Monterey City Council
July 16, 2024

The Draft EIR refers to the Department of Defense - Defense Manpower Date 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.

In the first paragraph, the Draft EIR states, "The Plan Area is developed primarily with abandoned U.S. Army buildings .... " Please clarify that the buildings within the Plan area are no longer owned by the Army and have been the property of the City of Seaside since transfer after the closure of Fort Ord. Please update similar references throughout the document.

Second paragraph, in December 2018, FORA began demolition of the buildings in the plan area, not. the Army. Please make this correction here and throughout the document.

The first paragraph in this section states one cafeteria and two armories. The second paragraph states that FORA has demolished two mess halls and four armories.

Recommend reviewing for consistency.

Pages 2-12 and 2-13. Figures 2-4 and 2-5. Campus Town Specific Plan Conceptual Phase 1 and 2 ·
The conceptual drawings shows elements of the proposed Plan on Army owned and actively used property. Reference General Comment-1 regarding Army approval, real estate, and NEPA requirements.

Recommend including who would be creating and providing the recycled water.

It appears that one of the proposed stormwater basins is outside the proposed Plan area and is part of CSUMB's stormwater master plan. According to CSUMB's plan, it appears the basin would not have additional capacity to handle Campus Town's stormwater.

U.S. Anny Ganison 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 732, Packet Page 1060 -5-

This section and Section 4.9 should discuss the Army owned stormwater outfall that currently drains a portion of the proposed Plan area, potential disconnection of the outfall, and potential impact of its closure on the proposed Plan area.

Pages 2-19 and 2:.21. Figures 2-7 and 2-8. Conceptual Recycled Water System Plan and Conceptual Stormwater System
These figures contains small and unclear text that not readable. Recommend including a legible versions of these figures so elements of the project can be clearly understood.

It is unclear from the figure if the Plan proposes to use or tie into the storm drain along Gigling Road. The storm drain along Gigling Road is part of a system that may potentially be disconnected and therefore new connections may not tie into the system.

If any elements of the Plan would drain to the Army owned outfall, future coordination with the Army for stormwater management would be required.

This section may need to be revised and the environmental analysis modified if the preferred location for the new fire station is sited further away from the proposed development area (e.g. CSUMB Campus).

and Pedestrian Facilities
Elements of the proposed Plan discussed in this section, such as a roundabout at the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road, and bicycle lane along Gigling Road, are proposed to occur on Army owned and actively used property.

Reference General Comment-1 regarding Army approval, real estate, and NEPA requirements.

and Pedestrian Facilities
Will the roads be designated bicycle boulevards or will the roads be widened to add bicycle lanes? Currently the roads are too narrow to accommodate a bicycle lane and traffic speeds are currently too high for bicycles to safely transit with cars.

Chapter 3. Environmental Setting

In the third paragraph, the Draft EIR states, "The Plan Area is mostly developed with U.S. Army Buildings .... " Please clarify that the buildings within the Plan area are no longer Army owned buildings and have been the property of the City of Seaside since transfer after the closure of Fort Ord. Please update similar references throughout the document.

U.S. Anny 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 733, Packet Page 1061 -6-
Chapter 4. Environmental Impact Analysis

This table shows a project to widening Gigling Road as "Approved, not built." Real estate on both sides of a portion of Gigling Road are owned and actively used by the U.S. Army. Widening of Gigling Road would require Army approval. Reference General Comments-1 and 2 regarding Army approval, real estate, NEPA requirements and coordination with FORA.

Pages 4-5 and 4-6, Infill Site
Text needs to be revised. Many of the structures identified no longer exist. Please update throughout the document.

This section appears to contain a lot of information unnecessary for the Air Quality section. Consider removing this language.

Federally threatened Monterey spineflower is known to exist within 100 feet from the proposed Plan area. Provide ,data on how and when surveys for Federally and State threatened and endangered species were conducted within the Plan area.

California Tiger salamanders and Mountain lions (Puma concolor, foraging only) may have a potential to exist within the project area. Recommend including throughout.

Multiple Biological Opinions have been issued for the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord.

Second paragraph should specifically mention the Army's existing stormwater drainage system that outfalls to the ocean and that it discharges to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This change should also be made throughout the document wherever it is mentioned that the stormwater drainage system discharges to the Pacific Ocean.

There are more than one recycled water projects. Recommend this document analyze the alternative of transferring stormwater run-off to a local recycled water project in addition to the use of percolation ponds. Including analysis of alternate techniques will allow more flexibility and enhance cost effectiveness.

Paragraph one states, "Runoff that doesn't infiltrate would be captured in the City's storm drain system and ultimately discharged to the Pacific Ocean." Portions of the Plan area currently are part of a system that is anticipated to be disconnected. If any US. Amty 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 734, Packet Page 1062 -7-
elements of the proposed Plan area drain into the Army owned system, future coordination with the Army for stormwater management would be required.

There are two known areas where the proposed Plan will alter current stormwater runoff from Army property. The City of Seaside has recommended construction of percolation ponds on Army property to manage these areas. These additional ponds should be included in the project description and impact analysis. Reference General Comment-1 regarding Army approval, real estate, and NEPA requirements.

Element Goals and Policies
The EIR is consistent with local general, land use and transportation plans; and the Fort Ord Regional Urban Design Guide. Nonetheless, specific goals and policies should be re-evaluated as follows:
o Goal LU-5 appears to be speculative as to how the EIR and/or proposed project in and of themselves can actually " ... provide quality water supply ... " The local water purveyors and the regional water augmentation project( s) are the resource providers for the supply.
o Policy LU-5.4 - Identify in detail how to implement mandatory water recycling and expand the program beyond irrigation.
o Policy UD-3.1 -Roberts Lake is well outside of proposed Plan area and would not be visible.
o Policy ED-1.4- Should be expanded to "Create a favorable environment in the Gigling Road/Surplus II Area ... compatible with CSUMB's academic environment. .. " including the Army facilities and their residential community neighbors.
o Goal C-3 - Greater incentives and more effective measures need to be implemented. Increasing bicycle lanes and providing multi-modal transportation are only successful when people use these systems.
o Goal COS-2 - Similar comment to the one for Goal LU-5 above.

Designation
Many of the goals and policies listed are commendable and highly desirable, however may be very difficult to achieve in the projected 13-year timeframe. A detailed and fully resourced implementation plan is essential for success. This EIR needs to analyze cumulative and holistic environmental impacts associated with phased development over decades, not years. The closure process for Fort Ord began 25 years ago and remains on-going. Furthermore, the EIR should completely assess the long-term environmental impacts of siting new development, especially high-density, mixed-use · development adjacent to Department of Defense and Army real property assets.

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 735, Packet Page 1063 -8-

Good historical information is provided but the majority of it is not required to conclude or determine the potential environmental impacts. The population on the former Fort Ord is documented at 30,000 - 35,000 persons during the peak years of operation.

Campus Town does not come close to meeting or exceeding those former population numbers. The potential environmental impact of less-than-significant is appropriate in the short term. Supplemental environmental impact analysis should be undertaken if the population is projected to increase significantly from the time when the military base operated. Table 4.12-7 seems to indicate that increase is projected to occur after 2034.

The existing amount of law enforcement appears to be inadequate, based upon the difficulty of policing non-military users of major thoroughfares located on the Ord Military Community and civilian personnel who are not affiliated with the Department of Defense but who reside within military privatized housing neighborhoods. The use of the existing

1.2 police officers per 1,000 residents ratio appears, therefore, to be an inadequate ratio to create safe and effective policing of future civilian traffic, domestic relations, and commercial use, consistent with the Plan development.

A more robust and clear description of the analysis is needed to understand how significant transportation related impacts would not be incurred by the proposed Plan.

The MST also provides two special shuttle buses that serve stops along the boundary of the Plan Area. MST RIDES is an ADA Paratransit Service and MST On Call. Both services operate during the daytime throughout the entire week.

Transit Impacts and Bicycle Impacts
A new bus stop is proposed for General Jim Moore Blvd between Lightfighter Drive and Gigling Road. The Army owns a portion of this section of road. Additionally, new bike paths are proposed throughout the proposed Plan area. Reference General Comment1 regarding Army approval, real estate and NEPA requirements.

Chapter 6

Clarify what is meant by, "the new development associated with the Proposed Project would ... increase the generation of ... stormwater." Per the CC RWQCB PostConstruction Requirements, infiltration conditions must meet or exceed pre-project infiltration conditions
U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey - Comments to the Campus Town Sp~ific Plan Draft EIR ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 736, Packet Page 1064 -9-,
Section 6.4 - Alternative 2
Alternative 2 presents little potential significant impacts of major concern and appears to be the best environmental alternative.

Section 6. 5 - Alternative 3
Alternative 3 although apparently consistent with the City of Seaside General Plan 2004 would increase potential environmental impacts by a minimum of 25 percent. That percentage could increase for land use density/intensity, traffic/transportation, water usage, and the resultant needs for public services. This alternative requires a complete analysis of the cumulative impacts for further consideration.

Appendices
Appendix K. Page 24
Traffic backs-up now on General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road. The intersections at Chapel Drive, Carentan Road, General Jim Moore Boulevard, and Normandy Road become congested during the peak commuting hours of the school year (Marshall Elementary School and the Dual Language Academy). The proposed Plan could present an adverse impact to the vehicular Level of Service (LOS). Traffic analysis needs to look at potential changes in circulation and increase usage of Parker Flats Cutoff and use of residential streets throughout Marshall Park. · Appendix K
The use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VTM) vs. the more familiar LOS method raises a question. The AMBAG travel model to estimate VMT is based upon a region-wide service area. How does using that estimate compare with the known LOS designations at various intersections within the Plan Area? Intersections of interest are the near Marshall Elementary School (i.e. General Jim Moore Boulevard and Normandy Road plus ones adjacent to family housing areas). A comparative analysis between the LOS vs. VMT might result a need for additional environmental mitigations such as upgrades to the infrastructure.

Appendix K
The Army is generally supportive, in concept, of infrastructure upgrades such as the conceptual roundabout at General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road, plus another discussed at General Jim Moore Boulevard and Normandy Road. Intersection Evaluation Control is needed to determine the best way of managing traffic flows along Gigling Road (i.e. roundabouts vs. signalization). Note, however, any development on Army land must be useful to, and consistent with Army mission, supported by NEPA analysis and appropriate real estate agreement, after ensuring consistency in plans for the roadway(s). Improvements/upgrades need to occur before starting the Campus Town development project. Sequencing these improvements helps maintain better traffic flows and reduce congestion throughout the construction period.

U.S. Anny 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 737, Packet Page 1065 -10-
Appendix K
Request an Intersection Control Evaluation Report for both the General Jim Moore/Gigling and General Jim Moore/Normandy intersections. The Draft EIR document calls for signalized intersections in some places and roundabouts in others.

The project proponents are proposing changes to the intersections that are outside their jurisdictions. The Army, which owns both intersections, should have access to the information driving these recommended/planned changes in order to make a decision.

Appendix K
If the Army agrees to the changes proposed for both the General Jim Moore/Gigling and General Jim Moore/Normandy intersections, the Army prefers the construction work to be done at the intersections prior to any buildout of the project to avoid the liability of a significant increase in the number of users on the roads and intersections that are not capable of handling them, nor the inconvenience of the increased traffic being diverted during the construction of the intersection improvements.

Appendix K
The text in Appendix K calls for signal timing changes at Normandy/General Jim Moore intersection. The traffic control system infrastructure at that intersection is at the end of its useful life and is essentially impossible to reprogram. The infrastructure is deficient and likely incapable of supporting new technology. The entire intersection needs improvements. The Intersection Control Evaluation Report (referenced in the above comment) will be essential in determining the best path forward for both intersections.

The Army needs clarification on the improvements listed in Table 16 and elsewhere throughout the document.

Appendix K
The section on VMT is not clear. We are interpreting AMBAG's threshold VMT for the region as based on the tri-county average. The lower number provided in the text may be Monterey County average, but that is unclear. It is not apparent where the MXD+ Trip Reduction or Pass-by Trip Reduction are defined, calculated, or explained in the document. Additionally, does Seaside have its own adopted VMT policy that would be applicable to this analysis?
The Army requests an in person meeting in order to obtain a clearer understanding of the traffic impacts of this project and why this document is presenting no impact to traffic with the addition of nearly 1,500 homes. The statement about traffic data is insufficient.

Request clarification of the statement, "Results from the AMBAG model were provided by T JKM for use in this analysis. Additional information about the model, any changes that were made, and how the data was extracted can be found in the model documentation provided by T JKM as part of the Draft Seaside 2040 General Plan." Additional information about the model, any changes that were made, and how the data was extracted should be presented in the EIR. If the results presented are not reproducible, the Army cannot verify the accuracy and should not accept liability for increased traffic on its property outside of its control.

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 738, Packet Page 1066 Letter 1
COMMENTER: Gregory Ford, Colonel, U.S. Army Office of the Garrison Commander DATE: Received on or about August 20, 2019 (comment undated) Response 1.1
The commenter states that the Specific Plan proposes to use Army property, and the Army has discretionary approval over proposed projects on Army lands. Army decision-making would require analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and federal regulations, as well as a contractual real estate agreement as prescribed by Army Regulation 405-80.

This comment is noted. The commenter is correct that NEPA review would be required per 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.18 via the Army’s federal discretionary action to approve elements of the Specific Plan relating to the use of Army property, such as infrastructure improvements that occur outside the Plan Area on adjacent Army-owned lands. This has been clarified in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR, on Draft EIR page 2-25 as follows:

Other approvals from other agencies may include:
 Disposition and Development Agreement
 FORA Consistency Determination
 Infrastructure Agreement with MCWD
 MCWD Water Supply Verification Report
 MCWD Annexation
 Approvals from California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) for any off-site improvements on CSUMB property
 Approvals from the United States Department of the Army for any off-site improvements on Army property and applicable NEPA review
For additional information regarding stormwater drainage and retention on Army property, refer to Response 1.7. The Project would ideally use off-site stormwater facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed. For additional information regarding roadways, refer to Response 1.2, Response 1.9, Response 1.19, Response 1.21, Response 1.32, and Response 1.35 through Response 1.42.

Response 1.2
The commenter states that the Project appears to be inconsistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) plan to widen Gigling Road and recommends coordination and planning with FORA regarding overlapping plan elements, including the timing and phasing of actions. However, the commenter appears to take a different position in Comment 1.9 below, which appears to be advocating for keeping Gigling Road as two lanes.

FORA previously considered a plan to widen Gigling Road from two to four lanes. This plan would have widened Gigling Road to the south of its current alignment, onto Army property and not into the Plan Area. As such, the Proposed Project would not preclude FORA from doing this if they so ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 739, Packet Page 1067 choose. However, a recent FORA study indicated that Gigling Road is not required to be expanded to four lanes (FORA 2019b).

Response 1.3
The commenter requests that the reference on page ES-2 to “Department of Defense – Defense Manpower Data Center” be revised to “Department of Defense Center, Monterey Bay,” and that references to a Department of Defense Army hospital be removed, as this does not exist.

In response to this comment, page ES-2 of the Draft EIR has been revised as followed:
…Department of Defense-Defense Manpower Data Center, Monterey Bay, and former Fort Ord land; and is bounded to the south by Gigling Road, and Ord Military Community housing and the United States Department of Defense Army Hospital.

Response 1.4
The commenter requests the open space acreage requirement for a development within the City of Seaside, if any, be included. The Project proposes a Specific Plan, which will provide the open space requirements for the Project (please refer to Draft EIR Appendix B). The Plan Area consists of approximately 122 acres. Of this acreage, approximately 7 acres are developed with existing uses that are anticipated to continue, leaving approximately 115 acres available for development. Of this developable acreage, the Specific Plan designates approximately 46 acres exclusively for residential use and approximately 18 acres for mixed-uses that could include residential use. The Specific Plan anticipates the provision of approximately 9 acres of publicly-accessible open space, including Greens, Squares, Plazas, Pocket Parks, and Playgrounds (all as defined in the Specific Plan) and 3.3 acres of privately managed open space, which would be open to the public. See also the Conceptual Open Space Plan Diagram (Figure 2.6) and Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan (Appendix B to the Draft EIR). The proposed Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) covers approximately 110 acres, of which approximately 8.6 acres would be publicly accessible open space and 3.3 acres would be private open space.

Response 1.5
The commenter asks when the new fire station will be operational to allow closure and demolition of the existing fire station and if the developer is responsible for financing and constructing the new fire station.

Regarding the timing of construction of the new fire station, Section 2.4.6 of the Draft EIR states (bolding added for emphasis):

While no specific site or development plan has been selected for this fire station, for the purposes of this environmental analysis it has been assumed that a new 15,000 square foot fire station would be constructed and operational before the closure of the existing fire station and located on an approximately two-acre site in proximity to the Plan Area.

Fire stations were added as a permissible use to allow the current facility to continue operating as a conforming use in the CC Sub-Area until a new off-site facility is operational (please refer to Draft EIR Appendix B, Section 4.5.1.10). However, further clarification to the use restrictions in the Specific Plan have been proposed to the Specific Plan. More specifically, Section 4.5.1 of Appendix B has been revised to note:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 740, Packet Page 1068 Within the CC Sub-area, no building permit for any non-fire station use shall be issued for the land located on the east side General Jim Moore Boulevard between Lightfighter Drive and Gigling Road that currently house the existing fire station, until replacement fire services are operational.

The fire station project is being planned by the Marina, California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB), Seaside, and Presidio of Monterey fire chiefs; however, there is no formal proposal at this time.

Response 1.6
The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR detail how the phased development could be accelerated or decelerated depending on the availability of resources and the economy.

This potential is acknowledged in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR, which states that “[t]he actual rate and amount of development (up to the maximums) could differ; buildout is dependent on market conditions,” among other variables such as birth rates, death rates, and availability of resources. (Draft EIR page 2-11; Final EIR Chap. 4, pages ES-3 and 2-11.) A reasonable buildout of 13 years is assumed based upon the project applicant’s experience with similar projects. KB South Bay has over 40 years of building experience, having constructed hundreds of projects of the same scope and complexity as Campus Town, including residential, commercial, office and industrial development throughout California.

Response 1.7
The commenter notes that the Army is conducting a feasibility study for removing its storm drainage outfall to the ocean, which would reduce the capacity of the existing system. The commenter claims that a portion of the Plan Area drains to the outfall, which would exceed the capacity of the system. The commenter requests that the discontinuation of the outfall be discussed in Sections 2.4, 4.9, and other sections of the EIR.

The Proposed Project would retain and infiltrate stormwater associated with a 100-year storm event. The Project would ideally use adjacent off-site stormwater infiltration facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 2.4.5.2 and Section 4.9, Impact HWQ-3. As stated on page 4.9-23 of the Draft EIR:

The Proposed Project seeks to manage rainfall at the source by infiltrating stormwater as close to the source as practicable. Sandy dune soils with moderate to high percolation rates underlay most of the site and provide an opportunity to infiltrate on a lot by lot basis. Preliminary modeling, detailed in the Campus Town PSWCP (Appendix K), demonstrates that rainfall runoff up to the 100-year event can be infiltrated on each lot without producing runoff that would normally be tributary to a storm drain system. Nearly all public hardscape would be comprised of detached sidewalks that drain to landscape areas. Such measures would reduce the risk of erosion, siltation, polluted runoff, and flooding by capturing and recharging runoff on-site.

Runoff generated from streets and public hardscape areas within the Plan Area would be tributary to the on-site storm drain system. Drainage basins are proposed in the Plan Area’s topographic low points: at 1st Avenue, in a portion of the “tree save” area; and at the General ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 741, Packet Page 1069 Jim Moore Boulevard/Lightfighter Drive intersection. The proposed storm drain pipe network would collect runoff from all internal residential streets and convey stormwater to these basin areas, which would be designed to provide retention up to the 100-year storm event. As per the Campus Town PSWCP, approximately 39 percent of the site is projected to contribute runoff to the storm drain system. Water that enters the storm drain system would be tributary to an infiltration basin located within the Plan Area. Four infiltration basins would be constructed, with two on either side of General Jim Moore Boulevard. Approximately 840 distributed drainage management areas have been identified for runoff retention of individual lots and street areas in the Plan Area.

Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not contribute stormwater flow onto Army property, even in a 100-year storm event. The Proposed Project would substantially reduce the existing amount of stormwater flowing to the existing downstream Army system. The result would be a reduced impact on future downstream facilities resulting from the Proposed Project.

In addition, please see Response 1.27 below, which also addresses drainage pattern alterations associated with the Proposed Project and, as stated in the Draft EIR, concludes that the measures outlined in the Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan ensure that the Proposed Project would comply with NPDES, County, and City requirements related to stormwater runoff and water quality, such that substantial adverse impacts would not occur. As described above, and contrary to commenter’s assertion, the Project would not drain to an Army outfall, and future capacity of the Army system does not need to be analyzed further in the EIR for the Proposed Project.

Response 1.8
The commenter states that land clearing activities (Surplus II building removal) were not very effective and that fugitive dust, ground shaking, and noise at adjacent office buildings were annoying. The commenter requests a higher noise control standard for the Proposed Project be specified in the EIR.

It is unknown if the Surplus II land clearing construction described by the commenter utilized noise, fugitive dust, or vibration related mitigation measures. However, no noise, vibration, or air quality complaints were received by the City or FORA (who implemented the demolition program) during the demolition process (Said 2019).

Construction noise impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR. Required mitigation includes equipment modifications to reduce noise, sound barriers, and the provision of a disturbance coordinator who is responsible for responding to construction noise complaints. This measure includes performance standards, including equipment power sources, vehicle idling duration, audibility requirements, noise level adjustments, and required dBA reductions.

Vibration reduction measures are also included as Mitigation Measure N-2, which prohibits construction within 100 feet of academic structures while classes are occurring. This measure includes performance standards tied to measured VdB at a distance of 50 feet from vibration sources and minimum distance setbacks.

As described in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, existing regulations also limit release of fugitive dust, including Seaside Municipal Code Section 17.30.080, as well as the SWPPP requirements. This ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 742, Packet Page 1070 includes BMPs such as watering to stabilize soils, halting construction activities with wind in excess of 25 mph, re-vegetation requirements and hydroseeding.

With implementation of the identified mitigation, the EIR presents substantial evidence that construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed established thresholds. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.

Response 1.9
The commenter states that if Gigling Road, Parker Flats Cut-Off, and residential streets remain twolane roads and are not widened, then the less than significant conclusion under Impact T-3 appears to be correct.

Refer to Response 1.2. As noted therein, the Project would not widen Gigling Road but would not preclude FORA from doing so if they so choose. The Project similarly would not widen Parker Flats Cut-Off or nearby residential streets. As noted under Impact T-1 in Section 4.14, Transportation, implementation of the Proposed Project would create new bicycle facilities and would thus have a beneficial impact on bicycle circulation and access in comparison to existing conditions.

Furthermore, implementation of the Proposed Project would create new pedestrian facilities and would have a beneficial impact on pedestrian circulation and access.

Response 1.10
The commenter states the opinion that the connection of the Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course to recycled water would not likely create 450 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water, based on other local golf course conversions to recycled water.

In response to this concern, it is important to note that the cited text is in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, Water Offset Programs, which requires that the City implement programs to secure at least 261 AFY of additional water needed for the Project (refer to the revised measure provided in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR). Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 identifies programs that the City may implement to meet this requirement. In doing so, the mitigation measure states that the Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course’s in lieu storage and recovery program would replace “up to” 450 AFY as recycled water supplies increase. As such, the mitigation language accurately describes that the Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course’s in lieu storage and recovery program as one of multiple programs which the City may implement to meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.

Recently, the Court approved Seaside’s in lieu storage program (Seaside’s Motion for Approval of In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program, Sept. 4, 2019, available online at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/Motion%20for%20In%20Lieu%20Storage%20Prog ram.pdf; Order on Motion signed October 25, 2019), which allows 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.

This substitution replenishes and stores water in the Seaside Basin, and the quantity of recycled water applied annually at the golf courses establishes the amount of water “stored” annually in the Seaside Basin via in lieu storage. Seaside may recover the stored water through its wells and then deliver the recovered water to MCWD for use within its water system. The program adds several hundred acre-feet (AF) of additional reliable supply to serve demands within the Seaside portion of the Ord Community.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 743, Packet Page 1071 It is also important to note that the Monterey One Water (M1W, formerly Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency) Pure Water Monterey (PWM) Groundwater Replenishment Project, which would be the source for golf course irrigation, produces advanced treated water for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin for indirect potable reuse. As such, the water could be used as irrigation for 100 percent of the golf course irrigation needs, without impacting turf quality. In 2016, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) and M1W entered into an agreement allowing to participate in the PWM Project. MCWD is completing construction of the transmission main, which will be used to deliver advanced treated water for both groundwater injection and for urban irrigation.

Response 1.11
The commenter requests various minor text revisions to the Draft EIR Project Description.

The requested revisions have been made to page 2-2 of the Draft EIR:
…Department of Defense-Defense Manpower Data Center, Monterey Bay, and former Fort Ord land; and is bounded to the south by Gigling Road, and Ord Military Community housing and the United States Department of Defense Army Hospital…. [page 2-2] The former U.S. Army buildings are currently the property of the City of Seaside, with the exception of those within Surplus II, which are the property of the Successor Agency to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency. [page 2-2 footnote on “abandoned U.S. Army buildings”] In December 2018 the Army FORA began demolition of these buildings… [page 2-2] During preparation of this EIR, FORA has removed most buildings in the Plan Area that had been identified for demolition (including Surplus II buildings: ten rolling-pin buildings between Malmedy Road and 6th Avenue, two mess halls one cafeteria, five administrative buildings, one gymnasium, and four two armory buildings); the eight hammerhead buildings have not been demolished (FORA 2019b). [page 2-2]
Response 1.12
The commenter states that Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show Army-owned property and references Comment 1.1 regarding Army approval and NEPA requirements.

Please refer to Response 1.1 regarding Army approval requirements.

Response 1.13
The commenter recommends including information regarding who would create and provide recycled water in the EIR Project Description (Draft EIR Section 2), and refers to text on page 2-18 in Section 2.4.5.1 of the Draft EIR.

Section 2.4.6.2, Recycled Water, states that MCWD owns and maintains recycled water infrastructure in General Jim Moore Boulevard, and that the Proposed Project would install a recycled water main branching east and west from the MCWD main line in General Jim Moore Boulevard from 1st Avenue to 7th Avenue. Recycled water system plans are further provided in Figure 2-7, presented on page 2-19 of the Draft EIR.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 744, Packet Page 1072 Response 1.14
The commenter states that an off-site stormwater basin that is outside the Plan Area and on the CSUMB campus would not have capacity for the Project’s stormwater.

Section 2.4.5.2, Storm Water System, states that detention basins would be designed to accommodate up to the 100-year storm event. The Project would ideally use adjacent off-site stormwater infiltration facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed. Footnote 6 on page 2-18 acknowledges that one proposed detention basin is outside the Plan Area and within the CSUMB campus boundaries. The detention basin located on the CSUMB property would be implemented only if acceptable agreements are reached with CSUMB for the use of that basin, and would be in addition to detention basins included in the CSUMB Master Plan. If agreements are not reached with CSUMB, the Project would construct an alternative facility within the Plan Area as depicted in Project Stormwater Control Plan Figure 5 “Alternative Basin Locations,” submitted with the Project tentative map application, which would eliminate the need for a Project-related CSUMB basin.

The Project would provide appropriate stormwater detention capacity to accommodate 100-year flows. Page 2-10 of the Draft EIR states that Project detention basins have been sized using criteria identified by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as well as the FORA Stormwater Master Plan (KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II 2018), and that a Storm Drain Master Plan showing the proposed storm drainage system can be found in the VTM, provided as Appendix C to the Draft EIR.

As described in Response 1.7, the Proposed Project would disconnect the existing stormwater system within the Plan Area boundaries and retain and infiltrate stormwater associated with a 100- year storm event on-site. The Project would ideally use adjacent off-site stormwater facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed.

Response 1.15
The commenter requests that Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR discuss the Army-owned stormwater outfall, and consider potential impacts of its disconnection.

The Project would not utilize the Army’s existing outfall. Response 1.7 and Response 1.14, above, describe that stormwater would be retained. The Project would ideally use adjacent off-site stormwater infiltration facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed. The Project stormwater system would not contribute to and would significantly reduce the overall existing amount of stormwater flowing to the existing Army system; the result is a reduced impact on the downstream facilities required for any future outfall disconnect.

To the extent this comment contemplates the effect of the potential disconnection of the Armyowned stormwater outfall on the drainage of the Plan Area before development, or if no development takes place, those effects are not the required subject of the EIR impact analysis because they are not environmental effects caused by the Project.

Response 1.16
The commenter requests legible versions of Figure 2-7 and 2-8 be included. Figure 2-7 and Figure 2- 8 of the Draft EIR have been revised for legibility. Please refer to Section 4, Amendments to the Draft ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 745, Packet Page 1073 EIR, for the revised versions of these figures. Additionally, more detailed information was included in Draft EIR Appendix C.

Response 1.17
The commenter requests clarity regarding storm drains along Gigling Road, and requests coordination with the Army regarding elements of the Plan that would drain to the Army-owned outfall.

The Project proposes a bypass pipe to direct flows from Army property to the existing Gigling Road system. Specifically, the proposed U.S. Defense Facility runoff options are to disconnect from the system and provide an infiltration basin along Gigling Road on Army property, or to install a new pipe that connects the U.S. Defense Facility to an existing storm drain stub at the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road. The Project proposes no changes to the Gigling Road storm drains (refer to Impact HWQ-3 of the Draft EIR on pages 4.9-22 through 4.9-24).

Gigling Road upgrades are being planned by FORA, separately from the Proposed Project. As previously stated, the Plan would not drain to the Army-owned outfall, even in a 100-year storm event; to the contrary, the Project would reduce the existing amount of stormwater flowing to the existing downstream Army system.

Please refer to Response 1.7 regarding stormwater drainage from the Plan Area onto Army property, including use of the outfall. The Proposed Project would disconnect the existing stormwater system within the Plan Area boundaries and retain and infiltrate stormwater associated with a 100-year storm event on-site. The Project would ideally use off-site stormwater facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed.

Response 1.18
The commenter notes that revisions to the EIR would be required if the new fire station is sited far from the Plan Area.

Please refer to Response 1.5. At this time, the exact location of the new fire station is unknown, and a project-specific analysis of the new fire station may be required. The EIR acknowledges that construction of a new or expanded fire station will require compliance with CEQA, but the potential effects of the new fire station were analyzed “to the extent feasible based on available information, but without engaging in speculation” (Draft EIR page ES-5).

Section 2.4.6 of the Draft EIR at page 2-22 states:

While no specific site or development plan has been selected for this fire station, for the purposes of this environmental analysis it has been assumed that a new 15,000 square foot fire station would be constructed and operational before the closure of the existing fire station and located on an approximately two-acre site in proximity to the Plan Area.

The construction and operation of all these off-site improvements, infrastructure, and utilities have been analyzed in this EIR as part of the Proposed Project.

Please see Response 1.5 regarding the timing of the new fire station.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 746, Packet Page 1074 Response 1.19
The commenter states that a roundabout at the General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road intersection and a bicycle lane on Gigling Road are proposed to occur on Army-owned property and references Comment 1.1 regarding Army approval and NEPA requirements. The commenter asks if the roads will be designated as bicycle boulevards or widened to add bicycle lanes, as asserts that the roads are too narrow and traffic speeds are too high for safe bicycle use.

The bicycle lane on Gigling Road would not be on Army property. To clarify the location of this facility, the following revision has been made to the Draft EIR Section 2.4.6.1:

Bicycle lanes would be provided on key streets including Lightfighter Drive, Malmedy Road, 6th Avenue, Gigling Road (under the Pacific Gas and Electric easement on the north side of the roadway), and General Jim Moore Boulevard, to connect existing and planned bicycle routes in the surrounding area.

The proposed roundabout at General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road would require Army approval. If the Army does not approve the roundabout, this intersection would remain as a signalized intersection. Pedestrians and bicyclists would use the existing pedestrian crossing, or other existing crossings to the north of the intersection.

Proposed bicycle lanes would be separated from the roadway, and road widening is not proposed as part of these improvements. Speed limits within the Plan Area would be reduced to increase bicycle safety, and sharrows would be provided to indicate shared vehicle/bicycle routes. Complete street design principals would be utilized to ensure safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Please refer to Appendix B of the Draft EIR, Section 1.9.5, for a detailed description of planned bikeways. As noted under Impact T-1 in Section 4.14, Transportation, implementation of the Proposed Project would create new bicycle facilities and would thus have a beneficial impact on bicycle circulation and access in comparison to existing conditions. Furthermore, implementation of the Proposed Project would create new pedestrian facilities and would have a beneficial impact on pedestrian circulation and access.

Please refer to Response 1.1 regarding Army approval requirements.

Response 1.20
The commenter requests clarification on page 3-2 of the Draft EIR that buildings in the Plan Area are no longer owned by the Army and are the property of the City of Seaside.

In response to this comment, Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

The Plan Area is mostly developed with former U.S. Army buildings that are mostly vacant and severely dilapidated and currently the property of the City of Seaside, with the exception of those within Surplus II, which are the property of the Successor Agency to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency.

Similar revisions have been made throughout the Draft EIR, as needed (refer to Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 747, Packet Page 1075 Response 1.21
The commenter states that Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR shows widening Gigling Road as approved but not built, indicates that Army approval would be required to widen this roadway, and references Comment 1.1 regarding Army approval and NEPA requirements.

Please refer to Response 1.2 regarding FORA plans to widen Gigling Road, and Response 1.1 regarding Army approval requirements.

Response 1.22
The commenter requests that pages 4-5 and 4-6 of the Draft EIR be revised to indicate which referenced structures no longer exist.

In response to this comment, Section 4 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

The infill site has been was previously developedment with structures and uses associated with Fort Ord, which included 18 barracks buildings (totaling approximately 702,200 sf), five administration buildings (totaling approximately 33,300 sf), two armories (approximately 12,200 sf each), one cafeteria (approximately 11,400 sf), and one gymnasium (approximately 21,000 sf) with an adjacent small metal structure. Of these, only eight barracks buildings remain.

This is consistent with Section 2.2.2 of the Draft EIR, which states:

During preparation of this EIR, FORA has removed most buildings in the Plan Area that had been identified for demolition (including Surplus II buildings: ten rolling-pin buildings between Malmedy Road and 6th Avenue, two mess halls one cafeteria, five administrative buildings, one gymnasium, and four two armory buildings); the eight hammerhead buildings have not been demolished (FORA 2019b).

Response 1.23
The commenter suggests deleting information in the Clean Water Act Section 402 discussion in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR that does not relate to the air quality section.

Information on the Clean Water Act Section 402 is included in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR because the construction Best Management Practices (BMP) required as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit indirectly serve to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. As explained on Draft EIR page 4.2-11, “Although intended to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, these Construction BMPs also serve to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction activities.”
Response 1.24
The commenter states Monterey spineflower is known to exist within 100 feet of the Plan Area and requests data on how surveys for special-status species were conducted in the Plan Area. The commenter also suggests discussions of California tiger salamanders and mountain lions (Puma concolor) be included in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR addressed potential impacts to rare plants through a habitat assessment and identified Monterey spineflower as a species with potential to occur in the Plan Area. This is a ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 748, Packet Page 1076 typical process for CEQA-level review, as rare plant surveys are seasonally dependent, and may not coincide with the environmental review process. Furthermore, actual impacts to rare plants are best determined during the blooming period in the year prior to construction, and therefore, mitigation in the Draft EIR requires rare plant surveys, and compensatory mitigation for any plants that would be adversely affected by Project development (please refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1[a], BIO1[b], and BIO-1[c]).

California tiger salamander was evaluated (see Appendix G to the Draft EIR) and excluded from consideration based on the lack of breed habitat or accessible upland habitat in the Plan Area.

California mountain lion is not a special status species requiring evaluation in the Draft EIR. That said, California mountain lions were not observed on the site during the site reconnaissance survey completed on November 11 and 18, 2018 (see Draft EIR page 4.3-4). To the extent California mountain lions are in the area, they are unlikely to be present in the Plan Area or use the site as a wildlife corridor, given the Plan Area’s previous use and disturbance, and its proximity to existing developed areas.

Response 1.25
The commenter notes that Biological Opinions for the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord have been issued.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated Section 7 consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on May 3, 1993, and on October 19, 1993 USFWS issued a Biological Opinion for the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord. Subsequent consultation and conferences were issued on: January 31, 1997; April 11, 1997; March 30, 1999; October 22, 2002; March 14, 2005; August 3, 2011; April 28, 2014; May 28, 2015; June 7, 2017; and February 22, 2019.

The majority of activities driving these consultations relate to cleanup and remediation on the Fort Ord National Monument, which is outside the Plan Area. The Programmatic Biological Opinion issued in 2019 finds that no jeopardy to federally listed species (plants or animals) or critical habitats would result from the Army’s activities on Fort Ord. These Biological Opinions cover the Army’s clean up and property transfer but do not cover existing or future recipients of Fort Ord lands. This supplementary information does not pertain to the analysis provided in the Draft EIR, Section 4.3, Biological Resources.

Response 1.26
The commenter requests that the Army’s stormwater outfall to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary be mentioned in Section 4.9.1(a) and throughout the EIR. The commenter also recommends an alternative of transferring stormwater to a local recycled water project in addition to the percolation ponds. The commenter states portions of the Plan Area are connected to a storm drain system that will be disconnected and coordination with the Army for stormwater management is required.

The Draft EIR notes that the Storm Water Master Plan prepared as part of FORA’s obligations defined in the 1997 BRP “provides guidelines for meeting the FORA obligation for on-site infiltration so that no further discharges occur to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary” (Draft EIR page

4.9-13) and that “Monterey Bay is a national marine sanctuary” (Draft EIR page 4.16-4). The Draft EIR therefore properly discloses that outfalls to the ocean discharge to the Sanctuary.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 749, Packet Page 1077 To clarify, runoff from the Plan Area does not currently flow onto Army property and the Project would not create runoff onto Army property. The Project would continue to develop facilities to accommodate or direct downstream historical runoff from Army property.

Design of proposed off-site facilities on Army property or that would connect to Army property offsite from the Specific Plan would be coordinated with the Army to ensure they are acceptable to the Army. In addition, design of proposed on-site facilities would be coordinated with the Army to ensure that Project plans are incorporated into the Army’s feasibility study for system disconnection. If agreement cannot be reached with the Army regarding the location and/or design of off-site facilities on Army property, the on-site facilities would be designed to accommodate the flow that would otherwise be retained and infiltrated on Army property. See Response 1.7 and Response 1.14, above, regarding disconnection of the Army system.

Furthermore, the comment suggests an “alternative of transferring stormwater run-off to a local recycled water project in addition to the use percolation ponds.” The suggestion is not considered feasible at this time, and would not reduce or avoid a significant impact. However, the Proposed Project would not preclude implementation of such a program in the future, if desired by decisionmakers. Brian True at MCWD, Senior Civil Engineer, was contacted on October 16, 2019 about such an option (True 2019), and stated that they cannot handle that volume of stormwater at this time.

More specifically, MCWD stated:

After carefully evaluating the information and estimating the capacities of MCWD’s infrastructure that would be needed to achieve the concept’s objectives, I have to conclude that the idea is not particularly feasible without installing additional stormwater management features for which there is no land, no money, and no regulatory guarantee of success. (in terms of being able to use the return flows in the desired manner).

The concept appears to fail mainly because the largest diameter MCWD sanitary sewer pipeline that would stand a chance of carrying stormwater flows in addition to the normal daily load is the N-S aligned 30-inch SS pipeline that parallels 1st Avenue, heading to the HWY 1 crossing north of 8th Street (the crossing occurs at the west edge of the VA-DoD Health Care facility’s parking lot), passing through MCWD’s flume into the M1W interceptor on the flow’s way to the M1W treatment facility north of Marina. Even at the large (for this jurisdiction) diameter available – 30-inches – the estimated flow rates from the basins generated by the modelled storm event would far outstrip the pipes capacity for several hours of such a rain event. Such an operational scenario suggests that large basins be installed to hold the flow and feed the stormwater into the 30-inch sanitary sewer facility in some controlled manner. As noted above, there is little space or money available to achieve such system additions and modifications.

Response 1.27
The commenter notes that there are two areas where the Specific Plan would alter stormwater runoff from Army property (i.e., not stormwater from the Plan Area), and requests that Cityrecommended percolation ponds in these locations be analyzed in the EIR.

The comment is not referencing the Project’s stormwater flows, rather it is referencing the U.S.

Defense facility and the U.S. Army exchange service facility stormwater flows which currently run through the site. Runoff from within the Plan Area does not currently flow onto Army property and the Project would not create runoff onto Army property. Rather, runoff from off-site Army property flows into the Plan Area. The Plan Area would continue to accept and accommodate this Army runoff. As noted in Comment 1.7, the Army is currently “conducting a feasibility study for ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 750, Packet Page 1078 disconnecting its existing stormwater drainage system that outfalls to the ocean.” The Project would ideally use off-site stormwater facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use offsite facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed.

As part of this feasibility study, there are currently two options for addressing runoff from the existing U.S. Defense facility: (1) disconnection from the system and provision of an infiltration basin along Gigling Road on Army property, outside the Specific Plan boundary; or (2) installation of a new pipe connecting the U.S. Defense Facility to the existing storm drain system at the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road. The infiltration basin would be located near Gigling Road and within areas that do not include sensitive biological areas and are not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts. Similarly, if a new pipeline is instead constructed to direct runoff from the U.S. Defense facility to the existing storm drain system, the pipeline would be located within the public road in disturbed areas. Other potential pipeline alignments through the Plan Area could also be implemented.

In the other area where runoff from Army property would be potentially accommodated, a portion of the U.S. Army Exchange Service facility discharges stormwater towards the intersection of 1st Avenue and Lightfighter Drive. An off-site basin would intercept and infiltrate the facility’s 100-year runoff volume on Army property adjacent to 1st Avenue and the Campus Town development. In the event no agreement can be reached with the Army on a stormwater design, a basin could be located within the Specific Plan to accommodate flows from Army property. Implementation of either option would be subject to requirements of the MS4 General Permit and Seaside Municipal Code BMPs to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects; as such, significant environmental impacts associated with stormwater drainage design features would not occur.

As described in the Draft EIR Impact HWQ-3, the measures outlined in the Preliminary PostConstruction Stormwater Control Plan ensure that the Proposed Project would comply with NPDES, County, and City requirements related to stormwater runoff and water quality, and substantial adverse impacts associated with drainage pattern alterations would not occur.

Response 1.28
The commenter requests re-evaluation of consistency with Goal LU-5, Policy LU-5.4, Policy UD-3.1, Policy ED-1.4, Goal C-3, and Goal COS-2 in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR.

Consistency with Goal LU-5 and COS-2 were discussed in detail in the Draft EIR (pages 4.10-31 and

4.10-37), as outlined in greater detail below. Please also see Draft EIR Section 4.16, Impact UTIL-1 for more detailed discussion of water supply and proposed mitigation measure UTIL-1.

Consistent. The Proposed Project would utilize recycled water to irrigate public street landscape medians, public open space, and landscaping for commercial/flex sites and residential front yards. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be designed to meet modern water conservation. As described in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR the utilization of recycled water by the Proposed Project would ensure water supplies are preserved, and upgrading or expanding water infrastructure facilities would not be required. [Policy LU-5.1]
Consistent. The Marina Coast Water District has provided a Water Supply Assessment of the Proposed Project and have determined that by implementing strategies to increase recycled ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 751, Packet Page 1079 water use that the Proposed Project can be built in such a way that additional water reserves are provided. [Policy LU-5.2]
Consistent. Chapter 3, Public Realm Standards and Guidelines, of the Specific Plan sets forth a landscape plan that includes street trees and shrubs that are largely California natives with low water requirements, which would reduce water usage at the public open space area envisioned by the Specific Plan. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with Section 17.30.040(G) of the Seaside Municipal Code, which requires the use of water-efficient irrigation systems unless infeasible. The Project is designed to comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and would use a water-efficient irrigation system in irrigated parks and open space areas. Furthermore, the Specific Plan requires that development adhere to the requirements of Title 24, which includes standards for water-conserving plumbing and fixtures. In addition, the Proposed Project would comply with Section 17.30.040(G) of the Seaside Municipal Code, which requires the use of water-efficient irrigation systems unless infeasible. The Proposed Project would utilize recycled water to irrigate public street landscape medians, public open space, and landscaping for commercial/flex sites and residential front yards. The Project would use waterefficient irrigation systems. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with Policy LU5.3. [Policy LU-5.3] Consistent. Chapter 5, Infrastructure, of the Specific Plan requires the installation of a recycled water main in Lightfighter Drive from 1st Avenue to General Jim Moore Boulevard and adjacent to Gigling Road from General Jim Moore Boulevard to 7th Avenue. Following installation of this recycled water main, recycled water would be used to irrigate public street landscape medians, public parks, opens space, and landscaping for commercial/flex sites and residential front yards.

Recycled water may also be provided for domestic (toilets, floor sinks, and other applicable uses allowed under the California Building Code) use by multi-family residential units. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with Policy LU-5.4. [Policy LU-5.4] Provisions for recycled water have been expressly included in Section 5.2.2.2 of the Specific Plan.

This includes use of recycled water for toilets, floor sinks, and other applicable recycled water uses allowed under the California Building Code. Furthermore, recycled water use regulations are currently subject to regulatory change, it may be in the near future that recycled water may be used for potable purposes, depending upon the level of treatment. Therefore, given potential near-term changes in these statewide regulations, the City believes mandating such provisions beyond what is currently proposed to be infeasible from a policy perspective. .

Regarding Policy UD-3.1, this comment is noted. No revisions are required, as Roberts Lake is not specifically discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR.

Policy ED-1.4 discusses the creation of a favorable environment in the Gigling Road/Surplus II Area to establish quality urban development compatible with CSUMB’s academic environment, provide employment opportunities with high pay and benefits for community residents, new high density rental and ownership housing opportunities and generate revenue to support City services. The Project and its objectives inherently address this goal. The Project objectives include (as stated in Section 2.3 of the Draft EIR):
 Objective 1: To develop a variety of building types and uses, including entertainment, retail, housing, visitor lodging, and employment space with sufficient resident population in proximity to proposed commercial uses to support a viable Mixed Use Urban Village.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 752, Packet Page 1080  Objective 2: Provide shopping, employment, and housing opportunities for households of various sizes and income levels, in close proximity to one another and the CSUMB campus, and to reduce vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis.  Objective 3: Centrally focus commercial development, typical of historic main streets.  Objective 4: To create a vibrant multi-model transportation network, including improvements which encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity.
 Objective 5: To expand the City of Seaside’s retail and employment opportunities, including the creation of employment space and live/work space capable of supporting startup businesses.  Objective 6: To create a project, including a land use mix and phasing, that is responsive to market demand and results in an economically viable development that can support the infrastructure investment needed to transform the Plan Area to civilian use.

Regarding Goal C-3, the Draft EIR (pages 4.10-34 and 4.10-35) states:

Consistent. The Proposed Project would establish a mixed use area that supports higher-density housing, shopping, services, jobs, office, and open space. The Plan Area is served by five Monterey-Salinas Transit District bus routes that stop in or along the boundary of the Plan Area (Routes 12, 18, 67, 74, and 75). [Policy C-3.3]
Consistent. The Specific Plan includes policies to implement a multi-modal transportation network on-site through the design of complete streets for all forms of mobility and the consideration of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicle occupants. The Specific Plan also includes goals and policies to develop well-designed, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and create a walkable community by providing motorized intersection density at a minimum of 235 intersections per square mile. [Policy C-3.4]
The planned density and limited vehicle amenities would encourage residents of the Plan Area to utilize alternative modes of transportation. The increased availability of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options would also encourage residents to use these methods of transportation.

The EIR appropriately evaluated the policies listed above, as referenced by the commenter.

Additionally, the commenter does not identify a deficiency in the EIR analysis or explain why reevaluation of these policies is needed.

Response 1.29
The commenter states that implementation of stated goals and policies may be very difficult in a 13- year timeframe and a detailed implementation plan is needed given the Ford Ord closure process which started 25 years ago. The commenter states the EIR should analyze cumulative impacts over decades instead of years and should analyze cumulative development adjacent to Army property.

Regarding selection of the buildout year, an EIR can make reasonable assumptions based on substantial evidence about future conditions without guaranteeing that those assumptions will remain true (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1036). Similar issues were raised in San Francisco Tomorrow v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) Case No. A137753, in which Petitioners alleged that “They first challenge the description of the project’s duration, arguing it was ambiguous as having changed from the pre-EIR application which identified construction of new residences and a neighborhood core occurring ‘[o]ver a period of 15 to 30 years’ to the Draft EIR and responses to comments that identified a duration of ‘approximately 20 years,’ but also referenced a 30-year term for the development agreement and a ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 753, Packet Page 1081 pedestrian wind study that used a 30-year time frame.” The Court in San Francisco Tomorrow rejected this argument stating:

CEQA does not require a project description to identify a specific completion date. (See Guidelines, § 15124.) Rather, CEQA requires that the EIR contain “an accurate, stable and finite project description....” (County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 199.)… there is no significant discrepancy in the length or duration of the project.

The EIR here consistently assumed that construction of the project would last for 20 years. It used the 20-year estimate to analyze potential impacts that might be dependent on the duration of the project, including its analysis of priority policies, land use, aesthetics, population and housing, direct temporary population growth, transportation, noise, air quality, greenhouse gasses, recreation, utilities, public services, biological resources, geology, hydrology, and hazardous materials. It used the 20-year duration in responding to comments.

The EIR also acknowledged the possibility that full development could take longer than 20 years.

However, it made the reasonable assumption of a 20-year construction period. As explained in footnotes in the DEIR and the FEIR describing the phasing and construction of the project “over an approximately 20-year period”: “The Project Sponsor expects the phasing of the Proposed Project to occur over 20 years, but the full development could extend for a longer period.

Consequently, the [d]evelopment [a]greement would likely cover a 30-year projected buildout.” The FEIR also acknowledges that “[s]ince preparation of the NOP [Notice of Preparation] in May 2009, several modifications have been made to the Proposed Project. Buildout of the Proposed Project has been reduced from 30 to 20 years.”
The 30-year duration of the development agreement is not inconsistent with the EIR estimate that the project will take 20 years to complete. The 20-year project duration is a reasonable description of the length of time it will take to complete construction and development of the project and to facilitate a realistic evaluation of project impacts over that period for EIR purposes.

As noted in Section 2.4.1 of the Draft EIR, buildout of the Proposed Project would be dependent on market conditions, birth rates, death rates, availability of resources, and regulatory processes from Federal, State and local regulations. The 13-year timeframe was identified as a reasonable buildout timeframe based upon the project applicant’s experience with similar projects. KB South Bay has over 40 years of building experience, having constructed hundreds of projects of the same scope and complexity as Campus Town. The Bakewell Company has over 40 years of development experience doing a variety of projects including residential, commercial, office and industrial development throughout California. Furthermore, unlike the closure of Fort Ord, this Project has a specific developer, which is ready to implement the proposed development. The Specific Plan also incorporated an implementation plan, in Section 6 (see Draft EIR Appendix B).

Cumulative impacts are discussed throughout Section 4 of the Draft EIR, following individual impact analyses. In addition, Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR discusses potential land use conflicts between the Proposed Project and surrounding land uses, as well as consistency with land use plans and policies applicable to the Plan Area. The Draft EIR reasonably concludes that “cumulative impacts related to dividing an established community would be less than significant,” that the Project “would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to physically dividing an established community,” and that “the Proposed Project in combination with other development envisioned by the Draft Seaside 2040 would not result in significant cumulative impact with respect to consistency with land use plans” (Draft EIR page 4.10-61).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 754, Packet Page 1082 Response 1.30
The commenter states that the Project would not meet or exceed the historic use of Fort Ord (30,000 to 35,000 people), and the less than significant conclusion is accurate in the short term, but supplemental analysis should be conducted if the population is projected to increase significantly, which is shown to occur in 2034.

This comment is noted; the commenter agrees with the conclusions provided in the Draft EIR. Refer also to Section 4.12.3(c) of the Draft EIR, which discusses impacts from increased population, including in the cumulative year scenario. Please also note that Draft EIR Table 4.12-7 contains population rates for the City of Seaside, and is not directly comparable to the former historic population of Fort Ord referenced in the comment.

Response 1.31
The commenter states that the existing amount of law enforcement appears inadequate, and the use of a 1.2 police officers per 1,000 residents ratio appears to be inadequate.

Under CEQA, and per the Draft EIR significance criteria, a project would have a significant impact on the environment if it would result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or altered police facilities (Draft EIR Section 4.13.3). The Draft EIR concludes that the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or altered police facilities.

The Seaside Police Department (SPD) service ratio of 1.2 sworn officers per 1,000 residents was calculated based on the number of sworn officers within the SPD (40 sworn officers) and the population of the City of Seaside (34,120 residents) (City of Seaside 2017; DOF 2018).

Project-related impacts are discussed in Section 4.13.3(c) of the Draft EIR, which include increased demand for police services, whether new police facilities would be needed, and new personnel that would be required to maintain service to the City and provide adequate service to the Plan Area.

The Draft EIR states:

To maintain the existing ratio of 1.2 officers per 1,000 residents, the Proposed Project would require 5.9 new police officers to be added to the SPD. The population generated by the Proposed Project would contribute to increased police service demands.

Existing police facilities are not meeting the accommodation requirements of existing officers and personnel. In order to provide the additional SPD staffing for both the current population of Seaside and maintain response times, as well as additional future population from buildout of the Proposed Project, expansion of the existing SPD facilities or construction of a new SPD facility could be required (Pridgen 2019). (Draft EIR at page 4.13-15) The Draft EIR discusses the potential for expanded SPD facilities, noting that an evaluation of the environmental impacts of implementation of the expanded SPD facilities “is not feasible at this time, given that a location and other design details are unknown, but given the likely location of the new police station on an infill site, environmental impacts are unlikely to be significant” (Draft EIR page

4.13-15). The Draft EIR concludes that the Proposed Project would generate additional demand; however, the construction of such facilities is not anticipated to result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. See Draft EIR, Impact PS-1, for additional details.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 755, Packet Page 1083 Response 1.32
The commenter requests a robust and clear description of the transportation analysis, states that Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) also provides two special shuttle buses along the boundary of the Plan Area, states that MST RIDES is an ADA Paratransit Service and MST On-Call operating during the daytime during the week, and refers to Comment 1.1 regarding Army approval and NEPA requirements related to General Jim Moore Boulevard improvements.

The commenter does not identify any specific deficiencies in the Draft EIR transportation. Section

4.14.1 and Section 4.14.2 of the Draft EIR provide the existing setting and regulatory setting for the transportation analysis, which the impact discussion in Section 4.14.3 relies upon to reach significance conclusions. The MST paratransit service (RIDES) is described in Section 4.14.1(c) of the Draft EIR (note this text has been revised in response to Comment 7.2).

If the proposed location of a new bus stop along General Jim Moore Boulevard between Lightfighter Drive and Gigling Road is denied by the Army, the proposed bus stop would be relocated farther north on City property. Please refer to Response 1.1 regarding Army approval requirements.

Response 1.33
The commenter requests clarification regarding stormwater increases as a result of the Project, and states that infiltration conditions must meet or exceed pre-project infiltration conditions.

The commenter cites text on page 6-10 in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR which states that the Project would increase the generation of stormwater; it is important to note that the cited text is comparing the No Project Alternative to the Proposed Project, and is discussing factors which contribute to increases in stormwater volume. The text on Draft EIR page 4.9-18 accurately explains that “Development of the Proposed Project would result in a net increase of impervious surfaces from approximately 31 to 52 percent of the Plan Area (as detailed in the Preliminary PostConstruction Stormwater Control Plan for Campus Town, Appendix I).” However, the Project would capture and infiltrate this stormwater on site (or immediately adjacent thereto). The Proposed Project would be consistent with existing stormwater capture regulations.

The impact analysis provided Section 4.9.3 of the Draft EIR identifies project design features and best management practices that would be implemented toward Project compliance with the cited RWQCB’s Post-Construction Requirements for post-project infiltration conditions to meet preproject infiltration conditions. The analysis provided on pages 4.9-19 and 4.9-20 describes that all residential and commercial lots under the Proposed Project would be required to retain stormwater on-site, and runoff generated from streets and public hardscape areas would be tributary to the onsite storm drain system. The Project would ideally use adjacent off-site stormwater infiltration facilities; however, if the Project does not gain approval to use off-site facilities, an on-site retention option has been designed. In addition to the approximately 837 distributed drainage management areas from individual lots, additional drainage management areas have been identified for runoff retention of street areas. As described in the Draft EIR (page 4.9-20), proposed drainage basins are located at the low points within the Plan Area, including at 1st Avenue, in a portion of the “tree save” area, and at the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Lightfighter Drive.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 756, Packet Page 1084 Response 1.34
The commenter states that Alternative 2 appears to be the best environmental alternative, and alleges that Alternative 3 would increase environmental impacts by at least 25 percent and requires a complete cumulative analysis.

The commenter’s preference for Alternative 2 is noted. While Alternative 2 was determined to be environmentally superior because of reduced on-site impacts, different Alternatives offer different trade-offs. For example, Alternative 3 was determined to have greater regional benefits related to VMT. As discussed in the Draft EIR (page 6-34):

Alternative 3 would result in a 25 percent increase in residents and approximately double the number of employees as the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 includes residential development near regional destinations like the CSUMB campus and other nearby potential job sites, resulting in a lower average VMT rate than the average region-wide VMT rate. Providing housing near jobs increases the likelihood that trips can remain within a local area, thus shortening travel distances and increasing residents’ ability to accomplish some travel needs by walking, cycling, or using short-distance transit.

The Alternatives analysis already includes consideration of cumulative impacts.

Response 1.35
The commenter requests that traffic analysis considers potential changes in circulation and increased usage of Parker Flats Cutoff and use of residential streets throughout Marshall Park to identify potentially adverse impacts to Level of Service (LOS).

Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, changes the way transportation impacts are to be identified under the CEQA. Specifically, the legislation directed the State of California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to look at different metrics for identifying transportation impacts and make corresponding revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. Following several years of draft proposals and related public comments, OPR settled upon vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the preferred metric for assessing passenger vehicle related impacts and issued revised CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 along with a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) to assist practitioners in implementing the CEQA Guidelines revisions to use VMT as the new metric. Under the revised CEQA Guidelines, LOS is no longer to be used as a metric for determining significant environmental impacts, and an analysis of VMT will be required.

An operations analysis at major intersections are provided for informational purposes only. The operations analysis includes the evaluation of intersections along Gigling Road at General Jim Moore Boulevard, Malmedy Road, Parker Flats Cutoff, and Seventh Avenue; and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Normandy Road. Most of the Project traffic will use General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road because it is a faster and more direct route than traveling via Parker Flats Cutoff and Normandy Road. Therefore, additional transportation analysis along Normandy Road and Parker Flats Cutoff was not conducted because the slower and less direct route is unlikely to experience much Project traffic (approximately 40 to 50 peak hour vehicles).

Response 1.36
The commenter requests additional information regarding the comparison between VMT and LOS.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 757, Packet Page 1085 The commenter is correct that the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) travel demand model was used to estimate the Project and regional VMT. The VMT specifications used for the Transportation Analysis are summarized in Draft EIR Appendix K, Chapter 4. LOS calculations were performed for informational purposes and are provided in the Draft EIR Appendix K, Chapter 9, for reference. However, VMT and LOS methods cannot be directly compared because they are different metrics. VMT is a metric that accounts for the number of vehicle trips generated plus the length or distance of those trips, while LOS is a metric that assigns a letter rating to street network/intersection performance. The typical application in cities is to measure the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day and assign a grade of A to F as described in the Draft EIR Appendix K. Because the performance measures use different metrics they cannot be compared.

Response 1.37
The commenter expresses support for infrastructure upgrades and notes that any development to Army land must be useful to, and consistent with Army mission, supported by NEPA analysis and appropriate real estate agreement, after ensuring consistency in plans for the roadway(s). Please refer to Response 1.1 regarding Army approval requirements.

The commenter also states that transportation improvements should be completed before construction of the Project to maintain traffic flows and reduce congestion. Infrastructure improvements would be completed on a phased basis as necessary to accommodate occupancy of each Project phase. As stated in Response 5.5, the City anticipates that both roundabouts (at General Jim Moore Boulevard/Lightfighter Drive and General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road) will be completed before the completion of Phase 1 of the Project, subject to the Army’s approval process. Please also see Draft EIR Appendix K, Chapter 7 and 9, for discussion of intersection signalization and roundabouts.

Please also note that the Project includes a construction traffic management plan, as discussed on Draft EIR page 4.14-20, which includes:
 Identify proposed truck routes to be used
 Specify construction hours, including limits on the number of truck trips during the AM and PM peak traffic periods (7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM), if conditions demonstrate the need  Include a parking management plan for ensuring that construction worker parking results in minimal disruption to surrounding uses
 Include a public information and signage plan to inform student, faculty and staff of the planned construction activities, roadway changes/closures, and parking changes  Store construction materials only in designated areas that minimize impacts to nearby roadways  Limit the number of lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible. Inform the Campus at least two weeks before any partial road closure
 Use Caltrans certified flag persons for any temporary lane closures to minimize impacts to traffic flow, and to ensure safe access into and out of the project sites  Install traffic control devices as specified in the California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones  To minimize disruption of emergency vehicle access, affected jurisdictions (Campus Police, City Police, County Sheriff, and City Fire Department) will be consulted to identify detours for emergency vehicles, which will then be posted by the construction contractor ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 758, Packet Page 1086  Coordinate with local transit agencies for temporary relocation of routes or bus stops in works zones, as necessary
 Coordinate with other projects under construction near the project site, so an integrated approach to construction-related traffic is developed and implemented Response 1.38
The commenter requests an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) be completed at General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard/Normandy Road. The Project proposes one roundabout within the Army's jurisdiction at General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road and the Army requests additional information, such as an ICE, to assist them in reviewing the roundabout concept. An evaluation of this roundabout using LOS is provided in Draft EIR Appendix K, Chapter 9.

The commenter states the proposed intersection improvements are outside the Project proponent’s jurisdiction. Please refer to Response 1.1 regarding Army approval requirements on proposed projects within Army lands, and the locations of proposed infrastructure improvements in public (not Army) rights-of-way.

Response 1.39
The commenter states that the Army prefers the construction work at General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard/Normandy Road be done prior to any buildout of the Plan.

This comment is noted. The City anticipates that construction of roundabouts at General Jim Moore Boulevard at Lightfighter Drive and Gigling Road would be completed before the completion of Phase 1 of the Project. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 4.2-17, footnote 11), the City does not anticipate that widening General Jim Moore Boulevard at Normandy Road will be necessary; however, it is included in this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of air quality impacts.

Response 1.40
The commenter states the traffic control system infrastructure at the Normandy Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard intersection is deficient and unlikely to support new signal timing technology as proposed. It is important to note that this recommendation in the Transportation Analysis is not a required mitigation measure to reduce identified impacts to less than significant. The traffic control system infrastructure is only a part of the LOS analysis, which was included for informational purposes only. The EIR uses the VMT methodology to analyze the Project transportation impact under CEQA. Please refer to Response 1.35 and Response 1.36 regarding the discussion of LOS.

Additionally, the City is working with TAMC to complete a corridor study of General Jim Moore Boulevard that will inform traffic controls along this roadway. Independent planning of improvements along this corridor is underway.

The commenter requests clarification on the improvements listed in Draft EIR Appendix K, Table 16, and elsewhere in the document, and requests an ICE be completed at Normandy Road/General Jim Moore Boulevard. The improvements listed in Draft EIR Appendix K, Table 16, are discussed in the text following Table 16. Any infrastructure upgrades or improvements that may be built with the addition of the Project may be included as part of the Conditions of Approval or Development ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 759, Packet Page 1087 Agreement; however, the City does not plan to require widening or the addition of asphalt as recommended in the Appendix K LOS analysis.

Response 1.41
The commenter states the VMT discussion is not clear and inquires if the City of Seaside has its own adopted VMT policy.

The City is in the process of updating its General Plan that will include a transition from vehicle LOS to VMT. Currently, the City of Seaside does not have its own adopted VMT policy, but has reviewed the criteria and recommendations from OPR’s CEQA Guidelines for transitioning to VMT and have incorporated relevant portions of those guidelines in the analysis for the Project.

The traffic analysis uses two VMT metrics to evaluate potential VMT impacts: 1) 15 percent below the AMBAG (Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties) region-generated VMT per service population, and 2) the threshold for the Project’s effect on VMT per service population (using the boundary VMT with the AMBAG region) is less than or equal to the respective Existing Conditions, Buildout Year (2034) Conditions, and Cumulative (2040) Conditions without the Project VMT per service population. (See Draft EIR Section 4.14.3.)
The Commenter also states that the MXD+ Trip Reduction and Pass-by Trip Reduction are not defined, calculated, or explained. Draft EIR Appendix K included Table 6, which presents the peak hour trip generation summary for the Plan, as well as the MXD+ Trip Reductions, and the Pass-By Trip Reductions. As discussed in Draft EIR, Appendix K, page 49:

To capture the effect of the proposed land use mix on peak hour vehicle trip generation, the proposed Plan trip generation was estimated using the MainStreet web-based transportation analysis method. MainStreet creates adjustments to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition method of applying rates to the individual land uses and summing the results, which has been shown to overestimate traffic generation for mixeduse developments (MXDs) by an average of 35 percent. Specifically, MainStreet accounts for the balanced mix of land uses, compact design, good neighborhood connectivity and walkability, and location efficiency of the proposed Plan. Further documentation on MainStreet may be found in Appendix C. Appendix C also includes a brief explanation of the land use types considered for use in the trip generation estimates.

Table 6 presents the peak hour trip generation summary for the Plan. It includes the base trip generation estimates and the mixed-use reductions estimated by the MainStreet model. The Plan’s external vehicle trip generation (amount of traffic added to the streets) is approximately 1,086 morning peak-hour trips (387 inbound trips and 699 outbound trips) and 1,561 evening peak-hour trips (875 inbound trips and 687 outbound trips).

The MXD+ model is based upon two earlier trip generation studies including (1) the National Cooperative Highway Research program (NCHRP) Report 684, and (2) the US EPA sponsored Report “Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments – A Six- Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures” which in turn was based upon a study of 239 Mixed Use Developments and verified through 27 mixed use sites across the U.S. The MXD+ model combines the datasets and factors from both of these models. Please refer to Response 5.2 for additional details, including regarding MainStreet and trip reductions. Additional technical information is available in Revised Appendix K.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 760, Packet Page 1088 Response 1.42
The commenter requests an in-person meeting to discuss traffic impacts, questions how the addition of 1,500 homes does not have an impact on traffic, and requests additional information regarding the AMBAG travel model that was used to forecast the VMT.

The City met with the Army on December 18, 2019 to discuss the Project. Please refer to Response

1.35 as to why adverse effects to LOS are no longer considered CEQA environmental impacts and why VMT is used to identify the environmental effects from transportation. The Draft EIR does not evaluate transportation impacts based on the amount of delay that is added to various study intersections. The Project proposes residential development near regional destinations like the CSUMB campus and other nearby potential job sites resulting in a lower average VMT rate than the average regionwide VMT rate.

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 2.3, the Proposed Project and the associated objectives are also designed to address statewide planning efforts. The legislature has adopted findings that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California… (3) Among the consequences of those actions are…. reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Gov.

Code Section 65589.5(a)). The State Legislature has also acknowledged that there is a “need to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill housing and mixed use commercial developments within walking distance to mass transit facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these sometimes competing interests” (Gov. Code Section 65088.4 [SB743 (2013)]).

The commenter also requests the additional information regarding the AMBAG model and any changes that were made. The AMBAG model was not modified for the analysis; as such, no model documentation to disclose such changes has been provided by transportation planning firm Tammen, Johnson, Kinzel, and Mimiaga (“TJKM”).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 761, Packet Page 1089 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 762, Packet Page 1090 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 763, Packet Page 1091 Letter 2
COMMENTER: William Collins, Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Army Fort Ord BRAC Field Office DATE: August 13, 2019
Response 2.1
The commenter recommends revising page 4.8-1 of the Draft EIR from discussing military training in the Plan Area to generally describing the historical use of Fort Ord.

In response to this comment, page 4.8-1, paragraph 4, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

The Plan Area has remnant hazardous materials from historic military uses at the former Fort Ord base. Between 1917 and closure of the Fort Ord base in 1994, various areas of the Plan area was Fort Ord base were operated as infantry, artillery, and cavalry training grounds. The Plan Area was utilized for a fire training center, housing, training, and recreation.

The 1995 Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Fort Ord (Harding Law Associates [HLA] 1995) indicates that there is one Hazard Investigation Site/Operable Unit (OU10) present within the Plan Area which includes a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU14).

In addition, see Response 2.5 for a discussion of historic activities within the Plan Area.

Response 2.2
The commenter requests that the EIR note the Army has determined all necessary response actions were taken in reference to the 2001 Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer (FOSET) required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

In response to this comment, page 4.8-2, paragraph 1, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows to clearly indicate the overall former use of Fort Ord and the specific Fort Ord uses that addressed hazardous materials.

In December 2001, the Army published a FOSET (U.S. Army 2001) for four parcels located within the Plan Area which makes these required findings for early property transfer. The four parcels are shown in Figure 4.8-1 and described as follows:
 Parcels L2.4.3.1 and L2.4.3.2 include an approximately 1.3-acre site located in the Plan Area, southwest of Colonel Durham Street and 7th Avenue.
 Parcel L32.4.1.2 (formerly a portion of L32.4.1) includes an irregularly shaped approximately 16-acre site in the Plan Area, north of Gigling Road, at Malmedy Road.  Parcel L37 includes an approximately 5-acre site in the Plan Area located northwest of Gigling Road and 6th Avenue.

These parcels are shown on Figure 4.8-1. As shown therein, not all portions of the Plan Area have been approved for early transfer. It should be noted that Parcel L2.4.2 was also included for early transfer; however, this parcel is located to the east, outside of the Plan Area.

In May 2003, the Army published FOST Track 0 (U.S. Army 2003) for numerous parcels located within the Plan Area which makes findings for property transfer. Nine of these parcels are ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 764, Packet Page 1092 present in the Plan Area and are shown in Figure 4.8-1, they include: L19.3, L19.2, L1.1, L23.6, L15.1, L19.4, L32.4.1.1, L7.8, and L7.9 (U.S. Army 2003). It should be noted that Parcels L36, L32.2.2, and L32.3 were also included for transfer with FOST Track 0; however, these parcels are not a part of the Plan Area.

One of these parcels was identified as ECP Category 1, a parcel where no release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred: L19.3. Eight of these parcels were identified as ECP Category 4, a parcel where a release, migration or disposal of hazardous substances has occurred, and all removal or remedial actions have been taken. ECP Category 4 parcels include: L19.2, L1.1, L23.6, L15.1, L19.4, L32.4.1.1, L7.8, and L7.9.

Plate 12 of FOST Track 0 also indicates that USTs and /or ASTs were formerly present of the following parcels: L32.4.1.1 (2 USTs), L37 (2 ASTs), and IRP 10 (2 ASTs and 2 USTs) as shown in Figure 4.8-1 and described below.
 One UST at Parcel L32.4.1.1 is identified as UST 4430 and was utilized to store diesel fuel from 1954-1992. This 3,000-gallon UST was reportedly closed in place in April 1992 and closure was approved by Monterey County Department of Health in January 1994 (U.S.

Army 2003).
 The second UST at Parcel L32.4.1.1 is identified as UST 4440 and was utilized to store diesel fuel since 1954. This 3,000-gallon UST was reportedly closed and closure was approved by Monterey County Department of Health April 1994 (MCDH 1994). It is not known if this tank was closed in place or removed.
 Two ASTs (4460.1 and 4460.2) at parcel L37 were located near building 4460, and as of 2001 the ASTs were empty and inactive (U.S. Army 2001). No additional information regarding the previous use of these tanks or assessment/remediation action in the area was located in the FOST Track 0 or FOSET 2 documents.
 Two ASTs at parcel F2.3.3 (IRP 10) were identified further in a 1990 document discussed later in this report. No additional information regarding the previous use of these tanks or assessment/remediation action in the area was located in the FOST Track 0 or FOSET 2 documents.
 Two USTs at parcel F2.3.3 (IRP 10) were identified further in a 1990 document discussed later in this report. The USTs (4400.1 and 4400.2) were closed by Monterey County Department of Health on December 1995 (MCDH 1995). It is not known if these tanks were closed in place or removed.
 Parcels F2.3.2, F2.3.3, and F2.3.4 Plan Area parcels, located along General Jim Moore Boulevard could not be located in the baseline, FOST Track 0, or FOSET 2 documents.

However, these parcels were deeded to the City of Seaside as follows: The 2008 quitclaim deed (DACA05-9-07-512) for parcel F2.3.3 (Site 1/burn pit) indicates that the burn pit area was remediated to EPA satisfaction in 1996 (U.S. Army 2012). However, the deed does not indicate if the USTs at this location were removed or if the area in the vicinity of the USTs and ASTS was assessed for potential fuel impacts.
 The 2008 quitclaim deed (DACA05-9-08-526) for parcels F2.3.2 and F2.3.4 (east of General Jim Moore Boulevard) indicates that the nearby burn pit area was remediated to EPA satisfaction in 1996 (U.S. Army 2012). However, the deed does not indicate if assessments were ever completed onsite.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 765, Packet Page 1093 The changes reflected above would not result in alterations to the degree of impact or significance conclusions presented in the Draft EIR because the underlying information was already used to analyze the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts. Therefore, the changes do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the changes serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR. Additionally, Impact HAZ-3 (beginning on page 4.8-16 of the Draft EIR) discusses the existing hazardous materials contamination in the Plan Area. Remediation activities are already underway to address these existing conditions.

Response 2.3
The commenter states that Parcel F5.2 is designated as “retained” by the Army and Parcel L36 is in the process of being transferred to FORA.

This comment is noted. Parcel F5.2 is included in the Plan Area, but is not part of the Project, and is not proposed for modification. Parcel F5.2 is owned by the Army national guard. Parcel F5.2 is shown on Figure 4.8-1 (revised), provided in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR.

Response 2.4
The commenter notes that building removal and disposal of hazardous materials was undertaken by FORA and not the Army. The commenter states that other parcels in the Plan Area have been given the determination that all necessary response actions have been taken under CERCLA.

In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR:

In December 2018 the Army FORA began demolition of these buildings and remediation of the Surplus II Area… [page 4.8-2]
Removal and off-site disposal of hazardous wastes by the Army FORA is required prior to demolition of existing contaminated buildings…. [page 4.8-4] Although hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, universal waste, and PCBs are currently present in the remaining hammerhead buildings in the Plan Area, the Army FORA is required to remediate and safely dispose of them as part of the Superfund cleanup process, even though the land has already been transferred for future Campus Town development (FORA 1997b). This type of demolition and remediation activity in the Surplus II Area has been previously approved pursuant to the FORA Capital Improvements Program.

For soil and groundwater impacts, the USEPA oversees the remediation process, and the Army must also submit findings to the CalEPA. Remediation of hazardous materials will occur in accordance with the RA-ROD. Although the former Fort Ord base is a listed Superfund site, concentrations of contaminants in the Plan Area would not exceed State regulatory limits after this remediation process. Therefore, under implementation of the Proposed Project, residents, employees, visitors, and other people in the Plan Area would not be exposed to hazardous concentrations of remnant materials from the Fort Ord site. [page 4.8-16] ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 766, Packet Page 1094 Response 2.5
The commenter notes that hazardous investigation of soil and groundwater east of General Jim Moore Boulevard are part of the Army’s remedial action and not FORA.

In response to this comment, page 4.8-2, paragraph 7, of the Draft EIR has been revised to clarify that the Army is responsible for the cleanup of Site 10 – Burn Pit and to provide additional clarification regarding the presence of aboveground storage tanks (AST)/underground storage tanks (UST) at the Fire Station/Burn Pit Area:

In the Plan Area, the Army is responsible for the cleanup at the Site 10 hazardous investigation site identified in Figure 4.8-1, to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road.

In the Plan Area, FORA is also responsible for cleaning up hazardous materials at military buildings on the Surplus II site, as well as at the hazardous investigation site and soil excavation area identified in Figure 4.8-1 to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road.

The changes reflected above would not result in alterations to the degree of impact or significance conclusions presented in the Draft EIR because the identity of the agency responsible for the cleanup does not alter the impact analysis. The Draft EIR addresses Site 10, and describes it as “the hazardous investigation site and soil excavation area identified in Figure 4.8-1 to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road” (Draft EIR page 4.8-2). Therefore, these changes do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Additionally, the following background regarding Site 10 is included herein for informational purposes, but does not result in alterations to the Draft EIR degree of impact or significance conclusions:

The existing fire station is located within the Plan Area, east of General Jim Moore Boulevard (former North-South Road). The fire station includes Building 4400, a fire drill burn pit, tower, and two USTs located east of Building 4400 (fire station structure). The fuel UST were installed in 1984, contained diesel and unleaded fuel, and were utilized to fuel fire department vehicles. These USTs were located approximately 200 feet north of the burn pit. Prior to 1984, a 500-gallon AST was utilized to fuel vehicles and may have contained leaded gasoline. The AST was located approximately 150 north of the burn pit (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Western Division 1990).

Site 10 includes a former burn pit (SWMU14 or FTO-014) located south of the former Fort Ord Fire Station within the Main Garrison. Site 10 is located at the northeast corner of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road. It was reported that flammable liquids were utilized at the burn pit, specifically jet fuel (JP-4), gasoline, diesel, solvents, and waste oil (potentially containing solvents and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) (HLA 1995 and Harding ESE 2002). The 2002 Draft Final Field Investigation and Data Review Solid Waste Management Units report indicates that FTO-014, at Site 10 was investigated, remediated, and backfilled in 1995 (Harding ESE 2002). The 1996 Site 10 IA Confirmation Report was reportedly submitted to United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and USEPA reportedly concurred with the remediation and no further action was required (Harding ESE 2002).

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 767, Packet Page 1095 The 1996 Interim Action Confirmation Report for Site 10 (Burn Pit/IRP 10) indicates that soils at the burn pit and associated drainage swale were removed from the parcel and no other chemicals were identified for cleanup. This report also indicates that six groundwater wells (MW-10-01-180, MW10-02-180, MW-10-03-180, MW-10-04-180, MW-10-05-180, MW-10-06-180) had previously been installed onsite and groundwater was not found to be impacted by the burn pit contaminants of concern (HLA 1996).

The June 27, 2007 No Further Action Letter from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the former onsite burn pit indicates: “DTSC concurs that all of the soil containing contaminants of concern exceeding Target Cleanup Concentrations (TCCs) were removed [from the burn pit] except for arsenic.” DTSC’s letter goes on to state that although arsenic is above the TCCs, it is not above the arsenic background threshold concentration of 3.1 mg/kg. It should be noted that in March 2019, the SWRCB began a perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)/ perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) Phased Investigation Approach to investigate the presence of PFOA and PFOS in groundwater. PFOA/PFOS are chemicals that were utilized to produce grease and stain-resistant coatings for consumer products and also in the production of firefighting foams. The initial Phase of this statewide investigation will begin at airports and landfills where contamination is likely from their use in fire training/fire responses at airports and from consumer products that end up in landfills (SWRCB 2019a). Phase II of this investigation may include Industrial sites, wastewater treatment facilities, and non-airport fire training facilities (SWRCB 2019b). Since Site 10 is a nonairport fire training facility that may have used these firefighting foams, the SWRCB may decide to investigate the presence of PFOA/PFOS in drinking water in the future.

The September 27, 2019 Basewide Review of Historical Activities and Groundwater Monitoring at Operable Unit 2 Former Fort Ord, completed for the Army, recommends that groundwater testing for PFOA/PFOS be performed at a groundwater monitoring well located downgradient from Site 10 (MW-OU2-29-180) (Ahtna Environmental 2019). This report further states that this groundwater well is located 1.7 miles downgradient of the Burn Pit and is located within a similar aquifer (Upper 180-Foot Aquifer). The Army report also states that based on the results of this downgradient groundwater assessment, it may be necessary to perform additional groundwater testing between Site 10 and monitoring well MW-OU2-29-180.

Response 2.6
The commenter notes that the Army’s groundwater monitoring well (MW-10-04-180) did detect carbon tetrachloride but not above the maximum contaminant level of 0.5 micrograms per liter, while the EIR reports a detection of 0.18 milligrams per liter.

In response to this comment, page 4.8-5, paragraph 2, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Groundwater in and near the Plan Area is tested periodically for contaminants resulting from former military use. One groundwater testing well (MW-10-04-180) is located in the Plan Area, to the north of Gigling Road and west of Malmedy Road. The most recent groundwater testing at this well, on September 14, 2011in 2010 and 2011, identified carbon tetrachloride as the only detectable volatile organic chemical (VOC) contaminant (up to 0.18 0.14 micrograms milligram per liter [µmg/L]) (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2011 2019). This volatile organic chemical (VOC) was produced “to make refrigerants and propellants for aerosol cans, as a solvent for oils, fats, lacquers, varnishes, rubber waxes, and resins, and as a grain fumigant and a dry cleaning agent” (USEPA 2016). For reference, California’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) for carbon tetrachloride in drinking water is 0.0005 mg/L (or 0.5 µg/L). This groundwater ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 768, Packet Page 1096 monitoring well, and other wells formerly located at Site 10, have been abandoned (Ahtna Environmental 2019a).

The changes reflected above would not result in alterations to the degree of impact or significance conclusions presented in the Draft EIR because the change reflect a lower level of tetrachloride contamination. Therefore, these changes do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 769, Packet Page 1097

FORT ORD REUSE AUTHORITY
920 2nd Avenue, Suite A, Marina, CA 93933
Phone: (831) 883-3672 │ Fax: (831) 883-3675 │ www.fora.org Kurt Overmeyer
Community and Economic Development Department
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, California 93955
Subject: Public Review of Campus Town Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Overmeyer,
We have reviewed the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH #2108021079 in terms of Land Use/Designation/Density, Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Implementation, Base Reuse Plan (BRP) Policies and Programs, the FORA Development Resource and Management Plan (DRMP), and the Regional Urban Design Guidelines (RUDG).

We do not have record of receiving the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and, as a responsible agency, we are concerned that we may have been overlooked in the distribution. Had we received the NOP, we would have sent a response. Thank you for including FORA in the Draft EIR distribution.

As you know, at its August 10, 2018 meeting the FORA Board found the City of Seaside’s Zoning Code update to be consistent with the BRP. The Campus Town Specific Plan area is zoned for Commercial Mixed Use and this Specific Plan makes no change to land use. The land use identified in the BRP for the Campus Town Specific Plan area was “Planned Development/Mixed Use District” with maximum Gross FAR to .35 and Density to 20 dwelling units per acre. The Seaside General Plan and Zoning Code and Map zone the property as “Commercial Mixed Use” with maximum Gross FAR to 2.0 and Density to 25 dwelling units per acre. Commercial Mixed Use is intended to accommodate retail stores, restaurants and similar uses together with residential units in the context of pedestrian-oriented development.

The FORA Board found the 2009-2014 version of Seaside’s Housing Element to be consistent with the BRP. However, the discussion in the Draft EIR appears to relate to a version of the Housing Element that has not been reviewed by FORA and has not been found to be consistent with the BRP. Contrary to what is stated in the Draft EIR at page 4.12-7, the area addressed in this Specific Plan was not identified as one of the “vacant or underutilized” areas (City of Seaside staff report Item No.13, City Council Agenda Packet January 27, 2011). The nearest parcel identified in Table 44 in the Appendix and in Figure 9, Vacant and Underutilized Sites, Map 3 of 3 of the Seaside Housing Element is COE Parcel E.18.1.3, which is slightly more than 40 acres in size. (That parcel was categorized as Park-Open Space in the BRP land use map, but the 2004 Seaside General Plan changed the land use designation for the parcel to highdensity residential. Seaside’s 2009-2014 Housing Element and 2018 Zoning Code and Map update are in conformity with the high-density housing designation.) The Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR erroneously counts its own parcels as part of the vacant or underutilized sites identified as “capable of accommodating 1,471 residential units.” The Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR does not clearly acknowledge the Fort Ord Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as the permitting structure for the HMP. On page ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 770, Packet Page 1098

4.3-12, the Draft EIR erroneously states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife “generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to Federally listed species within designated development areas of the former Fort Ord.” That statement is true only with respect to developments within the developed footprint of former Fort Ord. Development projects sited in designated development areas outside of the already developed footprint of the former Fort Ord typically require the obtaining of individual take permits, in addition to compliance with the conditions of the HMP. The HCP will convey base wide permits for most listed species in the area and, for some extant projects, is anticipated to take over permit requirements. It will be a vehicle for Campus Town to develop open areas that may be home to Smith’s Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi, Federally endangered) or sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria, State threatened, Federally endangered). The HCP Public Draft is about to be released through the national office of USFWS, and the project has full support of the FORA Board of Directors (most recent unanimous vote to proceed taken October 12, 2018). It is anticipated that the HCP will be fully approved and functioning in 2020.

FORA understands that the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR is proposed to tier off the BRP. It makes sense to build on the foundation of the BRP’s campus-oriented planning. The guiding policies for erosion, A-2 and A-6, are noted on page 4.9-13. Hydrology and Water Quality Policies A-1, C-1, C-2, C-4 and C-5 are also noted. However, the Draft EIR does not directly or fully address certain policies and programs regarding safe yield from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and the Seaside Groundwater Basin. These include the following:
“Hydrology and Water Quality Policy C-3: The MCWRA and the City/County shall cooperate with MCWRA and MPWMD to mitigate prevent further seawater intrusion based on the Salinas Valley Basin Management Plan, to the extent feasible.

Program C-3.1: The City/County shall continue work with the MCWRA and MPWMD to estimate the current safe yields within the context of the Salinas Valley Basin Management Plan for those portions of the former Fort Ord overlying the Salinas Valley and Seaside groundwater basins, to determine available water supplies.

Program C-3.2: The City/County shall work with the MCWRA and MPWMD appropriate agencies to determine the extent of seawater intrusion into the Salinas Valley and Seaside groundwater basins in the context of the Salinas Valley Basin Management Plan and shall participate in developing and implementing measures to prevent further intrusion.” The BRP Final EIR states that: “These programs and policies serve to define the local jurisdictions’ involvement in future water supply planning for former Fort Ord, identify potential water supply sources on- and off-site, and affirm the local jurisdictions’ commitment to preventing further harm to the local aquifers. They also ensure that water supply remains the primary constraining factor for ultimate buildout of the proposed project, by limiting development in accordance with the availability of secured supplies” (FEIR pg. 4-55). In FORA’s Resolution #97-6, the Board of Directors found cumulative impacts to local water supply significant and unavoidable. Although jurisdictions were called upon to make mitigation efforts such as are described in Hydrology and Water Quality Programs C-3.1 and C-3.2, the FORA Board adopted a “statement of overriding considerations that the benefits of the Reuse Plan outweigh any and all potential unavoidable adverse effects of the Reuse Plan.” (FORA, June 13, 1997).

Hydrology and Water Quality Programs C-3.1 and C-3.2 were brought into the Seaside General Plan (which FORA found to be consistent with the BRP in 2004) in the form of policies COS-2.1 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 771, Packet Page 1099

and COS-3.1. In making its findings with respect to that General Plan, the Seaside City Council determined that, even with implementation of mitigation measures such as WR9 (calling for working with the regional water resource agencies to “find a solution to halt seawater intrusion toward Seaside”) cumulative impacts to water supply would be significant and unavoidable.

Accordingly, Seaside adopted a statement of overriding considerations relating to the cumulative impacts associated with water supply.

The Seaside Campus Town Draft EIR states, “within the amended decision governing the Seaside Basin, the court determined the safe yield for the adjudicated Seaside subarea as a range of approximately 2,581 to 2,913 AFY. The court defined an operation safe yield (OSY) as the maximum amount of groundwater that should be allowed to be produced from the basin in a given year. An initial OSY was set at 5,600 AFY; with overdraft conditions in the basin it was mandated that groundwater pumping from the basin be reduced by 2,600 AFY by 2021.” At the same time that pumping of groundwater from the Seaside Basin must be reduced, the Campus Town project joins several in-progress developments, entitled developments, and planned housing in the area as new users that will place increased demands on the available groundwater. With nearly half of the Campus Town project’s 441.6 AFY potable water requirement planned to be drawn from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, convincing evidence to support the proposed finding of no significant cumulative environmental effects on potable water usage is required. The Marina Coast Water District Water Supply Assessment contained in Appendix M does not adequately address the issues of water consumption estimates for past, present and future projects in the area or sufficiently analyze cumulative impacts to support the proposed finding of no significant cumulative environmental effects for potable water usage.

Further, we understand that MCWD contends that Appendix M does not accurately portray the district’s current assessment.

The Util-1 Water Offset Program indicates that the primary supplemental source of potable water will be from Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course, by watering the golf course with Monterey One Water recycled water (thus freeing-up potable water that would otherwise be used for golf course irrigation). The BRP Final EIR recognized that “the Seaside groundwater basin supplies an additional 400 afy of water, which is used for the City of Seaside golf course.” (BRP Vol IV, pg. 4-49) The use of this potable water in Campus Town, rather than as golf course irrigation, is aligned with the BRP programmatic vision of regional water usage.

References to water supplied through this offset program should describe the source as “Seaside Basin groundwater” rather than “existing potable water” to make it clear that the water will come from a source that is not on the site of the former Fort Ord (and not of MCWD’s Fort Ord water rights). The Campus Town Draft EIR should include other supporting documentation for the “in lieu” use of Seaside Basin groundwater, including recent reports from the court/Watermaster regarding the Seaside Basin groundwater adjudication.

Section 3.11.5.4 (b) of Volume I of the BRP outlines the Residential Development Program to prevent using up scarce resource availability. The DRMP of the BRP was cautious to place limitations on residential development to save capacity for industrial/commercial land uses and prevent residential growth from over-use of potable water supply at the former Fort Ord. “Based on the existing potable water supply of 6,600 AFY, the total resident population limit at the former Fort Ord was estimated to be 37,370. Based on the existing potable water supply of 6,600 AFY, the total new residential units within the former Fort Ord shall not exceed 6,160 so that when combined with replacement or occupancy of the 1,813 existing units the total residential units shall not exceed 7,973 (excluding CSUMB and POM Annex housing). FORA’s DRMP does not attempt to allocate residential units to the land use jurisdictions.” Residential unit counts on entitled projects are monitored through FORA’s Capital Improvement Program. A ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 772, Packet Page 1100 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 773, Packet Page 1101 Letter 3
COMMENTER: Mary Israel, Senior Planner, Fort Ord Reuse Authority DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 3.1
The commenter states that they have no record of receiving the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project.

Copies of the NOP were distributed to Jonathan Brinkmann, Principal Planner, and Peter Said, Project Manager of FORA electronically on March 1, 2018. A read receipt was received from Jonathan Brinkmann’s email on March 1, 2018 and is included as Appendix N. Additionally, the City submitted a Notice of Completion of the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, and requested review by FORA (see Draft EIR Appendix A, page 10). The State Clearinghouse then distributes the documents to the individual agencies.

Response 3.2
The commenter states that the FORA Board found the City of Seaside’s Zoning Code update was consistent with the Base Reuse Plan (BRP), with the Plan Area zoned for Commercial Mixed Use. The commenter further states that discussion in the Draft EIR appears to discuss a version of the Housing Element that has not been reviewed by FORA or found to be consistent with the BRP, and alleges the Draft EIR incorrectly states that the Plan Area is identified as a “vacant or underutilized” area.

The Draft EIR discusses both the existing (2009-2014) and proposed (2015-2023) Housing Elements.

As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.12-7:

The Housing Element identifies and prioritizes the housing needs of the City and determines ways to best meet these needs, while balancing community objectives and resources. The City adopted the 2009-2014 Housing Element in August 2010 as part of the State’s fourth Housing Element planning cycle (California Department of Housing and Community Development [HCD] 2003).

In addition to the existing 2004 General Plan, the Draft EIR discusses the Draft Seaside 2040 General Plan, and the proposed updated Housing Element,1
although this document had not yet been
adopted. As further discussed on Draft EIR page 4.12-7:

The City of Seaside is currently in the process of updating their General Plan, Draft Seaside 2040.

Policies contained under Goal LUD-2 illustrate the City’s intent to increase job opportunities in the city, including striving for at least a 1 to 1 ratio of jobs per employed residents and creating at least one new employment-designated area in the Plan Area. In addition, policies contained under Goal LUD-3 aim to increase resident and visitor access to shops and services and to decrease retail leakage by promoting new retail and commercial activity in the city. 1 Please note the Housing Element Update has been separated from Draft Seaside 2040, and a separate CEQA process is underway. The draft CEQA document was released for public review in October 2019, and the Housing Element Update was adopted by the Seaside City Council on December 19, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 774, Packet Page 1102 As also stated in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR:

The 2004 General Plan was reviewed for consistency with the BRP and certified by FORA as consistent, and Draft Seaside 2040 is required to be consistent with the Fort Ord BRP. As discussed in greater detail below, the Proposed Project is consistent with 2004 General Plan and Draft Seaside 2040 goals and policies; therefore, the Proposed Project is presumed consistent with the Fort Ord BRP.

Therefore, consistency with currently approved plans, including the adopted Housing Element and Fort Ord BRP, has been considered within the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concluded the Project is consistent with these plans.

The commenter also alleges that Draft EIR page 4.12-7 identifies the Plan Area in the Housing Element as being designated as “vacant and underutilized.” The commenter also alleges that “The Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR erroneously counts its own parcels as part of the vacant or underutilized sites identified as ‘capable of accommodating 1,471 residential units.’” Text on Draft EIR pages 4.12-7 and 4.12-11 have been revised as follows:
[T]he City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element Technical Appendix identifies available sites for residential development, which include the Plan Area. (HE-App-11958.) According to the 2009- 2014 Housing Element, “[r]ecent acquisition of land in the former Fort Ord area has given the City new opportunities for residential and nonresidential development.” (HE-4.) Also, the “former Fort Ord site could accommodate a large number of high density residential units and is available for development.” (HE-App-83.)
These revisions do not change the impact analysis on Draft EIR page 4.12-11. Furthermore, Project impacts are based upon the underlying physical conditions, not their designations in a General Plan. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, 338. The Draft EIR accurately stated that “the Plan Area contains vacant, extant buildings, originally part of the Fort Ord base…” (Draft EIR page 4.10-25).

The 2015-2023 Housing Element Technical Appendix is available online at:
https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/10089/Draft-Housing-Technical-AppendixOctober-2019.

Response 3.3
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not clearly acknowledge the Fort Ord Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as the permitting structure for the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). According to the commenter, the Draft EIR incorrectly states that USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) generally accept adherence to the HMP as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts of development in the former Fort Ord, and that the HCP Public Draft will be released through USFWS and is anticipated to be approved and functioning in 2020.

While the draft HCP was released for public review in November 2019, this occurred after the publication of the Draft EIR. As such, the Draft EIR was unable to utilize the HCP for any analysis or mitigation guidance. Additionally, CEQA does not require discussion of consistency with draft plans, such as the draft HCP. (Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1134.) The statement in the Draft EIR regarding general acceptance of the HMP conditions for avoiding or mitigating impacts was only intended to indicate the intent of requiring mitigation consistent with the HMP. The discussion concluded that these are Project-specific determinations, and individual ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 775, Packet Page 1103 permits may still be required. Page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR has been revised as shown below for clarification.

Given that the HCP has not yet been finalized, USFWS has generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to Federally listed species within previously developed footprint within designated development areas of the former Fort Ord.

CDFW has generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to non-listed sensitive species within previously developed footprint within designated development areas.

The Draft EIR provides CEQA Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) that minimize impacts on listed and other special status species, including requiring pre-construction surveys for special status species, and development of avoidance and minimization measures as necessary. The EIR presents analyses supporting the conclusion that with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to listed and other special status species would be less than significant. Among other requirements, these mitigation measures require consultation with CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, during mitigation measure implementation. The EIR may also reasonably assume that future development projects would also comply with applicable laws such as the federal and state Endangered Species Acts.

Response 3.4
The commenter states that “FORA understands that the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft EIR is proposed to tier off the BRP.” The Draft EIR utilizes a statutory baseline procedure, as contemplated under Pub. Res. Code § 21083.8.1 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15125(b) and 15229 (Draft EIR Section

3.3).

The commenter also states the Draft EIR does not directly or fully address certain policies and programs regarding safe yield from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) and Seaside Groundwater Basin, including Base Reuse Plan Policy C-3, Program C-3.1, and Program C-3.2, and Seaside General Plan Policies COS-2.1 and COS-3.1. See Draft EIR page 4.10-37 for discussion of Seaside General Plan Goal COS-2.

As explained on Draft EIR page 4.10-3: “Under FORA's procedures, consistency of legislative land use decision with the BRP is based upon consistency with the provisions of the general plan, certified as consistent with the BRP” (FORA Resolution 04-6, Section 8.01.020(g)). Furthermore, as the EIR explains “the analysis below provides a brief overview of the most relevant policies from the various planning documents. However, the City’s consistency conclusions are based upon the planning documents as a whole.”
The policies cited by the commenter are either procedural in nature, or are broad planning goals, which are part of the long-term city-wide planning process. Policy COS-2.1 states “Work with regional and local water providers to ensure that adequate supplies of water are available to meet existing development and future growth.” Policy COS-3.1 states “Eliminate long-term groundwater overdrafting as soon as feasible.”
As is evident from the WSA included in Draft EIR Appendix M, and the mitigation measures shown under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, the City has worked with water providers to ensure adequate water supplies and to address overdraft. Additionally, many of the implementing measures are inherently incorporated into the Project, such as Implementation Plan COS-3.1.2, Aquifer Recharge Areas. As discussed on Draft EIR page 4.10-48 under LUD-21:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 776, Packet Page 1104 As described in the Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan for Campus Town, the Proposed Project would provide a low-impact development approach that includes on-lot retention for individual lots. Sandy dune soils with moderate to high percolation rates underlay most of the site and provide an opportunity to infiltrate on a lot by lot basis. Rainfall runoff, up to the 100-year event, can be infiltrated on each lot without producing runoff that would normally be tributary to a storm drain system. [See also Impact HWQ-2.] Furthermore, it is not the purpose of CEQA to fix existing environmental deficiencies (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”]).

Response 3.5
The commenter first references the Draft EIR discussion of the “Seaside Subbasin Groundwater Adjudication” on Draft EIR page 4.16-11, and states that “half of the Campus Town project’s 441.6 AFY potable water requirement planned to be drawn from the Seaside Groundwater Basin.” The commenter also states that the Specific Plan would contribute to cumulative groundwater demand and states that “convincing evidence to support the proposed finding of no significant cumulative environmental effects on potable water usage is required.” Similarly, the commenter claims that the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) does not adequately address issues of water consumption estimates for past, present, and future projects in the area to support a finding of no significant cumulative environmental effects because there are “several in progress developments…that will place increased demands on the available groundwater.”
As explained in the Draft EIR “The Plan Area is served by MCWD” and “All of MCWD’s wells are located within the Monterey Subbasin…” (Draft EIR page 4.16-1 and 11). To the extent that the commenter is referencing the water supply under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, this includes potable water offset programs and in-lieu storage programs, which replace existing potable water uses within the Seaside sub-basin with recycled water uses. This approach is consistent with CEQA (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1091 [upholding analysis where the urban project relied upon water which was offset from prior agricultural uses]).

Furthermore, the EIR and WSA included consideration of past, present and future projects in Table

4.16-1, Marina Coast Water District Projected Cumulative Water Demand – Ord Community, which are based upon historic water consumption and projected water use in the Urban Water Management Plan (Draft EIR page 4.16-3; Appendix M1, Section 3.2). Furthermore, the Draft EIR concluded, without mitigation measures, the Project would have significant impacts under existing and cumulative conditions (Draft EIR pages 4.16-19 through 21, and 4.16-28). More specifically, the Draft EIR concluded that:

The City has an existing potable water allocation of Salinas Valley Groundwater of 1,012.5 AFY (from the 6,600 AFY regional allocation), and has previously sub-allocated 831.2 AFY to other projects, leaving 181.3 AFY available. Based on the calculations in the WSA, the available water supply of 181.3 AFY is not sufficient to meet the Proposed Project’s potable water demand of 441.6 AFY. If groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium, etc.)… Therefore, impacts associated with potable water supply, including groundwater are considered significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 777, Packet Page 1105 To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 AFY of available potable water supply, several in-lieu storage and offset programs have been identified. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been proposed to address the 261 AFY potable water supply shortfall…
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, Water Offset Programs, identifies four water supply offset programs available to secure the supply for the Proposed Project. The WSA, which is included as Appendix M to the Draft EIR and is part of the CEQA document for the Proposed Project, also refers to the water supply offset options identified in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, and concludes that sufficient water supply would be available for the Proposed Project if offsets are implemented in accordance with the CEQA analysis and mitigation requirements prior to issuance of a final VTM. The analysis of water supply availability and impacts of the Proposed Project to water supply availability is consistent with CEQA requirements. Furthermore, utilizing the 6,600 AFY allocation is consistent with the Project’s statutory baseline, and the MCWRA’s Long Term management Plan (Draft EIR page 4.16-20).

Please see the Water Master Response in Section 2, Topical Responses, for further discussion of the legal requirements of CEQA, water management in the Project region, content of the Project’s WSA, and conclusions of the analysis related to water supply. Please refer to Response 12.1 regarding the provision of two versions of the WSA in Draft EIR Appendix M. Section 4.16.2(b) (page 4.16-10) of the Draft EIR describes the changes to the Updated WSA “to provide more detailed information on the water offset programs (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 below) and to correct several minor errors (e.g., incorrect street addresses) and provide additional background information.” Response 3.6
The commenter states that the use of potable water for the Specific Plan and recycled water for the Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Course is aligned with the BRP’s vision, and recommends that “Seaside Basin groundwater” be used rather than “existing potable water” to make it clear what the source of the water is. The commenter further requests the Draft EIR include other supporting documentation for the use of Seaside Basin groundwater, including annual reports.

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, Feb. 3, 2010).2 Recently, Seaside applied to the Court for
approval of an in lieu storage program.3 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 would 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.

See the Water Master Response for discussion of the Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication judgment.
2 Available at http://www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org/Other/Declaration%20of%20Total%20Usable%20Storage%20Space.pdf. 3 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 778, Packet Page 1106 Response 3.7
The commenter states that the 1,485 new units under the Specific Plan would not exceed the BRP residential unit cap. The commenter states the Development and Resource Management Plan (DRMP) allows the water supply cap to be exceeded when a project demonstrates the availability of off-site water sources. The commenter states the number of units to be served by off-site water should be specified in the Draft EIR for FORA tracking purposes. Please refer to Response 10.4 regarding the FORA unit cap.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR or CEQA process; therefore, no further response is warranted. Nevertheless, the comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 3.8
The commenter notes that the Specific Plan aligns the Project with the Regional Urban Design Guidelines (RUDG) and summarizes Specific Plan design requirements. The commenter additionally notes that the Draft EIR requires new drought-tolerant street trees and high-quality landscaping.

The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 3.9
The commenter states the EIR depends on the RUDG for comparison on transportation when it should not, and that the BRP Final EIR is a more appropriate source. The commenter also states a new transportation study that is currently under way to support CIP and mid-year budget decisions at FORA may better illuminate the traffic needs for Gigling Road.

Refer to Response 1.2 regarding widening Gigling Road. FORA previously considered a plan to widen Gigling Road from two to four lanes. This plan would have widened Gigling Road to the south of its current alignment, onto Army property and not into the Plan Area. As such, the Proposed Project would not preclude FORA from doing this if they so choose. However, a recent FORA study indicated that Gigling Road is not required to be expanded to four lanes (FORA 2019b). Additionally, a Final EIR is not intended to be a policy document, rather it is an analytical document addressing the environmental impacts of the underlying approval (i.e., the Base Reuse Plan and the RUDG). The Specific Plan does not propose any changes to Gigling Road, except for at the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road. While the Transportation Analysis assumes roadway modifications included in the Specific Plan would occur as a result of the Project, none of these roadway changes require road widening or lane additions. Furthermore, the EIR transportation impact analysis is based upon Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and would not be affected by localized roadway widening. Therefore, the EIR does not depend on the RUDG for the transportation impact analysis.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 779, Packet Page 1107 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 780, Packet Page 1108 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 781, Packet Page 1109 Letter 4
COMMENTER: Chris Bjornstad, Transportation Planner, California Department of Transportation District 5
DATE: August 20, 2019
Response 4.1
The commenter expresses support for local development that is consistent with State priorities, include smart growth principles, and include improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure.

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 2.3, the underlying purpose of the Proposed Project is to prepare a specific plan to provide for market-responsive housing in the University Village District between the CSUMB campus and Gigling Road. This is designated a Planned Development Mixed Use District to encourage a vibrant village with significant retail, personal and business services mixed with housing. This includes Project objectives of reducing VMT on a per capita basis and creating a multimodal transportation network, including improvements to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity.

The Proposed Project and the associated objectives are also designed to address statewide planning efforts. The legislature has adopted findings that “the lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California… (3) Among the consequences of those actions are…. reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)).

Response 4.2
The commenter expresses support of the Project paying the adopted FORA development impact fees for cumulative impacts for future development projects.

As stated in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, all transportation impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The project applicant would be required to pay applicable transportation fees as a regulatory requirement, regardless of whether traffic impacts are considered to be significant.

Response 4.3
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR discloses Project-specific impacts to the State highway system. The commenter does not accurately summarize the Draft EIR significance conclusions. As stated in Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR, all transportation impacts, including to state highways, would not be significant.

The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not include mitigation measures for impacts to State highways, such as improving freeway ramps.

All transportation impacts were determined to be less than significant; consequently, no mitigation measures are required. Furthermore, the Draft EIR analyzes freeway off-ramp queuing with and without the Proposed Project in Table 4.14-6 on page 4.14-28 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR states the Proposed Project would not result in a worse deficiency or less capacity when cumulative impacts are analyzed with the Specific Plan and finds that cumulative impacts would be less than ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 782, Packet Page 1110 significant on page 4.14-27 of the Draft EIR. More information regarding the method used to analyze freeway operations and off-ramp queues can be found in Draft EIR Appendix K, the Campus Town Transportation Analysis, on pages 83-87.

Additionally, it should be noted that “automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Pub. Res. Code Section 21099(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a)).

Response 4.4
The commenter requests that Caltrans review the background LOS calculation files in Draft EIR Appendix H.

Senate Bill 743 of 2013 changed the way transportation analyses are conducted under CEQA.

Instead of the traditional Level of Service analysis, CEQA now requires a VMT analysis. Despite this new requirement, even though an evaluation of LOS is no longer required under CEQA because it is not an environmental impact, the Transportation Analysis still evaluated the Proposed Project’s traffic impacts utilizing LOS. The Draft EIR Appendix K Transportation Analysis presents both a VMT and LOS transportation analysis. Please refer to Draft EIR Appendix K, Study Area and Analysis Scenarios, for more information.

Nevertheless, the EIR Transportation Analysis (Appendix K, pages 84-85) has been revised as follows to include the addition of background conditions for freeway segment LOS calculations (this is also provided in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR).

Background with Plan Conditions
Freeway volumes for the Background and Background with Plan Conditions were developed as described in Chapter 7. Future operations of freeway mainline segments in Monterey County were evaluated using level of service and percent of Plan traffic added to each roadway segment.

Table 20 and Table 21 presents the summary for the Background and Background with Plan Conditions freeway operations, and freeway merge and diverge operations, respectively. All segments operate below LOS C under without Plan and with Plan Conditions, except northbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the AM peak hour and southbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the PM peak hour. Appendix H includes the freeway density calculations and levels of service.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 783, Packet Page 1111 Table 20 Background with Plan Freeway Level of Service
Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Background Conditions
Background with Plan
Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent
of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1 between
Lightfighter Drive and Del
Monte Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM

21.7 35.0
C
E

21.9 35.9
39 88

0.5%

1.2%
C
E
SB 7,050 AM
PM

39.4 24.8
E
C

40.4 25.2
70 69

1.0%

1.0%
E
C
2 State Route 1 between
Del Monte Boulevard and
Canyon Del Rey
Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM

32.4 >45.0
D
F

32.9 >45.0
39 87

0.8%

1.8%
D
F
SB 4,700 AM
PM
>45.0

38.7 F
E
>45.0

39.9 70
69 1.5%

1.5%
F
E
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.

1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound

2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour

3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.

4. Level of service based on density.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 784, Packet Page 1112 Table 21 Background with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number of
Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density
(vphpl) LOS Density (vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey OnRamp
Merge 2 AM
PM

31.67 --
D
F

32.0 --
D
F
Fremont/Del Monte
Off-Ramp
Diverge 2 AM
PM

36.7 --
E
F

37.1 --
E
F
Fremont/Del Monte
On-Ramp
Merge 2 AM
PM

21.7 35.9
C
E

21.9 36.8
C
E
Lightfighter OffRamp
Diverge 3 AM
PM

27.6 35.6
CD
E

27.9 36.1
C
E
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter OnRamp
Merge 3 AM
PM

36.8 29.1
E
D

37.4 29.7
E
D
Fremont/Del Monte
Off-Ramp
Diverge 3 AM
PM

39.4 24.8
E
C

40.4 25.2
E
C
Fremont/Del Monte
On-Ramp
Merge 2 AM
PM
--

35.5 F
E
--

36.1 F
E
Canyon Del Rey OffRamp
Diverge 2 AM
PM
--

40.0 F
E
--
--
F
F
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

The changes reflected above would not result in alterations to the degree of impact or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and therefore do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Recirculation is required where there is “significant new information,” but new information is not “significant” unless it “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[a].) LOS impacts are no longer considered impacts on the environment, and therefore any new information regarding LOS are by definition not “significant” and do not require recirculation.

Analysis software files were provided directly to Caltrans by Fehr & Peers on December 30, 2019.

Response 4.5
The commenter states that traffic counts on State Route (SR) 1 were not included in the traffic appendix and requests they be provided along with methodologies for merging and weaving.

Transportation impacts were analyzed in Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR and are based on the Campus Town Specific Plan Transportation Analysis, included as Appendix K to the Draft EIR. In consultation ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 785, Packet Page 1113 with City of Seaside staff, the transportation study area was selected to include intersections likely to be affected by traffic generated by the Proposed Project, which included an analysis of State Route 1 at two intersections: 1) State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard; and 2) State Route 1 between Del Monte Boulevard and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard (Draft EIR Appendix K, page 8).

Given the interchange spacing and ramp configurations among the mainline segments studied in the Draft EIR, Fehr & Peers completed a capacity analysis to assess the overall freeway mainline and ramp operations to identify potential deficiencies. This analysis provides a good indication of the merging and diverging operations; for example, if a freeway mainline is not at capacity, then the merging vehicles would not be affected. Appendix K has been revised to include information regarding merge and diverge operations for informational purposes. Please refer to Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR, for these revisions.

Traffic counts for SR 1 ramps and interchanges are provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR’s Appendix K.

Response 4.6
The commenter states Caltrans typically utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual for intersection and ramp queuing analysis and requests to be provided with the Poisson distribution software files for review along with the justification for using the Poisson methods in the Ramp Queuing section. The commenter also requests Synchro files from Appendix I of the Transportation Analysis (Appendix K to the Draft EIR) including files for SR 1, and states that the Synchro models provided to Caltrans appear to be only for the local street network and not the full SR 1 and mainline, so that complete review was not possible.

Draft EIR Appendix K (Campus Town Transportation Analysis) summarizes the freeway ramp queuing analysis calculated in Synchro using the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual outputs at the offramps with signalized terminal intersections. The Highway Capacity Software spreadsheet, which has been approved and used in multiple Caltrans districts, was used to calculate density on freeway segments, as Synchro is not able to evaluate freeway density and LOS. The reference to the use of Poisson’s distribution is a typo that has since been corrected on pages 85 and 86 of Appendix K, to note that Synchro was utilized use the 2010 HCM outputs. The requested Synchro files were provided by Fehr & Peers to the commenter on December 30, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 786, Packet Page 1114 TAMC

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas, CA 93901-2902 * Tel: (831 ) 775-0903 Website: www.tamcmonterey.org "s
August 19, 2019
Kurt Overmeyer
Economic Development Manager
Gtyof Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
SUBJECT: Comments on the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
DearMr. Overmeyer:

The Transportation AgencyforMontereyCounty(TAMC) is the Regional Transpomtion Planning andCongestionManagementAgencyforMontereyCounty. TAMCstaff have reviewedthe Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) forthe Cimpus Town Specific Plan.

The Cimpus Town Project proposes the construction and operation of up to 1,485 housing units; 250 hotel rooms; 75 youth hostel beds; 150,000 square feet (sf) of retail, dining, and entertainment uses; 50,000 sf of office, flex, rnakerspace, and light industrialuses; as well as approximatelynine acres of private open space. The project is located south of the Cil State MontereyBayCimpus, on the formerFort Ord ArmyBase nearthe freewayinterchange at LightfighterAvenue and Highway

1. The draft document contains manyprovisions that support alternative modes of transportation and TAMC appreciates the efforts made to integrate bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

TAMC staff offers the following comments regarding the DEIR:

Regional Road and Highway Impacts

1. Thetotalnewdevelopmentforthisprojectisestimatedtogenerate2,647combinedAMand PMpeakhourtrips, with an applied magnitude of about 30% trip reduction. TAMCrequests that a quantifiable justification is offered forthis degree of trip reduction.

2. TAMC predicts that the trip distribution analysis underestimates the impact of the project on Highway 1 to the south. The DEIR Transportation Analysis's assigned only a 10% trip distribution towards the MontereyPeninsula duffig the AM peak. A development of this magnitude with a trip generation of 1,327 trips duting AM peak should anticipate contributing more than 108 AM southbound trips on Highway 1. A 2018 studythat TAMC and Monterey-Salinas Transit conducted established that the Average Annual Daily Traffic along Highway 1 between Fremont Blvd in Seaside to Imjin Parkwayis 83,000 - the highest segment of trafficvolumes inMontereyCountyin20l5. This studywas conductedto establish thefeasibilityofabusrapidtransitsystemtoparalleltheHighwayl duringpeakhours.TAMC andMonterey-Salinas Transit have movedforwardinto the design andenvironmentalprocess forthe Highwayl RapidBus Corridorproject.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 787, Packet Page 1115

3. The Fremont Street and Highway 1 interchange was not considered in the DEIR5s Transportation Analysis section. TAMC asks that the direct transportation impacts to this interchange be evaluated and appropriate fare-share payments be made to mitigate impacts that result from this project.

4. To mitigate cumulative impacts to the regional transportation system, TAMC supports and considers payment of the Ford Ord Reuse Authority's (FORA) development impact fee as sufficient mitigation of impacts to regional facilities for projects located within the boundary of the formerFort Ord. Uponthe closure of the FORA, paymenttowards the Transportation Agency's Regional Development Impact Fee will be accepted as mitigation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts

5. TAMCstronglysupportsthepolicyinSection2.4.6.1oftheCampusTownSpecificPlanto implement roundabouts to slowvehicles and improve multi-modaltransportation nearthe project site. TAMC believes it is a good policythat helps achieve the project5s Objective # 4 to create a vibrant multi-modal transportation networkfor pedestrians and bicyclists.

6. ThetransportationsectionoftheDEIRshouldexplaintheintendedtirnelineofconstructing theroundaboutsatGeneralJimMooreBlvd./ LightfighterDriveandGeneralJimMoore Blvd./ Gigling Road in relation to the Campus Town development. This detail is crucial for evaluating how pedestrians and bicyclists can safelytravel between both sides of the Cimpus Town project across General Jim Moore Blvd dtuing and after construction of the Cimpus Town Project.

7. TAMC requests the inclusion of an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) in the Transportation Analysis section forthese two intersections:
* Lightfighter Dr./ 1st Ave
@ LightfighterDr./ 2nd Ave
TAMC believes LightfighterDrive is a barrierto walking and bicycling. Therefore, the intended timeline of construction forthe Cimpus Town Project and the intersection improvements is critical forevaluation pedestrian and bicycle safety.

8. To accomplish Objective # 4, the development should place a premium on safe and accessible pedestrian access to the site from intersections and crosswalks, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. The project site should also be designed with sidewalks that connect to external facilities and provide access to transit stops. As per Caltrans standards, bicycle lanes should be constructed to the left of anyright-handturn lanes included in the development or constructed off-site as mitigation. Also, the document should address the need for any new roadways be designed to accommodate bicycles with adequate pavement for bike travel, with specific dimensions clearlyidentified, particularlyalong majorarterials.

9. TAMC supports the integration of Complete Streets design in the Cimpus Town Specific Plan to support comfortable and safe travel of bicyclists and pedestrians. TAMC requests that further information and mapping is provided regarding supportive infrastructure to encourage bicyclists and pedestrians, such as the placement of bike parking and/or lockers.

Bicycle racks should be placed near building entrances, and the development should consider P:\Work Program\Env Doc Review\20l9 Documents\Overmeyer - Campus Town DEIR\Overmeyer - Campus Town DEIR.docx ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 788, Packet Page 1116 installing bike lockers and adequate lighting to improve safetyand visibility.

10. TAMC encourages the integration of bulb-outs at crosswalks to slowtraffic and reduce the crosswalklength, especianyalong major arterials such as Colonel Durham Street and Gigling Road.

Transit Impacts

11. TAMCsupportstheproposedprojectsintenttoimplementanddesignnewtransitfacilitiesin the Project Area with guidance from Monterey-Salinas Transit. Monterey-Salinas Transit's vesigning pr rransit Guideline Manual should be used as a resource for accommodating the existing (Transit Lines 12, 18, 74, and 75) and potentialfuture transit access to the project site.

Additionally, the Agencyoffers the following minor edit:

Figure 4.14-3 inaccuratelyportrays the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway(FORTAG) alignment. Enclosed is a geographic file (.kmz) containing the current alignment. TAMC recommends coordination regarding FORTAG with Stefania Cistillo, Transportation Planner, at [email protected].

Thankyou forthe opportunityto comment on the proposed project. If you have anyquestions, please contactMadilynJacobsen of mystaff at 831-775-4402 [email protected].

Since
Debra L.

Executive Director
Enclosures:

FORTAG Alignment (.kmz)
FORTAG Alignment (,pdf)
P:\Work Program\Env Doc Review\20l9 Documents\Overmeyer - Campus Town DEIR\Overmeyer - Campus Town DEIR.docx ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 789, Packet Page 1117 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 790, Packet Page 1118 Figure 1 FORTAG Alignment
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 791, Packet Page 1119 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 792, Packet Page 1120 Letter 5
COMMENTER: Debra Hale, Executive Director, Transportation Agency for Monterey County DATE: August 19, 2019
Response 5.1
The commenter summarizes the Proposed Project and notes that the Specific Plan supports alternative modes of transportation.

The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 5.2
The commenter requests that a quantifiable justification be offered for the assumed 30 percent trip reduction and states that the trip distribution analysis underestimates the impact of the Project on SR 1.

The commenter is referencing the Peak Hour Trip Generation discussion in Draft EIR Appendix K, page 50, which is part of the vehicular Level of Service (LOS) analysis. As discussed in Appendix K, Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2013, changes the way transportation impacts are identified under CEQA. SB 743 codified PRC Section 21099(b)(2) which generally states that “automobile delay, as described solely by [LOS]” or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion “shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” The CEQA Guidelines were updated in December 2018 consistent with SB 743, such that vehicular LOS will no longer be used as a determinant of significant environmental impacts related to transportation, and instead the analysis will focus upon VMT (Draft EIR, Appendix K, page i).

The commenter appears to be referencing the AM and PM peak hour ITE rates from Appendix K, Table 6. As an initial matter, the EIR does not assume a 30 percent trip reduction, the rate is slightly less than 26 percent (for combined AM and PM peak hour rate reductions) in comparison to the ITE trip generation rates. As discussed in Draft EIR, Appendix K, page 49:

To capture the effect of the proposed land use mix on peak hour vehicle trip generation, the proposed Plan trip generation was estimated using the MainStreet web-based transportation analysis method. MainStreet creates adjustments to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition method of applying rates to the individual land uses and summing the results, which has been shown to overestimate traffic generation for mixeduse developments (MXDs) by an average of 35 percent. [Please also see Final EIR Section 4, revisions to Draft EIR Appendix C to Appendix K, Traffic Impact Study.] Specifically, MainStreet accounts for the balanced mix of land uses, compact design, good neighborhood connectivity and walkability, and location efficiency of the proposed Plan. Further documentation on MainStreet may be found in Appendix C. Appendix C also includes a brief explanation of the land use types considered for use in the trip generation estimates.

Table 6 presents the peak hour trip generation summary for the Plan. It includes the base trip generation estimates and the mixed-use reductions estimated by the MainStreet model. The Plan’s external vehicle trip generation (amount of traffic added to the streets) is approximately ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 793, Packet Page 1121 1,086 morning peak-hour trips (387 inbound trips and 699 outbound trips) and 1,561 evening peak-hour trips (875 inbound trips and 687 outbound trips).

Please refer to Response 1.41 regarding the MXD+ model. Additional justification for use of the MXD+ model is also provided in Appendix C to the Draft EIR Appendix K, Transportation Analysis.

A MainStreet summary has also been added as Appendix L to Draft EIR Appendix K, which can be viewed in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR. Trip reductions associated with the LOS calculations were performed for informational purposes and are provided in Draft EIR Appendix K, Chapter 9, for reference.

The commenter appears to be referencing the trip distribution discussion in Appendix K, Figure 8, which is associated with the vehicular LOS analysis. As noted above, this analysis was not used for the purposes of CEQA. Given the Plan Area’s proximity to the CSUMB campus, it was assumed that a large portion of the trips would access CSUMB and fewer trips were assumed to travel further to the north and south. However, approximately 40 percent of the trip generation is estimated to travel to the south of the Plan Area using SR 1 (10 percent) and General Jim Moore Boulevard (30 percent).

Please refer to Draft EIR Appendix K, Figure 8 for these trip assignments. The majority of the Plan Area is located to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard, a primary north-south corridor, and vehicles would need to travel through General Jim Moore Boulevard to access SR 1. Therefore, a larger percentage of trips were assumed to use General Jim Moore Boulevard to access south Seaside and other locations compared to SR 1, and no revisions are required to the assumed trip distributions.

Response 5.3
The commenter states that the Fremont Street and SR 1 interchange was not considered in the vehicular LOS transportation analysis and requests this interchange be evaluated and fair share payments be included as mitigation. The commenter also requests payment of the FORA and TAMC development impact fees.

As noted in Response 5.2, vehicular LOS is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The Project is not anticipated to contribute a significant number of trips to the interchange of Fremont Street and SR 1, which is located nearly five miles south of the Plan Area, and would have minimal trip distribution/generation from the Project, as discussed in Response 5.2. This interchange would be used to access south Seaside and Sand City. Project trips would be more likely to use General Jim Moore Boulevard than SR 1, so on-ramps and off-ramps would not be utilized.

Thus, an evaluation at these ramps was not necessary and mitigation is not required. Nevertheless, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable transportation fees as a regulatory requirement, regardless of whether traffic impacts are considered to be significant.

Response 5.4
The commenter expresses support for implementing roundabouts to improve multi-modal transportation near the Plan Area. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 794, Packet Page 1122 Response 5.5
The commenter requests that the EIR explain the intended timeline of roundabout construction at General Jim Moore Boulevard/Lightfighter Drive and General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road intersections. The commenter states that the construction timeline for improvements is critical for evaluating pedestrian and bicycle safety.

The City anticipates that both roundabouts will be constructed before the completion of Phase 1 of the Project, subject to the Army’s approval process. As stated on page 4.14-26 of the Draft EIR, the two roundabouts would replace signaled intersections and are intended to reduce traffic speeds through the Plan Area and the CSUMB campus. These roundabouts are intended to calm traffic, encourage slower-moving traffic, and are designed to substantially decrease existing traffic-related hazards. Please refer to the Draft EIR, page 4.10-57.

Please also note that the Project includes a construction traffic management plan, as discussed on in the Construction traffic analysis on Draft EIR page 4.14-20, which includes:
 Identify proposed truck routes to be used
 Specify construction hours, including limits on the number of truck trips during the AM and PM peak traffic periods (7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM), if conditions demonstrate the need  Include a parking management plan for ensuring that construction worker parking results in minimal disruption to surrounding uses
 Include a public information and signage plan to inform student, faculty and staff of the planned construction activities, roadway changes/closures, and parking changes  Store construction materials only in designated areas that minimize impacts to nearby roadways  Limit the number of lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible. Inform the Campus at least two weeks before any partial road closure
 Use Caltrans certified flag persons for any temporary lane closures to minimize impacts to traffic flow, and to ensure safe access into and out of the project sites  Install traffic control devices as specified in the California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones  To minimize disruption of emergency vehicle access, affected jurisdictions (Campus Police, City Police, County Sheriff, and City Fire Department) will be consulted to identify detours for emergency vehicles, which will then be posted by the construction contractor  Coordinate with local transit agencies for temporary relocation of routes or bus stops in works zones, as necessary
 Coordinate with under construction near the project site, so an integrated approach to construction-related traffic is developed and implemented The construction analysis further notes that the Proposed Project would be subject to a standard condition of approval that requires the applicant to develop a construction management plan in accordance with the latest version of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises (MUTCD). As part of these requirements, there are provisions for coordination with local emergency services, training for flagman for emergency vehicles traveling through the work zone, temporary lane separators that have sloping sides to facilitates crossover by emergency vehicles, and vehicle storage and staging areas for emergency vehicles. MUTCD requirements also provide for construction work during off-peak hours and flaggers. Among these requirements, are provisions for ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 795, Packet Page 1123 “Detour for Bike Lanes on Roads with Closure of One Travel Direction.” There would be no significant impacts to any modes of transportation as a result of construction activities.

Response 5.6
The commenter requests the inclusion of Intersection Control Evaluations (ICE) for the intersections of Lightfighter Drive with First Avenue and Second Avenue. The commenter states that the construction timeline for improvements is critical for evaluating pedestrian and bicycle safety.

According to the US Department of Transportation’s Primer on ICE, ICE is a framework and approach used to objectively screen alternatives and identify an optimal geometric and control solution for an intersection. Agencies can choose to adopt ICE policies, which are generally applicable to intersections along State highways or any intersection project that will utilize Federal or State funds.4 ICE is not required for intersection projects off the State system and involving funding other than Federal or State.

The Project does not propose any major intersection geometry modifications at either intersection, aside from modifications to the south legs that provide direct access to the Plan Area. The Project may update traffic signal equipment at these intersections if determined necessary by the Conditions of Approval. Roundabouts or other substantive changes to the traffic control or geometry at the locations referenced by the commenter are not being considered as part of the Project. Additionally, as described in Draft EIR pages 4.14-18 and 4.14-19, the Project would improve existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, an ICE was not completed as part of the Final EIR.

Furthermore, the commenter is referencing existing conditions, and it is not the purpose of CEQA to fix existing environmental issues. (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”].)
Response 5.7
The commenter states that the Project should be designed with sidewalks to connect to external facilities and provide access to transit stops, and include bicycle lanes to the left of any right-turn lanes constructed in the development or as off-site mitigation. The commenter requests further information and mapping for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The commenter also requests the document address the need for any new roadways to be designed to accommodate bicycles with adequate pavement for bike travel with specific dimensions clearly identified. Finally, the commenter encourages bulb-outs at crosswalks to slow traffic and reduce crosswalk length.

The Draft EIR concludes that impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists would be less than significant, consequently no mitigation measures are required (see Draft EIR, Impact T-1). The Project analyzes pedestrian impacts and states the Proposed Project’s street grid network and off-street paths to CSUMB would increase utilization of sidewalks and that would improve pedestrian connections to transit stops. Furthermore, the Project integrates complete streets and bicycle and pedestrian improvements to promote multimodal travel, including street design features such as bulb outs, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes. General dimension guidance for complete streets is provided, and specific dimensions will be determined during engineering design of the Project. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Primer on Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE), https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ice/fhwasa18076/fhwasa18076.pdf, accessed on November 20, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 796, Packet Page 1124 The Project also supports providing supportive infrastructure and mapping to encourage cyclists and pedestrians. On-site bicycle and pedestrian amenities will be provided as the Project is constructed.

The Project incorporates high-quality and attractive pedestrian amenities on commercial area streets, including bus shelters, waste/recycling receptacles, bike racks, benches, and other similar amenities (Draft EIR, page 4.10-44). Refer to the Specific Plan, Chapter 3, Public Realm Standards and Guidelines, for more information on pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

In response to the commenter’s request for roadway designs to accommodate bicycles with adequate pavement and with specific dimensions clearly identified, the Specific Plan states lanes dedicated for bicyclists will have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. The lanes will be at least five feet wide. Please refer to page 21 of the Specific Plan (Draft EIR Appendix B) for a discussion of the class of bikeways that will be incorporated into the Plan Area. The remainder of the comment pertains to a preference for Complete Streets design and the use bulb-outs and does not address the adequacy of the EIR or CEQA process. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 5.8
The commenter recommends using the MST Designing for Transit Guideline Manual as a resource for accommodating the existing (Transit Lines 12, 18, 74, and 75) and potential future transit access to the site.

This comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 5.9
The commenter provides the correct Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) alignment with an attached geographic file of the current alignment and requests that Figure 4.14-3 be updated.

Figure 4.14-3 has been revised with the correct FORTAG alignment. Please refer to Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR, to view this figure.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 797, Packet Page 1125 Letter 6

6.1 6.2
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 798, Packet Page 1126

6.2 (cont'd)

6.3 6.4

6.5 6.6

6.7 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 799, Packet Page 1127

6.7 (cont'd)
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 800, Packet Page 1128 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 801, Packet Page 1129 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 802, Packet Page 1130 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 803, Packet Page 1131 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 804, Packet Page 1132 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 805, Packet Page 1133 Letter 6
COMMENTER: Kevin Saunders, Executive Director and VP, California State University, Monterey Bay
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 6.1
The commenter states that the Project’s second objective supports CSUMB’s own Master Plan goals.

The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 6.2
The commenter states the Stormwater Control Plan (Draft EIR Appendix I) was only prepared for 837 residential lots, and CSUMB has not provided approval for stormwater drainage onto campus property. The commenter states that CSUMB expects the Project to disconnect its existing stormwater system from the campus system.

As described, if agreements are not reached with CSUMB, the Project would construct an alternative facility within the Plan Area as depicted in Project Stormwater Control Plan Figure 5, “Alternative Basin Locations”, submitted with the Project’s VTM application. The alternative basin location would eliminate the need for the Project-related CSUMB basin.

The commenter also asserts that Draft EIR Appendix I was prepared only for 837 residential lots. As discussed in Draft EIR Appendix I on page 1, the Specific Plan proposes up to 867 single-family and townhouse units and an additional 618 multi-family units, with parcels for commercial, mixed-use, multi-family development and landscape areas. The Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) details 837 residential lots; however, the multi-family and townhome developments are not accounted for in these lots, which are sized for single-family homes. It is understood that future commercial/mixeduse parcels will provide separate stormwater management facilities and associated stormwater control plans, and these parcels are adequate for the provision of on-site stormwater control features. Therefore, Draft EIR Appendix I does not include calculations for future commercial/mixeduse areas or multi-family development areas. Draft EIR Appendix I does not preclude future commercial/mixed-used areas from being incorporated to the overall site stormwater control measures during final design refinement.

Any subsequent development will need to comply with the existing regulatory requirements discussed in Draft EIR Sections 4.9 and 4.16, including Table 4.9-2 which requires projects in excess of 15,000 square feet of impervious surfaces to “[p]revent offsite discharge from events up to the 95th percentile rainfall event using stormwater control measures” (page 4.9-12 of the Draft EIR).

Response 6.3
The commenter notes that the campus plans to include the Monterey Bay Charter School (MBCS) on a campus-owned site directly north of the Plan Area, and expresses a desire to work closely with the City and Project proponent on the design and use of the future school site. The commenter states the Project has the potential to impact the proposed MBCS new school in terms of noise, circulation, and safety.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 806, Packet Page 1134 The City will consult with CSUMB as future projects are proposed. However, as discussed in Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1134, CEQA does not require discussion of consistency with draft plans, such as the 2017 Draft CSUMB Master Plan. Furthermore, the 2017 Draft CSUMB Master Plan states that the MBCS project “is in the preliminary concept phase.” The 2017 Draft CSUMB Master Plan states that separate CEQA review is required for the MBCS project (SCH #2016031034). Refer to page 12.2 and Table 12.1 of the 2017 Draft CSUMB Master Plan, stating the MBCS project is in “the preliminary concept phase.” Furthermore, a Notice of Preparation has not yet been released for MBCS prior to the preparation of this Final EIR.

With regard to safety, please refer to Response 1.19 regarding bicycle lane design, and bicycle and pedestrian safety, which includes the safety of students traveling to and from school. Additionally, Section 4.8.3 of the Draft EIR states the MBCS campus would not be exposed to hazardous materials as a result of the Proposed Project:

The Monterey Bay Charter School has proposed a new school campus adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Plan Area. However, as discussed in Impact HAZ-1, the construction and operation of new land uses under the Proposed Project would not result in substantial exposure to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or waste with adherence to applicable regulations. Therefore, the impact from exposure of existing and proposed schools to such hazardous materials would be less than significant. [page 4.8-16] Furthermore, schools are required to prepare a School Safety Plans in compliance with Education Code Section 32282 et seq. (See City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009) 176 Cacl.App.4th 889.)
With regard to the commenter’s noise concern, if MBCS is constructed and operational prior to buildout of the Project, the noise mitigation measures included in Section 4.11.3 of the Draft EIR to reduce construction noise and vibration would already be in place, and would ensure impacts to the future school would be reduced to a less than significant level. Further, the Draft EIR Section 4.11.3 discusses operational noise impacts due to increased traffic and operational noise, which are determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed MBCS school would not experience significant operational noise impacts as a result of the Project.

Additionally, the siting of proposed school sites is subject to Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), including the following sections. Section 14010(q) requires districts to consider environmental factors including light, wind, noise, aesthetics, and air pollution in their site selection process. Section 14030 requires safety and vehicle circulation considerations, sound-conditioning, and sound considerations. Section 11969.3, which requires noise suitability to be considered.

Additionally, Section 11969.3(c)(1) lists factors to determine whether the condition of facilities is reasonably equivalent to the condition of comparison group schools. This applies to charter schools such as MBCS and would require adherence in pursuit of that project. Finally, Section 14030(m) addresses acoustical considerations and requires hearing conditions to promote good sound control in the school buildings. Title 24 Section 1.9.2 includes additional safety requirements for proposed school buildings.

Response 6.4
The commenter requests that bicycle and pedestrian safety be reevaluated regarding reducing proposed Class 1 and Class 4 pathways to Class 2 and Class 3 pathways in an effort to further reduce ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 807, Packet Page 1135 VMT by promoting a safe connection between the Plan Area and CSUMB, especially along Lightfighter Drive, Gigling Road, and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

The purpose of CEQA is to analyze impacts based upon a comparison to existing conditions, not planning designations. (See South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316 [Agencies may use its discretion in analyzing traffic impacts by focusing on how roads function rather than how roads are formally designated.].) There are currently no existing bike paths in the Plan Area. Please refer to the Draft EIR, page 4.14-18 for a discussion of the current bicycle network in the Plan Area.

As discussed under Draft EIR Impact T-1, the Proposed Project would result in improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities in comparison to existing conditions. Furthermore, operational metrics, including projected speeds, were considered when determining the appropriate class of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Under the Project, these streets would be designed to reduce speeds to 25 miles per hour, making bicycle routes an acceptable street feature on the local streets within the Plan Area. The streets would also be designed with traffic calming features to support walking and bicycling within and to/from the CSUMB campus. The Project's changes to bicycle and pedestrian facilities are consistent with the City's goals and policies for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Therefore, the analysis requested by the commenter is not required.

Response 6.5
The commenter requests clarification of where the Project proposes roundabouts and signals, as there are discrepancies between the Draft EIR and appendices.

The Project proposes to construct roundabouts at General Jim Moore Boulevard/Lightfighter Drive and General Jim Moore Boulevard/Gigling Road, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 2.4.6.1. All other intersections would remain as they currently are, unless otherwise approved in the Conditions of Approval or Development Agreement. The commenter does not identify any specific discrepancies; therefore, no further response is feasible.

Response 6.6
The commenter states that the redesign of Malmedy Road to include a Class 4 trail connection is shown as a Class 2 bikeway and Lightfighter Drive is shown as a Class 4 bikeway in Figure 4.14-2.

Thank you for your comment. Figure 4.14-2 has been updated to reflect the correct classification; please refer to Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR, to view this figure.

Response 6.7
The commenter notes that Figure 4.14-1 shows a mix of current and past bus routes. The commenter also states that CSUMB’s transit pass noted on page 4.14-4 is free “at time of boarding.” Figure 4.14-1 was based on MST's online route information as of 2018. This figure has been updated to show MST's online route information as of October 2019; please refer to Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR, to view this figure. It should also be noted that CSUMB's website identifies MST as the only transit operator through the CSUMB campus.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 808, Packet Page 1136 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 809, Packet Page 1137 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 810, Packet Page 1138 Letter 7
COMMENTER: Lisa Rheinhemer, Director of Planning and Marketing, Monterey-Salinas Transit DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 7.1
The commenter states that on page 4.14-3 of the Draft EIR (Figure 4.14-1) the red dashed line should indicate MST’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit project along the Monterey Branch Rail Line.

In response to this comment, Figure 4.14-1 has been revised to note the proposed Bus Rapid Transit Project. The revised figure is shown in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR.

Response 7.2
The commenter requests the date of transit information be included in Table 4.14-1 for reference, as the Rider’s Guide is updated twice yearly. The commenter also recommends edits to Draft EIR text regarding transit users.

The date of transit information is November 2018 as shown in Table 1 in the Draft EIR Appendix K, and this has been added to the Table 4.14-1 (page 4.14-4 of the Draft EIR), as shown below. The data from November 2018 was used in the Draft EIR analysis, as this was the data available at the time the Notice of Preparation was published.

Table 4.14-1 Existing Transit Route Headways
Route Description (to/from) Hours of Operation Average Weekday Headway 12 The Dunes - NPS 6:45am to 5:38pm Varies between one and four hours 18 Monterey - Marina 6:07am to 10:45pm Every 60 minutes 67 Presidio - Marina Friday from 2:15 pm
to 10:10 pm
Weekends from
10:15am to 10:10 pm
Every 120 minutes on Fridays
Every 60 minutes on weekends
74 Presidio – Toro Park 6:30am to 6:00 pm One route in each direction in the morning and one evening route
towards Toro Park
75 Presidio – Marshall Park
Express
5:55 am to 9:56 pm Varies between 60 to 120 minutes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2019; transit information dated November 2018.

In response to this comment, page 4.14-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Students, staff, and faculty of CSUMB receive free unlimited access on all MST regular bus routes with their CSUMB Otter ID card. Additionally, all transit users with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may have access to the MST paratransit program service known as (RIDES).

This service operates on a point-to-point basis. Appointments are and eligibility is required to guarantee for service, and service is not available on weekends or holidays.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 811, Packet Page 1139 Response 7.3
The commenter states that additional transit impacts from buses needing to be replaced should be addressed.

OPR’s December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA explains: “When evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact” (OPR Technical Advisory, page 19). As also discussed in OPR’s SB 743 amendment package transmittal letter “[l]egislative findings in Senate Bill 743 plainly state that CEQA can no longer treat vibrant communities, transit, and active transportation options as adverse environmental outcomes.” See also City of Hayward v.

Board of Trustees of the California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 842, 843 [“The need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”].

Bus maintenance and replacement are operational costs of MST, which is funded by its operating budget. The Transportation Analysis conducted a public transit ridership analysis to determine if additional transit capacity is needed as a result of the Project. Overall, the Project is not expected to substantially increase ridership for the existing transit routes beyond capacity (see Draft EIR Appendix K); however, the additional riders would contribute to fare box revenue that can help pay for MST operations costs.

Response 7.4
The commenter recommends a condition of approval to require developers to buy one monthly MST bus pass per each new resident.

The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body. However, this suggestion would not reduce or avoid a significant impact, and is not included in the transportation demand management program. Additionally, residents of the Plan Area may be students, staff, and faculty of CSUMB, who already receive free unlimited access on all MST regular bus routes with their CSUMB Otter ID card, as stated in the Draft EIR on page

4.14-4.

Response 7.5
The commenter requests that the developer coordinate with and receive approval from MST on proposed bus stop designs and locations. The commenter states that bus routes throughout the site should be designed to allow buses adequate space for maneuvering and provide ADA accessibility.

Please refer to the Campus Town Specific Plan Section 4.6, Urban Standards and Guidelines, which notes ADA accessibility standards apply; furthermore, the Draft EIR discusses this requirement to meet ADA requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations on page 4.10-44 of the Draft EIR. In addition to the ADA standards, the Proposed Project is required to comply with the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) standards, as denoted in the Draft EIR on page 4.14-25. The Proposed Project should be ADA compliant and meet NACTO standards for sidewalks, street trees, planting strips, and pedestrian-oriented lighting (Draft EIR page 4.10-13).

This comment pertains to the design of bus stops and does not address the adequacy of the EIR or CEQA process. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 812, Packet Page 1140 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 813, Packet Page 1141 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 814, Packet Page 1142 Letter 8
COMMENTER: Hanna Muegge, Air Quality Planner, Monterey Bay Air Resources District DATE: August 23, 2019
Response 8.1
The commenter states that if removed trees require wood chipping, Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD) Engineering Division should be contacted to discuss if Portable Registration is necessary for the Project’s wood chipper.

This comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 8.2
The commenter requests the addition of dust suppression mitigation measures from the MBARD CEQA Guidelines, (8.2) Mitigating Construction Emissions, and requests provision of contact information for responsible staff who are available to address citizen complaints received and provide access to air monitoring data.

As shown in Table 4.2-5 of Section 4.2, Air Quality, in the Draft EIR, Project construction activities would generate maximum daily emissions of approximately 36.9 pounds of PM10, which would not exceed MBARD’s threshold of 82 pounds of PM10 per day. Therefore, the addition of dust suppression mitigation measures for construction emissions as recommended by MBARD is not needed to address a significant environmental impact.

Furthermore, many of these suggestions are already incorporated into the Project through existing regulations. Draft EIR page 4.2-11, discusses SWPPP requirements which include “material storage including covering of stockpiles during the day, and particularly during rain and wind events, silt fencing, straw wattles, stabilized construction entrances, routine cleaning, equipment drip pans, dust control measures including watering trucks to stabilize soil.” Section 17.30.080(E) of the Seaside Municipal Code specifically includes (Draft EIR page 4.2-14):
 Grading shall be designed and grading activities shall be scheduled to ensure that repeat grading will not be required, and that completion of dust-generating activity (e.g., construction, paving, or plating) will occur as soon as possible.
 Clearing, earth-moving, excavation operations or grading activities shall cease when the wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour averaged over one hour.  The area disturbed by clearing, demolition, earth-moving, excavation operations, or grading shall be minimized at all times.
 Dust emissions shall be controlled by watering a minimum of two times each day, paving, or other treatment of permanent on-site roads and construction roads, the covering of trucks carrying loads with dust content, and/or other dust-preventive measures (e.g., hydroseeding).  Graded areas shall be revegetated as soon as possible, but within no longer than 30 days, to minimize dust and erosion. Disturbed areas of the construction site that are to remain inactive longer than three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown and maintained.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 815, Packet Page 1143  Appropriate facilities shall be constructed to contain dust within the site as required by the Zoning Administrator.

Upon selection of construction contractor(s), the Project applicant would provide contact information for staff that will be available to address any citizen complaints. The Project applicant does not propose to collect on-site air monitoring data.

Response 8.3
The commenter recommends using cleaner than required construction and tree removal equipment that conforms to California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Tier 3 or Tier 4 emission standards. The commenter also recommends construction equipment use alternative fuels to reduce diesel exhaust emissions.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant with respect to all criteria pollutants and TACs. Therefore, the use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 construction equipment as recommended by MBARD is not required as a mitigation measure to address a significant environmental impact.

Nevertheless, the applicant will require its construction contractor(s) to utilize large construction equipment (i.e., cranes, dozers, excavators, graders, pavers, rollers, scrapers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes) equipped with Tier 4 Final certified engines. This requirement will be included in the Development Agreement. To reflect this change, modeling of construction-related air pollutant emissions was revised, and Table 4.2-5 in the Draft EIR was updated, as shown below. Constructionrelated air quality impacts remain less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 816, Packet Page 1144 Table 4.2-5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2021 7.8

2.0 88.6

18.9 55.7

59.3 0.1 10.3

8.3 6.4

4.6 2022 31.1

25.8 160.2

96.1 154.3
161.7

0.5 31.7

28.8 11.8

9.1 2023 29.1

24.5 136.4

81.4 143.4
152.8

0.5 32.7

31.2 12.6

11.2 2024 25.2

22.5 98.9

67.6 106.0
109.5

0.4 32.6

31.1 12.4

11.1 2025 24.4

21.9 94.3

65.5 100.1
104.1

0.4 32.3

31.1 12.2

11.1 2026 13.9

13.4 74.3

63.4 82.2

84.8 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2027 13.4

13.0 66.4

60.8 73.0

74.0 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2028 13.0

12.5 65.3

59.7 69.4

70.5 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2029 12.5

12.1 64.3

58.8 66.0

67.1 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2030 12.0

11.4 58.7

55.9 63.1

64.2 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2031 11.5

10.9 57.9

55.1 60.3

61.3 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2032 11.0

10.5 57.2

54.4 57.8

58.9 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2033 10.7

10.2 56.6

53.9 55.7

56.8 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2034 10.4

9.9 56.1

53.4 53.8

54.9 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 Maximum Daily Emissions for OffSite Improvements (year unknown)7.0 24.8 19.2 < 0.1 4.2 2.6 Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)1

38.1 32.8
185.0
120.9
173.5
180.9

0.5 36.9

35.4 15.2

13.8 MBARD Thresholds n/a n/a n/a n/a 822 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? n/a n/a n/a n/a No n/a
N/A = not applicable
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
1 Because it is unknown at this time when off-site improvements would be constructed, maximum daily construction emissions were calculated by adding the highest modeled daily construction emissions from off-site improvements to the highest modeled daily construction emissions from construction of the Proposed Project.
2 This threshold only applies if construction is located nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors. In addition, a significant air quality impact related to PM10 emissions may occur if a project uses equipment that is not “typical construction equipment” as specified in Section 5.3 of the MBARD CEQA Guidelines.

Source: See Appendix E for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 817, Packet Page 1145 The following text under Construction Assumptions in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR was also revised to reflect this change:

Construction equipment that would generate criteria pollutants includes excavators, graders, haul trucks, and loaders. Some of this equipment would be used during both grading and construction. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered.

Construction equipment for each phase was based on CalEEMod defaults, which are shown in Section 3, Construction Detail, of the modeling outputs in Appendix E. The project applicant would require its construction contractor(s) to utilize large construction equipment (i.e., cranes, dozers, excavators, graders, pavers, rollers, scrapers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes) equipped with Tier 4 Final certified engines; therefore, modeling assumes use of Tier 4 Final certified engines for all large construction equipment. This requirement will be included in the Development Agreement.

The changes reflected above would not result in substantial alterations to the degree of impact or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and therefore do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the changes serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR.

Response 8.4
The commenter expresses support for the proposed multi-modal roadway improvements, requests the Planning Division be contacted for potential funding opportunities for electric vehicle infrastructure, and expresses support for Mitigation Measure GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d).

The commenter’s support and contact request are noted. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 8.5
The commenter states the opinion that Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR should include reference to asbestos hazards from non-building structures (such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines), which should be abated prior to starting construction activities.

The Draft EIR has been revised to discuss not only baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines, but also unknown contaminated soil, USTs, UST piping, other piping, etc. As suggested, a standard operating procedure, or condition, has also been added. The following revisions have been made to page 4.8-13:

The remaining existing structures in the Plan Area contain hazardous materials such as leadbased paint, ACMs, universal waste, and PCBs. Existing structures include non-building structures, such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines which may contain ACM. Exposure to lead can cause adverse health effects, including disturbance of the gastrointestinal system, anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases).…
Friable ACMs are regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a worker safety hazard, they are also regulated under the authority of Cal/OSHA and by MBARD. In structures slated for demolition, any ACMs would be abated in accordance with State and Federal regulations prior to the start of demolition or renovation activities and in compliance ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 818, Packet Page 1146 with all applicable existing rules and regulations, including MBARD. This includes removal of non-building structures and facility components, such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines which may contain ACM (40 CFR Parts 61.141 and

61.145). The Army is required to remediate and safely dispose of hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, universal waste, and PCBs as part of the Superfund cleanup process, even though the land has already been transferred for future Campus Town development (FORA 1997b). As discussed above in the Regulatory Setting, many existing structures in the Plan Area have been safely removed by an industrial hygienist service retained by FORA, which included general assessments to identify toxic and hazardous substances, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, underground storage tank leaks, molds, other hazardous materials, wastes, report preparation, site assessments, preliminary plans, working drawings, remediation, and disposal.

The MBARD Asbestos Program regulates the handling of asbestos and operates as a cradle to grave basis through the regulation of all aspects related to the handling of asbestos materials from discovery through removal, through transportation and disposal. These programs would ensure that asbestos removal would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment that could impair human health. Therefore, the impact related to ACMs would be less than significant.

While impacts would be less than significant, the City has proposed a Condition of Approval for implementation of these regulations, which has been added to page 4.8-15 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following Condition of Approval has been added to ensure implementation of ACM regulations.

COA HAZ-1: If non-building related ACMs, baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines, proposed for removal are encountered during demolition or grading, the applicant shall survey the materials for ACMs, and contaminants of concern prior to disturbing and removing the materials. If discovered onsite, ACMs will be handled in compliance with applicable regulations.

The changes reflected above would not result in substantial alterations to the degree of impact or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR, and therefore do not constitute significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the changes serve to clarify the content of the EIR.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 819, Packet Page 1147 August 22, 2019
To:

Kurt Overmeyer,
Economic Development Department,
City of Seaside,
440 Harcourt Avenue,
Seaside California 93955
[email protected]
Re: KFOW comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Campus Town Specific Plan (the Proposed Project) (SCH#2018021079).

Dear Mr. Overmeyer.

Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW), is an unincorporated association under California law.

KFOW and its members are beneficially interested in the enforcement and application of laws assuring public accountability and public disclosure and responsible decision making by local governments. KFOW and its members are vitally concerned with the way that fiscal decisions and land use decisions are made, particularly on the former Fort Ord. KFOW submits these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Campus Town Specific Plan:

The Draft EIR indicates the Campus Town Specific Plan would have 1,485 residential units on full build-out. More than 5,100 residential units are already approved and entitled on Fort Ord. The Development Resource Management Plan within the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan limited new residential units on Fort Ord to 6,160. Exceeding the limit ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 820, Packet Page 1148 would not be consistent with the Reuse Plan or the Reuse Plan mitigations. Please respond whether you agree if this resource constraint exists. If you do not agree, please provide a meaningful response and provide citations.

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan's so-called "allocation" of 6,600 AFY for development did not transfer valid water rights. The Reuse Plan assumed that there was 6,600 AFY for development because that was the amount stated in a 1993 agreement between the Army and the MCWRA. The DRAFT EIR incorrectly assumes that there are 6,600 AFY of available wet water, that the 6,600 AFY were water rights, and that the 6,600 AFY represents a sustainable or safe yield. These inaccurate assumptions permeate the materially flawed DRAFT EIR analysis of water impacts.
• The 1993 Agreement between the Army and the MCWRA was not a valid transfer of water rights.
• The Army does not have the authority to issue or transfer water rights. The Army has admitted that fact.
• 6,600 AFY is not the sustainable yield. The groundwater source (the Deep Aquifer) is not sustainable, because it is not being recharged. • The 6,600 AFY figure was merely the peak amount of water the Army used in 1984, as the 1993 Agreement states. Average use was significantly less. • Any so-called "water allocation" from FORA or the Army is unreliable because it would be merely paper water, and not actual wet water. • No environmental review has been performed on the so-called “allocation” of 6,600 AFY or on any portion of that water that is proposed for “suballocation” to the Project.

Specific Comments
The DRAFT EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Section and the WSA (Appendix M) are inadequate for many reasons. Several material reasons are as follows:
• The failure of the DRAFT EIR to adequately investigate, disclose, and analyze the water source.
• The failure of the DRAFT EIR to establish an accurate baseline.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 821, Packet Page 1149 • The failure of the DRAFT EIR to adequately investigate, disclose, and analyze the impacts of additional pumping from the water source to supply the proposed Project, and mitigate the impacts.
• The failure of the DRAFT EIR to discuss the water rights, if any, that could be used to supply water to the Project. No such water rights have been claimed in the DRAFT EIR, and it is likely that such rights do not exist.

In this case, the impacts are severe and unmitigatable, and the DRAFT EIR fails to disclose that fact, or mitigate for the impacts.

As proposed, Marina Coast Water District would extract additional groundwater that Marina Coast is not currently extracting from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The new extraction would represent an illegal appropriation of water from private property owners because no applicable water rights have been established. Marina Coast does not have water rights to appropriate additional water from the overdrafted basin.

In an overdrafted, percolated groundwater basin, California groundwater law holds that the doctrine of correlative overlying water rights whereby no surplus water is available for new groundwater appropriators, except by prescription. Salinas Valley basin is an overdrafted groundwater basin.

CEQA requires a detailed analysis of water rights issues, including ownership of those rights, when such rights reasonably affect the project’s supply. Assumptions about supply are simply not enough. Courts have found EIR inadequate when it fails to discuss pertinent water rights claims and overdraft impacts. The reasoning in those cases also applies to the proper analysis of the rights associated with the project’s water supply here.

As the Supreme Court has held, the ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project. The EIR must clearly and coherently explain this issue, using material properly stated or incorporated in the EIR. An EIR must inform decision makers of what the impact will be of the source of water for the project, and if that impact is adverse how it will be addressed.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 822, Packet Page 1150 The DRAFT EIR failed to investigate whether the Marina Coast has water rights to pump the additional groundwater that will be demanded by the project. There is no evidence in the DRAFT EIR that any entity has water rights to the appropriated water that is intended to supply the Project. Similarly, the DRAFT EIR failed to adequately investigate whether the appropriate entities have water rights to the theoretical “future water supplies” for the Project as claimed in the DRAFT EIR. In Monterey County, the issue of water rights is at the forefront for all water rights discussed in the DRAFT EIR – groundwater, recycled, and desalinated. Yet the DRAFT EIR is devoid of such discussion.

The existence or not or water rights is a significant factor that would affect water supplies to the Project. The EIR is required to include a forthright discussion of a significant factor that could affect water supplies.

The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately investigate, disclose, and mitigate the effects of designing the Project to rely on illegal extraction and wrongful appropriation of groundwater from the Groundwater Basin needs to be fully developed in an EIR. The EIR did not analyze the significant impact of an illegal taking of groundwater from overlying landowners. This significant deficiency in the EIR must be addressed, and the EIR should identify detailed mitigations for all the adverse impacts and proposed illegal actions and takings.

The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose that the water source for the former Fort Ord water supply is the so-called Deep Aquifer. Thus, the Project would get its water from the Deep Aquifer.

The DRAFT EIR mentions the Deep Aquifer, but only in a cursory fashion:

There are three defined aquifers within the MCWD Service Area: the 180- foot; 400-foot; and 900-foot (or Deep Aquifer). The MCWD’s municipal water system extracts water from eight groundwater wells with three wells located within Central Marina and five wells located within former Fort Ord.

The DRAFT EIR WSA page 22 fails to state that the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers are so badly intruded with seawater and other contamination that they are not used for potable water supply in Marina and Fort Ord. In fact, other than the single mention in the excerpt quoted above, the DRAFT EIR does not mention the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers at all by name.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 823, Packet Page 1151 The DRAFT EIR WSA alludes in an odd way to the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers in a later subsection called “Plans for Acquiring Additional Water Supplies” saying “The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater basin along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion.” This information should have been in the baseline information. The DRAFT EIR does not acknowledge the plain fact that the seawater intrusion in Marina and Fort Ord has rendered the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers useless to Marina and Fort Ord. That contamination is a material fact that the DRAFT EIR hides.

The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose the fact that some groundwater areas under Fort Ord are off limits due to toxic contamination from military use.

It cannot be reasonably disputed that groundwater from the Deep Aquifer is proposed to be the Project’s primary source of water supply. Please respond.

However, the DRAFT EIR fails to adequately investigate and disclose what publicly available records show about the Deep Aquifer. The DRAFT EIR omitted each of the following facts about the Deep Aquifer. These facts should have been disclosed and analyzed in the DRAFT EIR.
• The Deep Aquifer is unsustainable.
• The Deep Aquifer is not being recharged.
• The Deep Aquifer has a small and limited supply.
• The Deep Aquifer is already being over-pumped.
• The water in the Deep Aquifer is ancient. The Deep Aquifer is rainwater that fell on the earth tens of thousands of years ago, and over the millennia the water gradually and slowly percolated its way down to a depth of 600 to 1200 feet under the earth. Because the overlying shallower aquifers are over-pumped, the shallower aquifers are not recharging the Deep Aquifer.
• The Deep Aquifer is vulnerable to seawater intrusion. • All of Marina and nearly all the former Fort Ord rely on the small, limited, and unsustainable Deep Aquifer for their water supply.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 824, Packet Page 1152 • When the Deep Aquifer runs out or becomes unusable due to saltwater intrusion or another reason, there is no available back-up water supply. Marina and Fort Ord will be out of water.
• Continued or increased pumping from Deep Aquifer wells entails the use of a groundwater source for which substantial information is lacking regarding recharge and the potential for impact on seawater intrusion is also largely unknown. For these reasons, the Deep Aquifer should be conservatively thought of as an interim water supply.

These facts are material to the environmental analysis of the project’s water supply. As to each of these facts, please respond whether you agree. If you do not agree, please provide a meaningful response and provide citations to the technical evidence on which you base your response.

The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately investigate and disclose the Project’s impacts on the Deep Aquifer and fails to present adequate mitigations for those impacts.

A reasonable mitigation would be to prohibit the Project from using water from the Deep Aquifer.

Neither Seaside, Marina Coast Water District or the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) have adequately studied the Deep Aquifer – probably because they don’t want the public to know how severely bad the water situation is in Marina and Fort Ord. In addition to the failures identified above, the DRAFT EIR fails to disclose material information that is known about the Deep Aquifer and relevant to the Project and its impacts.

A safe yield has not been established for the Deep Aquifer. The only answer is that the Deep Aquifer does not have a safe yield, because the groundwater in the Deep Aquifer is not being replenished (added). The groundwater in the Deep Aquifer is only being pumped (subtracted). The groundwater equation has only one side: subtraction.

Thus, there is no safe yield and no “water balance,” and the Deep Aquifer is an unsustainable supply. The Deep Aquifer is being mined. The Project would mine the Deep Aquifer even further. The DRAFT EIR ignores these important facts and conclusions and fails to adequately investigate the potential environmental impacts and mitigations.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 825, Packet Page 1153 Instead of identifying the Project’s water supply as coming from the Deep Aquifer, and instead of addressing the problems of the Deep Aquifer water supply in a straightforward and informational manner, the DRAFT EIR omits material information and mischaracterizes other information. The result is the intent of the EIR preparer from the beginning: to find that the groundwater supply impacts are less than significant, regardless of the facts.

The DRAFT EIR fails to reasonably disclose or investigate the following documented issues, and how each issue would affect the Project’s impacts on groundwater.
• Marina Coast is limited in the amount of water that Marina Coast can pump from the Deep Aquifer.
• Marina Coast has agreed to manage the Deep Aquifer to provide safe, sustained use of the water resource, and to preserve to MCWD the continued availability of water from the Deep Aquifer.
• Marina Coast has agreed to work on measures to protect the Deep Aquifer.
• Marina has not met these enforceable obligations described above. • The additional pumping from the Deep Aquifer for the Project would compromise Marina Coast’s ability to comply with its obligations above.

The DRAFT EIR also fails to propose reasonable mitigations that could be imposed on the project to prevent or reduce each of the potential impacts described above.

The reliability of the water supply is an essential analysis that should be fully supported by technical information. This DRAFT EIR has not supported its conclusion with technical information. Instead, here, much of the water discussion in the DRAFT EIR paragraphs is inaccurate and misleading.
• Technical reports conclude that the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is affected by climatic conditions.
• The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is seriously overdrafted.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 826, Packet Page 1154 • The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin recharge does not get to the Deep Aquifer – the Project’s water supply.
• The Deep Aquifer is not augmented by upstream reservoirs managed by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
• The Marina Coast Water District water demand as a percentage of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin pumping is meaningless. • The vast majority of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin pumping is from the shallower aquifers, not the Deep Aquifer.
• The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose, investigate, and identify the impacts of the existing baseline pumping on the Deep Aquifer supply. The DRAFT EIR fails to quantify the Deep Aquifer supply.
• There is no support for the DRAFT EIR claim that the Marina Coast Water District wells in Central Marina . . . in the Deep Aquifer . . . are considered to have a reliable quantity.” Please explain the reasoning and facts behind the DRAFT EIR claim, and please identify the documents on which the claim relied. Also please define and quantify what the DRAFT EIR means by “reliable quantity.” • The DRAFT EIR claim is not accurate. Deep Aquifer has a small and finite supply that is being reduced by pumping. A small, finite, increasingly reduced supply is not a “reliable supply.”
• The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose that the Marina Coast Water District wells in Central Marina currently supply water to the former Fort Ord. Instead, the DRAFT EIR misleads the reader into thinking that the Central Marina wells supply only Marina. • The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose that the Marina Coast Water District wells in the Fort Ord Community Service Area supply water to the City of Marina, as well as the Ord Community. Instead, the DRAFT EIR misleads the reader into thinking that the Ord Community wells supply only the Ord Community.
• Public records show that Marina Coast Water District pumps only a small percentage of its water supply from the 180- and 400-foot (“upper”) aquifers. The majority of Marina Coast Water District supply comes from the Deep Aquifer. The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose this, which affects the analysis of reliability and baseline.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 827, Packet Page 1155 • For each Marina Coast Water District well, the DRAFT EIR should disclose the depth from which the water is actually pumped in each of the MCWD wells for the last five years, and how much water has been pumped from each depth. In other words, from which aquifer is Marina Coast pumping groundwater? That relevant information is critical for an adequate discussion of water supply for the Project, but the DRAFT EIR fails to disclose it or discuss it.
• The DRAFT EIR should be revised to disclose and discuss the yearly and monthly data for each well – pumping and source depts. That is how Marina Coast Water District keeps it. The information is publicly available. The information shows distinct trends by Marina Coast to pump increasing amounts of groundwater from the Deep Aquifer.
• The DRAFT EIR should provide the names/numbers of the Marina Coast Water District wells and discuss the wells with specificity. Marina Coast Water District tracks the pumping and the depth through each well’s name/number. Where the pumps are set is a different issue than where the wells are screened/perforated. It is the source of the supply that is critical information to establishing the baseline water pumping. The DRAFT EIR has missed these material distinctions. For us to be able to comment meaningfully, we need to know.
• The DRAFT EIR should be revised disclose which well(s) would supply the Project, and from what depth the water from the well(s) would be produced.

The increased pumping of the Marina Coast Water District wells to supply the Project would further mine the Deep Aquifer supply, all to the detriment and harm of the existing customers of Marina Coast Water District – the residents and businesses in Marina and the Ord Community.

The DRAFT EIR should disclose and discuss the baseline issues of the water supply. The DRAFT EIR should specify the aquifer(s) that would supply water for the Project. The DRAFT EIR then should accurately quantify the additional amount of water needed to be pumped to supply the Project. This amount includes both the Project’s water demand and the line loss and other water lost and put to other uses between the wells and the end users, such as, for example, fire suppression and testing.

The DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-1 discloses only an “assumed line loss” from an unknown year without explaining the basis for the assumption. The DRAFT EIR does not ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 828, Packet Page 1156 use or disclose and not the actual system loss reported by Marina Coast Water District.

The DRAFT EIR should disclose the actual data. The amounts of line loss can be significant, and the DRAFT EIR has not adequately disclosed or considered the amounts.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 3.1 contains water production information up to only 2015.

That is not adequate disclosure and analysis for a DRAFT EIR released in 2019. The data should include information up to at least 2018. That data is available and could affect the analysis and conclusions.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 3.3 includes 300 AFY of capacity for the Marina Coast Water District desalination plant is a source of supply. The claims are not supported or adequately qualified. The Marina Coast Water District desalination plant has been inoperable for well more than a decade. The plant has never run at full capacity. Marina Coast Water District has no current plans to restore the plant to operational status, and has no funding for such restoration, in any event. Such restoration would take more than a year, according to public records. Please respond.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-1 divides the “Ord Community” into eleven jurisdictions plus “assumed line loss.” The categories are confusing and should be explained. How is “City of Marina (Ord)” defined? How is “Marina Sphere” defined? DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-2 has a typographical error. Replace “Hostile” with “Hostel” The inclusion of Armstrong Ranch and Lonestar Property (aka RMC, aka Cemex) is confusing and misleading. Why are those categories on WSA Table 3.3? Any groundwater pumping for the Armstrong Ranch and Lonestar properties can only be used on those sites, correct? The water cannot be used for the Project. Please respond.

If you disagree, please identify all the sources on which you rely, and please provide your analysis and conclusions.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-1: “Marina sphere” is undefined, so we cannot comment meaningfully on it. Please define it and identify all the sources on which you rely. To the extent that the term refers to a sphere of influence, then the land is not currently in Marina’s jurisdiction. The correct jurisdiction for the property in question should be clearly stated, in any event.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 829, Packet Page 1157 • The DRAFT EIR fails to state which Project elements would not be able to be built due to insufficient paper water allocations, if the water allocations were actual available wet water, which they are not.
• The DRAFT EIR fails to address the assumptions that went into the DRAFT EIR conclusion that about the remaining amounts of Seaside estimated demand. These assumptions – including whether recycled water is available at a specific time – are critical to any determination.
• The DRAFT EIR fails to investigate and disclose the fact that some jurisdictions have already exceeded their paper water allocation from FORA, even if the allocation is usable water, which it is not.

The DRAFT EIR WSA Section 4.1 claims MCWD has “a small desalination plant in the Central Marina Service area”. KFOW has been provided with reliable information that the permits are not current for operation of the Marina Coast Water District desalination plant. Please respond. Please explain what steps would be required to reopen and operate the Marina Coast Water District desal plant so that it could actively producing 300 AFY of usable potable water, and which steps Marina Coast has taken, if any. Please explain the cost of reopening and operating the desal plant, and how much of that cost is funded, if any. We are informed that the desal plant was mothballed more than a decade ago. Please respond. Please identify all materials you (1) consulted and (2) relied upon in formulating your responses.

What is the current evidence that the DRAFT EIR [WSA Section 4.1 relied on in making that claim about “a larger desalination plant”? The Marina Coast Water District has not made any solid steps toward that goal. If you disagree, please explain exactly what steps you think Marina Coast Water District has taken and provide the reference documents.

The DRAFT EIR discussion of Water Supply recites various statements made in the 1993 Agreement between the United States and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. The DRAFT EIR does not adequately analyze the 1993 Agreement or its legal effect. The 1993 Agreement is a piece of paper. It is not wet water. It is not a water supply. A stated goal of 1993 Agreement was for all Fort Ord wells to be shut down to avoid further Seawater intrusion. Water from Fort Ord wells was supposed to have been replaced years ago with water from another project or projects.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 830, Packet Page 1158 Groundwater pumping on Fort Ord was not expected to continue indefinitely. When new potable water became available it was supposed to be as a replacement to groundwater pumping not in addition to groundwater pumping. Do you agree? Please respond.

The 1993 Agreement between the United States and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency does not grant water rights. The Army does not have the authority to issue or transfer water rights, and the United States also does not have that authority.

The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately investigate and disclose whether the 1993 Agreement granted water rights to any entity.

Please state whether the DRAFT EIR is relying on the 1993 Agreement as a source of any water rights. Please also identify all documentation of water rights that the DRAFT EIR claims for the water supply for the Project. Please respond and describe your analysis in meaningful detail. Water rights are an environmental issue.

Please quantify the water rights necessary to provide water to the project, quantify the water rights actually held, identify the holder(s) of the rights, state which project element and applicant that would claim use of the water rights, and specify the document(s) that confirm the water rights. Please describe the analysis and research on which your responses are based.

Please investigate, disclose, evaluate and mitigate for the impacts that exercising the water rights for the Project could cause.

The 1993 Agreement stated that 6,600 AFY could be withdrawn from the Basin.

The basis for the 6,600 AFY was the single highest year of pumping ever recorded on the active Fort Ord base. It was not average use. Do you agree? If not, why not? Please be specific.

The fact that the 6,600 AFY was the single highest year of pumping is important because that 6,600 AFY pumping caused significant seawater intrusion, and so did the lower average use. None of the Army wells operating in the 1980s are operating now at the same depth, because seawater intrusion has destroyed the water quality.

Public records show that the Army did not pump groundwater from the Deep Aquifer to supply Fort Ord in any significant level. Instead, the Army pumped from the shallower aquifers. Do you agree? This information is pertinent to an understanding of ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 831, Packet Page 1159 the issues, including the lack of reliability of the 1993 Agreement as a guarantor of “water supply,” the need for a thoughtful, thorough and careful analysis of the current water supply and demands, and for a reasonable understanding of the water supply history of the Ord Community.

The Army acknowledged in writing in the 1980s that the Army’s approach so constructing new wells further and further inland was merely an interim measure, and that the Army needed to eliminate its reliance on local groundwater for anything other than a back-up water supply. The Army records show that the Army lost more than two thirds of the Army’s wells – twenty or more wells – which ran dry or became salty.

Marina Coast has continued the same practice of moving its wells further and further inland and pumping deeper and deeper. Marina Coast’s wells are now at the far eastern edge of Fort Ord, pumping from the deepest aquifers. If that supply runs out, or the water becomes too salty, there is no other water currently available to replace the supply. The DRAFT EIR ignores this fundamental admission that local groundwater is unreliable. The DRAFT EIR should investigate and find out all it can about the lack of reliability of the groundwater sources and water supply for the project.

The US Army admitted in the mid-1980s that the water problems at Fort Ord included as follows:
• The ground water supply at Fort Ord was relatively finite resource that was being adversely impacted by seawater intrusion due to over-pumping. • Future reliable on groundwater as the primary supply will promote continued intrusion and eventual loss of the groundwater as a source for fresh water. • As the groundwater becomes exhausted, so does the opportunity for its use as a backup or supplemental supply when other water sources are eventually developed.

Please respond to each of these points. If you disagree with the points, please explain the investigation and analysis that you performed, the facts that you considered, the methodology you used, and the documents that you relied on in coming to your conclusion.

The DRAFT EIR fails to look adequately at the impacts of taking 6,600 from the Deep Aquifer. Those impacts are foreseeable, because (1) the Deep Aquifer is the only ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 832, Packet Page 1160 water supply for the Ord Community, (2) the jurisdictions at Fort Ord have acted and are acting as if that 6,600 AFY is actual wet water, (3) the jurisdictions are approving projects based on their “allocation” from the 6,600 AFY total, and (4) as a result, Deep Aquifer groundwater is being pumped to supply new development. (5) The upper aquifers on Fort Ord are already contaminated with seawater and are not viable in the long-term.

The Army’s records show that the actual average pumping at Fort Ord was materially lower than 6,600 AFY. At any rate, there is no question that the Army’s pumping caused seawater intrusion at Fort Ord. Multiple Army wells went dry or turned salty. Thus, when the DRAFT EIR assumes that 6,600 AFY is a safe yield or a water balance or constitutes water rights, without further analysis, the DRAFT EIR fails to consider adequately the impacts of pumping at 6,600 AFY. The DRAFT EIR also fails to adequately consider the impacts of the actual lower yearly historic average pumping.

The DRAFT EIR should analyze the actual groundwater pumping and the significant impacts the pumping has caused. That information is critical to the discussion of water supply because it provides the necessary data to understand the water supply issues at Fort Ord – but the DRAFT EIR has omitted the information. The DRAFT EIR should provide separate analyses for the pumping from the Deep Aquifer and from the shallower aquifers, because the facts and impacts are materially different.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-2 is filled with errors and materially misleading information. The table is inconsistent with the documentation available from public records. As one example, current FORA records show that Monterey Peninsula Unified School District has been allocated or is using 100 AFY. That is 19 AFY more than the amount of 81 AFY shown on DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-2. The discrepancy of 19 AFY is unfavorable to Campus Town and would increase the impacts, which the DRAFT EIR has not adequately identified, disclosed, analyzed or mitigated.

The Main Gate project approved by Seaside would require 207 AFY, according to the WSA approved by Seaside. It is misleading for the DRAFT EIR to focus on the claimed lesser amount of 149 AFY allocated by Seaside to the Main Gate project, because the Main Gate project can only be considered truly “approved” if the entire amount is allocated. The allocation is made by implication when Seaside approved the Main Gate project. Otherwise, the approval is not a valid and legal approval. Please respond.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 833, Packet Page 1161 If the 207 AFY project demand for the Main Gate project is considered as committed under Seaside paper water allocation, then Seaside has an additional 58 AFY less than claimed in the DRAFT EIR. (Calculated as follows: 207 AFY Main Gate Project demand less the 149 AFY that the DRAFT EIR shows as allocated to the Main Gate Project.)
Please provide the specific citation (for example, resolution number and date) to the official Seaside City Council action to allocate water to the Main Gate project. No such records are shown on the DRAFT EIR sources.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-2: According to publicly available records from MCWD the allocation for Monterey College of Law is 2.8 AFY not 2.6 AFY. Please verify and respond.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-2: According to publicly available records from MCWD the allocation for Monterey Peninsula College is 9.7 AFY not 9.0 AFY. Please verify and respond.

The DRAFT EIR WSA fails to disclose Seaside’s water allocation has been increased at least twice by FORA. Seaside’s original allocation was 710 AFY. Seaside is already exceeding the amount of water originally contemplated in the Reuse Plan and the Reuse Plan EIR. Do you agree?
The EIR should investigate and disclose whether any of the projects or developments or jurisdictions at Fort Ord are using more than their paper water allocation or are on track to do so. This is important on-the-ground information.

The DRAFT EIR WSA Section 4.1 admits that if Marina Coast Water District resuscitates the desalination plant, then MCWD is obligated to meet the water needs of three developments in the Marina portion for the Ord Community. Thus, the reasonable likelihood of the desalination plant ever providing actual water to the Campus Town project is essentially zero. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonable for the EIR to include the discussion in this section, unless the EIR were to clearly explain that the likelihood of a desalination plant providing wet water to the project is essentially zero. Its inclusion is misleading.

The DRAFT EIR omits any discussion recycled water is a diminishing resource as water conservation increases and as demand for the recycled water increases by ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 834, Packet Page 1162 existing users who have the priority claims to any recycled water. Additionally, the only way more recycled water can become available is if more demand in placed on the primary water source (groundwater) in the first place. The impacts of this uncertainty and foreseeable future trend have not been adequately investigated, disclosed, identified and mitigated in the DRAFT EIR in the analysis of potential future water supply.

DRAFT EIR WSA Table 5-1, recycled water allocations, is not accurate given current information. Please explain in detail the basis for the DRAFT EIR assumption that 453 AF of recycled water will be available for Seaside. This is pure paper water.

There is no actual wet water associated with these assumptions.

It is foreseeable that the Project might not be able to use recycled water. The EIR failed to investigate that foreseeable possibility or to mitigate for its impacts. Please identify the mitigations that the EIR proposes to place on the project to mitigate for the impacts of the fact that the use of recycled water is not certain, and please quantify the benefits of each of those proposed mitigations.

The DRAFT EIR makes numerous unreasonable and unsupported assumptions about desalinated water. A new desalination plant has not been approved by Marina Coast Water District Board of Directors. If you disagree, please provide the resolution number approving the plant, and please state when, if ever, water would be available from the plant for the Project.

The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose that since 2017 agricultural producers on Armstrong Ranch have drilled multiple new deep aquifer wells (directly adjacent to Fort Ord) that are now extracting many thousands of acre feet per year (more than the water use on Fort Ord and Marina combined). MCWD considers this an imminent threat to the deep aquifer and thus the water supply for Fort Ord and Marina. MCWD took legal action against the County over permitting of these deep aquifer wells on Armstrong Ranch. The DRAFT EIR should be revised include a discussion of these latest events.

The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Reuse Plan requirement that Seaside and FORA must monitor residential development so that demand does not outstrip the available supply of employment-generating uses. (Reuse Plan FEIR, p. 51.) FORA has approved some 5,100+ residential units, which are not all yet built. Those approved projects, if built, would outstrip the available supply of jobs.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 835, Packet Page 1163 The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose that the Project would cause cumulative impacts and would cause the residential development at Fort Ord to further outstrip the available supply of employment-generating uses. This is true in any event, and the impacts would be worsened by the Project’s proposed phasing of developing residential uses first. The DRAFT EIR fails to mitigate for those foreseeable impacts. Approval of the Project would be inconsistent with the Reuse Plan requirement.

The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Reuse Plan requirement that FORA shall . . . actively manage the water supply allocation so as to remain within the water resources available to the former Fort Ord under the auspices of the . . . the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA).” (Reuse Plan FEIR, p. 56.) The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately investigate the limitations on the existing “water resources available to the former Fort Ord” as required by the Reuse Plan. The Reuse Plan specifically requires active management of the available “water resources.” “Water resources available” is a different concept from “allocation,” which the Reuse Plan used for other requirements. Thus, the focus is on the actual wet water resources available to Fort Ord and to this Project. This information should be included in the EIR.

The 6,600 AFY agreement is not permanent and was not envisioned to be a permanent arrangement. The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately explain the impacts or the fact that the 6,600 AFY are not permanent, and a new water supply was specifically envisioned. The Agreement specifically referenced a planned project that was intended to provide new water to replace the 6,600 AFY groundwater pumping. That planned project never materialized and was abandoned. No new project has taken its place.

How close is seawater intrusion to each of the groundwater wells proposed to be used to supply groundwater to the Project? This information is relevant to the environmental analysis, yet the DRAFT EIR fails to investigate, evaluate and mitigate for the impacts of the additional pumping of groundwater for the project, and the effects of that additional pumping with regard to possible seawater intrusion. Be sure to include the Central Marina wells in your response, because those wells pump water that is provided to the former Fort Ord.

Please investigate all you can and disclose whether any of the Marina Coast Water District wells that could supply groundwater to this Project are at risk of saltwater intrusion, and what the impacts of that intrusion would be on the Project’s water supply.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 836, Packet Page 1164 The Marina Coast Water District primarily gets its water supply from wells that pump from the Deep Aquifer. The DRAFT EIR fails to acknowledge this important and material information. The DRAFT EIR fails to investigate and find out all that it can about the Deep Aquifer and its pertinent attributes (e.g., the Deep Aquifer has only small limited capacity; the Deep Aquifer is not being recharged and therefore is not sustainable, etc.).

The United States Army warned in the early 1990s that the City of Marina will require new water sources because water levels below sea level in the Deep Aquifer(s) will eventually cause seawater intrusion into the wells that supply Marina.

The United States Army stated in the early 1990s that Fort Ord pumped an average of only 5100 AFY between 1986 through 1989. The Army stated that Fort Ord’s pumping in the SVGB was greater than Fort Ord’s contribution to recharge to the SVGB.

The Army admitted that a significant percentage of recharge was from leaky pipes. The Fort Ord Army water infrastructure was known to be in poor condition, which was later confirmed by Marina Coast, FORA and others. Further, the Army has admitted the obvious: that most recharge accrues only to shallow aquifers, and likely is not readily available to wells pumping from the deeper aquifers.

The United States Army warned in the early 1990s that then- “existing” water use already exceeded the safe yield of the groundwater system in the vicinity of Fort Ord.

The DRAFT EIR improperly ignored this material information. Because the Army has already acknowledged that the average pumping exceeded safe yield, The United States Army warned in the early 1990s that pumping by groundwater users in the pressure area other than Marina and Fort Ord was approximately 150,000 AFY in the mid-1980s. The US Army wanted that even a small percentage increase in water use by these other Pressure Area users could add sustainability to impacts associated with increased pumping at Fort Ord.

At the time of the analysis by the United States Army of the disposal and reuse of Fort Ord, the Army admitted that there are no transferable water rights to groundwater in California. The Army further admitted that the groundwater overdrafts and seawater intrusion make the value of the rights to groundwater sources “questionable.” The DRAFT EIR assumes that Seaside will give all its remaining water allocation to Campus Town. What information is the DRAFT EIR assumption based on? Is this a ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 837, Packet Page 1165 mitigation? If not, why not? Has Seaside agreed? If Seaside does not agree to give all its water allocation, what are the impacts? How would this affect the jobs/housing balance?
The EIR should require a mitigation that prohibits any development of any kind until the nonpotable water supply assumed in WSA Table 5-1 is flowing through existing infrastructure. Otherwise, the phase could be developed and end up using potable water, which would be inconsistent with the Draft Subsequent EIR assumption that the phase would use nonpotable water.

The DRAFT EIR (WSA) claims that “The MCWD’s groundwater supply is considered reliable on a quantity and quality basis.” Please provide all supporting documentation for the claim and explain whether you considered all the other information about the Deep Aquifer that shows that the Marina Coast Water District groundwater supply is not reliable in quantity or quality.

Does MCWD have an uncontested right to the amount of water needed to produce recycled water? Are those rights limited at certain times of year? If so, please provide details.

Would MCWD need to construct storage facilities for the recycled water? If so, where would those facilities be located? Was the construction of the storage facilities analyzed in any environmental document? If so, please state the name and pages of the documents, the dates certified by the agency, and the resolution number.

The Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the impacts to views from the Fort Ord National Monument. The project area can be seen from multiple locations on the National Monument. These impacts were not analyzed in the Reuse Plan EIR, because at the time the land was not designated as a National monument. The designation is new information and change of circumstances and requires environmental analysis. All impacts to Fort Ord National Monument must be analyzed.

The DRAFT EIR fails to adequately present and quantify the information about the total number of trees that would be removed for the Project.

The DRAFT EIR fails to quantify the number of oaks in the Oak Woodland area in the map in Figure 4.3-1. The DRAFT EIR should be revised and a Forest Resource Evaluation ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 838, Packet Page 1166 should be prepared. Oak Woodlands are of keen interest to the public who reside in and around Fort Ord.

The DRAFT EIR indicates over 12 acres of Oak Woodland would be removed for the project but fails to specify a mitigation location(s). Seaside is required to mitigate for the loss of this Oak Woodland within Seaside. The DRAFT EIR should be revised to include an examination and maps of feasible mitigation locations. KFOW and its members have attended multiple public meetings related to the choice of the oak mitigation areas for other projects such as the nearby Veterans Cemetery. Public presentations by consultant Denise Duffy and Associates at the County Fort Ord Committee have shown how extremely difficult it is to mitigate (replant) relatively small numbers of oaks. In practice, few suitable locations exist on Fort Ord. The DRAFT EIR also fails to disclose that FORA, Seaside and the County of Monterey still have not officially adopted and memorialized an Oak Woodlands Conservation Area as required in the Reuse Plan.

Designation of an Oak Woodlands Conservation Area is more than two decades overdue. Do you agree? If not, please provide a meaningful response including references.

The DRAFT EIR discussion of seawater intrusion on page 4.9-5 is out of date and does not serve to inform the reader. Inexplicably, the discussion stops at 2015 with a reference to MCWD’s UWMP. Data released in 2017 by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency revealed seawater intrusion jumped substantially Eastward. Some pockets of seawater intrusion are now close to the City of Salinas. The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose the significant advancement of seawater intrusion in recent years. The DRAFT EIR should be revised to include a current discussion of seawater intrusion and current seawater intrusion maps.

The DRAFT EIR WSA Table 3.1 is out of date and does not serve to inform the reader.

Again, the data stops at 2015. Why? The DRAFT EIR should be revised to include current pumping data through at least 2018.

The DRAFT EIR WSA Section 4.1 says “The District’s primary source of water supply is the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and it also has a small desalination plant in the Central Marina Service Area.” This is confusing and misleading. MCWD’s sole water supply is groundwater pumping. There is no back-up supply. The desalination plant in the Central Marina is mothballed and inoperative. This section of the DRAFT EIR needs to be revised to include accurate on-the-ground information.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 839, Packet Page 1167 The DRAFT EIR WSA Section 5-1 gives short thrift to the golf course in-lieu storage and recovery program. The section omits crucial information and needs to be revised.

KFOW is informed and believes Seaside intends to use the water from it municipal well on Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course as a future water supply for Campus Town. The DRAFT EIR does not disclose any information about the long-term reliability of the golf course well. In recent years the well was shut down due to poor water quality and Seaside borrowed water from MCWD for five years. Is the Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course well a potable water source? Is it a reliable long-term water supply? The DRAFT EIR fails to disclose material information about the Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course well(s) in the Seaside basin. The Seaside Basin is fragile. It is in an overdraft condition. The basin has been adjudicated. Do you agree? Please provide evidence the Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course well can be counted on as a reliable long-term water supply. Please identify any environmental review with has occurred for the Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course well(s) as it relates to supplying future development such as Campus Town.

Keep Fort Ord Wild has reviewed and joins in the DRAFT EIR comments of LandWatch Monterey County.

Thank you for the opportunity to make comments.

Keep Fort Ord Wild requests to be placed on the distribution list for all notices related to this project, including any parts of the project and including all notices under Public Resources Code section 21092.2. Notices can be sent to [email protected] and [email protected]
Very truly yours,
Michael Salerno
Spokesman, Keep Fort Ord Wild.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 840, Packet Page 1168 Letter 9
COMMENTER: Michael Salerno, Spokesman, Keep Fort Ord Wild DATE: August 22, 2019
One of the prevailing themes in Comment Letter 9, is it generally encompasses a series of interrogatories in the guise of a comment letter, which ignore the contents of the EIR and the Water Supply Assessment. For example, Comment 9.5 states “These facts are material to the environmental analysis of the project’s water supply. As to each of these facts, please respond whether you agree. If you do not agree, please provide a meaningful response and provide citations to the technical evidence on which you base your response.” It is not the purpose of CEQA to respond to interrogatories (City of Irvine v. County of Orange (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 526 [“Analysis of Response to Comment 32: The response is adequate…it is not really a comment at all. It functions as an interrogatory directed to the authors of the EIR.”]. As explained in the CEQA Guidelines “In reviewing Draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.”
Additionally, many of the comments below misrepresent the contents of the EIR and the WSA, and based upon these misrepresentations conclude that the water supply analysis is inadequate. For example,
A. Comment 9.5 incorrectly asserts that “the Draft EIR fails to disclose that the water source for the former Fort Ord water supply is the so-called Deep Aquifer.” Draft EIR Sections 4.9 and 4.16 mentions this fact 20 times. For example, page 4.9-5 clearly states “MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin… ” B. Comment 9.5 incorrectly asserts that “the DRAFT EIR does not mention the 180-foot and 400- foot aquifers at all by name [except from] Draft EIR WSA page 22.” Draft EIR page 4.9-5 clearly states “Seawater intrusion is an ongoing problem in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot and 400-foot aquifer which is North of the Monterey Subbasin) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion.”
Notwithstanding these and other inaccuracies and misrepresentations, the specific comments are addressed as follows.

Response 9.1
The commenter describes the Keep Fort Ord Wild’s membership and mission, and states that the Project has 1,485 residential units and asserts that the Project would exceed limits in the “development Resource Management Plan” and would therefore not be consistent with the BRP or BRP mitigations.

The Proposed Project would not cause an exceedance of the limit for new residential units on the former Fort Ord. Please refer to Response 10.4 and Response 3.7 for additional information on the FORA Development and Resource Management Plan’s Residential Development Program and New Residential Unit Limit.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 841, Packet Page 1169 Response 9.2
The commenter states the opinion that the Fort Ord BRP allocation of 6,600 AFY is not a valid transfer of water rights. The commenter states that the Draft EIR is incorrect in its assumption that there is 6,600 AFY of available water from the BRP and incorrect that the 6,600 AFY represents a sustainable or safe yield. The commenter further incorrectly asserts that “average [water] use was significant less [than 6,600 AFY].” The commenter further states the Army does not have the authority to transfer water rights.

The commenter first asserts that 6,600 AFY is not the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin, and that 6,600 AFY was the peak amount of water used by the Army in 1984. The 6,600 AFY was not just a “peak” as asserted in the comment, rather “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” (Draft EIR Section 4.16.1).

Reliance upon the 6,600 AFY allocations is supported by (1) the statutory baseline procedures provided under Pub. Res. Code § 21083.8.1 (Draft EIR Sections 3.3 and 4.16.1), and (2) MCWRA’s Long-Term 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, the purpose of CEQA is to analyze impacts in comparison to existing conditions, not to fix existing environmental issues (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”].

Reliance upon the 6,600 AFY allocation is appropriate because 6,600 AFY was the amount of water identified in the 1993 Annexation Agreement which provided annexation of the former Fort Ord lands into MCWRA Zone 2 and 2A as being associated with the maximum the Army should pump from the SVGB while providing for other users of the common water source. The Seaside Subbasin is adjudicated and is managed by a Watermaster pursuant to a court-ordered Adjudication Judgement which defines groundwater pumping limits toward the goal of achieving sustainability. The Monterey Subbasin is not adjudicated, but is being managed pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) toward the common goal of long-term sustainability. MCWD holds several legal bases to continue production from the Monterey Subbasin, even if it were adjudicated, including Prescriptive Rights, Subordination, and Doctrine of Intervening Public Use, all of which are discussed in the Water Master Response.

The commenter expresses a concern over “paper water;” this term refers to legal water rights in comparison with physical water, or “wet water.” The concern regarding paper water is that an entity may have a legal right to more water than is physically available to that party. For the Proposed Project, the commenter’s concern appears to be that the analysis of water supply availability and reliability provided in the EIR and the WSA relies upon a legal right to consume 6,600 AFY of water from the SVGB when less water is physically available. To clarify, the Water Master Response provides a detailed description of the history of water supply management in the Plan Area, specifically with respect to groundwater management, in order to address any paper water concerns expressed in response to the Project’s EIR and WSA. As stated in the Water Master Response, seawater intrusion has driven groundwater management in the greater Salinas Valley Basin and the Monterey Subbasin for more than 70 years, and the Army’s original 6,600 AFY limit on pumping from the Salinas Valley Basin, as specified in the 1993 Annexation Agreement, was an agreement between the Army and MCWRA to manage seawater intrusion by limiting groundwater pumping. Seawater intrusion management is a method of regional water supply reliability management. As such, the 6,600 AFY is a “demand management arrangement” used to ensure ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 842, Packet Page 1170 water supply reliability in the area. The available water supply for purposes of the Proposed Project is addressed in the WSA and the Water Master Response.

The commenter also notes that the City of Seaside is obligated under CEQA to assess the impacts of using the 6,600 AFY of water addressed in the 1993 and 1996 agreements. To clarify, the City is obligated under CEQA to assess the impacts of the Proposed Project, including water supply demand for the Project. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR for the Proposed Project assesses potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project’s use of groundwater from the Monterey Subbasin, as well as mitigation to secure the remaining 261 AFY associated with buildout of the Proposed Project. No additional impact analysis or mitigation measures have been added to the EIR or WSA because the impact analysis provided is consistent with CEQA requirements, and the identified mitigation measure to secure water supply for the Project is sufficient to mitigate Project impacts to water supply. Furthermore, as discussed in the WSA (Appendix M1) under “Reliability of Water Supply and the Regional 6,600 AFY Allocation”: “The planned additional sources of supply are recycled wastewater and seater desalination as discussed above.” As discussed in Appendix M1, Section 4.2.1, those projects have been subject to environmental review (See also Draft EIR page

4.16-22).

The commenter also misconstrues the 6,600 AFY of water associated with the Fort Ord BRP. For clarification, please see the Water Master Response, which provides detailed description of the 1993 agreement between the Army and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and Response 10.6. Regarding the commenter’s statement that the 1993 Agreement was not a valid transfer of water rights, the Water Master Response clarifies that the FORA Allocation should not be understood to be 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. MCWD possesses groundwater rights that it relies on to serve the Ord Community under other doctrines discussed in the Water Master Response.

Further, the Army has not issued or transferred water rights; rather, as discussed in the Water Master Response, in 2001 the Army quitclaimed its water and wastewater infrastructure to FORA, meaning that it relinquished its water and wastewater infrastructure to FORA, and issued two easements to FORA which 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. This was not a transfer of water rights as stated by the commenter.

Response 9.3
The commenter provides a series of generic assertions with no specific references to the EIR alleging that it fails to investigate, disclose, and analyze the water source; establish an accurate baseline; investigate, disclose, analyze, and mitigate the impacts of additional pumping; and discuss water rights. The commenter further states the opinion that impacts are severe and unmitigable.

The Draft EIR and the WSA for the Proposed Project provide sufficient information and analysis to satisfy the required scope of review pursuant to CEQA. The Draft EIR and WSA characterize baseline environmental conditions, including with respect to water supply availability, in accordance with CEQA requirements (see Draft EIR Sections 4.9 and 4.16, and Appendix M1). Baseline conditions are thoroughly characterized as the existing water supply conditions at the time of preparation of the CEQA analysis and under the statutory baseline; the Water Master Response provides additional ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 843, Packet Page 1171 discussion of water supply conditions with respect to previous water supply agreements in the Plan Area. Please also see Response 9.2 and the Water Master Response for discussion of water rights.

The EIR acknowledges that impacts of the Proposed Project would be potentially significant without mitigation, but the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring that the 261 AFY of Project water demand not provided by the City of Seaside’s existing capacity (described above) is secured by offsetting potable water demands, using one of several ongoing options detailed in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and assessed in the Draft EIR. This approach of offsetting existing water uses is consistent with CEQA (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1091 [upholding analysis where the urban project relied upon water which was offset from prior agricultural uses]). With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts or cumulative impacts to groundwater supplies.

Please see Water Master Response for discussion of the 1993 and 1996 agreements, water rights and allocations in the Plan Area.

Response 9.4
The commenter states MCWD would extract additional groundwater from the already overdrafted SVGB, which is an illegal appropriation of water from private property owners because water rights have not been established. The commenter states that MCWD does not have rights to appropriate water from the overdrafted basin. The commenter states the EIR must address reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the Project, including water rights issues.

The Proposed Project would not involve any illegal groundwater extraction, and would not illegally consume water that is appropriated to other users including landowners. Discussion of water rights, including regarding adjudication of the Seaside Subbasin, is provided throughout Sections 4.9 and

4.16 of the Draft EIR and specifically on pages 4.9-13 and 4.9-14. Please see the Water Master Response for a detailed discussion of groundwater rights including with respect to regional water supply management. The Proposed Project does not introduce an illegal take of water supply, as stated by the commenter. No revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted because the Draft EIR and WSA are consistent with CEQA requirements regarding the scope of analysis, and the Water Master Response further provides discussion of water rights to address the commenter’s concerns.

Please see Response 9.2 for discussion of “paper water” concerns and additional explanation of water rights in the Plan Area. As described in the Draft EIR and herein, the Proposed Project’s impacts to water supply would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.

Response 9.5
The commenter expresses multiple concerns regarding adequacy of the CEQA analysis provided in the Draft EIR, including: the Draft EIR does not disclose the water source for the former Fort Ord water supply; the WSA does not state the aquifers are intruded with seawater and other contamination and not used for potable water supply; the Draft EIR does not disclose that some Seaside Basin groundwater areas are off-limits due to toxic contamination; the Draft EIR does not adequately investigate and disclose contents from publicly available records regarding the Deep Aquifer, including that it is allegedly unsustainable, not being recharged, contains a small and limited supply, is overdrafted, is ancient, is vulnerable to seawater intrusion, Marina and Fort Ord rely on it for water supply, and there is no back-up water supply. The commenter further suggests ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 844, Packet Page 1172 mitigation prohibiting the use of water from the Deep Aquifer, and states the Deep Aquifer has not been studied and a safe yield has not been established.

The Master Water Response provides discussion of the legal requirements of CEQA including with respect to the provision of a water balance for the region, which is beyond the scope of analysis for the Proposed Project. The Master Water Response also provides further discussion of regional water supply management applicable to the Proposed Project.

The commenter incorrectly states “the Draft EIR fails to disclose that the water source for the Former Fort Ord water supply is the so-called Deep Aquifer” and then asserts it is mentioned only in a cursory fashion, referencing Draft EIR Appendix M, page 22. The commenter misrepresents the contents of the WSA and the EIR. In fact, page 22 of the WSA expressly states “The District is the only significant user of the Deep Aquifer.” The Draft EIR clearly explains that “MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin… the District has one well in the deep aquifer…” (Draft EIR page 4.9-5). In fact, Draft EIR Section 4.9 references MCWD’s use of the Deep Aquifer 11 times in that chapter alone, and 9 times in Draft EIR Section 4.16. The Deep Aquifer is discussed throughout the WSA and Sections 4.9 and 4.16 of the EIR as applicable, including in WSA Section 5.3 and on page 29, where it is described that the Proposed Project would not increase pumping in the Deep Aquifer at such magnitudes that seawater intrusion would increase.

The commenter next faults the EIR for allegedly not discussing seawater intrusion “in the baseline information.” The Draft EIR expressly discussed seawater intrusion under baseline conditions. More specifically, the EIR clearly states “Seawater intrusion is an ongoing problem in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot and 400- foot aquifer which is North of the Monterey Subbasin) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion. [Footnote 1] According to the 2019 Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan, ‘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). The Draft EIR also incorporated by reference the UWMP, which shows the boundaries of seawater intrusion in Figure 4.5, and Figure 4.6 in the Salinas Valley Basin. Seawater intrusion in the Monterey Subbasin is also discussed on page 4.9-5 of the Draft EIR, which describes that the Monterey Subbasin has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.

As also explained on page 4.9-5 “there is a monitoring well that serves as an ‘early warning system to identify any seawater intrusion…’ (MCWD 2015 UWMP Section 4.2.5, at p. 48).” Contrary to the assertions in the comment, the Draft EIR also acknowledges that “there ‘is some concern that the Deep Aquifer may become affected by seawater intrusion,’ there is a monitoring well that serves as an “early warning system to identify any seawater intrusion’” but that no increase in the magnitude of pumping sufficient to cause seawater intrusion (between two to five times the baseline rate) is anticipated (Draft EIR at page 4.9-5). The Deep Aquifer has been studied and there is a yield at which seawater intrusion may become an issue. However, pumping from the Deep Aquifer is significantly less than the estimated amount at which seawater intrusion will become an issue.

The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR fails to explain the ancient origin of the water in the Deep Aquifer and that it is not being recharged. The Draft EIR and WSA incorporated by reference MCWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Draft EIR page 4.16-13; Draft EIR Appendix M1, page 6). When a document is incorporated by reference “the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150). MCWD’s UWMP clearly explains:

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 845, Packet Page 1173 “The Deep Aquifer consists of an aggregation of all sand and gravel deposits that exist below the 400-Foot Aquifer including aquifers in the Aromas Sand, the Paso Robles Formation and the Purisima Formation, not all of which are hydraulically connected… (UWMP page 35) Studies by the United States Geological Survey indicate that Deep Aquifer water in the vicinity of Marina is not of recent origin. Uncorrected Carbon 14 dating of water from a test well in the vicinity of Marina’s Deep Aquifer wells indicates the water is between 22,000 and 31,000 years old. The ancient nature of this water raises the possibility that recharge to this aquifer may be insufficient to sustain current pumping, but monitoring well data at the Marina Airport indicates the aquifer is subject to seasonal variations similar to the upper aquifers. Recent stratigraphic analyses have indicated that these aquifers are connected hydraulically at certain locations with the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, which may be recharging the Deep Aquifer. (UWMP page 37)
The Draft EIR and the WSA for the Proposed Project sufficiently characterize baseline conditions and potential impacts, and discusses the use of available public information with respect to water supply in the region. However, “[a]n 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 decisionmakers and the public’” (Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 729, 748).

With respect to concerns regarding toxic contamination affecting groundwater, Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) discusses this issue in detail. Specifically, Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, which characterizes contamination from previous Fort Ord activities and describes the regular groundwater quality testing is conducted to detect contamination associated with former military activities. The EIR acknowledges that certain groundwater areas under Fort Ord are off-limits due to toxic contamination, and the Plan Area is not located within or adjacent to toxic contamination. The Draft EIR also incorporated by reference the MCWD Urban Water Management Plan, which contains Figure 4.8, which shows the locations of existing Groundwater Contamination Plumes. However, the Project’s water supply is coming from MCWD, whose wells are located in the Monterey Subbasin, not the Seaside Subbasin. These well locations are identified in Figure 2.2 of the Urban Water Management Plan, which was incorporated by reference in the EIR. While the project’s mitigation calls for an in-lieu storage program and other water offsets, this water is also not associated with wells in the Plan Area. To provide additional information on toxic contamination in response to this comment, the following text has been added to Section 4.9.1(d), Water Quality, of the Draft EIR:

Onsite groundwater monitoring wells screened in the upper 180-foot aquifer were tested up until approximately 2011 when the wells were deemed unnecessary and abandoned. It appears that onsite wells were not screened or tested in the A-Aquifer, Lower 180-Foot Aquifer, and 400-Foot Aquifer. The wells were utilized initially to determine if groundwater at Site 10 was impacted from the historic use at the burn pit. The groundwater wells were also utilized for a time as upgradient monitoring wells as part of the OU2 groundwater monitoring.

The remediation system at OU2 has been operating since 1995 to remediate the OU2-Aquifer, the OU2 Upper 180-Foot Aquifer, and the OU Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Upper 180-Foot Foot Aquifer (Ahtna 2019b). Deep aquifer groundwater assessment documents were not readily available at the Fort Ord Cleanup website. Assessments have been completed by the Army at the A-Aquifer, Upper 180-Foot Aquifer, and the Lower 180-Foot Aquifer and are available online at the Fort Ord Cleanup website.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 846, Packet Page 1174 As noted in the response above, the Draft EIR did address contamination issues affecting groundwater, and the information provided in the EIR was sufficient to characterize potential impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA requirements for scope of analysis; the text above was added to provide additional information. The Project’s impacts related to water have been mitigated to less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

Response 9.6
The commenter states the Draft EIR does not disclose or investigate the limitations on the amount of water MCWD pumps from the Deep Aquifer, and suggests that the Project would compromise MCWD’s ability to comply with its water supply obligations. The commenter states the Draft EIR does not propose reasonable mitigations to address impacts to the Deep Aquifer.

MCWD meets obligations to manage the Deep Aquifer to provide sustained use of the resource; MCWD’s management decisions and water supply planning efforts are consistent with its mission statement to provide reliable and sustainable water resources, and information from MCWD planning documents is used in the EIR where applicable to describe long-term water supply management. The Water Master Response provides detailed discussion of water supply management in the Project, particularly with respect to MCWD. As stated in the Water Master Response, the three near-term water sources relevant to MCWD’s anticipated service to the Proposed Project include: groundwater from the Monterey Subbasin; advance-treated recycled water derived from the PWM Project (recycled water will be used to offset existing uses of potable groundwater within MCWD’s service area, thereby liberating MCWD’s potable supply), and the Seaside Basin (the City of Seaside intends to assist MCWD to make more expansive use of recycled water from the PWM Project than would otherwise be possible by substituting recycled water on Seaside’s Blackhorse and Bayonet Golf Courses in lieu of the current use of potable groundwater from the Seaside Basin).

The commenter is incorrect in stating that the Draft EIR fails to identify reasonable mitigation to address water supply. In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project assesses potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project’s use of groundwater from the Monterey Subbasin, as well as mitigation to secure additional water for the Project. Please see Water Master Response for discussion of the 1993 and 1996 agreements, and further explanation of the CEQA scope of analysis for the Proposed Project. As discussed in the Draft EIR and in previous responses (see Response 9.3), Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would meet the Project’s water supply needs by requiring the City to secure water supplies through offsetting potable water demands. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would effectively minimize potential impacts associated with water supply.

Response 9.7
The commenter makes multiple statements regarding adequacy of the Draft EIR, and claims that the Draft EIR does not provide technical information to support its conclusion, including the baseline pumping or quantity of water available in the Deep Aquifer. The commenter states that multiple water supply factors are not adequately addressed in the EIR, and notes that topics such as the following should be discussed with the support of technical reports: the SVGB is overdrafted, recharge does not go to the Deep Aquifer, the Deep Aquifer is not augmented by reservoirs, and SVGB pumping is primarily from the shallow aquifers. The commenter states the Draft EIR does not disclose that MCWD wells in Central Marina supply the former Fort Ord, and that MCWD wells in the Ford Ord County Service Area supply water to the City of Marina and Ord Community.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 847, Packet Page 1175 The commenter states that technical reports conclude that the SVGB is affected by climatic conditions. The commenter does not cite technical reports that make this conclusion or suggest that such technical reports should be included in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, a thorough description of existing conditions in the SVGB is provided in the Draft EIR, based upon known published information and historical analysis of the groundwater basin.

The commenter states that the SVGB is seriously overdrafted, that recharge does not reach the Deep Aquifer, which is identified as the Project’s water supply, and that the Deep Aquifer is not augmented by upstream reservoirs. To clarify, as described in the Draft EIR, all of MCWD’s wells are located within the Monterey Subbasin of the SVGB, which is not identified as critically overdrafted.

The Seaside Subbasin of the SVGB is adjacent to, and immediately south of, the Monterey Subbasin; the Seaside Subbasin is adjudicated and is being actively managed pursuant to an Adjudication Judgment administered by the Court-appointed Watermaster to address and relieve historic overdraft conditions. Please see page 4.9-13 of the Draft EIR and the Water Master Response for discussion of the Seaside Subbasin Adjudication. The Deep Aquifer of the Monterey Subbasin is discussed on page 4.9-25 of the Draft EIR, and in Section 4.16 with respect to the Project’s water demands. Page 4.16-3 of the Draft EIR states that MCWD “is the only significant user of the Deep Aquifer, although there are Deep Aquifer wells serving the Monterey Dunes Colony (120 homes) and the Armstrong Ranch,” based upon information provided in MCWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

Further discussion of MCWD pumping from the Deep Aquifer is provided on pages 4.16-19 and 4.16- 20 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR for the Proposed Project does not provide a full hydrologic analysis of groundwater connectivity in the Project region, as such analysis is beyond the CEQA scope for the Proposed Project. 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). The Draft EIR and the Water Master Response provide detailed description of the sustainability of the Monterey Subbasin and the Seaside Subbasin, including the water rights within each relevant to the MCWD water supply opportunities and the Proposed Project.

The commenter expresses the opinion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately characterize baseline conditions of the Deep Aquifer, including quantification of Deep Aquifer supply, and states that supply in the Deep Aquifer is small and finite. The commenter does not provide information or data to support this claim about the Deep Aquifer. Analysis provided in the Draft EIR cites available information and resources to characterize water supply conditions in the Plan Area, and bases conclusions that sufficient water is available on the information provided in these published resources. Response 10.6 and the Water Master Response provide further discussion of water rights and water supply availability in the Project area.

In response to the commenter’s statement that the Draft EIR should quantify the Deep Aquifer supply, the EIR does not quantify the Deep Aquifer supply because doing so would require a regional hydrologic evaluation, which is well beyond the scope of analysis required by CEQA for the Proposed Project. The Water Master Response provides detailed discussion of water supply in the Plan Area, particularly with respect to groundwater management.

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that multiple water-related topics are not adequately addressed in the EIR with technical reports, the Draft EIR thoroughly documents available technical reports that were used to identify and characterize potential impacts of the Project, as described ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 848, Packet Page 1176 above. The Water Master Response provides expanded discussion of groundwater supply and cumulative groundwater uses including but not limited to groundwater users in Marina and the Ord Community. Please also see Response 9.5, which clearly explains how the Draft EIR discussed MCWD’s water sources, and Draft EIR Sections 4.9 and 4.16 for discussion of MCWD’s service area.

Response 9.8
The commenter states that MCWD obtains the majority of its water from the Deep Aquifer and incorrectly asserts the EIR fails to disclose this fact. The commenter requests the following information be added to the Draft EIR: the depth of water pumped from MCWD wells in the last 5 years, how much water has been pumped from each depth, yearly and monthly data for each well, names and numbers of MCWD wells, where well pumps are set and where wells are screened and perforated, which wells would supply the Project, and what depth water is extracted from for Project-supplied wells.

As explained in Response 9.5, the EIR clearly explained MCWD’s use of the Deep Aquifer. The commenter requests information on the quantity of water pumped from MCWD’s wells (see Draft Appendix M1, Section 3.1). As explained above in Response 9.5, the Draft EIR incorporated by reference the Urban Water Management Plan, which also provides the requested information (2015 MCWD UWMP, Section 3.1, and Table 4.9). Additionally, Response 9.15 describes the location of wells, including three MCWD-owned and operated wells in its Central Marina service area and five in its Ord Community service area, all of which are within the Monterey Subbasin (refer to the Water Master Response).

Please see the Water Master Response for expanded discussion of groundwater supply, including with respect to the Deep Aquifer, and cumulative groundwater uses.

Response 9.9
The commenter requests the Draft EIR disclose the baseline issues of the water supply, accurately quantify additional water needed to supply the Project, disclose the actual system loss reported by MCWD, and provide water production data up to 2018.

Please refer to discussion of baseline conditions in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems. As noted in the Water Master Response, there are three primary near-term sources of water relevant to MCWD’s anticipated service to the Proposed Project: groundwater from the Monterey Subbasin, advanced-treated recycled water derived from the PWM Project, and the Seaside Basin.

As discussed in the WSA, the Proposed Project would be served by MCWD’s portfolio of water supplies. MCWD’s water supplies are characterized in their 2015 UWMP, which is incorporated by reference in the EIR and WSA.

The commenter suggests the “assumed line loss” referenced in the Draft EIR may be different than the actual system loss reported by MCWD. Because the WSA relies on information from MCWD’s 2015 UWMP, which was prepared by MCWD, and because the WSA was itself approved by MCWD, the WSA utilizes the best available information on line loss. According to MCWD’s UWMP Appendix which was incorporated by reference (page E-10), it was assumed by MCWD that line loss would be approximately 5.3 percent. This is a conservative assumption, as actual recorded line loss was calculated to be as low as approximately 2.4 percent. (UWMP Appendix [86.147 AFY loss/3,641.510].) Please refer to the Water Master Response.

ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 849, Packet Page 1177 The commenter also faults the EIR and WSA for utilizing data up to only 2015. The WSA statutory requirements specifically allow for incorporation of UWMP analysis into the CEQA process (Water Code § 10910(c)). As the Supreme Court has also 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).

The commenter requests additional water production information be provided beyond 2015.

Quarterly Ord Community Consumption Reports through 2019 can be found in PDF format on MCWD’s website.5 The information included in the Draft EIR is sufficient for the purposes of the analysis. No revisions to the Draft EIR have been incorporated based upon this comment.

Response 9.10
The commenter questions the reliance on the MCWD desalination plant as a source of water supply, noting that the plant has never run at full capacity and has been inoperable for more than 10 years, with no plans for restoration or operation of the plant.

The commenter appears to be referencing footnote 3 in Draft EIR Appendix M1 Table 3-3, which is associated with the “Allocation” for the Marina Ord Community, not the Plan Area (i.e., “City of Seaside”). Furthermore, the EIR’s discussion of 6.600 AFY allocation does not include this value; the “Subtotal – ORD” allocation is shown at 6,900 (i.e., 6,600 AFY allocation + 300 AFY from the desalination plant). While this does not affect the Plan Area’s water allocation, Section 4.1.2 of the WSA explains that:

The District has a desalination plant located near Marina State Beach, which can contribute up to a 300 AFY of potable water supply to the Central Marina service area. The plant was constructed in 1997 as a pilot project but is not currently in use. Under a 2006 agreement among the District, Cypress Marina Heights, L.P., Marina Community Partners, L.L.C., and Cypress Knolls, L.L.C., the yield of this plant is dedicated to meeting the needs of the three developments in the Marina portion of the Ord Community service area. The developers may opt to terminate the agreement once a new supply becomes available to the Ord Community from the RUWAP, at which time the supply from the desalination pilot project would revert to Central Marina.

The Draft EIR further explained that “In 1996, MCWD constructed a 300-AFY seawater desalination facility at Marina State Beach. Because the Monterey Bay is a national marine sanctuary, open ocean intakes and discharges are not permitted. MCWD’s desalination facility was designed and constructed to test whether adequate seawater supply could be produced from shallow beach wells, and also to test the use of beach injection wells for brine discharge. The facility is currently idle; however, it could be restored to function” (Draft EIR page 4.16-4). This information was sourced from MCWD’s 2015 UWMP.
5 https://www.mcwd.org/gsa_water_consumption.html6 https://www.fora.org/Reports/AR/AnnualReport2019-Full.pdf ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 850, Packet Page 1178 Response 9.11
The commenter requests an explanation of the Ord Community jurisdictions in Table 5-1 of the WSA, and notes a typographical error for correction in Table 5-2 of the WSA.

Within the Ord Community, the 6,600 AFY of existing Salinas Valley groundwater supply has been allocated among the land use jurisdictions by FORA, as shown in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR Appendix M. Table 5-1 should be read in conjunction with Figure 1.1 of the WSA, which shows the Marina Coast Water District Service Areas, which shows the project within the Ord Community Service Area.

More detailed information is also shown in UWMP Figure 2.2, MCWD Service Area, including the precise location of the sphere of influence. The “City of Marina (Ord)” refers to the portion of the Ord Community located in the City of Marina. The “Marina Sphere” refers to land within the City of Marina’s Sphere of Influence (refer to Figure 1 of the MCWD Draft IS-ND for the Sphere of Influence Amendment available online at
https://www.mcwd.org/docs/ocsiaa/MCWD%20Public%20Draft%20IS%20Dec192017.pdf).

In response to this comment, Table 5-2 of the Draft EIR Appendix M has been revised to address the spelling correction:

Table 5-2 City of Seaside Sub-Allocations
Land Use Jurisdiction Existing Groundwater Allocation (AFY) City of Seaside
SunBay Apartments 120.0
Brostram Park (Bay View MHP) 84.8
Seaside Highlands 168.5
Seaside Resort 161.4
MPUSD 81.0
Monterey College of Law 2.6
Monterey Peninsula College 9.0 9.7
Chartwell School 6.4
Main Gate "Retail Lifestyle Mall" 149.0
American Youth Hostile Hostel 5.5
Seaside Senior Living 40.0
Other Existing Use 3.0
City of Seaside Total 831.2 831.9
FORA Allocation 1012.5
City of Seaside Unallocated 181.3 180.6
3-125
ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 851, Packet Page 1179 Response 9.12
The commenter states the opinion that the inclusion of Armstrong Ranch and the Lonestar Property (Cemex site) in WSA Table 3.3 is confusing and misleading, as groundwater pumped on those sites can only be used on those sites.

As indicated by the title of Draft EIR Appendix M Table 3-3: “Water Demand Projection by Service Area (AF),” the table summarizes projected water demands by service area through 2035. The commenter’s question about groundwater pumping and related water rights on the Armstrong Ranch and Cemex sites relates to water production, as opposed to demand which is the topic analyzed in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 includes the Armstrong Ranch and Cemex sites in order to accurately account for all projected demands in MCWD’s service area. The topic of groundwater production at the Armstrong Ranch and Cemex sites is irrelevant for the table.

Response 9.13
The commenter requests that the term “Marina sphere” in WSA Table 5-1 be defined. The commenter claims that the Draft EIR omits which Project elements would be withheld due to insufficient water allocations, fails to address assumptions regarding Seaside water demand, and fails to investigate and disclose jurisdictions that exceed their water allocation.

Refer to Response 9.11 for a definition of “Marina sphere” as used in Table 5-1 of the Draft EIR Appendix M. Please also refer to the Water Master Response.

The commenter also asserts that the EIR fails to address assumptions regarding recycled water and its availability. The conclusions in the Draft EIR rely on water projections and calculations in available long-term water management planning documents. As noted in the Draft EIR, recycled water is predicted to become a contributing source of supply by 2020. As explained in detail Draft EIR Appendix M1, Section 4.2.1:

In 2012, M1W began planning the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, which will develop additional sources of water supply and produce advanced treated water for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin for indirect potable reuse. The Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project replaces previously planned urban recycled water deliveries to the Monterey Peninsula under RUWAP. M1W approved the Pure Water Monterey Project and an Environmental Impact Report in October 2015. Additional details about the RUWAP and the Pure Water project are provided in Appendix A. In 2016, MCWD and M1W entered into an agreement allowing MCWD to participate in the Pure Water Monterey Project. MCWD is completing construction of the transmission main, which will be used to deliver advanced treated water for both groundwater injection and for urban irrigation, including construction of recycled water mains to the Campus Town Plan Area….

On April 8, 2016, MCWD and M1W entered into an agreement which would provide up to 1,427 AFY of advanced treated water for urban landscape irrigation instead of the tertiary treated recycled water planned under the RUWAP.

As also noted in the FORA’s Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2018-2019, “Recycled water is not yet available for delivery to Fort Ord water users, but will be provided by the recently approved ‘Pure Water Monterey’ project.” The comment alleges that the EIR fails to address whether other water users and jurisdictions in the vicinity of the Project are currently exceeding their paper water allocations. The purpose of the EIR is to analyze the impacts of the Proposed Project; CEQA does not ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 852, Packet Page 1180 require an investigation of whether neighboring jurisdictions and projects are exceeding their water allocations. The EIR and WSA made reasonable assumptions about cumulative water demand, based upon the UWMP projections, as outlined in Draft EIR Sections 4.9 and 4.16. Furthermore, the Project’s impacts associated with water supply have been mitigated to less than significant with Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.

Response 9.14
The commenter states that the permits for operation of the MCWD desalination plant are not current, and requests information regarding actions needed to re-open and operate the plant. The commenter requests evidence regarding a larger desalination plant.

Please refer to Response 9.10 regarding desalinated water supplies. Any future actions related to reactivating MCWD’s existing desalination plant are outside the scope of the Proposed Project or the Draft EIR.

The commenter also references “a larger desalination plant.” As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9:

MCWD is currently working towards developing new sources of water supply to meet projected demand increases due to redevelopment within the Ord Community, as well as taking actions to address groundwater wells impacted by seawater intrusion. The two major water supply projects described below are recycled water and desalinated water, which together make up the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP)…. Given readily available saline and brackish waters near the District’s service area, desalinated water has been considered as another potential water supply. The RUWAP EIR includes a 1,500 AFY desalination facility for MCWD. The facility was sized to provide 1,200 AFY of new supply to the Ord Community and 300 AFY to Central Marina. Additional details about the RUWAP are provided in the WSA (Appendix M1). (Draft EIR pages 4.16-4 through 4.16-6; see also Appendix B to Draft EIR Appendix M1; Desalination Project Details).

Response 9.15
Please see Response 9.2 and the Water Master Response for discussion of water supply, water rights, and the 6,600 AFY allocation. The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the 1993 Agreement between the United States and MCWD, including replacing Fort Ord wells with another water supply source. The commenter claims that the Army does not have the authority to transfer water rights to the Project, and requests water rights necessary to serve the Project be described. The commenter states that the 6,600 AFY water use was peak withdrawal and not average use. The commenter states that seawater intrusion has destroyed water quality.

As discussed in Response 9.2 and the Water Master Response, the FORA Allocation serves as a limitation to a pre-existing water right. The Draft EIR does not claim the 1993 Agreement constitutes a transfer of water rights. Rather, the 6,600 AFY supply allocation is considered to be a constrained demand for supply augmentation. As stated in the Draft EIR Section 4.16.9, “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.” As discussed in the Water Master Response, the Army voluntarily agreed to the FORA Allocation as a cap on groundwater production at Fort Ord. The Army ensured that cap was set high enough to satisfy potable water demands at Fort Ord. 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 ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 853, Packet Page 1181 the most affected aquifers. Refer to Response 9.2 regarding the EIR’s usage of the 1984 peak Army water usage. As noted in the Water Master Response, the water rights supporting Fort Ord, and now the Ord Community, originate from the common law. As discussed in the Water Master Response:

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.

The MCWD wells are identified in Figure 2.2 of the Urban Water Management Plan, which was incorporated by reference in the EIR.

Regarding the request for identification of all documentation of water rights that the Draft EIR claims for the water supply for the Project. MCWD possesses groundwater rights it relies on to serve the Ord Community under the doctrines cited in the Water Master Response.

The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts if water is utilized without mitigation via increased groundwater pumping to meet the Project’s water demand. The Draft EIR also identifies mitigation measures to offset the Project’s water demand and minimize environmental impacts.

Response 9.16
The commenter states that the Army did not pump significantly from the Deep Aquifer to supply Ford Ord. The commenter states that MCWD and the Army have moved wells inland and pumped deeper to continue to supply water, and that local groundwater is unreliable.

Please see discussion of water supply reliability in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Section 4.16, and Appendix M1, and Response 9.2. Table 4-1 in the Draft EIR Appendix M summarizes the existing pumping capacity of MCWD’s wells. Please refer to the Water Master Response and Response 9.15 for a detailed discussion of the 1993 Agreement. As discussed in the Water Master Response, MCWD and the City are actively investigating and implementing groundwater recharge projects to ensure the long-term sustainability and reliability of groundwater supplies in the 180-foot aquifer, the 400-foot aquifer, and the 900-foot aquifer (also referred to as the Deep Aquifer).

In addition, MCWD has been granted exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) status within its jurisdictional boundaries in both the Monterey Subbasin and the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin. Under the SGMA, MCWD is required to prepare Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for both basins. The 180/400 Aquifer Subbasin GSP must be prepared by January 31, 2020 and the Monterey Subbasin GSP must be prepared by January 31, 2022. The Draft EIR references these ongoing SGMA planning efforts. The EIR does not need to resolve all region-wide groundwater ATTACHMENT 1 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 854, Packet Page 1182 issues. Courts have held that the “purpose of an EIR is to identify and discuss the impact of the proposed project on the existing environment,” but not to solve existing, region-wide problems, which would be “a feat that [is] far beyond its scope” (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1094).

The commenter’s statements about the history of the Army’s actions in the Ord Community do not pertain to the Draft EIR or WSA, and as explained above it is not the purpose of an EIR to be encyclopedic. Nevertheless, the Draft EIR incorporated by reference the “Other Physical Attributes Baseline Study of Ford Ord” as discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15150).