustainability-plan/180-400-ft-aquifer.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 716, Packet Page 1044 Consequently, the basin is not required to be managed pursuant to a groundwater sustainability plan under SGMA. Through adjudication the court determined that the Seaside Subbasin has a safe yield of approximately 2,581 to 2,913 AFY (Draft EIR page 4.9-2).

E. Seaside Subbasin – Groundwater Management
As discussed in the Draft EIR, all of MCWD’s wells are located within the Monterey Subbasin, and the Seaside Basin is immediately south of the Monterey Subbasin. The Seaside Basin is managed by the Monterey Superior Court, with the assistance of the Seaside Groundwater Seaside Basin Watermaster, pursuant a court order issued in 2006, amended in 2007, in the case California American Water Company v. City of Seaside, Monterey Superior Court, Case No. M66343. Following an action filed on August 14, 2003, plaintiff California American Water Company (“Cal-Am”) filed a complaint against Seaside (and other defendants), requesting a declaration of the parties’ individual and collective rights to groundwater and seeking a mandatory and prohibitory injunction requiring the reasonable use and coordinated management of groundwater within the Seaside Basin, pursuant to Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. The parties litigated the issues at trial.

Following trial, an initial decision was entered by Judge Randall on March 22, 2006. On February 9, 2007, Judge Randall entered the amended decision in the action (“Seaside Decision”)8 governing water rights in the Seaside Basin. The court determined it was appropriate and prudent to adopt a physical solution (see Cal. Am. Water v. City of Seaside [Ct. App. 2010] 183 Cal. App. 4th 471, 480 citing City of Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. [1936] 7 Cal.2d 316, 341).9 The Seaside Decision established the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster (“Seaside Watermaster”) to assist in the implementation of that Decision and the ongoing management of the Seaside Basin. The Seaside Watermaster is responsible for assessing administrative budget and replenishment assessments to finance its administrative activities and Seaside Basin replenishment. The Seaside Decision also reserves continuing jurisdiction to the Court to modify the Decision as appropriate and to resolve any dispute. The Seaside Decision continues to control groundwater management in the Seaside Subbasin today.

In addition to establishing the Seaside Basin Watermaster, the Seaside Decision implemented a management strategy to cure overdraft pumping within the basin, monitor for any indications of seawater intrusion, and improve groundwater conditions, all while allowing groundwater users to continue their activities in a reasonable manner.

First, the Seaside Decision mandated reductions in the allowed annual production. These reductions are implemented through a series of 10 percent triennial reductions in allowed annual production until the total Seaside production is no more than the natural safe yield. The Seaside Decision calculated the Operating Safe Yield10 of the Seaside Basin to be 5,600 acre feet (4,611 acre feet in the Coastal Subarea and 989 acre feet in the Laguna Seca Subarea). Under the present framework the Seaside Basin’s Operating Safe Yield will be brought down to 3,000 AFY by 2021—significantly 8 Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/Amended%20Decision0207.pdf. 9 “A physical solution is an equitable remedy designed to alleviate overdrafts and the consequential depletion of water resources in a particular area, consistent with the constitutional mandate to prevent waste and unreasonable water use and to maximize the beneficial use of this state's limited resource. (Cal. Const., art. X, § 2.) Courts are vested with not only the power but also the affirmative duty to suggest a physical solution where necessary, and it has ‘the power to enforce such solution regardless of whether the parties agree.’” 10 The Seaside Decision differentiates between the Seaside Basin’s Natural Safe Yield (“the quantity of groundwater existing in the Seaside Basin that occurs solely as a result of Natural Replenishment”) and Operating Safe Yield (“the maximum amount of Groundwater resulting from Natural Replenishment that this Decision, based upon historical usage, allows to be produced from each Subarea for a finite period of years, unless such level of production is found to cause Material Injury”).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 717, Packet Page 1045 closer to the Natural Safe Yield (determined in the Seaside Decision to be between 2,581 and 2,913 acre feet).

Beyond implementing this system of reductions, the Seaside Decision allows for various means of replenishment. To begin, the Seaside Decision instructs the Seaside Watermaster to levy “replenishment assessments” on each acre foot of production by a producer in excess of their respective share of the safe yield (see Seaside Decision Section III. L.1.j.iii; pages 32-34).

Replenishment assessments are not imposed upon production under an Alternative Production Allocation (“APA”) if the production remains within the fixed amount established for that producer. (Id.) The Seaside Decisions requires that the amount of the assessment must cover the cost of artificial replenishment in an amount necessary to offset that producer’s production in excess of their share of the safe yield. (Id.) The replenishment assessment is determined annually based upon the Seaside Watermaster’s estimate of the cost of providing non-native water to replenish the Seaside Basin. (Id.)
Finally, the Seaside Decision required the Seaside Watermaster to prepare a comprehensive program to monitor the Seaside Basin to ensure that it remains protected and managed as a perpetual source of water. This program, the Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management Program (“M&MP”),11 monitors current overdraft conditions, as well as the threat of seawater intrusion into the basin’s coastal subarea. Since the entry of the Seaside Decision, Seaside Basin’s groundwater levels have declined as expected (given the continued overdraft while production is gradually reduced over time to match safe yield), but no seawater intrusion has been detected. Moreover, there are plans underway (discussed below) to further reduce demand on the basin and thereby allow the basin’s groundwater levels to recover (see Seaside Basin Watermaster Annual Report – 2018).12 Were seawater intrusion to be detected by the M&MP in the interim, the M&MP prescribes an aggressive plan to address the problem (see M&MP page 4).

1. Seaside Basin Replenishment Through the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
The ultimate goal in securing the long-term health of the Seaside Basin is to ensure production is reduced and prior overdraft pumping is offset through replenishment to stabilize groundwater levels. The California American Water Company (“Cal-Am”), the single largest user of the Seaside Basin’s groundwater, is developing the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. This project includes groundwater replenishment using water from the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) Project and surplus winter water supplies from the Carmel River, together with a proposed a desalination plant and associated conveyance facilities (see broader discussion within the Seaside Watermaster’s Request for Status Conference and Adjudication Background Report and Update, May 23, 2016, page 18).13 Cal-Am has entered an agreement with the Seaside Basin Watermaster, which commits the company to reduce its production from the Seaside Basin by 700 AFY of desalinated water for a period of at least 25 years once the full project comes online (Id. page 19). This will replenish the Seaside Basin in an amount equal to Cal-Am’s historic overpumping since the entry of the Seaside Decision (Id.).
11 Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/Implementation%20Plan%20031307.pdf. 12 Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/2018%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 13 Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/REPORT.PDF.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 718, Packet Page 1046

2. Seaside’s Pumping and Storage Rights Under the Seaside Decision The Seaside Decision allocated the allowed annual production between the parties. It also established two “classes” of adjudicated production rights: Alternative Production Allocation (“APA”), which generally reflects the characteristics of an overlying groundwater right under the common law, and Standard Production Allocation (“SPA”), which generally reflects the characteristics of an appropriative groundwater right under the common law. Seaside enjoys both APA and SPA in the Seaside Basin. It produces groundwater from the Seaside Basin for irrigation of its two golf courses—the Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses—that overlie the Seaside Basin from its APA, while it serves water to its municipal water system from its SPA.

In 2010, the Seaside Watermaster also issued a Declaration of Total Useable Storage Space in which it allotted to Seaside a maximum storage amount of 2,361 acre-feet in the Seaside Basin, roughly 7.4 percent of the Seaside Basin’s total usable storage allocation (see Seaside Watermaster’s Declaration of Total Usable Storage Space, February 3, 2010).14 Recently, Seaside applied to the Court for approval of an in-lieu storage program.15 The program would allow Seaside to substitute recycled water, derived from the PWM Project and supplied by MCWD, for irrigation of the golf courses in lieu of the current use of approximately 450 AFY of groundwater produced from the Seaside Basin. Such substitution will achieve replenishment and storage of water in the Seaside Basin, and the quantity of recycled water applied annually at the golf courses would establish the amount of water “stored” annually in the Seaside Basin via in lieu storage. Seaside would recover the stored water through its wells and then deliver the recovered water to MCWD for use within its water system. The program would add several hundred acre-feet of additional reliable supply to offset deficiencies in FORA Allocation to serve demands within the Seaside portion of the Ord Community. Additionally, this storage capacity increases water supply reliability by providing a water buffer during drought conditions with the use of banked water supplies during wet years.

Water Supply under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 includes advance-treated recycled water derived from the Pure Water Monterey Project (“PWM Project”), which is nearing completion (Draft EIR page 4.16-6; Draft EIR Appendix M pages 24 and A-2). The recycled water will be used to offset existing uses of potable groundwater within MCWD’s service area, thereby liberating MCWD’s potable supply under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1. Water from the PWM Project would be utilized at Seaside’s Blackhorse and Bayonet Golf Courses in lieu of the current use of potable groundwater from the Seaside Basin. This substitution will establish stored groundwater within the Seaside Basin through in lieu storage methods, which stored water would then be recovered by Seaside, the majority of which would then be delivered to MCWD to augment its water supply portfolio.

The in-lieu storage program found in UTIL-1 will also include a groundwater storage capacity of up to 2,361 AF. This “bank” of water storage will be used to ensure reliable water offsets even when, due to weather or other causes, a single-year’s water use at the Project exceeds a single year’s water storage (see Seaside’s Motion for Approval of In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program, September 4, 2019, page 9).

F. Other Relevant Regional Water Agreements
There are numerous other regional water agreements and programs that will further ensure the reliability of the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation.
14 Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/Declaration%20of%20Total%20Usable%20Storage%20Space.pdf. 15 Seaside’s Motion for Approval of In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program, Sept. 4, 2019. Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/Motion%20for%20In%20Lieu%20Storage%20Program.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 719, Packet Page 1047 With the regional goals of improving water supply reliability and quality, a number of water agencies, environmental interests, and municipalities formed the Greater Monterey County Regional Water Management Group and produced an “Integrated Regional Water Management Plan” (“IRWMP”) in 2013 (see Draft EIR pages 7-21 and 7-28). The effort integrates water planning across the County and assists in directing funding to supported water supply and quality projects.16 The IRWMP promotes infrastructure projects and water supply reliability projects within the Salinas Valley Basin, such as MCWRA’s Salinas Valley Water Project, designed to address seawater intrusion.17 Other relevant regional agreements include the following:
 Water/Wastewater Facilities Agreement entered into by MCWD and FORA, dated March 13, 1998. Through this agreement, MCWD agreed to take conveyance of Fort Ord’s water and wastewater facilities and to cause to be built additional water and sewer facilities as needed by the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan (see Draft EIR pages 4.16-3 and 7-28).  Pure Water Delivery and Supply Project entered into by MCWD and Monterey One Water, dated April 8, 2016. Through this agreement, MCWD secured up to 1,427 AFY of future recycled water supplies needed for the Fort Ord Community that Monterey One Water is developing as a part of Monterey One Water’s PWM Project (see WSA Appendix A pages A-1–3).

III. Seawater Intrusion
Some comments asserted that the 6,660 AFY FORA Allocation is not reliable because the groundwater supply is in “overdraft,” which in turn can result in seawater intrusion. The below information describes seawater intrusion issues in the area. As discussed in the Draft EIR, “MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality” (Draft EIR page 4.16-19).

This response will provide a brief overview of CEQA’s legal requirements, and additional information regarding the history and current state of seawater intrusion in the Project region.

A. CEQA Requirements
Multiple comments assert that the Draft EIR is insufficient because it fails to address overdraft conditions of the entire groundwater basin surrounding the Project and that it fails to address the current issues of seawater intrusion and mitigate any effects. These comments misconstrue the requirements of CEQA. This EIR is not required to address existing, region-wide concerns. (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville [2010] 183 Cal.App.4th 1059 [“The FEIR was not required to resolve the [existing] overdraft problem, a feat that was far beyond its scope”].) In Watsonville the Petitioner argued that a Final EIR failed to “pinpoint a solution” to a regional problem with groundwater overdraft. The court held that “[t]he purpose of an EIR is to identify and discuss the impact of the proposed project on the existing environment. The Final EIR concludes that the impact of the new development contemplated by the 2030 General Plan will be offset by decreased water usage associated with the conversion of farmland and the City's water conservation measures. Thus, the overdraft problem will remain but will not be exacerbated by the proposed project.” (Ibid.)
16 Available at http://www.greatermontereyirwmp.org/.
17 Available at http://www.greatermontereyirwmp.org/projects/completed/.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 720, Packet Page 1048 Additionally, CEQA “does not require a city or county, each time a new land use development comes up for approval, to reinvent the water planning wheel” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova [2007] 40 Cal.4th 412, 434). Several courts have similarly held that a project-level EIR is not required to engage in region-wide water balancing (see Friends of Kings River v. County of Fresno [2014] Case No. F068818 [“Petitioner has failed to show that a postmining water balance is necessary to understand the Project’s impacts on water consumption or potential contamination. Consequently, we reject its argument that the project description is inadequate because it lacks a postmining water balance calculation.”]; Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 222).

B. History and Current State of Seawater Intrusion
Seawater intrusion has driven groundwater management in the greater Salinas Valley Basin and the Monterey Subbasin for more than seventy years. Discovered in 1930, seawater intruded a mile inland into the 180-foot Aquifer by 1946, prompting the creation of the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which later became the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”) in 1947 (see MCWRA, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan at 1-3 [May 2006] [“GMP”]).18 The agency built Nacimiento Dam in 1957 and San Antonio Dam in 1965, operating the dams to control seasonal flood waters and release them to the Salinas River to recharge groundwater. (Id.) Unfortunately, seawater continued to advance, reaching four miles inland into the 180-foot Aquifer and two miles inland into the 400-foot Aquifer by 1970. (Id. at 3-

14.) By 2015, the saline front extended 8 miles inland at its furthest in the 180-foot Aquifer and 3 miles inland in the 400-foot Aquifer (State of Basin pages 5-6 and 5-8). In 2019, the 2019 Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan stated that current ‘seawater intrusion extends approximately 7 miles inland within the 180-foot aquifer and 4 miles inland in the 400-foot Aquifer” (Draft EIR page

4.9-5; Draft EIR Appendix M1 page 29).

MCWD no longer pumps from the 180-foot Aquifer. MCWRA, in coordination with other local agencies, has since developed additional efforts to combat seawater intrusion, including the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Program that delivers recycled and seasonal flows diverted from the Salinas River for irrigation in lieu of pumped groundwater. Seawater intrusion continues to occur in the 180-foot and 400-foot Aquifers within some portions of the Monterey Subbasin; however, available data suggests that the rate of seawater intrusion advance peaked from 1997 to 1999 (see State of Basin page 6-3). Reductions in the rate of seawater intrusion since 1999 are attributable in part to the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (Id. at 5-6.) and the Salinas Valley Water Project (“SVWP”) (see 2015 Plan page 43). The SVWP modified infrastructure and operations of Nacimiento and San Antonio reservoirs to supply additional water to the coast, further lowering coastal groundwater pumping. (Id.) In addition, groundwater conditions may have improved behind the seawater intrusion front, with fresh water mounding in a coastal shallow aquifer. (Id. at pp. 45, 48.) The mounding in the shallow aquifer may help cap deeper aquifers, preventing further seawater intrusion (Id. at p. 48; MCWD, 2015 Plan Appendix E page E-20 (June 2016)).19 The current extent of seawater intrusion can be seen on maps provided by MCWRA.20 There have been no indications of seawater intrusion in the 900-foot Aquifer (Draft EIR Appendix M page 29). Intrusion could be possible at pumping rates two to five times the baseline rate, but such increases are not anticipated. 18 Available at https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=22563. 19 Available at https://www.mcwd.org/docs/engr_files/MCWD%202015%20UWMP%20Appendices_Final.pdf. 20 Available at https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/government-links/water-resources-agency/documents/seawater-intrusionmaps#wra.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 721, Packet Page 1049 (Id.) To protect the resource, MCWD also operates a monitoring well within the 900-foot Aquifer to identify any early signs of seawater intrusion into that aquifer (Draft EIR page 4.9-5; see also 2015 Plan page 48).

Seawater intrusion is not an immediate threat to MCWD’s groundwater supplies (Draft EIR page 4.9- 25; Draft EIR Appendix M page 29). Historically, all of MCWD’s wells pumped groundwater from the 180- and 400-foot Aquifers (see 2015 Plan page 45). As its wells began to show signs of seawater intrusion, MCWD transitioned to deeper wells between 1960 and 1992 (Id.; Draft EIR page 4.16-1).

Today, MCWD pumps groundwater from wells in the 400-foot (from the four inland Ord Community wells) and 900-foot (from one Ord Community well and three Central Marina wells) Aquifers. (Id.) As stated above, several factors have addressed immediate concerns over seawater intrusion into MCWD’s wells: (a) MCWD no longer pumps from the 180-foot Aquifer, (b) surface and recycled water projects have reduced coastal groundwater pumping thereby slowing seawater intrusion rates, (c) freshwater mounding is beginning to occur in the shallow aquifer, and (d) no seawater intrusion has been discovered in the 900-foot Aquifer, nor is pumping occurring at a rate at which intrusion is anticipated. Moreover, additional groundwater management for the Monterey Subbasin will be set forth by 2022 pursuant to SGMA. SGMA requires that the groundwater sustainability plans developed for the Monterey Subbasin control “significant and unreasonable” seawater intrusion by 2040 (see Water Code Section 10721[x][3] [2019]).

IV. Water Rights
Multiple comments expressed concerns that the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation is not a “water right,” and that this figure does not represent “wet water.” As an initial matter, the Draft EIR does not focus on “water rights,” but rather, as directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) “the possible impacts on the environment.” To the extent that comments relating to “water rights” implicate impacts on the environment, those impacts are discussed above in the reliability and seawater intrusion sections. Regardless, this master response will address the legal status of the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation.

A. U.S. Army’s 1993 MCWRA Annexation Agreement
As part of the Fort Ord redevelopment effort, on or about September 21, 1993, the Army entered into Contract No. A-6404 with the MCWRA for annexation of the former Fort Ord lands into MCWRA Zone 2 and 2A (hereafter, “Annexation Agreement.”)21 (Draft EIR page 4.16-1; Draft EIR Appendix M1 page 22). The Annexation Agreement is the basis for the Army's pumping limitation of 6,600 of water from the Salinas Valley Basin and of that, no more than 5,200 AFY may be pumped from the 180- and 400-foot Aquifers therein (“FORA Allocation”). The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well (MCWRA 1993) (Draft EIR page 4.16-1).

On or about October 23, 2001, the Army quitclaimed its water and wastewater infrastructure to the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (“FORA”) and issued two easements to FORA. The easements to FORA required that FORA ensure that all owners of property at the former Fort Ord continue to be provided an equitable supply of water at equitable rates. In turn, the FORA Board divided the FORA 21 Agreement No. A-06404, Agreement Between the United States of American and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Concerning Annexation of Fort Ord into Zones 2 and 2A of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Sept. 21, 1993.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 722, Packet Page 1050 Allocation among the land use jurisdictions in the Fort Ord Community, including Seaside (Draft EIR Appendix M1 Table 3-3).

Seaside obtained 1,012.5 AFY of the FORA Allocation, of which it has previously sub-allocated 831.9 AFY to other projects (Draft EIR page 4.16.-21; Draft EIR Appendix M1 Table 5-2). The Campus Town Project will add 441.6 AFY of potable water demand (Ibid). Seaside may allocate the remaining 180.6 AFY to the Campus Town Project, leaving a deficit of 261 AFY in supply. (Id.) Therefore, MCWD and Seaside are developing new strategies to establish additional potable water supplies to meet Campus Town Project’s potable water demand through the substitution of recycled water to free potable water supplies as discussed in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and the Campus Town Water Supply Assessment and further addressed below (Id. page 24).

B. Legal Nature of the FORA Allocation
Several comment letters have misconstrued the nature of the FORA Allocation, mistaking it for a “water right” instead of a limitation to a pre-existing water right. The following describes the difference between a water right and the FORA Allocation (a regulatory limit on groundwater extractions). It also addresses the FORA Allocation’s amount and permanence.

Regulatory or judicial allocations are a common groundwater management tool employed to limit groundwater production. The FORA Allocation limits the amount of groundwater that may be withdraw from the Salinas Valley Basin to service the Ord Community (see Annexation Agreement page 5). The Army and MCWRA agreed to the annexation of Fort Ord to the MCWRA and set the FORA Allocation as a step in a series of regional efforts to manage seawater intrusion by reducing coastal groundwater pumping (Id. page 4-5; see also Annexation Assembly and Evaluation Report for the Annexation of Fort Ord by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency at 2, 10 [September 10, 1993] [“Annexation Report”]). Thus, the FORA Allocation should not be confused with a water right. Rather, it is a demand management arrangement. By contrast, the water rights supporting Fort Ord, and now the Ord Community, originate from the common law. Originally, the Army’s right to supply groundwater to Fort Ord arose from federal water rights, among other possible claims. (Id.) MCWD possesses groundwater rights that it relies on to serve the Ord Community under other doctrines discussed below.

Understanding the FORA Allocation’s nature as a demand management arrangement illuminates how the FORA Allocation’s amount was derived. The Army voluntarily agreed to the FORA Allocation as a cap on groundwater production at the Fort. The 6,600 AFY and 5,200 AFY were set to the “annual peak (1984) and recent average (1988-1992) amounts” respectively (Id. page 5). The FORA Allocation limited the Army to pumping only the recent average (5,200 AFY) from the 180- and 400- foot Aquifers. Should the Army need additional supply up to its peak use, the FORA Allocation contemplated a new well into the 900-foot Aquifer to supply the 1,400 AFY difference (see Annexation Report page 8). Therefore, the FORA Allocation limited the Army to average pumping in the aquifers most effected by seawater intrusion. Shifting peak groundwater pumping to the 900- foot Aquifer was an additional seawater intrusion management action intended to protect the most effected aquifers. Lastly, the Annexation Agreement’s terms do not support the conclusion the FORA Allocation was intended to be temporary.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 723, Packet Page 1051 C. MCWD’s Groundwater Rights in the Monterey Subbasin
Several comment letters challenge the adequacy of MCWD’s groundwater supply to serve the proposed Campus Town water supply. Commenters have raised concerns about the legality of the FORA Allocation. However, MCWD has groundwater rights for the reasons discussed below. Several comment letters also contend that MCWD may be enjoined from production because of an alleged junior priority of its water rights and the overdraft condition of the groundwater supply. There are several bases for MCWD’s rights to the 6,600 AFY FORA Allocation, set forth below.

1. Perfected Appropriative Rights
MCWD has perfected appropriative groundwater rights. Appropriative rights arise from actual beneficial use (see City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 294, 304). No further action, including that by a court or agency, is required by California law to establish an appropriative groundwater right. An appropriative right is junior in priority to overlying groundwater right, but an appropriator may make use of any surplus water available in the basin (see City of Pasadena v City of Alhambra (Cal. 1949) 33 Cal. 2d 908, 925-26).

MCWD owns and operates three wells in its Central Marina service area and five in its Ord Community service area, all of which are within the Monterey Subbasin. By pumping groundwater and providing it for domestic use, MCWD has perfected appropriative groundwater rights. The Monterey Subbasin is not presently subject to a groundwater basin adjudication or other legal action to enjoin groundwater use. Thus, there is no present legal restriction on MCWD’s ability to extract groundwater for reasonable beneficial use.

Accordingly, comments asserting that the 6,600 AFY is not a water “right” miss the mark. MCWD’s water rights exist without it taking any action, and because the groundwater basin is not currently adjudicated, there is no present legal restriction on its ability to extract groundwater.

2. Groundwater Rights Pursuant to a Future Adjudication Even if the Monterey Subbasin were adjudicated, MCWD would have several legal bases to continue production from the subbasin. A comprehensive groundwater adjudication determines all groundwater rights and priorities in a basin (see Code of Civ. Proc. Sections 830 et seq.).

3. Prescriptive Rights
First, MCWD could assert a claim of prescriptive rights through an adjudication. Prescriptive rights arise when an appropriator continues to pump during times of overdraft for a period in excess of five years (see City of Santa Maria v. Adam (Ct. App. 2012) 149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 491, 502). To establish prescriptive rights, the appropriator’s pumping must be continuous over at least a five-year prescriptive period, adverse and hostile, open and notorious and under claim of right, and there must be either actual or constructive notice of the overdraft to the overlying water rights holders (Santa Maria, 149 Cal. Rptr. at 511-12). Such a claim is supported within the Monterey Subbasin for the benefit of MCWD. First, the subbasin’s overdraft status establishes the adverse and hostile element of a prescription claim (see City of Los Angeles v. San Fernando (1975) 123 Cal. Rptr. 1, 63; GMP at 4-3). Second, at least constructive notice of the overdraft would be established from the general public awareness of depleted groundwater conditions, seawater intrusion in the northern portions of the subbasin, newspaper articles, groundwater reports, and MCWRA’s groundwater management efforts. Constructive notice of this type is sufficient to satisfy the notice element of a prescription claim (Id at 62; Santa Maria, 149 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 513-14). Finally, MCWD’s continual use ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 724, Packet Page 1052 of groundwater to serve its customers for more than a half century would satisfy the continuous pumping requirement for prescription. Thus, MCWD would have support for a claim of prescriptive rights in an adjudication, securing MCWD’s domestic supply even under overdraft conditions.

4. Subordination
In an adjudication, a court may also subordinate the priority of unexercised groundwater rights to the priority of MCWD’s groundwater rights. California courts have developed the doctrine of subordination, originally used in the surface water context, to balance the need for certainty against unexercised water rights. (In re: Waters of Long Valley Creek Stream System v. Ramelli (Cal. 1979) 158 Cal. Rptr. 350.)
To date, courts have not applied the same principle to subordinate dormant overlying groundwater rights. However, the Supreme Court has indicated that the subordination principle applied in Long Valley for surface water may need to be applied in the future to subordinate dormant overlying rights “to harmonize water shortages with a fair allocation of future use” (see Mojave, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 311 n.13). Further, as part of a recent groundwater basin adjudication reform law, the legislature explicitly permitted the court to apply the principles set forth in Long Valley within a comprehensive groundwater basin adjudication (see Code of Civ. Proc. Section 830[b][7]).

MCWD presently exercises its groundwater rights for the benefit of its 33,000 customers. A court acting in equity would likely confirm MCWD’s groundwater supply against uncertain future demands.

5. Doctrine of Intervening Public Use
Finally, MCWD could protect the right to its water supply against injunctive relief through the doctrine of intervening public use. When a public water supplier pumps groundwater within an overdrafted groundwater basin, the water supplier may choose to pay just compensation instead of ceasing pumping. (See Wright v. Goleta Water Dist. [Ct. App. 1985] 219 Cal. Rptr. 740, 751; 1 Cal.

Water Law and Policy Section 9.04 [2018].) MCWD is a county water district and supplies groundwater to public uses within its service area. If a senior groundwater right holder sought to enjoin MCWD’s junior groundwater pumping, MCWD could simply pay compensation under this doctrine rather than cease its groundwater use.

In sum, MCWD has several bases to establish its rights to continue groundwater production from the Monterey Subbasin, including prescription and subordination claims. Moreover, MCWD may protect itself from an injunction against its pumping by paying compensation to any senior water rights holder.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 725, Packet Page 1053 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 726, Packet Page 1054 3 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Campus Town Specific Plan and associated entitlements (“Proposed Project” or “Project”).

The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on July 8, 2019 and ended on August 22, 2019. The City of Seaside received 18 comment letters on the Draft EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
1 Gregory Ford, Colonel, U.S. Army Office of the Garrison Commander 3-3 2 William Collins, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army Fort Ord BRAC Field Office 3-36 3 Mary Israel, Senior Planner, Fort Ord Reuse Authority 3-44 4 Chris Bjornstad, Transportation Planner, California Department of Transportation District 5 3-54 5 Debra Hale, Executive Director, Transportation Agency for Monterey County 3-61 6 Kevin Saunders, Executive Director and VP, California State University, Monterey Bay 3-72 7 Lisa Rheinhemer, Director of Planning and Marketing, Monterey-Salinas Transit 3-83 8 Hanna Muegge, Air Quality Planner, Monterey Bay Air Resources District 3-87 9 Michael Salerno, Spokesman, Keep Fort Ord Wild 3-94
10 Michael DeLapa, Executive Director, LandWatch 3-142
11 John Farrow, M R Wolfe & Associates, P.C. 3-192
12 Andrew Sterbenz, PE, Senior Project Manager, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 3-196 13 Steven Herum, Attorney-at-Law, Herum Crabtree Suntag Attorneys 3-292 14 Paul Petrovich, Petrovich Development Company, LLC 3-468 15 David Lessikar 3-473
16 David Lessikar 3-478
17 Fred Watson 3-480
18 Fred Watson 3-482
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number.

The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 727, Packet Page 1055 Where a comment resulted in a change to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text is added. These changes in text are also included in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR.

In support of the responses provided in the section, as well as the revisions provided in Section 4, the following appendices have been included as part of this Final EIR:
 Appendix E: Revised Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling  Appendix K: Revised Transportation Analysis
 Appendix N: NOP Distribution List and Read Receipts
 Appendix O: Arborist Report
 Appendix P: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
 Appendix Q: Construction Health Risk Assessment
 Appendix R: Supplementary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Memorandum  Appendix S: Historic Resources Evaluation Memorandum
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 728, Packet Page 1056

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND

HEADQUARTERS, US ARMY GARRISON, PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY
1759 LEWIS ROAD, SUITE 210
MONTEREY, CA 93944-3223
Office of the Garrison Commander
Kurt Overmeyer
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Dear Mr. Overmeyer,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Seaside's Campus Town Specific Plan (Plan) in Seaside, CA which you prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As described in the Draft EIR, the proposed Plan would result in development of up to: 1,485 housing units, 250 hotel rooms, 75 youth hostel beds, 150,000 square feet of retail, dining, and entertainment uses, 50,000 square feet of office or flex space, park/recreation areas and supporting infrastructure on land in Seaside, CA which had been part of the former Fort Ord.

The Plan is proposed for areas directly adjacent to U.S. Army (Army) owned and actively used property. Some elements of the Plan propose use of this Army property.

The Army has discretionary approval authority over proposed projects on Army lands and would need to determine if the proposed use is of value to, and consistent with, the Army mission. Army decision making would require analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal implementing regulations and a contractual real estate agreement as prescribed by Army Regulation 405-80.

Enclosed are the Army's more detailed comments on the Draft EIR.

The POC for this letter is Joelle Lobo at 831-242-7829 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 729, Packet Page 1057 General Comments
General-1
-2-
The project description and conceptual drawings show elements of the proposed Plan on Army owned and occupied property. Prior to the Army issuing any outgrants, the Army would have to determine the value of the proposed element to, and consistency with, Amy mission.

The Army has discretionary approval authority over proposed projects on Army lands. If determined to have value to the Army and to be consistent with Army mission, any proposed work on Army owned property would require analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal implementing regulations. Any outgrant would require a contractual real estate agreement, as prescribed by Army Regulation (AR) 405-80. The analysis would be used during decision-making with regard to the proposed action.

Any outgrants needed with the roadways or stormwater system must be consistent with other regional plans. The Cities/regional groups would need to resolve any inconsistencies in proposed roadways and/or infrastructure, prior to issuing Army outgrants.

General-2
Elements of the proposed Plan appear to be inconsistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) plan to widening Gigling Road. To facilitate an Army decision on proposed use of Army lands, recommend coordination and consolidated planning with FORA regarding elements of the proposed Plan that overlap with FORA's proposed widening of Gigling Road, including the timing or phasing of proposed actions and comprehensive planning to result in minimal disruption of Army resources.

Executive Summary
Page ES-2. Project Location
The Draft EIR refers to the, "Department of Defense - Defense Manpower Data Center." Please use the term "Department of Defense Center, Monterey Bay" in reference to this Army owned building that borders the proposed Plan to the south.

There is no Department of Defense Army Hospital; please remove reference to a hospital.

Page ES-3, Project Overview
Paragraph 1 states 3.3 acres of private open space within a 122 acre development.

Please include the acreage requirement, if any, to provide open space for a development within the City of Seaside.

U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey - Comments to the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 730, Packet Page 1058 -3-
Page ES-5, Off-Site Improvements
Paragraph 1 states a new fire station would be constructed and operational before the closure of the existing fire station. The Draft EIR indicates construction is anticipated to begin in April 2021. When does the City of Seaside expect a new fire station to be operational to allow closure (demolition) of the existing fire station? Will the developer be responsible for financing and constructing the new fire station? Page ES-5. Project Construction
The 13-year project construction timeframe is approximate. Although seemingly apparent, the Draft EIR should explain in detail that the phased develop could be accelerated or decelerated depending on the availability of resources (e.g. funding, water) and the economy.

Page ES-28, Impact Hydrology and Water Quality-3
Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3c concludes that the project would not "substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the additional of impervious surface, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff."
The Army is conducting a feasibility study for disconnecting its existing storm water drainage system that outfalls to the ocean. Discontinuing that system would bring the capacity of the existing system to zero. Since a portion of the proposed Plan area drains to the Army owned outfall, the Army does not agree with the statement that the proposed development will not exceed the capacity of existing system. The potential for discontinuing the Army owned outfall should be discussed in Sections 2.4, 4.9, and other applicable areas of the Draft EIR.

Page ES-30 and ES-31, Noise Mitigation
Noise mitigation measures implemented for clearing the land (Surplus II) to make way for Campus Town were not very effective. Fugitive dust, ground shaking, and noise became very annoying/irritating to the people working in the office buildings near those properties. Workplaces became uncomfortable resulting in an adverse impact to productivity. Potential residual impacts for the proposed Plan would be "Less than significant" only if the project proponent and their contractors achieve a higher noise control standard than demonstrated in the land clearing phase by implementing more effective mitigation measures. Those noise mitigation measures, with an explanation of how they will be made effective, need to be specified in this EIR.

Page ES-32, Impact Transportation-3
The statement "Less than significant" impact appears to be correct as long as Gigling Road, Parker Flats Cut-Off, and the residential streets remain two-lane roads.

Widening these roads may change the finding.

U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey- Comments to the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 731, Packet Page 1059 -4-
Page ES-33. Utilities and Service Systems-1
The Draft EIR and water study state that the connection of the Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Qourse to the recycled water system would create an in-lieu storage of up to 450 acrefeet per year (AFY). This amount appears to be unrealistically high based on other local golf course conversions to recycled water.

Chapter 2. Project Description

Page 2 ends

Monterey City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Monterey City Council
July 16, 2024