Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, December 3, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California
Agenda
Council Regular Meeting
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
7:00 PM – 11:00 PM
Planning Commission
Special Meeting
7:00 PM
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
City Council
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Kim Barber, Councilmember,
District 1
Gino Garcia, Councilmember
Alan Haffa, Councilmember
Ed Smith, Councilmember,
District 2
Planning Commission
Robert Bluth, Chair
Peter Silva, Vice Chair
Mike Brassfield, Commissioner
Mike Dawson, Commissioner
Daniel Fletcher, Commissioner
Sandra Freeman, Commissioner
Terry Latasa, Commissioner
City Manager
Hans Uslar
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
 Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to [email protected] until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and public at https://monterey.gov/submitted-comments. All comments received become part of the record.
 In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above.  Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://montereyorg.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 An up-to-date version of the Zoom software must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell, CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.  Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 #
 If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
 To “raise your hand,” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF)  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay).

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

The total amount of time allocated for public comment on a particular issue and for each individual speaker is generally as follows:

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

2. For regular City Council meetings, there are two 15-minute public comment periods, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Speakers may only comment during one session.

3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. Items pulled from the consent agenda – 15 minutes each item b. Public Appearance items – 30 minutes each item
c. Public Hearing items – 30 minutes each item
d. Closed session items – 15 minutes each item
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary 12/3/2024 4:00:00 PM
2 to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $250 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 4th Quarter 2024 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under Consent Agenda are routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

Approval of Minutes

2. November 19, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

3. Approve the Purchase of Three Parking Enforcement GO-4s in the Amount of $121,578.53 from Turf Star, Inc. (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

4. Amending Resolution 24-157, Authorizing the Purchase of Banquet Chairs from Mity-Lite, Inc. in the Amount of $390,638.90 for the Monterey Conference Center (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
12/3/2024 4:00:00 PM
3 5. Award a Professional Services Agreement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $561,912 to G7ei Inc. for a Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study and Authorize the Finance Director to Establish an Interfund Loan and Appropriate Funds in the Amount of $350,000 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Storm Water Utility Fund Professional Services Account (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, 15306, Class 6)

6. Awarding Three Professional Service Agreements for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey with a Not-To-Exceed Limit of $750,000.00 Each to: (1) Ausonio, Incorporated; (2) CSG Consultants, Inc.; and (3) Wilsey Ham ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) *** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

7. Measure P and S (Special Sales Tax) Annual Report on Conformity with Requirement that Expenditures be Used Exclusively for the Rehabilitation, Repair, and Improvement of City Streets, Sidewalks, and Storm Drains and Disabled Access Improvements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECESS

RECONVENE
*** Evening Session Agenda ***
7:00 - 11:00 p.m.

No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED
Any person who did not offer a general public comment in the afternoon session may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

ADJOURN TO JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING

COMMISSION, AND ESTABLISH QUORUM OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

PUBLIC HEARING (EVENING)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council or Planning Commission action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s or Planning Commission's zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.) 12/3/2024 4:00:00 PM
4 8. I. Staff Presentation to Planning Commission and City Council on Housing Element Implementation Agenda Items 8(II), (III), and (IV)
II. Adjourn from Joint Meeting to Planning Commission Special Meeting: Planning Commission Adopt a Resolution Recommending that the City Council:

A. Accept the Planning Office Determination that the Proposed Housing Element Implementation Actions are Consistent with and within the Scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023080034) in Accordance with CEQA Article 11, Section 15168;
B. Take the following Housing Element Implementation actions:

1. Amend the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Including Height, Density, Setbacks, and Parking Requirements in the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans;

2. Adopt a Zoning Ordinance to Add a Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District (RHNAOD), Amend the Multifamily Overlay District Land Use Regulations and Development Standards, Rezone Properties to be Included in the Multifamily Residential and RHNAOD, Rezone 1200 Aguajito Rd., and Amend Architectural Review Procedures; and

3. Amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to Comply with State Housing Law and to Establish Development Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects.

III. Adjourn from Planning Commission Special Meeting and Reconvene to City Council Regular Meeting to Consider Planning Commission Recommendation and Adopt Resolutions:

A. Accepting the Planning Office Determination that the Proposed Housing Element Implementation Actions are Consistent with and within the Scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2023080034) in Accordance with CEQA Article 11, Section 15168; and
B. Amending the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Including Height, Density, Setbacks, and Parking Requirements in the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans.

IV. City Council Consider Planning Commission Recommendation and Adopt Ordinances to Implement the Housing Element:

A. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Add a Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District (RHNAOD), Amending the Multifamily Overlay District Land Use Regulations and Development Standards, Rezone Properties to be Included in the Multifamily Residential and RHNAOD, Rezone 1200 Aguajito Road, and Amend Architectural Review Procedures; and
B. Amending Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 Density Bonus to Comply with State Housing Law and to Establish Local Development Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

ADJOURNMENT
12/3/2024 4:00:00 PM
5 Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.gov/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours.

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. Members of the public who submit written public comment on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $250 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:

Voicemail: (831) 646-3799 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.monterey.gov INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings. Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance. Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communicationrelated assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.

Upcoming city meetings are listed at https://www.monterey.gov/agendas More information is available by calling (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 4th Quarter 2024 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize City employees for their milestone anniversaries and/or retirements for the fourth quarter of 2024.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Recognizing employees of the City at City Council meetings is consistent with City policy.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

All funding associated with recognizing City employees for their milestone anniversaries and retirements has been budgeted as part of the FY 2024/2025 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the milestone anniversaries and/or retirements.

Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 №10/24
DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is fortunate to have many retirees and staff who are career employees and have served the community for decades. The Mayor and City Council will recognize City employees who have retired with 20 years of service or greater, in addition to employees who have reached their work anniversary with 20, 25, 30, or 35 years of service.

Milestone Retirements in 2024 4th Quarter:
 Louie Marcuzzo, Park Operations Manager, Parks and Recreation Department – 32 years of service
Milestone Anniversaries in 2024 4th Quarter:
 Laurie Huelga, Communications Manager, City Manager’s Office – 20 years of service  Liza Linsao, Purchasing Analyst, Finance Department – 20 years of service  Alma Murphy, Police Records and Detention Supervisor, Police Department – 20 years of service
 George Sanico, Parks Maintenance Worker, Parks Division, Parks and Recreation Department – 25 years of service
HU/hg
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Parks Operations Manager, Engineering Assistant, Planning Manager, Sustainability Coordinator, Recreation Manager, Senior Engineer, Police Lieutenant
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Steve Lightfoot and Tom Reeves.

CONSENT AGENDA
Public comment on the afternoon Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT AGENDA:

1. November 5, 2024 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Resolutions

2. Award a Job Order Contract in the Amount of $1,000,000.00 to A & B Fire Protection and Safety, Inc. for Citywide Fire Sprinkler Maintenance & Repair (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-175 C.S.

Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
2 3. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Monterey and the Monterey Fire Chief Officers’ Association (MFCOA) for the period of July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-176 C.S.

Other

4. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 9 Wharf II (Sandbar & Grill); Agency Negotiators:

Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Craig Ling; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Extension (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed Real Property Negotiators Cole and Aldrete

5. Authorize Mayor Williamson to Sign the Sister City Protocol Agreement between City of Monterey and Kuşadası Municipality, Republic of Türkiye (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Authorized signing the agreement

6. Authorize a Letter in Support of Grant Funding for the SR 156 – Castroville Boulevard Interchange Project (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Authorized the letter

7. Authorize Letter to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in Response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the County of Monterey’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Authorized the letter
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC HEARING

8. Vacate a Portion of the Unimproved Right of Way on Manzanita Street at Johnson Street (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 24-177 C.S.

Engineering Assistant Hennings gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Jaedra Luke, petitioner for the vacation and property owner at 899 Johnson Street, who provided context for her request, stating that the right of way was unsightly, not well maintained, invited unlawful activities, and that she sought to be able to install a fence for privacy; Tom Reeves, who spoke in favor of the vacation based on the petitioner-provided reasons but suggested that the City consider a no-build easement to maximize storm drain access; and Jim Barry, in opposition to the proposed vacation, who said that the lot was used by neighbors and was a habitat corridor for wildlife.,nd that there was room in the petitioner's setback for a fence.

On question from the Council: Engineering Assistant Hennings and Planning Manager Hill confirmed that nothing with this approval would authorize removing trees in the right of way; Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
3 Planning Manager Hill provided information regarding the petitioner's property's setback and fence regulations; Engineering Assistant Hennings provided the Council with more information on the neighboring properties, and features of neighboring land, adjacent to the right of way, and said that access to the sewer would be sufficient with the remaining proposed easement; and Engineering Assistant Hennings explained that the 899 Johnson property included the land with the easement in question, and that the vacation in question would be vacating that portion of the easement.

On question from the Council: City Attorney Davi said that the City Council was not legally obligated to vacate the easement; Engineering Assistant Hennings explained that the City had followed the required noticing procedure by placing an advertisement in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks and posting physical notices, and briefly explained the Streets and Highways Code procedure that any property owner could follow to make a similar request; and City Clerk Klein said that the only letter in opposition that had been received was the one submitted by public commenter Jim Barry.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to adopt Resolution No. 24-177 C.S. to vacate a portion of the unimproved right of way on Manzanita Street.

In support of the motion, it was stressed that the property belonged to the property owner and that because of this the CIty could not sell or improve on it. It was noted that the longstanding easement had not been in use by the City and that space would still be available in the current easement for neighbors and wildlife to access.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

9. Open a Public Hearing to Receive Protests of Proposed Rates Effective January 1, 2025, for Residential and Commercial Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection and Adopt a Resolution Increasing Rates if a Majority Protest Does Not Exist (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Held public hearing and received protests; Adopted Resolution No. 24-178 C.S.

Sustainability Manager Terrasas gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

City Clerk Klein and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira conducted the tally and reported that a majority protest had not been received.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-178 C.S.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
4 *** Adjourn to Closed Session ***
Public comment on the closed session was not received. The Council and staff sang "happy birthday" to Councilmember Barber and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, following which the Council adjourned to closed session at 5:06 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION

10. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 9 Wharf II (Sandbar & Grill)
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Craig Ling
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Extension (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to property negotiators
RECESS
The Council recessed at 5:29 p.m.

RECONVENE
The Council reconvened at 7:02 p.m.
*** Evening Session Agenda ***

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Esther Malkin, Lorna Moffat, and Bryan Rosen.

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira announced the Council's action for Item 10 (closed session), which was that on a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to property negotiators.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVENING)

11. Adopt and Approve Funding for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program ***NCIP*** (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Sections 15301, 15303, 15306, Classes 1, 3, and 6, and Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 24-179 C.S., with separate votes:
 Returning to the NCIP Committee the following projects: NM-14 (Cypress Park Tennis Court Resurfacing) (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber recused), NM-04 (New Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
5 Monterey Neighborhood Plan Update) (5-0), VDM-01 (Casa Verde Way Underpass Murals) (3-2, Councilmembers Barber and Smith voting no), MN-08 (Comprehensive Fire Safety Analysis to Develop Multi-Year Hazard Reduction Program) (5-0), MN-12 (Two Bike Repair Stations) (5-0), and cut-off projects VDM03 (Villa Del Monte Radar Speed Signs) and MN-09 (NCIP Opportunity Property Purchasing) (5-0);
 Eliminating from consideration the following projects: DF-01 (Deer Flats Install Electrical Disconnect for Decorative Lighting in Neighborhood Entrance Planter) (5-0), RR-01 (Ryan Ranch Park Pickleball Court Construction) (3-2, Councilmembers Haffa and Smith voting no), and OT-01 (New Decomposed Granite at Steps/Sidewalk from Harrison Street to Veterans Drive) (5-0); and  Approving the following projects: MV-01 (Munras Avenue & Via Arboles Curb Ramp Construction) (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith recused), MV-06 (San Bernabe Drive Road Widening & Sidewalk Construction) (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith recused), MV-07 (Munras/Soledad Freeway Entrance Signage) (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith recused), and all other projects in Option 1 (NCIP Committee’s recommendations) not already otherwise approved through the recusal process, returned to the NCIP Committee, or eliminated from consideration (5-0).

Senior Engineer Paulding gave the staff presentation outlining projects recommended by the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee (identified as Option 1), those recommended by City staff (identified as Option 2), and those reviewed by the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. He answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Community Development Director Cole, City Manager Uslar, and City Attorney Davi.

Public comment was received from: Tom Reeves, who spoke regarding the desire to update aspects of the New Monterey Area Plan, and said that until the Planning Commission took official action to discontinue neighborhood plans, it would be good to keep the funding allocated; Jean Rasch, who asked the Council to consider approving Option 1, citing the ballot initiative that formed the NCIP; Jayme Fields, of the NCIP Committee, who asked the Council to consider approving Option 1, saying that following the NCIP process was cumbersome but necessary; Chinyere Ogbonna, Chair of the NCIP Committee speaking on her own behalf, who asked the Council to approve the projects that staff and NCIP Committee recommended in common, and send the remaining projects back to the NCIP Committee for further review; Robert Yoha, who spoke in favor of the North Fremont Gap Bike/Ped Path Grant Matching Funds project (COK-04), Ramona Avenue Sidewalk Infill between Edinburg Avenue and Stuart Avenue (COK-06), and 801 Casanova Avenue Sidewalk Infill (COK-02); A.J. Purdy, of the NCIP Committee, who spoke in favor of approving Option 1, citing the need to consider the NCIP Committee's input; and Rick Heuer, who spoke in support of Option 1 and questioned why projects were brought up as concerns at this late date, stating that the NCIP process included using the second meeting of each cycle to review redundant and ineligible projects.

City Manager Uslar provided information in response to public comments, stating that the staff’s recommendations and concerns were not newly brought forward at this meeting but had been brought to the NCIP Committee on June 3, 2024, except for the New Monterey Neighborhood Plan project, which he suggested could be returned to the NCIP Committee to consider including in a new initiative for citywide specific design standards. He provided the language from the charter amendment that had put the NCIP in place, saying that the NCIP Committee brings forth recommendations to the Council and the Council selects from them. He explained that the difference between the project lists was that when projects came off, the cutoff projects Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
6 bumped up on the list, but that all projects on the list of staff suggestions were projects on which the NCIP Committee had voted and with which they were familiar.

It was suggested by the Council that the Council start the discussion by looking at Option 1 and individually reviewing all of the projects for which staff recommended against approval. City Attorney Davi explained that the law required that the Council first review all of the projects for which members would be recused.

City Attorney Davi led the Council through the recusal process for the proposed NCIP projects, pursuant to 2 CCR § 18706. She said that Councilmember Barber had a conflict under the 500- foot rule that disqualified her from participating in voting on project NM-14 (Cypress Park tennis court resurfacing). Councilmember Barber left the Chamber at 8:09 p.m.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Mayor Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the City Council returned project NM-14 (Cypress Park Tennis Court Resurfacing) to the NCIP Committee for further consideration:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
Councilmember Barber returned to the Chamber. City Attorney Davi said that Councilmember Smith had a conflict under the 500-foot rule that disqualified him from participating in voting on project MV-01 (ADA compliant curb ramp construction at Munras Avenue and Via Arboles).

Councilmember Smith identified that he was disqualified under the 1000-foot rule from participating in voting on the following projects: MV-06 (San Bernabe Drive road widening) and MV-07 (Munras/Soledad entrance signage). Councilmember Smith left the Chamber.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved projects MV-01 (Munras Avenue & Via Arboles Curb Ramp Construction), MV-06 (San Bernabe Drive Road Widening & Sidewalk Construction), and MV-07 (Munras/Soledad Freeway Entrance Signage):

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Councilmember Smith returned to the Chamber. With all project abstention areas voted upon, the Council took up the matter of the projects outside of the project abstention areas.

The Council began to discuss the projects that staff did not recommend.

Regarding project NM-04 (New Monterey Neighborhood Plan Update), it was stated that the staff's recommendation made sense, and that it was understood that there was a need for the City to reconsider how to go about planning decisions.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council returned project NM-04 (New Monterey Neighborhood Plan Update) to the NCIP Committee, to look at other neighborhood planning concerns and work with City staff to find a way to rescope in a way consistent with the State's direction:

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
7 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
City Manager Uslar explained that, contrary to some concerned remarks he had heard from the public, when projects were returned to the NCIP Committee for reconsideration, the associated funds also returned to the NCIP.

On question regarding project DF-01 (Deer Flats Install Electrical Disconnect for Decorative Lighting in Neighborhood Entrance Planter), Senior Engineer Paulding said that currently the electricity powering the lighting was on at all times which made it difficult to perform repairs.

The Council stated that this was on private property and that the electrical work was clearly the responsibility of the private homeowners association.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council eliminated project DF-01 (Deer Flats Install Electrical Disconnect for Decorative Lighting in Neighborhood Entrance Planter) from consideration:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Haffa, to return project RR-01 (Ryan Ranch Park Pickleball Court Construction) to the NCIP Committee.

The Council discussed the motion.

In support of the motion it was stated that the NCIP Committee needed to weigh in on this project, and that the Council did not wish to completely eliminate the project at this time but would like the NCIP Committee to consider postponing it.

City Manager Uslar said that the City was focusing on expanding pickleball facilities at the Tennis Center. He suggested that the Council allocate the potential Ryan Ranch Park funding to the Tennis Center to build additional pickleball courts there.

A friendly amendment to the motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson to deny the project but send the funding allocation in the way that the City Manager had proposed. The mover rejected the motion amendment, stating that the recommendation should come from the NCIP Committee. The seconder noted that the NCIP Committee's recommendation might change by the time the project returned to the Council.

The Council stated that it did not foresee spending the funds in Ryan Ranch, and that while respecting the NCIP process, it was important to remember that Council consideration was part of the process.

Public Works Director Renny noted that approving pickleball at the Monterey Tennis Center was an item approved by the NCIP Commtitee under Option 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
8 The Council questioned sending the project back to the NCIP Committee knowing that there was not much appetite on the Council for approving pickleball at Ryan Ranch, knowing that the Monterey Tennis Center project was on the recommended projects list. It was opined that it would be appropriate to remove the project from consideration at this meeting.

The motion to return the matter to the NCIP Committee failed by the following vote:

AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Smith
NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the Council eliminated project RR-01 (Ryan Ranch Park Pickleball Court Construction) from consideration:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Regarding project VDM-01 (Casa Verde Way Underpass Murals), appreciation was expressed for the concept but it was stated that the Council agreed with City staff's analysis and understood that there would be maintenance issues and challenges with working with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). It was suggested that the Council send it back to the NCIP Committee to consider what beautification efforts the City could consider in the same area outside of the CalTrans property. Enthusiasm was expressed for public art and in the hopes of receiving more NCIP proposals for public art in the future.

On a motion by Councilmember Garcia, seconded by Mayor Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the City Council returned project VDM-01 (Casa Verde Way Underpass Murals) to the NCIP Committee for consideration about whether to pursue the current location understanding the challenges with CalTrans, or to pursue other locations:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Haffa, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Smith
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Regarding project OT-01 (New Decomposed Granite at Steps/Sidewalk from Harrison Street to Veterans Drive), the Council agreed with City staff that this was a redundant project.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Mayor Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the City Council eliminated project OT-01 (New Decomposed Granite at Steps/Sidewalk from Harrison Street to Veterans Drive) from consideration:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
9 A motion was made by Mayor Williamson to eliminate project MN-08 (Comprehensive Fire Safety Analysis to Develop Multi-Year Hazard Reduction Program) from consideration, citing identified project redundancy. On discussion with the Council about the suggestion that the NCIP Committee could identify another way to use the funds to improve fire safety, the motion was then withdrawn by the mover.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council returned project MN-08 (Comprehensive Fire Safety Analysis to Develop Multi-Year Hazard Reduction Program) to the NCIP Committee:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Regarding project MN-12 (Two Bike Repair Stations), it was expressed that there was value in the idea, but that staff made a good point regarding ongoing maintenance, and that the NCIP Committee could evaluate the project with consideration of City staff's feedback. It was suggested that staff and the NCIP Committee look at siting that would make maintenance easier, and that there was a larger conversation needed between City staff and the NCIP Committee regarding maintenance of NCIP projects moving forward. It was suggested that the City staff could discuss bike repair stations with other cities that already had them in place.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council returned project MN-12 (Two Bike Repair Stations) to the NCIP Committee for reconsideration:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council outlined their actions on the matter thus far and asked City staff for an updated total for project funding based on the changes made.

The Council recessed at 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m.

Based on the Council's project eliminations, City staff identified that there was funding available for project VDM-03 (Villa Del Monte Radar Speed Signs) to move up from the cutoff list.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council returned the recommended cut-off projects VDM-03, MN-08, MN-09, and MN-12 to the NCIP Committee and approved all projects in Option 1 (NCIP Committee’s recommendations) not already otherwise approved through the recusal process, returned to the NCIP Committee, or eliminated from consideration:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
10 CONSENT (EVENING)
Mayor Williamson stated that members of the public had pulled both Items 12 and 13 from the evening Consent agenda.

12. Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $210,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Ending Balance Account to the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade Project (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) ***NCIP*** -- Continued from November 5, 2024 Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution 24-180 C.S.

Senior Engineer Paulding gave the staff presentation.

Public comment was received from Jean Rasch, who said that the request was out of scope and should be submitted to the NCIP Committee in the next round for funding next year, and Nina Beety, who echoed Ms. Rasch's call to focus on NCIP procedure and protocol.

Public Works Director Renny said that this was not a new project coming forward but was a cutoff project submitted in the prior cycle. She said that about a year prior, staff had done the same thing when they had brought forward a Via Paraiso Pickleball cutoff project and the Council had approved funding for it. She said that as staff worked through the program and received better estimates there was sometimes the opportunity to fund a cutoff project. On question from the Council, Senior Engineer Paulding explained that when the current year's projects were completed, any remaining funds went back into the ending balance account and that based on this there were existing funds available for this cutoff project.

On question from the Council, Parks and Recreation Director Larson said that there was not a current safety issue, but that the play equipment was 31 years old and was well past its end of life, and that the ground surface had been patched and repatched. City Manager Uslar said that this was a fast-track project that could be completed quickly and would make children happy.

Senior Engineer Paulding said that City staff was working diligently but had not completed all of the year's NCIP projects, which he explained would be an unrealistic expectation and had likely never been done in the NCIP's history.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to adopt Resolution 24-180 C.S. appropriating funds for the El Estero Park Center Playground Equipment Upgrade Project.

The Council discussed the motion. Regarding the NCIP process, it was stressed that this project had been presented by a community member at some point and that City staff was doing what they were asked to do, in terms of continuously finding opportunities to complete projects as funding and capacity became available. It was stated that while defining the process was a challenge, meanwhile staff was doing what they could to move projects forward and that flexibility and adaptability were needed. It was requested that the Council, staff, and NCIP Committee continue to have conversations and keep working together to smooth over NCIP issues.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Haffa, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
11 13. Receive Mayor’s Recommendation and Appoint Evens Lanot to the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) – Continued from November 5, 2024
Action: Pulled from Consent; Tabled
Mayor Williamson gave a brief verbal presentation explaining his recommendation to appoint Evens Lanot to the NCIP Committee representing the Naval Support Activity Monterey neighborhood.

Public comment was received from: Marlana Brown, officially representing Naval Support Activity Monterey, who thanked the City for including military families in the community but asked for the Council not to approve the appointment stating that the suggested applicant would not be authorized to speak on behalf of the U.S. Navy; Tom Reeves, who spoke in favor of the residents of La Mesa being represented, but said that the military areas being presented as neighborhoods were not actually neighborhoods and that the residents should be included in another neighborhood; Jean Rasch, who said that the matter of adding the neighborhoods and providing representation was not done with transparency to the NCIP Committee; Chinyere Ogbonna, of the NCIP Committee, who said that any objection to the appointment of the representative should not be construed as lack of appreciation for members of the military; Curt Tipton, of the NCIP Committee, who said that on Item 11, the Council had stated that they did not want to spend NCIP funds on private property, and that Naval Support Activity Monterey was private property; Pat Venza, who said that in La Mesa Village they did not use City services or allow non-residents in their parks, and asked why this was being brought forward now; and Nina Beety, who urged the Council to reject the appointment, citing confusion about the City Code and jurisdictional boundaries.

City Manager Uslar said that La Mesa Village was part of the City of Monterey, that the residents there voted for the Monterey Mayor and City Council, and that La Mesa Elementary School was Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) property. He said that the City Council was responsible to decide what constitutes a neighborhood. Regarding the City spending money on federal property, he said this was not the matter at hand and rather that giving 1,900 people a voice in NCIP matters was the issue. He noted that the City provided services to the area through the Monterey Fire Department and that it was within the boundaries of the City. He said that if there were ideas for NCIP improvements at La Mesa Village, the majority of the NCIP Committee would decide on that, and there would be required agreements to be made with the out-of-jurisdiction property owners. He said that the Naval representative's position was fine but did not relate to providing residents a voice in how to spend NCIP funds across the City, and how they could participate in the City as residents.

City Attorney Davi provided context on the history of the NCIP neighborhoods and noted that the ordinance provided that the neighborhood maps were as reflected in the map in the engineer's office. She said that susbequent to the ordinance's adoption, the City Council adopted the NCIP map as part of approving the NCIP manual. She stressed that nothing was new and had all been done through a public process. She noted that the manual included guidance on how to approach NCIP projects proposed to be done on out-of-jurisdiction properties.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the public comment was appreciated.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
12 Regarding the remarks made by the U.S. Navy's Naval Support Activity Monterey representative, it was stated that her statement held significant weight and that the Council needed to respect her position.

Regarding future representation for La Mesa Village residents, it was noted that those 1,900 residents were voters, residents, parents of children in Monterey's schools, and were not all military. It was stated that the first step was for the Council to welcome residents to form an association in an organic manner. It was stated that if the residents chose to have a bonded connection they could reach out to the president of the Aguajito Oaks Neighborhood Association to discuss expanding that association.

Regarding neighborhoods and the constitution of the NCIP Committee in general, it was stated that the Mayor's recommendation had raised a lot of questions, such as how to define neighborhoods, what structures and specifics should be in place to be recognized as a neighborhood association, and what the City should expect of neighborhoods. It was opined that a neighborhood should have a neighborhood association with a publicly noticed annual membership meeting, and should hold NCIP related meetings for getting community members involved in the process. On the other hand, it was noted that not all existing neighborhood associations in the City currently even had members, let alone held an annual meeting. It was stated that a neighborhood association should have representation on the NCIP Committee. On the other hand, it was questioned what the City would do if a separate group of neighbors in a certain already represented area wanted to create their own neighborhood association and have representation on the NCIP Committee. It was stated that there was a deeper conversation to be had around representation and what is meant by representation, and it was asserted that the NCIP had gotten so big that it was challenging to hold productive dialogue.

The concern was expressed that the neighborhood associations had become more akin to social clubs than true representation. It was suggested that a better way of looking at NCIP representation could be to align it with districts.

The Council thanked Evens Lanot for being engaged and interested in serving.

On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council tabled the matter:

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Barber presented the City with a miniature handwoven carpet from Monterey's sister city of Lankaran, Azerbaijan, and explained that weaving carpets was a tradition going back thousands of years in Azerbaijan.

Councilmember Smith said there would be no Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) meeting during the current month. He said he had served as an appeal hearing officer for a Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) employee termination proceeding. He reported from See Monterey, stating that there had been a fascinating presentation on future tourism marketing and returns, and the impacts of new hotels in the area in the next few years. He said that he Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 12, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes November 19, 2024
13 had been involved in setting up an upcoming meeting between Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) and the City regarding high school traffic congestion. He addressed a public comment that he said was wrong, stressing that he was proud of his actions to support candidates in the recent electoral campaign, and that the commenter and/or anyone else would be invited to meet with him for a productive conversation to clear the air.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Uslar shared that the City would distribute a thousand Thanksgiving meal kits to needy community members, in partnership with the Monterey Kiwanis and the Food Bank for Monterey County, with assistance from the Monterey Fire and Police departments, and students of the Defense Language Institute.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 10:13 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 2., Item Page 13, Packet Page 20 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Rex Van Slyke, Fleet Manager
SUBJECT: Approve the Purchase of Three Parking Enforcement GO-4s in the Amount of $121,578.53 from Turf Star, Inc. (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the purchase of three Parking Enforcement GO-4s from Turf Star, Inc.in the amount of $121,578.53.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop, retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Council’s strategic priority to carefully manage City revenues and expenditures which support the delivery of City services.

This action is also consistent with policy requiring Council approval of agreements exceeding $75,000.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Council approved funding for the replacement of three Parking Enforcement GO-4s in the FY25 vehicle replacement budget. Funding is available in the FY25 Vehicle Replacement Fund 705- 110-1130-3520-4503; the current balance of the account is $171,000.00. The three GO-4s will be purchased from Turf Star, Inc. “piggybacking” under Sourcewell Contract #122220-WWI (Monterey City Code section 28-14) for $121,578.53 including tax and delivery. The Finance Department approved this piggyback purchase on November 5, 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 21 №10/24
on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to purchase these three vehicles at this time; however, this is not recommended. Without this approval for purchase, Parking Enforcement staff cannot replace the three fully utilized GO-4s.

DISCUSSION:

Council approved funding for the purchase of three Parking Enforcement GO-4s in the FY25 vehicle replacement budget.

The GO-4 is the Parking Enforcement Division’s primary tool, utilized daily to ensure City parking compliance laws are obeyed and revenues are properly obtained. As such, the GO-4s sustain high usage rates. All three of the GO-4s suggested for replacement exhibit high engine hours, equating to equally high mileage, as noted below.

City staff intended to expand its electric fleet in the Parking Division with the purchase of three electric GO-4 Interceptor vehicles. Unfortunately, the City’s existing four (4) electric GO-4 Interceptors have encountered major maintenance and reliability issues with the charging unit and service light. The existing electric GO-4s have been in and out of the service facility in Rancho Cordova since October. Given the lack of reliability of these electric vehicles, Staff is recommending the purchase of three gas-powered GO-4 vehicles.

AR/rvs/dt
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Ryan Smith, Turf Star, Inc.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Vehicle Year Vehicle Type Engine Hour
Equivalency to
Mileage
Engine Hours Total
Maintenance
Costs
2212 2018 2018 GO-4
INTERCEPTOR IV 150,360 2,506 $85,904
2211 2021 2021 GO-4
INTERCEPTOR IV 141,980 2,366 $40,429
2217 2018 2018 GO-4
INTERCEPTOR IV 168,960 2,816 $31,335
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 22 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF THREE PARKING ENFORCEMENT GO-4 VEHICLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,578.53 FROM TURF STAR, INC.

WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter into a contract with Turf Star, Inc. under Sourcewell Contract #122220-WWI, utilizing the accepted “piggyback” purchasing process (Monterey City Code 28-14) for the purchase of three Parking Enforcement GO-4s; WHEREAS, the City evaluated the procurement process utilized by Sourcewell and determined it to be an acceptable “piggyback” purchasing option allowing the City to utilize multi-agency contract pricing. The Finance Department approved the “piggyback” request on November 5, 2024;
WHEREAS, the City has funds appropriated in the FY25 Vehicle Replacement Fund, Account No. 705-110-1130-3520-4503 to purchase the three new GO-4s for Parking Enforcement; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves the purchase of three Parking Enforcement GO-4s in the amount of $121,578.53 from Turf Star, Inc.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 23 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 24 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Tonya Hufford, Conference Center Manager
SUBJECT: Amending Resolution 24-157, Authorizing the Purchase of Banquet Chairs from Mity-Lite, Inc. in the Amount of $390,638.90 for the Monterey Conference Center (Not a Project Under CEQA, per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution for the purchase of banquet chairs for the Monterey Conference Center (MCC). The purchase of these chairs will complete the intended aesthetic as set out in the 2015-2018 renovation of the facility.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The action is consistent with the City policy to replace City equipment when they have fulfilled their useful life cycle and are no longer economical to operate or maintain.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

A total of $390,638.90 is required for the purchase of 1,900 new banquet chairs. The Conference Center’s Operations Budget has adequate funding for the purchase of these chairs and has been appropriated in the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. The expenditure would come from account 101-600-6231-0000-4205.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 №10/24
this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose to not authorize the purchase of 1,900 banquet chairs for the Monterey Conference Center, but that is not recommended as the purchase of these chairs were part of the architectural design of the Conference Center’s 2015-2018 renovation.

Additionally, the current chairs scheduled for replacement are over 25 years old. The purchase of these additional chairs will complete the original order that was put on hold due to other fiscal obligations. The pricing of these chairs is part of the CMAS procurement purchasing policy.

DISCUSSION:

The goal of the Monterey Conference Center (MCC) is to provide a modern, state-of-the-art meeting facility with world-class service to meet the needs of business-oriented visitors to the City of Monterey.

The Monterey Conference Center welcomes thousands of conference attendees each year, who typically stay overnight longer and spend more than the weekend leisure traveler. This directly results in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue from hotel stays and Sales Tax from conference meals and offsite meals, which, in turn, help fund core City services.

The Conference Center has seen an increase in business for FY 24/25 and is a recent Gold winner of the prestigious Stella Award for Best Conference Center, beating out others around the globe for consistently delivering quality service and innovation to meeting and event professionals.

The initial purchase of 1,000 chairs was made during the 2015-2018 renovation of the Monterey Conference Center (MCC). These 1,900 additional chairs would complete the original FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment) order that was intended to be purchased over six years ago.

The purchase of these chairs would result in all MCC banquet and meeting spaces having matching chairs.

At its meeting on October 1, 2024, City Council approved Resolution 24-157, which approved the purchase of 1,800 chairs for $391,312.80. Since then, the pricing of the chairs was reduced and the City is able to obtain more chairs for less money. Staff is bringing forward an amended resolution to reflect the lower price and increased number of banquet chairs.

The chairs would be purchased and fulfilled by Mity-Lite, Inc., under the California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) number 4-24-09-1040. California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) offers a wide variety of commodity, non-IT Services, and information technology products and services at prices that have been assessed to be fair, reasonable, and competitive. A cooperative procurement contract, such as CMAS, is an exception to the City’s competitive procurement requirements pursuant to Monterey City Code section 28-14(a).

The purchase of 1,900 banquet chairs would allow MCC to continue providing world-class services and amenities to group and business visitors, supporting an important economic engine in the community.

HU/th
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 №10/24
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AMENDING RESOLUTION 24-157, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF BANQUET CHAIRS FROM MITY-LITE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $390,638.90 FOR THE MONTEREY

CONFERENCE CENTER
WHEREAS, the Monterey Conference Center would be better served by having all conference banquet chairs be the same style, size, and color for the purposes of the intended aesthetics and mixing chairs throughout the facility;
WHEREAS, the purchase of 1,800 banquet chairs were originally part of the design of the Monterey Conference Center during the facility’s 2015-2018 renovation, but were not completed due to cost;
WHEREAS, the chairs requested for purchase will be replacing chairs that are over 25 years old.

WHEREAS, at its meeting on October 1, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 24- 157, which approved the purchase of 1,800 chairs for $391,312.80; WHEREAS, the availability of the requested chairs necessitated a new quote for similar chairs at a higher quantity of chairs and a lower cost to the City. The total cost of the purchase of 1,900 chairs is $390,638.90;
WHEREAS, the City wishes to enter a contract with Mity-Lite, Inc. under the California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) contract number 4-24-09-1040 for the purchase of 1,900 banquet chairs. A cooperative procurement contract, such as CMAS, is an exception to the City’s competitive procurement requirements pursuant to Monterey City Code section 28-14(a); WHEREAS, the Operating Supplies Fund has adequate funding for the purchase of these chairs and has been appropriated in the FY2024-25 adopted budget. The expenditure will come from account 101-600-6231-0000-4205; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), Article 20, Section15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 28

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorize the purchase of banquet chairs for the Monterey Conference Center and authorizes the City Manager to sign any contracts for banquet chairs utilizing the CMAS Contract number 4-24-09-1040 with Mity-Lite, Inc. in the amount up to $390,638.90.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 29 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Thomas Harty, PE, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Agreement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $561,912 to G7ei Inc. for a Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study and Authorize the Finance Director to Establish an Interfund Loan and Appropriate Funds in the Amount of $350,000 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Storm Water Utility Fund Professional Services Account (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Awarding a Professional Services Agreement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $561,912 to G7ei Inc. for a Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study;

2. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP); and,

3. Authorizing the Finance Director to Establish an Interfund Loan, and Appropriate Funds in the Amount of $350,000 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Storm Water Utility Fund Professional Services Account (280-310-3121-0000-4240).

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City Council Value Drivers to carefully manage City revenues and expenditures which support the delivery of City services, and to maintain and repair core street, roadway, and storm drain infrastructure.

This action is also consistent with the City’s policy to approve professional services agreements exceeding $75,000.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes, it applies to the award of the contract item.

Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 30 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Selection of the best-qualified firms was made in accordance with Section 28-10 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. On September 12, 2024, a Request for Proposal was issued and advertised through the City’s e-procurement portal, OpenGov. Five (5) proposals were received on October 22, 2024. A selection committee consisting of Engineering Division and Public Works Administration staff independently evaluated and ranked the proposals. After deliberations, G7ei Inc. was selected as the most qualified firm. G7ei Inc.’s cost proposal was unsealed, and the total not-to-exceed amount is $561,912. All other cost proposals remained sealed and were not considered as part of the qualifications-based selection process.

At the time of this report, the City has approximately $250,000 in the Storm Water Utility Fund professional services account. Staff recommends establishing an interfund loan of $350,000 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Storm Water Utility Fund Professional Services account (280-310-3121-0000-4240) to fund this authorization. The non-interest bearing loan should be paid back over five years in the amount of $70,000 per year beginning July 31, 2026 according to the following schedule:

Due Date Payment Balance
$350,000
July 31, 2026 $70,000 $280,000
July 31, 2027 $70,000 $210,000
July 31, 2028 $70,000 $140,000
July 31, 2029 $70,000 $70,000
July 31, 2030 $70,000 $0
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed action involves basic data collection; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed action is basic data collection; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 31 №10/24
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated to be found at the project sites. The proposed action would not have a significant effect due to their limited scope and distinct locations.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed action would not be visible from any scenic highways; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. None of these projects would be located on hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The proposed action would involve basic data collection, which would not result in an impact to historic or cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council may elect not to award this agreement and allocate funding for the study; however, this is not recommended. The City’s Storm Drain Utility Fund is currently operating at a deficit of approximately $300,000 in Fiscal Year 2025, and over $500,000 in future fiscal years. Dayto-day operations and maintenance activities of the Storm Drain Utility are subsidized by General Funds, which reduces the funding available for other core and valuable City services.

DISCUSSION:

The City is responsible for maintaining adequate stormwater drainage systems. Stormwater drainage systems serve multiple purposes, such as conveying stormwater downstream, protecting property from flooding during high-flow storm events, protecting water quality by filtering pollutants from urban runoff, and sustaining wildlife. The system also serves to convey urban runoff from development, such as irrigated landscape areas, driveways, and streets that flow into drainage facilities and, ultimately, to the Monterey Bay and Pacific Ocean. The City’s stormwater system helps protect water quality, and open channels can support natural resources, including wetland habitat. The long-term performance of the entire system is dependent upon ongoing and proper maintenance.

The City already has an adopted Storm Drainage Maintenance Plan (SDMP), which describes specific maintenance methods and procedures that guide the City’s annual maintenance activities to ensure the system’s functioning. The SDMP provides detailed methods for maintaining the surface drainage system, which is comprised of drainage channels and Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as detention basins, which are the responsibility of the City’s Public Works Department. The SDMP is also the City’s manual to guide the performance of authorized activities under permits issued to the City by applicable state and federal agencies with regulatory authority over biological and aquatic resources.

These state and federal agencies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 32 №10/24
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and California Coastal Commission (CCC).

The City of Monterey does not have a single comprehensive Storm Drain Utility Master Plan document. Rather, the City utilizes several localized documents that inform and guide its maintenance operations for the storm drain system. To that end, the City seeks to develop a Storm Water Master Plan. The Storm Water Master Plan is intended to be a programmatic approach to determining needs, costs, and priorities associated with storm drain improvements for staff to program future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects.

The Storm Water Rate Study is intended to integrate the findings from both the Storm Water Master Plan and the Storm Drain Maintenance Plan, and provide a financial analysis to operate, maintain, and rehabilitate, replace, or upgrade storm water infrastructure and facilities without General Fund subsidies. The rate study is also needed to evaluate existing revenues and develop a list of alternative approaches for generating new revenues for the maintenance and repair of flood control and stormwater infrastructure. The rate study would also include developing a draft long-range financial plan to support the establishment of financial goals and indicators, reserves, debt coverage policies, financing strategies, and revenue policies. The end goal is to complete a Proposition 218-compliant cost of service analysis and adopt a five-year schedule of stormwater rates based on revenue requirements developed in the Rate Study.

G7ei Inc. has successfully performed public agency infrastructure management plans and rate studies for the City of Monterey and other California agencies. G7ei Inc. will be supported in this effort by Akel Engineering Group, Inc. and other qualified firms. Staff are confident in their ability to perform this work.

AR/th/pl
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Evaluation Scorecard
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
c: Paul Greenway, PE, QSD, President, G7ei Inc.

Tony Akel, PE, WRE, President, Akel Engineering Group, Inc.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 33 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $561,912 TO G7EI INC. FOR A STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN AND

STORMWATER UTILITY RATE STUDY AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO

ESTABLISH AN INTERFUND LOAN AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND’S UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO THE STORM

WATER UTILITY FUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey created a Stormwater Management Utility in 1993 to manage its stormwater infrastructure to promote public safety and water quality, and to reduce flooding, property damage, erosion and potential pollutants from discharging into Monterey Bay; WHEREAS, the City operates and maintains the storm drain and surface water drainage system of ditches, pipes, culverts, streamways, and other infrastructure as an enterprise and utility of the City of Monterey;
WHEREAS, the City does not currently have a single comprehensive Storm Drain Master Plan document and preparing one will outline its legal responsibilities and prioritize its actions to avoid foreseeable environmental impacts such as sea level rise; WHEREAS, all developed real property in the City contributes to increased stormwater runoff as the result of constructed impervious surfaces, and all properties benefit from a managed, adequate, functioning storm drain and surface water drainage system; WHEREAS, the Stormwater Management Utility is responsive to state and federal requirements that regulate the operation of the storm drain and surface water drainage system and the discharges that emanate from the system;
WHEREAS, the storm drain utility can legally operate as an enterprise, generating sufficient revenue to recover the cost of maintaining and operating the storm drain system, rather than relying on subsidies from other City revenue streams that adversely impact other City programs;
WHEREAS, current funding in the Stormwater Fund is insufficient to fully support execution of this $561,912 multi-year contract, and unassigned General Funds are available to cover the shortfall;
WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was published publicly on the City’s eprocurement portal, OpenGov. Proposals were received from five (5) qualified firms whose qualifications and proposals were evaluated by a team of Public Works employees; WHEREAS, G7ei Inc. was selected as the most qualified firm; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 34 experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated to be found at the project sites. The proposed action would not have a significant effect due to their limited scope and distinct locations.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 35

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Awards a Professional Services Agreement in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $561,912 to G7ei Inc. for a Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study;

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal; and

3. Authorizes the Finance Director to establish an interfund loan and appropriate funds in the amount of $350,000 from the General Fund’s Unassigned Fund Balance to the Storm Water Utility Fund Professional Services account (280-310-3121-0000-4240).

4. Repayment of the non-interest-bearing loan shall be paid over five years in the amount of $70,000 per year beginning July 31. 2026 according to the following schedule:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 36 ATTACHMENT 2
Public Works Department, Engineering Division
Project Name: Project
Code:

Service Area: Citywide Date:

Criteria Max Points
#1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3

KA TH TL KA TH TL KA TH TL KA TH TL KA TH TL
Management & Team - Staff 12.5 11.25 12.5 8.75 12.5 11.25 11.25 8.75 12.5 11.25 12.5 Management & Team - Experience 12.5 11.25 12.5 10 10 10 10 10 12.5 10 12.5 Project Approach - Techniques and
Resources
15 13.5 15 12 12 12 15 13.5 13.5 12 13.5
Understanding the City's Goals and
Unique Nature 10 9 10 6 6 9 9 7 8 7 8
Organizational Approach to
Management
5 4 5 4 4 3.5 5 4 4 4 5
Services Offered 5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4 3.5 5
Organizational Structure Suitable
for this Project 5 4.5 5 4 4.5 4 4.5 4 4.5 4 4.5
Familiarity with Monterey 5 4.5 5 2.5 3.5 5 5 4 4.5 3 4 Reputation for Financial and
Operational Stability 5 4.5 4.5 4 5 4.5 5 4 4 4 5
Reputation, References 25 23.33 23.33 19.15 19.15 24.58 24.58 21.65 21.65 21.65 21.65 Total Points: 100 89.83 97.33 74.90 81.15 87.33 93.83 80.40 89.15 80.40 91.65 11/4/2024
N/A
Consultant Selection Evaluation Scorecard
Storm Drain Master Plan and Rate Study (2024)
Akel / G7 BKF Dudek Schaaf & Wheeler Wood Rodgers

Page 1 of 1 ends

Last Modified: 07/11/13
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 37 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Christian Mercado, Engineering Projects Manager SUBJECT: Awarding Three Professional Service Agreements for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey with a Not-To-Exceed Limit of $750,000.00 Each to: (1) Ausonio, Incorporated; (2) CSG Consultants, Inc.; and (3) Wilsey Ham ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolutions:

1. Awarding Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey to Ausonio, Incorporated, for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional oneyear terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $750,000;

2. Awarding Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey to CSG Consultants, Inc., for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional oneyear terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $750,000;

3. Awarding Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey to Wilsey Ham, for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $750,000; and

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreements upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP).

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Council policy to approve Professional Services Agreements exceeding $75,000. On-call agreements are used for other types of professional services throughout the City. These services will augment the City’s capacity for project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiatives.

Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 38 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Fees for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) will be based on a project-by-project basis directly charged to individual project budgets. Each CIP and NCIP project is separately approved and budgeted by the City Council. The City is under no obligation to expend any funds under these Professional Services Agreements.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide to not award these On-Call Project Management/Construction Management Agreements and direct staff to issue requests for proposals for each project individually. However, having preapproved, on-call, as-needed firms readily available allows for more efficient and timely delivery of projects.

DISCUSSION:

At the Special Council Meeting on May 29, 2024, Public Works Department personnel and other City staff identified approximately $96 million in projects to address maintenance, repairs, and infrastructure needs within the next five years. These numbers will be refined as staff finalize current assessments of the City facilities and garages. On June 4, 2024, City Council approved the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, which identifies infrastructure priority funding. While past CIPs have included many individual projects, the proposed project list for FY 2024/25 included long-term Citywide programs to address facility repairs and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades. The Neighborhood Community Improvement Program has a project list that includes repairs and upgrades to City facilities such as Hilltop Park Center and Fire Stations. All of these facilities have a list of critical and urgent repairs as well as identified projects in the ADA Transition Plan 2024 Update.

The three On-Call Project Management/Construction Management consultants will assist the City of Monterey staff with providing Project Management and Construction Management Services for the design, construction, maintenance and/or rehabilitation of existing building facilities, to include ADA upgrades. Potential new projects include a remodel of the Central Public Safety Facility (Police Station/Fire Station 11/Fire Administration/Emergency Operations Center) and a potential new fire station to serve the Highway 68 corridor. All of the programs and improvement projects will require a carefully thought-out approach and phasing. There are Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 39 №10/24
also cost savings in bundling services for the different facilities, and these consultants will increase the project delivery capacity.

Individual project task orders will be issued based on the firm’s experience, workload capacity, services to be performed, schedule requirements, and hourly rates submitted in their proposal.

All task orders will be issued based on an agreed-upon, written scope of work, implementation schedule, and maximum fee arrangement negotiated on a project-by-project basis.

Selection of the best-qualified firms was made in accordance with Section 28-30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. On September 23, 2024, a Request for Proposal was issued and advertised through OpenGov. Ten (10) proposals were received on October 22, 2024. A selection committee, consisting of Engineering Division staff, independently evaluated and ranked the proposals. After deliberations, the top three raked firms are as follows:

Rank Firm - Location
1 Ausonio, Incorporated, Castroville, CA
2 CSG Consultants, Inc., Foster City, CA
3 Wilsey Ham, Pleasant Hill, CA
The proposed Professional Services Agreements would be managed by the Engineering Division, and On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) would be made available to use by other City Departments for funded Building Facilities Projects.

AR/cm/pl
Attachments:

1. Resolution awarding a Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey to Ausonio, Incorporated.

2. Resolution awarding Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey to CSG Consultants, Inc..

3. Resolution awarding Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities) for Projects within the City of Monterey to Wilsey Ham.

4. Consultant Selection Evaluation Scorecard
e: Dustin Conner, Ausonio, Incorporated; Peykan Abbassi, CSG Consultants, Inc.; Kelli Glenn, Wilsey Ham.

Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 40 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

AWARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL PROJECT

MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR PROJECTS OF BUILDING FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO: AUSONIO,

INCORPORATED, FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR

ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR TERMS, WITH AN ANNUAL FEE NOT-TO-EXCEED LIMIT OF $750,000.00 ***CIP/NCIP***
WHEREAS, the need exists for the City to obtain prompt professional mechanical engineering services to support City projects, including but not limited to Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and other municipal programs,
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call project management/construction services of building facilities within the City of Monterey and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City; WHEREAS, on October 22, 2024, the City received ten (10) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP; WHEREAS, following deliberations, the selection committee determined that three firms, Ausonio, Incorporated, CSG Consultants, Inc., and Wilsey Ham were the most qualified firms and the City RFP allows for multiple selections from the one solicitation; WHEREAS, the selection committee determined that Ausonio, Incorporated, was the highest ranked firm;
WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 41 project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability and;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Awards a Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management Services for projects with the City of Monterey to Ausonio, Incorporated, for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $750,000.00; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP).

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 42 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

AWARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL PROJECT

MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR PROJECTS OF BUILDING FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO: CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.,

FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR TERMS, WITH AN ANNUAL FEE NOT-TO-EXCEED LIMIT OF $750,000.00 ***CIP/NCIP***
WHEREAS, the need exists for the City to obtain prompt professional mechanical engineering services to support City projects, including but not limited to Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and other municipal programs,
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call project management/construction services of building facilities within the City of Monterey and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City; WHEREAS, on October 22, 2024, the City received ten (10) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP; WHEREAS, following deliberations, the selection committee determined that three firms, Ausonio, Incorporated, CSG Consultants, Inc., and Wilsey Ham were the most qualified firms and the City RFP allows for multiple selections from the one solicitation; WHEREAS, the selection committee determined that CSG Consultants was the second highest ranked firm;
WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 43 project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability and;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Awards a Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management Services for projects with the City of Monterey to CSG Consultants, Inc., for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $750,000.00; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP).

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 44 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

AWARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL PROJECT

MANAGEMENT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR PROJECTS OF BUILDING FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO: WILSEY HAM, FOR A TERM

OF ONE YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR TERMS, WITH AN ANNUAL FEE NOT-TO-EXCEED LIMIT OF $750,000.00 ***CIP/NCIP*** WHEREAS, the need exists for the City to obtain prompt professional mechanical engineering services to support City projects, including but not limited to Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and other municipal programs,
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call project management/construction services of building facilities within the City of Monterey and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City; WHEREAS, on October 22, 2024, the City received ten (10) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP; WHEREAS, following deliberations, the selection committee determined that three firms, Ausonio, Incorporated, CSG Consultants Inc., and Wilsey Ham were the most qualified firms and the City RFP allows for multiple selections from the one solicitation; WHEREAS, the selection committee determined that Wilsey Ham, was the third highest ranked firm;
WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 45 physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability and;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Awards a Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management Services for projects with the City of Monterey to Wilsey Ham, for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional one year terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $750,000.00; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP).

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 46 Project Name: Project Code:

Service Area:

Rater’s Name:

Criteria Max Points
Ausonio
Incorporated
CSG
Consultants
Cumming
Management
Hollins
Consulting
ICS
Jones Lang
La Salles
OakBrook Studio 151
Vivid
Accent
Wilsey Ham
Firm Qualifications and
Experience
20 Project References 20
Project Team 20
Approach to the
Project/Construction
Management
30 Proposed Procedure and
Schedule for Task Orders
10 Total Points: 100
Public Works Staff
Citywide
Date: 10/22/2024
Consultant Selection Evaluation Scorecard
Include On-Call Services:

N/A
Yes
On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities)

ENGINEERING DIVISON
Last Modified: 05/24/2024 Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 47 Council
Agenda Report
№09/24
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Measure P and S (Special Sales Tax) Annual Report on Conformity with Requirement that Expenditures be used Exclusively for the Rehabilitation, Repair, and Improvement of City Streets, Sidewalks, and Strom Drains and Disabled Access Improvements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the attached report regarding the findings of the Measure P and S Oversight Committee regarding the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Code requires the Oversight Committee to report to the City Council on the conformity of expenditures. City Code section 35-71 provides, “The City Council shall appoint a fivemember citizens’ advisory board (the “Oversight Committee”) which shall meet at least annually to review the revenues generated by the tax imposed by the ordinance codified in this article and expenditures of those revenues, and shall report to the City Council on the conformity of such expenditures for purposes set forth in Section 35-70.” CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Receipt of the report has no fiscal implications.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not Date: 12/3/2024
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 48 cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None; Chapter 35, Article 7 of the City Code requires the Oversight Committee to report to the City Council on the conformity of expenditures for the purposes set forth in the Ordinance (Ord. 3504).

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Prior to 2014, the condition of Monterey’s streets, sidewalks, and roadway infrastructure was in decline because of dwindling funding sources. The most cost-effective way to maintain a roadway is to address cracks in the pavement as soon as they surface. It is five to ten times cheaper to properly maintain streets than to allow them to fail and then pay for necessary rehabilitation. With limited funding, the City’s streets began to suffer and risk costlier consequences from deferred maintenance in future years.

In November 2014, 74% of Monterey voters approved Measure P, effective April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2019, which was a 1% sales tax to address deferred maintenance for streets, sidewalks, potholes, storm drain maintenance, and disabled access and safety improvements.

In November 2018, 82% of voters supported Measure S, which is a continuation of Measure P, which took effect on April 1, 2019, and will expire on March 31, 2027.

Measures P and S: Delivering on the City’s Promise to Fix Monterey’s Streets Funding from Measure P, and subsequently Measure S, was vital in improving the condition of our streets, sidewalks, and storm drains. Prior to Measure P, the City’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was 53, an “at-risk” level indicating the pavement is deteriorated and requires immediate attention, including rehabilitative work. As of June 2024, the City’s PCI was rated at 81, a “good” rating that is a testament to voter’s willingness to support the funding of City streets and infrastructure.

The City is proud to deliver on its promise to fix city streets and infrastructure through Measure P and S and appreciates its citizens’ for supporting this crucial funding source.

Measure P and S Oversight Committee
Proceeds from Measure P and S are required to be deposited into the City treasury in a special fund entitled the “Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax Fund.” Monies deposited into this fund, together with any interest that accrues thereon, are used exclusively for the rehabilitation, repair, and improvement of the City’s streets, sidewalks, storm drains, and disabled access and safety improvements.

In addition to providing funding, the Measure also required the creation of a citizens’ oversight committee that would meet periodically and review Measure P and S expenditures. This committee is charged with ensuring that the funds that have been collected are being spent Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 49 consistent with the language contained in the expenditure plan. The Oversight Committee has met on a regular basis with City staff and has prepared the attached report for the period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024.

RTK
Attachments:

1. Measure P Unaudited Financial Statement for the period 7/1/23 through 6/30/24

2. Measure P Unaudited Claims Detail for the period 7/1/23 through 6/30/24

3. Executive Summary Dashboard
Copies to: All Neighborhood Associations
All Business Associations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 50

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MONTEREY
TO: Measure P and S Oversight Committee
FROM: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director

DATE: October 14, 2024
SUBJECT: Periodic Report for the Period of July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 The Measure P and S Oversight Committee reviews projects and expenditures throughout the fiscal year. The Committee meets with the Finance and Public Works Departments.

During discussions as the Measure P language was being developed, City staff predicted that it would require approximately 10 years of the additional tax revenue to raise the city streets’ average PCI (Pavement Condition Index) rating from the original 54 to an acceptable 81. In November 2014, voters approved a 4-year tax increase, with a target PCI of 67, allowing an opportunity to ensure sufficient progress was being made before voting again on an extension of the measure. In November 2018, Measure S was put before the voters and passed as an extension of Measure P for eight years, ending March 31, 2027.

The 1% special transactions and use tax (sales tax) approved by voters with the passage of Measure P went into effect April, 2015. To account for this funding (both revenues and expenditures), the City established a separate fund entitled Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Fund. Any unspent tax proceeds remain in the fund and can only be used for items identified in the Measure P and S spending plan. From inception through June 30, 2024, total revenue (including interest) was $94.89 million, total expenditure was $77.58 million, and fund balance was $17.30 million. For the fiscal year 23/24, beginning July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024, total revenue was $12,730,769, total expenditure was $13,150,163, and the change in fund balance was an decrease of $419,394. During FY2023/24, projects will continue to be conducted to spend the fund balance.

MEASURE P and S ACTIVITY Unaudited
Thru 6/30/2024
FY15 to FY19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Total Revenue
Tax Revenue $ 40,385,014 $ 8,974,117 $ 8,643,025 $ 11,804,659 11,453,238 $ 11,849,946 $ $ 93,110,000 Interest 310,436 177,997 80,559 88,450 248,957 555,420 $ 1,461,818 Other Revenue - - - - - 325,403 $ 325,403
Total 40,695,450 9,152,113 8,723,584 11,541,689 12,053,616 12,730,769 $ 94,897,221 Expenditures
Storm Drains 1,393,846 264,503 1,458,943 130,340 375,973 1,508,695 $ 3,623,605 Sidewalks 1,678,446 869,104 589,017 822,372 1,062,343 1,817,099 $ 6,838,382 Pavement 21,904,871 10,253,049 4,793,081 5,685,332 2,307,760 8,991,683 $ 53,935,777 ADA 5,982,860 1,974,869 1,677,501 608,316 607,199 832,685 $ 11,683,430 Total 30,960,023 13,361,525 8,518,542 7,246,360 4,353,275 13,150,163 77,589,889 Revenue over / (under)
Expenditures $ 9,735,427 $ (4,209,412) $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 7,700,341 $ (419,394) $ 17,307,331 Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 51 The table below represents the year over year comparable for the last four fiscal years.

Audits of the City’s financial statements are conducted annually and are available on the City’s website (http://www.monterey.org/City-Hall/Budget-and-Finance/Annual-Financial-Reports).

The Committee has determined that to date, the City has managed Measure P and S projects and funds in compliance with the Measure as approved by the voters.

City staff has provided the following to the Oversight Committee as requested:
 Documentation of project expenditures
 Technical assistance and explanations, as needed
 Updates on both current and future projects
Information regarding the status of Measure P and S projects is available on-line at http://monterey.org/City-Hall/Featured-Projects/Fixing-Streets.

The Measure P and S Oversight Committee has complied with the Brown Act. All meeting times, locations and agendas have been properly noticed, and meeting minutes are available at https://monterey.org/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions-and-Committees/Measure-S-OversightCommittee.

Thru 6/30/2021 Thru 6/30/2022 Thru 6/30/2023 Thru 6/30/2024 FY20/21 YTD FY21/22 YTD FY22/23 YTD FY23/24 YTD $ of Change % of Change Revenue
Tax Revenue $ 8,643,025 $ 11,453,238 $ 11,804,659 $ 45,287 11,849,946 0% Interest 80,559 88,450 248,957 555,420 306,463 123%
Other Revenue - - - 325,403
Total 8,723,584 11,541,689 12,053,616 12,730,769 677,153 6% Expenditures
Storm Drains 1,458,943 130,340 375,973 1,508,695 1,132,723 301% Sidewalks 589,017 822,372 1,062,343 1,817,099 754,756 71% Pavement 4,793,081 5,685,332 2,307,760 8,991,683 6,683,923 290% ADA 1,677,501 608,316 607,199 832,685 225,486 37%
Total 8,518,542 7,246,360 4,353,275 13,150,163 8,796,888 202% Revenue over / (under)
Expenditures $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 7,700,341 $ (419,394) (8,119,735) -105% Year over Year Comparison
Current FY against previous FY
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 52 MEASURE P and S ACTIVITY Unaudited
Thru 6/30/2024
FY15 to FY19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Total RevenueTax Revenue $ 40,385,014 $ 8,974,117 $ 8,643,025 $ 11,453,238 $ 11,804,659 $ 11,849,946 $ 93,110,000 Interest 310,436 177,997 80,559 88,450 248,957 555,420 $ 1,461,818 Other Revenue - - - - - 325,403 325,403 $Total 40,695,450 9,152,113 8,723,584 11,541,689 12,730,769 12,053,616 $ 94,897,221 ExpendituresStorm Drains 1,393,846 264,503 1,458,943 130,340 1,508,695 375,973 $ 3,623,605 Sidewalks 1,678,446 869,104 589,017 822,372 1,817,099 1,062,343 $ 6,838,382 Pavement 21,904,871 10,253,049 4,793,081 5,685,332 8,991,683 2,307,760 $ 53,935,777 ADA 5,982,860 1,974,869 1,677,501 608,316 832,685 607,199 $ 11,683,430 Total 30,960,023 13,361,525 8,518,542 7,246,360 13,150,163 4,353,275 77,589,889 Revenue over / (under)Expenditures $ 9,735,427 $ (4,209,412) $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 7,700,341 $ (419,394) $ 17,307,331 Note: Portola Plaza and Tunnel Maintenance/Repair added to PavementNote: N Fremont added to ADA Note: First tax payment received in September.

Thru 6/30/2021 Thru 6/30/2022 Thru 6/30/2023 Thru 6/30/2024 FY20/21 YTD FY21/22 YTD FY22/23 YTD FY23/24 YTD $ of Change % of Change RevenueTax Revenue $ 8,643,025 $ 11,453,238 $ 11,804,659 $ 11,849,946 0% 45,287 Interest 80,559 88,450 248,957 555,420 123% 306,463
Other Revenue - - - 325,403
Total 8,723,584 11,541,689 12,053,616 12,730,769 6% 677,153 ExpendituresStorm Drains 1,458,943 130,340 375,973 1,508,695 301% 1,132,723 Sidewalks 589,017 822,372 1,062,343 1,817,099 71% 754,756 Pavement 4,793,081 5,685,332 2,307,760 8,991,683 290% 6,683,923 ADA 1,677,501 608,316 607,199 832,685 37% 225,486
Total 8,518,542 7,246,360 4,353,275 13,150,163 202% 8,796,888 Revenue over / (under)Expenditures $ 205,042 $ 4,295,328 $ 7,700,341 $ (419,394) (8,119,735) -105% Year over Year Comparison
Current FY against previous FY
S:\400-Financial-Fiscal\403-Accounting\403-02-Gen-Ledger\CIP-NIP\Measure P\Oversight Committee\FY25\2024-10 Meeting (070123-063024)\Measure P_Claim Detail FY24 (P1-12) - 070123 - 063024.xlsx 10/11/2024 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 53 1 106.43
1 310 PUBLIC WORKSrevstat.rpt Revenue Status Report Page:
10/03/2024 2:58: PMPeriods: 1 through 12
through
City of Monterey
7/1/2023 6/30/2024
252 STREET INFRASTRUCTURE REHAB FUND (MEASUR
Adjusted Estimate Year-to-date
Revenues
Prct
Account Number Revenues Balance Rcvd
3151 STREET MAINTENANCE & UTILITIES3060 SALES & USE TAX 11,852,000.00 11,849,946.44 11,849,946.44 99.98 3310 INTEREST INCOME 109,524.00 555,419.74 555,419.74 -445,895.74 507.12 2,053.56

0.00 3317 UNREALIZED GAIN ON INVESTMENTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003890 OTHER REVENUE 0.00 325,402.75 325,402.75 -325,402.75 Page:

Total STREET INFRASTRUCTURE REHAB FUND (MEASUR 11,961,524.00 12,730,768.93 12,730,768.93 -769,244.93 106.43 Grand Total 11,961,524.00 12,730,768.93 12,730,768.93 -769,244.93 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 54 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2023 DUDEK IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT REMOVAL 5,958.888/10/2023 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC IRIS CANYON 7/11/23 TREE SERVICE 940.00 8/10/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 VAN BUREN/DEL MONTE 1,063.00 8/21/2023 BRANNON CORP AG-11505 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 190,175.46 8/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PROTECT GRANT APPLICA 15,876.26 8/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 4,900.509/11/2023 BRANNON CORP AG-11505 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 294,626.82 9/11/2023 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 16,261.05 9/21/2023 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 8,622.31
9/21/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11277 MARINA PARKING LOT 64,466.77 9/21/2023 DUDEK AG-10025 SEDIMENT SAMPLING 800.79
9/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 70.00 9/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 35/36 SIERRA VISTA 1,594.00 10/9/2023 BRANNON CORP AG-11505 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 289,232.25 10/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 35/36 SIERRA VISTA 2,790.00 11/9/2023 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 8,060.00
11/27/2023 BRANNON CORP AG-11505 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 190,769.52 12/11/2023 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 2,884.7812/11/2023 CALIFORNIA TOWING & TRANSPORT AG-11613 IRIS CANYON AND VIA MORADA 7,392.00 12/11/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11277 MARINA PARKING LOT 25,409.32 12/11/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 35/36 SIERRA VISTA 553.50 12/13/2023 DUDEK IRIS CANYON REGULATORY PERMITTING 480.00 12/18/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PROTECT GRANT APPLICA 3,338.9912/18/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 35/36 SIERRA VISTA 828.45 1/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 1,211.25
1/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 39.00 2/22/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 510.00
3/8/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 2,085.16
3/22/2024 BRANNON CORP AG-11505 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 48,688.73 3/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 663.00 4/23/2024 DON CHAPIN CO INC AG-10729 PUMP STATION 11 - PUMP 1 2,239.82 5/8/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 2,150.00
5/8/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 446.255/8/2024 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11277 MARINA PARKING LOT 50,893.79 5/8/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 VIA ESPERANZA STORM 5,630.64 5/8/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 VIA ESPERANZA STORM 85,006.48 5/23/2024 ADVANCE DESIGN CONSULTANTS AG-10279 PUMP STATION 11 FACILITIES 8,662.506/10/2024 SWRCB 7/1/23-6/30/24 ID#32717WQ20 2,509.006/10/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 WHITSON ON-CALL 487.50 6/24/2024 ADVANCE DESIGN CONSULTANTS AG-10279 PUMP STATION 11 FACILITIES 962.50 6/30/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-06 1661 DAVID AVE DRAINAGE 32,073.89 6/30/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 1,775.00
MEASURE P - STORM DRAINS (33c1554)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 55 Date Vendor Description Other
MEASURE P - STORM DRAINS (33c1554)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
6/30/2024 DUDEK AG-10985 IRIS CANYON SEDIMENT 3,485.006/30/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 VIA ESPERANZA STORM 20,908.94 6/30/2024 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES AG-8193 DUFFY ON CALL FOR BIOLOGICAL 5,330.00 6/30/2024 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES AG-8193 DUFFY ON CALL FOR BIOLOGICAL 5,739.00 Total Vendors $ 1,418,592.10
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 299.00 18,430.18BAR06 BARTHOLEMEW BARTOLI STREET & UTILITIES SUPERVISOR 17.00 1,040.19BRO26 RICHARD BROWN STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER 12.00 412.88 EAS03 ANDREW EASTERLING DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER 149.00 15,958.31 ESP01 JOSE ESPINOZA STREET MAINTENANCE WORKER 5.00 196.32HAR25 THOMAS HARTY SENIOR ENGINEER 9.00 744.08HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 85.00 8,096.71RIE02 MAXIMILIAN RIESER SENIOR ENGINEER 25.00 2,342.36RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING PROJECTS MANAGER 59.00 4,067.28SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 11.00 656.25 Project: 33c1554 Lab overhead 38,158.51
Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 671.00 $ 90,103.07
Project 33c1554 Total $ 1,508,695.17
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 56 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11495 CW SIDEWALK REPAIR 202,662.668/24/2023 DON CHAPIN INC AG-10729-50 23 WYNDMERE RISE 7,249.009/11/2023 DON CHAPIN INC AG-10729-54 867 JEFFERSON ST 4,349.009/21/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11495 CW SIDEWALK REPAIR 228,495.909/21/2023 DON CHAPIN INC AG-10729-42 LIGHTHOUSE CURB 1,613.009/26/2023 MARZI SINK FACTORY PATH OF HISTORY TILES 5,462.509/26/2023 MARZI SINK FACTORY FREIGHT 350.00 10/9/2023 DON CHAPIN INC AG-10729-51 EL DORADO ST CONCRETE 3,034.00 10/24/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11495 CW SIDEWALK REPAIR 327,719.36 12/11/2023 DUDEK AG-10997 PEARL AND FIGUEROA 1,763.7512/11/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11495 CW SIDEWALK REPAIR 51,106.20 12/11/2023 DUDEK AG-10997 PRESIDIO LIGHTHOUSE 665.00
12/18/2023 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING AG-11678 DOWNTOWN AND CANNERY 79,946.37 12/18/2023 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING AG-11678 DOWNTOWN AND CANNERY 100,382.88 1/9/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-09 390 SPENCER 60,117.04 1/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 14,420.011/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 17,279.881/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 2,629.141/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 750.00 1/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 1,500.001/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 2,112.50 1/9/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE SEDIMENT 150.00 1/24/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 PRESIDIO LIGHTHOUSE RETAIN 29,359.54 2/22/2024 PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING AG-11678 SCHOOLS - SIDEWALK 73,247.63 2/29/2024 TRICAL| INC SW REPAIR PH 7 DEAD OAK 145.00
3/8/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 PRESIDIO LIGHTHOUSE RETAIN 1,418.18 3/12/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-08 1291 FOURTH STREET 90,571.53 5/8/2024 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11495 CW SIDEWALK REPAIR 70,540.86 6/10/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-07 LIGHTHOUSE CURVE 42,004.26 6/10/2024 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11495 CW SIDEWALK REPAIR 68,896.476/30/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-10 927 WEST FRANKLIN 16,233.59 6/30/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-11 SIDEWALK CORRECTION TYPE 3 138,715.00 Total Vendors $ 1,644,890.25
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 339.50 21,065.34EAS03 ANDREW EASTERLING DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER 55.00 5,856.23GAR40 MARISSA GARCIA ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II 1.50 102.39HEN04 CODY HENNINGS ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II 2.50 139.65 MEASURE P - SIDEWALKS (35c1552)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 57 MEASURE P - SIDEWALKS (35c1552)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 39.00 3,745.94RAY01 JEFFREY RAY SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 53.00 4,001.71RIE02 MAXIMILIAN RIESER SENIOR ENGINEER 23.00 2,197.68 RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING PROJECTS MANAGER 324.00 22,483.56SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 611.50 39,686.41 Project: 35c1552 Lab overhead 72,930.32
Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 172,209.23 1,449.00 $ Project 35c1552 Total $ 1,817,099.48 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 58 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2023 DON CHAPIN INC AG-10729-44 PORTOLA PAVERS 9,441.01 8/10/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 195.00 8/24/2023 DUDEK AG-10997 DEL MONTE & VAN BUREN 387.50
8/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW 6,157.64 8/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 5,674.00 9/11/2023 DUDEK AG-10997 DEL MONTE & VAN BUREN 2,914.50 9/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW 6,725.26 9/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 6,702.45 9/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMP 9,219.50 9/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 1,039.009/25/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMP 1,839.50 10/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 CIVIL ENG SERVICES 1,417.51 10/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW 7,336.89 10/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 1,326.00 10/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 331.50 11/13/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMP 10,178.00 11/22/2023 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-02 381 MCCLELLAN 47,144.01 11/22/2023 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC AG-10561 CITYWIDE TREE MAINTEN 7,400.0011/27/2023 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-11659 CW RSR PH 4 717,725.00 11/27/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S CURB RAMP 1,417.5011/27/2023 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 1,116.0012/11/2023 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11277 MARINA PARKING LOT 28,765.62 12/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 CIVIL ENG SERVICES 15,569.64 12/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 CIVIL ENG SERVICES 3,730.1412/11/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 5,603.00 12/11/2023 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 4,447.5012/11/2023 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 10,395.00 12/14/2023 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC AG-10561 TREE MAINTENANCE JOC 6,100.00 1/9/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-11659 CW RSR PH 4 906,139.701/9/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 CIVIL ENG SERVICES 1,888.00 1/9/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 11,821.00 1/9/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 15,031.25 1/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 2,457.001/24/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 279.001/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 97.50 1/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 FOAM ST PAVEMENT 4,941.00 1/24/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 14,525.00 1/25/2024 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC AG-10561 TREE MAINTENANCE JOC 820.00 2/7/2024 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC AG-10561 TREE MAINTENANCE JOC 440.00 2/13/2024 MCKIM CORPORATION AG-11827 CW ROAD SURFACE 691,186.81 2/14/2024 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION EXEMPT FEE ROBERTS AVE & SURF WAY 368.00 2/14/2024 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION EXEMPT FEE REHAB PHASE 4 VAN BUREN 368.00 MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (35c1553)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 59 Date Vendor Description Other
MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (35c1553)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
2/22/2024 DON CHAPIN INC AG-10729-61 POTHOLE WATERLINE VAN BU 1,828.622/22/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW 2,719.51 2/22/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW 2,183.012/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 3,425.00 2/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 136.50 2/26/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 12,305.53 2/26/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 66,056.01 2/26/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 25,150.78 2/26/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT 6,940.51 2/29/2024 SEASIDE GARDEN CENTER MEASURE P 1030 MUNRAS 80.40 3/8/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-14 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPORT 8,756.80 3/8/2024 MCKIM CORPORATION AG-11827 CW ROAD SURFACE 819,845.47 3/8/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 18,643.38 3/8/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 FOAM ST PAVEMENT 253.503/8/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 11,263.00 3/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 16,840.00 3/22/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 30,568.77 3/22/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 12,205.00 3/22/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 1,130.00 3/22/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 2,290.00 3/22/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 11,848.00 4/9/2024 MCKIM CORPORATION AG-11827 CW ROAD SURFACE 1,345,609.23 4/9/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW 3,858.15 4/9/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT P 10,036.09 4/9/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT P 876.65 4/23/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 CIVIL ENG SERVICES 2,473.644/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 5,044.50 4/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 279.004/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN BUREN 1,632.00 4/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 FOAM ST PAVEMENT 17,550.23 4/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 279.00 4/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 3,342.00 4/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 MATERIAL TESTING SERVICE 837.00 5/7/2024 REFUND INV 55537 WALLACE GROUP AG-5844 WALLACE ON-CALL FOR CASA VE (85.00)5/8/2024 MCKIM CORPORATION AG-11827 CW ROAD SURFACE 1,244,332.23 5/8/2024 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11277 MARINA PARKING LOT 40,733.26 5/8/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 MISC PAVEMENT ENG 2,693.26 5/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS CW ROAD REHAB PHASE 6 2,007.005/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 31,713.13 5/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 1,674.00 5/23/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT CAPITAL IMPROV 10,250.80 5/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 FOAM ST PAVEMENT 1,935.00 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 60 Date Vendor Description Other
MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (35c1553)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
5/23/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD SURFACE 22,379.02 6/10/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-11659 CW RSR PH 4 1,102,820.426/24/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 ROBERTS AVENUE AND SUR 697.50 6/24/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 MATERIALS TESTING CW 697.50 6/24/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-11659 CW RSR PH.4 537,569.856/24/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CW ROAD RESURFACING, 5,293.00 6/30/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 MATERIALS TESTING CW 279.00 6/30/2024 MCKIM CORPORATION AG-11827 CITYWIDE ROAD SURFACE 465,468.106/30/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW, 967.55 6/30/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT SPEC REVIEW, 937.85 6/30/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CITYWIDE ROAD SURFACE 33,127.63 6/30/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT CAPITAL IMPR 18,372.996/30/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PAVEMENT CAPITAL IMPR 4,913.59 6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN 435.00 6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440: FOAM ST PAVEMENT REH 805.50 6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S VAN 487.50 6/30/2024 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR AG-10456 CITYWIDE ROAD SURFACE 279.00 6/30/2024 COASTAL PAVING & EXCAVATING AG-12119 CITYWIDE ROAD REHABILITATION 52,862.27 Total Vendors $ 8,600,595.16
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 561.75 36,256.66DEA01 RICHARD DEAL EXTRA-HELP RETIRED ANNUITANT 31.00 2,372.89 EAS03 ANDREW EASTERLING DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER 227.00 23,690.82GAR40 MARISSA GARCIA ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II 20.00 1,464.72 HEN04 CODY HENNINGS ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II 450.00 27,195.46 HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 45.00 4,320.31NOR05 THYS NORTON ASSISTANT URBAN FORESTER 3.00 198.49 PAU02 REGINALD PAULDING SENIOR ENGINEER 2.50 237.20RAY01 JEFFREY RAY SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 609.00 42,392.43RIE02 MAXIMILIAN RIESER SENIOR ENGINEER 723.50 67,554.10 RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING PROJECTS MANAGER 262.00 18,539.39SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 130.00 8,349.28 TOP01 MICHAEL TOPE ASSISTANT URBAN FORESTER 3.00 177.97 Project: 35c1553 Lab overhead 158,338.21
Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 3,067.75 391,087.93 $ Project 35c1553 Total $ 8,991,683.09
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 61 Date Vendor Description Other
8/10/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 OLD TOWN RAMPS LAND SURV 570.00 8/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 FRANKLIN ST PEER REVIEW 3,454.498/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455-08 OLD TOWN ADA CURB 1,036.888/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 FREMONT/ABREGO INTERSECT 1,695.75 8/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 3,443.04 8/24/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 PROTECT GRANT APPLICATION 25,200.008/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 2,533.508/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE 6,438.508/24/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB 22,645.508/24/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 OLD TOWN ADA CURB RAMPS 928.85 9/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455-08 OLD TOWN ADA CURB 6,323.649/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455-08 OLD TOWN ADA CURB 1,204.889/11/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DT CURB RAMPS 13,156.009/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 604.00 9/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DT CURB RAMPS 2,109.509/21/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE 14,896.5010/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455-08 OLD TOWN ADA CURB 23,596.18 10/9/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB 2,628.00 10/24/2023 DUDEK AG-10997 CW CURB RAMP PH 6 3,232.5010/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DT CURB RAMPS 404.50 10/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE 1,627.50 10/24/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 2,824.0010/24/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB 837.00 10/24/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 OLD TOWN ADA CURB RAMPS 1,305.00 11/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 CIVIL ENGINEERING 1,731.13 11/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 FRANKLIN ST PEER REVIEW 3,984.74 11/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 1,086.7511/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10242 CIVIL DESIGN SERVICE 10,797.56 11/9/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 FRANKLIN ST PEER REVIEW 28,390.5811/9/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 1,599.00 11/27/2023 DUDEK AG-10997 CW CURB RAMP PH 6 977.50
11/27/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 1,122.0011/27/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE 3,753.00 11/27/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB 2,286.0011/27/2023 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 OLD TOWN ADA CURB RAMPS 396.00 12/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455-08 OLD TOWN ADA CURB 5,331.39 12/11/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455-08 OLD TOWN ADA CURB 5,551.89 12/11/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 3,084.00 12/18/2023 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10242 MADISON & HARTNELL 9,302.77 12/18/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DOWNTOWN 1,470.0012/18/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 330.00 12/18/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE 5,455.0012/18/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 6,514.00 12/18/2023 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 8,047.50 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
MEASURE P - ADA (35c1555)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 62 Date Vendor Description Other
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
MEASURE P - ADA (35c1555)
1/9/2024 TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION AG-10732-04 2333 N FREMONT ST 23,536.63 1/24/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10242 MADISON & HARTNELL 1,050.84 1/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 SURVEY SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC 2,012.50 1/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE BEACH 3,395.00 1/24/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 SURVEY SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC 1,155.00 2/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE BEACH 4,121.00 3/8/2024 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS INC AG-10457 AGUAJITO RD & GLENWOOD CIR 51,500.00 3/8/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 3,914.00 3/8/2024 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB 8,253.00 3/22/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 550 CORES ST SEWER 745.00
3/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 8,236.503/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-5783 WHITSON ON CALL 550.00 3/22/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 3,293.453/22/2024 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB 3,123.00 4/9/2024 COASTAL PAVING & EXCAVATING AG-11929, CITYWIDE CURB RAMP, PHASE 7 38,712.50 4/23/2024 DUDEK AG-10997 550 CORES ST SEWER 1,234.454/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 927.50 4/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE S DEL MONTE 97.504/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 3,613.504/24/2024 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 OLD TOWN ADA CURB RAMPS 962.50 5/8/2024 COASTAL PAVING & EXCAVATING AG-11929, CITYWIDE CURB RAMP, PHASE 7 124,015.83 5/8/2024 PRECISION GRADE INC AG-11277 MARINA PARKING LOT 14,861.29 5/8/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 AGUAJITO AT GLENWOOD 4,314.17 5/8/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 2,467.50 5/23/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 FRANKLIN ST PEER REVIEW 2,524.735/23/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455 FRANKLIN ST PEER REVIEW 2,716.87 5/23/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 CW ROAD REHAB PH 5 3,080.00 5/23/2024 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-11929, CITYWIDE CURB RAMP, PHASE 7 2,762.006/24/2024 COASTAL PAVING & EXCAVATING AG-11929, CITYWIDE CURB RAMP, 43,581.256/24/2024 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB RAM 6,931.00 6/30/2024 COASTAL PAVING & EXCAVATING AG-11929, CITYWIDE CURB RAMP, PHASE 7 40,854.756/30/2024 COASTAL PAVING & EXCAVATING AG-11929, CITYWIDE CURB RAMP, PHASE 7 28,291.00 6/30/2024 KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES AG-10455: FRANKLIN ST PEER REV 2,524.73 6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS APRIL 2024 SERVICES 36.006/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440, WAVE ST CURB RAMP IMPRO 4,564.50 6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS JUNE 2024 SERVICES 54.00
6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440 MEASURE "S" - DEL MONTE 2,625.00 6/30/2024 WHITSON ENGINEERS AG-10440, WAVE ST CURB RAMP IMPRO 4,395.00 6/30/2024 RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR AG-10456 DOWNTOWN ADA CURB RAMP 2,371.50 Note: The project was bid and constructed with the Van Buren ADA upgrades and street work at Pacific/Van Buren. (Per Reso 18-218) Total Vendors $ 697,311.51
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 63 Date Vendor Description Other
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
MEASURE P - ADA (35c1555)
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
AMB02 SALVADOR AMBRIZ PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 109.50 7,240.91 DEA01 RICHARD DEAL EXTRA-HELP RETIRED ANNUITANT 3.50 267.91 EAS03 ANDREW EASTERLING DEPUTY PW DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER 164.50 17,094.77GAR40 MARISSA GARCIA ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II 63.00 4,427.67 HEN04 CODY HENNINGS ENGINEERING ASSISTANT II 63.50 3,723.80 HER10 ANTONIO HERNANDEZ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER 5.00 477.82 PAU02 REGINALD PAULDING SENIOR ENGINEER 8.50 729.55
RIE02 MAXIMILIAN RIESER SENIOR ENGINEER 135.00 12,520.94RIO01 JESUS RIOS SAAVEDRA ENGINEERING PROJECTS MANAGER 433.00 30,603.39SIB01 FRANCISCO SIBAJA ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 14.75 956.41 Project: 35c1555 Lab overhead 57,330.54
Total Salary, Benefits and Overhead 135,373.71 1,000.25 $ Project 35c1555 Total 832,685.22 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 64 Date Vendor Description Other
10/2/2024 No Expenditures
Total Vendors $ -
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
Project: CIP2412 Lab overhead
Total Labor, Benefits and Overhead 0.00 $ -Project CIP2412 Total $ - MEASURE P - PAVEMENT (CIP2412)
7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 65 Date Vendor Description Other
10/2/2024 NO EXPENDITURES
Total Vendors $ -
Labor Name Job Title Hours Labor/Ben
- -
Project: cip2508 Lab overhead -
Total Salary, Benefits and Overhead - $ -Project CIP2508 Total - 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
MEASURE P - STORM DRAINS (CIP2508)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 66

EXECUTIVE DASHBOARD

CITY OF MONTEREY
Powered by:

PAVEMENT AREA0.63SQUARE MILES
CENTERLINE MILES108.61
LANE MILES231
SECTIONS1,271
*PEER COMPARISON AS OF: 10/31/2024
51SIMILAR SIZE AGENCY PCI
92%YOUR PERCENTILE RANK
HISTORICAL PAVEMENT CONDITION TRENDS CURRENT PCI BY: FUNCTIONAL CLASS **CURRENT PCI 1 since12/31/2023
PERCENT OF AREA BY: SURFACE TYPE HISTORICAL NETWORK CONDITION TRENDS Very Good
84%
5 Good
11%
-4
Poor
4%
-1
Very Poor
1%
0 AS OF 12/31/2023

REMAINING SERVICE LIFE (YEARS)
No Changesince12/31/2023
*Based on the closest peers in your geographic location with a comparable number of Sections. **For display purposes only, Current PCI graph shows Condition Category colors based on default PCI Breakpoint values of 70, 50 and 25.Please Note: Historical PCI values are calculated as of 12/31 of the year shown.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 7., Item Page 20, Packet Page 67 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: I. Staff Presentation to Planning Commission and City Council on Housing Element Implementation Agenda Items 8(II), (III), and (IV) II. Adjourn from Joint Meeting to Planning Commission Special Meeting:

Planning Commission Adopt a Resolution Recommending that the City Council:

1. Amend the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards Including Height, Density, Setbacks, and Parking Requirements in the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans;

2. Adopt a Zoning Ordinance to Add a Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District (RHNAOD), Amend the Multifamily Overlay District Land Use Regulations and Development
Standards, Rezone Properties to be Included in the Multifamily Residential and RHNAOD, Rezone 1200 Aguajito Rd., and Amend Architectural Review Procedures; and

3. Amend the Density Bonus Ordinance to Comply with State Housing Law and to Establish Development Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects.

III. Adjourn from Planning Commission Special Meeting and Reconvene to City Council Regular Meeting to Consider Planning Commission Recommendation and Adopt Resolutions:

IV. City Council Consider Planning Commission Recommendation and Adopt Ordinances to Implement the Housing Element:

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 68 №10/24
RHNAOD, Rezone 1200 Aguajito Road, and Amend Architectural Review Procedures; and
B. Amending Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 Density Bonus to Comply with State Housing Law and to Establish Local Development Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects.

RECOMMENDATION:
(1) That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and adopt Resolutions (Attachments 2 through 5) recommending the City Council accept the Planning Office determination that the proposed Housing Element implementation actions are consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR; amend the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards of the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans; amend Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to create a Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District, amend the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards of the Multifamily Residential Overlay District, rezone properties to be included in the Multifamily Residential and Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay Districts, rezone property at 1200 Aguajito Road from R-1-15-D1 to R-3-MF3, amend the Architectural Review Procedures of Section 38-189; and amend Chapter 38, Section 38- 112.5 to comply with State Density Bonus Law and establish local development incentives for qualifying housing projects;
(2) That the City Council receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and adopt two resolutions to: accept the Planning Office determination that the proposed Housing Element implementation actions are consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR and to amend the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards of the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans (Attachments 6 and 7); and
(3) That the City Council receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and adopt two Ordinances to: amend Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to create a Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District, amend the Land Use Regulations and Development Standards of the Multifamily Residential Overlay District, rezone properties to be included in the Multifamily Residential and Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay Districts, rezone property at 1200 Aguajito Road from R-1-15-D1 to R-3-MF3, amend the Architectural Review Procedures of Section 38-189; and amend Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 to comply with State Density Bonus Law and establish local development incentives for qualifying housing projects (Attachments 8 and 9).

VALUE DRIVERS:

Protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions
Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 69 №10/24
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 70 №10/24
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element on July 16, 2024. On October 4, 2024 the Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Government Code Section 65860 requires the city’s land use regulations, zoning, and other land use decisions conform to the City’s adopted general plan. Additionally, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), all rezonings necessary to accommodate the City’s RHNA must be completed by December 15, 2024.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office has prepared a CEQA Review Environmental Checklist (Attachment 1 and Exhibit A to Attachment 6) and has determined that there are no substantial changes proposed by the Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR.

The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Applicable mitigation measures from the certified Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR are identified and discussed in this Checklist. The Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission (Government Code section 65857). Any substantial modification proposed by the City Council not previously considered by the Planning Commission shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. (Government Code section 65857.) The Planning Commission has 40 days to report on the reference, and if it does not so report, it shall be deemed a recommendation for approval.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the Monterey 2031 – General Plan Update, including the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. The housing element was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on October 4, 2024.

The housing element identified locations for future housing development for all income levels. The plan considers the housing development goals (3,654 units) established for the city by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). This housing development number is commonly referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

In addition to identifying specific sites for future housing, the housing element contains goals, updated information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing actions) that the City is committed to undertaking to fulfill the City’s RHNA obligation. This includes evaluating potential constraints to housing development and developing programs to help remove or reduce barriers Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 71 №10/24
to the development of housing for all income levels. The specific implementing actions are contained in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element, the Housing Action Plan.

Housing Action Plan
The Housing Action Plan describes the specific goals, policies, and programs the City will undertake to achieve the long‐term housing objectives set forth in the housing element. These goals, policies, and programs are intended to provide a framework for increasing the range of housing options in the community, removing barriers and constraints to housing construction, ensuring the continued maintenance of existing housing, and providing equal access to housing opportunities and services for all who live and work in Monterey.

In total, the Housing Action Plan includes 53 programs to be implemented through the 2023-2031 planning period. Many of these programs require Council action to be fully implemented.

Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments seek to implement the first phase of programs included in the Housing Action Plan. A discussion of each individual program and associated amendments is provided below.

Program 1-B. Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments The City has an established Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR) Overlay District, set forth in City Code section 38-99.4 et seq. The existing overlay applies to properties along the south side of Garden Road (Map 1.) and permits the conversion of existing commercial and office buildings to housing and the development of new housing at densities up to 30 du/ac. The proposed amendment would expand the existing MFR overlay to include portions of the City located in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area (Map 2) as well as the County Courthouse site located at 1200 Aguajito Road (Map 3) and incorporate an increased density of 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in all overlay areas. The amendment seeks to further facilitate housing development in these areas by allowing ministerial permitting of residential development when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower-income households. In addition to defining three unique geographical overlay zones (Maps 1-3), the amendment would also establish four distinct subsections of land use and development standards addressing setbacks, height, tree removals, etc.

Map 1 – Existing Multifamily Overlay, South side of Garden Road Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 72 №10/24
Map 2 – Proposed Multifamily Overlay, Pacific / Munras / Cass Area Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 73 №10/24
Map 3 – Proposed Multifamily Overlay, 1200 Aguajito Road Site Program 1-C. Focused Specific Plan Updates
Focused specific plan amendments are proposed to the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans to facilitate development at the projected densities planned for in the adopted housing element. The amendments include:

North Fremont Specific Plan
 Increased residential density from 30 du/ac to 60 du/ac.  Increased maximum allowed building height from 35 feet to 45 feet in areas.  Reduced minimum parking requirement from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit.  Allow ministerial permitting of residential development when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower-income households.

Downtown Specific Plan
 Incorporate additional development incentives beyond State density bonus for qualifying projects.
 Increase maximum allowed building height from 4 stories to 5 stories in the Alvarado District.

Lighthouse Specific Plan
 Amend use table to allow 100 percent residential developments including ground floor residential uses.

Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 74 №10/24
 Allow parking requirements for residential projects to be met with a municipal shared parking agreement when projects proposing 30 du/acre are located within 500 feet of a City-owned parking lot or structure.

Program 1-L. Monterey County Courthouse Site Rezoning
The Monterey County Courthouse site, located at 1200 Aguajito Road (Map 3), was identified on the 6th Cycle housing element sites inventory. However, the existing Single Family (R-1) zoning would not permit the 246 units projected for the property. A zoning map amendment is proposed to rezone the site to Medium Density Multifamily (R-3) with the Multifamily Overlay (MF3). Land Use Regulations and Development standards contained within the Multifamily Overlay District would apply to the site, ensuring orderly development and allowing a maximum density of 60 du/ac.

Program 2-A. Prior Sites Inventory Rezoning, Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District (RHNAOD)
Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i), any non-vacant commercial sites identified on two prior housing element inventories that are also identified to accommodate lower income RHNA units on the 6th Cycle Housing Element shall be allowed ministerial permitting when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District (Table 1) is proposed to clearly identify these sites in addition to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i) to ensure compliance with State law. Qualifying projects will continue to be required to comply with existing zoning regulations and objective design standards.

Table 1 – RHNAOD Sites
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District
Property Address Current Zoning
600 Munras Ave C-2
445 Tyler St PC-D
755 Lighthouse Ave PC-LH
600 Cannery Row CR
724 Abrego St C-2
300 Fremont St C-2
398 Fremont St C-2
Programs 2-F and 3-C. Density Bonus Amendments
The City’s current Density Bonus ordinance set forth in City Code section 38-112.5, was adopted in 2016. Since that time, the State has enacted new laws pertaining to density bonuses. The City proposes to amend its Density Bonus ordinance (Attachment 9) to incorporate the current requirements of State density bonus law. In addition to bringing the City’s Density Bonus ordinance into full compliance with State law, the amendment would establish additional density bonus and development incentives for qualifying projects under local density bonus provisions.

The local development bonus will target projects that consolidate small, adjacent lots and/or develop higher proportions of 2- and 3-bedroom units. Projects that commit to additional Moderate-Income units over and above those units required under the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Program would also qualify. An additional density bonus of up to 10%, along with increases in allowed building height, would be available through the program for qualifying projects as needed Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 75 №10/24
to support a higher share of 2- and 3-bedroom units in the Alvarado District downtown and the Pacific / Munras / Cass Multifamily Overlay District.

Environmental Review
The 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted as part of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update on July 16, 2024, and an accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified on July 16, 2024 (SCH # 2023080034). That EIR described and disclosed the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, adopted by the City Council to guide development within the City limit through the year 2031.

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

To ensure the proposed implementation actions comply with the CEQA guidelines, the City of Monterey Planning Office prepared a CEQA Review Environmental Checklist (Attachment 1 and Exhibit A to Attachment 6). The purpose of the Environmental Checklist is to evaluate each of the environmental resource categories in CEQA Appendix G in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15152).

Upon completion of the Environmental Checklist, it was determined that there are no substantial changes proposed by the Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR.

The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible. Applicable mitigation measures from the certified Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR are identified and discussed in this Checklist. The Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR.

In summary, Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan amendments ensure that the City complies with State Housing Element law, including the specific requirements for sites identified to accommodate a lower-income RHNA shortfall and the required timing for zoning amendments to accommodate a RHNA shortfall.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council approve and adopt the housing element implementation actions as provided in the attached Resolutions and Ordinances.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. CEQA Environmental Checklist (and Exhibit A to City Council Resolution 1)

2. Planning Commission Resolution 1
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 76 №10/24

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2

4. Planning Commission Resolution 3

5. Planning Commission Resolution 4

6. City Council Resolution 1 Accepting the CEQA Determination with Exhibit A

7. City Council Resolution 2 Amending the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans

8. Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the City Code with Appendix A

9. Ordinance Amending City Density Bonus
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 77 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing
Element Implementation
Environmental Checklist
DECEMBER 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Prepared for the City of Monterey
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 78 Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 2 Project Description............................................................................................ 2-1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 Project Location...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Background and Prior Environmental Analysis................................................................................ 2-3 3 CEQA Checklist................................................................................................... 3-1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories.............................................................................. 3-1 Discussion and Mitigation Sections .................................................................................................... 3-2 Environmental Topics............................................................................................................................ 3-3 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................................ 3-10 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................................. 3-15 Biological Resources............................................................................................................................ 3-26 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3-43 Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change ......................................................... 3-52 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................................. 3-65 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................................... 3-76 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................................................... 3-85 Land Use, Population, and Housing.................................................................................................. 3-95 Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................................. 3-106 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-108 Public Services and Recreation........................................................................................................ 3-117 Transportation .................................................................................................................................... 3-125 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................................ 3-133 Wildfire................................................................................................................................................. 3-147 4 List of Preparers................................................................................................. 4-1 A Tribal Consultation Letters............................................................................. A-1 ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 79 City of Monterey 1-1

1. Introduction
Public Resources Code section 21093 and 21094 and the parallel Guidelines provision, sections 15152 and 15385, allow for public agencies to prepare a series of EIRs or negative declarations, typically moving from general, regional concerns to more site-specific considerations with the preparation of each new document. The use of tiering is intended to allow agencies to avoid repetitiveness, wasted time, and unnecessary premature speculation. (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21068.5, 29093, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15152). A subsequent project may tier from an earlier environmental document if the project is consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, the project is consistent with applicable local land use plans and zoning, and the project does not trigger the need for a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21094, subd. (b).)
A program EIR is the archetype of a “first tier EIR.” A program EIR can be used in connection with “the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168, subd. (a)(3).) Further, if a subsequent project, which is within the scope of a program EIR, does not have effects that were not examined in the program EIR and does not require new mitigation measures to address project-specific environmental impacts, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. (Pub. Res.

Code, § 15168, subd. (c).) This CEQA Consistency Analysis and Environmental Checklist has been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023080034, certified July 16, 2024) (Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR) sufficiently addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation (Proposed Project), or whether additional documentation and analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.).

FINDINGS
There are no substantial changes proposed by the Proposed Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR. The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Applicable mitigation measures from the certified Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR are identified and discussed in this Checklist.

As illustrated herein, the Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR. The impacts of the Proposed Project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15164).

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 80 City of Monterey 2-1

2. Project Description
Introduction
This CEQA Consistency Analysis and Environmental Checklist evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a series of amendments to the adopted Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans identified in the City of Monterey 2023-2031 Housing Element needed to accommodate the City of Monterey’s assessed share of the regional housing need. The 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted as part of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update on July 16, 2024, and an accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified on July 16, 2024 (SCH # 2023080034). That EIR described and disclosed the environmental effects associated with implementation of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, adopted by the City Council to guide development within the City limit through the year 2031. The Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR is hereby incorporated by reference.

Project Location
The City of Monterey is located in northern Monterey County, about 19 miles west of Salinas, 29 miles north of Big Sur, and 120 miles south of San Francisco, as shown in Map 2-1. The City of Monterey is a coastal community of about 28,000 residents with a rich historic background and a distinctive small-town feel. The city occupies 8.67 square miles of land between the southern shore of Monterey Bay and the forested ridgeline of the foothills, bordered by the City of Pacific Grove to the northwest and the City of Seaside to the northeast. Regional access is provided by California State Route 1 (Highway 1), a north-south highway that runs through the center of Monterey, as well as California State Route 68 (Highway 68), an eastwest highway that serves as a major route between Salinas and Monterey Peninsula. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides connections at the Monterey Transit Plaza to the Salinas Transit Center and other neighboring communities, including Pacific Grove, Carmel Valley, Seaside, and Marina. Adjacent to the City to the east is the Monterey Regional Airport, a commercial service airport offering direct service to several destinations and connecting service to numerous cities worldwide.

PROJECT AREA
The Project Area consists of all land within the City of Monterey. Shown on Map 2-1, the Project Area comprises a total of 5,522 acres (8.67 square miles) of incorporated land and 3.5 square miles of water within the Monterey Bay. Existing development within the City limits includes residential, commercial, and industrial developments as well as public facilities, including parks, schools, and military facilities.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 14, Packet Page 81 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
US Coast
Guard
Station
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Courthouse
Site
North Fremont
Specific Plan
Downtown
Specific Plan
Lighthouse
Specific Plan
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Zoning Amendments\Maps\Map 2-1 Planning Area.mxd North Fremont Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan
Lighthouse Specific Plan
City of Monterey
County Courthouse Site
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Freeway
Ramp
Local Collector
Local
Map 2-1: Planning Area
µ
UV1
UV1
UV1
£¤101
£¤101
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Pacific
Grove
MontereySeaside
Carmel
-by-the-Sea
Carmel Valley
Village
Salinas Marina
Prunedale
Elkhorn
Castroville
Aromas Las Lomas
Watsonville
Gilroy
Interlaken Amesti
Pajaro
Dunes
La Selva Beach
Day Valley
Santa
Cruz Capitola
Live
Oak
Rio
del
Mar
Aptos
Hills
Aptos
Fort Ord
National
Monument
Toro
Regional
Park
Palo Corona
Regional Park
Wilder
Ranch
State
Park
Mount
Madonna
County
Park
Monterey
Santa Cruz
San
Benito
Santa
Clara
£¤101
UV1
UV17
UV68
UV1
Map Not to Scale
µ
Regional Locator
City of Monterey
Cities/Places
Parks
County
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 15, Packet Page 82 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 2-3
Background and Prior Environmental Analysis

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The setting of the Project Area is largely urbanized; however, natural resources are an integral part of the city’s setting, economy, and physical development. Monterey features an array of natural habitats and protected areas that are home to abundant wildlife, from marine wildlife and ecosystems to the coastal beaches, rocky bluffs, and sand dunes, to upland oak and pine forests and chaparral habitats. Notable flora and fauna that occur in the area include Oak woodland, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, Monterey spineflower, Yadon’s Rein Orchid, Burrowing owl, Hoary Bat, Smith’s blue butterfly, and the Northern California legless lizard as well as numerous other rare, threatened, and endangered species.

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

CITY OF MONTEREY 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Under State law, each city and county in California must plan to accommodate its share of the regional housing need—called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)—for the coming 8-year planning period, which runs from December 15, 2023, through December 15, 2031. The State determines the estimated need for new housing in each region of California, based on population projections and other factors including rates of vacancy, overcrowding, and cost-burden. The various regional planning agencies then allocate a target to each city or town within their jurisdiction, considering factors such as access to jobs, good schools, and healthy environmental conditions. RHNA is split into four categories representing different levels of affordability, based on area median income (AMI) in the county. The affordability categories are as follows:
• Very Low Income - Households making less than 50 percent of AMI • Low Income - Households making 50‒80 percent of AMI
• Moderate Income - Households making 80‒120 percent of AMI • Above Moderate Income - Households making more than 120 percent of AMI ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 16, Packet Page 83 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
4 2
3 3 1
5 5
4 2
1 3
2 1
5 2
3 3
4 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Zoning Amendments\Maps\Map 2-2 Environmental Hazards.mxd Environmental Constraints
100 Year Coastal Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
High Liquefaction Susceptibility
High Landslide Susceptibility
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard Zone
Airport Safety Zones (1-5)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Very High (LRA)
Very High
High
City of Monterey
Park
Water
Map 2-2: Environmental Hazards
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 17, Packet Page 84 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 2-5
Amid the ongoing housing crisis in California, Monterey is required to plan for at least 3,654 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, including 1,177 Very Low-Income units, 769 Low Income units, 462 Moderate Income units, and 1,246 Above Moderate units. As required by State law, the Housing Element shall include an inventory of sites available for housing and a projection of the realistic capacity of the inventory for housing. The Housing Element shall also include a Housing Action Plan organized around communitywide housing goals. Each goal shall be supported by policies and implementing programs that describe actions the City shall take to help meet its RHNA obligations.

Together with development proposals currently in the pipeline and expected to be approved and constructed within the planning period, the inventory has a total projected capacity for up to 5,800 new homes, which is sufficient to meet the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need at all income levels with a buffer. The inventory assumes a combination of strategies to ensure the City meets its RHNA obligations, including:
• Infill development on vacant and underutilized properties downtown and along commercial corridors, including North Fremont Street, Garden Road, Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, Munras Avenue, and Abrego Street; • Preparation of a specific plan to guide future residential and mixed-use development in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch area, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource protection; • Facilitating construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs that provide affordable housing options on existing residential properties throughout the community; and • Development or redevelopment of several larger sites to increase the range of housing options available in Monterey.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Monterey adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element on July 16, 2024, which establishes housing objectives, policies, and programs in response to community housing conditions and needs. The Housing Element was prepared to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey and provide a framework for the community’s longer-term approach to addressing its housing needs. Chapter 4 of the Housing Element contains the Housing Action Plan which describes the specific goals, policies, and programs the City will undertake to achieve the long-term housing objectives set forth in the document.

These goals, policies, and programs are intended to provide a framework for increasing the range of housing options in the community, removing barriers and constraints to housing construction, ensuring the continued maintenance of existing housing, and providing equal access to housing opportunities and services for all who live and work in Monterey. The Housing Element was certified by the State of California on October 4, 2024.

The Proposed Project consists of five modules that implement zoning and specific plan amendments needed to accommodate RHNA as identified in programs from the Housing Action Plan, listed below. The proposed implementation modules are explained in more detail below and the adopted program language has been included in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 18, Packet Page 85 Chapter 2: Project Description
2-6 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Principal Components of the Proposed Project
Module 1 Focused Specific Plan Updates (Program 1-C)
The City has adopted specific plans with the intention of integrating new high density housing into three key commercial areas with good access to employment, shopping, transit, recreation, and other services:

Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue. Buildout of the specific plans will primarily involve infill development, and recognizing the associated challenges, the specific plans incorporate strategies to assist with the financial feasibility of high-density infill housing development, including reduced parking requirements and provisions for permitting density above 30 du/ac. The specific plans control zoning for their respective areas. Through this program the City will:
• Amend the North Fremont Specific Plan to increase the maximum permitted density from 30 du/acre (use permit currently required if exceeding 30 du/acre) to a permitted maximum density of 60 du/acre. The maximum allowed building heights are proposed to be increased from 35-feet to 45-feet when located outside of Monterey Regional Airport Safety Zones and up to 50-feet in the Visitor Serving Area with approval from the Airport Land Use Commission (Map 2-3). The amendments will incorporate development standards that establish appropriate transitions in development intensity from North Fremont Street to properties zoned for lower densities, including a maximum height of 35 feet for portions of properties within 25-feet of an R-1 zoned property and within 15-feet of an R-3 zoned property. The amendments propose reductions in required parking from 1.5 spaces per residential unit to 1 space per residential unit. Additionally, the amendments will require that residential uses occupy at least 50 percent of total floor area of a mixed-use project if proposed. Additionally, amendments are proposed that would permit residential uses administratively without discretionary review per Government Code 65583.2 (h) and (i) on sites identified to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower income households are included.
• Amend the Downtown Specific Plan to increase maximum permitted building heights from four stories to five stories within the Alvarado District (Map 2-4). The specific plan will also be amended to offer municipal shared parking agreements to qualifying projects when located in proximity to a City-owned parking lot or structure. Additional incentives for streamlined review will be incorporated for projects proposing the consolidation of adjacent, small lots. • Amend the Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan to permit 100 percent residential projects for properties fronting Lighthouse Avenue. The amendments propose reductions in required parking from

1.5 spaces per residential unit to 1 space per residential unit. The specific plan will also be amended to offer municipal shared parking agreements to qualifying projects when located within 500 feet of a City-owned parking lot or structure. Additional incentives for streamlined review will be incorporated for projects proposing the consolidation of adjacent, small lots.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 19, Packet Page 86 Zone 3
Laguna Grande
Regional Park
Peter
Ferrante
Park
Montecito
Park
Casanova
Oak Knoll
Park
AÔ
A§
Casanova Ave
Ramona Ave
Dela Vina Ave
Montecito Ave
Montecito Ave
N Fremont St
Lerwick Dr
Edinburgh Ave
Airport Rd
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 5
Casanova Ave
N Fremont St
Fairground Rd
Hannon Ave
John St
Encina Ave
Bruce Ln
Euclid Ave
Branner Ave
Dundee Dr
Palo Verde Ave
Helvic Ave
Littleness Ave
Garden Ave
Portola Ave
Kolb Ave
Alcalde Ave
Sequoia Ave
Del Rosa Ave
English Ave
Casa Verde Ave
Toyon Ave
Stuart Ave
Melway Cir
Palo Verde Ave
Garden Rd
English Ave
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
µ * Structures located in an Airport Safety Zone as identified in the Monterey Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan shall have a maximum height of 35 feet unless additional height is approved by the Airport Land Use Commission ** Maximum Building Height is subject to further restrictions as identified in Standard S.3.2.

Bruce Lane Buffer Zone A: Structures located within 15 feet of Bruce Lane Right of Way shall have a maximum permitted height of 25 feet Bruce Lane Buffer Zone B: Structures located within 25 feet of Bruce Lane Right of Way shall have a maximum permitted height of 40 feet.

R-1 Buffer Zone: Structures located within 25 feet of an immediately adjacent R-1 zoned property shall have a maximum permitted height of 35 feet.

R-3 Buffer Zone: Structures located within 15 feet of an immediately adjacent R-3 zoned property shall have a maximum permitted height of 35 feet.

North Fremont Specific Plan
Airport Safety Zones*
Maximum Building Height**
45 feet
50 feet
Height Restricted Buffer Zones
Maximum Permitted Height - 25 feet
Maximum Permitted Height - 35 feet
Maximum Permitted Height - 40 feet
City of Monterey
Map 2-3: Maximum Building Heights
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 20, Packet Page 87 Jacks
Ballpark
P a c i f i c O c e a n
El Estero
Park
Monterey State
Beach
Friendly
Plaza
Colton Hall
Lawn
Lagunita
Mirada
Jacobsen
Park
St
Larkin St
Van Buren St
Clay St
Artillery St
Watson St
Figueroa St
Scott St
Calle Principal
Tyler St
Del Monte Ave
E Franklin St
Alvarado St
t
Pierce St
Municipal
Wharf 2
Polk St
Hartnell St
Alma St
Decatur St
Cooper St
Ord St
Bonifacio Pl
Wharf II
Wharf 1
Washington St
Anthony St
Dutra St
Ln
Perry Ln
Adams St
Margaret St
Anita St
Robinson St
Olivier St
Franklin St
Cortes St
Union St
Jackson St
el Caminito
Dormody Ct
Sargent Ct
Del Monte Ave
Portola Plz
Oliver St
Van Buren
Colony Bishop Ct
E Franklin St
E Franklin St
Cortes St
Madison St
Tyler St
Cortes St
Larkin St
Jefferson St
Lighthouse Ave
Munras Ave
Abrego St
Fremont St
Church St
Pacific St
ific St
Cass St
Munras Ave
Webster St
Pearl St Pearl St
Calle Principal
Webster St
Camino El Estero
Alvarado District
Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown Opportunity Area
National Historic
Landmark District
Density Cap Overlay
City of Monterey
Water
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
µ
Map 2-4: Downtown Districts
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 21, Packet Page 88 Chapter 2: Project Description
2-8 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Module 2 Multifamily Residential Overlay (Program 1-B)
The City has established a Multifamily Residential (MFR) Overlay District, set forth in City Code section 38-99.4 et seq. The existing overlay applies to properties along the south side of Garden Road (Map 2-5) and permits the conversion of existing buildings to housing and the development of new housing at densities up to 30 du/ac. The City proposes to amend and expand the existing MFR overlay to include portions of the City located in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area and the 1200 Aguajito Road site (Map 2-5). The amend-ment seeks to further facilitate housing development in these areas by increasing the maximum residential density to 60 du/ac and allowing administrative permitting without discretionary review per Government Code 65583.2 (h) and (i) on sites identified to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower income households are included.

Specifically, the City proposes to amend the existing MFR Overlay District to establish three unique geographical overlay zones and four distinct subsections of land use and development standards.

The first subsection seeks to establish general land use and development regulations that would apply to all mixed use and residential development located within the MFR Overlay Districts. The proposed regulations would include objective design standards for tree removals and replacements, bicycle parking, automobile parking, and public improvements. The MFR Overlay Districts will specifically exclude properties zoned for single-family residential, open space, visitor accommodation facility, and properties designated historic.

The second subsection would establish additional land use and development regulations applicable only to those properties located within the boundary of the existing MFR Overlay area along the south side of Garden Road (MF1) as shown in Map 2-5. Regulations included in this subsection would continue to prohibit mixed-use developments and retain the current maximum allowed building height of 35 feet. Setbacks would be reduced to 20 feet on all sides, except that there will be additional setback requirements from Highway 68 that ensure adequate buffers to the scenic highway. The lot coverage maximum would increase to 50 percent regardless of building height. No restrictions on floor area are proposed. Development standards for ensuring the provision of private and shared active recreational open space will be modified and reduced to facilitate the projected density. Lighting, noise, and avigation and hazard easement requirements would remain as currently written. Additional standards for landscaping, screening, and building materials are also proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 22, Packet Page 89 AÔ
A§
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
r
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W F r a n k lin S t Tyler St
A
Fairground Rd
b
re
g
o
S
t
Ca
m
Agu
aji
to
C
a s
a
V
e
rd e W ay
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
E l D or a d o St
M a rk T h o m a s D r
F re m o n t S t
G le n wood C ir
A
g u a
jito
R
d
Munras Ave
P
a
c
ific
S t
D e l M o n te A v e
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Monterey
City Hall
0 0.1 0.2 0.4
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Zoning Amendments\Maps\Map 2-4 Multifamily Residential Overlay.mxd Existing Multifamily Residential Overlay
Proposed Multifamily Residential Overlay
City of Monterey
Water
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
Map 2-5: Multifamily Residential Overlay
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 23, Packet Page 90 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 2-11
The third subsection would establish additional land use and development regulations applicable only to those properties located within the Pacific/Munras/Cass MFR Overlay District (MF2). The geographic area of the Pacific/Munras/Cass district will be generally bound by Pacific Street, Dormody Court, Cass Street, Webster Street, Munras Avenue, Fremont Street, Mesa Road, Boronda Lane, Major Sherman Lane, El Dorado Street, Munras Avenue, and Alameda Street (Map 2-6). The Pacific/Munras/Cass subsection will allow 100 percent residential or mixed-use projects and will increase the maximum allowed building height from 35 feet to 45 feet. The front yard setback will reduce to 10 feet and the rear yard setback will remain at 10 feet. The side setback will be reduced to 5 feet for interior lot lines and to 7 feet for corner side or reverse corner side lot lines. Lot coverage and floor area maximums will be eliminated and a 50 percent minimum residential floor area of the total floor area on site will be required for mixed-use projects. Development standards for ensuring the provision of private open space will be added. Additional standards for landscaping, lighting, screening, and building materials are also proposed.

The fourth subsection would establish additional land use and development regulations applicable only to the 1200 Aguajito Road MFR Overlay site (MF3). This subsection will allow multi-family residential development with building heights of 45 feet, 30-foot setbacks on all sides, and a lot coverage maximum of 50 percent. An additional setback requirement from Highway 1 will ensure adequate protection to the scenic highway. A 50 percent minimum residential floor area of the total floor area on site will be required for mixed-use projects. Development standards for ensuring the provision of shared and private open space will be added. Additional standards for landscaping, lighting, screening, and building materials are also proposed
Additionally, amendments are proposed that would permit residential uses administratively without discretionary review per Government Code 65583.2 (h) and (i) on sites identified to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower income households are included.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 24, Packet Page 91 El Estero Park
St Johns
Cemetery
Iris
Canyon
Park
y
Plaza
Lagunita
Mirada
Jacobsen
Park
Via
araiso
Park
Whispering
Pines
Park
Don
Dahvee
Park
Pacific
Street
Greenbelt
Pacific St
Colton St
Grove St
San Bernabe Dr
Doud St
Polk St
Camino El Estero
Hartnell St
Alma St
Fountain Ave
Larkin St
Figueroa St
Major Sherman Ln
Perry Ln
Eldorado St
Davis Ln
Van Buren St
El Camino
Lomita St
Robinson St
Cortes St
Avenue Maria Rd
Via Del Rey
Tyler St
Via Descanso
Carmelo St
Carmelito Ave
Via Esperanza
Calle Principal
Via Encina
Via Arboles
Via Robles
Via Campana
Dormody Ct
Monterey Cir
Sargent Ct
Fremont St
Munras Ave
Abrego St
Munras Ave
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Abrego St
Cortes St
Via Mirada
Mesa Rd
El Dorado St
Alta Mesa Rd
Pacific St
Munras Ave
Cass St
Webster St
Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O)
Pacific/Munras/Cass Opportunity Area
Current Zoning
Commercial - 2
Commercial Office
Open Space
0 250 500 1,000
Feet µ
Map 2-6 Pacific/Munras/Cass
Multifamily Residential Overlay
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 25, Packet Page 92 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 2-13
Module 3 Prior Sites Inventory Rezoning (Program 2-A)
A number of the non-vacant commercial sites identified on the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element sites inventory were included on two prior Housing Element inventories and identified to accommodate lower income RHNA units (Map 2-7). As these sites are also anticipated to accommodate lower income RHNA during the 2023-31 planning period, the City will create a zoning provision to allow developments by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.

Specifically, the City of Monterey proposes a zoning ordinance amendment to create a zoning overlay that would allow “by-right” development on identified non-vacant commercial sites included in prior Housing Element inventories. The ordinance would enable streamlined, administrative permitting of residential projects on these sites when at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to very low- or low-income households. The amendment intends to further facilitate the City’s RHNA obligation of 1,177 units affordable to very low-income households and 769 units affordable to low-income households during the 2023-2031 planning period. Furthermore, the amendment will ensure proper implementation of Government Code Sections 65583.2(h) and (i). Projects will be required to comply with existing zoning regulations but can utilize state and local density bonus incentives.

Module 4 Monterey County Courthouse Site Rezoning (Program 1-L) The City proposes a zoning map amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of a 4.4-acre site located at 1200 Aguajito Road, east of Highway 1. This site, currently occupied by the Monterey County Courthouse, has been identified for potential redevelopment following the County's decision to relocate the courthouse.

The City, in coordination with the County, aims to redevelop the site into a high-density residential area with at least 246 new homes that are affordable to moderate, low, and very low-income households. The primary purpose of this amendment is to rezone the subject site to promote multifamily housing development that meets the City’s affordable housing goals, as outlined in the General Plan and Housing Element.

Through Program 1-L, the site will be rezoned from R-1 (Residential Single Family) to R-3-MFR (Medium Density Multifamily with Multifamily Residential Overlay) (Map 2-7). As such, multifamily residential development at this site will conform to the land use and development standards of subsection four of the MFR overlay (MF3), instead of those of the R-3 base district, where conflicts between standards occur. On this basis, the inventory projects the site will accommodate 246 new residential units. Residential development on the site will be permitted administratively in accordance with Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i) for projects having at least 20 percent of the units restricted to lower (low, very low) income households.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 26, Packet Page 93 Pacific Grove
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park
Via
Paraiso
Park
Quarry
Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial
Park
Del Mo
Beach
El Estero
Park
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Ab
reg
o
St
Ca
m
Agu
aji
to
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Fremont St
Lighthouse Ave
Munras Ave
Pacific
St
Del Monte Ave
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Zoning Amendments\Maps\Map 2-7 Rezoning to Allow Development By Right on Sites Reused from Prior Inventories.mxd Housing Inventory Sites (6th Cycle) included in Prior Inventories Nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element inventory Vacant sites included in two or more prior inventories
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Parks and Recreation
Water
Fairgrounds
µ
Map 2.7: Rezoning to Allow Development By Right
on Sites Reused from Prior Inventories
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 27, Packet Page 94 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 2-15
Module 5 State and Local Density Bonus (Programs 2-F and 3-C) The City’s current Density Bonus ordinance set forth in City Code section 38-112.5, was adopted in 2016.

Since that time, the State has enacted new laws pertaining to density bonuses. Specifically, AB 2334 amended Government Code section 65915 and makes important changes to the Density Bonus Law to define development capacity; and AB 1551, set forth in Government Code section 65915.7, reinstates the ability to seek State Density Bonus Law benefits for commercial projects. Additional bonuses (including up to 80 percent for completely affordable projects) are now available.

The City proposes to amend its Density Bonus ordinance to incorporate the current requirements of State density bonus law. In addition to bringing the City’s Density Bonus ordinance into full compliance with State law, this amendment would establish additional density and development incentives for qualifying projects under a proposed local density bonus. The local density bonus will target projects that consolidate small, adjacent lots and/or develop higher proportions of 2- and 3-bedroom units. Projects that commit to additional Moderate-Income units over and above those units required under the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Program would also qualify.

One (1) additional story in building height would be available through the program for qualifying projects as needed to support a higher share of 2- and 3-bedroom units in the Alvarado District downtown and the Pacific/Munras/Cass MFR Overlay District (MF2). The local density bonus program intends to facilitate development of at least 200 units affordable to Moderate Income households and 75 rental units with two or three bedrooms over the planning period. The local density bonus program would complement additional density available to qualifying projects under State Density Bonus law with the objective of addressing particular local constraints and needs.

A revised Zoning Map reflecting the amendments described above is included as Map 2-8 below.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 28, Packet Page 95 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Zoning Amendments\Maps\Map 2-8 Zoning Map.mxd Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O)
Historic H1
Historic H2
Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O)
Zoning Districts
Residential Estate
Residential - 1
Residential - 2
Residential - 3
Commercial - 1
Commercial - 2
Commercial - 3
Commercial Office
Cannery Row
Visitor Accomodation Facility
Planned Community
Industrial
Open Space
N/A
City of Monterey
Water
Map 2-8: Zoning Map
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2024; Monterey County GIS, 2024; Dyett & Bhatia, 2024. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 29, Packet Page 96 City of Monterey 3-1

3. CEQA Checklist
The purpose of the Environmental Checklist is to evaluate each of the environmental resource categories in CEQA Appendix G in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15152).

The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the previous EIR. These environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist, since the proposed project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the previous EIR.

Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories

1. Conclusion in Prior EIR. This column summarizes the conclusion of the previous EIR relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. Pursuant to Section 21094, subdivision (a) of the Public Resources Code, this column indicates whether the impacts were mitigated or avoided pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 as a result of the prior environmental document. This is a two-part checklist question, which asks whether the impact is potentially significant 1) before mitigation and 2) after mitigation.

2. Mitigation Measures. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3), this column indicates whether the previous EIR provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. Any previously adopted mitigation measures will be identified. The response will also address proposed revisions to previously adopted mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the project, as applicable. If “NA” is indicated, the previous EIR has concluded that the impact either does not occur with this project or is not significant, therefore, no additional mitigation measures are needed.

3. Do the Proposed Zoning Amendments Involve New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, subd. (f) and 15162, subd. (a)(1), this column indicates whether the changes represented by the revised project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the previous EIR or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

4. New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 30, Packet Page 97 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-2 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

5. New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3)(A-D), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the previous EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document would be required.

Discussion and Mitigation Sections
The following sections include three components for each environmental checklist question: (1) discussion of each checklist question and any potential impacts to the environment, (2) any mitigation measures required, and (3) a conclusion of the analysis. Each component is further described below:

1. Discussion. A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Pursuant to Section 21094, subdivision (a) of the Public Resources Code, the discussion indicates whether the prior environmental document examined potential environmental impacts at a sufficient level of detail to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, by the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15152, subdivision (f)(1)-(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion indicates whether a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR and need not be discussed in detail. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (f)(1).) Where assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (f)(2).)

2. Applicable Mitigation Measures. Applicable mitigation measures from the previous EIR that apply to the proposed project are listed under each environmental category.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 31, Packet Page 98 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-3

3. Conclusions. A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis is contained in each section.

Environmental Topics
The following topics are evaluated in accordance with current CEQA Guidelines:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change • Geology and Soils
• Hydrology and Water Quality Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
• Land Use, Population, and Housing
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Aesthetics
AESTHETICS. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Scenic Vistas
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The EIR identified scenic vistas within the Planning Area and described that implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would allow development within and adjacent to these scenic entryway, corridors, and vistas, including development along Highway 1, Highway 68, Cannery Row, Del Monte Avenue and on the campuses of Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) schools. However, the EIR identified that implementation of Monterey 2031 General Plan would be designed to integrate the new housing in a context sensitive manner, recognizing that many of the sites are located in established residential neighborhoods. Therefore, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not substantially degrade scenic vistas and resources in the Planning Area and associated impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans, some of which would take place within the vicinity of scenic vistas in Monterey. Specifically, Program 1-C proposes to amend the Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan to permit 100 percent residential projects for properties fronting Lighthouse Avenue, in the vicinity of the Cannery Row scenic vista (no increase in height proposed); Program 1-B proposes to establish additional land use and development regulations for those properties located within the boundary of the existing Multifamily Residential (MFR) Overlay District on the southside of Garden Road, in the vicinity of the Highway 68 scenic vista; Program 1-L proposes a zoning map amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the Monterey County Courthouse to promote multifamily housing development that meets the City’s affordable housing goals, in the vicinity of the scenic vista of Highway 68; Program 2-A proposes a zoning ordinance amendment to create a zoning overlay that would allow “by-right” development on identified non-vacant commercial sites included in prior Housing Element inventories, located around Downtown and Lighthouse Avenue, in the vicinity of the scenic vistas of Cannery Row and Fisherman’s Wharf, and lastly; Programs 2-F and 3-C would amend the City’s Density Bonus ordinance to incorporate new requirements of State density bonus law, which would apply citywide for any qualifying projects.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 33, Packet Page 100 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-5
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As described in the prior EIR, the 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies intended to preserve and enhance scenic resources which are being further codified with the proposed amendments. Urban Design Element Policies a.7, and a.9 call for protection and enhancement of views to and from specific unique shoreline environments (i.e., Cannery Row and Monterey Bay Coastal Trail). Policies f.1 through f.7 under the Vistas section of the Element call for maintaining and expanding existing views of vistas to Monterey Bay Park, Fisherman’s Wharf and Cannery Row, Del Monte Lake and other visual features as seen from roadways such as Highway 1, Del Monte Avenue, Lighthouse Curve, parks, and other public spaces. Open Space Element policies a.3 and b.4 address preservation of views into Monterey Bay and Policy c.2 calls for preservation of greenbelts that form the visual backdrop to the city. Further, Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 14 establishes the ‘S’ Special Setback Overlay District which is intended to provide a mechanism for increasing setbacks along scenic streets and highways and the shoreline of Monterey Bay, El Estero, and Roberts Lake to protect natural resources and to achieve a visually pleasing relationship between buildings and the environment where they are located. Chapter 38, Article 25 of the Monterey City Code outlines architectural review procedures and submittal requirements for developments. The purpose of architectural review is to promote orderly development, to ensure high quality design that is harmonious with its surroundings, to implement the General Plan, as well as area or neighborhood plans, and to preserve and promote the visual character of the city. The seven-member Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviews all aspects of a development of the Proposed Project that deal with the outside appearance. The ARC also analyzes landscape areas and planting, architectural style, bulk, mass, and color to make sure they conform with adopted guidelines.

As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would help integrate new housing in a context sensitive manner, recognizing that many of the sites are located in established residential neighborhoods. Overall, with implementation of General Plan policies and existing City regulations, substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources in the Project Area would be minimized to the extent practicable and associated impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project does not include any zoning amendments that involve new or more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) State Scenic Highways
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified that Highway 1 is a State-designated Scenic Highway from Marina State Beach to Carmel-by-the-Sea and Point Lobos Nature Reserve, and a segment of Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive is a designated State scenic highway. Monterey 2031 General Plan would allow development adjacent to these segments as they pass through the Planning Area. The previous EIR identified that General Plan policies would preserve and protect scenic resources along these highway segments as developments would be required to blend into the natural surroundings and not detrimentally impact significant natural features. Additionally, City Code establishes standards and procedures that would guide development within the designated and eligible highway segments. As such, the previous EIR concluded compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would minimize the potential for significant impacts to scenic resources with Statedesignated and eligible Scenic Highways, and associated impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 34, Packet Page 101 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-6 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would involve Program 1-L and Program 1-B, which proposes zoning map amendments to facilitate the redevelopment of the Monterey County Courthouse to promote multifamily housing development that meets the City’s affordable housing goals, which could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Proposed Project Programs 1-L and 1-B zoning amendments propose to apply the MFR Overlay to the project site, where the development regulations of the MFR Overlay would apply to subject site, including maximum allowed building heights of 45-feet; 30-foot setbacks on all sides; and lot coverage maximums of 40 percent for one-story structures and 30 percent for structures greater than one-story. An additional 100-foot setback from the planned right-of-way of Highway 1 will be required for new development on undisturbed land as a part of Program 1-B to eliminate impacts to the designated scenic highway. Further, the Proposed Project includes implementation of Programs 2-F and 3-C, which propose a zoning amendment to incorporate current requirements of State density bonus and an update to the City’s Density Bonus ordinance to establish additional development incentives for citywide qualifying projects under a proposed local density bonus. The Proposed Project would allow development adjacent or near the officially State-designated scenic highway, Highway 68, which could impact scenic resources within the segment. As described in the prior EIR, the 2005 General Plan Urban Design Element includes numerous policies intended to preserve and enhance scenic resources within a State scenic highway, which would apply with implementation of the Proposed Project. Policy h.10 states that developments visible from scenic entrances should blend into the natural surroundings and not detrimentally impact significant natural features such as the wooded ridgeline, hilltops, etc. Specific to Highway 68, Policy h.22 requires the maintenance of the scenic corridor while Policy h.21 requires developments close to the highway be screened with native vegetation, such as Coast live oak. Additionally, the City Code establishes standards and procedures that would guide development within the designated and eligible highway segments, including Chapter 31 which establishes standards to control the size, type and location of signs, and the Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance [Monterey City Code (MCC) Chapter 37], which establishes standards and procedures for the preservation of trees which contribute to the natural scenic beauty and character of the Project Area.

As such, Program 1-B will require a 100-foot setback from the planned right-of-way of Highway 68 for new development on undisturbed land. Under Program 1-B, General Plan policies, and City Code regulations, this impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would reduce impacts more than those previously analyzed and would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Public Views
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
As noted in the previous EIR, the City of Monterey is an “urbanized area;” therefore, significant impacts would result if the Monterey 2031 General Plan would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The EIR discussed zoning amendments to facilitate development of housing as needed to meet the City's RHNA obligations and to ensure compatibility and public safety in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport, including updates to the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue specific plans to incorporate strategies to assist with the financial feasibility of high-density infill housing development. The previous EIR found projects pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with the zoning amendments once adopted, impacts related to conflicts with zoning standards would be less than significant. Further, continued implementation of the General Plan policies would help ensure that new development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 35, Packet Page 102 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-7
substantially degrade the scenic character of the Planning Area. Therefore, overall, compliance with applicable zoning regulations and General Plan policies would ensure impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements the zoning amendments identified and analyzed in the prior EIR. Zoning amendments would include updates to the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans to incorporate strategies to assist with the financial feasibility of high density infill housing development, including reduced parking requirements and provisions for permitting density above 30 du/ac (Program 1-C); amendments to the Multifamily Housing Overlay to facilitate high density housing on Garden Road and within the Pacific/Munras/Cass area (Program 1-B); amendments to the zoning map to facilitate the redevelopment of the Monterey County Courthouse site (Program 1-L); amendment to the zoning ordinance to create an zoning overlay that would allow “by-right” development on identified non-vacant commercial sites included in prior Housing Element inventories (Program 2-A); and amendments to the zoning ordinance to incorporate the current requirements of State density bonus law and establish additional development incentives for qualifying projects under the proposed local density bonus (Programs 2- F and 3-C). All development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable zoning standards and amendments once adopted; impacts related to conflicts with zoning standards would be less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project does not propose any substantial changes compared to what was already analyzed in the previous EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Light and Glare
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
As described in the previous EIR, existing developed areas in the city currently generate light and glare, and new development that would be facilitated by the Monterey 2031 General Plan could result in increased light and glare. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in significant new development in the Highway 68 Plan Area and the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area, which contain large undeveloped areas under existing conditions, thereby increasing light and glare in and around these locations. Other development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan would generally be in areas with urban development where sources of light and glare exist already. The previous EIR concluded that compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would ensure that development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts associated with increased light and glare.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As described in the prior EIR, the Proposed Project would comply with General Plan Policy f.9, which seeks to discourage high levels of ambient light and maintain night skies where stars can be seen. Development of the Proposed Project would be reviewed for consistency with this policy if the project requires Architectural Review. Additionally, development located in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District (Program 1-B) would be required to adhere to the applicable standards of Monterey Zoning Code Section 38-99.7 (G),), which requires new sources of light to be directed downward to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties and that an exterior lighting plan be prepared; as well as Section 38-111(D), which establishes standards for the use of ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 36, Packet Page 103 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-8 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
glass and building materials to minimize light and glare. The City Code also contains lighting standards for parking facilities. Additionally, the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, adopted as Chapter 9 of the Monterey City Code, includes a nonresidential mandatory light pollution reduction measure that establishes maximum allowable light and glare standards for outdoor lighting systems for new nonresidential projects (2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 5.106.8 Light pollution reduction). Specifically for the Lighthouse area, development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to comply with lighting standards in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies would ensure that implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with increased light and glare. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any additional light or glare and would not introduce new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR found the scenic resources in the Planning Area and immediate vicinity are the views of the coastline, near Lighthouse and Downtown areas, and the central ridge of wooded hills, around the Highway 68 and Fort Ord areas, that define the local scenic environment. New development within the Planning Area would primarily be focused into the previously developed areas, although the 50-acre MPUSD site within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundary is vacant. Implementation of Draft Housing Element Program 1-E would involve standards to integrate the new housing on the MPUSD site in a context sensitive manner.

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

The previous EIR identified Highway 1 as a State-designated Scenic Highway from Marina State Beach to Carmel and Point Lobos Nature Reserve, and a segment of Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway) from Highway 1 to the Fort Ord National Monument and River Road Scenic Drive is also a State-designated Scenic Highway. The Monterey 2031 General Plan would allow development adjacent to these segments as they pass through the Planning Area. The previous EIR concluded compliance with existing Monterey City Code regulations and General Plan policies would minimize the potential for cumulative impacts to scenic resources with State-designated and eligible Scenic Highways. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

The previous EIR noted that implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in significant new development in the Highway 68 Plan Area and the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area, which contain large undeveloped areas under existing conditions, thereby increasing light and glare in and around these locations. Other development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan would generally be in areas with urban development where sources of light and glare exist already. The previous EIR concluded that compliance with General Plan Policy f.9, applicable development standards City Code Section 38-99.7 (G) governing the Multifamily Residential Overlay District, and California Green Building Standards in Chapter 9 of the City Code would ensure that cumulative impacts associated with increased light and glare would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 37, Packet Page 104 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-9
Impacts from the Monterey 2031 General Plan, in conjunction with other plans and projects in the region, that could conflict with existing zoning or other regulations which govern scenic quality, are not cumulative in nature.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. New development within the Project Area would primarily be focused in previously developed areas, although the Programs 2-F and 3-C would allow development near Highway 68 and Fort Ord areas. Compliance with General Plan policies and existing City regulations would minimize substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources in and around the Project Area to the extent practicable.

Development under the Proposed Project would primarily be focused in previously developed areas of the Project Area; however, the Proposed Project would allow development adjacent to segments of State-designated Scenic Highway, Highway 68, as they pass through the Project Area. The General Plan establishes a framework of policies to preserve and protect scenic resources along these highway segments. Goal h of the Urban Design Element requires the protection and enhancement of scenic entrances within the city.

Additionally, the City Code establishes standards and procedures that would guide development within the designated and eligible highway segments, including Chapter 31, which establishes standards to control the size, type and location of signs, and Chapter 37, which establishes standards and procedures for the preservation of trees which contribute to the natural scenic beauty and character of the Planning Area. Compliance with these existing regulations and General Plan policies would minimize the potential for cumulative impacts to scenic resources within State-designated and eligible Scenic Highways.

Implementation of the Proposed Project could result in significant new development in the Highway 68 Plan Area and the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area, which contain large undeveloped areas under existing conditions, thereby increasing light and glare in and around these locations. As described in the prior EIR, compliance with General Plan Policy f.9, applicable development standards City Code Section 38-99.7 (G) governing the Multifamily Residential Overlay District, and California Green Building Standards in Chapter 9 of the City Code would ensure that cumulative impacts associated with increased light and glare would be less than significant.

Development under the Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable policies and standards for new development as well as regulations governing scenic quality in the urbanized area, including the City Code and General Plan. Impacts from the Proposed Project, in conjunction with other plans and projects in the region, that could conflict with existing zoning or other regulations which govern scenic quality are not cumulative in nature. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 38, Packet Page 105 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-10 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to aesthetics. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area Conclusion
in Prior EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Zoning Amendments Involve New
or More Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
Involving
New or
More Severe Impacts?
New Information Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact None No No No
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact None No No No
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact None No No No
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact None No No No
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Significant
and Unavoidable
MM AG-1 No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 39, Packet Page 106 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-11

DISCUSSION
a) Convert Farmland (FMMP)
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated there are no active agricultural activities within the Planning Area. Further, according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), there are no areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Planning Area. Therefore, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would have no impact on the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. As a result, there would be no impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use resulting from implementation the Monterey 2031 General Plan.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed zoning and specific plan amendments would be focused primarily in infill areas as shown on Map 2-1 above, including the Lighthouse Avenue, Downtown, and North Fremont Specific Plan Areas (Program 1-C), the Pacific/Munras/Cass and Garden Road areas (Program 1-B), and the Monterey County Courthouse (Program1-L). Implementation of the Proposed Project would also potentially apply to the Fort Ord and Highway 68 areas (Programs 2-F and 3-C). There are no areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Project Area; therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural land uses. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce environmental impacts related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural land uses or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Williamson Act
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
There are currently no areas zoned for agricultural uses and no Williamson Act contracts within the Planning Area. As shown in Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR Figure 3.2-2, the area designated as Grazing Land in the Planning Area is currently zoned as a Planned Community (PC) District, given that it falls within the Highway 68 Area Plan Planning Area. The Monterey 2031 General Plan would not change the current General Plan land use or zoning designation in this area. Therefore, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would have no impact with respect to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 40, Packet Page 107 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-12 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
c&d) Forest Land
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Forest land is defined as land that can support ten-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits (Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]).1 Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees (Public Resources Code Section 4526).

Timberland Production Zone designates an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code section 51104[g]).

There is no land within the City limit that is designated or zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. While portions of the Planning Area support tree cover, these lands are generally designated as open space on the General Plan Land Use Map and urban development is not permitted within the open space land use designation. Some land within the Highway 68 Area Plan boundaries, including Tarpey Flats and the 50-acre MPUSD site, may meet the definition of forest land; however, these lands are adjacent to urban uses and are not managed for forest resources or used for commercial timber production, and therefore do not meet the Public Resources Code Section 12220[g] definition of Forest land. Therefore, overall, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would have no impact on forest resources.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. The Project Area does not contain any areas zoned for forestland or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on existing forestland or timberland. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Farmland Conversion
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted that the City of Monterey is located in an urbanized part of Monterey County and there are no active agricultural uses within the Planning Area. However, as shown on Figure 3.2-1 and described in the previous EIR, a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area is classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. As depicted in Figure 2.2 of Chapter 2: Project Description of the previous DEIR, the Grazing Land is currently identified as vacant in data from the Monterey County Assessor and there are no active agricultural uses in this area. Further, Map 3 (Land Use Map) in the existing City of 1 California Public Resources Code, Division 4, Part 2.5 Forest Resources, Avaliable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=4.&title=&part=2.5.&chapter=1.&article=, Accessed: November 21, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 41, Packet Page 108 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-13
Monterey General Plan designates the area as a Special Planning Area and it is currently zoned as a Planned Community (PC) District, given that it falls within the Highway 68 Area Plan Planning Area.

Within this area classified by the FMMP as Grazing Land, the Highway 68 Area Plan identifies a 50-acre site owned by MPUSD as a potential location for 300 units of housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. Program 1-I of the proposed Housing Element would involve an update to the Highway 68 Area Plan that would permit the development of this parcel with up to 640 new housing units and neighborhood retail and services on a portion of the 50-acre site. While the development of housing on the 50-acre site would be consistent with the Highway 68 Area Plan and while there are no active agricultural activities on the site today, this would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which is a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the previous EIR noted that implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 would require project applicants to offset the loss of such land at a 1:1 ratio, either through the acquisition and dedication of comparable Farmland within Monterey County or through the acquisition and dedication of a conservation easement on comparable Farmland within Monterey County.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 is required, which would require project applicants to offset the loss of such land at a 1:1 ratio, either through the acquisition and dedication of comparable Farmland within Monterey County or through the acquisition and dedication of a conservation easement on comparable Farmland within Monterey County.

As such, the Proposed Project does not propose any substantial changes compared to what was already analyzed in the previous EIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
f) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified the cumulative geographic context for agriculture as the Planning Area. While the Planning Area contains historical grazing land, it does not include any prime Farmland, Farmland of statewide importance, or Williamson Act contracts. As a result, there would be no significant cumulative impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, Williamson Act contracts, or conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. However, there is a 150-acre area of land in the southeast of the Planning Area classified as Grazing Land under the FMMP. Within this area classified by the FMMP as ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 42, Packet Page 109 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-14 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Grazing Land, the Highway 68 Area Plan identifies a 50-acre site as a potential location for housing development. While the development of housing on the 50-acre site would be consistent with the Highway 68 Area Plan and while there are no active agricultural activities on the site today, this would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which would represent a permanent loss of such land. As such, the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s contribution to cumulative agricultural resources impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. The Project Area does not include any prime Farmland, Farmland of statewide importance, or Williamson Act contracts. As a result, there would be no significant cumulative impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, Williamson Act contracts, or conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. However, implementation of the Proposed Project would amend the zoning ordinance to incorporate the current requirements of State density bonus law and establish additional development incentives for qualifying projects under the proposed local density bonus (Programs 2-F and 3-C), which could result in development within the Highway 68 and Fort Ord areas. As noted in the previous EIR, development would be consistent with the Highway 68 Area Plan and while there are no active agricultural activities on the site today, this would result in the conversion of Farmland classified by the FMMP to non-agricultural use, which would represent a permanent loss of such land. As such, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative agricultural resources impacts would be cumulatively considerable.

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

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to agriculture resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 43, Packet Page 110 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-15
Air Quality
AIR QUALITY. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Conflicts with Adopted Air Quality Plans
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The City of Monterey is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is regulated by Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Although the NCCAB has achieved and is currently maintaining attainment status for ozone standards, in the past, the air basin was in violation of both federal and California standards for ozone. MBARD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was prepared as an attainment plan for ozone and is still the applicable air quality plan for the Monterey 2031 General Plan.

Although not part of the AQMP, MBARD’s Senate Bill (SB) 656 Implementation Plan addresses reduction of particulate matter (PM), including PM10 and PM2.5. The previous EIR found the NCCAB is currently in nonattainment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for PM10. The following analysis ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 44, Packet Page 111 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-16 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
summarizes the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone and PM10.

Construction
Construction associated with new land use developments under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in the temporary generation of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), CO, and PM emissions that could result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality within the Planning Area. Although the construction emission impacts associated with each new individual development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be short-term in nature (relative to the buildout year) and limited to the period when construction activity is taking place for that particular development, the concurrent construction of multiple individual development projects could generate combined criteria pollutant emissions on a daily basis that may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds. In addition, depending on the size and scale of an individual development project, along with its construction schedule and other parameters, there may also be instances where the daily construction emissions generated by a single development project within the Planning Area could also exceed MBARD’s criteria pollutant thresholds. Housing Element Program 5-C would help reduce construction emissions by restricting use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)s in mechanical equipment and building materials, using sustainable and recyclable materials, requiring a City-approved construction waste management plan, using local materials, and implementing construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts. However, the previous EIR concluded it is not guaranteed that this program would be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, and as such, construction emissions from the Monterey 2031 General Plan could result in a potentially significant impact on air quality requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require projects that exceed MBARD’s project emissions thresholds to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures (as necessary) and address project-level sources of criteria air pollutants. If the project-level analysis results in exceedances of MBARD construction thresholds, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 shall be implemented, as well as any project-specific measures. Mitigation measures AQ-2 through AQ-4, in conjunction with any additional project-specific mitigation measures as needed under MM-AQ-1, would help reduce project-generated emissions from construction of the Proposed Plan. As such, construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The previous EIR noted the operational emissions would exceed MBARD’s project-level significance thresholds for all pollutants except NOx. The increase in ROG and CO emissions is primarily attributed to energy consumption, while area source emissions, specifically on-road fugitive dust, account for nearly all PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. In the absence of plan-level significance thresholds, operational air quality impacts of the Monterey 2031 General Plan are also qualitatively evaluated for consistency with the 2016 AQMP to determine whether criteria pollutant emissions attributed to population and economic growth are significant. The previous EIR found the Monterey 2031 General Plan would support the goals of the 2016 AQMP and include all applicable control measures, but population growth resulting from the Monterey 2031 General Plan does not align with AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecasts, and the magnitude of growth could potentially result in significant impacts on air quality. The Monterey 2031 General Plan and Housing Element include policies that would minimize criteria air pollutant emissions primarily from mobile and energy sources, which align with MBARD’s recommended measures that mitigate indirect source (motor vehicle) emissions, including locating indirect sources (e.g., shopping centers, office buildings) near transit stations, promoting high-density development within one-quarter mile of a transit station, ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 45, Packet Page 112 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-17
encouraging mixed-use (residential and commercial) and infill development, encouraging general densification of residential and commercial land uses, and working towards a jobs-to-housing balance. Additionally, Monterey 2031 General Plan policies that reduce vehicle use would also substantially decrease generation of on-road fugitive dust. The previous EIR concluded that although the Monterey 2031 General Plan would reduce the severity of growth-oriented criteria pollutants, individual projects may still generate emissions exceeding the MBARD’s project-level thresholds. Accordingly, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on air quality and mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-4 would be required.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require projects that exceed MBARD’s project emissions thresholds to incorporate project-specific mitigation measures (as necessary) and address project-level sources of criteria air pollutants. Operational emissions would be reduced by MM-VMT-1, substantially reducing on-road PM emissions, which are the largest source of Proposed Plan PM10 and PM2.5. However, even with these mitigation measures, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the non-attainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Construction
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Although the construction emission impacts associated with each new individual development under the Proposed Project would be short-term in nature (relative to the buildout year) and limited to the period when construction activity is taking place for that particular development, the concurrent construction of multiple individual development projects could generate combined criteria pollutant emissions on a daily basis that may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds. In addition, depending on the size and scale of an individual development project, along with its construction schedule and other parameters, there may also be instances where the daily construction emissions generated by a single development project within the Planning Area could also exceed MBARD’s criteria pollutant thresholds. Housing Element Program 5-C would help reduce construction emissions by restricting use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in mechanical equipment and building materials, using sustainable and recyclable materials, requiring a City-approved construction waste management plan, using local materials, and implementing construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts. Similar to the previous EIR, it is not guaranteed that this program would be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, and as such, construction emissions from the Proposed Project could result in a potentially significant impact on air quality. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Operations
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As with the prior EIR, the operational emissions of the Proposed Project could exceed MBARD’s project-level significance thresholds for all pollutants except NOx. The increase in ROG and CO emissions is primarily attributed to energy consumption, while area source emissions, specifically on-road fugitive dust, account for nearly all ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 46, Packet Page 113 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-18 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Operational air quality impacts of the Proposed Project are also qualitatively evaluated for consistency with the 2016 AQMP to determine whether criteria pollutant emissions attributed to population and economic growth are significant. The Monterey 2031 General Plan includes policies that would minimize criteria air pollutant emissions primarily from mobile and energy sources, which align with MBARD’s recommended measures that mitigate indirect source (motor vehicle) emissions, including locating indirect sources (e.g., shopping centers, office buildings) near transit stations, promoting highdensity development within one-quarter mile of a transit station, encouraging mixed-use (residential and commercial) and infill development, encouraging general densification of residential and commercial land uses, and working towards a jobs-to-housing balance. The Proposed Project incorporates all of these strategies, with the implementation of the Multifamily Overlay (Program 1-B), call for Specific and Area Plan Updates (Program 1-C), and placement of job growth near new housing opportunities.

Further, Monterey 2031 General Plan policies that reduce vehicle use would also substantially decrease generation of on-road fugitive dust. Although the Proposed Project would reduce the severity of growth-oriented criteria pollutants, individual projects may still generate emissions exceeding the MBARD’s projectlevel thresholds. Accordingly, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with development under the Proposed Project would result in a potentially significant impact on air quality and mitigation measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-4 would be required, similar to the previous EIR. Even with such mitigation measures incorporated, individual projects may exceed MBARD’s project-level thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the non-attainment of PM10 in the NCCAB. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable, with a similar magnitude of impacts as identified in the previous EIR. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Increase Criteria Pollutant
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified the Monterey 2031 General Plan is broadly consistent with the policy objectives of the MBARD’s AQMP. The focus on mixed-use and infill development in land use and transportation policies as well as Housing Element policies and programs in the Monterey 2031 General Plan would help reduce pollutant emissions in the Planning Area and support 2016 AQMP programs and control measures for attainment and maintenance of ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). However, because the magnitude of growth associated with buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan exceeds the level of growth that is incorporated into the 2016 AQMP, ultimately resulting in a cumulative net increase in ozone precursors and PM, this impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 47, Packet Page 114 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-19
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As such it also is broadly consistent with the policy objectives of the MBARD’s AQMP. The proposed zoning amendments would focus on mixed-use, infill, and higher density housing developments in the Project Area. For example, Program 1-C would amend adopted specific plans with provisions for permitting density above 30 du/ac. Through Program 1-L, the Monterey County Courthouse Site will be rezoned from R-1 (Residential Single Family) to R-3 (Medium Density Multifamily). Additionally, the Multifamily Residential Overlay will be applied, permitting up to 60 du/ac. Therefore, such Housing Element programs would help reduce pollutant emissions in the Project Area and support 2016 AQMP programs and control measures for attainment and maintenance of ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). However, because the magnitude of growth associated with buildout of the Proposed Project is not known and may exceed the level of growth that is incorporated into the 2016 AQMP, potentially ultimately resulting in a cumulative net increase in ozone precursors and PM, this impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required, similar to the previous EIR.

MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-4, in conjunction with any additional project-specific mitigation measures as needed under MM-AQ-1, would help reduce project-generated emissions from construction and operation of the Proposed Project. However, because project-generated emissions could potentially lead to significant impacts that conflict with the 2016 AQMP, this impact is significant and unavoidable. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Sensitive Receptors
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update ultimately would result in the net new development of up to approximately 5,800 new housing units and result in approximately 2,746,400 sf of research and development, 1,639,400 sf of retail, 344,100 sf of educational, 173,100 sf of public, 126,400 sf of industrial, and 56,200 sf of other business uses throughout the Planning Area but concentrated along existing commercial corridors and targeted growth areas, as encouraged by mixed-use and infill development policies. Such development would include area-wide sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and may also result in the installation or operation of new stationary sources of TACs (e.g., emergency generators). Additionally, traffic levels are expected to increase due to the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update and would therefore exacerbate existing cumulative health risks. Both new and existing sensitive receptors near these stationary sources and roadways may therefore be exposed to substantial levels of criteria air pollutants or CO hot spots in addition to significant health risks from TACs. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to best available control technology (BACT) requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant. However, they may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PM concentrations, especially given the existing nonattainment status for PM10 and the expected increase in PM emissions due to the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 48, Packet Page 115 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-20 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Therefore, implementation of MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-4 would reduce CO, diesel, and PM (exhaust and fugitive dust) emissions during construction activities. Even with these mitigation measures, the extent of the reductions from mitigation are unknown at this time. Therefore, health risks from emissions from construction activities could expose receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks in excess of the MBARD significance thresholds and would be potentially significant. Even with the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s policies and mitigation measures, emissions generated by new stationary sources and vehicle trips could expose sensitive receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks above MBARD’s significance thresholds. MM-AQ-1 is therefore required to provide a project-level evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. MM-AQ-5 would reduce TAC and localized CO and PMexposure to future sensitive receptors, but not for receptors at land uses that have already been constructed. Because risks associated with additional vehicle traffic are the result of personal transportation decisions, there is no feasible mitigation beyond MM-AQ-6 to address this impact. In addition, MM-AQ-6 would not apply to existing sensitive receptors that are present before new construction or operational activity commences. Therefore, after mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As stated in the previous EIR, current regulatory mechanisms may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PM concentrations, especially given the existing nonattainment status for PM10 and the expected increase in PM emissions through implementation of the Proposed Project.

Consequently, the same mitigation measures would apply to this potentially significant impact. Even with mitigation measures AQ-2 through AQ-4, the extent of the reductions from mitigation are unknown at this time. Therefore, health risks from emissions from construction activities could expose receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks in excess of the MBARD significance thresholds and would be potentially significant.

Even if the Proposed Project adheres to the General Plan’s with policies and mitigation measures, emissions generated by new stationary sources and vehicle trips could expose sensitive receptors to cancer and noncancer risks above MBARD’s significance thresholds. MM-AQ-1 is therefore required to provide a projectlevel evaluation of construction- and operational-related health risks from future projects within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. MM-AQ-5 would reduce TAC and localized CO and PMexposure to future sensitive receptors but not for receptors at land uses that have already been constructed. Because risks associated with additional vehicle traffic are the result of personal transportation decisions, there is no feasible mitigation beyond MM-AQ-6 to address this impact. In addition, MM-AQ-6 would not apply to existing sensitive receptors that are present before new construction or operational activity commences. Therefore, after mitigation, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Odors
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified that although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Land uses typically associated with odor complaints include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 49, Packet Page 116 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-21
and chemical plants. Odor impacts from such sources on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, and schools, warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, work sites, and commercial areas. As a programmatic land use plan, development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update may involve some of these types of land uses; however, the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update does not itself specifically propose any new sources of odors or sensitive receptors. As such, potential odor impacts are evaluated based on a proximity analysis of common odor sources and existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors. Potential odor emitters during operations would include exhaust from vehicles and fumes from the reapplication of architectural coatings as part of ongoing building maintenance. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Although such brief exhaust- and paint-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not be atypical of developed urban areas and would not affect a substantial number of people or rise to the level of a significant impact under CEQA. In addition, future developments within the Planning Area would be required to comply with the odor performance standards required by Monterey City Code Section 38-111(C), as well as permitting requirements under MBARD Rule 402 (Nuisances).

Accordingly, impacts would be reduced the maximum extent practicable and would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
As with the prior EIR, development pursuant to the Proposed Project may involve some land use types associated with odor complaints; however, the Proposed Project does not itself specifically propose any new sources of odors or sensitive receptors, nor would it permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Similar to the previous EIR, potential odor impacts are evaluated based on a proximity analysis of common odor sources and existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors. Potential odor emitters during operations would include exhaust from vehicles and fumes from the reapplication of architectural coatings as part of ongoing building maintenance. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Future developments within the Project Area would be required to comply with the odor performance standards required by Monterey City Code Section 38-111(C), as well as permitting requirements under MBARD Rule 402 (Nuisances). Accordingly, impacts would be reduced the maximum extent practicable and would be less than significant, as with the prior EIR. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated that development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would include area-wide sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and may also result in the installation or operation of new stationary sources of TACs (e.g., emergency generators). Additionally, traffic congestion is projected to increase as indicated by increased volume to capacity rations seen in VMT modeling for the Monterey 2031 General Plan (as discussed in Section 3.13: Transportation) and could therefore exacerbate existing cumulative health risks. Both new and existing sensitive receptors near these stationary sources and roadways may therefore be exposed to substantial levels of criteria air pollutants or CO hot spots in addition to significant health risks from TACs. Although it is unknown what specific sources would be installed or where they would operate, all new stationary sources would be subject to the permit authority of the MBARD, and review of new sources are subject to BACT requirements. These regulatory mechanisms would ensure that ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 50, Packet Page 117 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-22 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
cancer and health hazard impacts from stationary sources developed under the future projects would be less than significant. However, they may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PM concentrations, especially given the existing nonattainment status for PM10 and the expected increase in PM emissions due to the Monterey 2031 General Plan. As such, these impacts are conservatively assumed to be considerable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. In addition, development under the Proposed Project would be subject to the same regulatory mechanisms as detailed in the prior EIR. However, even with such regulations and the same mitigation measures required in the prior EIR, they may not be sufficient to address PM impacts if the source results in significant PM concentrations, especially given the existing nonattainment status for PM10 and the expected increase in PM emissions due to the Proposed Project. As such, these impacts are conservatively assumed to be considerable. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-AQ-1: Project-Level Air Quality Analysis. The City shall require that applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall compare their project size with the MBARD screening sizes (Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines) appropriate to their project for criteria air pollutants generated during constructions and operations. If the project is less than the screening sizes for the project type, then the project is not required to conduct a project-level analysis of operational and construction emissions, unless construction would involve:
• Demolition;
• Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously) or construction would occur simultaneous with other Monterey 2031 General Plan development; • Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development);
• Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or • Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

Projects that exceed the screening sizes or include the above activities would be required to evaluate the project’s emissions and compare them to MBARD daily thresholds for construction and/or operation, as applicable. If the project-level analysis results in exceedances of MBARD construction thresholds, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-4 shall be implemented, as well as any project-specific measures. If the project’s emissions are reduced to levels ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 51, Packet Page 118 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-23
below MBARD thresholds with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Cover inactive storage piles.

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

11. Pave all roads at construction sites.

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

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

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

MM-AQ-3: Require at Least Tier 4 Final Engines on Construction Equipment. All applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on at least an EPAapproved Tier 4 Final or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 52, Packet Page 119 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-24 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. CARB regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years.

Applicants must conduct recordkeeping of equipment verification documents for construction equipment and the City has the right to review equipment logs.

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

MM-AQ-5: Require Future Projects Proposing Stationary Sources of TACs Located within 1,000 Feet of Receptors to Perform a Health Risk Assessment. The City shall require that all applicants proposing development of projects that would involve the installation of stationary sources of TACs within the Planning Area and within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by the MBARD, shall prepare a site-specific health risk assessment (HRA). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than the MBARD project-level and cumulative-level thresholds, then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed the project-level or cumulative-level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant in coordination with the City and shall implemented by the applicant to reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable in order to achieve levels below MBARD’s thresholds.

MM-AQ-6: Require Air Quality Equipment to Minimize Health Risks. The City shall require that all applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area that includes new development of residential projects and other new land use developments which would site new sensitive receptors such as schools and daycares in commercial buildings and within 1,000 feet of road segments with an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of greater than 10,000 vehicles per day (based on the most current data from Caltrans’ Traffic Census Program), to install indoor air quality equipment, such as enhanced air filters (air filters rated at a minimum efficiency reporting value [MERV] 13 or higher) or equivalent mechanisms, to minimize health risks for future receptors.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to air quality. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 53, Packet Page 120 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-25
Biological Resources
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated
MM-BIO-1
through
MM-BIO12
No No No
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than
Significant
None No No No
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
Less than
Significant
None No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 54, Packet Page 121 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-26 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Special-Status Species
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified there were 26 special-status species and 13 special-status wildlife species with potential to occur within the Planning Area. The previous EIR noted that implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would focus future development and redevelopment primarily in previously developed portions of the city, limiting the potential for significant adverse impacts on special-status species and sensitive natural communities. However, given the extent of biological resources throughout the community, future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update could have a significant direct or indirect impact on special-status species if it would result in the removal or degradation of the species or suitable habitat, which could occur because of construction activities or from ongoing operation and/or maintenance of a project. The General Plan Conservation Element outlines requirements for development to conserve, manage, and restore habitats for endangered species, and protect biological diversity represented by special-status plant and wildlife species (Goal d), which would serve to reduce impacts on specialstatus species and habitats.

To further address potential impacts to special status species, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 would require site assessments by a qualified profession for development applications, would require the implementation of a worker environmental awareness training program, would require installation of temporary flagging or barrier fencing, and would outline additional construction requirements to ensure the protection of special-status plant and wildlife species. As such, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and adherence to existing policies and local regulations, as discussed above, the impacts of future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update on special-status species would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 55, Packet Page 122 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-27
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project does not propose any substantial changes compared to what was already analyzed in the previous EIR. The Proposed Project would not include changes to construction or operation activities that could increase impacts or result in previously unidentified impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. However, in August 2024, the California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and designated the species as a candidate species. As a candidate species, western burrowing owl is afforded the same protections as a listed species under CESA, including prohibition of take of individuals. As shown in Map 3-1, the North Fremont Specific Plan area is in proximity to burrowing owl habitat. Thus, there is potential for disturbance near burrowing owl habitat from future development under the Proposed Project. Even so, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 from the previous EIR addresses disturbance to burrowing owl which would ensure no such take would occur. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7, there would not be any new or greater impacts on the burrowing owl from development pursuant to the Proposed Project.

Moreover, the Proposed Project would not expand beyond the Planning Area and would not propose land use types or housing programs types not previously considered. As noted in the previous EIR, the implementation of the Proposed Project will include construction activities or from ongoing operation and/or maintenance of a project, which could have a significant direct or indirect impact on special-status species if it would result in the removal or degradation of the species or suitable habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 would reduce potentially significant impacts to special-status wildlife species to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those previously analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional mitigation or analysis is required.
b) Sensitive Habitat
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified the Planning Area includes riparian habitat located along a number of small creeks and streams that flow directly or indirectly to Monterey Bay, which is considered a sensitive natural community and habitat for sensitive wildlife species located throughout the Planning Area. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would focus future development and redevelopment primarily into previously developed areas of the city, limiting the potential for disruption to undeveloped habitat areas. In addition, areas with sensitive natural communities, such as riparian/wetlands and USFWSdesignated critical habitat, are located primarily in the open space designations for the Planning Area and do not overlap with sites for development. Therefore, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would generally not result in the degradation or removal of any riparian or other sensitive habitat identified within the Planning Area. Therefore, with implementation of these policies and adherence to local regulations, as discussed above, the impacts of future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 56, Packet Page 123 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
Lighthouse
Specific Plan
Downtown
Specific Plan
Courthouse
Site
North Fremont
Specific Plan
Burrowing
Owl
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Zoning Amendments\Maps\Map 3-1 Special Status Species.mxd Burrowing Owl
North Fremont Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan
Lighthouse Specific Plan
County Courthouse Site
Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O)
City of Monterey
Park
Water
Map 3-1: Special Status Species - Burrowing Owl
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 57, Packet Page 124 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-29
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As such, the Proposed Project would not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential to adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; therefore, this impact is less than significant. The Proposed Project would not introduce any new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Wetlands
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (2021) listed riverine (other water) features within the Planning Area. The Planning Area is dissected by a number of small creeks and streams that flow directly or indirectly to Monterey Bay. These features support (or have the potential to support) seasonal wetland vegetation within their beds and riparian vegetation along their banks and are considered federally protected, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would take place primarily in previously developed areas of the city, which limits the potential for disruption to undeveloped wetland habitat in the Planning Area. Future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would also be subject to the requirements of Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permitting requirements, which would limit and/or mitigate impacts from projects that would discharge pollutants or dredged or fill materials into waters of the state, including wetlands.

Future development would also be subject to the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, which would require any project that could substantially divert or obstruct the flow of, substantially change or use any material from, or deposit debris into a river, stream, or lake to agree to measures that would protect existing fish or wildlife resources.

With implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to Chapter 31.5, Article 2 of the City Code regulations, impacts of future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would be less than significant in regard to direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means of degradation of wetland habitat.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 58, Packet Page 125 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-30 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
d) Wildlife Corridors
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified the Planning Area is located largely in areas with limited opportunity for habitat connectivity, as indicated by CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observations System (BIOS) Habitat Connectivity Viewer. However, portions of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area and the Highway 68 Area Plan area are within locations designated as having Connections with Implementation Flexibility, meaning they have connectivity importance, but have not been identified as channelized areas, species corridors, or habitat linkages. Generally, though, BIOS data indicates that the areas of Connections with Implementation Flexibility within the City are less permeable to wildlife and are not priority areas for habitat connectivity. In this area, Highway 68 and Highway 1 are significant existing barriers to wildlife migration.

The Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Former Fort Ord (1997) established three habitat corridors to provide avenues for wildlife and plant dispersal and genetic interchange among four larger habitat conservation within the 28,000-acre area of the former Fort Ord property. None of the habitat corridors are located within the Planning Area and the closest corridor is approximately 3 miles north of Ryan Ranch.

While the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not involve development within any of the habitat corridors identified in the HMP and would only occur within locations identified as development areas in the HMP, development in the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area would occur adjacent to the North-South Road Conservation Area identified in the HMP and development on the 50-acre MPUSD site within the boundaries of the Highway 68 Area Plan would occur adjacent to a large area of natural open space. Development in these areas may result in disturbance to these movement habitats, causing fragmentation of wildlife movement corridors. However, Housing Element Programs 1-H and 1-I envision that new development would be integrated into portions of these areas while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat. Additionally, General Plan policies and City regulations adopted to preserve and protect movement through habitat in the wooded skyline, foothills, wooded canyons, lakes, streams, waterways, and greenbelts within the Planning Area would apply, reducing the potential impacts related to wildlife migration.

As such, future development within the Planning Area would be subject to the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s programs, local regulations, and General Plan goals and policies related to biological resources that involve preserving and protecting open space; preserving natural resources, including plant, animal, and fish habitats; protecting wetlands; and protecting and enhancing streams and creeks. Compliance with these policies and regulations would ensure the preservation of natural resources in the Planning Area and impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. The Proposed Project involves a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans focused largely in key opportunity areas, including Highway 68, Fort Ord, and Ryan Ranch areas, where development pursuant to the Proposed Project may result in disturbance to these movement habitats, causing fragmentation of wildlife movement corridors. General Plan policies and City regulations adopted to preserve and protect movement through habitat in the wooded skyline, foothills, wooded canyons, lakes, streams, waterways, and greenbelts within the Project Area would apply, reducing the potential impacts related to wildlife ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 59, Packet Page 126 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-31
migration to a less-than-significant level. As such, the Proposed Project would not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Policies and Ordinances
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR describes multiple City policies outlined in the General Plan and City Code related to the protection of biological resources. As described below, the EIR concluded that the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would be consistent with all applicable General Plan and City Code policies related to biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. Development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update may need to trim, prune or remove trees; however, all development projects would be required to comply with the listed policies and regulations. As a result, the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and a less than significant impact would occur.
• General Plan Urban Design Element Policy b.2 requires new developments preserve the city’s forested setting while Policy b.3 requires that trees in forested areas be preserved, and denuded areas should be reforested where feasible. Policy g.5 requires the protection of existing Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and Coast live oak trees in urban and historic contexts, replanting when removal is necessary and retaining the health of the stands. • General Plan Conservation Element Policy d.1 requires the protection of existing native plants and promotes the use of locally occurring, native vegetation for landscaping and revegetation efforts. Policy d.5 requires the compliance of the City’s Tree Ordinance as the mechanism that will be used to address impacts of tree removals. As mitigation for significant impacts, avoidance, replacement, restoration of habitats on- or -off-site, or other measures may be required.
• The City’s Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (MCC Chapter 37) is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable. Compliance with the City’s tree ordinance would help ensure that the impacts of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update on any local policies protecting biological resources would also be less than significant. For example, migratory birds are associated with areas with foraging, nesting, and roosting habitats present; as with most urbanized environments, landscape features within the Planning Area such as trees, shrubs, parklands, and human-built structures (e.g., bridges, buildings etc.) could serve as habitat for nesting or roosting birds. The Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (MCC Chapter 37) requires that any application for a permit to cut, prune, top or remove, or cause to be cut, pruned, topped or removed, any tree on public property for the purpose of view enhancement shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions set forth in the City’s view trimming guidelines, in addition to any other permit application requirements established by the City (Ord. 3424 § 13, 2009).

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 60, Packet Page 127 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-32 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Further, the Proposed Project does not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential conflict any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. The Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (MCC Chapter 37), requires that any application for a permit to cut, prune, top or remove, or cause to be cut, pruned, topped or removed, any tree on public property for the purpose of view enhancement shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the conditions set forth in the City’s view trimming guidelines, in addition to any other permit application requirements established by the City, which future development under the Proposed Project would be subject to. Compliance with the Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (MCC Chapter 37) would ensure this impact is less than significant. The Proposed Project does not include any zoning amendments that involve new or more severe impacts that that analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
f) Habitat Conservation Plans
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified there are no Habitat Conservation Plans in Monterey County.2 The Installation-Wide Multispecies HMP for Former Fort Ord applies to the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area.

As discussed above, the majority of land on the property that is within the Planning Area is within the Development category, where there are no management restrictions. A portion in the northwest of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area is identified as Habitat Reserve, where no development is allowed. Program 1-H in the Draft Housing Element would involve preparation of a specific plan to integrate mixed use development in a portion of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat. The specific plan and any subsequent development that it permits would be required to be consistent with the HMP, including its management guidelines and specifications. Therefore, no impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan would occur.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 61, Packet Page 128 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-33
related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan would occur. As such, the Proposed Project would not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. g) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated that development associated with the Monterey 2031 General Plan through the horizon year of 2031 could contribute to the cumulative loss of natural lands in the Planning Area. However, the extent of existing development and human activity within urbanized portions of the Planning Area limits the potential for special-status species occurrence. Areas that may provide habitat for special-status species are located primarily in the open space and undeveloped habitat types, including in Monterey pine forest, oak woodland, grasslands, coastal dune scrubs, and chaparral areas. Thus, future development within the Planning Area has the potential to have significant impacts on biological resources. In particular, there are several special-status species known to occur throughout the Planning Area that could be impacted by housing development. Impacts would be further reduced through Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-3, which would require site assessments, worker environmental awareness training, and installation of temporary flagging or barrier fencing in work areas. Further, Mitigation Measures BIO-4 through BIO-12 outline additional construction requirements to ensure the protection of special-status plant and animal species.

Development in the Planning Area would also be required to adhere to the existing Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (MCC Chapter 37). The ordinance is intended to assure preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable. Compliance with the City’s tree ordinance would help ensure that the impacts of the Monterey 2031 General Plan on any local policies protecting biological resources would also be less than significant. Additionally, development resulting from the Monterey 2031 General Plan, as well as future development projects that could occur within the Planning Area or in the vicinity of the Planning Area, would be subject to the requirements of biological resource protection laws, including Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as protection policies and provisions in the City’s General Plan and City Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Reasonably foreseeable future development that may occur in and around the Project Area could have resultant impacts on biological resources, including the loss of habitat. However, the Proposed Project would not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential to conflict with the identified biological resources impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. Further, development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to applicable policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources. Development resulting from the Proposed Project, as well as future development projects that could occur within the Project Area or in the vicinity of the Project Area, would be subject to the requirements of biological resource protection laws, including FESA, CESA, MBTA, and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as protection policies and provisions in the ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 62, Packet Page 129 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-34 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
City’s General Plan and City Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR, no additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special Status Species. Prior to ground-disturbing activities and during the appropriate identification periods for special-status plants and wildlife listed in Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2, project applicants proposing development on sites with the potential for special-status species to occur shall engage a qualified biologist with prior experience conducting surveys for subject species in Monterey County to conduct field surveys within work areas and the immediately adjacent areas to determine the presence of habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. The field surveys are to be conducted when special-status species that could occur in the area are evident and identifiable, generally during the blooming or breeding period. For special-status plants, field surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities.” One or more surveys shall be conducted as needed to account for different special-status species identification periods. The results of field surveys shall be summarized in an accompanying report documenting all proposed work areas and the presence or absence of any sensitive resources that could be affected by development. Additionally, the report shall outline where species and/or habitat-specific mitigation measures (as required under Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-12) are required. This report will provide the basis for any applicable permit applications and consultations with regulatory agencies where incidental take may occur.

MM-BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program. If it is established pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 that special status species occur on the site, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, and for the duration of construction activities, the project proponent shall demonstrate that it has in place a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for all construction workers at the project site. All construction workers shall attend the Program prior to participating in construction activities. The Program shall be developed and conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in Monterey County. The training may be presented in video form. The Program shall include:
• Information on the life history of wildlife and plant species that may be encountered during construction activities and legal protection status of each species; • The definition of “take” under the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act; • Measures the project proponent/operator is implementing to protect the species; and ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 63, Packet Page 130 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-35
• Specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid take of wildlife species, and penalties for violation of the Federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act.

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

Additionally, in the event that California Tiger Salamander is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the work area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then the following measures will be implemented:
• Vernal pools and other potentially suitable wetland habitat will be avoided to the extent feasible during construction to minimize the potential loss of breeding sites for California Tiger Salamanders. • Measures to protect water quality, will be implemented to reduce habitat degradation in adjacent areas.
• A USFWS-approved biologist will demarcate the limits of the fence line. The barrier will be inspected and repaired at least weekly to ensure it remains in place during construction. • A biological monitor will survey suitable habitat, including all wetlands, prior to grading or filling. If either species is located during surveys, it will be moved to an approved off-site location in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW.

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

Special-status plant species shall be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a no disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special status plant species. If complete avoidance of special-status plants is not feasible, at a minimum the special-status plant species shall be relocated on-site, at least 20 feet away from construction directly relating to the project. All site preparation, seed/cutting/root collection, grow-out, and plant installation shall be conducted by a landscape company approved by the City of Monterey with experience working on restoration projects and within the habitats present on-site. Following the relocation, the plantings/seedings shall be monitored annually for five years or longer by a botanist paid for and hired by the Project proponent to determine the success of the relocation. For individual plants, success criteria is the establishment of new viable occurrences equal to or greater in number than the number of plants impacted, for at least three years without supplemental care such as watering. On-site maintenance of the relocated plants shall be contracted to a landscaping company which will also be paid for and hired by the Project proponent. An annual report by a botanist detailing the success of the relocation shall be drafted and ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 64, Packet Page 131 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-36 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
submitted to all responsible agencies (e.g., CDFW, USFWS) for their review. If success criteria are not met, management of the relocated plants will be modified as needed, but management and reporting shall continue until success criteria are met.

MM-BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Nesting Bird Species. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. Surveys should also cover a sufficient area around each future project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by a project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once construction begins, a qualified biologist shall continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from each future project. If behavioral changes occur, all work will be halted causing that change and consultation with CDFW will be conducted for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

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

MM-BIO-6: Disturbance to Bat Species. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for bats which shall take place during the maternity roosting season (defined as: April 1 through August 31) within riparian habitat and any old wooden buildings within a project site. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to removal of trees, snags, or buildings within the project area. Ultrasonic acoustic surveys and/or other site appropriate survey method may be performed to determine the presence or absence of bats utilizing the project site as roosting or foraging habitat. Additionally, the following measures shall be implemented to lessen impacts to bats:
a) If special-status bat species are detected during surveys, species and roost specific mitigation measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist. Such measures may include postponing removal of trees, snags, or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species appropriate roosting habitat within, or adjacent to the project site. b) Trees, snags, and buildings may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season without performing preconstruction bat surveys.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 65, Packet Page 132 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-37
c) Felled trees shall remain on the ground for 24 hours prior to being removed or chipped.
d) For all buildings to be demolished, internal entrance surveys shall be performed by a qualified bat biologist no less than 14 days prior to demolition to determine if buildings currently or previously support roosting bats. If bats are determined to be present, appropriate methods shall be used to exclude bats from the building. Such methods may include installation of one way “valves” to allow bats to exit, but not allow them to reenter the building.
e) If an identified maternity roost location is removed, species and roost appropriate mitigation shall be developed in consultation with CDFW. Mitigation shall include at minimum the replacement of a suitable roost structure within or immediately adjacent to the project site, such that similar structure shape and thermal properties are met with the replacement roost. f) If no active roosts are identified, then work may commence as planned. Survey results are valid for 30 days from the survey date. Should work commence later than 30 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. No preconstruction bat surveys are required for work conducted between the hibernation season and maternity season (i.e., September 1 through October 31).

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

If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities of the project site and surrounding areas to 150 meters in accordance with the methods outlined in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or most recently adopted guidance. The first preconstruction survey will cover all areas within 150 meters of the portion of the site in which construction is scheduled to start. Surveys will be phased based on the construction schedule such that the surveys are conducted no more than 14 days ahead of the start of ground disturbance in new areas. If no occupied breeding or wintering owl burrows are identified, no further mitigation will be required. If occupied burrows are identified on the site or within 150 meters, one of the following actions shall be taken: (1) permanent avoidance of the burrow or (2) establishment of a temporary avoidance buffer followed by passive relocation and compensatory mitigation for loss of habitat in conjunction with the measures below:
• If an occupied wintering burrow is discovered during preconstruction surveys, a 50-meter buffer area shall be established around the burrow until the owl ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 66, Packet Page 133 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-38 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
leaves on its own (if the burrow is more than 50 meters off-site and/or more than 50 meters from the work area, no buffer is necessary). Ground-disturbing work conducted during the nonbreeding (winter) season (September 1 to January 31) can proceed near the occupied burrow so long as the work occurs no closer than 50 meters to the burrow, and the burrow is not directly affected by the project activity. A smaller buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW and monitored at the discretion of a qualified biologist. If the 50-meter buffer cannot be maintained for the duration of occupancy by the owl, owls may be excluded from an occupied wintering burrow in accordance with the conditions of the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls. • If an occupied nesting burrow is discovered during preconstruction surveys, an avoidance buffer of 200 meters shall be established around the burrow location and maintained until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest has fledged or is no longer active (a 200-meter avoidance buffer is appropriate for low intensity impacts near nesting burrows during breeding season [CDFW 2012]). No project activities shall take place within the 200-meter buffer during the time in which it is in place. A smaller buffer may be established in consultation with CDFW and monitored at the discretion of a qualified biologist. • If an occupied burrow cannot be avoided, and the burrow is not actively in use as a nest, a 200-meter buffer shall be established until the burrowing owls can be excluded from burrows in accordance with the project’s Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which will be submitted for approval by CDFW prior to passive relocation of any burrowing owls. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is based on the recommendations made in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) or most recently adopted guidance and shall include the following information for each proposed passive relocation:
• Confirmation by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other species;
• Type of scope to be used and appropriate timing of scoping; • Occupancy factors to look for and what shall guide determination of vacancy and excavation timing; • Methods for burrow excavation;
• Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on-site; • Methods for photographic documentation of the excavation and closure of the burrow; and
• Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take. Methods for ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 67, Packet Page 134 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-39
assuring the impacted site shall continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and fossorial mammals.

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

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

If permanent avoidance buffers are established, such areas shall be managed for the duration of the project to preserve current values as foraging habitat for burrowing owl. Management shall include: (1) exclusion of all project activities throughout the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases, including staging, parking, driving, or dumping; (2) vegetation management by grazing or mowing to preserve open, low-growing vegetation; (3) fencing to discourage human incursion; (4) signage identifying the area as a biologically sensitive area managed for burrowing owl, and; (5) a worker education and awareness program for all personnel working on the site including contractors and sub-contractors.

MM-BIO-8: Disturbance to Western Bumble Bee. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct a take avoidance survey for active bumble bee colony nesting sites in any previously undisturbed area no more than 14 days prior to each phase of construction, if the work will occur during the flying season, generally between March 1 and September 1.

The surveys shall occur when temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), on sunny days with wind speeds below 8 miles per hour, and at least 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset. Surveyors shall conduct transect surveys focusing on detection of foraging bumble bees and underground nests using visual aids such as binoculars. If no western bumble bees or potential western bumble bees are detected, no further mitigation is ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 68, Packet Page 135 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-40 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
required. If potential western bumble bees are seen but cannot be identified, the applicant shall obtain authorization from CDFW within 14 days prior to groundbreaking to use nonlethal netting methods to capture bumble bees to identify them to species. If protected bumble bee nests are found, they shall be protected in place until they are no longer active as determined by a licensed entomologist. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City prior to groundbreaking within 14 days of completing the take avoidance survey.

MM-BIO-9: Disturbance to Northern California Legless Lizard. If the Northern California Legless Lizard is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the project area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, then the following measures will be implemented:

Immediately prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant will conduct a clearance survey in suitable habitat within the project work area for Northern California legless lizards. The project biologist may establish Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (WEF) to keep the species from entering the work area. If the Northern California legless lizard is observed during construction, measures will be taken to avoid the individual(s) and the species will be allowed to leave on its own volition or will be relocated outside of the work area by the project biologist. Clearance surveys will be conducted daily unless the project biologist determines that the surveys are no longer necessary.

MM-BIO-10: Disturbance to Smith’s Blue Butterfly. If the Smith’s blue butterfly is identified as occurring or having potential to occur in the project area pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO1, then the following measures will be implemented:
• Project areas within the range of these species will be surveyed by a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant for seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), the butterfly’s host plant.
• Host plants within the occupied habitat will be marked with high visibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no construction activities will occur within 10 feet of these plants.
• If complete avoidance of the host plant is not feasible, then the species shall be relocated on-site pursuant to the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

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

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 69, Packet Page 136 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-41
MM-BIO-12: Disturbance to American Badger. If required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, a qualified biologist paid for and hired by the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for American badger no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance related to construction and decommissioning activities to determine if there are any American badger dens on the project site. If there are no American badger dens on the project site, no further mitigation is necessary. If American badger dens are located within the work area and cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will determine if the dens are occupied. If unoccupied, the dens will be collapsed under the supervision of the biologist.

If occupied, the biologist will determine if it is a natal/pupping den or a solitary badger den. Dens of solitary badger may be collapsed under the supervision of the biologist once the animal has vacated the den. Natal/pupping dens will be avoided by establishment of an exclusion zone around the den determined by the qualified biologist until the young are old enough to leave the den and survive on their own.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to biological resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR regarding biological resources remain unchanged.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area Conclusion in
Prior EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the
Proposed
Zoning
Amendments Involve New
or More
Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
Involving
New or
More Severe Impacts?
New Information Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Incorporated
MMCUL-5
d. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code § 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than
Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated
MMCUL-3
through
MMCUL-5
No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 71, Packet Page 138 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-43

DISCUSSION
a) Historic Resources
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR identified that buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would occur primarily in previously developed areas of the city, including areas with recorded historic resources.

As shown in Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR Figures 3.5-1A and 3.5-1B, there are numerous recorded historic buildings and structures located throughout the Planning Area. In addition, there are numerous properties more than 50 years old in the Planning Area that have not yet been evaluated for historic significance and that may be eligible for listing on local, State, or national registers.

The General Plan includes policies that can reduce impacts on potential resources, including Historic Preservation Element Policy a.1, which requires the City to maintain a preservation program to preserve and promote maintenance of historic resources; Program a.1.3 that calls for completion of a citywide historic survey; and Policy a.3 that requires the maintenance of City-owned historic buildings in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources. However, to further address potential impacts to significant historic resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is recommended, requiring that project sponsors proposing development on a property with structures more than 50 years old evaluate the properties for historic significance. In the event that historic resources are identified, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is recommended, requiring evaluation for potential direct and/or indirect effects on the identified historic resource(s) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, and as appropriate, avoidance or minimization of impacts to historic structures. Therefore, overall, the previous EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce the impact of implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR on historical resources to a less than significant level.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Based on the records search, there are numerous recorded historic buildings and structures located throughout the Project Area. In addition, there are numerous properties more than 50 years old in the Project Area that have not yet been evaluated for historic significance and that may be eligible for listing on local, State, or national registers, resulting in a potentially significant level. The Proposed Project does not reveal any significant changes from what was evaluated and disclosed in the previous EIR. Consistent with the conclusions of the previous EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant.As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Archaeological Resources
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified that there are known prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the Planning Area. Early Monterey County maps indicate numerous buildings and structures, including bridges, piers or wharfs, a racetrack, railroads, and cemeteries within the project area (1895 ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 72, Packet Page 139 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-44 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Monterey Sanborn Maps and 1913 Monterey USGS 15- minute topographic quadrangle). Given this, the Monterey 2031 General Plan identified that there is a high potential for unrecorded historic period archaeological resources to be within the Planning Area. Future development projects or public works activities allowed under the Monterey 2031 General Plan may involve grading, excavation, overland vehicle travel, or other ground-disturbing activities, or could facilitate public access to archaeological sites, which could disturb or damage unknown archaeological resources. The impact of such activities would be considered significant if they were to cause a substantial adverse change to the archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

To address the potential for impacts to archaeological resources, including as yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 was adopted, which would require an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including a site survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, for development and redevelopment proposals in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas within the City of Monterey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 was also adopted for developments in areas with a high potential for uncovering archaeological deposits or tribal cultural resources. This measure requires construction personnel to receive cultural awareness training on existing regulations and unanticipated discovery protocol. Additionally, in the case of accidental discovery of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 was also adopted, requiring the immediate suspension of soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and an assessment of the significance of the discovery by a qualified archeological consultant, together with measures to preserve any resource that retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. Overall, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. As discussed in the previous EIR, there are known prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the Project Area; therefore, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic period archaeological resources to be within the Project Area, resulting a potentially significant impact. To address the potential for impacts to archaeological resources, including as yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL3, Mitigation Measure CUL-4, and Mitigation Measure CUL-5 were adopted to reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. The Proposed Project does not reveal any significant changes and remains consistent with what was evaluated and disclosed in the previous EIR. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Human Remains
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted that human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Monterey 2031 General Plan. There are several cemeteries located within the Planning Area, including Cemetery El Encinal at 798 Fremont Street, the San ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 73, Packet Page 140 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-45
Carlos Cemetery at 792 Fremont Street, and the Presidio of Monterey Main Post Cemetery. These facilities are designated as Open Space on the Zoning Map where certain limited types of development are permitted with a use permit. Given high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area, it is possible that subsurface construction activities associated with the Monterey 2031 General Plan, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the protocols established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 would be required. Compliance with these existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 through CUL-5 would further reduce any potential impact on archaeological resources, including human remains, through cultural awareness training for construction personnel on unanticipated discovery protocol. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Project, resulting in a potentially significant impact. To address the potential for impacts to archaeological resources, including as yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3, Mitigation Measure CUL-4, and Mitigation Measure CUL-5 were adopted to reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. The Proposed Project does not reveal any significant changes and remains consistent with what was evaluated and disclosed in the previous EIR. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Tribal Cultural Resources
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The results of the NWIC records search indicate that there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the City limits, especially in the vicinity of Monterey Bay in the area between Point Alones and Laguna Del Rey, near intermittent and perennial watercourse. Therefore, future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Monterey 2031 General Plan could result in indirect impacts through grading, overland construction vehicle travel, or other ground-disturbing activities, or through facilitation of public access to culturally significant sites. The impact of such activities would be considered significant if they were to cause a substantial adverse change to the resources as defined by PRC Section 21074. As previously discussed, the response from the NAHC stated that a search of the Sacred Lands File to identify sacred lands in the Planning Area was positive. Further, according to the NWIC records search, the City of Monterey contains 39 recorded Native American archaeological resources. While the exact location of these resources is not public information, consultation with the tribes per SB 18 and AB 52 provides the opportunity for Native American tribes to identify if known resources could be compromised by implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan. Such consultation is also intended to arrive at consensus regarding mitigation measures or ways to avoid a significant effect on tribal cultural resources. As detailed in the previous EIR, local tribal representatives were sent formal notification under SB 18 on December 19, 2022 and under AB 52 on July 12, 2023. No responses or formal requests for tribal ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 74, Packet Page 141 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-46 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
consultation have been received as documented in supporting materials and correspondence located in Appendix D of the DEIR.

To address the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 was adopted, which requires an assessment of the potential presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including a site survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Northwest Information Center, for development and redevelopment proposals in archaeologically or tribal culturally sensitive areas within the City of Monterey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 was also adopted for developments in areas with a high potential for uncovering archaeological deposits or tribal cultural resources. This measure requires construction personnel to receive cultural awareness training on existing regulations and unanticipated discovery protocol. Additionally, in the case of accidental discovery of archaeological or tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-5 was also adopted, requiring the immediate suspension of soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and an assessment of the significance of the discovery by a qualified archeological consultant, together with measures to preserve any resource that retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. Overall, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The results of the NWIC records search of the previous EIR indicate that there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the City limits, near intermittent and perennial watercourse.

Local tribal representatives were sent formal notification of the Proposed Project under SB 18 on August 30, 2024. No responses or formal requests for tribal consultation have been received as documented in supporting materials and correspondence located in Appendix A of this document. Future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Project could result in indirect impacts through grading, overland construction vehicle travel, or other ground-disturbing activities, or through facilitation of public access to culturally significant sites. The impact of such activities would be considered significant if they were to cause a substantial adverse change to the resources as defined by PRC Section 21074. To address the potential for impacts to tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-3, Mitigation Measure CUL-4, and Mitigation Measure CUL-5 were adopted to reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project does not reveal any significant changes and remains consistent with what was evaluated and disclosed in the previous EIR. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR states that if the Monterey 2031 General Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in Monterey, would result in the loss of or adverse changes to multiple historic or cultural resources a significant cumulative impact could result. However, as described in the EIR, the City of Monterey General Plan and the City Code provide a framework for the preservation of cultural and historic resources. At the time development or redevelopment projects are proposed, any project-level CEQA document would need to identify potential impacts on known or potential historic sites and ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 75, Packet Page 142 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-47
structures. Such project-level review in combination with the Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires that all proposed development within the Planning Area undergo additional investigation to determine the project-level impact on the built environment’s historical resources, would ensure that the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s incremental contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Regarding prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the City of Monterey, Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that developers in the Planning Area receive cultural resources awareness training and halt work if cultural resources are encountered. Further, any adverse effects to archaeological resources shall be mitigated as specified by PRC Section 21083. Thus, compliance with previously adopted mitigation measures and General Plan policies, as well as applicable local, State, and federal laws, would ensure that the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

All development projects allowed under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with State laws pertaining to the discovery of human remains and disposition of Native American burials; therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to human burials. There are known Native American tribal cultural resources within the Planning Area, and development projects allowed under the Monterey 2031 General Plan may result in the identification of unrecorded tribal cultural resources given the historic occupation of the area. Future projects that would not otherwise qualify for an exemption under CEQA would be required to comply with the provisions of AB 52 to incorporate tribal consultation into the CEQA process. Therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would also ensure that developers in the Planning Area receive cultural resources awareness training and halt work if cultural resources are encountered. Further, any adverse effects to archaeological resources shall be mitigated as specified by PRC Section 21083, ensuring that any contribution to prehistoric and archaeological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. All development in the Project Area would also be required to comply with State laws pertaining to the discovery of human remains and disposition of Native American burials, as well as applicable tribal consultation requirements. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to tribal cultural resource impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR, no additional analysis is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 76, Packet Page 143 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-48 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist

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

The evaluation shall include an Intensive Survey, which is comprised of a field survey, archival research, and preparation of a historic resource evaluation report. The report shall include documentation of methodology and the findings of the historic evaluation, including a determination of historic significance and eligibility for listing on local, State, or national registers. On the basis of this evaluation, if it is determined that the subject property contains an historic resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall be implemented.

MM-CUL-2: Avoidance or Minimization of Effects on Identified Historic Resources. The project applicant shall consult with City staff to determine whether a project can be feasibly redesigned or revised to avoid significant adverse impacts on listed and identified eligible historic resource(s), including historic districts. If a local landmark or local historic district is part of a proposed development, the project’s Historic Permit application must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. If avoidance of historic resource(s) is not feasible, where feasibility is defined as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors," the project sponsor shall seek to reduce the effect on historic resource(s) to a less-than-significant level pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. Projects that conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are considered to have a less-than-significant effect on historic architectural resources.

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

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 77, Packet Page 144 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-49
MM-CUL-4: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.

MM-CUL-5: Accidental Discovery. In the event of accidental discovery of an archeological or tribal cultural resource during soils-disturbing activity of any project pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan, the project sponsor shall immediately suspend any soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery and retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant to whether the discovery is an archeological resource retains sufficient integrity and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. If it is determined that the discovery is a tribal cultural resource, affiliated Native American tribal representatives shall be consulted and invited to engage in the formulation of mitigation strategies. Mitigation strategies may include preservation in situ of the resource, a monitoring program, a testing program, or an interpretation program.

CONCLUSION
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to cultural and tribal resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR regarding cultural and tribal resources remain unchanged.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 78, Packet Page 145 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-50 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change
ENERGY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND CLIMATE CHANGE Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Wasteful, Inefficient, and Unnecessary Energy
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted development facilitated by the Monterey 2031 General Plan would involve the use of energy during construction and operation. Energy use during construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Long-term operation of development projects would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. In addition, the increase in vehicle trips and operation of the regional transportation system associated with potential development could increase fuel consumption.

Construction
Construction and maintenance of future land use development envisioned under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in short-term consumption of energy resulting from the use of construction ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 79, Packet Page 146 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-51
equipment and processes. CALGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of future development envisioned by the Monterey 2031 General Plan and would minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Housing Element Programs 5-B and 5-C would ensure that construction and operation of projects facilitated by the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with relevant provisions of CALGreen and the Energy Code (as adopted into the Monterey City Code), as well as the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, which would further avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

Operation
Operation of development associated with implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would increase the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. Electricity consumption would increase by 333,678 million BTU per year in 2031, while natural gas consumption would increase by 248,888 million BTU per year. Direct transportation energy demand would also increase by 307,445 million BTU per year through the consumption of gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles. Total energy consumption in the Planning Area would increase by 889,612 million BTU per year in 2031, which translates to 112.1 million BTU per capita and 67.7 million BTU per service population. Given that the Monterey 2031 General Plan is a programmatic land use plan that includes 5,085,575 square feet of non-residential development, including industrial and healthcare uses that are substantially more energy intensive than residential uses, the per service population metric is most applicable.

Multiple proposed programs and policies would help minimize the occurrence of inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during operation of development facilitated by the Monterey 2031 General Plan. Housing Element Program 2-K supports water efficiency and conservation, and Housing Element Policy 5.3 and Housing Element Program 5-C promote waste reduction, which would reduce energy consumed via water delivery and waste management. Multiple policies in the Circulation Element would improve the availability of alternative transportation modes by coordinating with regional transit providers (policies C.8, E.4, and E.5), improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (policies C.3, C.6, C.9, D.4, and D.7), and promoting TDM measures (policies J.3 and J.4), therefore helping to reduce congestion and overall demand for transportation fuels. Additionally, Housing Element Program 5-B would incentivize new residential and mixed-use developments to exceed minimum requirements of CALGreen, such as provision of electric vehicle charging stations. The Monterey 2031 General Plan also identifies infill development and creative reuse and redevelopment of existing sites as the primary means for accommodating future growth.

By placing services and amenities close to where people live and work, the land use scenario envisioned by the Monterey 2031 General Plan would minimize the need to drive and reduce per capita energy consumption and GHGs. Although development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would increase total energy consumption in the Planning Area, this estimate was quantified under the assumption that electricity would be provided by PG&E. Housing Element Policy 5.1 and Program 5-A would increase use of 3CE and thereby significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuel resources. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan policies listed above would result in indirect energy conservation—such as the promotion of alternative transportation, water conservation, and waste reduction—as well as promote greater energy efficiency in communitywide operations and development. Furthermore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan contains a land-use strategy that actively promotes infill mixed-use and transit-oriented development, which would result greater energy efficiency overall for Planning Area residents, businesses, and operations. Therefore, while total energy consumption in the Planning Area is conservatively estimated to increase with the operation of development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan and pipeline projects, the Monterey 2031 ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 80, Packet Page 147 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-52 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
General Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the previous EIR concluded this impact would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Construction
Construction and maintenance of future land use development envisioned under the Proposed Project would result in short-term consumption of energy resulting from the use of construction equipment and processes. CALGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of future development envisioned by the Proposed Project and would minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Housing Element Programs 5-B and 5-C would ensure that construction and operation of projects facilitated by the Proposed Project would be required to comply with relevant provisions of CALGreen and the Energy Code (as adopted into the Monterey City Code), as well as the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, which would further avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

Operation
Operation of development associated with implementation of the Proposed Project would increase the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels. Multiple proposed programs and policies would help minimize the occurrence of inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during operation of development facilitated by the Proposed Project. Housing Element Program 2-K supports water efficiency and conservation, and Housing Element Policy 5.3 and Housing Element Program 5-C promote waste reduction, which would reduce energy consumed via water delivery and waste management.

Multiple policies in the Circulation Element would improve the availability of alternative transportation modes by coordinating with regional transit providers (policies C.8, E.4, and E.5), improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (policies C.3, C.6, C.9, D.4, and D.7), and promoting TDM measures (policies J.3 and J.4), therefore helping to reduce congestion and overall demand for transportation fuels. Additionally, Housing Element Program 5-B would incentivize new residential and mixed-use developments to exceed minimum requirements of CALGreen, such as provision of electric vehicle charging stations.

The Proposed Project also identifies infill development and creative reuse and redevelopment of existing sites as the primary means for accommodating future growth. By placing services and amenities close to where people live and work, the land use scenario envisioned by the Monterey 2031 General Plan would minimize the need to drive and reduce per capita energy consumption and GHGs. Although development under the Proposed Project would increase total energy consumption in the Project Area, this estimate was quantified under the assumption that electricity would be provided by PG&E. Housing Element Policy 5.1 and Program 5-A would increase use of 3CE and thereby significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuel resources. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan policies listed above would result in indirect energy conservation—such as the promotion of alternative transportation, water conservation, and waste reduction—as well as promote greater energy efficiency in communitywide operations and development.

Furthermore, the Proposed Project contains a land-use strategy that actively promotes infill mixed-use and transit-oriented development, which would result greater energy efficiency overall for Project Area residents, businesses, and operations. Therefore, while total energy consumption in the Project Area is conservatively estimated to increase with the operation of development under the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 81, Packet Page 148 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-53
Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans that apply to the Monterey 2031 General Plan include state plans, such as the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Energy Code standards, SB 350, and SB 100, as well as local plans that address energy efficiency and are designed to achieve the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandates, such as PG&E’s and 3CE’s 2022 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and the City’s CAP. The previous EIR noted the implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would increase energy consumption relative to existing conditions; however, the Monterey 2031 General Plan includes multiple policies that support sustainability through energy efficiency, water conservation, waste reduction, and promotion of alternative transportation.

Future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be subject to increasingly robust regulations to meet the State’s renewable energy mandates and would be required to comply with Energy Code and CALGreen requirements. Development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. As a result, it would benefit from renewable energy development and increases in energy efficiency. The Monterey 2031 General Plan supports the transition to renewable energy by promoting 3CE (Housing Element Program 5-A), which would continue to pursue procurement of renewable energy sources to meet its RPS portfolio goals and to comply with State regulations. As noted in its 2022 IRP, 3CE intends to achieve a 100-percent renewable portfolio mix by 2030. The City’s CAP includes energy-related measures including AMBAG’s Energy Watch program, PG&E’s renewable energy purchasing program, and building and infrastructure (i.e., lighting and heating/cooling system) retrofits; only the retrofit efforts continue to be relevant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan and are supported by Housing Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 that promote energy conservation programs, design, and practices. Therefore, the previous EIR concluded that the buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and this impact would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans that apply to the Proposed Project include state plans, such as the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, LCFS, Energy Code standards, SB 350, and SB 100, as well as local plans that address energy efficiency and are designed to achieve the State’s RPS mandates, such as PG&E’s and 3CE’s 2022 IRPs and the City’s CAP. Implementation of the Proposed Project would increase energy consumption relative to existing conditions; however, the Monterey 2031 General Plan includes multiple policies that support sustainability through energy efficiency, water conservation, waste reduction, and promotion of alternative transportation.

Future development under the Proposed Project would be subject to increasingly robust regulations to meet the State’s renewable energy mandates and would be required to comply with Energy Code and CALGreen requirements. Development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. As a result, it would benefit from renewable energy development and increases in energy efficiency. The Monterey 2031 General Plan supports the transition to renewable energy by promoting 3CE (Housing Element Program 5-A), which would continue to pursue ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 82, Packet Page 149 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-54 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
procurement of renewable energy sources to meet its RPS portfolio goals and to comply with State regulations. As noted in its 2022 IRP, 3CE intends to achieve a 100-percent renewable portfolio mix by 2030. The City’s CAP includes energy-related measures including AMBAG’s Energy Watch program, PG&E’s renewable energy purchasing program, and building and infrastructure (i.e., lighting and heating/cooling system) retrofits; only the retrofit efforts continue to be relevant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan and are supported by Housing Element Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 that promote energy conservation programs, design, and practices. Therefore, the development of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and this impact would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) Generate GHG Emissions
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Operational Emissions
Operation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions. Sources of direct emissions include mobile vehicle trips, on-site natural gas combustion, landscaping activities, and refrigerants. Indirect emissions would be generated by building electricity consumption, waste and wastewater generation, water use, and solid waste. Unmitigated operational emissions for existing and 2031 buildout conditions (without quantifiable policies) are summarized in Monterey 2031 General Plan DEIR Table 3.6-3. The modeled emissions for unmitigated buildout conditions are a conservative estimate of the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s impact on GHGs because they do not account for Monterey 2031 General Plan projects and policies such as those that would reduce emissions as a result of reduced VMT from improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure and demand-based parking pricing for public parking (Circulation Policy G.2); promote infill development due to integration of affordable and below market rate housing (Housing Element Program 2-I); and reduce carbon intensity of energy usage through energy efficiency and renewable energy (Housing Element programs 5-A and 5-B). Further, the quantified emissions do not account for additional supportive measures that cannot be quantified due to lack of sufficient data and other variable dependencies (i.e., scope, level of impact) such as effectiveness of providing bike parking, traffic calming measures, and improving transit access, safety, and comfort (Circulation Element policies C.9, B.12, and E.8). Additionally, it is noted that certain measures (e.g., increase in residential and job densities, provision of transit-oriented development, provision of end-of-trip bicycle facilities, and more) were not available to quantify in CalEEMod due to the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s land use types, land scale, and/or locational context.

The previous EIR noted although existing operational emissions are on track to meet the target of 40 percent below 1990 levels (or 25 percent below 2005 levels), the Monterey 2031 General Plan would generate additional emissions that would lower the performance metric to about 38 percent below 1990 levels in 2031 and therefore would conflict with the City’s or the State’s established target for 2030. Given the net increase in emissions and inability to meet the 2030 target, the Monterey 2031 General Plan could have a potentially significant impact due to generation of GHGs.

Construction Emissions
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 83, Packet Page 150 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-55
The previous EIR identified construction-generated emissions cannot be quantified at this time of publication due to a lack of sufficient, project-specific data; however, it is expected that multiple development projects would occur throughout the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s planning period.

Plans are encouraged to incorporate feasible BMPs to reduce GHGs generated by construction activities and are evaluated based on their potential to conflict with statewide emission reduction goals. Housing Element Program 5-C encourages environmentally sensitive construction practices, including requiring large project applicants to submit a construction waste management plan for City approval and restricting use of HFCs in mechanical equipment and building materials. Program 5-C also promotes use of construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts as well as use of locally or regionally available materials – both of which are standard construction BMPs for reducing construction-related GHG emissions. Construction and demolition activities are also regulated under CALGreen, which requires all permitted residential and non-residential construction, demolition, and additions/alterations projects to recycle or salvage a minimum 65 percent of nonhazardous construction materials from the project, as supported by Housing Element Program 5-B. Neither MBARD nor CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan offer specific recommendations regarding reducing GHGs from construction, and the Monterey 2031 General Plan includes measures that would mitigate emissions as feasible. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether these measures would be sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Operational Emissions
Operation of the Proposed Project would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions. Sources of direct emissions include mobile vehicle trips, on-site natural gas combustion, landscaping activities, and refrigerants. Indirect emissions would be generated by building electricity consumption, waste and wastewater generation, water use, and solid waste. It is uncertain to quantify the operational emissions of buildout conditions of the Proposed Project’s impact on GHGs, as they do not account for Monterey 2031 General Plan projects and policies such as those that would reduce emissions as a result of reduced VMT from promoted infill development due to integration of affordable and below market rate housing (Housing Element Program 2-I); and the reduction of carbon intensity of energy usage through energy efficiency and renewable energy (Housing Element programs 5-A and 5-B). Further, the quantified emissions do not account for additional supportive measures that cannot be quantified due to lack of sufficient data and other variable dependencies (i.e., scope, level of impact) such as effectiveness of providing bike parking, traffic calming measures, and improving transit access, safety, and comfort (Circulation Element policies C.9, B.12, and E.8). Additionally, it is noted that certain measures (e.g., increase in residential and job densities, provision of transit-oriented development, provision of end-of-trip bicycle facilities, and more) were not available to quantify in CalEEMod due to the Proposed Project’s land use types, land scale, and/or locational context. Given the net increase in emissions and uncertainty in meeting the 2030 target, the Proposed Project could have a potentially significant impact due to generation of GHGs.

Construction Emissions
Similar to the previous EIR, construction-generated emissions cannot be quantified at this time of publication due to a lack of sufficient, project-specific data; however, it is expected that multiple development projects would occur throughout the Proposed Project’s planning period.

Plans are encouraged to incorporate feasible BMPs to reduce GHGs generated by construction activities and are evaluated based on their potential to conflict with statewide emission reduction goals. Housing ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 84, Packet Page 151 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-56 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Element Program 5-C encourages environmentally sensitive construction practices, including requiring large project applicants to submit a construction waste management plan for City approval and restricting use of HFCs in mechanical equipment and building materials. Program 5-C also promotes use of construction strategies that reduce resource and environmental impacts as well as use of locally or regionally available materials – both of which are standard construction BMPs for reducing construction-related GHG emissions. Construction and demolition activities are also regulated under CALGreen, which requires all permitted residential and non-residential construction, demolition, and additions/alterations projects to recycle or salvage a minimum 65 percent of nonhazardous construction materials from the project, as supported by Housing Element Program 5-B. Neither MBARD nor CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan offer specific recommendations regarding reducing GHGs from construction, and the Proposed Project includes measures that would mitigate emissions as feasible. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether these measures would be sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Conclusion
Although implementation of the mitigation measures would help significantly reduce GHG emissions generated during construction and operation of the Proposed Project and may achieve the citywide GHG reduction target (potentially revised in an updated CAP), without further State action, it is unlikely that local efforts alone would be sufficient to meet carbon neutrality by 2045 and thereby reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. Moreover, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan indicates that carbon sequestration from natural and working lands will not be enough to attain carbon neutrality, and doing so will require research, development, and implementation of additional measures. CARB maintains authority to adopt regulations as necessary to meet future GHG targets under SB 32, EO S-3-05, EO B-55-18, and AB 1279, but the specific path to carbon neutrality is unknown and dependent on development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available; therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Conflict with Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
City of Monterey CAP
The City’s CAP establishes four GHG reduction targets (for years 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050), one of which occurs during the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s planning period. Based on the quantified estimate of operational emissions, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would generate GHGs at a level that does not meet the 2030 target and would therefore conflict with the City’s CAP.

CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is a framework for achieving AB 32 and subsequent regulations, including SB 32, EO S-3-05, and EO B-55-18. While State programs including RPS, LCFS, Advanced Clean Cars, Cap-andTrade, and others will help achieve the State’s near- and long-term climate change goals, local actions are more limited in scope and influence. As such, local jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt CAPs and use land use control to support electrifying transportation, reducing VMT, and decarbonizing buildings. The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan suggests that a project including all key project attributes in these categories would have a less-than-significant impact. The previous EIR assesses whether the Monterey 2031 General Plan is consistent with these project attributes and identified that the Monterey 2031 General Plan supports many ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 85, Packet Page 152 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-57
of the key project attributes but would conflict with the following three: Prevent loss/conversion of natural and working lands; eliminate parking requirements, reduce the ratio to less than one space per unit, or unbundle parking from housing costs; and use all-electric appliances with no natural gas consumption. 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2045 MTP/SCS complies with the requirements of SB 375, and the MTP/SCS is designed to meet the GHG reduction targets set by CARB for the Monterey Bay region, including a six percent per capita reduction (relative to 2005 levels) by 2035 through land use and transportation planning. Specifically, strategies focus housing and employment growth in urbanized areas, protect sensitive habitat and open space, and invest in a transportation system with more effective and diverse transportation options. There are 68 specific strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS that AMBAG recommends local jurisdictions consider to successfully implement the SCS. The previous EIR concluded the Monterey 2031 General Plan is consistent with applicable strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS.

Consistency with Other State Regulations
The previous EIR noted systemic changes will be required at the state level to achieve California’s future GHG reduction goals. Regulations, such as future amendments and updates to the State’s low-carbon and renewable energy, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste reduction regulations will be necessary to attain the magnitude of reductions required for the State’s goals.

New development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with these regulations, and vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon-intensive due to statewide compliance with future LCFS amendments and increasingly stringent RPS. Thus, for the foreseeable future, the previous EIR concluded the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not conflict with any other applicable Statelevel regulations pertaining to GHGs.

Conclusion
Overall, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be consistent with policies and plans that encourage energy conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainability, as it would concentrate new development within the City limit on land previously identified for development and as it would improve the jobs-housing ratio and promote walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, reducing per capita VMT and associated vehicle trips. However, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan could result in GHG emissions that exceed targets established in the City and State plans. While accommodating the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need for the 2023-31 planning period is a legal requirement under State law, these exceedances nevertheless represent a conflict with plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 86, Packet Page 153 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-58 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
City of Monterey CAP
The City’s CAP establishes four GHG reduction targets (for years 2012, 2020, 2030, and 2050), one of which occurs during the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s planning period. Based on the quantified estimate of operational emissions of the previous EIR, the Monterey 2031 General Plan, including the Proposed Project, would generate GHGs at a level that does not meet the 2030 target and would therefore conflict with the City’s CAP.

CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is a framework for achieving AB 32 and subsequent regulations, including SB 32, EO S-3-05, and EO B-55-18. While State programs including RPS, LCFS, Advanced Clean Cars, Cap-andTrade, and others will help achieve the State’s near- and long-term climate change goals, local actions are more limited in scope and influence. As such, local jurisdictions are encouraged to adopt CAPs and use land use control to support electrifying transportation, reducing VMT, and decarbonizing buildings. The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan suggests that a project including all key project attributes in these categories would have a less-than-significant impact. The Proposed Project is consistent with these project attributes and concludes the Proposed Project supports many of the key project attributes but would conflict with the following three: Prevent loss/conversion of natural and working lands; eliminate parking requirements, reduce the ratio to less than one space per unit, or unbundle parking from housing costs; and use all-electric appliances with no natural gas consumption.
2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2045 MTP/SCS complies with the requirements of SB 375, and the MTP/SCS is designed to meet the GHG reduction targets set by CARB for the Monterey Bay region, including a six percent per capita reduction (relative to 2005 levels) by 2035 through land use and transportation planning. Specifically, strategies focus housing and employment growth in urbanized areas, protect sensitive habitat and open space, and invest in a transportation system with more effective and diverse transportation options. There are 68 specific strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS that AMBAG recommends local jurisdictions consider to successfully implement the SCS. The Proposed Project is consistent with applicable strategies in the 2045 MTP/SCS.

Consistency with Other State Regulations
Systemic changes will be required at the state level to achieve California’s future GHG reduction goals.

Regulations, such as future amendments and updates to the State’s low-carbon and renewable energy, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste reduction regulations will be necessary to attain the magnitude of reductions required for the State’s goals.

New development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with these regulations, and vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon-intensive due to statewide compliance with future Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) amendments and increasingly stringent RPS. Thus, for the foreseeable future, Proposed Project would not conflict with any other applicable State-level regulations pertaining to GHGs.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 87, Packet Page 154 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-59
Conclusion
Overall, the Proposed Project would be consistent with policies and plans that encourage energy conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainability, as it would concentrate new development within the City limit on land previously identified for development and promote walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, reducing per capita VMT and associated vehicle trips. However, implementation of the Proposed Project could result in GHG emissions that exceed targets established in the City and State plans. While accommodating the City’s assessed share of the regional housing need for the 2023-31 planning period is a legal requirement under State law, these exceedances nevertheless represent a conflict with plans, policies, and regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
As detailed in the prior EIR, construction and operation of the Proposed Plan would result in the consumption of energy resources. However, implementation of the Proposed Plan would result in direct and indirect energy conservation, such as encouraging green building techniques, water conservation, and waste reduction, would promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development.

Furthermore, the Proposed Plan contains a land-use strategy that actively promotes infill mixed-use development where appropriate, which would result in greater energy efficiency overall for Planning Area residents and operations. In addition, development under the Proposed Plan would be subject to increasingly robust regulations to meet the State’s renewable energy mandates and would be required to comply with Title 24 standards and CALGreen requirements. The Proposed Plan would thus support and reflect the increasingly stringent State and local goals and regulations that seek to increase energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption, and prioritize renewable energy – reinforcing that the Proposed Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

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

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

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-GHG-1 Update Climate Action Plan. Within 18 months of adoption of the Proposed Plan, the City shall update the City of Monterey Climate Action Plan to address changes in State GHG reduction goals, including SB 32, EO B-55-18, AB 1279, and the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and meet the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA.

The update shall incorporate specific, measurable GHG reduction strategies that address each emissions source sector, are prioritized by timeframe (i.e., 2030 for near term and 2045 for long term) and are assigned to a lead agency/organization for implementation.

The CAP Update shall incorporate the most recent communitywide GHG Inventory and strategies that would achieve at least an additional two percent reduction by 2030 to ensure citywide target of 40 percent reduction. The CAP shall target top-contributing emissions sectors (especially the transportation sector, which represents more than 60 percent of operational emissions), such as by adapting CARB’s recommended key project attributes for VMT reduction into citywide programs. GHG reduction strategies to be considered shall include: prohibiting woodburning or natural gas fireplaces in new construction, making new construction solar-ready, and requiring new multifamily construction to exceed Title 24 electric vehicle charging station requirements by 15 percent. The CAP shall also incorporate a CEQA checklist to streamline project approval and encourage use of CARB’s recommended key project attributes that reduce GHGs (as included in the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan).

MM-GHG-2 Construction Best Management Practices to Minimize GHGs. All applicants within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures (based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines):
• Ensure alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet.
• Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (A five-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [CCR, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]).

Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site and develop an enforceable mechanism to monitor idling time to ensure compliance with this measure.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 89, Packet Page 156 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-61
• Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Require all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment should be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Where grid power is available, prohibit portable diesel engines and provide electrical hook ups for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
• Recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris, with a goal of recycling at least 15 percent more by weight than the diversion requirement in Title

24. • Use locally sourced (within 100 miles of the Planning Area) or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 10 percent based on costs for building materials and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products used should be certified through a sustainable forestry program. • Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control since substantial amounts of energy can be consumed during the pumping of water.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and climate change. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 90, Packet Page 157 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-62 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Geology and Soils
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area Conclusion
in Prior EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Zoning Amendments Involve New
or More Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
Involving
New or
More Severe Impacts?
New Information Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than
Significant
None No No No
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 91, Packet Page 158 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-63
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Seismic Hazards
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Fault Rupture
The previous EIR identified that there are no Alquist-Priolo Fault zones in or near the Planning Area; however, several potentially active faults pass through the Planning Area. The Navy Fault, the Navy Fault Segments of the Sylvan Thrust, and segments of the Del Rey Oaks section of the Chupines Fault are potentially active, but not known to be active at this time. In a seismically active area such as the Monterey Bay Area, there is a small chance that future faulting could occur in areas where no faults previously had been mapped.

However, compliance with California Building Code regulations incorporated in the Monterey City Code and implementation of General Plan Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of loss or damage due to fault rupture. California Building Code earthquake protection standards apply to all newly constructed structures as well as older pre-code buildings that need to be reinforced in order to lessen the impact of a severe seismic event. Additionally, Safety Element Policy a.2 requires all land within 660 feet of an identified fault to be treated as having high seismic hazard until an acceptable geotechnical investigation indicates they should be treated otherwise, while Policy a.3 requires that buildings and structures be set back from active and potentially active faults. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and continued implementation of Safety Element policies would reduce potential impacts from surface fault rupture to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, the previous EIR concluded the Monterey 2031 General Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to adverse effects from fault rupture.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 92, Packet Page 159 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-64 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Ground Shaking
The previous EIR noted the Planning Area’s proximity to active local faults place it at risk for strong ground shaking. Development occurring under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the 2022 California Building Code, adopted and incorporated into the Monterey City Code, which contains the latest seismic safety requirements to resist ground shaking through modern construction techniques. The previous EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential impacts from ground shaking to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, associated impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction
The previous EIR stated the Planning Area includes areas of moderate and high liquefaction susceptibility, generally located adjacent to creeks and streams which drain to the Monterey Bay. Potential impacts from ground failure resulting from liquefaction would be addressed through site-specific geotechnical studies prepared in accordance with California Building Code requirements as adopted in Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code and standard industry practices.

Landslides
The previous EIR noted landslide susceptibility in the Planning Area ranges from low to high. There is moderate and high landslide hazard in the vicinity of the southeastern and southern boundary of the Planning Area. There are also a few small areas of moderate landslide susceptibility in the central portion of the Planning Area, near Skyline Drive, Glenwood Circle, and Santa Catalina School. While most of the Planning Area is in an area of low landslide susceptibility, there are some sites identified for development that experience moderate landslide risk.

Development on these sites and in areas with slope stability hazards would be subject to the provisions of the California Building Code, adopted and incorporated into the Monterey City Code, which regulate analysis of slope instability and requirements for drainage and grading. In addition, any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and landslide risk.

The previous EIR concluded compliance with these National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and local City Code regulations would reduce impacts related to landslides. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 93, Packet Page 160 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-65
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Fault Rupture
In a seismically active area such as the Monterey Bay Area, there is a small chance that future faulting could occur in areas where no faults previously had been mapped. However, compliance with California Building Code regulations incorporated in the Monterey City Code and implementation of General Plan Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of loss or damage dure to fault rupture. California Building Code earthquake protection standards apply to all newly constructed structures as well as older pre-code buildings that need to be reinforced in order to lessen the impact of a severe seismic event. Additionally, Safety Element Policy a.2 requires the treatment of all land within 660 feet of an identified fault to be treated as having high seismic hazard until an acceptable geotechnical investigation indicates they should be treated otherwise, while Policy a.3 requires that buildings and structures be set back from active and potentially active faults. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and continued implementation of Safety Element policies would reduce potential impacts from surface fault rupture to the maximum extent practicable.

Thus, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to adverse effects from fault rupture. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Ground Shaking
The Project Area’s proximity to active local faults place it at risk for strong ground shaking. Development occurring under the Proposed Project would be required to conform to the current seismic design provisions of the 2022 California Building Code, adopted and incorporated into the Monterey City Code, which contains the latest seismic safety requirements to resist ground shaking through modern construction techniques. As such, compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential Proposed Project impacts from ground shaking to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, associated impacts would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Liquefaction
The Project Area includes areas of moderate and high liquefaction susceptibility, generally located adjacent to creeks and streams which drain to the Monterey Bay. Potential impacts from ground failure resulting from liquefaction would be addressed through site-specific geotechnical studies prepared in accordance with California Building Code requirements as adopted in Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code and standard industry practices.

While seismic hazards cannot be eliminated completely, adherence to the State and local regulatory requirements would minimize potential exposure of people and new structures to seismic hazard by requiring incorporation of hazard mitigation measures into project design. Therefore, the Proposed Project impacts due to liquefaction are less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 94, Packet Page 161 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-66 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Landslides
Landslide susceptibility in the Project Area ranges from low to high. There is moderate and high landslide hazard in the vicinity of the southeastern and southern boundary of the Project Area. There are also a few small areas of moderate landslide susceptibility in the central portion of the Project Area, near Skyline Drive, Glenwood Circle, and Santa Catalina School. While most of the Project Area is in an area of low landslide susceptibility, there are some sites identified for development under the Proposed Project that experience moderate landslide risk.

Development on these sites and in areas with slope stability hazards would be subject to the provisions of the California Building Code, adopted and incorporated into the City Code, which regulate analysis of slope instability and requirements for drainage and grading. In addition, any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and landslide risk.

Compliance with these NPDES and local City Code regulations would reduce impacts related to landslides.

Associated impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Soil Erosion
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated the Planning Area is located on Narlon soils predominantly in the western, gently sloping areas, as well as the steeper hillside areas, which pose a moderate to high erosion potential. Baywood soils found mainly in the central, gently sloping portions of the Planning Area pose a slight to moderate erosion potential. Depending on the slopes of Sheridan soils, found also in the western hilly portions of the Planning Area, erosion potential is slight to high. Dune land, located just on the margin of the Monterey Bay area, poses the most severe erosion risk.

As reiterated in the previous EIR, any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the SWPPP also must include BMPs to control contamination of surface flows and potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion. Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and sedimentation and restrict non-stormwater discharges from construction sites as well as any release of hazardous materials.

Additionally, continued implementation of General Plan Conservation Element policies would further help to minimize potential impacts. Accordingly, the previous EIR concluded compliance with applicable codes ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 95, Packet Page 162 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-67
and regulations and continued implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that the risk of substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss resulting from implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan will be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would involve implementation of the Housing Action Plan, which includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas, which could involve development in areas with erosional potential and risk. Similar to the previous EIR, in order to reduce impacts of erosion, the City required any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the SWPPP also must include BMPs to control contamination of surface flows and potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion. Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and sedimentation and restrict non-stormwater discharges from construction sites as well as any release of hazardous materials.

Compliance with General Plan Conservation Element policies, as well as applicable codes and regulations, would ensure that the risk of substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project will be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Unstable Soils/Expansive Soils
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted development associated with the implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan could be located on a geologic unit or soils that are susceptible to lateral spreading. The factors determining the potential for lateral spreading are liquefiable soils and the proximity to an open face or slope.

Locations within the Planning Area that have high liquefaction susceptibility have the highest risk of lateral spreading. The southeastern portion of the Planning Area, along the Highway 68 corridor and within the 50-acre MPUSD site, are underlain by liquefiable soils. The areas around El Estero Lake and Del Monte Lake provide an open face for lateral spreading. However, these open faces are located some distance from opportunity areas and therefore, while both these areas pose some risk of lateral spreading, it is not expected to be a significant risk.

Development associated with the implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan could be located on soils that pose a low risk of subsidence. As discussed in the previous EIR, the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas can cause land to displace vertically. However, the USGS California Water Science Center does not identify the City of Monterey as an area that has experienced subsidence, and none of the projects that could be constructed under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would withdraw groundwater, oil, or natural gas in a quantity great enough to result in subsidence. Therefore, subsidence is unlikely to result ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 96, Packet Page 163 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-68 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
from construction created under the Monterey 2031 General Plan. The Monterey City Code requires that a detailed soil and geological investigation report be prepared at the filing of a tentative map for every subdivision (Monterey City Code, Chapter 33, Article 5). Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code also establishes administrative procedures, minimum standards of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for ensuring stable soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Development associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project could be located on a geologic unit or soils that are susceptible to lateral spreading. Locations within the Project Area that have high liquefaction susceptibility have the highest risk of lateral spreading. The southeastern portion of the Project Area are underlain by liquefiable soils, while areas around El Estero Lake and Del Monte Lake provide an open face for lateral spreading. However, these open faces are located some distance from opportunity areas that are the focus of the Proposed Project and therefore, while both these areas pose some risk of lateral spreading, it is not expected to be a significant risk.

None of the projects which could be constructed under the Proposed Project would withdraw groundwater, oil, or natural gas in a quantity great enough to result in subsidence. Therefore, subsidence is unlikely to result from construction created under the Proposed Project. Also, the Monterey City Code requires that a detailed soil and geological investigation report be prepared at the filing of a tentative map for every subdivision (Monterey City Code, Chapter 33, Article 5). Chapter 9, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code also establishes administrative procedures, minimum standards of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for ensuring stable soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure the Proposed Project’s impacts would be less than significant. d) Expansive Soils
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
A significant impact could occur if new development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would locate structures in areas on top of expansive soil that would create substantial risk to life or property. As described above, expansive soils, which swell and shrink as they gain and lose moisture and can result in damage to overlying structures, underly the majority of the western portion of Monterey, a small area in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area, and a few areas surrounding the Monterey Regional Airport. Section 33-81(e) of the Monterey City Code requires the preparation of a geologic soils report prepared by a civil engineer who is registered by the State unless the City has knowledge as to the soil qualities of the soil of the subdivision or lot. Based on that report or prior knowledge of soil conditions, if presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects is determined, a site-specific soils investigation which recommends corrective action to prevent structural damage to each dwelling proposed to be constructed on the expansive soil is required. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that expansive soil-related impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
As noted in the previous EIR, expansive soils, which swell and shrink as they gain and lose moisture and can result in damage to overlying structures, underly the majority of the western portion of Monterey, a small area in the southeastern portion of the Project Area, and a few areas surrounding the Monterey Regional Airport. The Proposed Project would involve implementation of the Housing Action Plan, which ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 97, Packet Page 164 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-69
includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, such as Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas, which could result in development near or on expansive soil. Section 33-81(e) of the Monterey City Code requires the preparation of a geologic soils report prepared by a civil engineer who is registered by the State unless the City has knowledge as to the soil qualities of the soil of the subdivision or lot. Based on that report or prior knowledge of soil conditions, if presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects is determined, a site-specific soils investigation which recommends corrective action to prevent structural damage to each dwelling proposed to be constructed on the expansive soil is required. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that any expansive soil-related impacts resulting from the Proposed Project would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Septic Systems
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
A significant impact could occur if new development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would locate structures in areas without connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system and on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks. The previous EIR noted the Monterey City Code (Chapter 30-

1.1) requires that every building be connected to the public sewer system maintained by the sanitary district. In the event that the use of septic tanks is permitted during development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan, compliance with all requirements outlined in the Monterey City Code (Chapter 30, Article 1) would be required. As a result, related impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Monterey City Code Chapter 30-1.1, which requires that every building be connected to the public sewer system maintained by the sanitary district. In the event that the use of septic tanks is permitted during development under the Proposed Project, compliance with all requirements outlined in Monterey City Code, Chapter 30, Article 1 would be required. As a result, related impacts would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) Paleontological Resources
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated the geologic units exposed at and below ground surface in the Planning Area are composed primarily of Holocene Older Dune Sand and Dune Sand, with Pleistocene Aromas Sand lying further inland, which are known to have yielded scientifically important fossils. Based on Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) methods, this geologic unit is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.

The previous EIR noted construction enabled by the Monterey 2031 General Plan would involve grounddisturbing activities that could extend into paleontologically sensitive geologic units. In addition, any operations or maintenance activities that would involve ground disturbance also has potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. The potential for destruction of unique paleontological resources is considered a significant impact. To further address potential impacts to paleontological resources, any project applicant ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 98, Packet Page 165 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-70 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
pursuing construction under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, which prohibits the willful excavation, removal, destruction, injury, or defacing of any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site.

Any project applicant pursuing construction under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which require training to construction staff regarding paleontological resources and which establish protocols to follow in the event of the discovery of an unidentified paleontological resource, respectively. Through the conformance to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, the impact would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Geologic units exposed at and below ground surface are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.

Construction enabled by the Proposed Project would involve ground-disturbing activities that could extend into paleontologically sensitive geologic units. In addition, any operations or maintenance activities that would involve ground disturbance also has potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. The potential for destruction of unique paleontological resources is considered a significant impact, similar to the previous EIR. As such, development and construction of the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, which prohibits the willful excavation, removal, destruction, injury, or defacing of any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site. Further, construction under the Proposed Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which require training to construction staff regarding paleontological resources and which establish protocols to follow in the event of the discovery of an unidentified paleontological resource, respectively. Through the conformance to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and adherence to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, the impact would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. g) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated each project in the cumulative geographic context would be required to comply with the General Plan, City Code, Proposed Plan, and California Building Standards Code requirements.

The standards presented in these documents require that a site-specific geotechnical investigation be prepared which would include design recommendations to reduce each cumulative project’s impact. Similar seismic safety standards would apply to the cumulative projects. For these reasons, project building under the Proposed Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on geology and soils. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact exists in the geographic context for geology, soils, and seismicity.

Regarding paleontological resources, Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of paleontological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 require worker awareness training and to halt construction activity in case of finding paleontological resources. Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Plan to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 99, Packet Page 166 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-71
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Along with other projects that will occur in the cumulative geographic context of Monterey, development pursuant to the Proposed Project would also be required to comply with the General Plan, City Code, Proposed Plan, and California Building Standards Code requirements. The standards presented in these documents require that a site-specific geotechnical investigation be prepared which would include design recommendations to reduce each cumulative project’s impacts. Similar seismic safety standards would apply to the cumulative projects. For these reasons, project building under the Proposed Project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on geology and soils. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact exists in the geographic context for geology, soils, and seismicity.

Similarly, the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 which specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of paleontological resources. In addition, the Proposed Project must adhere to Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 which require worker awareness training and to halt construction activity in case of finding paleontological resources. Therefore, the contribution of the Proposed Project to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR, no additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-GEO-1: Worker Awareness Training. Prior to commencing construction, and ongoing throughout ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, utility installation, the applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area and/or their designee shall ensure that all project construction workers are trained on the contents of a paleontological resources alert sheet, as provided by the department. The paleontological resources alert sheet shall be prominently displayed at the construction site during ground-disturbing activities for reference regarding potential paleontological resources. In addition, the project applicant shall inform the contractor and construction personnel of the immediate stop work procedures and other procedures to be followed if bones or other potential fossils are unearthed at the project site. Should new workers who will be involved in ground-disturbing construction activities begin employment after the initial training has occurred, the construction supervisor shall ensure that they receive the worker awareness training as described above.

The applicant shall complete a standard form/affidavit confirming the timing of the worker awareness training to the City. The affidavit shall confirm the project’s location, the date of training, the location of the informational handout display, and the number of participants.

The affidavit shall be transmitted to the City within five business days of conducting the training.

MM GEO-2: Halt Construction, Maintenance, or Landscaping Activity in Case of Finding Paleontological Resources, Evaluate Find, and Excavate Find. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 100, Packet Page 167 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-72 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
other ground-disturbing activity, applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall cease all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery ceases until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is potentially significant, the project applicant shall ensure a qualified paleontologist shall excavate the find in compliance with state law, document the find, and arrange for curation at a depository, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is not significant, then the project will continue without delay.

CONCLUSION
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. The conclusions from the previous EIR regarding geology, soils, and seismicity remain unchanged.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted there are several sites within the Planning Area that currently use hazardous materials and/or generate hazardous wastes which require regulatory oversight to protect human health and the environment. Additionally, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would potentially permit new industrial, manufacturing, or research and development uses that involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities reportable to the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Such uses are regulated by Monterey County’s Environmental Health Bureau, Hazardous Materials Management Services under State and Federal laws and regulation. The City also coordinates with DTSC, which regulates the generation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, and the SWRCB and regional water boards, which HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area
Conclusion
in Prior EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Zoning Amendments Involve New
or More Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring
New
Analysis
or Verification?
d. Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation Incorporated
MM-HAZ1
No No No
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Significant
and Unavoidable
MM-WF-1 No No No
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 102, Packet Page 169 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-74 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
enforces the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and protects the quality of ground and surface waters.

Moreover, any project requiring greater than 1 acre of soil disturbance would be required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (in addition to the regulations previously mentioned). The Construction General Permit would require the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to regulate and prevent contamination of stormwater runoff.

Routine transport of hazardous materials on major arterials and highways within and surrounding the Planning Area are regulated and monitored by USDOT, Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol. Any hazardous material transport via railroad through the Planning Area would be regulated and monitored by USDOT. The previous EIR concluded that although the use, storage and transport of hazardous materials releases cannot feasibly be eliminated, the requirements of existing regulatory programs would reduce potential program-level impacts of routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less-thansignificant level.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project involve a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas. The Proposed Project does not anticipate new industrial, manufacturing, or research and development uses that involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities reportable to the local CUPA. As such, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Routine transport of hazardous materials on major arterials and highways within and surrounding the Project Area are regulated and monitored by USDOT, Caltrans, and the California Highway Patrol. Any hazardous material transport via railroad through the Project Area would be regulated and monitored by USDOT. Although the use, storage and transport of hazardous materials releases cannot feasibly be eliminated, the requirements of existing regulatory programs would reduce potential program-level impacts of routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Release of Hazardous Materials
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted although the risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment cannot be completely eliminated, it can be reduced to a manageable level. Existing regulations at the federal, State, and local levels serve to minimize the potential for upset during routine transportation, use, and disposal, including of medical waste and chemicals or solvents used in manufacturing processes. Additionally, regulations are in place to minimize the risk of upset or accident involving sites that have previously been contaminated by hazardous substances. Continued compliance ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 103, Packet Page 170 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-75
with CUPA programs would help to ensure documentation of releases and threatened releases as well as the development of risk management and hazardous materials release response plans required under existing regulations.

Given existing regulations and programs and Monterey 2031 General Plan policies and implementing actions that reduce the potential for hazardous materials upsets and promote safe handling and proper disposal of such wastes, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Similar to the previous EIR, although the risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment cannot be completely eliminated, it can be reduced to a manageable level. Existing regulations at the federal, State, and local levels serve to minimize the potential for upset during routine transportation, use, and disposal, including of medical waste and chemicals or solvents used in manufacturing processes. Additionally, regulations are in place to minimize the risk of upset or accident involving sites that have previously been contaminated by hazardous substances. Continued compliance with CUPA programs would help to ensure documentation of releases and threatened releases as well as the development of risk management and hazardous materials release response plans required under existing regulations.

Given existing regulations, programs, and Monterey 2031 General Plan policies and implementing actions that reduce the potential for hazardous materials upsets and promote safe handling and proper disposal of such wastes, the Proposed Project’s impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Hazardous Waste near School
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR stated buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not involve emitting or handling acutely hazardous materials or wastes in the vicinity of schools. While there are schools in Monterey located within one-quarter mile of development sites under the Monterey 2031 General Plan, construction projects such as housing would require little ground disturbance (lessening the potential risk of exposure) during construction and any hazardous materials use would still be subject to applicable requirements.

However, there are open and active hazardous materials sites within one-quarter mile or adjacent to a school campus. There are open Cleanup Program Sites within a quarter-mile of both Trinity Christian High School and San Carlos School, and active Military Underground Storage Tanks (UST) sites within a quartermile of Bay View Academy Upper Campus. Further, the General Plan Land Use map displays the possibility of industrial and manufacturing uses that may emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school. Compliance with Monterey City Code Chapter 13, Article 2, details that responsible parties should take all actions necessary to remedy the effects of any unauthorized discharge, spill, or release of any hazardous substances, while Chapter 38, Section 130, requires all businesses located in the City prepare hazardous materials release response plans. Adherence to the requirements of existing regulatory programs would reduce potential impacts associated with handling hazardous materials near a school to a less-than-significant level.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 104, Packet Page 171 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-76 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. The Proposed Project would not involve emitting or handling acutely hazardous materials or wastes in the vicinity of schools. While there may be schools in Monterey that are located within one-quarter mile of rezoning sites under the Proposed Project, construction projects such as housing would require little ground disturbance (lessening the potential risk of exposure) during construction and any hazardous materials use would still be subject to applicable requirements. Further, the City of Monterey’s General Plan Land Use map displays the possibility of industrial and manufacturing uses that may emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school. As noted above, compliance with Monterey City Code Chapter 13, Article 2, details that responsible parties should take all actions necessary to remedy the effects of any unauthorized discharge, spill, or release of any hazardous substances, while Chapter 38, Section 130, requires all businesses located in the City to prepare hazardous materials release response plans.

Adherence to the requirements of existing regulatory programs would reduce potential impacts associated with handling hazardous materials near a school to a less-than-significant level. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Hazardous Materials Site
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted there 11 open “Cleanup Program Sites” in and within the vicinity of the Planning Area. Cleanup Program Sites are non-federally owned sites that are regulated under State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB)’s Site Cleanup Program. Compliance with SWRCB and local regulations, such as Monterey City Code, Chapter 13, Article 2, would ensure clean-up responsibility for spills or release of any hazardous substances, while Chapter 38, Section 130 required all businesses to prepare hazardous materials release response plans. As such, the Cleanup Program Sites would not result in a significant hazard to the public.

Further, there are no Superfund sites within the Planning Area. However, the northernmost parcel within the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area (APN 031-191-018-000, referred to as parcel E29.1) is part of a munitions response area where unexploded ordnances (UXO) have been discovered. The site has been cleared of UXO to a level that permits light industrial uses; however, residential use is restricted and additional remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control is required before the residential restriction can be removed. The Housing Element does not identify the parcel E29.1 as a site available for housing within the 2023-31 planning period; however, the General Plan land use diagram designates the parcel as a mixed use neighborhood. Therefore, the previous EIR noted that implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure adequate remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. EPA, and DTSC before development occurs.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
There are 11 open “Cleanup Program Sites” in and within the vicinity of the Project Area. Cleanup Program Sites are non-federally owned sites that are regulated under SWRCB’s Site Cleanup Program. Compliance with SWRCB and local regulations, such as Monterey City Code, Chapter 13, Article 2, would ensure cleanup responsibility for spills or release of any hazardous substances, while Chapter 38, Section 130 required ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 105, Packet Page 172 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-77
all businesses to prepare hazardous materials release response plans. As such, the Cleanup Program Sites would not result in a significant hazard to the public. Further, there are no Superfund sites within the Project Area. The Proposed Project includes implementation of Programs 2-F and 3-C, which propose a zoning amendment to incorporate current requirements of State density bonus and an update to the City’s Density Bonus ordinance to establish additional development incentives for citywide qualifying projects under a proposed local density bonus. The Proposed Project would allow development near the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area where unexploded ordnances (UXO) have been discovered, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure adequate remediation in coordination with the U.S. Army, U.S. EPA, and DTSC before development occurs, which would reduce to a less-than-significant level. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. e) Airport
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted that majority of the Planning Area is located within the Monterey Regional Airport influence area. As such, development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would largely be within the boundaries of the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), including the airport safety zones established therein.

The previous EIR declared that future development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. Further, the Land Use Element creates a new Airport Compatibility Overlay, which applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the ALUCP in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Additionally, the Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport and Policy C.3 which seeks to minimize the potential for development in the Airport Influence Area, identified in the ALUCP, to adversely affect aircraft operations by reducing the potential for bird strikes, electromagnetic interference, glare, and other hazards to flight.

Therefore, the previous EIR noted compliance with the ALUCP, and implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would reduce airport safety hazards and excessive noise exposure potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Development under the Proposed Project would largely be within the boundaries of the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), including the airport safety zones established therein. As such, future development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. Further, the Land Use Element creates a new Airport Compatibility Overlay, which applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 106, Packet Page 173 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-78 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
ALUCP in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Additionally, the Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport and Policy C.3 which seeks to minimize the potential for development in the Airport Influence Area, identified in the ALUCP, to adversely affect aircraft operations by reducing the potential for bird strikes, electromagnetic interference, glare, and other hazards to flight.

Therefore, compliance with the ALUCP, and implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would reduce airport safety hazards and excessive noise exposure potentially resulting from new development to the maximum extent practicable. Associated impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) Emergency Evacuation
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted compliance with the existing regional and local codes and regulations, Monterey Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), the County of Monterey Emergency Operations Plan (OEP), the Monterey County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), and Mitigation Measure WF-1, would help reduce impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, the analysis found that under a multi-hazard evacuation scenario, traffic volumes would surpass capacity as traffic approaches Highway 1 at two locations in the network. The highway on-ramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Caltrans does not currently have a plan or funding in place to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
See Impact a) in Wildfire of this document for analysis on this impact. Consistent with the previous EIR, any development pursuant to the Proposed Project would have to comply with all fire codes and regulations related to emergency access.

However, the Proposed Project aims to implement the Housing Action Plan Programs 1-C, 1-B, 1-L, and 2-A, that could foster new development, thereby increasing the traffic volumes at certain traffic approaches, such as the interchange of Fremont Street-Highway 1 and at Soledad Drive-Highway 1 approaches. As identified in the previous EIR, Mitigation Measure MM-WF-1 involves measures to temporarily increase capacity at constrained locations and proactively manage vehicle flow, which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. However, the previous EIR found that highway on-ramps are part of the State transportation network, under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, and implementation of this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the City. As such, it cannot be determined at this time whether the impact will in fact be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, overall, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Even so, the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 107, Packet Page 174 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-79
g) Wildfire
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted compliance with the existing State and local codes and regulations, California Fire Code, California Building Code requirements including California Code of Regulations Title 24, Monterey City Code Section 33-35, as well as proposed policies A.36, A.37, A.38 in the Safety Element, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level related to exacerbating wildfire risks during construction, operation, and implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
See Impacts b) in Wildfire of this document for analysis on this impact. The Proposed Project would involve implementation of the Housing Action Plan, which includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located in opportunity areas, such as Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas, that are not contained within VHFHSZ and other areas of elevated wildfire risk, thus would generally be less likely to foment fire spread and structure loss. Therefore, the potential for exposure to pollutants from wildfire would be less than significant because the Proposed Project is not located in or near lands classified as VHFSZ. Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would also be subject to existing State and local codes, plans, and regulations, which would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. h) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
As stated in the prior EIR, reasonably foreseeable projects in the Monterey 2031 General Plan’s surroundings could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites. However, the handling and transportation of hazardous materials by all projects (including projects within the Planning Area) would be regulated under federal, State and local authority and no significant cumulative impact would occur. Furthermore, hazardous waste generated during construction of any project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with applicable regulations. In addition, impacted sites under development would undergo remediation under the oversight of applicable state and local agencies, effectively reducing the amount of contamination found in the cumulative project area. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For each of the reasonably foreseeable projects under consideration, various project-specific measures (such as the ones identified for the Monterey 2031 General Plan) would be implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. For these reasons, the Monterey 2031 General Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative hazards or hazardous materials impact.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Reasonably foreseeable projects in the Project Area and immediate vicinity could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 108, Packet Page 175 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-80 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites.

However, the handling and transportation of hazardous materials by all projects (including projects within the Project Area) would be regulated under federal, State and local authority and no significant cumulative impact would occur. Furthermore, hazardous waste generated during construction of any project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with applicable regulations.

In addition, impacted sites under development would undergo remediation under the oversight of applicable state and local agencies, effectively reducing the amount of contamination found in the cumulative project area. Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For each of the reasonably foreseeable projects under consideration, various project-specific measures (such as the ones identified for the General Plan) would be implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR; no additional analysis is required.

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

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

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to geology, seismicity, and soils. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 109, Packet Page 176 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-81
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area Conclusion
in Prior EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Zoning Amendments Involve New
or More Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
Involving
New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than
Significant
None No No No
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in a substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onor off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 110, Packet Page 177 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-82 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Water Quality Standards
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP), Monterey City Code and General Plan water quality protection requirements and conditions applicable to implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update are intended to reduce any potential construction period and post-construction water quality impacts to a less-than-significant level, consistent with federal and State water quality regulations and plans. These Central Coast RWQCB, MRSWMP, and City requirements and conditions apply to future housing development facilitated by the Monterey 2031 General Plan.

Construction activities arising from implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan, such as grading and other construction-related earth-disturbing activities, could result in short-term water quality impacts.

Construction activities could also generate dust, litter, oil, and other pollutants that could temporarily contaminate runoff from the Planning Area. However, substantial increase in stormwater volume and velocity is not anticipated with the Monterey 2031 General Plan as subsequent projects would be required to comply with stormwater management regulations and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City.

The ESCP would need to meet City standards including erosion control best management practices (BMPs).

Individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the SWPPP also must include BMPs to control contamination of surface flows and potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion. Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 111, Packet Page 178 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-83
erosion and sedimentation and restrict non-stormwater discharges from construction sites as well as any release of hazardous materials. These standard NPDES and local required construction period measures would reduce the construction period pollutants entering waterbodies to a less-than-significant level.

Post-construction, other potential water quality impacts include runoff into storm drains or water bodies if proper minimization measures are not implemented. However, BMPs as required in the SWPPP and the Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, ranging from source control to treatment of polluted runoff, would be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. Chapter 31.5, Article 2 of the Monterey City Code is also intended to protect and enhance water quality consistent with existing regulations. Further, continued implementation of General Plan Conservation Element policies would also reduce potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge standards, including Policy b.1. through which the City would continue public education and outreach programs to discourage illegal dumping, Policy b.2. through which the City would conduct regular street sweeping to minimize particulate matter pollution, Policy b.3. under which the City would require actions to minimize erosion for development on steep slopes, and Policy b.4. under which the City would retain and restore wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats, which provide remediation for degraded water quality.

Therefore, the previous EIR concluded that compliance with existing federal, State and local regulations and continued implementation of General Plan policies would minimize the potential for violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degradation of water quality. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Future development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be subject to all water quality protection requirements and conditions applicable to reduce and alleviate any potential construction period and post-construction water quality impacts. This includes adherence to federal and State water quality regulations and plans, as well as Central Coast RWQCB, MRSWMP, and City requirements and conditions applicable to development.

Construction activities arising from implementation of the Proposed Project, such as grading and other construction-related earth-disturbing activities, could result in short-term water quality impacts. Further, post-construction, other potential water quality impacts include runoff into storm drains or water bodies if proper minimization measures are not implemented.

The City requires any project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), which would be subject to review and approval by the City. The ESCP would need to meet City standards of including erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); the SWPPP also must include BMPs to control contamination of surface flows and potential discharge of pollutants from commencement of construction through project completion. Compliance with Construction General Permit, Monterey City Code (Chapter 31.5, Article 2) requirements, and submission of ESCP would ensure that BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and sedimentation and restrict non-stormwater discharges from construction sites as well as any release of hazardous materials. These standard NPDES and local required ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 112, Packet Page 179 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-84 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
construction period measures would reduce the construction period pollutants entering waterbodies to a less-than-significant level. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Groundwater Supplies
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted groundwater basins in the vicinity of the Planning Area include the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, Salinas Valley Seaside Subbasin, and the Carmel Valley Subbasin - all of which are hydraulically connected by Cal-Am’s distribution system - as well as the Monterey Subbasin, from which MCWD wells draw water. The Carmel Valley Subbasin is in an unmanaged area part of a medium-priority groundwater basin. Because it is an unmanaged area, it is not subject to an alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or other exemption from Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements. Also, based on the most recent SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, the Salinas Valley Seaside Subbasin is a very low priority basin, and therefore, does not require the adoption of a GSP. As such, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Updatewould not interfere or impede sustainable groundwater management of these basins because they do not have a GSP.

However, the Marina Coast Water District’s (MCWD) wells that would supply water to future development at Fort Ord are located in the Monterey Subbasin. The State has designated the Monterey Subbasin as a medium-priority groundwater basin, and as such, it is subject to SGMA. Under SGMA, the Monterey Subbasin is required to develop a GSP, which was published in 2022. The Monterey Subbasin GSP identifies projects and management actions that will allow the Monterey Subbasin to attain sustainability in accordance with §354.42 and §354.44 of the GSP Emergency Regulations. The goal of the projects and management actions is to address significant and unreasonable results related to the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and seawater intrusion in each management area. Specifically, projects and management actions to be led by MCWD are outlined in the GSP that will primarily benefit the Marina-Ord Area. These projects and management actions include MCWD demand management measures, stormwater recharge management, recycled water reuse through landscape irrigation and indirect potable reuse, and well monitoring. Compliance with the SGMA legislation, by regularly demonstrating that the basin is not over drafted, ensures that the groundwater draws will be carefully managed and sustainably used, and that the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies from increased demand. As such, compliance with SGMA legislation that requires implementation of the Monterey Subbasin GSP, development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not interfere or impede sustainable groundwater management in the region. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge as the withdrawals of Carmel Valley and Seaside Basins are limited. See also Monterey 2031 General Plan Update DEIR Section

3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, for further analysis regarding potable water supplies.

Based on the foregoing, at the program level, development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, associated groundwater impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 113, Packet Page 180 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-85
Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would involve a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, including Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas. Groundwater basins in the vicinity of the Planning Area include the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, Salinas Valley Seaside Subbasin, and the Carmel Valley Subbasin - all of which are hydraulically connected by Cal-Am’s distribution system - as well as the Monterey Subbasin, from which MCWD wells draw water.

As analyzed in the previous EIR, Carmel Valley Subbasin is in an unmanaged area part of a medium-priority groundwater basin. Because it is an unmanaged area, it is not subject to an alternative to a GSP or other exemption from SGMA requirements. Also, based on the most recent SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, the Salinas Valley Seaside Subbasin is a very low priority basin, and therefore, does not require the adoption of a GSP. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere or impede sustainable groundwater management of these basins because they do not have a GSP; therefore, this impact is less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Drainage Pattern
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Erosion, Siltation, and Flooding
The previous EIR noted the projects with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an ESCP, which would need to meet City standards of including erosion control BMPs. Additionally, individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to implement a SWPPP; with erosion and sediment control BMPs as required by the State’s Construction General Permit and MS4 Phase II Permit regulations. Standard erosion and sediment control measures and other housekeeping BMPs, such as vehicle and equipment maintenance, material delivery and storage, and solid waste management, would be identified in the SWPPP. These measures would be identified for each individual project and implemented during construction to reduce contamination and sedimentation in waterways.

Projects disturbing less than an acre of ground surface during construction would not be required to prepare a SWPPP, but would be required to implement the construction site control BMPs required by the City’s MS4 NPDES permit. Development associated with the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with Provision E.10, which requires adoption and implementation of LID techniques, including the use of vegetated swales and retention basins and minimal use of impermeable surfaces to manage stormwater and maintain a site’s predevelopment runoff rates and volumes. Development would also be subject to requirements of the Construction General Permit, Central Coast RWQCB Municipal Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, and the City’s erosion and sediment control requirements.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 114, Packet Page 181 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-86 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Surface Runoff
The previous EIR noted the current stormwater requirements for construction and new development regulate both the quality and the quantity of storm runoff. Storm water quality is regulated under the Phase II MS4 Permit, of which the City of Monterey is a permittee. Developments within the Planning Area must meet comply with Provision E.10, which requires adoption and implementation of low-impact development (LID) techniques, including, among other things, infiltration and biotreatment, the use of vegetated swales and retention basins, and minimal use of impermeable surfaces, to manage stormwater and maintain a site’s predevelopment runoff rates and volumes.

Guidelines for implementing these regulations are detailed in the MRSWMP Stormwater Technical Guide for Low Impact Development handbook and are reviewed and permitted by Monterey. Required compliance with existing local regulations would reduce the amount of runoff as well as the risks of the Monterey 2031 General Plan contributing significant additional polluted runoff. Any new development associated with buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be required to comply with best practices for stormwater treatment, as required by the City’s MS4 Permit, and Safety Element Policy a.16 that require applicable development projects to employ low impact development (LID) design strategies that minimize drainage concentration, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, and overall utilize best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff and minimize increases in downstream runoff and/or impacts resulting from new development. New development, during both construction and operations phases, would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs to mitigate risks of polluted runoff. The previous EIR concluded that compliance with these regulations would reduce stormwater velocity and volume the maximum extent practicable, and as a result impacts would be less than significant.

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
The previous EIR declared approximately 968 acres of the Planning Area is within the 100-year flood zone and an additional 85 acres is in the 500-year flood zone. The City participates in the Federal Flood Insurance Program and is thus required to comply with the requirements of the program. New developments within areas of special flood hazard are kept on file at the City of Monterey Building Safety Division. New developments associated with buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan, such as housing sites within the Cannery Row area, within the 100-year coastal and 500-year floodplain would be in compliance with the Monterey City Code (Chapter 9, Article 7, Flood Damage Prevention), which includes standards of construction (Section 9-71.1) and standards for coastal high hazard areas (Section 9-71.5). To minimize flood hazards, standards of construction require anchoring to prevent flotation and collapse, as well as flood resistant materials as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin TB2-93. Standards for coastal high hazard areas include anchoring, filling, and prohibition of man-made alteration of sand dunes. Therefore, the previous EIR concluded that development under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Erosion, Siltation, and Flooding
Development pursuant to the Proposed Project with soil disturbance of at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards would be required to submit an ESCP, which would need to meet City standards of including erosion control BMPs. Additionally, individual projects disturbing more than one acre of ground would be required to implement a SWPPP; with erosion and sediment control BMPs as required by the State’s Construction ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 115, Packet Page 182 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-87
General Permit and MS4 Phase II Permit regulations. Standard erosion and sediment control measures and other housekeeping BMPs, such as vehicle and equipment maintenance, material delivery and storage, and solid waste management, would be identified in the SWPPP. These measures would be identified for each individual project and implemented during construction to reduce contamination and sedimentation in waterways.

Projects disturbing less than an acre of ground surface during construction would not be required to prepare a SWPPP but would be required to implement the construction site control BMPs required by the City’s MS4 NPDES permit. Development associated with the Proposed Project would be required to comply with Provision E.10, which requires adoption and implementation of LID techniques. Development would also be subject to requirements of the Construction General Permit, Central Coast RWQCB Municipal Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, and the City’s erosion and sediment control requirements.

Compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs discussed above would ensure that impacts associated with substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the Project Area would be reduced. Therefore, at the program level, development under the Proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site and impacts would be less than significant. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Surface Runoff
Storm water quality is regulated under the Phase II MS4 Permit, of which the City of Monterey is a permittee. Developments within the Project Area must meet comply with Provision E.10, which requires adoption and implementation of low-impact development (LID) techniques, including, among other things, infiltration and biotreatment, the use of vegetated swales and retention basins, and minimal use of impermeable surfaces, to manage stormwater and maintain a site’s predevelopment runoff rates and volumes.

Guidelines for implementing these regulations are detailed in the MRSWMP Stormwater Technical Guide for Low Impact Development handbook and are reviewed and permitted by Monterey. Required compliance with existing local regulations would reduce the amount of runoff as well as the risks of the Proposed Project contributing significant additional polluted runoff. Any new development associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with best practices for stormwater treatment, as required by the City’s MS4 Permit, and Safety Element Policy a.16 that require applicable development projects to employ low impact development (LID) design strategies that minimize drainage concentration, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, and overall utilize best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff and minimize increases in downstream runoff and/or impacts resulting from new development. New development, during both construction and operations phases, would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs to mitigate risks of polluted runoff. Compliance with these regulations would reduce stormwater velocity and volume the maximum extent practicable, and as a result impacts would be less than significant. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 116, Packet Page 183 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-88 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Approximately 968 acres of the Project Area is within the 100-year flood zone and an additional 85 acres is in the 500-year flood zone. The City participates in the Federal Flood Insurance Program and is thus required to comply with the requirements of the program. New developments within areas of special flood hazard are kept on file at the City of Monterey Building Safety Division. New developments associated with buildout of the Proposed Project, such as housing sites within the Cannery Row area, within the 100-year coastal and 500-year floodplain would be in compliance with the Monterey City Code (Chapter 9, Article 7, Flood Damage Prevention), which includes standards of construction (Section 9-71.1) and standards for coastal high hazard areas (Section 9-71.5). To minimize flood hazards, standards of construction require anchoring to prevent flotation and collapse, as well as flood resistant materials as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin TB2-93. Standards for coastal high hazard areas include anchoring, filling, and prohibition of man-made alteration of sand dunes. Therefore, development under the Proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Flood, Tsunami, Seiche Hazard
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR notes the coastal flood zone extends along the northern part of the Planning area and some low-lying areas of the city are located in the FEMA-delineated 100-year 500-year flood zones. Further, the tsunami evacuation zone extends along the coastline and covers much of the Downtown area, as well as parts of the Pacific-Munras-Cass opportunity area. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in residential and employment-oriented development in and adjacent to these hazard areas.

Once operational, new development would also typically use cleaning solvents or landscaping chemicals that could potentially be released with the occurrence of a flood event, tsunami, or seiche.

New development would be required to comply with existing City regulations designed to minimize and avoid loss or damage due to flooding. Development in flood hazard areas is regulated by the standards in Chapter 9, Article 7, Flood Damage Prevention of the Monterey City Code, as well as Monterey City Code Chapter 31.5, Article 2 regarding stormwater management and drainage control. Compliance with these regulations would limit the risk of loss and damage due to flooding, including the release of pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable, and with compliance, associated impacts would be less than significant.

Further, the Planning Area is not located within an area at risk of flooding in the event of dam or levee failure. The Los Padres Dam is located 18 miles southeast of the Planning Area, while the Forest Lake Dam is located two miles west on the other side of hills. As such there is no substantial risk of pollutant release as a result of damn or levee inundation and there would be no associated impact.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Development pursuant to the Proposed Project would largely be located in key opportunity areas, such as Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in residential and employment-oriented development in and adjacent to coastal flood zones, near FEMA-delineated 100-year and 500-year flood ones, as well as tsunami evacuation zones extending along the coastline.

New development would be required to comply with existing City regulations designed to minimize and avoid loss or damage due to flooding, such as Monterey City Code (Chapter 9, Article 7, Flood Damage ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 117, Packet Page 184 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-89
Prevention), as well as City Code Chapter 31.5, Article 2 regarding stormwater management and drainage control. Further, the Project Area is not located within an area at risk of flooding in the event of dam or levee failure, as the Los Padres Dam is located 18 miles southeast of the Project Area, while the Forest Lake Dam is located two miles west on the other side of hills. As such, there is there is no substantial risk of pollutant release as a result of dam or levee inundation and there would be no associated impact. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Water Quality Control Plan
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted construction and operation associated with the Monterey 2031 General Plan would comply with local, State, and federal regulations, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, Basin Plan, Central Coast Phase II MS4 Permit, and the Monterey City Code. Commonly practiced BMPs, as required by these regulations, would be implemented to control construction site runoff and reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm drain systems from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. Construction runoff would also have to be in compliance with the water quality objectives for the region. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires stormwater discharges not to contain pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. Therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Further, the Carmel Valley and Seaside subbasins are not subject to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or other Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements. As development at Fort Ord under the Monterey 2031 General Plan is accounted for in the Monterey Subbasin GSP, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not interfere or impede sustainable groundwater management of a basin. Overall, the previous EIR concluded that impacts related to conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Construction and operation associated with the Proposed Project would comply with local, State, and federal regulations, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, Basin Plan, Central Coast Phase II MS4 Permit, and the Monterey City Code. Commonly practiced BMPs, as required by these regulations, would be implemented to control construction site runoff and reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm drain systems from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. Construction runoff would also have to be in compliance with the water quality objectives for the region. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires stormwater discharges not to contain pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan, similar to the previous EIR.

The Proposed Project would involve implementation of the Housing Action Plan, which includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas, which are within the Carmel Valley and Seaside subbasins. The Carmel Valley and Seaside subbasins are not subject to a GSP ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 118, Packet Page 185 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-90 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
or other SGMA requirements; therefore, the impacts related to conflicts with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. As such, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
As detailed in the prior EIR, future development in the geographic context for hydrology and water quality would be required to comply with regulations and policies including NPDES Construction General Permit adopted by the SWRCB; Central Coast RWQCB’s NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for MS4 discharges; Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; and the Monterey City Code. For these reasons, under the Monterey 2031 General Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality.

Potential growth in the Monterey Bay watershed would likely not degrade water quality as the Proposed Plan primarily consists of development into key areas of the city. Outside of these areas, the existing land use pattern would be preserved, with some infill development anticipated on vacant sites in residential neighborhoods. General Plan policies would also ensure that development protects and restores riparian habitat and ensure natural channel processes in the watershed. All new developments are required to handle stormwater in a manner that ensures that flood flows will not increase or be redirected to other areas. Similar to the Monterey 2031 General Plan, all future development in the geographic context for hydrology and water quality would be required to adhere to Monterey County General Plan policies and local municipal codes related to protecting water resources. Therefore, the contribution of the Monterey 2031 General Plan to the cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Equivalent to the prior EIR, future development in the geographic context of the Project Area for hydrology and water quality would be required to comply with regulations and policies including NPDES Construction General Permit adopted by the SWRCB; Central Coast RWQCB’s NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for MS4 discharges; Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; and the Monterey City Code. For these reasons, development under the Proposed Project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality.

Potential growth in the Monterey Bay watershed would likely not degrade water quality as the Proposed Project primarily consists of infill development and higher density development in already urbanized areas.

The Proposed Project must also adhere to General Plan policies which would ensure that development protects and restores riparian habitat and ensure natural channel processes in the watershed. As detailed in the prior EIR, all new developments pursuant to the Proposed Project are also required to handle stormwater in a manner that ensures that flood flows will not increase or be redirected to other areas. In addition, all future development in the geographic context for hydrology and water quality would be required to adhere to Monterey County General Plan policies and local municipal codes related to protecting water resources.

Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR no additional analysis is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 119, Packet Page 186 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-91

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Land Use, Population, and Housing
LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING. Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area Conclusion
in Prior EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Do the Proposed Zoning Amendments Involve New
or More Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
Involving
New or
More Severe Impacts?
New Information Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Physically divide an established
community?
No Impact None No No No
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact None No No No
c. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than
Significant
None No No No
d. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than
Significant
None No No No
ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 120, Packet Page 187 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-92 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist

DISCUSSION
a) Divide Community
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR identified that the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update does not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier that would physically divide an established community and would not remove any means of access or mobility.

Further, the Monterey 2031 General Plan includes numerous policies that would foster connectivity within the community, listed below.
• Land Use Element Policy A.4 seeks to focus new development in commercial areas and mixed-use neighborhoods, while Policy B.1 calls for the development and implementation of specific plans to guide development in the mixed use neighborhoods. Implementation of these policies would increase walkability, bikability and connectivity by fostering mixed use development.
• Implementation of Land Use Element policies A.1, which promotes balance of uses in the community, and A.2, which seeks to balance levels of employment and housing within the City and reduce commute times (in/out commuting), would also support and increase connectivity within the Planning Area. Other policies that promote connectivity include: Policy A.8, which seeks to reinforce connectivity with exceptional non-automobile access to the Bay; Policy B.5 which promotes a safe and attractive environment for bicycles and pedestrians; and Policy B6, which focuses on active street frontages. • Circulation Element Policy A.10 promotes a transportation network complemented by land uses that are easily accessible by walking, bicycling, or utilizing transit and requires ADA improvements, sidewalks, pedestrian connections, and bicycle facilities. • Policies that support Circulation Element Goals B and C also seek to foster a safe, well-maintained, reliable, and integrated roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian network that both efficiently moves people and goods across all modes of transportation, but also increases connectivity between neighborhoods and major city destinations.

Therefore, overall, because the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would not introduce any physical barriers to the Planning Area and would generally improve connectivity for all users, it would result in no impact with respect to physically dividing an existing community.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project does not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier that would physically divide an established community and would not remove any means of access or mobility. The Proposed Project would involve a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas. Further, the Monterey 2031 General Plan includes numerous policies that would foster connectivity within the community, listed above, which would generally improve connectivity for all users.

As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce any physical barriers to the Planning Area and would ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 121, Packet Page 188 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-93
not result in physically dividing an existing community. Therefore, there is no new information identifying new significant effects and the proposed project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Conflict with Any Land Use Plan
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Regional Plans
In June 2022, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) adopted Moving Forward - Monterey Bay 2045, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), which includes a set of integrated policies, strategies, and investments to maintain and improve the transportation system to meet the diverse needs of the region through 2045.

The MTP/SCS was prepared prior to the adoption of the RHNA allocations for the AMBAG region and does not reflect the subsequent allocation of housing units to jurisdictions for the 2023-31 period. The City of Monterey has a legal obligation to plan to accommodate at least 3,654 new homes during the planning period in order to meet its RHNA obligations, which is more than four times the number of new homes the MTP/SCS projects for the City over the 20-year period from 2015-2045. Additionally, the MTP/SCS assumes a baseline number of jobs in the City which is nearly 50 percent higher than indicated in US Census data. Therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan appropriately deviates from the growth projections in the MTP/SCS and is based on growth projections that reflect the City's assessed share of the 2023-31 RHNA and a corrected employment baseline. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan is projected to result in up to 5,800 new homes and 1,995 new jobs in Monterey by 2031. Projected housing growth reflects the City's RHNA allocation of 3,654 new homes with a buffer, as required to ensure the City can navigate the "no net loss" provisions of State law.

Projected employment growth represents the increment of jobs growth for the City assumed in the MTP/SCS for the 2023-31 period, but the total number of jobs resulting in 2031 is projected to be lower than in the MTP/SCS, reflecting the correction to the baseline employment levels.

The previous EIR identified that even though the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update appropriately uses growth projections that differ from the MTP/SCS, it is nevertheless broadly consistent with the policies and implementing strategies of the MTP/SCS, which are further detailed in the previous EIR. The Monterey 2031 General Plan incorporates numerous strategies to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally. Specifically, the Circulation Element incorporates "complete streets" policies that require the creation and maintenance of a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation (Policy 1.b) and established a list of guidelines and considerations for Complete Streets in the City’s multimodal plan, that would maximize safety through design (Policy b.6). Additionally, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would support the performance outcomes identified in the MTP/SCS, in that it would reduce commute travel times, increase the percentage of the population in proximity to high quality transit, promote active transportation, and increase the percentage of low-income residents who live within a 1/2- mile of transit.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 122, Packet Page 189 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-94 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
The Monterey 2031 General Plan would support the key objectives of Moving Forward Monterey Bay throughout the Planning Area, including the goal of fostering housing and jobs in proximity to transit in order to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not conflict with Moving Forward Monterey Bay.

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The previous EIR detailed the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), developed to ensure the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users while supporting the continued operation of the Monterey Regional Airport, located outside but immediately adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the Area. The ALUCP establishes seven airport safety zones that cover almost all land within the City of Monterey. Within the six zones closest to the airport, ALUCP land use compatibility standards restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to the public in the event of an aircraft accident.

The seventh safety zone is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), within which the risk of aircraft accident is considered to be low. Development in the vicinity of the airport or with the potential to extend into navigable airspace or impede taking off or landing must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for compatibility review.

Additionally, the Land Use Element incorporates a new Airport Compatibility Overlay with performance standards oriented to protecting airport operations and ensuring public safety. The purpose of the overlay is to resolve conflicts with respect to permitted development types and intensities on properties in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport that have resulted from an update to the ALUCP prepared by the County in 2019. The overlay would be applied to the General Plan Land Use map and would permit continuance of existing uses and allow for new development or expansion of existing uses only as consistent with the ALUC infill exemption; establish requirements for ALUC notification and project approval; and incorporate new mitigation requirements for interior noise levels by land use type. Additionally, with implementation of Policy C.2, the City would refer all projects that may penetrate aeronautical surfaces identified in the ALUCP or impede approach/departure visibility within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency review prior to issuing local development permits; and through Policy C.3, would reduce the potential for development in the Airport Influence Area to adversely affect aircraft operations by reducing the potential for bird strikes, and electromagnetic interference, and glare, and other hazards to flight. Therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would not conflict with the ALUCP.

Local Plans and Regulations
Local land use plans and regulations that cover the Planning Area include the City of Monterey General Plan, the City Code, and specific plans. The Monterey 2031 General Plan was a targeted update to the 2005 General Plan, focused on the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, and Safety Elements. The goals and policies of other elements have been retained. The Land Use Element builds on the key themes of the 2005 General Plan with a policy framework and land use classifications that seek to establish a compact, sustainable land use and development pattern and to create and nurture a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods in Monterey. A new Mixed Use Neighborhood classification which would apply to locations identified in the existing General Plan to accommodate high density infill housing, including the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch opportunity area.

The Housing Element is consistent with the Monterey General Plan, which seeks to encourage housing, including mixed-use housing to meet the needs of business (Economic Element Goal D), as well as preserve ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 123, Packet Page 190 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-95
existing and encourage development of new family housing in Monterey (Social Element Policy a.1). The Housing Element identifies zoning amendments needed to accommodate RHNA. These amendments generally increase capacity and facilitate housing development in areas identified in the existing General Plan as appropriate for development. As such, the amendments are generally consistent with the vision for promoting distinctive, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods within the City limit while also preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic resources that contribute to community character. The zoning amendments would be completed after adoption of the Monterey 2031 General Plan.

The Circulation Element addresses new State legislation and includes updates to the City’s goals and policies as they relate to transportation and land use; the street system; the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network; vehicle miles traveled; existing parking facilities; transportation safety; environmental and social justice; transportation system management; and Airport transportation. Further, the Safety Element incorporates new data, information, and maps related to flooding, sea level rise, tsunamis, wildfires, landslides, and seismic hazards, as well as strategies to increase emergency preparedness, response, and evacuation capacity.

The Safety Element also incorporates the 2022 City of Monterey Annex to the Monterey County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference, ensuring consistency across documents.

In addition to its General Plan, the City of Monterey has adopted specific plans for some areas within the City to tailor appropriate development standards and policies to individual neighborhoods, as described in the Regulatory Setting above. By State law, specific plans must be consistent with the General Plan. With implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, specific, targeted amendments to the standards in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans would be made as identified in Housing Element Program 1-C to ensure consistency of the specific plans with the Monterey 2031 General Plan. Other policies and standards in the specific plans would remain in effect, including policies and standards included in these specific plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, overall, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not conflict with regional, airport land use, or local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Regional Plans
The Proposed Project would involve implementation of the Housing Action Plan of the Housing Element, which includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas.

Meanwhile, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)’s adopted Moving Forward - Monterey Bay 2045, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), includes a set of integrated policies, strategies, and investments to maintain and improve the transportation system to meet the diverse needs of the region through 2045.

The Proposed Project is broadly consistent with the policies and implementing strategies of the MTP/SCS, which are further detailed in the previous EIR. The Proposed Project incorporates numerous programs to accommodate infill development and focus new growth so as to balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally. Specifically, the Program 1-C, would update standards in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans to accommodate housing as needed to meet its RHNA obligations; Program 1-B, under which the City would amend the Multifamily Residential ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 124, Packet Page 191 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-96 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Overlay (MFR) Overlay District to further facilitate housing development in portions of the City; and Program 3-C, under which the City would amend its Density Bonus ordinance to incorporate the current requirements of State density bonus law, thus further promoting higher density and infill development. The Proposed Project would support the performance outcomes identified in the MTP/SCS, in that it would reduce commute travel times, increase the percentage of the population in proximity to high quality transit, promote active transportation, and increase the percentage of low-income residents who live within a 1/2- mile of transit.

As such, the Proposed Project would support the key objectives of Moving Forward Monterey Bay throughout the Project Area, including the goal of fostering housing in proximity to transit in order to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with Moving Forward Monterey Bay. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Development under the Proposed Project would largely be within the boundaries of the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), including the airport safety zones established therein.

Future development under the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the safety zone land use compatibility standards in Table 4B Safety Criteria Matrix of the ALUCP in order to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents and airport users. Further, the Land Use Element creates a new Airport Compatibility Overlay, which applies to properties in airport safety zones 1 through 6 as identified in the ALUCP in order to protect airport operations and ensure public safety. Additionally, the Land Use Element includes policies to minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport operations, including Policy C.1 which requires that new development be compatible with the standards for land uses, density, and intensity specified in ALUCP for the Monterey Regional Airport and Policy C.3 which seeks to minimize the potential for development in the Airport Influence Area to adversely affect airport operations, including bird strikes, electromagnetic interference, glare, and other hazards to flight.

Local Plans and Regulations
Local land use plans and regulations that cover the Project Area include the City of Monterey General Plan, the City Code, and specific plans. The Proposed Project is implementation of the Housing Action Plan, within the Housing Element, which includes a series of changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans located largely in key opportunity areas, Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road areas.

The Proposed Project is the implementation of the key themes in the Land Use Element that seeks to establish a compact, sustainable land use and development pattern and to create and nurture a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods in Monterey. Programs within the Proposed Project intend to ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 125, Packet Page 192 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-97
promote high-density infill development in key opportunity areas, while reducing parking requirements (Program 1-C, Program 1-B, Program 2-A). As the Proposed Project is implementation of the Housing Action Plan, within the Housing Element, it is consistent with the Housing Element, which seeks to accommodate RHNA. Development of the Proposed Project would adhere to goals and policies in the Circulation and Safety Elements, as they relate to transportation and land use and hazard mitigation.

In addition to its General Plan, the City of Monterey has adopted specific plans for some areas within the City to tailor appropriate development standards and policies to individual neighborhoods. By State law, specific plans must be consistent with the General Plan. With implementation of the Proposed Project, specific, targeted amendments to the standards in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans would be made as identified in Housing Element Program 1-C to ensure consistency of the specific plans with the Monterey 2031 General Plan. Other policies and standards in the specific plans would remain in effect, including policies and standards included in these specific plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Therefore, overall, implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with regional, airport land use, or local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Associated impacts would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Growth Inducement
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The previous EIR noted the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update would not induce substantial unplanned growth that would involve the extension of roadway or utility infrastructure that would facilitate non-contiguous development in a previously undeveloped area, such as a new subdivision on agricultural land beyond the City's Sphere of Influence. Rather, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would facilitate residential, mixed use, and employment-oriented development within the City limit on previously developed land, land near employment centers such as the former Fort Ord, or in areas identified through previous City planning efforts as appropriate for development (such as within the boundaries of the Highway 68 Area Plan).

The previous EIR outlines numerous policies and programs to ensure that this growth is accommodated in an orderly fashion while minimizing adverse effects on the environment. • Implementation of the Land Use Element would involve fostering an integrated mix of employment, housing, educational, visitor-oriented, entertainment, recreational and open space uses throughout the city to support a complete community (Policy A.1); • Providing more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally to reduce commute times and improve air quality (Policy A.2); • Promote a range of residential densities throughout the community to encourage a mix of housing types in varying price ranges and rental rates (Policy A.3); • Developing and implementing specific plans and zoning to guide development in the mixed use neighborhoods, with tailored development and design standards, multi-modal ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 126, Packet Page 193 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-98 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
improvements, and infrastructure financing strategies for each mixed use neighborhood (Policy B.1).

Further, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would also involve implementation of Housing Element Program 1-C, under which the City would update standards in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans to accommodate housing as needed to meet its RHNA obligations; Program 1-E, under which the City would adopt an educational workforce housing overlay and associated zoning standards to integrate faculty and staff housing on some MPUSD school campuses; Program 1-H, which involves the adoption of a specific plan for the former Fort Ord property to foster creation of a mixed-use village on a portion of the site, preserve areas of natural open space, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource protection; and Program 1-I, which involves amending the Highway 68 Area Plan to accommodate mixed income housing on the 50-acre MPUSD site and incorporate infrastructure financing mechanisms. As such none of the new development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be unplanned.

The previous EIR identified residential growth under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would exceed regional projections because the AMBAG RTP/SCS did not fully accommodate the 2023-31 RHNA allocation for jurisdictions within the region, including the City of Monterey; however, non-residential growth under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would be consistent with the AMBAG RTP/SCS. Further, the Monterey 2031 General Plan incorporates policies and programs to ensure that planned residential and non-residential growth is accommodated in an orderly fashion and in a manner that promotes a sustainable development pattern and minimizes adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not induce substantial unplanned growth. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned growth that would involve the extension of roadway or utility infrastructure that would facilitate non-contiguous development in a previously undeveloped area, such as a new subdivision on agricultural land beyond the City's Sphere of Influence. Rather, the Proposed Project would facilitate residential and mixed use development within the City limit on previously developed land or in areas identified through previous City planning efforts as appropriate for development.

Additionally, the Monterey General Plan 2031 outlines numerous policies and programs to ensure that growth of the Proposed Project is accommodated in an orderly fashion while minimizing adverse effects on the environment.
• Implementation of the Land Use Element would involve fostering an integrated mix of employment, housing, educational, visitor-oriented, entertainment, recreational and open space uses throughout the city to support a complete community (Policy A.1); • Balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce com-mute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally (Policy A.2);
• Promote a range of residential densities throughout the community to encourage a mix of housing types in varying price ranges and rental rates.(Policy A.3); ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 127, Packet Page 194 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-99
• Developing and implementing specific plans and zoning to guide development in the mixeduse neighborhoods, with tailored development and design standards, multi-modal improvements, and infrastructure financing strategies for each mixed-use neighborhood (Policy B1).

Further, the Proposed Project would also involve implementation of Housing Element Program 1-C, under which the City would update standards in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plans to accommodate housing as needed to meet its RHNA obligations; Program 1-B, under which the City would amend the Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR) Overlay District to further facilitate housing development in portions of the City; Program 2-A, under which the City proposes a zoning amendment to allow “by-right” development on identified non-vacant commercial sites included in prior Housing Element inventories, and lastly, Program 1-L, which under the City proposes a zoning amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the Monterey County Courthouse to promote multifamily housing development that meets the City’s affordable housing goals. As such, none of the new development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be unplanned.

Further, the Monterey 2031 General Plan incorporates policies and programs to ensure that planned residential and non-residential growth is accommodated in an orderly fashion and in a manner that promotes a sustainable development pattern and minimizes adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned growth. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Displacement
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The Monterey 2031 General Plan would result in the construction of up to 5,800 new housing units by 2031, most of which would be accommodated on previously developed sites. Some of the sites identified in the Housing Element contain existing housing units, which could be demolished and replaced with redevelopment. However, Program 6-D in the Housing Element requires that any lower income units displaced with redevelopment on a non-vacant site identified in the Housing Element be replaced with units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of project approval. As such, replacement of any directly displaced lower income units would be required and the total net new units constructed pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan would far exceed the number of units that may be directly displaced. Indirect displacement resulting from development within the Planning Area could potentially occur through the process of neighborhood economic and demographic change in an existing area, which often results from real estate investment and increased demand from higher-income residents. However, existing City regulations and Monterey 2031 General Plan policies and programs contain numerous anti-displacement measures that would help minimize or avoid the indirect displacement of people and housing as a result of Monterey 2031 General Plan implementation. First, Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code established inclusionary zoning requirements for all new development projects proposing six or more units, and Program 2-I of the Housing Element would modify these requirements to stipulate that 10 percent of the new units in such projects must be for moderate income households and 10 percent must be for low-income households. These requirements would apply to the majority of sites listed on the Housing Element inventory, helping to ensure that at least 1,952 of the new homes constructed would be affordable to low and very ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 128, Packet Page 195 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-100 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
low-income households and at least 465 would be affordable to moderate income households, minimizing the potential for displacement of these groups. Further, the following programs from the Housing Element would also help to reduce or avoid displacement: Program 3-A, under which the City would contract for fair housing and legal services to provide legal services and increase awareness of renters' rights; Program 4-B, under which the City would establish a rental assistance program that provides lower income renter households with recurring rental assistance at a fixed rate (known as a shallow subsidy) to help improve housing stability and prevent displacement; and Program 4-G under which the City would revise zoning to recognize single-room occupancy units as housing, helping to ensure an affordable source of housing that can prevent homelessness and displacement. Therefore, overall, implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing units and associated impacts would be less than significant.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Proposed Project implements programs identified and analyzed in the prior EIR and would not permit development in new locations or at greater density or intensity than previously analyzed. Program 6-D in the Housing Element requires that any lower income units displaced with redevelopment on a non-vacant site identified in the Housing Element be replaced with units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of project approval. As such, replacement of any directly displaced lower income units would be required and the total net new units constructed pursuant to the Proposed Project would far exceed the number of units that may be directly displaced. Additionally, indirect displacement resulting from development within the Project Area could potentially occur through the process of neighborhood economic and demographic change in an existing area. Existing City regulations and Monterey 2031 General Plan policies and programs contain numerous anti-displacement measures that would help minimize or avoid the indirect displacement of people and housing as a result of Proposed Project implementation. First, Chapter 8, Article 1 of the Monterey City Code established inclusionary zoning requirements for all new development projects proposing six or more units, and Program 2-I of the Housing Element would modify these requirements to stipulate that 10 percent of the new units in such projects must be for moderate income households and 10 percent must be for low-income households. Further, the following programs from the Housing Element would also help to reduce or avoid displacement: Program 3-A, under which the City would contract for fair housing and legal services to provide legal services and increase awareness of renters' rights, and Program 4-B, under which the City would establish a rental assistance program that provides lower income renter households with recurring rental assistance at a fixed rate (known as a shallow subsidy) to help improve housing stability and prevent displacement. Therefore, overall, implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing units and associated impacts would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
As stated in the prior EIR, a significant impact could occur if new development in the Planning Area in combination with foreseeable development in the city would physically divide an established community.

The Monterey 2031 General Plan does not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Implementation of the Monterey 2031 General Plan would in fact improve connectivity in the Planning Area through implementation of proposed ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 129, Packet Page 196 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-101
Circulation and Land Use Element policies that foster walkable, mixed-use areas and increased use of bicycle, transit, and active transportation. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Plan on the division of an existing community would be less than significant.

Impacts from plans and projects in the region that could conflict with existing plans, including the City’s adopted specific plans, are not cumulative in nature. The Monterey 2031 General Plan is consistent with the General Plan’s and specific plans’ goals for the Planning Area and includes provisions to amend the City Code in order to ensure consistency. Therefore, the contribution of the Plan to the cumulative impact on land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
Consistent with the prior EIR, the Proposed Project does not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility. Implementation of the Proposed Project would in fact improve connectivity in the Project Area through implementation of zoning amendments that foster walkable, higher density, and mixed-use areas which would in turn increase the use of bicycle, transit, and active transportation. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project on the division of an existing community would be less than significant and equivalent to the impacts detailed in the prior EIR.

Impacts from plans and projects in the region that could conflict with existing plans, including the City’s adopted specific plans, are not cumulative in nature. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s goals for the Project Area and includes focused specific plan updates and zoning code amendments to ensure consistency. Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR no additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to land use, population, and housing. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 130, Packet Page 197 Chapter 3: CEQA Checklist
3-102 City of Monterey Rezoning Project CEQA Checklist
Mineral Resources
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a&b) Loss of Mineral Resource Availability
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 requires the classification of land into Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) according to known or inferred mineral potential of that area. The previous EIR found the only area in Monterey County designated as an area of identified mineral resource significance, is in the vicinity of Marina, Sand City and Seaside. Additionally, there are no mineral resource recovery sites within the Planning Area. The closest active mining site is the Fan Shell Beach Silica Mine in Del Monte Forest, approximately 3.5 miles to the southwest of the city. As such, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not result in the loss of availability of either a known mineral resource deposit or a locally important mineral resource recovery site and there would be no associated impact.

Rezoning Project Analysis and Conclusions
The Project Area does not contain any mineral extraction operations or known mineral resources; therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to mineral resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR.

No additional analysis is required.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 131, Packet Page 198 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-103
c) Cumulative Impacts
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
A cumulatively significant impact would occur if there were a loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the state. As stated above, there are no mineral resource recovery sites within the Planning Area. The closest active mining site is the Fan Shell Beach Silica Mine in Del Monte Forest, approximately 3.5 miles to the southwest of the city. As such, the Monterey 2031 General Plan would not contribute to or result in the loss of availability of either a known mineral resource deposit or a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the region or state and there would be no cumulatively considerable impact.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to mineral resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Noise
NOISE. Would the project result in:

DISCUSSION
a) Noise Standards
Summary of Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR
Construction
The previous EIR noted noise from individual construction projects carried out under the Monterey 2031 General Plan would likely result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels at 25 feet and at adjacent property lines. As the precise details and timeframes for individual development projects that would be carried out under the Monterey 2031 General cannot be known at this time, it is not possible to determine exact noise levels, locations, or time periods for construction of such projects, or construction noise at adjacent properties. Construction of residential and mixed-use development and redevelopment primarily within key opportunity areas of the city could potentially expose existing sensitive noise receptors to high levels of sustained construction noise in the vicinity of sensitive receptors, including from constructionrelated traffic, demolition, and reconstruction activities.

The Monterey 2031 General Plan does not envision new infrastructure such as bridges and water tanks, nor the construction of high-rise buildings in the Planning Area, thus pile drivers would not be needed. However, other construction equipment, such as a backhoe which could approach 86 dBA Leq at 25 feet, would exceed the exterior noise limits established in the City’s General Plan. The City’s exterior noise standards are 60 dBA for single-family residential areas and 65 dBA for multi-family residential areas. Construction noise would exceed ambient noise levels and may temporarily disturb people at neighboring properties.

However, allowable hours for construction activity based on time of day are outlined in Monterey City Code Section 38-112.2.

ATTACHMENT 1 / COUNCIL RESO 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 12/3/2024, Item No. 8., Item Page 133, Packet Page 200 CEQA Review of Zoning Amendments for Housing Element Implementation City of Monterey 3-105
The severity of construction-related noise impacts depends on the proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors, the presence of intervening barriers, the number and types of equipment used, and the duration of the activity. While these factors cannot be known precisely for future projects under the Monterey 2031 General Plan, individual projectswould be required to comply with City standards. Per Monterey City Code Section 38-112.2, the hours for all construction, alteration, remodeling, demolition and repair activities which are authorized by a valid City Building Permit, as well as the delivery and removal of materials and equipment associated with these activities. Construction that complies with the time-of-day restrictions for construction activities would result in less than significant noise impacts with regard to the generation of noise in excess of thresholds. Further, implementation of policies contained in the General Plan would further reduce construction noise and associated impacts.

Therefore, compliance with existing time-of-day restrictions for construction activities as well as the applicable Monterey City Code and General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.

On-Site Operational Noise
Residential and mixed-use development pursuant to the Monterey 2031 General Plan is not likely to generate operational noise levels that would exceed the City’s standards. The noise generated by on-site activities for new development would be subject to the City’s exterior noise exposure standards for new development, contained in the General Plan Noise Element. The noise standard for single-family residential areas is 60 dBA and 65 dBA for multi-family residential areas. Residential developments that comply with these noise standards would result in less than significant noise impacts with regard to the generation of noise in excess of thresholds. Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the General Plan and Monterey City Code would reduce potential on-site noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Monterey City CouncilDecember 3, 2024

Monterey City Council
December 3, 2024