DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SEASIDE RESORT

Subsequent to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR State Clearinghouse Number 2001101059

PREPARED FOR City of Seaside Community Development Department

August 2002

SEASIDE RESORT

Draft Environmental Impact Report Subsequent to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR State Clearinghouse Number 2001101059

PREPARED FOR City of Seaside Community Development Department Mr. Lou Dell’Angela, Community Development Director 440 Harcourt Avenue Seaside CA 93955 Tel 831.899.6220 Fax 831.899.6211

PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc 301 Lighthouse Avenue Suite C Monterey CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 [email protected] www.emcplanning.com

August 2002

Table of Contents

Summary ...... S-1

1.0 Introduction...... 1-1 1.1 Authorization and Purpose ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Site and Vicinity Setting...... 1-5 1.3 Project Description ...... 1-26 1.4 Project Objectives...... 1-61 1.5 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans...... 1-62 1.6 Intended Uses of the EIR...... 1-62 1.7 Terminology Used in the EIR ...... 1-65

2.0 Environmental Impacts, Setting, and Mitigation Measures ...... 2-1 2.1 Aesthetics ...... 2-1 2.2 Agriculture Resources ...... 2-15 2.3 Air Quality ...... 2-16 2.4 Biological Resources ...... 2-31 2.5 Cultural Resources ...... 2-47 2.6 Geology and Soils...... 2-51 2.7 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ...... 2-58 2.8 Hydrology & Water Quality...... 2-70 2.9 Mineral Resources ...... 2-77 2.10 Noise ...... 2-79 2.11 Public Services...... 2-87 2.12 Transportation...... 2-110 2.13 Utilities and Service Systems...... 2-137

3.0 Related Environmental Issues ...... 3-1 3.1 Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-1

3.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts...... 3-9 3.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes...... 3-10 3.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts ...... 3-10

Alternatives ...... 4-1

Documentation ...... 5-1 5.1 Persons Contacted...... 5-1 5.2 Literature Cited...... 5-2 5.3 Document Preparation ...... 5-4

Appendices (Bound separately)

Appendix A NOP and Responses to NOP Appendix B Visual Analysis Appendix C Forest Management Plan Appendix D Biological Assessment Report Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix G Drainage Analysis Appendix H Fiscal Impact Reports Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix J Miscellaneous Traffic Information

List of Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location ...... 1-7

Figure 2 Project Site...... 1-9

Figure 3A Surrounding Area Photos ...... 1-11

Figure 3B Surrounding Area Photos ...... 1-13

Figure 4A Project Site Photos ...... 1-17

Figure 4B Project Site Photos ...... 1-19

Figure 4C Project Site Photos ...... 1-21

Figure 5 Conceptual Golf Course Changes ...... 1-23

Figure 6 Seaside Residential Planning Area ...... 1-27

Figure 7 Seaside General Plan and Fort Ord Reuse Plan Land Use Designation ...... 1-29

Figure 8 Subdivision and Site Plan on Arial Photo...... 1-31

Figure 9A Overall Site Plan ...... 1-33

Figure 9B Hotel, Timeshares, and Northern Residential ...... 1-35

Figure 9C Western Residential Area...... 1-37

Figure 9D Southern Residential Area...... 1-39

Figure 10 Main Hotel Building Perspective ...... 1-43

Figure 11A Main Hotel Building Section and Elevation...... 1-45

Figure 11B Bungalow Elevations ...... 1-47

Figure 12 Timeshare Elevations...... 1-49

Figure 13 Reconstructed Clubhouse Elevations ...... 1-53

Figure 14 Preliminary Phasing...... 1-57

Figure 15 Street Cross Sections...... 1-59

Figure 16 Percolation Ponds ...... 1-63

Figure 17 Views from Monterey and Sand City ...... 2-7

Figure 18 Views from Adjacent Roads...... 2-9

Figure 19 North Central Air Basin Monitoring Stations ...... 2-23

Figure 20 Location of Site 33 ...... 2-61

Figure 21 Project Traffic Distribution...... 2-123

Figure 22 Stilwell Park Alternative Conceptual Land Use ...... 4-7

Figure 23 Revised Project Design Alternative...... 4-15

List of Tables

Table 1 Proposed Changes to Golf Links ...... 1-16

Table 2 Proposed Subdivision ...... 1-26

Table 3 Proposed Hotel Facilities...... 1-41

Table 4 Grading Quantities ...... 1-56

Table 5 Common Air Pollutants ...... 2-19

Table 6 Federal & State Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 2-20

Table 7 Attainment Status of the North Central Coast Air Basin...... 2-22

Table 8 Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty Diesel Powered Equipment...... 2-25

Table 9 Estimated Project-Related Operational Emissions...... 2-26

Table 10 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species Reported to Occur or with the Potential to Occur Within the Project Vicinity...... 2-36

Table 11 Approximate Golf Course Parcel Tree Coverage...... 2-39

Table 12 Approximate Tree Loss by Project Component...... 2-41

Table 13 Significant Faults in the Vicinity of the Project Site ...... 2-54

Table 14 Sensitive Receptors and Associated Land Uses ...... 2-79

Table 15 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ...... 2-80

Table 16 Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Exterior Community Noise ....2-81

Table 17 Noise Level Performance Standards for Non Transportation Noise Sources ...... 2-82

Table 18 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment ...... 2-84

Table 19 Projected Annual Fire Services Demand in the Seaside Portion of the Former Fort Ord...... 2-94

Table 20 Project Annual Police Services Demand in the Seaside Portion of the Former Fort Ord ...... 2-99

Table 21 Public Works Existing Plant & Equipment...... 2-100

Table 22 Project Share of Parks Demand in the Seaside Portion of the Former Fort Ord ...... 2-103

Table 23 Improvements Recommended in Draft State Highway 1 PSR ...... 2-116

Table 24 Study Road Network Intersections Jurisdiction & Description .....2-117

Table 25 Study Road Network Road Segments Jurisdiction and Description...... 2-118

Table 26 Intersection LOS Standards & Existing Conditions ...... 2-119

Table 27 Road Segment LOS Standards & Existing Conditions...... 2-120

Table 28 Project Trip Generation by Component...... 2-122

Table 29 Intersection Project Conditions LOS ...... 2-125

Table 30 Study Road Network Segments Project Conditions LOS ...... 2-126

Table 31 Peak Hours Delays at Intersections With Unacceptable LOS...... 2-127

Table 32 Intersection Cumulative Conditions LOS ...... 2-128

Table 33 Study Road Network Segments Cumulative Conditions LOS ...... 2-129

Table 34 Parking Demand & Supply ...... 2-131

Table 35 Projected Water Use ...... 2-141

Table 36 Public Services Cumulative Development ...... 3-3

Table 37 Cumulative Development Scenario for Traffic Analysis ...... 3-5

Table 38 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives (Without Mitigation Incorporated)...... 4-25

This side intentionally left blank.

Summary

CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires that an EIR contain a brief summary of the proposed project and its consequences. The summary must identify each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.

Project Description

This section contains a condensed description of the proposed project. For a detailed description of the project, refer to Section 1.0 Introduction.

The project is a subdivision and resort development, including hotel, timeshare, and residential components on an 84.88-acre site within the existing 36-hole championship Bayonet and Black Horse golf courses. An application has been submitted for the subdivision and the hotel, timeshare, residential, and clubhouse components of the project by Seaside Resort Development LLC. The existing golf clubhouse would be reconstructed in the same location and the existing golf course driving range and maintenance facility would be relocated.

Areas of Known Controversy

The following areas of environmental controversy are known to the lead agency: • The protection of the scenic qualities of the State Highway 1 entry to the Monterey Peninsula, as well as the gateway to the former Fort Ord lands from Monterey Road; and

• Traffic congestion on regional and local highways, including State Highway 1 and State Highway 68.

Alternatives Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126(d), an EIR must contain a discussion of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or eliminate any significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition to the required “no project” alternative, three alternatives were evaluated in this EIR, and are summarized below. For a complete discussion of alternatives, refer to Section 3.0 Alternatives.

EMC Planning Group Inc. S-1 Summary Seaside Resort EIR

No Project Alternative

Although a hotel is planned to be built at the golf courses eventually, the “no project” analysis assumes that the golf course area remains essentially unchanged at this time, with localized improvements to the golf course facilities, and an incremental increase in use.

Stilwell Park/Kidney Alternative

The alternative project on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site, one-quarter mile north of the project site, would consist of residential uses on the northwestern portions of the site, and hotel and timeshare uses on the southeastern portion, nearest to the golf courses and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Revised Project Design Alternative

The “revised project design” alternative would involve new and/or re-arranged land uses in the golf course area. To achieve the objective of the project, the “revised project design” alternative includes similar land uses as the project, however, some of the residential units are in condominium units in order to obtain a more compact development area.

Reduced Density Alternative

The “reduced density” alternative would reduce the number of lots, timeshare units, and hotel bungalow units by approximately one-third. The remaining lots, timeshare and hotel bungalow units would be arranged within the same development envelope as in the project.

Alternatives Comparison

The “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative.

The second ranking alternative would be the “revised project design” alternative, which avoids or reduces impacts to habitat, trees and public services. The “revised project design” alternative clusters development to the southern and eastern portions of the golf course area to avoid tree removal (the eastern portion has fewer trees), and to place development closer to fire and police services. The “revised project design” alternative is inferior to the project in terms of construction noise, because development is clustered near several sensitive receptors, and construction noise impacts would effect more people. The “revised project design” alternative would not achieve several of the project objectives.

The “reduced density” alternative ranks third. In most environmental respects, the “reduced density” alternative is environmentally superior to the project due only to the alternative’s smaller size. The “reduced density” alternative may not be feasible due to

S-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR Summary

economic factors concerning the size of the hotel and conference facilities. The Stilwell/Kidney alternative ranks poorly on several environmental issues, and does not achieve most of the project objectives.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level

The significant environmental impacts associated with the project are summarized in Table A. For a complete discussion of the impacts, and proposed mitigation of those impacts, refer to Section 2.0 Environmental Impacts, Setting, and Mitigation Measures.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts

The project would result in several traffic-related significant unavoidable impacts. Under project conditions, additional delays would occur at intersections with existing LOS below standards: Fremont Boulevard at Del Monte Boulevard, and Fremont Boulevard at Monterey Boulevard, with both project and cumulative traffic. The addition of project traffic on State Highway 1 and State Highway 68 would increase traffic flows on those highways by between 1.5 and 2.5 percent, and cumulative traffic would increase by between 5.2 and 10.1 percent. Under cumulative conditions, the intersection of Monterey Road/Coe Avenue, as well as those intersections with project- level impacts, would operate at unacceptable levels of service.

Project and cumulative level traffic congestion could be mitigated with the implementation of the State Highway 1 PSR improvements, however, the PSR is still in draft stage, and it is not known when the improvements would be constructed. Therefore, these are significant and unavoidable impacts of an unknown duration.

EMC Planning Group Inc. S-3

TABLE S-1

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Level of Mitigation Mitigated Area of Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Number Impact Concern Aesthetics Effect of Fences on Project Site and PS 1 Landscape and fencing plans for dwellings LTS Vicinity Character adjacent to Monterey Road Aesthetics Effect of Maintenance Facility on 2 Restrictions on placement and color of golf LTS Project Site and Vicinity Character course maintenance building; fencing and landscape plan. Aesthetics Effects of Overflow Parking Lot on S 3 Landscape plans to include a berm and/or LTS Project Site and Vicinity Character vegetative buffer between proposed parking lot and General Jim Moore Boulevard Aesthetics Effect of Tree Removal on Project S 4 Restricted cutting and trimming of cypress LTS Site and Vicinity Character trees near timeshare parcel C 5 Tree Removal and Replacement Plan 6 Adherence to Forest Management Plan 7 Forester to observe grading and foundations Air Quality Short-term Construction Emissions PS 8 Dust control measures LTS Biological Loss or Degradation of Vegetation PS 9 Grading conformance to existing terrain LTS and Wildlife Habitat Resources 10 Revegetation plan for graded areas 11 Lighting Plan

Level of Mitigation Mitigated Area of Impact Mitigation Measure Significance Number Impact Concern Biological Loss of special-status wildlife PS 12 Avoidance of limbing of coast live oak, or LTS Resources species: Monterey dusky-footed disturbance to underlying duff or plant woodrat; black legless lizard and growth; avoidance of disturbance to open coast horned lizard; raptors sandy areas 13 Salvage and relocation of individuals 14 Pre-construction surveys of trees for raptors 15 Contractor education sessions 16 Delineation of grading and construction limits 17 Sealed trash enclosures and trash removal 18 Control of pets on construction sites 19 Homeowners’ educational brochure Cultural Disturbance of buried cultural PS 20 Procedures in event of discovery LTS Resources resources Cultural Discovery of human remains PS 21 Procedures in event of discovery LTS Resources Geology and Dynamic densification PS 22 Geotechnical report for site preparation LTS Soils requirements and foundation design Geology and Short-term soil erosion PS 23 Erosion control plan LTS Soils Hazards and Ordnance and Explosives PS 24 Review of project site by the Presidio of LTS Hazardous Monterey, Directorate of Environmental and Materials Natural Resources Management (DENR), 25 U.S. Army sponsored OE safety debriefing for construction personnel

Area of Level of Mitigation Mitigated Impact Mitigation Measure Concern Significance Number Impact Hazards and Contaminated Soil at Site 33 PS 26 Remediation Plan LTS Hazardous Materials Hazards and Hazardous Materials at Site 33 PS 27 Remediation Plan LTS Hazardous Materials Hydrology Short Term Water Quality PS 23 Erosion control plan LTS Hydrology Long Term Water Quality PS 28 NPDES permit LTS Noise Construction Activity Noise S 29 Limits on construction hours LTS 30 Construction equipment noise attenuation Noise Ambient Noise Levels at Residences PS 31 Noise attenuation plan (walls, buffers, etc) LTS Public Services Inadequate Fire Response Times S 32 New fire station LTS 33 Fire apparatus development fee LTS Public Services Cumulative Need for Expanded S 34 Police headquarters development fee LTS Police Services and Facilities 35 New police substation 36 Police equipment development fee Public Services Inadequate Emergency Access S 37 City to open access from LaSalle Avenue to LTS General Jim Moore Boulevard 38 Fair share payment for access at Paralta Avenue 39 Fair share payment for access at Military Avenue Public Services Inadequate Turn-around Provision PS 40 Cul-du-sacs or hammerhead terminations LTS Public Services Inadequate Neighborhood Parkland S 41 Neighborhood parks development fee LTS Public Services Inadequate Community Parkland S 42 Community parks development fee LTS

Area of Level of Mitigation Mitigated Impact Mitigation Measure Concern Significance Number Impact Transportation Project Traffic Delays at S – FORA fees S Intersections with LOS Below Standard Transportation Cumulative Traffic Delays at S – FORA fees S Intersections with LOS Below Standard Transportation Project Traffic on Highways with S _ FORA fees S LOS Below Standard Transportation Cumulative Traffic on Highways S – FORA fees S with LOS Below Standard Transportation Special Event Parking Demand PS 43 Hotel special events transportation plan LTS Transportation Alternative Transportation Policy S 44 Transit, bike and pedestrian improvements LTS Conflicts Utilities Undersized Wastewater Collection PS 45 Final engineering study and upgrades as LTS System required Utilities Cumulative Water Supply Shortfalls PS 46 Recycled water provisions for irrigation LTS Utilities Inadequate Fire Flow S 47 Construct new water line LTS

Summary Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

S-8 EMC Planning Group Inc.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Authorization and Purpose

Overview The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1970 to require the disclosure of the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed projects, and to require the mitigation of those impacts. With some specific exceptions, CEQA applies to development projects that are publicly sponsored or require the discretionary approval of a government agency. One of the exceptions to the requirement for CEQA review is a project that is in furtherance of a military base reuse plan for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has already been certified (CEQA Guidelines section 15229). This EIR has been prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Seaside Resort development including subdivision of the project site, hotel, timeshare, and residential components; and related changes to some existing golf course facilities (the “project”). The project is proposed to be developed on 84.88-acres (the “project site”) within a 365-acre area that includes the Bayonet and Black Horse Golf courses (the “golf course parcel”) on the former Fort Ord in the City of Seaside, California. Some of the improvements would occur in off-site locations within the golf course parcel. The project is consistent with and a furtherance of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan (FORA 1996), which addresses the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord Army base. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR (EDAW, EMC Planning Group Inc. 1997) was certified in September 1997. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR was based on information in the Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Final Environmental Impact Statement and Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, both prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as new information generated for the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR was prepared as a program EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, a program EIR may be prepared for a series of actions that are related to one another and that can be characterized as one large project. CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (c) (2) states that a program EIR can serve as the environmental documentation for later specific projects if a lead agency determines that the project does not trigger the requirements for a supplemental or subsequent EIR. In such a case, no new environmental document would be required. Depending on the particular situation, the lead agency may determine that a negative declaration or supplemental or subsequent EIR would be appropriate. CEQA Guidelines section 15152 allows environmental review for more specific projects within an area for which a broader EIR was prepared and certified, to be tiered from the more general document. This process can avoid duplicative discussion and analysis, and focus review on issues that are peculiar to the more specific project, or to the specific

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-1 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR project site, particularly in instances where there was a lack of sufficiently detailed information when the broader EIR was written. A program EIR may be utilized in a tiered review.

Provisions for Projects on Former Military Bases

The California legislature adopted specific provisions to address CEQA review for planning and redevelopment of former military bases. A reuse plan EIR may be based on the physical setting as it existed at the time the decision to close the base was made final, and the EIR prepared for the reuse plan is considered, with some exceptions, to provide the CEQA review for all subsequent actions in furtherance of the reuse plan. For purposes of determining whether a reuse plan, or public or private activities taken pursuant to or in furtherance of a reuse plan may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report may be prepared in the context of the physical conditions that were present at the time that the federal decision for closure or realignment of the base or reservation became final (CEQA Guidelines section 15229). The federal decision to close Fort Ord became final in 1993, and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR baseline conditions are those that were present in 1993. CEQA Guidelines section 15229 (c) states:

All public and private activities taken pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a reuse plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be a single project. A subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required only if the lead agency determines that any of the circumstances described in Section 15162 [subsequent] or 15163 [supplement] exist.

The following excerpts from CEQA Guidelines section 15229 (d) clarify that although a new environmental document may not be required for projects that are in furtherance of the reuse plan, the lead agency remains responsible to ensure that any potential environmental effects are adequately addressed in accordance with current laws:

(1) Nothing in this section shall in any way limit the scope or review or determination of significance of the presence of hazardous or toxic wastes, substances, and materials, including but not limited to, contaminated soils and groundwater. The regulation of hazardous or toxic wastes, substances, and materials shall not be constrained by this section.

(3) All subsequent development at the military base or reservation shall be subject to all applicable federal, state or local laws, including but not limited to, those relating to air quality, water quality, traffic, threatened and endangered species, noise, and hazardous or toxic waste, substances, or materials.

1-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Provisions for Subsequent EIRs

CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provides the following circumstances under which a subsequent EIR would be required:

When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. 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 certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

(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;

(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.

Determination to Prepare an EIR

In most regards, the program-level Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR is suitable for use as the CEQA compliance document for future projects in furtherance of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. The project is an action taken pursuant to and in furtherance of the Fort Ord Reuse

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-3 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

Plan and is generally consistent with the overall uses and development densities prescribed by the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Although the regional setting of the Monterey Bay Area has changed since the baseline conditions used in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR, the changes were anticipated in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR. The City of Seaside has determined to prepare this EIR, as a subsequent EIR to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR, because the mix of uses proposed is somewhat different from the uses contemplated at the time the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR was prepared, and to provide additional public disclosure concerning the project. This subsequent EIR addresses project site- and project design-specific environmental issues associated with the project that were not known at the time the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR was prepared. Environmental impacts identified in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR are referenced and discussed when relevant. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR is available for review at the Seaside City Hall, 440 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, California 93955.

Notice of Preparation Based upon the decision to prepare an EIR, the City of Seaside prepared and distributed a notice of preparation (NOP), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082. CEQA Guidelines section 15375 defines an NOP as: …a brief notice sent by the lead agency to notify the responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and involved federal agencies that the lead agency plans to prepare an EIR for the project. The purpose of the notice is to solicit guidance from those agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR.

The NOP review period ran from October 9, 2001 through November 7, 2001. The NOP, and responses to the NOP received from responsible agencies, are contained in Appendix A.

EIR Preparation Methods This EIR has been prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc. (the "consultant") under contract to the City of Seaside, the Lead Agency, in accordance with CEQA and implementing guidelines. This EIR has been prepared using available information from private and public sources noted herein, as well as information generated by the consultant through field investigation. This EIR will be used to inform public decision- makers and their constituents of the environmental impacts of the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, this report describes both beneficial and adverse impacts generated by the proposed project and prescribes measures for mitigating significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This EIR describes and evaluates the existing environmental setting of the project site and surrounding areas, discusses the characteristics of the project, identifies environmental impacts associated with the project, and provides feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce or avoid identified adverse environmental impacts. This EIR also evaluates reasonable alternatives to the project.

1-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

If an EIR identifies a significant adverse impact, the lead agency may approve the project only if it finds that mitigation measures, have been required to reduce the impact's significance, or that such mitigation is infeasible for specified social, economic, and/or other reasons (Public Resources Code section 21081). The lead agency may not exclude from the project conditions a mitigation measure associated with a project impact identified in the EIR as significant, unless it makes specific findings regarding the omission. The EIR does not make a determination as to the feasibility of mitigation measures or alternatives presented. These decisions are reserved for the City of Seaside and other agencies that will use the EIR for approvals. This EIR is a factual, objective public disclosure document that takes no position on the merits of the project. Thus, the findings of this EIR do not advocate a position "for" or "against" the project. Instead, this EIR provides information on which decisions about the project can be based. The EIR has been prepared according to the professional standards and practices of the EIR participants' individual disciplines and in conformance with the legal requirements and informational expectations of CEQA and its implementing guidelines.

Areas of Known Controversy

As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15123, the areas of environmental controversy known to the lead agency are identified below and addressed in this EIR: • The protection of the scenic qualities of the State Highway 1 entry to the Monterey Peninsula, as well as the gateway to the former Fort Ord lands from Monterey Road; and • Traffic congestion on regional and local highways, including State Highway 1 and State Highway 68.

1.2 Project Site Location and Setting Project Site Location

The project site is at 2 McClure Way, in the City of Seaside, within the former Fort Ord in Monterey County. The regional location is shown in Figure 1. The project site is located to the east of State Highway 1, and west of General Jim Moore Boulevard (formerly North South Road), to the north of the urbanized core of Seaside.

The project would be developed within an existing 375-acre parcel (APN 031-051-005) that contains two golf courses and related facilities. The golf course parcel is bounded by Monterey Road on the northwest, Presidio of Monterey (POM) Annex housing on the north, General Jim Moore Boulevard and Fitch Middle School on the east, Sun Bay apartments, Hayes Housing area, and additional POM Annex housing on the south and southwest. Currently, the only access to the golf course parcel is on McClure Way, a driveway that provides access to the golf courses from General Jim Moore Boulevard. Figure 2 identifies the golf course parcel and project site on an aerial photograph.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-5 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

Surrounding Uses

Land uses near the golf course parcel are identified in Figure 2. Most of the land surrounding the golf course parcel contains residences constructed in the 1950s and 1960s as military housing. Some of these residences are currently occupied within the POM Annex, and others have been abandoned since Fort Ord was closed in 1993. South of the golf course parcel is the unoccupied and dilapidated Hayes housing area of single-family and duplex military housing. The City of Seaside recently approved a 380-lot single-family residential redevelopment of the Hayes housing area. The occupied Hayes Park military housing area is located immediately west of the golf course parcel. The occupied Stilwell Park military housing area is adjacent to the project site to the north. The unoccupied “Kidney Area” of Stilwell Park is farther north, to the north of Normandy Road. East of General Jim Moore Boulevard is the occupied Fitch Park military housing area. The Sun Bay Apartment complex (originally constructed by the Army and now privately owned) is south of the golf course parcel. The Bostrom mobile home park, also former military housing, is located between Coe Avenue and the southern boundary of the former Fort Ord. Two non-residential uses exist adjacent to the golf course parcel. Fitch Middle School is to the southeast, at the corner of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Coe Avenue. A POM Annex child development center is west of the golf course parcel along Monterey Road, immediately north of the Hayes Park military housing area.

Other nearby land uses within the former Fort Ord include: an abandoned service station on Monterey Road at Coe Avenue (to the west); an abandoned store on Normandy Road (to the north); Hayes School (to the southwest); Stilwell and Marshall schools (to the northeast); and POM Annex community uses along General Jim Moore Boulevard (to the northeast). Farther to the north and northeast of the project site are the POM Annex commercial and administrative areas. The California State University at Monterey Bay (CSUMB) is located approximately one mile north of the golf course parcel. West of State Highway 1 is the proposed Fort Ord Dunes State Beach. East of the Fitch Park housing area is a large expanse of Bureau of Land Management land, formerly used as practice range for Fort Ord, and only partially open to the public. The established urban core of Seaside is within one-quarter mile to the south of the golf course parcel. The City of Seaside is developed with primarily residential uses in the area immediately south of the southern boundary of the former Fort Ord. Seaside High School is adjacent to the former Fort Ord, southwest of the golf course parcel. Commercial uses are concentrated along Del Monte Boulevard and Fremont Boulevard, and in Sand City, all to the southwest of the golf course parcel. Photographs of surrounding uses are shown in Figures 3A and 3B.

Two particularly notable uses near the golf course parcel are planned but have not yet been approved. An 18-hole course, athletic fields, a golf-learning center, and computer classrooms are planned. The golf course project would provide affordable and accessible golf facilities for children who've had no previous exposure to the game. An educational and training golf course is proposed to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard near Coe Avenue, and a Veteran’s memorial cemetery is proposed along with other development at the Parker Flats area, east of Seaside.

1-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. 580

Oakland San Francisco Modesto 580 99

880 680 99

280 Palo Merced Alto San Jose 5

85 1 85

17 101

Morgan 5 Hill P Santa Cruz Gilroy a 152 152 San Luis c 1 Reservoir

i 156

f 156 156 i Hollister

c 1

Salinas

O 68 Seaside c Project

e Monterey Location a Carmel n 101 1

25 Big Soledad Sur

King City

Scale: 1" = 20 miles Source: California State Automobile Association & EMC Planning Group Inc.

Figure 1 Regional Location Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Stilwell Fort Ord Dunes Housing Area Youth Marshall State Beach Child Development Stilwell Center School Center Housing Area State Highway 1 11

12 3 2 Hayes Park 4 Monterey Road Maintenance 13 Housing Area Bayonet Golf Course 10 1 14 5 8 9 15

6 5 4 Clubhouse McClure16 Way Fitch Park 7 13 6 Housing Area Driving Range 14 17 15 18 12 7 1 Hayes 18 3 Housing Area Hayes Blackhorse 2 School Golf Course

Soper Field 17 Park 16 Seaside 11 9 8 HighSchool 10 Fitch Middle General Jim Moore Blvd. School Water Tank Bostrom Mobile Sun Bay Home Park Apartments

Coe Avenue Eucalyptus Road Single-Family Residential Photo Date: 2000 Project site areas outlined in white. Source: WAC Corporation and Bestor Engineers Scale: 1" = 1,500'

Figure 2 Project Site

Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Fitch Middle School

Sun Bay Apartments Source: EMC Planning Group Inc.

Figure 3A Surrounding Area Photos Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-12 EMC Planning Group Inc. POM Annex Fitch Housing Area, opposite McClure Way

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. POM Annex Hayes Park Housing Area, Monterey Road

Figure 3B Surrounding Area Photos Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-14 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Surrounding Land Use Designations

The surrounding area is within an area designated in the Seaside General Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan as the Seaside Residential Planning Area. Most of the land surrounding the golf course parcel is designated Medium Density Residential. The Sun Bay apartments and Fitch Middle School, to the south of the golf course parcel, are designated High Density Residential and School/University respectively. Land to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard is designated Military Enclave, within which a variety of uses are allowed.

Golf Course Parcel Historic Conditions

The U.S. Army originally built a golf course on the golf course parcel in approximately 1954, and the site has been used for that purpose since then. Prior to development of golf courses, the area was undeveloped. A 1949 aerial photograph shows the project site, prior to the construction of the golf courses, crisscrossed with roads, similar to the present condition of areas of the former Fort Ord east of the project site. The U.S. Army closed Fort Ord in 1993, and the City of Seaside acquired the golf course parcel.

Golf Course Parcel Existing Conditions

Two 18-hole golf courses, the Bayonet and Black Horse courses, several structures, other improvements, and open space exist on the golf course parcel. The Bayonet course is located on the northern part of the golf course parcel and the Black Horse course is located on the southern and eastern part. The golf courses and the golf course parcel are owned by the City of Seaside. BSL Golf of California (the “golf course operator”) operates the golf courses under a lease agreement with the City. Golf course facilities include a clubhouse, driving range, parking lot, and maintenance storage yard and buildings. The golf courses currently employ approximately 90 people. A 12,000-square foot single-story golf clubhouse and adjacent parking lot and driving range are located at the end of McClure Way, near the center of the golf course parcel. Three golf cart storage buildings are located immediately north of the clubhouse. A maintenance and storage facility, consisting of two buildings and three small sheds, is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the clubhouse, and is within the project site. The golf course maintenance facility is enclosed by a wooden fence, and is used to store golf course maintenance equipment and supplies.

The topography of the golf course parcel is gently rolling with elevation dropping generally from east to west toward Monterey Bay, which is visible from many locations on the golf course parcel. Elevations range from 120 feet above sea level at the southwestern corner of the golf course parcel, to approximately 380 feet above sea level along McClure Way near General Jim Moore Boulevard. Much of the golf course parcel has been disturbed and contains non-native plantings. Portions of the golf course parcel contain stands of planted Monterey cypress and native coast live oak. Photographs of the golf course parcel are shown in Figures 4A, 4B and 4C.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-15 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

Golf Course Parcel Planned Changes

Several changes to the existing golf courses are planned to achieve championship course status. The City of Seaside has already approved the relocation and/or realignment of several of the existing golf links at the Blackhorse and Bayonet golf courses. The City’s lease agreement with the golf course operator calls for the relocation of the driving range. The golf course maintenance facility requires upgrading. All of the planned changes are illustrated in Figure 5.

Relocation of Golf Course Links

The City of Seaside has approved modifications to several existing golf links on each golf course. These changes are summarized in Table 1. Some of the changes to the golf course are underway, and others are expected in fall of 2002. These changes are treated as a part of the project setting in this EIR.

TABLE 1 Proposed Changes to Golf Links

Golf Course Hole Change Bayonet 5th Build an entirely new link to the north of the existing link 11th Move the tee and fairway to the north 16th Build an entirely new link to the north of the existing link Black Horse 7th Move the tee and fairway to the west 15th Move second half of fairway and green to northeast 16th Move tee and first half of fairway to east

Source: Seaside Resort Development LLC and EMC Planning Group Inc.

Relocation of the Driving Range and Golf Course Maintenance Facility

The City of Seaside lease agreement with the golf course operator includes a provision that the City rebuild the driving range at a new location within the golf course parcel. The new site for the driving range is the northwest of the clubhouse, in a triangular area between three links on the Bayonet golf course. The site for the new driving range is currently vacant land with few trees. Relocation of the driving range is treated as part of the project in this EIR.

The City of Seaside has identified a new site along Monterey Road for the golf course maintenance facility, but has not approved the design or construction of the facility. The vesting tentative map indicates the preferred location for the new golf course maintenance facility, but does not create a parcel for it. Reconstruction of the golf course maintenance building is treated as a cumulative project in this EIR.

1-16 EMC Planning Group Inc. McClure Way at General Jim Moore Boulevard - entrance to project site

Existing Golf Course Clubhouse Source: EMC Planning Group Inc.

Figure 4A Project Site Photos Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Golf Course Maintenance Facility

Driving Range Source: EMC Planning Group Inc.

Figure 4B Project Site Photos Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Bayonet Golf Course - 10th fairway

Bayonet Golf Course - 14th Tee Source: EMC Planning Group Inc.

Figure 4C Project Site Photos Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-22 EMC Planning Group Inc. 11 th tee and fairway realigned

State Highway 1

11 12 3 Maintenance facility Bayonet Golf Course 2 moves Monterey Road 4 13 1 10 14 5

8 Driving 5th hole moved north 9 range 15 moves 16th hole moved north 6 5 4 16 13 7 6

14 17 7th hole moved west 15 15th fairway and green 12 realigned 18 7 1 18 3

16th tee and fairway 2 d. realigned

Blackhorse Golf Course

17 16 11 9 8 General Jim Moore Blv 10

Coe Avenue Eucalyptus Road

Photo Date: 2000 Source: Seaside Resort Development LLC WAC Corporation Scale: 1" = 1,000' Figure 5 Conceptual Golf Course Changes Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-24 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Golf Course Parcel Land Use Designations The golf course parcel is identified in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan as Polygon 22, and is designated as the Visitor Serving Hotels and Golf Course District within the Seaside Residential Planning Area. Fort Ord Reuse Plan polygon numbers, and planning boundaries are shown in Figure 6. Land use designations in the Seaside General Plan are consistent with those of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Polygon 22 is designated Visitor Serving in both plans. The Seaside General Plan and Fort Ord Reuse Plan land use designations for the golf course parcel and vicinity are presented in Figure 7. The Visitor-Serving and Golf Course District is planned primarily for a resort hotel, focusing on the existing golf courses, while the surrounding New Golf Course Community District is planned primarily for residential uses. However, the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and Seaside General Plan encourage an indistinct line between the two districts. New Golf Course Community District Development Character and Design Objective 1 reads:

Integrate the new residential development around the golf course in a way that optimizes the golf course frontage and views to this significant open space amenity. Consider rerouting the courses into the adjacent residential lands and find opportunities to integrate new residential development within the existing golf course area to improve the integration of the amenity into the new community.

The City of Seaside zoning designation for the golf course parcel is Visitor Serving – Fort Ord (V-FO). Hotels, conference centers, restaurants and golf courses are principal permitted uses in the V-FO zoning district. Residential uses, employee housing, and timeshare uses are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The golf course parcel is within Seaside’s Fort Ord Redevelopment Area.

Project Site Conditions

The 84.88-acre project site is comprised of several separate areas within the golf course parcel. These are illustrated in Figure 2, presented earlier. The only developed uses on the project site are located near the center of the golf course parcel. These are the golf clubhouse, adjacent parking lot, driving range, and maintenance buildings. The golf cart storage buildings straddle the boundary of the project site.

Several of the existing golf links are also within the project site. As described under Golf Course Parcel Planned Changes, the City has approved relocation of these golf links to portions of the golf course parcel that are outside the project site. The City also plans to relocate the driving range as a condition of the lease with the golf course operator. Although currently occupied by golf course links and the driving range, these areas are anticipated to be vacant and recently disturbed when the project construction begins. Native coast live oaks and planted Monterey cypress cover large areas of the project site. Other areas of the project site are open and sandy.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-25 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

1.3 Project Description The project is a subdivision and resort development including hotel, timeshare, and residential components. The subdivision would take place on an 84.88-acre development area within the 375.13-acre golf course parcel. The lots and parcels for the three primary components of the project, and the reconstruction of the existing golf clubhouse, would be situated within this 84.88-acre area. The existing golf course use would continue on a 290.25-acre remainder parcel. Seaside Resort Development LLC (the “applicant”) has submitted an application for the subdivision, as well as the hotel, timeshare, residential, and clubhouse components. A list of permits and approvals required to authorize these components of the project is included in Section 1.6 Intended Uses of the EIR. The layout of the project has been coordinated with the golf course operator, who has initiated changes to the existing golf courses.

Subdivision An 84.88-acre portion of the project site would be subdivided into 125 residential lots, and five parcels, with a 290.25-acre remainder parcel containing the golf course. Except for the golf course remainder parcel and the clubhouse parcel, the subdivided lots and parcels would be transferred to the applicant. The proposed subdivision is superimposed on an aerial photograph in Figure 8. Maps showing the proposed parcels and site plans are presented in Figures 9A through 9D. The proposed subdivision is summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Proposed Subdivision

Parcel or Lot Number Size Hotel Parcel 18.11 acres Timeshare Parcel A 6.51 acres Timeshare Parcel B 9.26 acres Timeshare Parcel C 3.56 acres Clubhouse Parcel 0.67 acres 46.77 acres total Residential Lots (125) (average lot size: 11,500 square feet) Total Subdivided Area 84.88 acres Golf Course Remainder Parcel 290.25 acres Total Project Site 375.13 acres Note: The Clubhouse Parcel and the Golf Course Remainder Parcel would remain in City ownership and subject to the City’s lease agreement with the golf course operator.

Source: Bestor Engineers Inc. February 2002 Vesting Tentative Map

1-26 EMC Planning Group Inc. Marina City Limits

CSUMB

Pacific Ocean 20b New Golf Course Community Proposed Fort Ord Dunes State Beach 20h District 20j 20i 20d

Monterey Rd.Visitor Serving 20h State Highway 1 Hotels and POM Annex Golf Course Community 20a District Gen. Jim Moore Blvd. Coe Avenue 20k 22 20c 20f 20g

23 City Limits Sand City seaside residential Seaside planning area Monterey Fremont Blvd

County

Del Monte Blvd Broadway Avenue Residential Extension District

24

Monterey Del Rey Oaks

24 Fort Ord Reuse Plan Polygon Number Source: FORA and EMC Planning Group Inc.

Scale: 1" = 3,200'

Figure 6 Seaside Residential Planning Area Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-28 EMC Planning Group Inc. Marina City Limits Medium Density Residential High Density Residential CSUMB Planned Development - Mixed Use Light Industrial / Office / R&D Retail / Commercial Visitor Serving Open Space / Recreation Proposed Fort Ord Dunes State Beach Habitat Management Institutional Military Gen. Jim Moore Blvd. Project State Highway 1 Site

Coe Avenue

Sand City Seaside

Fremont Blvd

City Limits

Del Monte Blvd Broadway Avenue Monterey

County

Monterey Del Rey Oaks

Source: FORA and EMC Planning Group Inc.

Scale: 1" = 3,200' Figure 7 Seaside General Plan and Fort Ord Reuse Plan Land Use Designations Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-30 EMC Planning Group Inc. Residential Lots

Residential Lots Timeshare Parcel A

Clubhouse Timeshare Parcel Parcel B

Residential Lots

Hotel Parcel

Timeshare Parcel C

Residential Lots

Photo Date: 2000 Source: Bestor Engineers and WAC Corporation

Scale: 1" = 1,200'

Figure 8 Subdivision and Site Plan on Aerial Photo Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-32 EMC Planning Group Inc. Monterey Road

General Jim Moore Boulevard

Coe Avenue

Source: Bestor Engineers

Scale: 1" = 1,250'

Figure 9A Overall Site Plan Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-34 EMC Planning Group Inc. Northern Residential Area

Lots 1 - 29

Timeshare Parcel A

Timeshare Parcel B

Clubhouse

Hotel Bungalows

Bungalows

Bungalows Timeshare Parcel C

Overflow Parking

Source: Bestor Engineers Scale: 1" = 650'

Figure 9B Hotel, Timeshares, and Northern Residential Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-36 EMC Planning Group Inc. Western Residential Area Lots 30 - 41

Lots 42 - 56

Lots 79 - 94

Lots 57 - 78

Source: Bestor Engineers

Scale: 1" = 650'

Figure 9C Western Residential Area Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-38 EMC Planning Group Inc. Hotel Bungalows

Lots 95 - 121

Southern Residential Area

Lots 122 - 125

Source: Bestor Engineers

Scale: 1" = 650'

Figure 9D Southern Residential Area Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-40 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Hotel Component The hotel component would have 330 guestrooms. The main hotel building would have 170 guest rooms, and 15 bungalows, separate from the main building, would have 160 rooms. A summary of proposed hotel facilities is presented in Table 3. The main hotel building would include a conference center with meeting rooms, a ballroom, a restaurant, bar, kitchen, administrative offices, guest rooms, convenience retail, health spa, and service areas. Several exterior terraces would be accessible from interior rooms, including the spa and the ballroom. Outdoor function areas and a swimming pool would be located to the west of the main hotel building. A porte cochere and the main entrance would be located on the eastern side of the main hotel building. A loading dock would be located on the south side of the main hotel building.

TABLE 3 Proposed Hotel Facilities

Facility Square Feet Guest Rooms Main Hotel Building Spa 12,958 Conference Center (meeting, ballroom, pre-function) 24,198 Restaurant 3,514 Bar 1,351 Kitchen 5,000 Administration 4,832 Rooms and Circulation 134,821 170 Service 38,500 Total Main Hotel Building 219,001 170 Bungalows Bungalows with 12 units per building (Five) 19,950 60 Bungalows with 10 units per building (Ten) 29,616 100 Total Bungalows 49,566 160 Total Hotel Component 268,567 330 Source: Bestor Engineers Inc. February 2002 Vesting Tentative Map

The main hotel building would be six levels, and terraced onto the sloping site. The top level of the main hotel building would be approximately 35 feet above finish grade on the front (east) side, with the finish grade on the front side at approximately 270 feet above sea level. The top level of the hotel would be approximately 50 feet above finish grade on the back (west) side, with finish grade at approximately 295 feet above sea level. The first two levels of the hotel would be built into the slope of the site, with access and visibility only from the north, west, and south sides. The third level of the

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-41 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR hotel would be at grade on the east side. The highest roof of the hotel would be approximately 332 feet above sea level. A perspective drawing of the proposed main hotel building is presented in Figure 10. Elevation and section drawings of the main hotel and bungalow buildings are shown in Figures 11A and 11B. The hotel component bungalows would include 160 individually accessible guestrooms within 15 two-story buildings (10 containing 10 units and five containing 12 units). The bungalows would be clustered around the main hotel building, mostly fronting the golf course. The hotel and bungalows would be designed in an Arts and Crafts style, featuring shingled and clapboard siding, sandstone arcades and chimneys, and heavy timbered roof gable and porch features. Parking for the hotel would be in surface lots wrapping around the north, east, and south sides of the main hotel building. Some of the hotel parking would be shared with the timeshare uses and clubhouse. Landscaping would occupy approximately 3.1 acres of the hotel parcel. The applicant estimates that there would be approximately 330 hotel employees (one employee per hotel room). Based on an average occupancy rate of 75 percent at stabilized operations, and an average of approximately 1.5 guests per unit, approximately 370 guests would stay at the hotel on a typical night. Timeshare Component The timeshare component would be comprised of 33 buildings (19 with six units and 14 with four units) for 170 units in all on three separate parcels totaling 19.33 acres. The timeshare units could be marketed either as timeshare units or as condominiums with a rental pool operated through the hotel. The timeshare buildings would be interspersed with open space areas and provided with parking. The total timeshare component would consist of approximately 235,000 square feet of units. Each timeshare unit would be an approximate 1,500-square foot, two-bedroom unit, with an additional optional lock-off single room. If half of the single-room units were to be sold as individual units, the total number of timeshare units would be 255. The architecture would match that of the hotel. Most of the timeshare buildings would be two stories tall, but three of the timeshare buildings along McClure Way would be three stories tall. An administration and recreation building would be located on Timeshare Parcel A. Approximately 4.9 acres of landscaped areas would be located adjacent to the timeshare units. Representative elevation drawings of the timeshare buildings are shown in Figure 12. The timeshare component would be located in two areas north of McClure Way, and in one area south of McClure Way and east of the hotel. Parking for the timeshare units would be in perpendicular spaces along access streets, and in parking lots. Some of the timeshare parking would be shared with the hotel. Approximately 20 employees are expected for the timeshare component. The average occupancy rate of the timeshare units would be similar to that of the hotel. An ownership association would be formed to maintain the timeshare units’ common areas, including the surrounding grounds, the lighting, and the parking areas.

1-42 EMC Planning Group Inc. Front (East) Perspective

Source: Hill Glazier Arichitects

Figure 10 Main Hotel Building Perspective

Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-44 EMC Planning Group Inc. BACK OF HOUSE

Rear (West) Section

Front (East) Elevation Source: Hill Glazier Arichitects

Figure 11A Main Hotel Building Section and Elevation

Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-46 EMC Planning Group Inc. Front Elevation

Side Elevation

Source: Hill Glazier Arichitects

Figure 11B Bungalow Elevations

Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-48 EMC Planning Group Inc. Side Elevation Side Elevation

Front Elevation

Source: Hill Glazier Arichitects

Figure 12 Timeshare Elevations

Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-50 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Timeshare projects differ from other transient visitor-serving uses in type of construction, form of ownership, pattern of use and occupancy, and commercial management. A timeshare project is a project consisting, in the aggregate, of twelve or more timeshare interests in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or for a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of one or more lots, parcels, units, or segments of real property, annually or on some other periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been divided.

Residential Component The proposed residential subdivision includes 125 single-family lots on 46.77 acres, with many lots backing on the existing golf courses. The lots would be in six clusters of between 12 and 29 lots, served by private streets with gated entries. Lots would average approximately 11,500 square feet. A homeowners association would be formed, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), including architectural and landscape design guidelines, would be adopted. The CC&Rs are proposed as a part of the project to control future design. Streets and utility infrastructure would be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements. The sites would require vegetation removal and grading prior to construction of houses. The applicant would subdivide the land and construct the subdivision improvements. The applicant is not proposing to construct the individual houses. At build-out of the residential area, approximately 397 residents would be added to the population of Seaside, based on the Census 2000 figures for average household size in Seaside, and adjusted Census 2000 vacancy data for Seaside. Based on a comparison to the 1990 Census data, it is evident that the Census 2000 vacancy rate includes the 900 vacant military houses within Seaside, and the vacancy rate has been recalculated for this EIR to exclude those units. The current average household size in Seaside is 3.26 persons per dwelling unit (Department of Finance Official State Estimates of May 2001). The Census 2000 vacancy rate for Seaside of 10.6 percent (1,172 of 11,005 units) was modified to 2.5 percent (272 of 11,005 units) and used to adjust population projections for the project.

Reconstruction of the Golf Clubhouse The existing golf clubhouse would be demolished, and a reconstructed clubhouse would be built in the same location on the same site. A new 0.67-acre parcel would be created to encompass the golf clubhouse, and would be retained by the City. The reconstructed clubhouse would include an 85-seat restaurant and bar, men’s and women’s locker rooms, golf retail shop, management office space, and an employee lounge area. The building would be terraced into the sloping site. The front entrance would face to the east with the finished floor and entrance at 265 feet above sea level. Elevated decks would face to the west and south. Cart storage would be located in the basement, with at-grade access from the western side at 256 feet above sea level. Elevation drawings of the reconstructed clubhouse are presented in Figure 13.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-51 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

The reconstructed clubhouse would measure 16,296-square feet, approximately 4,300 square feet more area than the existing facility. However, the reconstructed clubhouse would include 6,224 square feet for golf cart parking, which is currently accommodated in several freestanding sheds, so the net clubhouse area would actually decrease compared to the existing clubhouse. The footprint of the reconstructed golf clubhouse would be smaller than that of the existing golf clubhouse. The architecture of the reconstructed clubhouse would match that of the hotel. Approximately 0.44 acres of landscaped area for outdoor functions would surround the clubhouse. Functional lawn areas would be located to the south of the clubhouse.

The clubhouse would continue to be owned by the City, and operated by the golf course operator. The golf course operations would continue in a manner similar to existing conditions, including the number of employees, hours of operation, and maintenance activities. The clubhouse would be rebuilt in conjunction with development of the hotel component.

The existing cart sheds for the golf courses are located immediately north of the golf clubhouse. New cart storage would be included in the basement of the reconstructed golf clubhouse. The existing cart sheds would no longer be needed and would be removed.

Relocation of the Golf Course Maintenance Facility

The site of the existing golf course maintenance area is proposed for development of timeshare buildings. A new site of approximately 1.8 acres has been identified off Monterey Road east of Noumea Avenue. No specific development plans are available for the maintenance facility, except that 30 parking spaces for golf course employees would be located there. The maintenance facility would include similar uses as the existing facility, which includes indoor equipment and supply storage, and outdoor equipment and bulk materials storage, and a nursery area. The proposed site is partly covered with oak woodland cover, and is bisected by a cart path.

No details concerning the design of the facility are available. Therefore, this EIR addresses the relocated golf maintenance facility only in general terms, and additional environmental review would be necessary when a specific development proposal is prepared.

Site Preparation Existing site conditions and project characteristics are variable, so site preparation would also be variable. Although much of the project site is undeveloped land within the existing golf course, construction of the project would require clearing of some buildings, golf course improvements, and vegetation.

1-52 EMC Planning Group Inc. Entry (East) Elevation

Golf Course (West) Elevation Source: Hill Glazier Arichitects

Figure 13 Reconstructed Clubhouse Elevations

Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-54 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Removal of Existing Improvements

Construction of the hotel would require the removal of the driving range. Relocation of the driving range by the City is a condition of the City’s lease with the golf course operator. Portions of the parking lot for the hotel, golf clubhouse, and Timeshare Parcel B are proposed at the location of the existing parking lot. Development of the new parking lot would require the removal of the existing parking lot. It is expected that a portion of the new parking lots would be constructed prior to removal of the existing lot to minimize disruption to ongoing golf course operations.

Development of the western portion of Timeshare Parcel B would require the removal of the golf cart barns. Development of the northern portion of Timeshare Parcel A would require the removal of the golf course maintenance facility. A service road connecting the golf clubhouse and the golf course maintenance facility would also be removed.

Most of the residential areas are proposed for currently undeveloped land. Trees would be removed to make room for streets and housing sites in some of the proposed residential areas. Grading would be required for streets and lots.

The proposed new clubhouse would be located on the site occupied by the existing clubhouse. The existing clubhouse would be demolished, and the site would be graded and excavated for the new facility.

Several project components are proposed for areas currently occupied by golf links, but which should be vacant or occupied by disused golf links at the time project construction begins. The golf course operator is currently reconfiguring several of the golf course links and should be finished by the time the project is developed.

Grading

Total earthwork on the project site would be approximately 89,000 cubic yards. Cut and fill quantities would be equal, with no importing or exporting of fill material expected. Table 4 summarizes the amount of grading proposed, by project component.

Phasing and Construction The hotel would be constructed over a period of approximately 21 months commencing in 2004. Construction of the timeshare units would commence in 2003, with approximately 20 units per year built in each of nine planned phases. Subdivision of the residential lots would begin in 2003 and occur in four phases of about 32 lots per year. It is anticipated that the entire project would be developed within approximately eight years from start of construction. Figure 14 presents preliminary phasing for the resort hotel, timeshares, and residential lots. The project phases would not necessarily be developed in order as numbered, and the phases themselves could change in response to finance and market conditions. Timing for the remaining golf course changes is not known, although timing for some of the project improvements (hotel, timeshare, and residential) would be governed by the schedule for golf course improvements.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-55 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 4 Grading Quantities

Preliminary Grading Quantity Project Component (cubic yards) Hotel and Clubhouse Hotel 42,000 Access Road 6,000 Parking Areas 6,000 Subtotal for Hotel and Clubhouse 54,000 Timeshare Units Roads Timeshare A 3,000 Roads Timeshare B 10,000 Roads Timeshare C 2,000 Subtotal for Timeshare Units 15,000 Subdivisions Roads 20,000 Total Project 89,000

Source: Bestor Engineers

Infrastructure Improvements

Streets McClure Way would be improved to include two 12-foot travel lanes. McClure Way would include a 10-foot wide median for approximately 300 feet near General Jim Moore Boulevard and approximately 300 feet near the approach to the hotel. A concrete V-gutter would be constructed on each side. McClure Way would be built on a slightly different alignment in several places. McClure Way would continue to be a private driveway with a public use easement.

New private streets would be constructed to provide access to the residential and timeshare areas. The streets would be 20 feet wide, from edge of pavement to edge of pavement, with drainage toward a concrete V-ditch on one side. The residential streets would not include sidewalks or lighting. Gates would be located at each intersection with a public street, and the streets would be privately owned and maintained. Figure 15 shows the proposed street cross sections.

1-56 EMC Planning Group Inc. Residential Phase 2

Residential Residential Phase 1 Phase 3 Timeshare Phase 1

Timeshare Residential Timeshare Phase 3 Phase 5 Phase 2

Residential Phase 4 Timeshare Timeshare Phase 4 Phase 5 Timeshare Phase 6 Clubhouse Timeshare Phase 7 Bungalo Hotel

ws

Bungalows Timeshare Phase 8

Timeshare Phase 9 Residential Phase 6

Phase Boundary Source: Bestor Engineers and WAC Corporation Note: Phase numbers are for reference only. Phases may be developed out of numerical sequence. Phases could be modified subject to financing and market conditions. Scale: 1" = 1,200' Figure 14 Preliminary Phasing Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-58 EMC Planning Group Inc. (McCLURE WAY)

Source: Bestor Engineers

Figure 15 Street Cross Sections Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-60 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

Parking Lots

A hotel parking lot with 359 spaces would be built to the north, east and south of the main hotel building. Eighty parking spaces would be provided to the east of the clubhouse. Timeshare parking would be in perpendicular spaces along the streets. A remote lot near General Jim Moore Boulevard would be used for resort employees and overflow parking. Some parking spaces would be shared among different resort and golf course uses. Spaces for handicapped persons would be provided. Thirty parking spaces would be provided at the new golf maintenance facility for the golf course employees. Parking for the residential lots would be provided on each site in accordance with the Seaside Zoning Ordinance.

Utilities

New water, sewer, gas, electrical, and communications lines would be constructed to serve the project. These would be placed underground within streets or easements. The water lines serving landscape areas would utilize domestic water until recycled water became available. The water main in General Jim Moore Boulevard that serves the golf course parcel may require expansion.

Lighting

Street lighting, parking lot lighting, and lighting for outdoor activity areas and walkways would be provided. Lighting would be in accordance with the requirements of the City. Lower levels of lighting would be used in pedestrian areas and around buildings. Street lighting is not proposed for the residential areas.

Drainage Basins

There would be approximately 12 small percolation ponds located both on and off the project site, throughout the golf course parcel. The locations of the proposed percolation ponds are shown in Figure 16. Each pond would percolate run-off from a portion of the project site and up-slope areas. The largest pond would have a capacity of approximately 2.5 acre-feet, with the average capacity of the ponds being approximately one acre-foot. Some storm water flow from off-site locations would contribute to the run-off into the basins, and some storm water run-off from on site would flow off the project site. The basins would generally be unfenced, and may or may not have regular surface maintenance to maximize percolation. Basin 1 along Monterey Road may be fenced to prevent entry from Monterey Road.

1.4 Project Objectives

The applicant’s project objectives are to provide a high-quality, full-service visitor- serving resort, with hotel, timeshare, and convention facilities that take advantage of the synergistic benefits of being located within an existing golf course facility. The applicant

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-61 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

also desires to provide a high-quality housing opportunity adjacent to, and integrated with the golf courses. The applicant would like to develop the resort facilities in phases that would maximize financing opportunities.

The City of Seaside desires to see the development of a hotel use at the golf courses in accordance with the objectives, goals, and policies of the Seaside General Plan. The Seaside General Plan objectives include establishing a high-quality destination-type resort at the golf courses, and redeveloping the City’s portion of the former Fort Ord.

The project would help to achieve these objectives by providing a first-class championship golf resort capable of attracting major golf-related events to the City. creating a new source of continuous revenue for the City and its redevelopment agency (tax increment, transient occupancy tax and sales tax); creating new job opportunities both in the short term and permanently; and creating a “magnet” development that will stimulate the development of the balance of the City’s Ft. Ord lands. The City also desires to attain a component of high-end golf course housing

1.5 Consistency with Local and Regional Plans

CEQA Guidelines section 15125 (d) requires a discussion the project’s inconsistency with applicable local and regional plans and policies. The project is generally consistent with the Seaside General Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Policies affecting specific environmental topics are discussed as appropriate in Section 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

1.6 Intended Uses of the EIR

As mandated by CEQA Guidelines section 15124(d), this section contains a list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making to grant permits and approvals, and a list of the approvals for which the EIR will be used. These lists include information that is known to the lead agency.

Local Agencies • City of Seaside (Lead Agency) ◊ Statutory Development Agreement for entire project (File Number DA-01-01);

◊ Disposition and Development Agreement for acquisition and development of the 84.88-acre project site (File Number DA-01-02);

1-62 EMC Planning Group Inc. Percolation Pond #4

Percolation Pond

Percolation Percolation Pond #5 Pond #3

Percolation Percolation Percolation Pond #2 Pond #6 Pond #1

Percolation Pond #7

Percolation Pond Percolation Pond

Percolation Pond

Percolation Pond

Percolation Pond

Note: not all ponds are numbered on the Vesting Tentative Map Source: Bestor Engineers and WAC Corporation

Scale: 1" = 1,200'

Figure 16 Percolation Ponds Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-64 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 1.0 Introduction

◊ Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create development parcels for the timeshare and hotel components, and individual lots for the residential component (File Number TM-01-03); ◊ Conditional Use Permit for residential component (File Number UP-01-19); ◊ Conditional Use Permit for timeshare component (File Number UP-01-20; ◊ Site Plan Review for hotel component (File Number SPR-01-03); ◊ Design Review for overall project (File Number BAR-01-19); and ◊ Building, grading and other applicable construction permits for all components of the project.

Regional Agencies • Fort Ord Reuse Authority (Responsible Agency)

◊ Conformance with Fort Ord Reuse Plan • Regional Water Quality Control Board (Responsible Agency) ◊ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits

State Agencies • Department of Toxic Substances Control (Responsible Agency) ◊ Approval of cleanup program for toxic soils at Timeshare Parcel A

1.7 Terminology Used in the EIR This EIR uses the following terminology to denote the significance of environmental impacts: • “No impact” means that no change from existing conditions is expected to occur; • A “less than significant impact” would cause no substantial adverse change in the physical environment, and no mitigation is recommended; • A “significant impact” or “potentially significant impact” would, or would potentially, cause a substantial adverse change in the physical environment, and mitigation is required; and • A “significant and unavoidable impact” would cause a substantial change in the physical environment and cannot be avoided if the project is implemented; mitigation may be recommended, but will not reduce the impact to less than significant levels.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-65 1.0 Introduction Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

1-66 EMC Planning Group Inc.

2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

2.1 Aesthetics

Visual Resources Policies

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan and Seaside General Plan contain parallel objectives and polices concerning the visual character of the project site and adjacent areas. These objectives and policies are presented below. The project site is located in the Visitor Serving Hotels and Golf Course District, but is essentially surrounded by the New Community Golf District. Because the two areas are very closely integrated, objectives and policies for both areas are discussed here. The following two policies are from the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Fort Ord Lands Amendment to the Seaside General Plan:

Visitor Serving Hotels and Golf Course District – General Development Character and Objectives. To achieve the community design vision, the City of Seaside shall implement the following:

• Site the 800 hotel rooms in several buildings to reduce the scale of the project and its visual intrusion into the State Highway 1 Scenic Corridor; • Establish a maximum building height related to the mature landscape height of the trees in the golf course areas; • Establish bulk and massing criteria to integrate the structures into the existing topography and landscape setting so as to minimize grading and tree removal.

New Golf Course Community District – General Development Character and Design Objectives. To achieve the community design vision, the City of Seaside shall implement the following:

• Integrate the new residential development around the golf course in a way that optimizes the golf course frontage and views to this significant open space amenity. Consider rerouting the courses into the adjacent residential lands and find opportunities to integrate new residential development within the existing golf course area to improve the integration of the amenity into the new community;

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-1 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

• Provide a development setback and landscape buffer along the State Highway 1 scenic corridor frontage to minimize noise intrusion into the residential neighborhoods and enhance the State Highway 1 Scenic Corridor. Provide for a master landscape plan to reinforce the continuity of the regional landscape using such materials as Monterey cypress and Monterey pines along the scenic corridor setback.

The following two policies are from the 1995 Seaside General Plan:

Residential Land Use Policy B-1. The City of Seaside shall encourage land uses that are compatible with the character of the surrounding districts or neighborhoods and discourage new land use activities, which are potential nuisances and/or hazards within and in close proximity to residential areas.

Commercial Land Use Policy B-3. The City of Seaside shall prepare design guidelines for implementing hotel development on former Fort Ord lands consistent with the regional urban design guidelines (to be prepared by FORA) and the General Development Character and Design Objectives of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan Framework.

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan recognize the golf courses as a visitor serving golf recreation area that is a visual amenity to the community, designates Polygon 22 as an "opportunity site" for a large resort hotel within the golf courses recognizing the attractiveness of the existing golf courses as a potential destination resort, and sets forth development character and design objectives for the project recognizing that the appearance of the proposed project is important in both a regional and neighborhood context.

These policies establish the aesthetic framework for development of the project. Generally, they call for protection of the scenic State Highway 1 corridor, the establishment of design guidelines, and the preservation of the natural setting and topography of the project site. Specifically, the policies limit the height and mass of visitor serving buildings on the project site. The project site is beyond the area addressed by the State Highway 1 scenic corridor policies, but the policy is useful in pointing out the significance of the area from a visual standpoint.

The other streets abutting portions of the project site, General Jim Moore Boulevard, Coe Avenue, and Monterey Road, are not designated as scenic routes in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan or Seaside General Plan. However, aesthetic concerns were a recurring theme in the recently approved Hayes Housing project immediately southwest of the project site. As described in the New Golf Course Community District General Development Character and Design Objectives, the project site is an important open space amenity for the Monterey Peninsula area. The project site is considered to be a particularly important visual resource within Seaside.

2-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

State Highway 1 in the vicinity of the project site is not a Caltrans-designated State Scenic Highway, although it is eligible for inclusion in the State Scenic Highway program.

Environmental Setting

The project site is a maintained landscaped environment that is forested, primarily with mature planted Monterey pine and Monterey cypress, native coast live oak, and in some areas, planted eucalyptus. While passersby on surrounding roads can glimpse the existing golf course playing surfaces, the existing core development area is screened from view from surrounding areas by terrain and mature forest vegetation. Distant views of Monterey Bay and the Monterey Peninsula are available from the existing clubhouse and driving range areas of the project site.

The most prominent natural elements that define the visual qualities of the project site include: • the uplifted marine terrace terrain which elevates the project site above adjoining areas to the west and enables sweeping distant views of southern Monterey Bay and the Monterey Peninsula, where the views are not obstructed by vegetation; • the naturally occurring coast live oak trees that dominate the vegetation of about one-third of the project site; • the dominance of certain colors in the natural environment, including shades of green and brown (vegetation), and blue and light gray (the sky, blue when clear and gray when low clouds and overcast occur); and • the marine climate with foggy weather pattern that in some seasons periodically reduces visibility and views to and from the site.

The most prominent human or human-influenced elements that define the visual qualities of the project site include: • the manicured golf playing surfaces; • the planted Monterey pine and Monterey cypress trees dominating the site that give the feel of a forest environment; • utility poles and overhead utility lines which occur on all surrounding roadways, but not within the project site; and • the access roads, parking lot and cars, cart paths, and painted clubhouse and maintenance buildings which are concentrated and most notable primarily in the core area.

Approximately 115 acres of the 375-acre golf course parcel (30 percent) have tree cover, although the golf course parcel appears predominantly forested from outside view points. The borders of the golf course parcel are heavily planted, primarily with dense

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-3 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Monterey cypress trees. Portions of the golf courses are visible, through breaks in the trees, from Monterey Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard. Existing buildings on the golf course parcel are not visible from off-site locations. Existing lighting on the golf course parcel is not visible from off-site locations.

Project Analysis

Visual Analysis Methodology

A Visual Analysis for the project was prepared by TechniGraphics in May 2002. This report is included in Appendix B.

The Visual Analysis is based on photographs and three-dimensional modeling. Existing views of the project site and vicinity from surrounding areas, as well as from more distant vantage points such as State Highway 1 and the Cannery Row area of Monterey, were obtained. Views from the core area where the main hotel building is proposed to be located toward Monterey Bay and the Monterey Peninsula (the only direction in which significant off-site views are possible) were obtained.

Most of the photographs used in the Visual Analysis report were taken in April 2002. The photo points utilized were chosen to provide a range of views of project components that may be visible from public areas beyond the limits of the existing golf courses, and to portray the views available from the main hotel building. In the views where portions of the main hotel or timeshare buildings may appear, simulated images of those buildings, or portions of buildings, are shown as block forms using exterior colors from the project architect‘s sketches. The block form images are computer-generated "models" created from architectural floor plan and elevation drawings provided by the project architect, and do not indicate building detail such as doors, windows, or balconies. Prior to beginning the photo shoot for the site, key building corners and heights were field surveyed and marked on the ground by the project civil engineer. The three-dimensional models were scaled and superimposed on the photographs based on position and elevation data supplied by the civil engineer and field verified by TechniGraphics. The simulations portray anticipated views following construction, and prior to maturity of new landscaping.

Project Design Features Adapted to Site Visual Sensitivities

A review of the proposed site plan indicates that the project design incorporates several features intended to address possible visual sensitivities of project facilities, and demonstrate consistency with design objectives for the project site. These include:

• clustering the larger resort hotel and timeshare buildings in the core area away from surrounding roadways;

• distributing the hotel rooms in multiple buildings to reduce the scale of the hotel buildings;

2-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

• recessing the main hotel building into the slope of the site so that only four stories are apparent when approaching the hotel on McClure Way; • limiting building height to no taller than the mature landscape height of the trees in the general vicinity of the buildings; • minimizing the number of residential sites that are on the periphery of the project site where future residential buildings could be observed by passersby; • selecting exterior building materials and colors that are compatible with the wooded environment; • limiting overhead lighting to McClure Way and core use areas around the hotel; and • placing utilities underground.

Proposed elevations have been submitted that present an Arts and Crafts architectural style for the main hotel building and bungalows. A coordinated palette of colors, materials, and details would be used throughout the hotel and timeshare development to enhance the concept of a grouping of related buildings. Weathered shingles, clapboard siding, and coastal sandstone would be used on the facades of the hotel, bungalows, timeshares, and clubhouse.

Effect on Views from Off-site Locations

Several of the proposed hotel and timeshare buildings would be partially visible from locations along northbound State Highway 1 near the Fremont Boulevard interchange, and from a point along southbound General Jim Moore Boulevard, where the road narrows from four to two lanes. Some residential and golf course maintenance facility improvements would be visible from Coe Avenue and Monterey Road.

Views from State Highway 1. The main hotel building would be briefly visible from northbound State Highway 1 near the Fremont Boulevard interchange. State Highway 1 rises as it approaches the interchange then drops away again to the north. At the speed limit of 65 miles per hour, the view would last for approximately 10 seconds. A similar view would be possible from the nearby high point of the Monterey Bay Recreation Trail, at the point where it crests a rise immediately south of the large sand dune at Sand City. A simulated view of the project from Sand City is shown in Figure 17. The main hotel building would be located approximately one and one-half miles from Sand City. As seen in the photographic simulation, the main hotel building would be partly blocked from view by trees in the area surrounding the hotel site. Views from General Jim Moore Boulevard. Two components of the project would be visible, or partially visible, from General Jim Moore Boulevard: timeshare buildings, and the overflow parking lot. In addition, houses on some of the proposed residential lots may be visible from places along General Jim Moore Boulevard. A combination of topography and tree cover effectively screens much of the project site from outside views from General Jim Moore Boulevard.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-5 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Some of the timeshare buildings on Timeshare Parcel B would be visible from southbound General Jim Moore Boulevard at approximately the area where General Jim Moore Boulevard changes from four lanes to two lanes, near the northern boundary of the project site. The top stories of timeshare buildings 9B and 10B would be visible from this location. Timeshare building 9B is one of three timeshare buildings proposed to be three stories in height. Trees in the foreground would partly obscure views of the buildings. A view from General Jim Moore Boulevard is shown in Figure 18.

The overflow parking lot is proposed to run parallel to General Jim Moore Boulevard approximately 75 feet to the west of the road. The parking lot would measure approximately 500 feet long by 60 feet wide. There is no existing vegetation between General Jim Moore Boulevard and the proposed parking lot location. The parking lot would be visible to both north and southbound travelers on General Jim Moore Boulevard.

The existing dense row of Monterey cypress trees between proposed Timeshare Parcel C and the proposed overflow parking area would provide effective screening of the timeshare units proposed for that area from off-site views along General Jim Moore Boulevard. These timeshare units would be the largest buildings on the project site that would be relatively near a major public roadway.

Views from Coe Avenue and Monterey Road. None of the major hotel or timeshare buildings are expected to be visible from Coe Avenue or Monterey Road. However, approximately 20 of the residential lots would be adjacent to these streets or within direct view. While the Coe Avenue corridor is already largely developed, the golf course parcel provides a park-like setting along the central section of Monterey Road.

In one location, back and side property lines would run directly adjacent to Monterey Road, and in another location side property lines would be adjacent. Houses on these lots, and fences along the backs and/or sides of these lots could present an abrupt visual transition from the open spaces of the golf course parcel and the project site. The houses would be at least partly screened from view by existing or new vegetation, and would require design review by the Board of Architectural Review. If fences are constructed at back and side property lines, they could present an incongruous element to the forested character of the golf course parcel. A row of eucalyptus trees that would otherwise screen residential lots along Coe Avenue is likely to be removed, but because of the existing developed character of the Coe Avenue area, the effect on the character of the area would be minimal. The proposed new golf course maintenance facility could be visible from Monterey Road. Although no plans have been submitted for the facility, it could be expected to be similar to the existing facility, which includes perimeter fencing and several storage buildings. A parking lot for 30 cars is proposed. The site for the golf course maintenance facility slopes up gently from Monterey Road, and is approximately 200 feet deep with a 400-foot frontage. Existing trees on the site provide partial screening from Monterey Road, however, the golf course maintenance facility could be visible

2-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Proposed Hotel

Hospital Water Tower Sand City Dune

View from Cannery Row area of Monterey

Proposed Hotel Water Tower

View from Recreation Trail south of the sand dune in Sand City Source: Technigraphics

Figure 17 Views from Monterey and Sand City

Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

2-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Relocated Maintenance Building and Employee Parking

Site of proposed Golf Course Maintenance Facility viewed from Monterey Road.

Timeshare Bldg. 10B

Timeshare Bldg. 9B

Projected view of Timeshare Buildings 9B and 10B from General Jim Moore Boulevard. Source: Technigraphics

Figure 18 Views from Adjacent Roads

Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

2-10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

from Monterey Road. Depending on the design of the buildings, fencing and parking, the new golf course maintenance facility could degrade the forested park-like character of the golf course parcel. A view from Monterey Road towards the proposed golf course maintenance area is shown in Figure 18, presented earlier.

Distant Views. The hotel building and possibly some of the timeshare buildings would be distantly visible from areas in Monterey and Pacific Grove. From the Cannery Row area of Monterey, the main hotel building would be approximately four and one-half miles away, and visible amongst the trees surrounding the hotel site to a very careful observer. At a distance of four and one-half miles, the hotel would blend with its surroundings to most observers. A simulation of the view of the project from Cannery Row is shown in Figure 17, presented earlier.

Loss of Trees A Forest Management Plan for the project was prepared for the applicant by Staub Forestry and Environmental Consulting. The Forest Management Plan is included in Appendix C. The Forest Management Plan provides an estimate of the number of trees that would be removed, and recommendations for tree replacement and maintenance. Construction of the project would result in the removal of trees, some of which are large and mature. Approximately 996 trees with trunks over six inches in diameter would be removed for construction of the hotel, timeshare, and residential components of the project. Approximately 14.5 acres of tree cover would be removed from the 84.88-acre portion of the project site to be developed with the hotel, timeshare and residential uses. Although applications on file only provide for the creation of lots in the residential area, an estimate for eventual loss of trees from home construction is included in the Forest Management Plan. Additional trees would be removed for the relocation of the golf course maintenance facility; however, this area is not addressed in the Forest Management Plan. The loss of trees would have a two-fold aesthetic effect: first the amount of greenery would be diminished, and second, the potential for screening of the proposed structures would be reduced.

Project Lighting The use of overhead lighting in the project is proposed by the applicant to be limited to the core use areas around the hotel and timeshare components, and along McClure Way. Off-site light spill would be very limited due to the distance of the core hotel areas to the boundaries of the project site. Refer to Section 2.4 Biological Resources for a discussion of potential lighting impacts on wildlife.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord could potentially result in significant visual effects within the former Fort Ord, and when viewed rom State Highway 1. Policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures presented below would implement these policies, and address site-specific concerns.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-11 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Significance Criteria. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and/or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Less Than Significant Impact – Effect of Hotel, Timeshare, and Residential Buildings on Project Site and Vicinity Character. Portions of proposed buildings would be visible from off-site locations. The main hotel building would be briefly visible from State Highway 1, and some of the timeshare buildings on Timeshare Parcel B would be visible from General Jim Moore Boulevard. Houses and fences on some of the proposed residential lots could be visible from General Jim Moore Boulevard, Coe Avenue, or Monterey Road. The new golf course maintenance facility could be visible from Monterey Road. The buildings would be largely screened by existing or new vegetation, and would require review by the Seaside Board of Architectural Review. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.

Potentially Significant Impact – Effect of Fences on Project Site and Vicinity Character. Fences on some of the proposed residential lots could be visible from Monterey Road. The project site presents a forested park-like setting along the central portion of Monterey Road. Fences along this section of Monterey Road could introduce an incongruous element that would significantly affect the character of the Monterey Road corridor. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures 1. Subject to the review and approval of the Board of Architectural Review, a fencing and landscape plan shall be included as a part of improvement plans for all residential lots within 100 feet of the Monterey Road right-of-way. If fencing is used, the fencing employed shall be designed to blend with the natural vegetation of the project site, and to reduce opportunities for graffiti. A landscaped buffer of no less than 10 feet shall be included between the fences and the adjacent street rights-of way, utilizing drought tolerant plant species native to the Monterey Bay region. The fence and landscape designs shall be of a consistent style for all lots. The CC&R’s for the residential areas shall include provisions to require that fences and landscape buffers be maintained in accordance with the fencing and landscape plan. Buffer area landscaping and any proposed fencing shall be installed prior to occupancy of each residence.

2-12 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent for residential subdivision or residential development.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Potentially Significant Impact – Effect of Maintenance Facility on Project Site and Vicinity Character. The new golf course maintenance facility could be visible from Monterey Road. No site plans or building designs have been developed for the golf course maintenance facility. The proposed golf course maintenance facility is along Monterey Road, in a partly wooded area of the golf course parcel, and development of the golf course maintenance facility could affect the park-like character of the central portion of Monterey Road. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

2. Subject to the review and approval of the Board of Architectural Review, the golf course maintenance facility and parking lot shall be designed so as to minimize visibility from Monterey Road, while maintaining mature coast live oak trees to the maximum extent feasible. The architecture of the buildings shall be compatible with the nearby residential uses, as determined by the Board of Architectural Review.

Exterior colors (excluding accent colors) shall be selected to blend, rather than contrast, with the naturally occurring colors of the landscape. The light reflective value of exterior colors of the buildings shall not exceed 45.

Subject to the review and approval of the Board of Architectural Review, a fencing and landscape plan shall be included as a part of improvement plans for the golf course maintenance facility. The fencing employed shall be designed to blend with the natural vegetation of the project site, and to reduce opportunities for graffiti. A landscaped buffer of no less than 10 feet deep shall be included between the fence and the adjacent public street right-of way, utilizing drought tolerant plant species native to the Monterey Bay region. Fencing and landscaping shall be installed prior to initial occupancy.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of golf course maintenance facility.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Significant Impact – Effects of Overflow Parking Lot on Project Site and Vicinity Character. The overflow parking lot would be visible from General Jim Moore Boulevard. The expanse of pavement and the glare of light from parked cars would detract from the predominantly forested character of the project site and vicinity. This would be a significant visual impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-13 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Mitigation Measure

3. Subject to the review and approval of the Board of Architectural Review, the landscape plans for the hotel and timeshare project shall include an earth berm no less than four feet in height and/or a vegetative buffer, between the overflow parking lot and General Jim Moore Boulevard, utilizing drought tolerant plant species native to the Monterey Bay region. The plantings shall be installed prior to use of the parking lot, and shall provide no less than 50 percent screening of the parking lot and parked cars within a five-year time frame.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel and timeshare components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Significant Impact – Effect of Tree Removal on Project Site and Vicinity Character. Removal of mature trees from the project site for construction of the project would significantly effect the forested character of the project site both from within and adjacent to the project site. Total tree removal on the project site is estimated to be approximately 996 trees, or 58 percent of the trees on the project site. Additional trees are likely to be removed for construction of the new golf course maintenance facility. The loss of trees would have a two-fold aesthetic effect: first the amount of greenery would be diminished, and second, the potential for screening of the proposed structures would be reduced.

Mitigation Measures

4. No trees in the existing dense row of Monterey Cypress trees between Timeshare Area "C" and the overflow parking area west of General Jim Moore Boulevard shall be cut or trimmed in any manner during construction or operations of the project, except to the extent that may be required to remove dead or diseased wood, or remove safety hazards, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. In the event that substantial cutting or trimming should be required, a landscaping plan shall be submitted and implemented to maintain the screening effect of the existing trees.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of parking lot, or timeshare components, or golf course operator if cutting or trimming is not conducted by or for a project proponent.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director.

5. As part of Improvement Plans, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director, a tree removal and replacement plan shall be prepared for each phase of construction. The tree removal and replacement plan

2-14 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

shall identify specific grading limits and building footprint siting that minimizes tree removal. Building, street, parking lot and other project facility locations shall be adjusted to the greatest extent feasible to reduce tree removal.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of timeshare, hotel, or residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director. 6. All recommendations identified in the Forest Management Plan for the hotel, timeshare, and residential components of the project shall be included in construction documents and shall be implemented, including tree replacement recommendations, tree protection measures, and tree maintenance recommendations.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of timeshare, hotel, or residential components..

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director. 7. The project proponent shall arrange for a registered forester to observe grading and foundation preparation operations, and to assist in field adjustments of building locations to minimize tree removal and ensure the health of remaining trees. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of timeshare, hotel, or residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

2.2 Agricultural Resources

Environmental Setting

The project site is developed with golf courses that were constructed beginning in approximately 1954. No agricultural activities have taken place on the project site since at least 1954, and there are no agricultural areas adjacent to the project site. Aerial photographs dating back to 1940 show no evidence that agricultural activities have occurred on the project site. The nearest areas in agricultural use, and the nearest areas designated as prime farmland on the Monterey County Important Farmlands Map, are approximately four miles north of the project site.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-15 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Project Analysis

The project would have no effect on agricultural resources. No agricultural uses, or prime farmland, are located on, or adjacent to, the project site. The project site is zoned for visitor serving commercial, and is currently in that use. The project would be constructed in developed and undeveloped areas within existing golf courses.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR found no impacts to agricultural resources.

Significance Criteria. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

• 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;

• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and

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

No Impact – Agricultural Resources. There are no agricultural lands on the project site. The project would have no impact on agricultural resources.

2.3 Air Quality This section includes a summary of local and regional air quality conditions, and an analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the project. Mitigation measures are recommended as necessary to reduce significant adverse air quality impacts. The information contained in this section is based on documents prepared by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Information from these documents provided background information for preparation of the discussion of existing conditions and the impact analyses included in this section. Regulatory Framework and Policies

Federal The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 required the EPA to set up national ambient air quality standards (”national air standards”) for several air pollutants on the basis of

2-16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

human health and welfare criteria. The Federal Clean Air Act also set deadlines for the attainment of these standards. The federal Clean Air Act requires states to prepare an air quality control plan, also known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). California’s SIP contains the strategies and control measures California will use to attain the national air standards. The Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 require states containing areas that violate the national air standards to revise their SIPs for conformity with federal Clean Air Act mandates. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal Implementation Planfor the non-attainment area and may impose additional control measures.

State CARB is the agency with the responsibility for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the requirements of the California Clean Air Act of 1988. The California Clean Air Act requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain California ambient air quality

standards for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by the earliest practical date.

Regional

Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The MBUAPCD is the agency with jurisdiction over the air quality regulation in the Northern Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The MBUAPCD has adopted several plans in an attempt to achieve State and federal air quality standards. As required by the California Clean Air Act, the District adopted the 1991 AQMP for the Monterey Bay region. The 1991 AQMP addressed planning requirements to meet the ozone standard mandated by California Clean Air Act and included measures to control emissions of volatile organic carbons (VOC) from stationary and mobile sources. Since the 1991 AQMP was adopted, control requirements have been reduced. The 1991 AQMP was most recently updated in 2000. The 2000 AQMP update included current air quality data related to ozone precursor emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which in the presence of sunlight combine in the atmosphere to form ozone; up-to-date population forecast; revisions to emission inventory; forecast and design value; changes to the emission reduction strategy; and progress report on implementation of the 1991 AQMP (MBUAPCD 2000). Fort Ord Reuse Plan. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan encourages land uses and development that would, by their design, reduce auto emissions by making non-automotive transportation options more feasible. Air Quality Policy A-3. Integrate the land use strategies of the California Air Resources Board’s The Land Use – Air Quality Linkage – How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, into local land use decisions. Program A-3.1 states that each jurisdiction shall plan and zone properties, as well as review development proposals to promote the land use-air quality

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-17 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

linkage, including residential densities, and clustered employment densities.

This policy requires incorporation of strategies to reduce air pollution as described in the California Air Resources Board’s The Land Use – Air Quality Linkage – How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality, including the following: alternative transportation methods located nearby; schools and commercial uses within walking distance to residential uses; a mixture of job creation and housing development to meet the needs of the local community; and provisions for safe bicycle and pedestrian use within the area.

Environmental Setting Monterey County is located in the NCCAB, which is comprised of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties. The Santa Cruz Mountains dominate the northwest sector of the air basin. The Diablo range marks the northeastern boundary, and together with the southern extent of the Santa Cruz mountains, forms the Santa Clara Valley, which extends into the northeastern tip of the air basin. Farther south, the Santa Clara Valley transitions into the San Benito Valley, which runs northwest to southeast and has the Gabilan Range as its western boundary. To the west of the Gabilan Range is the Salinas Valley, which extends from Salinas to the northwest end to south of King City. The western-side of the Salinas Valley is formed by the Sierra de Salinas, which also forms the eastern side of the smaller Carmel Valley; the eastern Santa Lucia Range defines the western side of the valley.

Air Pollution Properties, Effects, and Sources The most common and widespread air pollutants of concern include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, reactive organic gases, sulfur dioxide, and lead. The common properties, sources, and related health and environmental effects are summarized in Table 5.

Air Quality Standards Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with state and national standards. The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set national air standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (U.S. EPA 2001). Table 6 indicates both federal and State ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants.

2-18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 5 Common Air Pollutants Related Health & Pollutant Properties Major Sources Environmental Effects Ozone Ground level ozone is • Motor vehicle exhaust, Irritation of lung airways and (O3) created by the chemical • Industrial emissions, inflammation; aggravated reaction between oxides of asthma; reduced lung capacity; • Gasoline vapors, and nitrogen (NOx) and volatile and increased susceptibility to organic compounds (VOC) • Chemical solvents. respiratory illnesses (i.e. in the presence of heat and bronchitis). sunlight. Ground level ozone is the principal component of smog. Suspended Suspended particulate matter • Motor vehicles, Aggravated asthma; increases in Particulate is a term used to describe • Factories, respiratory symptoms; Matter particles in the air, including decreased lung function; • Construction sites, dust, soot, smoke, and liquid premature death; and reduced droplets. Others are so small • Tilled Agricultural fields, visibility. that they can only be • Unpaved roads, and detected with an electron • Burning of Wood. microscope. Carbon Carbon Monoxide is a • Fuel combustion; Chest pain for those that suffer Monoxide colorless, odorless gas that is • Industrial processes, and from heart disease; vision formed when carbon in fuel problems; reduced mental (CO) • Areas of high traffic is not burned completely alertness, and death (at high density during peak hour levels) traffic (localized sources of concern) Nitrogen Generic form for a group of • Motor vehicles, Toxic to plants; reduced Oxides highly organic gases, all of • Electric utilities, and visibility, and respiratory which contain nitrogen in irritant. • Industrial, commercial, (NOx) varying amounts. Many of the nitrogen oxides are and residential sources odorless and colorless. that burn fuel. Sulfur Sulfur oxide gases are • Electric utilities (especially Respiratory illness, particularly Dioxides formed when fuel containing those that burn coal), and in children and the elderly and sulfur such as coal and oil is aggravates existing heart and (SOx) • Industrial facilities that burned and when gasoline is lung diseases. extracted from oil or metals derive their products from are extracted from ore. raw materials to produce process heat. Reactive Precursor of ground-level • Petroleum transfer and Potential carcinogen (e.g. Organic ozone. storage, benzene) and toxic to plants and animals. Gases • Mobile sources, and (ROG) • Organic solvent use.

Source: EPA

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-19 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 6 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

California1 Federal 2 Air Averaging Time Concentration Primary Secondary Pollutant Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 8 Hour — 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm Particulates Annual Geometric 30.0 μg/m3 — — (PM10) Mean 24 Hour 50.0 μg/m3 150.0 μg/m3 150.0 μg/m3 Annual Arithmetic — 50.0 μg/m3 50.0 μg/m3 Mean Particulates 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 65.0 μg/m3 65.0 μg/m3 (PM ) 2.5 Annual Arithmetic 15.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3 Mean Carbon 8 Hour 9.00 ppm 9.00 ppm Monoxide 1 Hour 20.0 ppm 35.00 ppm (CO) None 8 Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6.00 ppm —

Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic — .053 ppm .053 ppm Dioxide 1 Hour .25 ppm — — (NO2) Lead 30 day average 1.5 μg/m3 — — Calendar year — 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 Sulfur Annual Arithmetic — .030 ppm — Dioxide Mean (SO2) 24 Hour .004 ppm .14 ppm — 3 Hour — — .5 ppm 1 Hour .25 ppm — — Visibility 8 Hour (10 am to 6 pm In sufficient amount to Reducing PST) produce an extinction Particles coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer-visibility of 10 No Federal Standards miles or more due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 1 Hour .03 ppm Hydrogen Sulfide

2-20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour), suspended particulate matter-

PM10 visibility reducing particulates, are values that are not to be exceeded. The sulfur dioxide (24-hour), sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards, other than those for ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained then the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal or less than one. 3. Based on the established 8-hour EPA standard. The 0.12 ppm 1-hour standard will not be revoked in a given area until that area has achieved 3 consecutive years or air quality data meeting the 1- hour standard. ppm = parts per million per volume μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Source: California Air Resources Board 1999

The state standards are relevant for this project and are more stringent than the federal standards. The state standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. When standards are exceeded an “attainment plan” must be prepared which outlines how an air quality district would comply. Generally, these plans must provide for district-wide emission reductions of five percent per year averaged over consecutive three-year periods. California also grants air districts explicit statutory authority to adopt indirect source regulations and transportation control measures, including measures to encourage or require the use of ridesharing, flexible work hours, or other measures that reduce the number or length of vehicle trips.

Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any state standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clean Air Act divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. Table 7 illustrates the attainment status designations for the air basin.

The NCCAB recently went from a moderate non-attainment to an attainment designation according to the federal ozone standards. However, the NCCAB does not

meet the far more stringent state standards for PM10.

Air Quality Monitoring Locations

The MBUAPCD is responsible for monitoring air quality in the NCCAB. MBUAPCD samples ambient air quality at 10 monitoring stations in the NCCAB. Figure 19 illustrates the location of these monitoring stations within the NCCAB in relation to the project site.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-21 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 7 Attainment Status of the North Central Coast Air Basin

Pollutant Federal State

Ozone (O3) – 1 hour Maintenance Moderate Nonattainment

Ozone (O3) – 8 hour Attainment N/A Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassified/Attainment Monterey- Attainment San Benito – Unclassified Santa Cruz - Unclassified

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified Attainment

Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Attainment Non-attainment

Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5) Unclassified N/A Source: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Attainment Status Designation 2002

Project Analysis Short-term Construction Operations Emissions generated during construction are considered “short-term” in the sense that they would be limited to actual periods of site development and construction of the project. Short-term construction emissions are generated by the use of heavy equipment, the transport of materials, and during construction employee commute trips.

Construction-related emissions consist primarily of ROG, NOx, PM10, and CO. Emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are generated primarily during operation of gas-and diesel-powered motor vehicles, asphalt paving activities, and the application of architectural coatings. Typical emission rates for heavy-duty construction related equipment are presented in Table 8. Construction generated emissions vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific construction equipment used, and weather conditions. Site preparation and construction activities for the project would involve the transport of materials and workers to and from the project site over an approximate eight-year period and grading activities associated with site preparation activities. Site preparation and construction would be concentrated in the initial two-year period following project approval, with the construction of the hotel, and the first timeshare and residential phases. Construction would continue less intensively through project build-out with approximately 10 to 20 residential homes being constructed per year through approximately 2011.

2-22 EMC Planning Group Inc.

2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

2-24 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 8

Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty Diesel Powered Equipment

Type of Equipment ROG NOx CO PM10 Track-type Tractor 0.12 1.26 0.35 0.11 Wheeled Tractor 0.18 1.27 3.59 0.14 Wheeled Dozer 0.19 4.17 1.79 0.17 Scraper 0.27 3.84 1.26 0.41 Motor Grader 0.039 0.71 0.15 0.061 Wheeled Loader 0.23 1.89 0.57 0.17 Track-type Loader 0.095 0.83 0.20 0.058 Off-Highway Truck 0.19 4.17 1.79 0.26 Roller 0.59 0.86 0.30 0.050 Miscellaneous 0.15 1.69 0.68 0.14

Source: U.S. EPA AP-42, Volume II, 1985

A second construction-related air quality issue concerns emission of diesel exhaust near sensitive receptors, increasing the short-term exposure of these sensitive receptor groups to toxic air contaminants during construction activities. The project would also involve approximately 89,000 cubic yards of grading (Denise Duffy and Associates 2002).

Grading activities could result in emissions of PM10, evident as dust rising from the project site. PM10 emissions are generated primarily by wind erosion of exposed graded surfaces.

Long-term Operations

Operational emissions would occur once the structures are occupied. The project would be considered an indirect source of air pollutants, in that it would attract and cause an increase in vehicle trips in the region. Increases in mobile source emissions associated with the project would be primarily associated with residents, employee, and visitor commute trips to the project site and would result in increased emissions of regional pollutants (e.g. ROG and NOx). The project would generate approximately 5,672 daily trips to the project site resulting in long-term operational emissions to the project area. The estimated project-related operational emissions associated with the project are illustrated in Table 9.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-25 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 9 Estimated Project-Related Operational Emissions

MBUAPCD Thresholds Project Emissions (lbs/day) Summer Winter

ROG 150 lbs/day 67.59 82.83 NO2 150 lbs/day 110.62 115.44 CO LOS at intersection/road segments degrades - - from D or better to E or F or V/C ratio at intersection/road segment at LOS E or F increases by 0.05 or more or delay at intersection at LOS E or F increases by 10 seconds or more or reserve capacity at unsignalized intersections at LOS E or F decreases by 50 or more. PM10 82 lbs/day 41.77 41.77

Source: MBUAPCD and EMC Planning Group Inc.

Cumulative Operational Effects

Cumulative air quality impacts are determined on the basis of a project’s consistency with the growth assumptions made in preparing the AQMP. The project is comprised of both residential and visitor serving uses. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Government (AMBAG) is responsible for performing a consistency determination with the AQMP for the residential component of the project and the MBUAPCD is responsible for performing a consistency determination for the visitor-serving component of the project, which includes the 170 timeshare units and 330 guestrooms provided by the hotel.

As discussed in Section 1.3 Project Description, the project could add an estimated 397 new residents to Seaside. Cumulative impacts were determined by adding the 397 new residents expected from the project to expected population increases from other development approved in the City for the 2000 – 2005 period. Approximately 376 permitted new units could potentially add another 1,191 residents to the City of Seaside. Project consistency is determined by comparing the cumulative population growth estimate to the growth anticipated by the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance forecasts a population increase of 2,545 persons in Seaside during the 2000-2005

2-26 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation period. The anticipated actual cumulative population growth during that period, including that attributed to the project, is 1,588, which is within the Department of Finance forecast. Therefore the residential portion of the project is consistent with the AQMP.

A consistency determination was conducted by the MBUAPCD for the hotel and timeshare components of the project. According to the MBUAPCD, the AQMP accommodates 3,694 visitor-serving units between 1990 and 2005. This project would add to approved and pending projects within the District which total 3,515 units. Therefore, the hotel and timeshare component of the project is considered consistent with the AQMP.

Local Emissions

The primary mobile source pollutant of local concern is CO. Localized concentrations of CO are a direct function of vehicle idling time and thus, traffic flow conditions. CO concentrations close to congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g. residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly). Potential sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include, the unoccupied Hayes Housing area that was recently approved by the City of Seaside to be demolished and rebuilt with approximately 380 new single family residences located to the east of the project site; the Sunbay Apartment complex located to south of the project site; Hayes School and Fitch Middle School located to the south of the project site, occupied military housing located to the north of the project site, and the child development center on Monterey Road. Under normal meteorological conditions, CO transport is extremely limited and disperses rapidly from the source. Typically, areas of high CO concentrations or “hot spots” are associated with signalized intersections operating at poor levels of service (LOS E or worse).

Within the study area, intersections and road segments currently operating at unacceptable levels of service include the Fremont Boulevard/Del Monte Boulevard intersection, which is currently operating at a level of service of F during the PM peak hour under existing conditions, State Highway 1, which is operating at LOS F at peak periods, and State Highway 68, which is operating at LOS E during the AM peak period and LOS F during the PM peak period. Under project conditions the Fremont Boulevard /Del Monte Boulevard intersection would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. However, the level of service at this intersection would improve to LOS B with implementation of State Highway 1 PSR improvements. The project increases the delay at the Fremont Boulevard /Del Monte Boulevard intersection by 35.7 seconds during the PM peak hour. With implementation of the State Highway 1 PSR improvements, the delay at this intersection decreases by more than nine minutes according to the traffic impact analysis prepared by Higgins Associates.

A CO screening was conducted for the Fremont Boulevard/Del Monte Boulevard intersection. Under project conditions, the CO concentration at the intersection would be 4.81 parts per million (ppm), well below the threshold level of 20 ppm. CO screenings were conducted for State Highway 1 south of Fremont Boulevard and State

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-27 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Highway 68 east of State Highway 218. Under cumulative conditions, with no road improvements and at an average travel speed of 20 miles an hour in the congested areas, the CO concentrations at the highway segments would be 1.7 ppm for State Highway 1, and 1.1 ppm for State Highway 68. These levels are below the threshold.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord could result in air quality impacts, but that policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan reduced this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

• conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

• violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;

• result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);

• expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or

• create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Less Than Significant Impact – Inconsistency with the AQMP. The project is comprised of both residential and visitor serving uses. AMBAG and MBUAPCD each performed consistency determinations with the AQMP, and determined that the project is consistent with the AQMP. Because the project is consistent with the AQMP, it is considered to have a less than significant effect on cumulative air quality. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Less Than Significant Impact – Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Short-term Toxic Air Contaminants. The project has the potential to increase the exposure of sensitive receptor groups to toxic air contaminants by increasing the short-term exposure of these sensitive receptor groups to toxic air contaminants during construction activities. However based on the distance of the surrounding sensitive receptors to construction activities at the project site, dissipation of the diesel exhaust from the construction equipment affecting these sensitive receptors is anticipated to be less than significant.

Potentially Significant Impact – Short-term Construction Emissions. Emissions produced during grading and construction are “short term” in the sense that they occur during the construction phase of the project. Construction emissions would include onsite and offsite generation of fugitive dust, onsite generation of construction

2-28 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation equipment exhaust, and the offsite generation of mobile source emissions. Examples of these emissions include CO, ROG, NOX, SOX, and PM10. Exhaust emissions could vary substantially from day to day depending upon the level of activity, length of the construction period, number of pieces of construction equipment in use, type of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and amount/type of materials that would be transported on or off-site.

The proposed project would result in a potentially significant environmental impact if MBUAPCD standard construction practices and mandatory emission controls associated with construction activities are not included in the construction specifications and final improvement plans. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

8. The project plans shall contain a dust control plan subject to review and approval by the City of Seaside Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit, to include all or some (specifically if measure (m) is employed, measures (a) through (l) would not be necessary) of the following measures, as necessary to adequately control dust:

(a) Water all active portions of the construction site at least twice daily;

(b) Suspend all excavation and grading operations when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour averaged over one hour, if watering activities are inadequate to control airborne dust; (c ) Replace ground cover or apply MBUAPCD-approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive portions of the construction site (previously graded areas inactive for four days of more), when airborne dust conditions are visible; (d) Apply water two times daily or chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive portions of the construction site (previously graded areas inactive for four days or more), when airborne dust conditions are visible; (e) Sufficiently water or securely cover all material transported off-site and adjust on-site loads as necessary to prevent airborne dust conditions. Haul trucks shall maintain enough freeboard to prevent airborne dust conditions; (f) Plant vegetative ground cover in, or otherwise stabilize disturbed areas as soon as grading and construction activities in those areas are completed; (g) Cover material stock piles that remain inactive for more than 72 consecutive hours; (h) Provide dust free stabilized surfaces at the exit of construction sites for all exiting trucks;

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-29 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

(i) Sweep adjacent public streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site; (j) Limit traffic speed on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less; (k) Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number of the on-site contractor and person to contract regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action by the end of the same day if the complaint is received by 12:00 noon and within 24 hours if the complaint is received later than 12:00 noon. The phone number of the MBUAPCD shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance); (l) The grading contractor shall appoint a qualified site monitor to ensure that the plan is implemented. (m) Limit the area of grading to 2.2 acres per day during earthmoving efforts (grading and excavation) and 8.1 acres per day with minimal earthmoving (finish grading). The number of acres may be increased if direct emissions

of PM10 do not exceed MBUAPCD’s threshold of significance based on MBUAPCD approved dispersion modeling.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and golf course maintenance facility components, and proponent of residential subdivision infrastructure improvements and site preparation.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director.

Less Than Significant Impact – Long Term Operational Emissions. Operational emissions occur once the proposed project is constructed and operational. The project would be considered an indirect source of air pollutants, in that it would attract and cause an increase in vehicle trips in the region. Increases in mobile source emissions associated with the project would be primarily associated with resident, employee and visitor commute trips to the project site. Increases in vehicle trips would result in

increased emissions of regional pollutants (e.g. ROG and NOx). The project would generate approximately 5,672 daily trips resulting in unmitigated emissions of 82.83 lbs per day of ROG, 115.44 lbs/day of NO2, and 41.77 lbs per day of PM10. This assumes a worst-case scenario of operations during the winter months. Operational emissions associated with the project are therefore within the thresholds established by the MBUAPCD. This would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Less Than Significant Impact – Localized Emissions of Carbon Monoxide. One of the MBUAPCD thresholds for screening for localized emissions of CO is a decrease in the level of service at intersections or road segments from LOS D or better to LOS E or LOS F. The level of service at the intersection of Del Monte Boulevard and Fremont Boulevard would decrease to below LOS E with implementation of the project. CO screening was conducted for this intersection. Under project conditions, the CO

2-30 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation concentration at this intersection would be 4.81 ppm, well below the threshold of 20 ppm. Screening was also preformed for State Highway 1 and State Highway 68 under cumulative conditions. CO concentrations at these highways were 1.7 and 1.1 respectively, below the threshold of 20 ppm. This would be a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.

2.4 Biological Resources

A Forest Management Plan was prepared for the project by Staub Forestry and Environmental Consulting in February 2002. The Forest Management Plan is included as Appendix C. A Biological Assessment Report was prepared for the project by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. in February 2002. The Biological Assessment Report is included as Appendix D. This section summarizes the information provided in these reports.

Regulatory Framework

Habitat Management Plan

The Department of the Army developed the Installation-Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan for Former Fort Ord, California (HMP) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1997), in compliance with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), to provide for incidental take of federally-listed species as will occur with implementation of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan (Fort Ord Reuse Authority 1997). A primary goal of the HMP is to promote preservation, enhancement and restoration of special-status plant and animal species and their habitats at former Fort Ord, while allowing economic recovery through reuse and development of the base. To achieve this goal, some parcels at former Fort Ord are designated for “Development,” with no restrictions, others have certain management guidelines or prescribed set-asides, and others are designated as habitat preserves with little or no development allowed.

The project site is located within an area designated “Development” in the HMP. Lands designated as “Development” have no management restrictions placed upon them as a result of the HMP. According to the HMP, the biological resources located in “Development” areas are not considered essential to the long-term preservation of sensitive species at former Fort Ord. Impacts to biological resources associated with development of these areas are mitigated in the HMP through the set-aside of habitat reserve areas within the boundaries of the former Fort Ord. The Biological Opinion issued on the HMP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS October 19, 1993) acknowledged development of these parcels, and addressed the impacts to species covered in the HMP. The USFWS Biological Opinion allows for development of these parcels with no additional mitigation required, but it also recommends identification of sensitive biological resources within these parcels that may be salvaged for use in restoration activities within reserve areas.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-31 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Implementing Agreement (IA) tiered from the HMP are currently being finalized and will be signed by the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), respectively. Once the HCP and IA are executed, the need for further consultation with the USFWS and CDFG and mitigation requirements for impacts to HMP resources in HMP-designated development areas, such as those affected by the proposed project, will be eliminated. However, until the HCP and IA are finalized, impacts to federal- and state-listed endangered or threatened species must be separatel.y addressed. At the federal level, prior to approval of the HCP, under the federal ESA, an entity that authorizes or carries out an action that could affect a federally-listed species must consult or confer with USFWS to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such species. Although the USFWS has signed the HMP and would not require further mitigation for projects that are in conformance with the HMP, entities without incidental take authorization would be in violation of the ESA if any of their actions result in the take of a listed species. At the state level, prior to approval of the IA, under Section 2081 of the California ESA, parties are directed to obtain authorization for “incidental-take” from the CDFG for actions that could affect state-listed species. It is important to note that the HMP includes species that are listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the state and/or federal ESA, and also includes several species that are not listed but are considered “species of special concern” by USFWS and/or CDFG. All species addressed in the HMP are collectively known as “HMP species.” However, there are also some species that are considered “species of special concern” by USFWS and/or CDFG or that are otherwise considered sensitive, such as plant species included on California Native Plant Society special plant lists, that are not addressed in the HMP. Although these species are not protected by the state or federal ESA, they are sensitive species that need to be considered during environmental review of proposed projects. Sensitive species that are not addressed in the HMP are collectively known as “non-HMP species.”

Fort Ord Reuse Plan Policies

The Conservation Element of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan contains several policies related to biological resources within the City of Seaside. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan and Fort Ord Lands General Plan Amendment to the Seaside General Plan contain parallel policies concerning biological resources of the project site and adjacent areas. Policies related to the project area are summarized below.

Biological Resources Policy A-4. The City shall encourage the preservation of small pockets of habitat and populations of HMP species within and around developed areas.

Biological Resources Policy B-1. The City shall strive to avoid or minimize loss of [non-HMP species] that are known or expected to occur in areas planned for development.

2-32 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The implementing programs for this policy require the City to direct project applicants to conduct reconnaissance-level surveys to verify the general description of resources provided in biological resource documents prepared for the former Fort Ord, to encourage project applicants to incorporate small pockets of habitat for sensitive species amidst the development, where feasible, and to encourage attempts to salvage sensitive resources impacted by development by collecting seed or cuttings of plants, transplanting vegetation, or capturing and relocating sensitive wildlife species.

Biological Resources Policy C-1. The City shall encourage that grading for projects in undeveloped lands be planned to complement surrounding topography and minimize habitat disturbance.

The implementing program for this policy requires the City to encourage project applicants to use landform grading techniques for 1) projects involving major changes to the existing topography, 2) large projects with several alternative lot and roadway design possibilities, 3) projects with known geological problem areas, or 4) projects with potential drainage problems requiring diverters, dissipaters, debris basins, etc.

Biological Resources Policy C-2. The City shall encourage the preservation and enhancement of oak woodland elements in the natural and built environments.

The implementing programs for this policy require the City to direct project applicants to submit a plot plan of the proposed development which: 1) clearly shows all existing trees (noting location, species, age, health, and diameter); 2) notes whether existing trees will be retained, removed or relocated; and 3) notes the size, species, and location of any proposed replacement trees. Further, implementing programs for this policy require oaks and other native plant species are to be used for project landscaping, and provide standards for plantings and paving under oak trees.

Biological Resources Policy C-3. Lighting of outdoor areas shall be minimized and carefully controlled to maintain habitat quality for wildlife in undeveloped natural lands. Street lighting shall be as unobtrusive as practicable and shall be consistent in intensity throughout development areas adjacent to undeveloped natural lands.

The implementing program for this policy requires the City to review lighting and landscape plans for all development applications to ensure consistency with this policy.

Biological Resources Policy D-1. The applicant shall implement a contractor education program that instructs construction workers on the sensitivity of biological resources in the vicinity and provides specifics for certain species that may be recovered and relocated from particular development areas.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-33 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Biological Resources Policy D-2. The City shall encourage and participate in the preparation of educational materials through various media sources which describe the biological resources on the former Fort Ord, discuss the importance of the HMP and emphasize the need to maintain and manage the biological resources to maintain the uniqueness and biodiversity of the former Fort Ord.

Where development will be adjacent to oak woodlands, the implementing programs for this policy require the City to direct project applicants to prepare a Homeowner’s Brochure which describes the importance of the adjacent land areas and provides recommendations for landscaping, and wildfire protection, as well as describes measures for protecting wildlife and vegetation in the adjacent habitat areas (i.e., access controls, pet controls, use of natives in the landscape, etc.).

City of Seaside Tree Ordinance

Chapter 8.54 of the City of Seaside Municipal Code provides regulations that control the removal, protection and preservation of trees within the City. Under Section 8.54.020, trees that are protected by this ordinance include all trees with a circumference of at least 20 inches measured at 24 inches above ground. Section 8.54.060 requires that proposed tentative maps specify any tree to be removed or altered and be accompanied by a brief statement of the reason for the removal or alteration. Under Section 8.54.070, all removed trees must be replaced with a minimum five-gallon approved specimen tree of a species and in an approved location. In addition, Section 8.54.080 requires protection of trees during construction activities.

Environmental Setting

Habitat Types

There are three distinct habitat types within the project site boundaries. The first consists of graded golf links covered by irrigated turf and planted trees. The majority of the trees are Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) planted approximately fifty years ago during the original construction of the golf courses and planted in rows adjacent to and in between links. The second consists of open sandy areas between links that are unmaintained and contain a mix of plants and trees native to local habitats, as well as established populations of weedy non-native invasive species. The third habitat is native coast live oak woodland, which occurs in pockets within the project site, particularly at the north and northeastern portions of the project site.

The coast live oak woodland understory existing on the project site has few weeds and is dominated by poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba) and hedge-nettle (Stachys sp.), while the open sandy areas between links contain significant populations of weeds, including rip gut grass (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), mustard (Brassica sp.), and hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis).

2-34 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

No wetlands, stream courses, or aquatic habitat exist within the project site. A map illustrating the location of sensitive habitat on the project site is included in the Biological Assessment Report.

Special-Status Plant Species

Several special-status plant species have been documented to occur, or potentially occur, within the project vicinity. A list of these special-status plant species and their potential to occur in the project vicinity is provided in Table 10.

No special-status plant species were identified within the project site during the site visits conducted by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. in September 2000 and May 2001. Monterey pine and Monterey cypress, which are considered species of concern by the USFWS Service where they exist as native forest, are located on the project site; however, the trees on the project site are planted, and not native to the project site. Therefore, they are not considered special-status species on the project site.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Several special-status wildlife species have been documented to occur, or potentially occur, within the project vicinity. A list of these special-status wildlife species and their potential to occur in the project vicinity is provided in Table 10.

Only one of these species, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes luciana), a federal and state species of special concern, has been documented within the project site boundaries. Presence of this species the was confirmed during field surveys conducted by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc., as multiple nests were found in all areas where coast live oak were identified in significant numbers. Coast live oak forest exists within portions of the project site, primarily in the northern and northeastern portions within proposed Phase I of the Vesting Tentative Map and the Hotel/timeshare area of the project site. These phases are illustrated on Figure 14.

Open sandy areas that exist within the project site are potential habitat for two additional wildlife species: black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra) and California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), which are state species of special concern. Open sandy areas that are marginally appropriate habitat for these species exist within portions of the project area. These open sandy areas are located within Phase I, Phase III, Phase IV, and Phase VI of the Vesting Tentative Map at the project site. These phases are illustrated on Figure 14.

Finally, individual trees within the project site are potential nest sites for a variety of raptors (birds of prey), which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the state Fish and Game Code.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-35 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 10 Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Reported to Occur or with the Potential to Occur within the Project Vicinity

Species Status General Potential to (USFWS/ Habitat Occur Within the CDFG/CNPS) Project Vicinity WILDLIFE Neotoma fuscipes luciana FSC/CSC/-- Forest habitats of moderate High. Woodrat Monterey dusky-footed canopy and moderate to dense nests observed on woodrat understory, also in chaparral. project site. Nests constructed of grass, leaves, sticks, feathers, etc. Populations may be limited by availability of nest materials. Ambystoma tigrinum FC/CSC/-- Annual grassland and grassy Unlikely. No californiense understory of valley-foothill habitat identified California tiger hardwood habitats in central and within project site. salamander northern California. Lack of aquatic habitat component. Anniella pulchra nigra --/CSC/-- Burrows in washes, dunes, sand, Medium Potential. Black legless lizard and loose soil near the bases of This species known slopes and near temporary or to occur locally. permanent water. Forages in leaf litter, under rocks, woody debris, and logs by day. Clemmys marmorata FSC/CSC/-- Inhabits permanent or nearly Unlikely. No pallida permanent bodies of water in habitat identified Southwestern pond turtle many habitat types. Requires within project site. basking sites such as partially Lack of aquatic submerged logs, vegetation mats, habitat component. or open mud banks. Phrynosoma coronatum --/CSC/-- Associated with open patches of Medium Potential. frontale sandy soils in washes, chaparral, This species known California horned lizard scrub, and grasslands. to occur locally. Nesting raptors --/CSC Tall trees in woodland areas Medium Potential. Nesting raptors known to occur locally. Euphilotes enoptes smithi FE/--/-- Most commonly associated with Unlikely. No Smith’s blue butterfly coastal dunes and coastal sage buckwheat scrub plant communities in identified on the Monterey and Santa Cruz project site. counties. Plant hosts are Erigonum latifolium and E. parvifolium.

2-36 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

PLANTS Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. FSC/--/1B Coastal scrub/serpentine. Unlikely. No hookeri manzanita Hooker’s manzanita identified on site. Arctostaphylos FSC/--/1B Chaparral, cismontane Unlikely. No montereyensis wilderness, coastal scrub/ sandy manzanita Monterey manzanita identified on site. Chorizanthe pungens var. FT/--/1B Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Medium Potential. pungens This species known Monterey spineflower to occur locally. Chorizanthe robusta var. FE/--/1B Cismontane woodland Medium Potential. robusta (openings), coastal dunes, This species known Robust spineflower coastal scrub. to occur locally. Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. FSC/SE/1B Closed-cone coniferous forests, Medium Potential. littoralis chaparral, cismontane This species known Seaside bird’s-beak woodlands, coastal dunes, to occur locally. coastal scrub/ sandy. Ericameria fasciculata FSC/--/1B Closed cone coniferous forest, Medium Potential. Eastwood’s goldenbush chapparal (maritime), coastal This species known dunes, coastal scrub. to occur locally. Erysimum ammophilum FSC/--/1B Coastal dunes. Unlikely. No Coast wallflower habitat identified within project site. Erysimum menziesii ssp. FE/SE/1B Coastal dunes. Unlikely. No yadonii habitat identified Yadon’s wallflower within project site. Gilia tenuiflora ssp. FE/ST/1B Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Medium Potential. arenaria This species known Sand gilia to occur locally. Piperia yadonii FE/--/1B Coastal bluff scrub, closed cone Medium Potential. Yadon’s rein orchid coniferous forests, chaparral/ This species known sandy. to occur locally. Horkelia cuneata ssp. FSC/--/1B Closed cone coniferous forests, Medium Potential. sericea coastal scrub. This species known Kellogg’s horkelia to occur locally. Pinus radiata FSC/--/1B Closed cone coniferous forests. Known. Identified Monterey pine on project site. (Planted – not native to site.) Cupressus macrocarpa FSC/--/1B Closed cone coniferous forests. Known. Identified Monterey cypress on project site. (Planted – not native to site.) Ceanothus cuneatus var. FSC/--/4 Sandy hills and flats of maritime Unlikely. No rigidus chaparral, closed-cone ceanothus identified Monterey ceanothus coniferous forest, coastal scrub. on site.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-37 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Eriastrum virgatum --/--/4 Coastal dunes and sandy Medium Potential. Virgate eriastrum openings in chaparral. This species known to occur locally. Lomatium parvifolium --/--/4 Chaparral and open pine forest. Medium Potential. Small-leaved lomatium This species known to occur locally. Monardella undulata --/--/4 Chaparral and coastal dunes and Medium Potential. Curly-leaved monardella scrub below 500 feet. This species known to occur locally. Piperia michaelii --/--/4 Coastal bluff scrub. Medium Potential. Purple-flowered piperia This species known to occur locally.

Key to Status Codes CSC CDFG species of concern FSC USFWS species of concern SE State Endangered ST State Threatened FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FC Federal Candidate for Listing as Threatened or Endangered 1B CNPS List 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere due to their limited or vulnerable habitat, their low numbers of individuals per population (even though they may be wide ranging), or their limited number of populations 4: CNPS List 4: Limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area of California, and their vulnerability or susceptibility to threat appears low at this time

Unlikely: The project area and/or immediate vicinity do not provide suitable habitat for a part particular species. Project area is outside of the species range.

Low Potential: Project area and/or immediate vicinity provides only limited habitat for a particular species. The known range for a particular species may be outside of the project area.

Medium Potential: The project area and/or immediate vicinity provide suitable habitat for a particular species, though there are no known sightings in the project area.

High potential: The project area and/or immediate vicinity provide ideal habitat conditions for a particular species and/or the species is known to occur in the project area.

Known: The species was identified in the project area. Source: Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. and California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database

Protected Trees

Chapter 8.54 of the City of Seaside Municipal Code provides regulations that control the removal, protection and preservation of trees within the City. Under Section 8.54.020, trees that are protected by this ordinance include all trees with a circumference of at least 20 inches (approximately six inches diameter) measured at 24 inches above ground.

2-38 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The Forest Management Plan indicates that trees on the project site include both planted Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees that are not native to the project site, and areas of native coast live oak woodland. Monterey cypress is the dominant tree species on the golf course parcel, providing approximately 65 percent of the total tree cover. Coast live oak provides 25 to 30 percent of the total tree cover, Monterey pine provides approximately five percent of the total tree cover, and eucalyptus provides less than one percent of the total tree cover. Table 11 summarizes tree coverage on the golf course parcel by type and percentage.

TABLE 11 Approximate Golf Course Parcel Tree Coverage

Tree Percent of Total Coverage Acres Monterey cypress 65 75 Coast live oak 29 33 Monterey pine 5 6 Eucalyptus 1 1 Total 100 115

Note: Numbers are approximate and have been adjusted to total 100 percent.

Source: Staub Forestry and Environmental Consulting and EMC Planning Group Inc.

Project Analysis The project would convert existing undeveloped land to hotel, timeshare, and residential uses, and modifications to some of the existing golf course facilities required to accommodate the project would result in the removal and/or disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Special-Status Plant Species The project would result in the removal of Monterey pine and Monterey cypress, which are considered species of concern by the USFWS where they exist as native forest; however, the trees on the project site are planted and not native to the project site. No other special-status plant species were identified on the project site.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Monterey dusky-footed woodrat relies on duff accumulated within oak woodlands to build nests and native understory plants for cover. Woodrat abundance is limited by the availability of duff. Disturbance and/or removal

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-39 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

of coast live oak woodland on the project site, including trimming or removal of oak trees, disturbance or removal of understory plants associated with the oak woodland, and removal of accumulating duff, could result in the loss of habitat for Monterey dusky- footed woodrat. Approximately 1.15 acres of oak woodland habitat have the potential to be affected by proposed hotel, timeshare, and residential construction activities. The relocated golf course maintenance facility could result in impacts to additional oak woodland. The remaining coast live oak habitat would be more fragmented than existing. Black legless lizard and California horned lizard. Although no individuals of these species were observed on the project site during site visits, portions of the project site provide potential habitat for these species. Disturbance and/or removal of open sandy areas on the project site could result in the loss of habitat for these species, if they are present. Approximately 1.8 acres of this habitat have the potential to be impacted by proposed hotel, timeshare, and residential construction activities. Small areas of this habitat could be affected by construction of the golf course maintenance facility and the new driving range could potentially affect a larger area of this habitat type.

Nesting raptors. Trees in and adjacent to the project site contain potential nesting habitat for raptors. Disturbance and/or removal of trees on the project site could result in the loss of nest sites, if active nests are present during construction.

Other Biological Resources

General Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat. Grading and construction activities associated with the project would require the removal of primarily turf or horticultural plantings, as well as some open sandy areas between links that are un-maintained and contain a mix of native and non-native plants and coast live oak woodland. Protected Trees. Trees larger than six inches in diameter are protected trees, as defined by City of Seaside Municipal Code Chapter 8.54. The Forest Management Plan concludes that a total of 996 trees larger than six inches in diameter would be removed from the project site, and 711 trees would be retained on the project site. Thus, approximately 58 percent of the trees on the project site would be removed, and approximately 42 percent would be retained. Approximately 257 coast live oak trees (33 over 24 inches in diameter), and approximately 441 Monterey cypress trees (206 over 24 inches in diameter) would be removed. An additional 75 trees of unspecified species might have to be removed to facilitate construction or to alleviate hazards near new buildings. Approximately 558 trees, or 56 percent of the trees to be removed, would be removed for the residential component.

Additional trees are likely to be removed for development of the new golf course maintenance facility. Table 12 summarizes approximate tree loss by project component.

2-40 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 12 Approximate Tree Loss by Project Component

Project Component Approximate Tree Loss

Hotel 71 Timeshare 292 Residential Streets 378 Residential Lots 180 Possible removal during construction 75 Resort project total 996

Relocated Golf Maintenance Facility unknown

Total 996 plus golf maintenance facility Source: Staub Forestry and Environmental Consulting, EMC Planning Group Inc.

The Forest Management Plan recommends replacement of trees removed over six inches in diameter. The trees should be replaced on the project site and elsewhere on the golf course parcel at a rate of 1:1. Coast live oaks should be replaced with coast live oaks, but Monterey cypress, Monterey pine and eucalyptus could be replaced with other tree species.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord would result in the loss of habitat, including oak woodland habitat. Implementation of the HMP and policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures presented below implement the policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Standards of Significance. As discussed above, the project area is located within areas designated “Development” in the HMP. Impacts to sensitive species and habitats within “Development” areas are anticipated and accommodated by the policies of the HMP. Large tracts of habitat have been set aside in the HMP as conservation areas to mitigate for loss of habitat for the affected species in “Development” areas. The following discussion of the “Development” designation contained on page 4-3 of the HMP is pertinent:

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-41 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Lands designated as ‘Development’ have no management restrictions placed upon them as a result of the HMP. The biological resources found on these parcels are not considered essential to the long-term preservation of sensitive species at former Fort Ord. The Biological Opinion allows for development of these parcels, but also requires identification of sensitive biological resources within these parcels that may be salvaged for use in restoration activities within reserve areas. The HMP does not exempt future landowners from complying with environmental regulations enforced by federal, state, and local agencies. This includes compliance with the federal ESA. However, implementation of the HMP will simplify future regulatory compliance by allowing USFWS and CDFG to issue permits and take authorizations easily.

Therefore, this impact analysis assumes that the HCP and IA tiered from the HMP will be signed by all the agencies responsible for its implementation, and that in the interim, implementation of the HMP will mitigate significant impacts to species and habitats covered under the HMP. Prior to finalizing the HCP and IA, the only actions required are addressing impacts to federal- and state-listed species, and species of special concern, and compliance with federal and state Endangered Species Act requirements, policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Seaside General Plan, and any other local ordinances protecting biological resources.

Potentially Significant Impact – Loss of Degradation of Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat. The project would result in the loss of turf and planted trees, open sandy areas between links that are un-maintained and contain a mix of native and non-native species, and coast live oak woodland. The project would result in reduction of habitat due to placement of structures and increased disturbance due to intensified human disturbance including noise, light, and traffic increases. However, the project site is currently impacted on a daily basis from human use, and the loss of these habitats located in “Development” areas is consistent with the assumptions included in the HMP. Mitigation measures presented herein are consistent with the HMP and policies and programs of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan and would minimize the loss of these habitats on the project site. Refer to discussion of impacts related to removal of protected trees, below. However, ground disturbances associated with grading and construction activities are likely to promote the spread of invasive exotic plant species, such as pampas grass and French broom, which could degrade habitat quality in the surrounding areas. In addition, lighting provided for the development could spill over into adjacent undeveloped woodland habitat and could potentially disturb wildlife species occurring there, restrict the movement or activity of wildlife species, or facilitate increased predation of wildlife species, which could potentially include special-status species. Restricted movement of wildlife species and increased predation of special-status species occurring as a result of increased levels of increased lighting would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of the project on general vegetation and wildlife habitat to a less than significant level.

2-42 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Mitigation Measures

9. Subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director, prior to any grading or site preparation activities, a grading plan for the project shall be prepared, demonstrating that construction grading will complement surrounding topography, minimize habitat disturbance, and utilize landform grading techniques to the greatest extent feasible.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director.

10. Prior to grading and construction activities, a revegetation plan shall be prepared that provides for revegetation of bare ground in order to minimize the spread of invasive exotics. The revegetation plan shall specify native plants as preferred landscaping materials. The revegetation plan shall incorporate tree replacement, protection, and maintenance recommendations provided in the Forest Management Plan prepared for the Seaside Resort project.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

11. Prior to grading and construction activities, a lighting plan shall be prepared that provides for street lighting to be minimized and carefully controlled, to the greatest extent feasible, to maintain habitat quality for wildlife in adjacent undeveloped areas. Street lighting shall be as unobtrusive as practical and shall be consistent in intensity throughout the development. Street lighting shall be of low stature and of a full cutoff design or include opaque shields to reduce illumination of the surrounding landscape. Lighting shall be directed away from open space areas.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

No Impact – Special-Status Plant Species. The project would result in the removal of Monterey pine and Monterey cypress, which are considered species of concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where they exist as native forest; however, the trees in the project area are planted and not native to the property, and, therefore, are not considered special-status species on the property. No other special-status plant species were

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-43 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR identified on the project site. The project would have no impact on special-status plant species.

Potentially Significant Impact – Special-Status Wildlife Species. The project could result in inadvertent loss of State and/or federal wildlife “species of special concern,” including Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, which is known to occur in the oak woodland habitat in the project area, and black legless lizard and coast horned lizard, which may occur in open sandy areas within the project area. In addition, should active raptor nests occur in or immediately adjacent to the project area, any construction and site preparation activities within or immediately adjacent to nest habitat, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults.

The loss of special-status wildlife species located in “Development” areas of the former Fort Ord is consistent with the assumptions included in the HMP. Implementation of the HMP will mitigate significant impacts to these species and maritime chaparral habitat. However, as directed by the HMP and policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan, sensitive biological resources must be identified and preserved where feasible. Implementation of a mitigation measure presented in Section 2.1 Aesthetics requiring a forester to assist in on-site adjustments to building placement, and the following mitigation measures, would reduce the impacts of the project on special- status wildlife species to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

12. To the greatest extent feasible, removal and/or substantial limbing of coast live oak trees and associated duff (accumulated organic material) and removal of understory native plant species within oak woodland habitat shall be avoided to minimize disturbance to Monterey dusky-footed woodrat habitat, and removal and/or disturbance to open sandy areas shall be avoided to minimize disturbance to potential black legless lizard and coast horned lizard habitat. Language to this effect shall be included in all construction documents. The project proponent shall arrange for a registered forester and/or biologist to observe grading and foundation preparation operations, and to assist in field adjustments of building locations to minimize habitat removal. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director. 13. In consultation with USFWS and CDFG, any special-status wildlife species occurring in the project area shall be salvaged and relocated from the project area. Special-status wildlife species potentially located in the project area include black legless lizard, coast horned lizard, and Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFG shall be obtained to provide for a wildlife biologist authorized to salvage and relocate special-status

2-44 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

wildlife species from the construction zone that may be uncovered during earthmoving activities. Recovered individuals shall be placed in appropriate habitat outside of the project area. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director. 14. Prior to grading and construction, if these activities are scheduled during the raptor nesting and/or breeding season (generally March 1 through August 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of trees located in and within 200 feet of the construction zone to determine if active raptor nests are present. If active nests are found within the survey area, clearing and construction within 200 feet of the active nest(s) shall be postponed or halted until the nest(s) are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, at the discretion of the biologist. Alternatively, tree removal and other construction activities can be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. Language to this effect shall be included in all construction documents. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director. 15. Prior to commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a contractor education program to inform workers of sensitive biological resources in the area, the potential presence of special-status species and their protected status, work boundaries, and measures to be implemented to avoid loss of these species during construction activities.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements..

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

16. Prior to grading and construction activities, the grading limits shall be temporarily delineated (e.g., staked or flagged) to avoid inadvertent removal of plants or habitat degradation of areas not proposed for grading and construction. No earthmoving, dumping of spoils, storage of construction materials, staging of equipment, or disposal of construction-related spoils shall be allowed outside the delineated area.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-45 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

17. During construction, all food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the project area to avoid attracting wildlife to the project area. Language to this effect shall be included in all construction documents.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Building Division.

18. During construction, pets on the construction site shall be confined to vehicles or building interiors, or leashed or tethered within areas disturbed by the construction. Language to this effect shall be included in all construction documents.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Building Division.

19. Prior to occupancy, for development that is proposed adjacent to oak woodland habitat, a homeowner’s brochure shall be designed and distributed that describes the importance of the adjacent land area and provides recommendations for landscaping and wildlife protection, as well as measures for protecting wildlife and vegetation in the adjacent habitat area (i.e., access controls, pet controls, use of native landscaping, etc.).

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of residential component. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Potentially Significant Impact – Loss of Protected Trees. Within the City of Seaside, Chapter 8.54 of the City of Seaside Municipal Code establishes regulations that control the removal, protection and preservation of trees within the City. Under Section 8.54.020, trees that are protected by this ordinance include all trees with a circumference of at least 20 inches (approximately six inches diameter) measured at 24 inches above ground. Section 8.54.060 requires that proposed tentative maps specify any tree to be removed or altered and be accompanied by a brief statement of the reason for the removal or alteration. Under Section 8.54.070, all removed trees must be replaced with a minimum five-gallon approved specimen tree of a species and in an approved location. In addition, Section 8.54.080 requires protection of trees during construction activities.

2-46 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Trees regulated by Chapter 8.54 of the City of Seaside Municipal Code are located in the project area. Although specific tree removal plans have not been prepared, based on analysis provided in the Forest Management Plan prepared for the hotel, timeshare, and residential components of the project it is expected that grading and construction activities associated with those components of the project would require the removal of approximately 996 protected trees, including 71 trees for the main hotel, bungalows, and parking lot, 292 trees for timeshare, parking, and streets, 378 trees for residential streets, 75 trees for infrastructure improvements, and 180 trees for residential lots. As many as 75 additional trees could be removed based on decisions made during construction of the project, based on safety issues with trees located close to structures or roads. Construction of the new golf course maintenance facility would result in the removal of additional trees. Trees within the project area occur within the highly altered landscape of two 18-hole golf courses. The vast majorities of trees are planted and are distributed individually and in narrow linear strips separated and affected by golf course turf. The planted trees do not have high ecological significance. Given the limited ecological function and value provided by the trees on the project site, the Forest Management Plan provides several recommendations to mitigate tree removal. First, the Forest Management Plan recommends on-site replacement at a 1:1 replacement ratio to be included as part of a comprehensive landscape plan, as well as pruning and maintenance measures. In order to implement the recommended mitigation program for protected trees, the Forest Management Plan provides recommendations regarding species selection, size of replacement trees, and general locations for replacement plantings. Second, the Forest Management Plan specifies tree protection measures to minimize construction impacts to retained trees, including primary tree protection, root protection, truck protection, and crown protection recommendations. Finally, the Forest Management Plan provides other maintenance recommendations to improve the condition of current trees on the property, as well as replacement trees to be planted. Mitigation measures presented in Section 2.1 Aesthetics would reduce potential impacts to protected trees to a less than significant level.

2.5 Cultural Resources A preliminary archaeological reconnaissance was prepared by Archaeological Consulting on November 14, 2000. This report is summarized herein.

Environmental Setting

Regional Setting The project area lies within the currently recognized ethnographic territory of the Costanoan (often called Ohlone) linguistic group. This group followed a general hunting and gathering subsistence pattern with partial dependence on the natural acorn

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-47 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR crop. Habitation is considered to have been semi-sedentary and occupation sites can be expected most often at the confluence of streams, other areas of similar topography along streams, or in the vicinity of streams. These original sources of water may no longer be present or adequate. Also, resource gathering and processing areas, and associated temporary campsites, are frequently found on the coast and in other locations containing resources utilized by the group. Factors, which influence the location of these sites include the presence of suitable exposures of rock for bedrock mortars, or other milling activities, ecotones, the presence of specific resources (oak groves, marshes, quarries, game trails, trade routes etc.), proximity to water, and the availability of shelter. Temporary camps or other activity areas can also be found along ridges or other travel corridors.

Project Vicinity A field reconnaissance was conducted by Mary Doane, B.A. and Anna Runnings, M.A. of Archaeological Consulting on November 13 and 14, 2000. The survey consisted of a “general surface reconnaissance” of portions of the project site which could reasonably be expected to contain visible cultural resources, and which could be viewed without major vegetation removal or excavation. All of the areas designated for development as residential lots, timeshares, hotel or roadways and parking lots were subject to the pedestrian reconnaissance. At the time of the archaeological reconnaissance most of the project site designated for development as residential lots was vegetated with Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, eucalyptus trees, and short wild grasses. Some areas were recently cleared. Duff was heavy only in a few areas and the visibility of soil was generally good. Overall, soil surface visibility was considered adequate for the purposes of the reconnaissance. Archaeological Consulting also conducted background research for the project site, including an examination of the archaeological site records, maps, and project files of the Northwest Regional Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory, located at Sonoma State University. Private files and maps owned by Archaeological Consulting were examined for supplemental information. The California Inventory of Historical Resources (March 1976), California Historical Landmarks, and the National Register of Historic Places were checked for listed cultural resources, which might be present in the project area.

Project Analysis

Based upon the background research and the field reconnaissance, the archaeologist determined that the project area contains no surface evidence of significant archaeological resources. The record search of the files at the Northwest Regional Information Center and the examination of Archaeological Consulting’s records showed that there are no recorded archaeological sites located on, or within one kilometer of, the project site. There was no evidence of a previous archaeological reconnaissance survey having included the project site. No historic resources were discovered.

2-48 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord would potentially disturb significant cultural resources. Policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures presented below implement these policies.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance or a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5;

• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;

• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and

• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Potentially Significant Impact — Disturbance of Buried Cultural Resources. Although no cultural resources were found during the field reconnaissance or are anticipated to occur at the project site, unknown buried cultural resources may potentially be disturbed during grading and site preparation activities at the project site. Disturbance of a cultural resource would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 20. Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources may be found during construction, the City of Seaside shall ensure that this language is included in all construction contracts: If historical or unique archaeological resources are accidentally discovered during construction, work shall be halted at a minimum of 200 feet from the find and the area shall be staked off. The project proponent shall notify the Director of the Archaeological Regional Research Center to arrange for an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. The qualified archaeologist shall determine whether or not the site is a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a). If it is determined that the site is a historical resource, the City of Seaside shall refer to the provisions of CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 and the provisions of section 15126.4 of the Public Resources Code to determine the significant environmental effects of the project on this historical resource. If the archaeological site does not meet the

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-49 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

criteria defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, the preferred project site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of this section. If it is found that the project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the City of Seaside shall require that reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Some of the measures to be taken in the event of a discovery include: planning future construction to avoid the archaeological site; deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements; capping or covering archaeological site with a layer of soil before building on the sites; and/or planning parks, greenspace or other open space to incorporate the archaeological sites in the site plan.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements..

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Potentially Significant Impact — Accidental Discovery or Recognition of Human Remains. During construction and grading activities at the project site, the accidental discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery may occur. This is considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact to Native American burial sites. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, this potentially significant adverse environmental impact to Native American human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

21. The City of Seaside shall ensure that this language is included in all construction contracts, in the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e):

If human remains are found during construction there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of Monterey County is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated

2-50 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements..

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

No Impact – Paleontological Resources. Based on information in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan, no paleontological resources are anticipated to exist at the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary.

2.6 Geology and Soils

Haro, Kasunich, & Associates, Inc. prepared a geotechnical investigation for the project site in June 2001. This report is summarized and supplemented with additional information herein. The geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix E.

Regulatory Framework

Seaside General Plan

Seismic and Geologic Hazards Policy A-1. The City of Seaside shall develop standards and guidelines and require their use in new construction to provide the greatest possible protection for human life and property in areas where there is a risk of seismic or geologic occurrence.

Soil and Geology Policy A-5: Before issuing a grading permit, the City shall require that geotechnical reports be prepared for developments proposed on soils that have limitations as substrates for construction or engineering purposes, including limitations concerning slope and soils that have piping, low strength, and shrink swell potential. The City shall require

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-51 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

that engineering and design techniques be recommended and implemented to address these limitations.

These policies provide standard precautions for geotechnical reports and earthquake resistant design for all structural components of projects.

Environmental Setting

Soils

Soil Types. Soils on the project site include Baywood sand, two to 15 percent slopes (BbC) and Oceano loamy sand, two to 15 percent slopes (OaD). The Baywood series consists of somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in stabilized sand dunes with slopes varying from two to five percent. Permeability of this soil is rapid and the available water capacity is 2.5 to three inches. The Oceano soil series consists of excessively drained soils that formed in eolian sands on old stabilized sand dunes. Slopes generally range from two to 15 percent. Permeability of this soil is rapid and the available water holding capacity is about four inches.

Erosion. Erosion is a natural process caused by wind, water, or gravitational forces. This process generally creates two problems: 1) soil removal or erosion of soil from a site and its subsequent deposit to another site, and 2) sedimentation. The hazard of surface runoff and erosion are high once grading begins and vegetation is removed from the project site. Soil erosion control measures may prevent additional topsoil from being eroded at the project sites that have rapid water runoff and a high erosion hazard. Both the Oceano and the Baywood soils have slow to moderate runoff with an erosion hazard rating of slight to moderate.

Shrink Swell Potential. Shrink swell potential refers to the change in volume of the soil material that results from a change in content of moisture. Much damage to building foundations, roads, and other structures is caused by shrinking and swelling of soils as they become wet or dry. The Oceano and Baywood soil series at the project site have a low shrink swell potential.

Geology

Geologic Characteristics. The project site is within the area of the USGS Marina Quadrangle and consists of a low, coastal topographic setting within the Salinas River Valley. The Sierra de Salinas and Gabilan Ranges border this valley on the southwest and northwest sides, respectively. The project site is within the Salinian block, a tectonic subprovince of the northwest trending Coast Ranges, characterized by a granitic bedrock and high-grade metamorphic rocks. The bedrock is overlain by Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocks. Within the Salinian block, the Salinas Valley itself is fault-bounded on the southwest by a

2-52 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

northwest trending fault system made up of the Rinconada, Reliz, and King City Faults. In general, these faults have a steep, southwest to near-vertical dip and a right lateral oblique sense of movement with the northwest (valley) side down. The valley consequently is both a topographic and geologic structural feature. As a geologic structure, the valley is known as the Salinas Basin. In cross section, it contains several thousand feet of Tertiary sediments in the faulted southwestern edge, rising and thinning to the northeast where basement is exposed in the Gabilan Range. The project area is mapped as older stabilized dune and drift sands (Qos). This material consists of weakly consolidated, well-sorted, fine to medium grained sand deposited in an extensive coastal dune field in the former Fort Ord area. Thickness ranges from two to 25 meters. High porosity and permeability are the norm, except at the surface where a moderate degree of soil development results in decreased porosity and permeability. This parent material is generally well drained and has a low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction.

Faults and Seismicity. A number of active and potentially active faults have been mapped in the vicinity of the project site. The San Andreas Fault zone is located approximately 22 miles northeast of the site. Ground rupture occurred along the San Andreas fault during the earthquake of April 18, 1906 from Marin County to San Juan Bautista. The City of Seaside is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, per the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 (California Division of Mines and Geology, 2002). There are a series of short, sub-parallel faults on the floor of the Monterey Bay. Some of these faults are “active,” while other faults in this fault zone are considered “potentially active.” The Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault extension is approximately two miles to the southwest of the site. Other potentially active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the Rinconada, King City Fault System, located approximately 3.5 miles northeast; and the San Gregorio-Palo Colorado system, located approximately 12 miles southwest. The precise locations and activity status of these faults are unknown. More than 90 years have passed since the last great earthquake and 10 years since the strong October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on the San Andreas Fault zone. It is probable that another major earthquake in Northern California will occur during the lifetime of the project. Table 13 identifies the significant active faults in the vicinity of the project site. The fault system closest to the project site with the shortest recurrence interval is the San

Gregorio, which is a Type A fault. The maximum expected magnitude (Mw = moment magnitude) of an earthquake occurring on the San Gregorio fault system located 12 miles from the project site is 7.3. The peak horizontal ground accelerations were calculated at 0.34g for the project site.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-53 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 13

Significant Faults in the Vicinity of the Project Site

Fault Name Distance to R.I. Mmax Slip Rate UBC Fault Site (year) Type San Andreas 22 miles 400 7.9 24 A San Gregorio 12 miles 400 7.3 5 A Monterey Bay – 2 miles 2,600 7.1 0.5 B Tularcitos (includes Navy Fault) Rinconada 3.5 miles 1,700 7.3 1 B

Source: Haro, Kasunich and Associates

The hazard of fault surface rupture is primarily associated with traces of active and potentially active faults. A fault is considered active if it can be shown to cut Holocene (less than 11,000 years old) strata and potentially active if it has had fault movement between 10,000 years and 1.8 million years (Pleistocene) before present or it has not been shown to be overlain by unfaulted strata reliably dated as at least 1.8 million years old (Pleistocene).

Faults can be logically connected to the tectonic regime of the plate boundary San Andreas Fault, either as parallel displacement, parts of the San Andreas system itself (as defined by Crowell, 1975), or as shears of the second order to this fault system would be considered potentially active unless overlain by unfaulted, accurately dated 1.8 million year-old strata.

The King City Fault, a portion of a much larger fault system (including Monterey Bay, King City, Reliz and Riconada Faults) passes approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 km) northeast of the subject area, but is poorly located and not known today to be exposed at the surface.

Seismically – Induced Liquefaction and Dynamic Densification. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which water saturated, cohesionless sediments lose strength during an earthquake. Major landslides, lateral movement of bridge supports, settling and titling of buildings and failure of waterfront retaining structures have resulted from seismically- induced liquefaction. During the 1906 earthquake extensive liquefaction damage occurred along broad areas near the Salinas River and at many other localities in this region. The basic criteria needed to produce this phenomenon includes: 1) water saturation; 2) well-sorted cohesionless sand or silt-size sediments; 3) an earthquake. The

2-54 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

explanation is highly simplified because other parameters such as grain size distribution, relative density, thickness of strata, confining pressure and recurrence intervals of critical durations of earthquake stress cycles are needed for site specific analysis of liquefaction.

Liquefaction is assumed to occur where the factor of safety is less than 1.20. In general, a factor of safety range between1.20 and 1.50 is assumed for design purposes to account for uncertainty. The factors of safety at the project site fall below 1.50, however liquefaction remains unlikely because of the non-saturated conditions at the project site for the depths explored. Haro Kasunich & Associates conducted a study of liquefaction potential on the project site. Based on groundwater conditions encountered during site investigations, the project site is not subject to liquefaction during seismic events. A more detailed investigation of the hotel site indicted the same.

Dynamic densification is the settling, or compaction of non-saturated cohesionless soils during an earthquake. Typically, the soils must be very loose, or very deep for dynamic densification to occur. Haro Kasunich & Associates concluded that portions of the project site are subject to dynamic densification.

Project Analysis

The geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. However, as with any project built in a seismically active area, there is the potential that damage from an earthquake would occur. Constructing buildings in accordance with the Uniform Building Code would minimize the danger of damage from earthquakes. More detailed geotechnical engineering for specific buildings is recommended by Haro Kasunich & Associates.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that certain soil types on the former Fort Ord, including the Baywood soils found on the project site, would be subject to severe limitations for construction of buildings. Policies and programs in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan were found to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures presented below enact these policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

• Expose people of structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

◊ 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;

◊ Strong seismic ground shaking;

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-55 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

◊ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or landslides.

• Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil;

• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;

• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;

• Having soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

Less Than Significant Impact – Fault Rupture, Groundshaking, Seismic Related Ground Failure. According to the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, the City of Seaside is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. However, seismic hazards at the project site are considered high. The active faults that have been mapped in the area include the San Andreas, the Monterey Bay Fault, Riconada Fault, and San Gregorio Fault. No active faults have been mapped within the project site. Therefore, the hazard due to direct fault rupture within the project site is low. Severe groundshaking at the project site would be expected during a severe earthquake. Although the nearest source of such an earthquake is the Monterey Bay fault zone, the more likely sources of major earthquakes during the life cycle of the project is the San Andreas and San Gregorio fault system. Since bedrock is deep and underlain by thick dense soils, ground motions at this site are likely to be characteristic of short durations, low to moderate amplitudes and higher predominant frequencies when loose soils are present. However, the effects of ground shaking at the project site are anticipated to be reduced by earthquake resistant design required by the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Less Than Significant Impact – Landsliding. The topography at the project site is generally rolling with slopes between two and 15 percent. Based on the topographical characteristics of the site, the potential for landslides to occur at the project site is slim to none resulting in a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Less Than Significant Impact – Liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction during seismic events at the project site is low based on the groundwater level at the project site. Therefore this would be a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Potentially Significant Impact – Dynamic Densification. Due to the cohesionless characteristic of soils on the project site, there is the potential that settlement of non- saturated soils could occur during an earthquake. Construction of buildings on soils with potential for settlement could result in damage to buildings during earthquakes.

2-56 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

22. Subject to the review and approval of the Seaside Public Works Director, the applicant shall have a engineering geotechnical report prepared to address site preparation measures and foundation designs appropriate to the potential dynamic densification characteristic of the project site soils.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Department.

Short-Term Potentially Significant Impact – Soil Erosion. The project would involve grading approximately 89,000 cubic yards of soil, balancing cut and fill at the project site. The soil series at the project site include the Oceano and the Baywood soil series. These soils have slow to moderate runoff with an erosion hazard rating of slight to moderate. Therefore, there is the potential for the project to result in erosion and the subsequent sedimentation into surrounding sensitive habitat areas during site preparation and construction activities associated with the project. This is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

23. The applicant shall incorporate soil erosion control measures into plans for site preparation and construction activities prior to approval of final improvement plans by the City of Seaside for all proposed improvements. These measures shall be monitored for effectiveness by the City of Seaside. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:

a. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation disturbance removal to the minimum area necessary for access and construction;

b. Confine all vehicular traffic associated with construction to the right-of-way of designated access roads;

c. Adhere to construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds;

d. Ensure that all exposed soil is provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down during the winter periods; and

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-57 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

e. Inform construction personnel prior to construction and periodically during construction activities of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the proposed erosion control measures.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director; City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Less Than Significant Impact – Expansive Soils. The project would not be located on expansive soil that would result in substantial risks to life or property. Therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.

2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Regulatory Framework

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

The United States Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:

• Short-term removals where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response.

• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL).

The National Contingency Plan (NCP) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants was revised after CERCLA was prepared.

2-58 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986. SARA reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. Title III of SARA also authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPA 2001).

Resource Conservation Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. s/s 6901 et seq.) of 1976 gave EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non- hazardous wastes.

The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities and does not address abandoned or historical sites.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program (EPA 2000).

Environmental Setting

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the Site 33 portion of the project site for the applicant in October 2000 by D & M Consulting Engineers, Inc. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is included in Appendix F. Site 33 is identified in Figure 20.

Regional Setting

The project site is located within the former Fort Ord. The U.S. Army established the former Fort Ord in 1917 as a maneuver area and a field artillery target range. Prior to the base closing in September 1994, the primary mission of the base was training infantry military personnel.

Several areas of contamination exist on the former U.S. Army base. The facility contained a number of hazardous material liabilities including: leaking underground petroleum storage tanks, contaminated waste oil and various automotive chemicals, chemical storage areas, oil-waste separators, target ranges, and landfills. Because of the extent of hazardous waste present, the former Fort Ord was added to the U.S.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-59 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List of Hazardous Waste Sites (also known as the “Superfund” list) in February 1990. Remediation efforts, which take place as part of the Superfund process are regulated by RCRA, CERCLA, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, the California Code of Regulations Title 22 and Title 23, the California Water Code, and other regulations. The U.S. Army is responsible for conducting the Superfund cleanup of the former Fort Ord, which includes the identification, remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater, and the disposal of hazardous waste. The EPA is the lead agency for regulatory enforcement and oversight of Superfund activities. This cleanup must occur prior to the final conveyance of the land by the U.S. Army (EPA 2001).

A remedial investigation/feasibility study has been approved by the regulatory agency signatories to the federal facilities agreement. This agreement provides for identification and remediation criteria for the eventual certifying of the lands as clean or protective of human health and environment. The federal facilities agreement, as well as the remedial action record of decision, identified the U.S. Army’s responsibility for long-term monitoring and cleanup. They will serve as a key document for the Fort Ord communities action in acquiring Public and Economic Benefit Conveyance land at Fort Ord as well as a timeframe and set of criteria for measuring the suitability of land for development and reuse (FORA 1997).

Ordnance and Explosives. Ordnance and explosives (OE) including the sub-set of unexploded ordnance (UXO) are composed of: bombs, artillery, mortar, rocket and small arms ammunition, mines, demolition charges, pyrotechnics, grenades, high explosives and propellants.

Most of the OE material is in the inland rainfire ranges. This area consists of the 8,000- acre inland range area, which includes unexploded ordnance. Underground wastes, which could result from leaching of surface residue from these OE, have also been evaluated as part of the installation-wide remedial investigation/feasibility study. The higher density of unexploded ordnance and spent ammunition is expected in the central portion of the inland range area. Lower densities of unexploded ordnance are expected in the outer portions of the inland range area and in the training areas to the north and east of the inland range area. Coastal beach firing ranges are also included in the classification of lower density of OE and UXO.

Identification of these sites is detailed in the Ordnance and Explosive Waste and Archive Search Report and cleanup of the sites is detailed in the remedial action record of decision. In addition, the U.S. Army and the BLM have completed the Site Use Management Plan for Land Transfer and Reuse of the OE ranges.

2-60 EMC Planning Group Inc. Source: D & M Consulting Engineers and USGS

Not to Scale

Figure 20 Location of Site 33 Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

2-62 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The site use plan is characterized by four levels, which represent current expectations for future public use after the site has been remediated to the fullest extent possible: 1) U - unrestricted to the public, 2) UB - unrestricted to BLM personnel only, 3) LA - limited access for specific uses for as limited pedestrian and non-motorized areas with high impact OE and is off-limits to the general public. The restricted areas are fenced and access is severely limited providing only for BLM training exercises, fire suppression, and habitat monitoring. These areas contain a high density of OE/UXO that will only be cleared if new technology allows for cost-effective clearance (FORA 1997). A review of records of OE use revealed that no OE locations are located within or immediately adjacent to the project site.

Project Site Conditions

Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST)

The FOST for the project site was completed in 1998. The purpose of the FOST was to evaluate the suitability of the site for transfer from the U.S. Army to the City of Seaside, based on a review of existing environmental documents and the results of several site inspections. The FOST included a review of previously prepared documents that determined the environmental conditions of the property and the results of several visual site inspections. According to the FOST, an underground petroleum storage tank was removed from the project site in May 1992. Although petroleum hydrocarbons remained in the soil at concentrations exceeding Monterey County Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health (MCDEH) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) cleanup levels, both agencies granted closure to the underground storage tank case. Two double-walled above ground storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel fuel are currently located on the project site. A solid waste management unit, a metal storage locker used to store hazardous wastes, is located adjacent to the north side of the golf course maintenance building, building 4110.

The FOST also reported that pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides were historically used at the project site and chemicals were mixed in an unlined depression near the golf course maintenance buildings between 1954 and 1989. No information regarding the type or quantities of chemicals was available. A subsurface investigation was conducted to evaluate the potential that pesticides released to the soil were a threat to human health or the environment. Pesticides, herbicides, and metals were detected in soil, at concentrations below the alternate preliminary remediation goals. The result of the Human Health Risk Assessment, which considered exposure of golf course maintenance workers, indicated that adverse health effects are not expected for the proposed reuse of the project site. A survey of asbestos-containing building material was conducted for buildings 4109 and 4110 located at the golf course maintenance facility. Building 4109 contained no asbestos-containing building material. Non-friable asbestos-containing building

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-63 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

materials, rated as in good condition and not in need of immediate repair, were found in Building 4110. The U.S. Army did not conduct an assessment of lead based paint on the site because the buildings were not being used as residences. However, both of the buildings were constructed before 1978 and are presumed to contain lead-based paint.

During a 1990 radon survey, no radon levels above the standard of four picocuries per liter were detected at the project site. No transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) remained on the property, and no releases of PCB-containing dielectric fluids were reported.

A review of records of OE use revealed no OE locations within or immediately adjacent to the site. However, the FOST states that because OE were used through the history of Fort Ord, “the potential for OE to be present on the property exists and will be included on the deed.”

The FOST concluded that the property is environmentally suited for transfer from the U.S. Army to the City of Seaside for non-residential reuse. However, restrictions and covenants prohibit the use of Site 33 of the project site for residential or hotel use without further remediation.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Site 33 was prepared according to ASTM practices and included the following: a review of the FOST prepared by the U.S. Army for the project site in 1998; a search of the regulatory database of known underground storage tanks, landfills, hazardous waste generation or treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and subsurface contamination in the surrounding area within one mile of the center of the site by VISTA Information Solutions, Inc.; a review of available Monterey County Environmental Health Department hazardous material files for the project site; a review of documents pertaining to environmental conditions related to the former use of the project site by the U.S. Army as part of the Fort Ord Military Reservation; review of the available Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner files regarding site agricultural chemical use, spills, or violations; a review of the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources map of known drilled oil and gas wells on and in the vicinity of the project site; research of the site history using a set of aerial photographs covering the project site and adjacent area; an interior and exterior site reconnaissance for obvious evidence of potential contamination; and an interview with Patrick Finlen, Director of Golf Course Maintenance for Bayonet and Black Horse Golf Courses to inquire about past and present uses at the project site.

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project confirmed the determination by the FOST that pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides have been stored and mixed on the site since the early 1950s. From the 1950s until the 1980s, chemicals were mixed in an unlined depression north of Buildings 4109 and 4110 at the existing resort. A subsurface investigation conducted in 1993 and 1994 revealed that residual concentrations of pesticides and herbicides remained in concentrations of the chemicals of concern were lower than Alternate Preliminary Remediation Goals developed for the

2-64 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

site also reported to be within the U.S. EPA’s acceptable cancer risk range. The report of the 1993/1994 investigation mentions only one former mixing area in two unlined depressions.

It was determined that gasoline leaked from a 500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank was removed from the site in 1992. A total of 1,350 cubic yards of soil were excavated, and the affected soil was removed from the site. With the approval by the MCEHD, soil with concentrations of diesel as high as 850 ppm and gasoline as high as 190 ppm were left in place at a depth of about 25 feet. The results of vadose-zone leaching and ground water mixing models suggested an environmental concern would not be expected, although a human health risk assessment was not performed. The MCEHD and the RWQCB granted closure to the fuel leak case.

Two 500-gallon storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel fuel are located on the site. The storage tanks are situated in a bermed concrete containment area, but the adjacent fuel loading area is unpaved. Pesticides, herbicides, fungicide, fresh and waste oil, solvent, and paints are currently stored in metal cabinets or sheds on a concrete pad adjacent to Building 4109. Chemicals are mixed on the same pad in the application tanks.

Regulatory Database Search. A VISTA database search was conducted for the project site. The VISTA report presents the results of a search of 18 federal and/or State databases, along with a description of each database that lists addresses of sites of known underground storage tanks, landfills, hazardous waste generation or treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and subsurface contamination in the surrounding area up to within one mile of the center of the site.

The goal of reviewing the database report is to identify facilities that have known documented environmental problems that may negatively affect the project site. The VISTA report included several listings for Fort Ord, which is a Federal Superfund site, but did not include any listings at the project site specifically.

Project Analysis

The project proposes constructing timeshare units at the location of the existing maintenance facility, or Site 33, a portion of the project site that contains residual concentrations of pesticides and herbicides in the soil. Subsequently, a deed restriction was placed on this portion of the project site precluding residential use.

Two 500-gallon above ground storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel fuel are currently located within Site 33 adjacent to the maintenance building at the project site. The above ground storage tanks appear to be in good condition and are provided with secondary containment. However, the adjacent fuel loading area is unpaved. No obvious staining of the soil was observed during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, however it is possible that small spills during loading may have affected the shallow subsurface soil in a limited area adjacent to the above ground storage tanks. Site 33 is proposed as the location for a portion of the proposed timeshare units.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-65 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that as a result of redeveloping currently contaminated lands the proposed project could potentially expose the public to risks from hazardous and toxic materials. The proposed timeshare uses were not included on the project site in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and are not addressed in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR. A mitigation measure presented below address the new residential-type uses at the location of an identified hazardous materials site.

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that unexploded ordnance presented a significant safety risk, and that policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would not reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures presented below were included in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • 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 a public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and/or • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands areas are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

No Impact - Public/Private Airport. The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles from the Monterey Peninsula Airport and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing in or working in the project area and a less than significant impact is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.

2-66 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

No Impact – Wildland Fires. The project site is located within an urbanized area. Therefore the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No mitigation measures are necessary.

No Impact – Use of Hazardous Materials at the Project Site. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project would not emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Potentially Significant Impact - Ordnance and Explosives. The U.S. Army’s FOST prepared for the project in 1998 conducted a review of the records of OE use at the project site. The FOST revealed that no OE locations were located within or immediately adjacent to the site. However, the FOST stated that because OE were used through the history of Fort Ord that the potential for OE to be present on the property exists and would need to be included on the deed. Mitigation measures are provided in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR, in the unlikely event that any unexploded ordnance is found within the project area. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would decrease potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from unexploded ordnance to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

24. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project site shall be reviewed by the Presidio of Monterey, Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources Management (DENR), to determine if the project is planned within known or potential Ordnance and Explosives (OE) areas. If the DENR determines that the project is within such an area, then as part of construction plan specifications, the project contractor shall have an U.S. Army-approved plan for OE avoidance, and the avoidance shall be performed by a trained OE specialist. As part of construction plan specifications and the plan for OE avoidance, the contractor, construction crews, and subcontractors shall stop all work and contact the Federal police when ordnance is found.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Presidio of Monterey (DENR)

25. As part of all improvement plan specifications and before construction activities commence on the project, all construction supervisors and crews shall attend a U.S. Army sponsored OE safety debriefing. This briefing shall identify the variety of OE that is expected to exist on the installation and the actions to be taken if a suspicious item is discovered.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-67 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Presidio of Monterey (DENR)

Potentially Significant Impact – Contaminated Soils. Pesticides and herbicides have been historically stored and used at the project site since the early 1950s. Activities have included mixing of these chemicals in unlined depressions in unpaved areas of the existing maintenance facility at the project site, known as Site 33. Investigations were performed by various consulting firms from 1983 to 1996 on behalf of the U.S. Army, including chemical testing of soil samples at the project site. In addition, the applicant recently completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project. Extensive soil testing at the project site revealed the presence of five pesticides (dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDT), two herbicides (dicamba and 2,4-D) and several metals within the soil. The investigations concluded that these compounds are not expected to migrate to the groundwater over a 100-year period if not remediated.

The risk evaluation prepared for the project site indicated that the thresholds were not exceeded for commercial uses for at Site 33 for the project site. Therefore, based on existing uses, no further action was required by the U.S. Army. However a deed restriction prohibiting residential usage was required by the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the RWQCB. The project proposes constructing timeshare units at this location. Construction of timeshare units at a location where the level of soils contamination from pesticides has been found to be too high for residential uses would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

26. If Site 33 has not been previously remediated by the U. S. Army prior to construction on Timeshare Parcel A, the applicant shall enter into a voluntary clean up agreement with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. As part of this process, the applicant shall prepare a work plan for excavation of the contaminated soil. During excavation the applicant shall collect soil samples from the sides and floor of the excavation. After excavation, the applicant shall conduct a screening risk assessment, using the data from the clearance samples, to demonstrate that the site has been remediated to levels acceptable for residential use. Clean-up of the soils at the project site shall be in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations governing the clean-up and disposal of hazardous materials and shall be certified as complete by the Monterey County Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health and the Department of Toxic Substances and Control. Clean-up and disposal of the hazardous materials, and a lifting of the deed restriction, shall occur prior to construction of the proposed project.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent for timeshare component.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Monterey County Environmental Health Department.

2-68 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Potentially Significant Impact – Hazardous Materials. Two 500-gallon above ground storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel fuel are currently located within Site 33 adjacent to the maintenance building at the project site. The above ground storage tanks appear to be in good condition and are provided with secondary containment. However, the adjacent fuel loading area is unpaved. No obvious staining of the soil was observed during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, however it is possible that small spills during loading may have affected the shallow subsurface soil in a limited area adjacent to the above ground storage tanks. Site 33 is proposed as the location for a portion of the timeshare units. Construction of timeshare units in an area where there is the potential for contamination is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

27. If Site 33 has not been previously remediated by the U. S. Army prior to construction on Timeshare Parcel A, the applicant shall collect soil samples at the unpaved area on Site 33 adjacent to above ground storage tanks for analysis. If the results of the soils analysis indicate that contamination has occurred and remediation is necessary, the applicant shall work with the Monterey County Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to implement a clean up program to bring the site into an acceptable level for residential use. Clean up shall occur prior to construction of the portions of the project within 300 feet of the storage tanks.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent for timeshare component.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Monterey County Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health; California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Less than Significant Impact – Historical Contamination at the Project Site. A gasoline leak occurred at the project site in 1992 when a 500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank was removed. A total of 1,350 cubic yards of soil was excavated and the affected soil was removed from the project site. With the approval of the MCDEH, soil concentrations of TPH as diesel as high as 850 ppm and TPH as gasoline of 190 ppm were left in place at a depth of about 26 feet. The results of vadose- zone leaching and groundwater mixing models indicate that this leak would have no effect on the groundwater. Subsequently, the MCDEH and RWQCB granted closure to the case. The contamination is not expected to affect the environment or the health of residents, employees, and visitors to the project site. This is considered a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-69 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

A drainage analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Bestor Engineers. This report is summarized herein and supplemented with additional information. The drainage analysis is included in Appendix G.

Regulatory Framework

State and Federal Water Quality Regulation

A number of federal, state, and local regulations, standards, and policies guide the protection of water quality. Water quality standards for drinking water are regulated by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986, which establishes national primary and secondary drinking water regulations. Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards protect public welfare, referring to aesthetic considerations such as taste. Drinking water standards are also regulated by the State through Chapter 15, Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

Another law governing water quality in California is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act established the State Water Resources Control Board, which is the state agency with primary responsibility for protecting water quality, and the nine RWQCBs. The Central Coast RWQCB has developed a water quality control plan for the central coast basin (basin plan) that identifies beneficial uses of water to be protected, establishes water quality objectives for the protection of those beneficial uses, and provides an implementation plan to achieve the objectives.

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Water quality degradation is regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which was established by the Clean Water Act. The NPDES controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point discharges. In California, the RWQCB administers the NPDES program. The Central Coast RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits for discharges to water bodies that drain to Monterey Bay.

Projects disturbing more than five acres of land during construction are required to file a notice of intent to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activities. The applicant must propose control measures that are consistent with the State NPDES General Construction Permit and consistent with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB.

The State NPDES General Construction Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that uses storm water “Best Management Practices” to control runoff, erosion and sedimentation from

2-70 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

the site both during and after construction. The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of sediments and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges; and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants in storm water discharges.

Seaside General Plan Policies

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy A-1. At the project approval stage, the City shall require new development to demonstrate that all measures will be taken to ensure that runoff is minimized and infiltration is maximized in groundwater recharge areas.

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy C-1. The City shall comply with all mandated water quality programs and establish water quality programs as needed.

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy C-2. At the project approval stage, the City shall require new development to demonstrate that all measures will be taken to ensure that on-site drainage systems are designed to capture and filter urban pollutants.

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy C-4. The City shall prevent siltation of waterways, to the extent feasible.

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy C-7. In support of Monterey Bay’s national marine sanctuary designation, the City shall support all actions required to ensure that the bay and intertidal environment will not be adversely affected, even if such actions would exceed state and federal water quality requirements.

Environmental Setting

Surface Water and Groundwater Hydrology

Surface Water Hydrology. The former Fort Ord is located between the Salinas and Carmel River watersheds. The area has a moderate Mediterranean climate, receiving 90 percent of its 14.2 inches of annual precipitation from November through April. The topography of the former Fort Ord is characterized as stabilized sand dunes in the western half of the base transitioning to rolling hills and canyons in the eastern half. The sandy soils in the western half of the base are highly permeable and absorb much of the rainfall and runoff without forming distinct creek channels (Fort Ord Reuse Plan 1997).

Groundwater Hydrology. The project site overlies the Seaside groundwater basin. The only pumping conducted from this basin for the former Fort Ord was for irrigation at the golf courses. Pumping for this purpose continues, with the untreated water used only for irrigation. Most of the remaining pumping in the Seaside Groundwater Basin is

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-71 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

conducted by municipal wells and wells operated by the Cal-Am Water Company in Seaside and Sand City. With the exception of one shallow well near the shoreline, seawater has not intruded into wells within the basin (Fort Ord Reuse Plan 1997).

Domestic water at the former Fort Ord, including the project site, comes from wells in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The withdrawal of water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, and distribution of that water on the former Fort Ord, is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). The former Fort Ord has a contract with MCWRA for the withdrawal of 6,600 acre-feet of water annually. Of this total, 5,200 acre-feet may be withdrawn from the 180 and 400-foot aquifers and the remaining 1,400 acre-feet from the 900-foot aquifer. The Fort Ord area is currently supplied from three wells (numbers 29, 30 and 31) located along Reservation Road east of the Marina Municipal Airport. Historic withdrawals from these wells (and well 32, which is now abandoned) have ranged from 3,200 acre-feet to 6,600 acre-feet per year since 1984 when the wells were constructed.

Historically there has been intrusion of seawater in the 180 and 400-foot groundwater aquifers of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. A “safe yield” of water is the amount that can be pumped on a long-term basis without causing undesirable effects, such as seawater intrusion. No conclusive investigation has been made concerning the amount of water that can safely be withdrawn from these wells without causing additional seawater intrusion in the aquifers. The 1992 report of the Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Committee of the Fort Ord Base Closure Task Force summarizes earlier investigations into the effects of the Fort Ord wells on seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is monitored by MCWRA, and that agency would make determinations concerning overdraft from the Fort Ord wells.

Surface and Groundwater Quality Surface Water Quality. Monterey Bay is designated as a national marine sanctuary. Under this designation, resource protection is assigned a higher priority than research, programs, and visitor use. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 requires a management plan to protect the sanctuary’s resources. Unless detained, surface run-off from the project site would flow to Monterey Bay, or percolate into the ground as it flowed towards Monterey Bay. Groundwater Quality. Recent water quality data for active and potable water supply wells, including the golf course well in the Seaside Groundwater Basin, have shown some concentrations of dissolved solids that exceed the recommended limit for drinking water. However, water from wells with high salinity can be blended with higher water quality water to meet drinking water standards (Fort Ord Reuse Plan 1997).

Nonpoint Source Pollution Nonpoint source pollution is a primary source of contamination for surface water and groundwater. It originates from rainwater or snow melt washing past exposed pollutant sources and picking up soil (from exposed earth) or other chemicals (such as oil leaked onto parking lots or spills of hazardous substances). The pollution may come from

2-72 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation many land uses, including farms, construction sites, lawns, gardens, industrial plants, streets, and highways. Nonpoint source pollution can have a major impact on public health by contaminating drinking water supplies. It may flow directly into surface water or slowly infiltrate into the ground, emerging later into streams, lakes, and coastal waters. It can also restrict harvesting from commercial shellfish beds, limit recreational uses of surface waters, and adversely affect other natural resources (e.g. wildlife and habitats). The types of contamination found in nonpoint source pollution are widely varied and difficult to predict without some prior knowledge of the land uses in the watershed.

Surface Runoff. Surface water flows within the watershed occur as overland runoff and as stream flow. Urban land contributes a large amount of contaminants to water bodies via storm water runoff. Urban areas are characterized by a higher percentage of impervious surface coverage; thus, the ability of storm water runoff to transport more pollutants is magnified.

Construction Activities. Construction projects can be a major source of sediment if drainage, grading, and revegetation are not well planned and controlled. The sediment that is washed into surface waters from construction sites is regarded as the greatest single pollutant from non-point sources. Influx of sediment into a waterbody is a natural process; however human activities tend to accelerate sedimentation processes, thereby changing nature’s intended schedule. Sediment in water bodies is derived from erosion of sloping lands, gullies and stream banks. Impacts of sedimentation include reduction in water clarity and water quality, reduced light transmission, and thus, reduced growth of aquatic vegetation, clogging of fish gills, and reduction in spawning area and aquatic habitat. Drainage patterns also change thereby affecting downgradient waters. The most common factors influencing topsoil erosion include rainfall characteristics, soil properties, slope factors, land-cover conditions, and conservation practices: • Rainfall characteristics, such as drop size, velocity, and intensity, determine the ability of the rain to loosen and extract topsoil grains; • Soil properties include soil stability, permeability, porosity, and surface roughness, which, if rough, creates a potential for temporary water storage;

• Slope factors include gradient and length, which partially determine the direction and velocity of runoff; and • Land covered by vegetation provides a temporary shield from rainfall. It also provides shade so that excessive evaporation does not occur, which in turn allows soil particles to remain moist and interlocked with other particles. Soils within the project area include Baywood sand, two to 15 percent slopes (BbC) and Oceano loamy sand, two to 15 percent slopes (OaD). Both the Oceano and the Baywood soils have slow to moderate runoff with an erosion hazard rating of slight to moderate.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-73 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Project Analysis

Storm Water Runoff The project would create new impervious surfaces associated with the project including 18,600 linear feet of streets, the roofs of the proposed structures. and walkway areas. These new impervious surfaces would add to the amount of storm water runoff generated from the project site. This increase in the amount of impervious surfaces can result in an increase in the amount and rate of storm water flow draining from the project area during a storm and/or can result in an increase in the volume of sediment eroded from the project area. The project consists of three basic building types: hotel and golf clubhouse; timeshare buildings; and single-family homes. The timeshare buildings range from 2,500 to 4,200 square feet of roof surface and generally have adjacent parking areas, resulting in an overall average of about 1,900 square feet of impervious surface area per unit. This would result in 0.097 cubic feet per second (cfs) per timeshare unit (including parking). For single family homes, it is assumed that the quarter acre lots would be developed with a home averaging 2,800 square feet of roof and 1,500 square feet of driveway, patio, and walkways. This would result in 0.22 cfs per lot if on-lot disposal is used, or 0.013 cfs per lot if discharged to the street. In addition, the subdivision streets would result in 0.12 cfs per home. Where lots lie above streets and on-lot disposal is not practical, resultant gutter flow is an average of 0.25 cfs per home. Runoff from these impervious surfaces would be collected in percolation areas. The project includes a total of 12 percolation areas located throughout the remainder parcel. Each percolation area percolates runoff from a portion of the project site and up-slope areas. The average capacity of the proposed percolation ponds is approximately one acre-foot. The locations of the proposed percolation areas are shown in Figure 16, presented earlier. Some off-site flow would contribute to the runoff into the basins. The percolation ponds would generally be unfenced, and may or may not have regular surface maintenance to maximize percolation. Basin 1 along Monterey Road may be fenced to prevent entry from Monterey Road. Based on the Preliminary Drainage Analysis prepared for the project by Bestor Engineers in March 2001, the project would result in an increase of 49 cfs for the 10-year storm event and 73 cfs for the 100-year storm event. This is an increase of 2.5 percent and 2.8 percent respectively over existing conditions. The percolation ponds have been sized so there would be no net increase in the volumetric flow rate of storm water runoff off the project site over existing conditions.

Water Quality

Short Term Water Quality. The project would involve approximately 89,000 cubic yards of grading associated with site preparation activities at the hotel, timeshare, and residential portions of the project site. This movement of earth would result in large areas of disturbed soil, and could potentially affect short-term water quality at the project site.

2-74 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Long Term Water Quality. The project includes development of a hotel, timeshares, single-family homes, and golf course buildings, new streets, and walkway areas that would create additional impervious surfaces, adding to the amount of storm water runoff. In addition, construction of additional paved roadways presents the possibility of introducing pollutants into the storm water flow, and potentially affecting long-term water quality in the project area. Potential contamination from urban pollutants such as solvents and oil, heavy metals, sediment, pesticide residues, fertilizers, and coliform bacteria would increase.

Groundwater Recharge

The project would result in an increase in the amount of storm water run-off from the project site as compared to existing conditions. All of the increased run-off, and some of the existing run-off would be captured and percolated into the soil in on-site ponds. Additionally, irrigation of landscaped areas associated with the hotel, timeshare, and residential components, using water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin would increase. Therefore, the proposed project would increase the recharge rate of groundwater on the project site. Because changes to the golf courses would not increase or decrease water use from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, and infiltration of groundwater from both on- and off-site sources would increase, the Seaside Groundwater Basin would experience a marginal increase in groundwater recharge compared to existing conditions.

The project would increase withdrawals of water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The water allocated for use at the project would come from the 710 acre-foot Seaside allocation, which is part of the 6,600 acre-foot allocation to the former Fort Ord.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that redevelopment of the former Fort Ord, would result in water pollution from construction and urban run-off sources. Policies and programs in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan were found to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures presented and referenced below enact these policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. The proposed detention basins implement additional groundwater quality policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

• Violate any water-quality discharge standards or waste-discharge requirements;

• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. would the production rate of preexisting nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted;

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-75 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; • Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard areas as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure or a levee or dam; and • Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Potentially Significant Impact-Short Term Water Quality. The project would involve grading 89,000 cubic yards of soil at the project site. The project would balance cut and fill on the project site. A mitigation measure presented in Section 2.6 Geology and Soils would require the applicant to incorporate soil erosion control measures into site preparation and construction activities prior to approval of final improvement plans by the City of Seaside for all proposed improvements. These measures would limit the disturbance of soils and vegetation, confine vehicular traffic associated with construction to designated access roads; require construction schedules designed to avoid periods of heavy precipitation or high winds; require all exposed soil be provided with temporary drainage and soil protection when construction activity is shut down; and require construction personnel to be informed of environmental concerns, pertinent laws and regulations, and elements of the erosion control measures. With implementation of this mitigation measure the short term water quality impacts anticipated during grading and construction activities at the project site would be less than significant. No further mitigation measures are necessary.

Potentially Significant Impact-Long Term Water Quality. The proposed project would have the potential to contribute various contaminants associated with urban runoff into the local groundwater and surface water. Construction activities would have the potential to result in erosion of soil from wind or water, including washing of mud from the site into areas of sensitive habitat. This is a potentially significant environmental impact. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

2-76 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Mitigation Measure

28. The developer shall obtain from the State Water Resources Control Board, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Program General Construction Permit, as required by the Federal Clean Water Act. The developer shall comply with all provisions of this permit including the use of best management practices and preparation of and compliance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director. Less Than Significant Impact-Storm Water Runoff. The project would create new impervious surfaces associated with the project including the roofs of the proposed structures, roadways, and walkway areas. These impervious surfaces may add to the amount of storm water runoff generated by the project under certain storm conditions. This increase in the amount of impervious surfaces can result in an increase in the amount and rate of storm water flow draining from the project area during a storm and/or can result in an increase in the volume of sediment eroded from the project area. Based on the preliminary drainage analysis prepared for the project by Bestor Engineers in March 2001, the project would result in an increase of 49 cfs for the 10-year storm event and 73 cfs for the 100-year storm event. This is an increase of 2.5 percent and 2.8 percent respectively over existing conditions. The increased runoff would be retained in 12 percolation areas located throughout the remainder parcel. There would be no net increase in the amount of storm water runoff off the project site over existing conditions. This is considered a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Less Than Significant Impact – Groundwater Quantity. The project would draw on a portion of the 710 acre-feet per year of the City of Seaside’s allotment of Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin water intended for redevelopment of the former Fort Ord lands. The City and FORA indicate that this water is to be allocated to projects on a first-come first-served basis. There is sufficient groundwater remaining within the City’s allocation to serve the project. Therefore the project would have a less than significant environmental impact to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. No mitigation measures are necessary.

2.9 Mineral Resources

Environmental Setting

According to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, the western third of the former Fort Ord is classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) for sand and gravel by the Division of Mines and Geology, a zone where there is adequate evidence to indicate that mineral

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-77 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

resources deposits exist. The project site is within the MRZ-2 zone, although no known mineral resources have been identified at the project site. Sand and gravel deposits are common in the Monterey Bay region.

Fort Ord Reuse Plan Soils and Geology Policies B-1, B-2 and B-3 call for the protection of mineral resource areas determined by the City of Seaside to be of value. The City of Seaside has not determined that the project site is a valuable mineral resource area warranting protection.

The project site has been developed as a golf course since approximately 1954. Prior to that time the land was undeveloped. Although it is possible that borrow pits have been in use on the project site at some time, no significant extraction of mineral resources has taken place on the project site. The project site is not delineated as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan or the Seaside General Plan. The sand and gravel deposits underlying the project site are common throughout the Monterey Bay region. Several sand and gravel extraction facilities are located in the Monterey Bay area.

Project Analysis

There has been no known extraction of mineral resources on the project site, and the project site is currently developed with golf courses. Mineral extraction on the project site would not be compatible with this existing use. The project would develop visitor serving and residential uses within the existing golf courses. Further development within the golf courses would not affect the availability of underlying mineral resources. The project is consistent with land use designations and mineral resources policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan. While existing and planned land uses at the project site preclude extraction of sand and gravel, these mineral deposits are readily available elsewhere in the region.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord would have no effect on mineral resources.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

• Result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; and/or

• Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan.

Less Than Significant Impact – Development of an Area with Potential Mineral Resources. The project would place new visitor serving and residential uses in an area designated by the Division of Mines and Geology as an MZR-2 zone. Because the

2-78 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

project is located within an existing golf course, and mineral extraction would be incompatible with the existing and planned uses, and because no mineral extraction has taken place or is planned to take place on the project site, and because the project site has not been designated by the City of Seaside as an area of valuable mineral resources, the project would have a less than significant impact on mineral resources.

2.10 Noise

Noise Measurement

Environmental noise is defined as an unwanted sound. Noise is typically measured in decibels (dB), which are logarithmic units of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, traveling outward from a source, exert a sound pressure level (commonly called “sound level”) measured in dB. Typical sounds range from 40 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Conversation is roughly 60 dB at three feet. As background noise levels exceed 60 dB, speech clarity becomes increasingly difficult. Noise becomes physically discomforting at 110 dB.

The day-night averaged noise level (Ldn) and the community noise level equivalent (CNEL) are the noise and land use compatibility criteria most widely used in the State of California. These two measurements represent an average of all measured noise levels obtained over a specific period of time. They represent a time-weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time-weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is weighted more heavily. Both the Ldn and CNEL scales include a 10 dBA adjustment to sounds occurring in the late evening and early morning hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The CNEL scale has an additional 5 dBA adjustment to sounds occurring in the evening (7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.). The Ldn and CNEL noise levels are usually within 1 dBA of each other and are normally considered interchangeable. Noise sensitive receptors are associated with various land uses as presented in Table 14.

TABLE 14 Sensitive Receptors and Associated Land Uses Sensitive Receptors Land Use Types Children Residences, Schools, Parks and Playgrounds, Childcare Centers Elderly Residences, Retirement Homes Convalescent Homes Chronically or Acutely Ill Hospitals, Clinics, Convalescent Homes

Source: Monterey County

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-79 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Regulatory Framework Federal, state, and local governments have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and various other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. The applicable standards and guidelines for this study area are discussed below.

Federal. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines identify a significant noise increase when exterior traffic noise levels exceed 67 dB for sensitive noise receptors in noise sensitive land uses including parks, residences, motels, schools churches, libraries and hospitals. A significant noise increase is also identified for commercial receptors when the noise levels are greater than 72 dB. Table 15 presents the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.

TABLE 15

FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (Hourly A – Weighted Sound Level – dB1)

3 2 Activity Leq L10 Description of Activity Category Center A 57 60 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of (exterior) (exterior) extraordinary significance and serve important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 70 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (exterior) (exterior) sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 75 Developed lands properties, or activities not (exterior) (exterior) included in categories A or B above. D - - Undeveloped lands E 52 55 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, (interior) (interior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

1. Either L10 or Leq may be used on a project, but not both.

2. L10 – the hourly noise level that is exceeded 10 percent of the time.

3. Leq – the hourly equivalent steady state noise level. Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

2-80 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

State Noise Standards and Guidelines. The California Department of Health, Office of Noise Control, in Guidelines for the Preparation and Control of Noise Elements of the General Plan (February 1976), provides guidance to the local jurisdictions in the State on the acceptability of designated land uses within specific CNEL contours. Residential uses are normally unacceptable in areas exceeding 70 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable within 60 to 70 dBA CNEL. Commercial and professional office buildings and businesses are normally acceptable in areas up to 70 dBA CNEL and normally acceptable in areas exceeding 75 dBA CNEL. Between 67 and 77 dBA CNEL, commercial uses are conditionally acceptable, depending on the noise insulation features and the noise reduction requirements.

City of Seaside Noise Standards. Noise is a concern both from the standpoint of noise generated by a project and received elsewhere, and noise received by the project from other sources. The Seaside General Plan establishes levels of acceptable exterior noise exposure for the various types of land use. Those standards are presented in Table 16. Noise levels for construction activities and other non-transportation noise sources are also regulated. Table 17 summarizes the acceptable duration of exposure for several levels of noise, from these sources, based on the requirements of the Seaside General Plan.

Environmental Setting

Noise levels on the project site are currently very low. Major sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site include roads and airports.

Traffic on roadways is the major source of noise within the City of Seaside. The primary factors that determine roadway noise levels are the total traffic volumes, the percentage of trucks and buses, average vehicle speeds, and natural or manmade noise attenuation features such as sound walls and landscaping. Roadways adjacent to the project site currently carry very low levels of traffic. The nearest portions of the project site are approximately 1,200 feet from the centerline of State Highway 1, which is the most significant noise source near the project site. According to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR, existing (1992) averaged noise levels from traffic on State Highway 1 are at or below 55 dBA Ldn at a distance of approximately 2,000 feet from the centerline. The 60 dBA Ldn contour is approximately 1,000 feet from the centerline.

Aircraft activity around Monterey Peninsula Airport is another significant source of noise in Seaside, resulting from flyovers, takeoffs, and landings of aircraft. Noise from this source affects only a small portion of the southerly limits of Seaside. According to the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for the airport, no residential units in Seaside would require mitigation as a result of adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Monterey Peninsula Airport (Monterey County Land Use Commission 1987). The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the Monterey Peninsula Airport, beyond the 55 CNEL contour from activities at the Monterey Peninsula Airport, and not significantly affected by airport noise. The Marina Airport, which is a general aviation airport, is approximately five miles northeast of the project site, and does not cause significant noise at the project site.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-81 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 16

Land Use Compatibility Criteria For Exterior Community Noise (Ldn)

Mitigation Measures Required Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Category Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Residential: Less than 55 55 to 70 70 to 75 Greater than 75 low-density single family, duplex, mobile home

Residential: Less than 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 Greater than 75 Multi-family

Schools, Less than 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 Greater than 80 libraries, churches, hospitals and nursing homes

Actively used Less than 67 ----- 67 to 73 Greater than 73 open spaces: playgrounds, neighborhood parks

Notes: With conventional construction, interior noise levels are typically 20 decibels lower than exterior noise levels when windows are closed, and 10 decibels lower when windows are open. This table is based on exterior measurements. Normally Acceptable means specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation. Conditionally Acceptable means new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable means new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable means new construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: Fort Ord Reuse Plan Noise Element table 4.5-3 and Seaside General Plan table N

2-82 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 17 Noise Level Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Noise Sources (Exterior Noise Level Standards, dBA)

Cumulative Number of Daytime Nighttime Minutes Allowed in Any (7:00 AM–10:00 PM) (10:00 PM–7:00 AM) One-Hour Time Period 30 50 45 15 55 50 5 60 55 1 65 60 0 70 65

Source: Fort Ord Reuse Plan Table 4.5-4 and Seaside General Plan table O

The Union Pacific Railroad spur line paralleling Del Monte Boulevard is currently inactive. The line is proposed for passenger rail, but only the portion near Marina is presently contained in the FORA Public Services and Capital Improvement Program, and it is unlikely that the portion near the project site will be developed for passenger rail in the foreseeable future. The nearest portions of the project site are approximately 1,400 feet from the rail line.

Project Analysis

Short-Term Construction Related Noise Short-term construction related noise levels would increase due to the operation of construction equipment during the construction phase of the project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 dBA to 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise from localized point sources, such as construction equipment typically decreases at a rate of about six dBA with each doubling of distance from the source. Sensitive receptors located within a few hundred feet, depending on the type of equipment being used, could be exposed to unacceptable noise levels. Table 18 presents typical construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet with and without noise control.

Long Term Operational Noise Implementation of the project would introduce new noise sources to the study area as well as increase the noise levels along adjacent existing roadways. The project would generate approximately 5,672 vehicle trips, which would travel on existing roadways.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-83 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

The proposed residential and visitor serving uses may also result in the operation of air conditioning and heating units, various recreational and landscaping activities including lawn maintenance equipment etc. Typical noise sources associated with the proposed resort hotel could include mechanical equipment for ventilation and heating systems, and the occasional diesel truck delivering and unloading supplies and materials for the resort hotel.

TABLE 18 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment

Equipment Typical Sound Level at 50 ft. (in dBA) Without Noise Control With Noise Control Earthmoving Equipment Front Loaders 79 75 Backhoes 85 75 Dozers 80 75 Tractors 80 75 Scrapers 88 80 Graders 85 75 Truck 88 75 Pavers 89 80 Materials Handling Concrete Mixers 85 75 Concrete Pumps 82 75 Cranes 83 75 Derricks 88 75 Stationary Equipment Pumps 76 75 Generators 78 75 Compressors 81 75

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ambient Noise Levels at Residential Lots Residential lots are proposed adjacent to Monterey Road and Coe Avenue, both of which are connecting roads that could carry substantial traffic in the future, and could thus generate considerable traffic noise. However, along Monterey Road, traffic noise from State Highway 1 is expected to be the critical contributor of noise. The residential lots on the western portion of the project site are within 1,200 feet of the centerline of State Highway 1, and could potentially experience noise from highway traffic.

2-84 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR contains a table of projected noise levels along major roadways near the former Fort Ord. State Highway 1 is expected to have a 55 dBA LDN contour approximately 2,300 feet from centerline, a 60 dBA LDN contour approximately 1,100 feet from centerline, and a 65 dBA LDN contour approximately 500 feet from centerline. Thus, the nearest homes to State Highway 1 at the project site would be expected to experience outdoor conditions of less than 60 dBA DNL. Thus, noise levels could exceed normally acceptable exterior noise standards at these lots.

The four residential lots along Coe Avenue would experience noise from traffic on that street. Based on a noise analysis prepared for the Hayes Housing project, located along Coe Avenue to the west, noise levels will be approximately 57dBA DNL at a distance of 75 feet from the edge of the roadway under cumulative conditions (m’oc Physics Applied, 1998). Based on the vesting tentative map, the residential lots would be approximately 20 feet from the edge of Coe Avenue. Thus noise levels could exceed acceptable standards at these lots.

A standard six-foot fence of solid construction (for example, solid wood with gaps sealed, or masonry) will typically reduce noise levels by approximately five dBA. Provision of this type of fence would reduce noise levels to within the acceptable standards for all residential lots abutting Monterey Road and Coe Avenue.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord would result in localized noise impacts from construction activities and traffic. Policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures presented below implement these policies.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will result in: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance of the respective jurisdiction in which the project occurs; • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; • A substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or • A substantial or temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

Short Term Significant Impact – Construction Noise. A short-term increase in the ambient noise levels at the project site would result from the operation of off-highway construction equipment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites typically range from 88 dBA to

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-85 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise from localized point sources, such as construction equipment typically decreases at a rate of about six dBA with each doubling of the distance from the source. Sensitive receptors located within a few hundred feet, depending on the type of equipment being used, could be exposed to unacceptable noise levels. Based on the fact that noise sensitive areas may experience a short-term increase in the ambient noise levels during construction activities and that these activities could exceed the City of Seaside’s noise standards for residential land uses, this is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures 29. The following language shall be included on plan specifications and in any permits issued for the project: Noise generating construction activities are limited to weekdays between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and Saturdays, Sundays and holidays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Once per week contractor shall provide a description the work to be performed and the construction schedule for the next two week period to the City Public Works Director, and the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District administration during demolition, grading and construction of public improvements.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

30. Construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with noise reduction devices to minimize construction-generated noise. Wherever feasible, noise generating equipment shall be shielded from nearby sensitive receptors by noise attenuating buffers such as structures or trucks. Stationary construction equipment shall be centrally located on site at the greatest distance possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Less Than Significant Impact – Project-Generated Noise Impacts. Implementation of the project would introduce new noise sources to the study area as well as increase the noise levels along adjacent existing roadways. Project implementation would result in an increase in the ambient noise levels. The project would generate approximately 5,672 vehicle trips, which would travel on existing roadways. A noticeable increase in the

2-86 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

ambient noise level of three dBA typically occurs with a doubling of roadway traffic volumes. Noise impacts to sensitive receptors do not typically occur until several thousand vehicles are on a roadway. Due to the existing traffic volumes on area roadways and the addition of 5,672 vehicle trips, operation of the project is not anticipated to result in a change in the traffic noise contours of area roadways and would not result in a substantial increase (i.e. three dBA or greater) in average daily traffic noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, long-term increases in offsite traffic noise levels would be considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Potentially Significant Impact – Ambient Noise at Residential Lots. Residential lots abutting Coe Avenue and Monterey Road may experience ambient noise from traffic on adjacent streets or State Highway 1 that exceeds the acceptable standard. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

31. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Seaside Community Development Director, the applicant shall prepare a noise attenuation plan to

reduce exterior noise to no more than 55 dBA Ldn at residential lots abutting Monterey Road or Coe Avenue. Such attenuation may include provision of a minimum six-foot tall solid fence or wall at the property line abutting the Monterey Road or Coe Avenue, or relocation of lots farther from Monterey Road or Coe Avenue. The noise attenuation plan shall be included as a part of the Improvement Plans for the affected development phases. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of residential component. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

2.11 Public Services

This section first presents relevant policies, the environmental setting and project analysis for the following public services: fire and emergency medical services; police services; public works; parks; and schools. All public services impacts and mitigation measures are presented together following the environmental setting and analysis sections.

This section is based in part on information in two fiscal reports prepared for the Hayes Housing project, located south of the project site in Seaside. The first of these reports was prepared by Revenue and Cost Specialists LLC in January 2000. A letter review of this report was prepared by Applied Development Economics in October 2000. These reports are included in Appendix H.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-87 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Public Services Policies

Seaside General Plan

The following policies are from the 1995 Seaside General Plan.

Environmental Resources Management Policy 12. Ensure adequate police protection for the citizens of Seaside by (1) providing the Police Department with adequate personnel and equipment to achieve an emergency response time of five minutes; (2) promoting crime prevention techniques such as “neighborhood watch” and “defensive” project design; (3) supporting crime prevention and controlled substance abuse programs; (4) maintaining effective disaster response plans that address emergency response, traffic control and security of damaged areas, and (5) establishing five minutes as the standard minimum police response time.

Environmental Resources Management Policy 13. Ensure adequate fire prevention, detection and suppression service for the citizens of Seaside by (1) providing appropriate fire fighting personnel and equipment; (2) promoting fire prevention through a comprehensive property inspection program; (3) providing an adequate fire suppression water supply and delivery system; and (4) supporting fire prevention and safety educational programs.

Fort Ord Reuse Plan

The following policy is from the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. A parallel policy is included in the Fort Ord Lands Amendment to the Seaside General Plan.

Recreation Policy D-2. The City of Seaside shall develop active parkland within the former Fort Ord within the 2015 time frame which reflects the adopted City of Seaside standard of 2 acres of neighborhood parkland and 1 acre of community parkland per 1,000 population.

These policies ensure that the City’s police and fire response abilities are adequate to serve the existing development and new development as it is built, and to ensure that adequate parkland is available to Seaside residents.

Environmental Setting – Fire and Emergency Medical Services Jurisdiction. Prior to the downsizing of Fort Ord, the U.S. Army provided fire protection services throughout the base, and emergency and routine medical needs were provided for on the base. As lands have been conveyed to other jurisdictions, the U.S. Army’s role in emergency services has been phased out. The project site is currently served by the Seaside Fire Department.

2-88 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

In addition to the project site, the Seaside Fire Department is responsible for the following locations on the former Fort Ord: Hayes School, Stilwell School, Marshall School, Fitch Middle School, Sun Bay Apartments, and a vacant office building belonging to the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD). The Seaside Fire Department is also responsible for response to sections of Coe Avenue and Monterey Road.

City of Seaside Fire Facilities and Staffing. The Seaside fire station is located on Broadway Avenue at the corner of Yosemite Street, roughly central to the existing urban core of Seaside. The station is approximately 9,500 square feet and includes five parking bays for fire engines. The Seaside Fire Department currently operates three shifts. Each shift is comprised of a battalion chief (or acting battalion chief), two captains, two engineers and three fire fighters. These personnel staff two engine companies. The City of Seaside has a total of 24 firefighters on staff. The fire department’s equipment consists of two first line engines and two reserve engines, and five other vehicles (Jerry Wombacher, Fire Chief, meeting with Consultant, June 20, 2002). The Seaside Fire Department responded to an average of 1,979 incidents annually from 1995 through 1999 (Robert Rader, memorandum to consultant, October 5, 2000).

Other Fire Agencies and Aid Agreements. The Fort Ord Fire Station is the fire station nearest to the project site, located on the eastern side of General Jim Moore Boulevard north of Gigling Road approximately one mile from the closest portions of the project site. The fire station is operated principally for the protection of the remaining military facilities on the former Fort Ord. The Fort Ord Fire Station participates in a mutual aid agreement with surrounding fire protection agencies, which means that it will respond when requested to do so by one of the other agencies. The Seaside Fire Department is developing an automatic aid agreement with the Fort Ord Fire Station and the Monterey Fire Department. Under an automatic aid agreement, the first fire department that is able to respond, responds automatically to a fire within the covered jurisdictions. The automatic aid agreement is expected to be adopted by the three agencies by Fall 2002. When adopted, fire department response times noted in this section may change. The Fort Ord Fire Station is equipped with two Type 1 engines, two Type 3 (wildfire) engines and one water tender. (Jerry Wombacher, Fire Chief, meeting with Consultant, June 20, 2002).

Emergency Medical. The former Silas B. Hays U.S. Army Community Hospital has been converted to non-medical use. Limited non-emergency, outpatient medical services are provided at the Presidio of Monterey clinic and at the California State University Health Center, but these facilities are not available for general public use. Emergency medical services are provided by hospitals in neighboring communities, including the Natividad Medical Center and Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital located in the City of Salinas, and the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula located in the City of Monterey. All fire departments have personnel trained in emergency medical procedures.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-89 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Performance Criteria. The Seaside Fire Department standard for response is five minutes, based on the National Fire Protection Association standard for fire and medical calls. Response time is measured from the time a call is placed until the first response unit arrives at the scene. Typically one or two minutes is required for communications and gearing up, prior to leaving the fire station. The Seaside Fire Department can currently meet a five-minute response time in most cases, although some areas under its jurisdiction are beyond a five-minute response.

The most direct access to the center of the project site from the Seaside fire station is via Broadway Avenue to General Jim Moore Boulevard. The existing clubhouse on the project site is approximately two miles from the Seaside fire station, and slightly beyond the limits of the acceptable response time, at between six and seven minutes. The intersection of Monterey Road and Noumea Road, on the northeastern side of the project site, is slightly more than three miles from the Seaside fire station, by either General Jim Moore Boulevard or Fremont Boulevard. Because of the distance, and the travel speeds on some portions of the route, response times to this area are considerably more than the five-minute standard.

The California Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (CalOSHA), sets minimum requirements for certain fire response operations. Among these is the “two in, two out” rule which requires that two equally equipped personnel remain outside when two personnel enter a burning structure for rescue or fire fighting purposes. The City of Seaside Fire Department is in compliance with this rule.

Funding. The Seaside Fire Department receives the majority of its capital and operating funds from general fund allocations. A small amount of additional funding is available from Proposition 172 (Local Public Safety Protection and Improvement Act of 1993) funds, which come from sales and use taxes. Aside from the FORA development fees, the City of Seaside does not have a schedule of development impact fees. FORA development fees for fire protection are intended only for a fire station for the suppression of wildlands fires, however, depending on the needs of the area seen by the various fire protection agencies, the money could be allocated towards a dual-purpose station that could be used for urban fire protection as well (Steve Endsley, telephone conversation with consultant, October 6, 2000).

It is possible that redevelopment tax-increment financing would become available to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency and could be loaned to the City to assist with a short- term solution for providing funds to construct the fire station. This redevelopment funding would need to be paid back over time by development contributions. If costs for constructing the fire station were less than the amount collected, proportional reimbursements would be made to each contributing developer.

2-90 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Project Analysis – Fire and Emergency Medical Services

Achievement of Performance Criteria with Project The project includes several locations that vary in distance from the Seaside fire station. The center of the project site, where the hotel and timeshare uses would be located, is approximately two miles from the Seaside fire station. Although travel speeds along General Jim Moore Boulevard are relatively high, response times to the golf course clubhouse area are between six and seven minutes. It is expected that the response time to some portions of the project site would exceed the five-minute standard by several minutes. Many of the proposed residential areas within the project site are beyond a five-minute response time from the City of Seaside fire station.

Capital Needs To adequately meet fire protection performance criteria at the project site, the City of Seaside would need a fire station with a five-minute response time to all portions of the project site. To serve cumulative development at the former Fort Ord, a Seaside fire station would be needed in the former Fort Ord area, equipped with one engine company (Jerry Wombacher, Fire Chief, meeting with consultant, June 20, 2002). To assure that the former Fort Ord area of Seaside is covered by adequate fire services, the City of Seaside would need to operate a fire station located so as to adequately serve all of the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord. The Seaside Fire Department prefers that a new Seaside fire station be either a City-owned station on City-owned land, or under a long-term lease to the City (Robert Rader, meeting with consultant, October 5, 2000). The U.S. Army fire station had been considered by the City as a potential Seaside fire station. However, the U.S. Army has recently determined that it will maintain the fire station primarily to serve its own needs at Fort Ord. Under a pending automatic aid agreement with the Seaside Fire Department, the Fort Ord Fire Station would provide first response to the project site in many instances. Response times from the Fort Ord Fire Station would be within the five-minute standard. If the Fort Ord Fire Station were already responding to another incident, however, they would not be available for first response to the project site. The Fort Ord Fire Station does not posses a ladder truck adequate to respond to a fire at the proposed hotel. Therefore, to fully serve its portion of the former Fort Ord, Seaside would need a new station with at least two fire engines. The FORA Capital Improvement Program includes a new or upgraded fire station, with $1,100,000 allocated. This station was originally included in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan for purposes of controlling wildland fires at Fort Ord. There is still a need to control wildland fires on the former Fort Ord, however, depending on the needs of the area seen by the various fire protection agencies, the money could be allocated towards a dual- purpose station that could be used for urban fire protection as well (Steve Endsley, telephone conversation with consultant, October 6, 2000).

Because of the variety of fires that might be fought from within the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord, the new fire station would need a minimum of three truck bays, with a fourth truck bay preferable, to accommodate the appropriate apparatus. Even if a

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-91 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

separate Fort Ord wildlands fire station were to be constructed, the City of Seaside station built in the Fort Ord area should have capabilities for both urban and wildland fire suppression due to the existence of relatively wild lands along the fringes and within the established developed areas.

The proposed hotel would be six levels, with the top level approximately 50 feet above grade. To serve the hotel as proposed, a truck equipped with a ladder would be required in addition to the standard fire engines. The Seaside Fire Department does not currently possess a ladder truck suitable for a six-level building. Other multiple-story buildings in Seaside include the Embassy Suites hotel (12 stories) and the Holiday Inn Express (five stories). However, due to their design and the full perimeter access on paved parking lots, the Seaside Fire Department is currently adequately equipped to handle fires in these buildings. Additionally, because the Embassy Suites is a high-rise building, the top stories of which are beyond the reach of ladders, a ladder truck is not appropriate for fighting a fire in that building. The Embassy Suites has built-in fire suppression facilities, which are required in buildings exceeding 75 feet in height. The hotel, as proposed, lacks paved access to all sides, and the use of a ladder-equipped truck would provide improved fire-fighting capabilities at the hotel building. Other fire suppression strategies, similar to those at the other large hotels, could potentially be employed at the hotel in lieu of a special engine. A life-safety study is being prepared by the applicant to determine options for meeting fire and emergency medical response needs at the hotel.

Potential New Seaside Fire Station Sites. The preferred location for a new fire station would be in the same general area as the existing Fort Ord Fire Station, near the core area of the former Fort Ord near Gigling Road or Lightfighter Drive.

Other potential fire station locations that could serve the project and other development in the Fort Ord section of Seaside include the gasoline station site on the northwest corner of the intersection of Coe Avenue and Monterey Road; Monterey Road in the area of the proposed State Highway 1/Monterey Road freeway interchange, directly west of the project site; the abandoned Shoppette site on Normandy Road, north of the project site and midway between Monterey Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard; and within the golf courses property. All of the project could be reached within the five- minute response time from any of these potential sites. The State Highway 1/Monterey Road interchange location, the Shoppette location, most locations in the vicinity of Lightfighter Drive and General Jim Moore Boulevard, and potentially a location within the golf courses property, would be the most centrally located to serve the Seaside Fort Ord area. The Seaside Fire Department prefers a site that is central to the former Fort Ord core area, as is the Fort Ord Fire Station (Robert Rader, memorandum to Dan Keen, City Manager, November 6, 2000). The gasoline station site is considered by the Seaside Fire Department to be too far south to adequately serve the northern areas.

Operational Needs. Minimum staffing for an engine company at a new Fort Ord fire station would be four firefighters per shift (Robert Rader, meeting with consultant, October 5, 2000). Current staffing of three fire-fighters per engine company, while below standards, is workable at the existing station because there are two engine companies stationed there and personnel from one engine company can provide

2-92 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

assistance to the other most of the time. A needs analysis for the former Fort Ord is being prepared by the Seaside Fire Department, and is expected to be ready in July or August 2002. Access between the two portions of Seaside is currently limited to General Jim Moore Avenue at the eastern edge of the developed areas of Seaside, and Fremont Boulevard - Monterey Road on the western edge of the City. Although a direct route between the central portions of the existing urban core area and the former Fort Ord has been proposed as mitigation for the Hayes Housing Subdivision, south of the project site, the access proposed would be difficult for use by a fire engine, and would not likely reduce response times to Fort Ord due to slower travel conditions compared to General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Project Proportionality By itself, based on demand for services, the project does not require a new fire station. However, much of the project site, like most of the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord, is beyond the timely response of the Seaside fire station at Broadway Avenue and Yosemite Street, and could not be effectively served by the City of Seaside with existing facilities. Therefore, a fire station would be required to meet response standards. Additionally, because of the size and site design of the hotel building, a ladder truck would be required to provide fire protection for the proposed hotel. Based on historic call rates, cumulative development in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord through 2015 (refer to Section 3.2 Cumulative Impacts) would result in approximately 721 annual fire calls, an increase of approximately one-fourth over the existing volume of fire service calls. The project would be expected to have a demand of approximately 115 fire and medical calls per year by the Seaside Fire Department. This is equal to approximately 15.95 percent of the projected fire calls in the Fort Ord section of Seaside for development projected through 2015. Table 19 summarizes the cumulative development and annual fire services demand in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord. The Revenue and Cost Specialists Report uses a figure of 1,112 annual fire calls, which was an average based on other cities they had studied. To project future calls at the former Fort Ord, this rate was adjusted to a rate that reflects actual total annual calls in the City of Seaside. The average annual number of calls within the City of Seaside over the five-year period 1995 to 1999 was 1,979 (Robert Rader, memorandum to consultant, October 5, 2000). Calls during 2001 were similar to this average (Jerry Wombacher, meeting with Consultant, June 20, 2002). Therefore, the response rates have been increased proportionally.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-93 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 19 Projected Annual Fire Services Demand in the Seaside Portion of the Former Fort Ord (2015)

Land Use Polygon Rate of Calls Total Calls Project (125 residential units) 19 0.153 (330 hotel units) 22 63 (170 timeshare units) 0.192 0.192 33 Project Total 115 Stilwell-Kidney Housing 0.153 54 20b (353 units) (1 acre retail) 0.913 1 Hayes Housing (380 units) 20a 0.153 58 Other Golf Course Community 20c or 0.153 313 (2,043 units) 20g South Extension Housing (264 units) 24 0.153 40 University Village (540 units) 20e 0.192 104 39 Commercial acres 15, 23 0.913 36 Fort Ord Total 721 City Total Including Fort Ord 1 2,700 Fort Ord Development Percent of City Total 26.7 % Project Share of Former Fort Ord 2 15.95 % Residential Component Share of Former Fort Ord 2.63% Hotel Component Share of Former Fort Ord 8.74% Timeshare Component Share of Former Fort Ord 4.58% 1. City of Seaside average fire calls 1995-1999 was 1,979 per year. 2. Based on a project of 125 residential units, 330 hotel units, and 170 timeshare units. Note: See Figure 4 for Polygon locations. Sources: Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC and Applied Development Economics; Rate of calls adjusted to actual call experience in Seaside 1995-1999.

Project Design

The project includes long streets terminating in cul-de-sacs. The longest of these are the street serving the southern residential area (2,100 feet long) and the street serving Timeshare Parcel A (1,200 feet long). The cul-de-sacs provided at the end of the dead-end streets allows fire equipment to turn around and leave the streets safely. Several dead-end streets and/or parking areas shown on the tentative map did not

2-94 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

have a cul-de-sac termination. These are in Timeshare Parcels A and B. A cul-de-sac or hammerhead turn around would be required in these locations (personal communication, Jerry Wombacher, January 31, 2002). The gates to private streets would be fitted with Knox boxes to allow adequate emergency access.

Environmental Setting – Police Services Jurisdiction. Prior to the downsizing of Fort Ord, the U.S. Army provided police protection services at the project site. As lands have been conveyed to other jurisdictions, the U.S. Army’s role in police services has been phased out, although U.S. Army police would be available under mutual aid agreements to assist police from other jurisdictions. The project site is currently served by the Seaside Police Department. In addition to the project site, the Seaside Police Department is responsible for the following locations on the former Fort Ord: Hayes School, Stilwell School, Marshall School, Fitch Middle School, Sun Bay Apartments, and a vacant office building belonging to the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District. The Seaside Police Department is also responsible for response to sections of Coe Avenue and Monterey Road. Facilities, Staffing, and Operations. The Seaside Police Department operates out of the lower floor of the Seaside City Hall, at Harcourt Avenue and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard in the southern end of the City. The location of the offices is skewed to an extreme end of the City and this presents problems for the department's operations at the opposite end of the City. The Department also operates two substations. A substation on Yosemite Street is approximately 2,900 square feet and houses the investigations division, and a substation on La Salle Avenue is approximately 900 square feet and houses the community relations division. Response officers do not staff the existing substations. The total area of police buildings is 13,800 square feet. The police department offices are not adequate to accommodate the department through General Plan build-out of the non-Fort Ord portion of the City (City of Seaside 1995). The Seaside Police Department currently consists of 42 sworn peace officers and 11 non- sworn personnel. The Seaside Police Department has 14 patrol cars, two motorcycles and seven other vehicles (Capt. Al Frees, memorandum to Dan Keen, City Manager, November 5, 2000). The Seaside Police Department operates three patrol areas or beats: Beat 1 is the area east of Fremont Boulevard and south of Broadway Avenue; Beat 2 is the area east of Fremont Boulevard and north of Broadway Avenue; and Beat 3 is the area west of Fremont Boulevard. During the day shift (7:00 AM to 5:00 PM) each of the three beats is staffed with a patrol unit. During the swing shift (3:00 PM to 1:00 AM) and the night shift (9:30 PM to 7:30 AM) Beats 1 and 2 are extended west to cover Beat 3. The Beat 2 unit covers all of that area of Fort Ord that is currently within the Seaside Police Department jurisdiction. Access between urbanized core of the City and the project site (within the City limits on the former Fort Ord) is severely limited. Only Monterey Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard provide links between the two areas

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-95 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

of the City. Patrols of the former Fort Ord area are seldom made due to the isolation of the former Fort Ord from the more populated portions of Seaside. Beat 2 officers generally enter the former Fort Ord only in response to calls (Capt. Al Frees, meeting with consultant, October 5, 2000). Unlike fire services, which are based at a fixed location that directly affects response times, police response typically comes from an officer already in the field. Therefore, the geographic relationship between the project site and the police station is less critical than for the fire department. It is important however, that officers do not leave their beat area for extended periods of time while fulfilling other aspects of their work, such as interviewing witnesses or preparing paperwork. The Seaside Police Department responded to an average of 45,328 calls for enforcement service per year from 1995 through 1999, or an average of 124 calls per day (Capt. Al Frees, memorandum to consultant, October 5, 2000). The Seaside Police Department has 42 sworn officers on staff, for an overall ratio of 1,080 calls per officer per year. However, 22 patrol officers answer nearly all of the police calls received, thus each patrol officer responds to an average of 2,040 calls per year.

Performance Criteria. Seaside General Plan Policy 5.1.4a establishes a standard of five minutes for maximum police response time. Average actual response time for priority 1 calls is between five and seven minutes. Police staffing is usually based on a per capita formula. A typical ratio is two officers per 1,000 residents (Department of the Army 1993). Currently, the City of Seaside has one sworn officer per 755 residents, based on a 2000 U.S. Census population of 31,696.

Funding. The Police Department’s capital expenditures and payroll are funded almost entirely through general fund monies. A small amount of additional funding is available from Proposition 172 (Local Public Safety Protection and Improvement Act of 1993) funds, which come from sales and use taxes. FORA development impact fees do not provide for police services at the former Fort Ord, nor does the City of Seaside have a schedule of development impact fees.

Project Analysis – Police Services Achievement of Performance Criteria with Project. Police officers typically patrol and respond to events within established beats, and provide backup as necessary outside their assigned beat. The project site is within an established police beat, but is far outside the principal area covered by that beat and is rarely visited by regular patrols because of its distance and isolation from the principal area of the beat. Beat 2 is considered to cover the Seaside portions of the former Fort Ord, although not all areas of Fort Ord within the Seaside City limits are under City of Seaside jurisdiction. Travel routes between the existing City urban core and the former Fort Ord are limited and generally indirect, which would result in response delays in both directions. These delays would result in a decrease in the existing level of service in the non-Fort Ord portions of Seaside. For purposes of providing emergency backup it is important that all portions of the City are well connected for quick police response.

2-96 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

To properly serve an area and maintain service standards, it is important that officers stay in or near their beats while on duty. Officer duties include interviews and the preparation of paperwork, tasks that are best performed in, and often require, an office. The existing Seaside Police Department offices are located near the south end of the City. While this location is not centralized to the City, it is acceptable for beats covering the non-Fort Ord portions of the City. However, for serving the former Fort Ord, use of the existing offices at the south end of the City by officers on patrol in the vicinity of the project site would put them far outside the established five-minute response time. The existing police station is not suitable for use by officers patrolling the Fort Ord portions of Seaside. Private patrols are considered suitable for providing first response to incidents. The proposed hotel would employ private patrols that would serve this function. The private patrols may not be adequately trained or equipped to handle all situations, but would be capable of providing first response police functions in most situations. These patrols would be available to respond to the hotel, golf clubhouse, and timeshare areas in the event of an emergency. Seaside Police would take over primary duties upon arrival. A private patrol may be available at the residential areas if the Homeowners’ Association were to hire such services. If one were hired, the private patrol might not be available at all times. Even with a private patrol, Seaside Police would frequently assume first response duties at the residential areas. At 2015 build-out, the Fort Ord area of Seaside would represent approximately one- fourth of the total City population, which is currently covered by two or three beats (depending on the shift). Geographic constraints make it difficult to reach and properly serve the project site within existing beats. While the current level of development in the area, (and the level of development with the addition of the project) may not by itself warrant an additional beat, the effect of stretching existing resources from Beat 2 to cover the area results in a decrease in the level of service in the principal areas of the beat. This decrease in service would be worsened with additional development and would effect both the principal area of Beat 2, the former Fort Ord areas and the remainder of the City. Therefore, a new police substation and beat for the former Fort Ord area of Seaside would be required to provide acceptable levels of service in the former Fort Ord area, and to maintain acceptable levels of service in the rest of the City.

The lack of a direct connection from the central areas of the urban core to the former Fort Ord would result in delays in police response and mobility between the two areas of the City. The limited access to the Fort Ord area from the developed urban core hampers efficient first response and backup response between the developed urban core and the former Fort Ord. Improved access between the two portions of the City would greatly improve police operations and responsiveness.

Service Demands and Operational Needs. With the build-out of the project, approximately 397 new residents would be added to the population of Seaside. In addition, approximately 560 transient occupants would stay at the project on an average night. Calculated on a per capita basis, and based on the current ratio of one officer per 755 residents, the project would require the addition of slightly more than one officer. Based on a calls-for-service calculation, the project would require 0.85 officers (an

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-97 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

estimated 1,732 calls per year at the project and an average of 2,040 annual calls per patrol officer). The project would constitute 10.16 percent of new police demand in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord through 2015. Table 20 summarizes the projected annual police services demand of project and cumulative development in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord.

Overall police service throughout the City would be reduced if Beat 2 resources were extended to cover the Fort Ord area. To effectively patrol the project site and the surrounding areas of the former Fort Ord without sacrificing the current level of service to existing development, a new beat would need to be established in the former Fort Ord area, and this would require a minimum of five new patrol officers (Tony Sollecito, Police Chief, meeting with Consultant, June 20, 2002). To maintain the ratio of patrol officers to calls, (one patrol officer for every 2,040 calls) 8.4 new patrol officers would be required at the former Fort Ord by 2015 build-out. A substation in the Fort Ord area of Seaside could be operated on a staffed or non-staffed basis, although the City of Seaside Police Department has expressed its preference for staffing during the daytime hours to provide a community police contact point (Capt. Alan Frees, meeting with consultant, October 5, 2000). A clerical position, at minimum, would be required to staff a substation during the day. A needs analysis for the former Fort Ord is being prepared by the Seaside Police Department, and is expected to be ready in August 2002.

Capital Needs. At 2015 build-out of the Fort Ord areas of Seaside, a new police substation would be needed to provide an office for use by officers in the Fort Ord beat, to accommodate the tasks required of a police officer in the field, and to meet established call response standards. Without a police substation in the area, police officers would need to leave the beat area to complete these tasks, thus increasing response times within the beat. A small substation with an office and an interview room would be adequate to serve these needs. The best location for the substation would be in conjunction with the new Seaside fire station, to provide a consolidated emergency presence in the former Fort Ord area and to realize cost efficiencies. The addition of the new police beat and substation would principally serve the former Fort Ord area of Seaside and would maintain police services at the current level throughout the City of Seaside.

A new beat would require additional patrol vehicles and related equipment. The City currently has 0.64 patrol vehicles per sworn patrol officer, so with the addition of 8.4 new patrol officers, the addition of five more police patrol vehicles for the former Fort Ord area would be necessary to maintain the same ratio of vehicles to patrol officers.

Capital Costs. No specific funding mechanism has been established by the City for provision of expanded police services. It is possible that redevelopment tax-increment financing would become available to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency and could be loaned to the City to assist with a short-term solution for providing funds to construct the police substation. This redevelopment funding would need to be paid back over time by development contributions. If costs for constructing the police substation were less than the amount collected, proportional reimbursements would be made to each contributing developer.

2-98 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 20 Projected Annual Police Services Demand in the Seaside Portion of the Former Fort Ord (2015)

Land Use Polygon Rate of Calls Total Calls Project

(125 residential units) 484 3.874 (330 hotel units) 22 824 2.496 (170 timeshare units) 424 2.496 Project total 1,732 Stilwell-Kidney Housing (353 residential units) 20b 3.874 1,368 (1 acre commercial uses) 54.629 54 Hayes Housing (380 units) 20a 3.874 1,472 Other Golf Course Community Housing 20c or 20g 3.874 7.915 (2,043 units) South Extension Housing (264 units) 24 3.874 1,023 University Village (540 units) 20e 2.496 1,348 39 Commercial acres 15, 23 54.629 2,131 Total Calls at Seaside Portion of Former Fort Ord 17,043 City Total Including Fort Ord 1 62,371 Fort Ord Development Percent of City Total 27.3 % New Patrol Officers Required at Fort Ord 2 8.4 Project Percent of Former Fort Ord 3 10.16 % Residential Component Share of Former Fort Ord 2.84% Hotel Component Share of Former Fort Ord 4.83% Timeshare Component Share of Former Fort Ord 2.49% 1. City of Seaside average calls 1995-1999 was 45,328 per year. 2. Based on 2,040 calls per patrol officer in City of Seaside. 3. Based on a project of 125 residential units, 330 hotel units, and 170 timeshare units. Note: Refer to Figure 4 for Polygon locations. Sources: City of Seaside Police Department, Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC and Applied Development Economics.

Environmental Setting – Public Works Jurisdiction. The Seaside Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance of all public streets and rights-of-way, storm drains, and public lighting in the City. At the former Fort Ord, the Seaside Public Works Department is currently responsible for small portions of Monterey Road and Coe Avenue, and for McClure Way. The project site is

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-99 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

currently owned by the City of Seaside and is the City is responsible for the streets and sidewalks, open space areas, street lighting, and storm drains. The golf course operator, under contract to the City, is currently responsible for maintenance of the clubhouse and golf courses. The Marina Coast Water District owns and is responsible for maintaining sewer and water infrastructure on and in the vicinity of the project site.

Facilities Maintained. The City of Seaside has approximately 74 miles of public roadways, of which 14.8 miles are classified as collector streets and 5.5 miles are classified as arterial streets. The Seaside Public Works Department maintains approximately 73 miles of sewer collection lines, 24 miles of storm drains and approximately 1,249 streetlights throughout the City (Diana Ingersoll, memorandum to Jim Claypool, Business Development/Loan Specialist, November 8, 1999). This infrastructure does not include areas within the former Fort Ord.

Existing Plant and Equipment. The Seaside Public Works department operates a corporation yard and offices on Olympia Street, from which it maintains the public infrastructure of Seaside. Table 21 summarizes the Seaside Public Works Department’s existing major vehicles, equipment, office space and corporation yard.

TABLE 21 Public Works Existing Plant and Equipment

Item Cost/Unit Quantity Value Standard Vehicles and Light various 24 vehicles $651,603 Equipment Heavy Equipment various 4 pieces $380,000 Maintenance Building $147/square foot 4,000 sq. ft. $588,000 (equipped) Office $109/square foot 3,450 sq. ft. $376,050 Corporation Yard (developed) 1 $6.40/square foot 45,000 sq. ft. $288,000 Total Existing Plant and $2,283,653 Equipment 1. The total corporation yard is 51,000 square feet; 6,000 square feet of this amount has been assigned to the office space. Costs for yard and office include planning, design and management costs at 28 percent.

Sources: City of Seaside Public Works Department and Revenue & Cost Specialists LLC

Funding. The Public Works Department’s capital expenditures and payroll are funded almost entirely through general fund monies. Some funding is received through special restricted funds such as gas tax monies.

2-100 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Project Analysis – Public Works

Project Infrastructure. The project includes the construction of new on-site streets, parking lots, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, sewer lines, storm drain lines and several retention basins. The project also includes roadway improvements along McClure Way. New water and recycled water supply, electrical, natural gas and cable television infrastructure would also be constructed.

All of the project’s streets and landscaped areas would be privately owned. The responsibility for maintenance of these facilities and areas would belong to the applicable party: the homeowners association for the residential areas, the timeshare operator for the timeshare areas, and the hotel operator for the hotel areas. Maintenance responsibility for McClure Way would remain unchanged. The Marina Coast Water District would be responsible for maintaining water and sewer infrastructure, and Pacific Bell and Pacific Gas and Electric would be responsible for maintaining the telephone and gas and electric lines. These utilities would run within easements dedicated to the maintenance entity. The residential streets would be gated, and maintained by a homeowners’ association. As the Seaside Public Works Department’s jurisdictional area expands at Fort Ord, there will be an increased need for public works facilities, services, maintenance vehicles and equipment to service the new infrastructure. Cumulative development at the former Fort Ord would also necessitate the acquisition of specific pieces of public works equipment not currently owned by the Department. All future Fort Ord developments will be required to provide on-site drainage basins to collect storm water run-off. The project does not include any new public streets or lighting. Private parties would provide maintenance of the drainage basins. Therefore, the project would not contribute to an increase in demand for public works services.

Percolation Basins. FORA has determined that each new development at the former Fort Ord will be responsible for retaining and percolating storm water run-off on-site. The project, along with all future projects on the former Fort Ord, will be required to construct percolation basins to keep all storm water run-off to the east of State Highway 1. This will prevent the outfall of potentially polluted storm waters into Monterey Bay and protect water quality in the Bay. The project includes 12 drainage basins, all of which would be maintained by private parties.

Environmental Setting – Parks Jurisdiction. Public parks within the City of Seaside are maintained by the Seaside Public Works Department. Existing Facilities. The City of Seaside maintains 44 acres of parks and 10 acres of undeveloped open space (Diana Ingersoll, memorandum to Jim Claypool, Business Development/Loan Specialist, November 8, 1999). All of this parkland is located in the urban core area of the City. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census population of 31,696, the City of Seaside has 1.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-101 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Performance Criteria. The Seaside General Plan standard for parkland is two acres of neighborhood parks and one acre of community parks per 1,000 residents. The City would currently need approximately 90 acres of parkland to meet this standard, or 36 additional acres. The Seaside General Plan establishes two tiers of parks requirements for the former Fort Ord portions of Seaside. First the plan reiterates the 1995 Seaside General Plan parks standard for the City of Seaside, of three acres of total parkland for each 1,000 residents. Under this population ratio, the projected parks requirement in 2015 within the former Fort Ord portion of Seaside would be approximately 36 acres, and at Fort Ord Reuse Plan build-out approximately 45 acres. The Fort Ord Lands General Plan Amendment to the Seaside General Plan also reflects the Fort Ord Reuse Plan land use designations in designating 75 acres of community parks and 25 acres of neighborhood parks in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord. Thus, the Seaside General Plan designates an additional 30 acres of parkland within the Fort Ord area than would be required by the 3:1,000 ratio alone. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan and Seaside General Plan do not indicate any parks within the project site.

Project Analysis – Parks

Achievement of Standards. The project would include 125 residential lots, for which, the provision of parklands would be required. The project does not include any parkland that would be considered to fulfill the neighborhood parkland and community parkland requirements. The golf courses are an already existing and separate type of recreational facility. The project does not fulfill the parklands requirements.

Proportionality. Because park users are generated almost exclusively from residential uses, the cost of the parks would be borne by residential development. The residential component of the project would be responsible for providing parkland or park fees to cover its neighborhood and community parkland obligations under the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Cumulative residential project development including the project would result in 3,705 new residential units in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord by 2015. The project represents 3.37 percent of that residential development. Table 22 summarizes the cumulative residential development and the project’s share of parks demand. The project would be responsible for fees to cover 3.37 percent of the cost of the parks required under the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan, or equivalent dedication of parkland.

2-102 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 22 Project Share of Parks Demand in the Seaside Portion of the Former Fort Ord (2015)

Residential Land Use Polygon Units Project (125 residential units) 125 (330 hotel units) 22 0 (170 timeshare units) 0 Project total 125 Stilwell-Kidney Housing 20b 353 Hayes Housing 20a 380 Other Golf Course Community 20cor 20g 2,043 Housing South Extension Housing 24 264 University Village 20e 540 39 Commercial acres 15, 23 0 Total Residential Units at Seaside Portion of Former Fort Ord 3,705 Project Percent of Former Fort Ord 1 3.37% Residential Component Share of Former Fort Ord 3.37% Hotel Component Share of Former Fort Ord 0% Timeshare Component Share of Former Fort Ord 0% 1. Based on a project of 125 residential units, 330 hotel units, and 170 timeshare units. Note: Refer to Figure 4 for Polygon locations.

Sources: City of Seaside Police Department, Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC and Applied Development Economics.

Environmental Setting – Schools Boundaries and Attendance. The project site is within the boundaries of the MPUSD, which encompasses the former Fort Ord, most of the Monterey Peninsula, and the City of Marina. Elementary schools in the MPUSD provide education for grades K–5, middle schools for grades 6–8, and high schools for grades 9–12. Due to the changing nature of the population at the former Fort Ord, and the budgetary constraints of MPUSD, attendance boundaries have been subject to change in recent years. Children in the vicinity of the project site currently attend elementary school at either Ord Terrace School, Stilwell School or Marshall School. Fitch Middle School and Seaside High School serve the area for the upper grades. Schools in the Fort Ord area

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-103 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR presently have excess classroom space available. With the population drop resulting from the downsizing of Fort Ord, several schools have been put to special program or administrative uses on an interim basis. Stilwell School currently houses the County special education classrooms and offices, and spillover kindergarten and first grade classes from Marshall School. Hayes School is currently used for adult education classes. The MPUSD plans to close Stilwell School in Fall 2002. There are currently no houses on the project site and therefore, there are no students from the project site attending schools.

Funding. The State of California funds local school operations based on the average daily attendance at the school. Schools receive approximately $20 per student per day based on the average daily attendance. An additional $800 per student per school year is available for each classroom with a 1:20 teacher-student ratio. The MPUSD currently has a budget deficit of approximately $6 million and is considering closing some schools. The MPUSD currently charges development fees considered adequate to offset the cost of new school facilities necessitated by new development. The MPUSD adopted a development fee justification study in January 2000.

Project Analysis – Schools

Based on a student generation rate of 0.7 students per household (the State Allocation Board and the Office of Public School Construction rate used in the Five Year School Facility Plan/Needs Analysis and Developer Fee Justification Document, adopted by MPUSD in January 2000.) the project would generate approximately 47 kindergarten and elementary school-aged children, 14 middle school-aged children and 27 high school- aged children, for a total of 88 students.

Elementary school children might attend Ord Terrace School, Hayes School, or Marshall School. Upper grade school children from the project would attend Fitch Middle School and Seaside High School.

MPUSD collects development impact fees of $2.05 per square foot of new development to offset the cost of new facilities. This fee is based on calculations presented in Five Year School Facility Plan/Needs Analysis and Developer Fee Justification Document. The fee study included planned development at the former Fort Ord.

Public Services Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Because funding for adequate services could not be assured, the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the inability of local jurisdictions to provide adequate police and fire protective services would be a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation measures presented below would ensure that the proposed project contribute a fair share of the costs to increase fire and police facilities and services at the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord. Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

2-104 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

• result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services, police services, schools, parks or other public services; or

• result in inadequate emergency access.

Significant Impact – Inadequate Fire Response Times. Portions of the project site are located beyond acceptable response times from the City of Seaside fire station. From the fire station on Broadway Avenue and Yosemite Street, the response time to the proposed main hotel building and Timeshare Parcel A would be beyond the limit of acceptable response times. The farthest parts of the project site are beyond the five-minute response time. A better response time is possible from the existing Fort Ord Fire Station near General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road. Although the Fort Ord Fire Station is operated specifically for the protection of the military facilities and uses at the former Fort Ord, an anticipated automatic aid agreement with the Seaside Fire Department would extend their first response duties to civilian locations at the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord. However, if the Fort Ord Fire Department were already engaged elsewhere, the Seaside Fire Department would remain the first response agency. Therefore, a new City of Seaside fire station would be required to ensure adequate response times to the project. The fire station would need to include a minimum of four bays to accommodate typical urban as well as high-rise structure and wildlands fires.

There are no assurances that a Seaside fire station would be constructed prior to substantial occupation of the former Fort Ord area of Seaside. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

32. The City shall adopt and implement a capital improvement program, which shall include the construction within three years of a City of Seaside fire station on the former Fort Ord within the City limits of Seaside. The construction of the fire station may be financed by bonds issued by the Redevelopment Agency to be repaid wholly or in part by development fees imposed on new development on the former Fort Ord within the City limits of Seaside. The applicant shall pay such development fees representing its fair share of the cost of the fire station.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Seaside City Manager; Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Fire Chief; Seaside City Manager.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-105 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

33. The applicant shall pay a fair share development fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of providing the following fire apparatus, or equivalent for use at the former Fort Ord as determined by the Fire Chief: 1) standard pumper engine; and 2) four-wheel drive pumper engine, or a quint engine with a 75-foot ladder, or equivalent as determined by the Fire Chief.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Fire Chief.

Significant Cumulative Impacts – Need for Expanded Police Protective Services and Facilities. The project would incrementally increase the need for police protective services from the City of Seaside. Based on a calls-for-service projection, the project is estimated to require the equivalent of 0.85 new officers. However, because of the size and extent of the former Fort Ord area and its relative distance from the existing urban core of the City, the project, in conjunction with existing and future projects in the Fort Ord portion of Seaside, would require the establishment of a new police beat and a new police substation in the former Fort Ord area.

Existing Police Department facilities are overcrowded and could not accommodate increases in staff. Additionally, the police station is located at the extreme southern edge of the City, more than five minutes from the project site, and is not suitably located for the performance of on-duty tasks such as completing paperwork and conducting interviews. A police substation within the Fort Ord area would be required to maintain adequate levels of police coverage, and new police vehicles and equipment would be required to equip a new police beat in the area. A substation would typically include at minimum an office, interview room and necessary ancillary facilities and should be integrated with the fire station. The need for additional police facilities and equipment are significant cumulative impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

34. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Seaside City Manager and the City of Seaside Police Chief, the Applicant shall pay a fair share development fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of expanding Police Department headquarters office space and expanding the wireless communications system. The fee shall be paid prior to approval of the first final map.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Police Chief; Seaside City Manager.

2-106 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

35. The City shall adopt and implement a capital improvement program, which shall include the construction within three years of a City of Seaside police substation on the former Fort Ord within the City limits of Seaside. The construction of the police substation may be financed by bonds issued by the Redevelopment Agency to be repaid wholly or in part by development fees imposed on new development on the former Fort Ord within the City limits of Seaside. The applicant shall pay such development fees representing its fair share of the cost of the police substation.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Seaside City Manager; Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Police Chief; Seaside City Manager.

36. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Seaside City Manager and the City of Seaside Police Chief, the applicant shall pay a fair share development fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of providing the following police equipment and capitalized procedures for use at the former Fort Ord as determined by the Police Chief: 1) Four patrol cars (Equipped for various purposes as determined by the Police Chief); 2) Officer equipment for eight patrol officers; and 3) Officer background checks for eight patrol officers.

The applicant shall be responsible for the fair share cost of acquisition of the police equipment and capitalized procedures above prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy of the project, and the City.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Police Chief; Seaside City Manager.

Significant Cumulative Impact – Lack of Adequate Emergency Access. The project and other planned development in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord would incrementally increase the demand on City of Seaside Police Department services. In addition to requiring the provision of a new Seaside fire station and police substation, cumulative development within the former Fort Ord would require additional emergency response and interaction between the existing urban core area of Seaside and the former Fort Ord area of Seaside. The lack of a direct access between the developed urban core of the City of Seaside and the former Fort Ord would potentially cause delays for the Seaside Police Department, hampering response between the two parts of the City. These delays would result in

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-107 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR impaired police response and service in both parts of the City, that in many cases, would not meet City standards. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures 37. If feasible, the City of Seaside shall open LaSalle Avenue (via Lysette Court) and Hilby Avenue as public streets connecting to General Jim Moore Boulevard prior to initial occupancy of the project. Prior to the opening of LaSalle Avenue the Seaside Public Works Department shall review traffic control devices at the intersection of LaSalle Avenue and Lysette Court and implement any appropriate changes. This mitigation measure is the responsibility of the City and shall not be construed to prevent the project from being occupied when it is otherwise ready and permitted.

Party Responsible for Implementation: City of Seaside Public Works Department.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Seaside City Manager.

38. The applicant shall pay a fair share reimbursement fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of providing an emergency access between Coe Avenue and Paralta Avenue. The fee shall be paid prior to occupancy of each component of the project. In consideration of the City issuing building permits before the completion of this emergency access, the applicant agrees to indemnify the City of Seaside against claims, losses or damages related to the project and incurred as a result of the lack of access from Peralta Avenue to Coe Avenue.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Department; Seaside City Manager.

39. The applicant shall pay a fair share reimbursement fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of providing an emergency access between Coe Avenue and Military Avenue. The fee shall be paid prior to occupancy of each component of the project.

In consideration of the City issuing building permits before the completion of this emergency access, the applicant agrees to indemnify the City of Seaside against claims, losses or damages related to the project and incurred as a result of the lack of access from Military Avenue to Coe Avenue.

2-108 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Department.

Potentially Significant Impact – Inadequate Turn-around Provisions at Street Terminations. Several of the dead-end streets and parking areas shown on the tentative maps do not provide adequate turn-around provisions for fire equipment. The lack of an adequate turn-around could hamper emergency response times. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 40. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Seaside Fire Chief and Public Works Director, all streets and linear parking areas shown on the final map for any phase of the project shall either connect at their ends to another street or approved emergency access, or include either a cul-de-sac or hammerhead termination meeting the standards of the City of Seaside. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of timeshare component. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director. Less Than Significant Impact– Expansion of Public Works Services and Facilities. The project’s streets and sidewalks, street lighting and storm drainage facilities would be privately owned and maintained. Therefore the project would have a less than significant effect on public works facilities and equipment. Significant Impact – Need for New Neighborhood Parks Facilities. The project would not include any Neighborhood Parkland. The project would be responsible for providing parkland or park fees to cover its obligation for Neighborhood Parkland. Failure to provide the required parkland or to pay the equivalent fee would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 41. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Seaside to pay a fair share development fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of providing and developing Neighborhood Parkland as required in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan. The fee payment shall be made prior to issuance of the final map for each project phase. Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of residential component.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Seaside City Manager.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-109 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Significant Impact – Need for New Community Parks Facilities. The project would not include any Community Parkland. The project would be responsible for providing parkland or park fees to cover its obligation for Community Parkland. Failure to provide the required parkland or to pay the equivalent fee would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 42. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Seaside to pay a fair share development fee, or equivalent as agreed to in the DDA, for the purpose of providing and developing Community Parkland as required in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan. The fee payment shall be made prior to issuance of the each final map.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of residential component. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: Seaside City Manager. Less Than Significant Impact – Need for New School Facilities. The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District has adequate classrooms available to house the students expected to be generated from the project. As allowed by State law, a development fee has been established by the MPUSD for new residential and commercial construction to finance any necessary new classrooms that would be necessary due to increased demand from cumulative development. The project would be responsible for payment of this fee. No further mitigation is necessary.

2.12 Transportation A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared for the project by Higgins Associates in July 2001. The TIA is included as Appendix I. An addendum to the TIA, and peer review letters, were also prepared for the project. These are included in Appendix J. Background information in this section is based on the TIA, the TIA addendum and peer review letters, traffic reports for other projects in Seaside, an analysis of Seaside General Plan policy, and site investigations. The traffic analysis in this section is based on the TIA.

Circulation Policies, Programs, and Funding

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan was adopted in June 1997. The City of Seaside incorporated the policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan into their general plan with adoption of the Fort Ord Lands General Plan Amendment on August 12, 1998. The following policies are from those documents.

2-110 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Neighborhood Connectivity and Alternative Transportation Policies Transportation Demand Management Policy A-1: TDM programs shall be encouraged.

Programs A-1.1 and A-1.2 under this policy suggest the implementation of compressed work weeks, flexible work hours, telecommuting, ridesharing, transit subsidies, guaranteed rides home, bicycle parking, and parking pricing strategies. Program A-1.3 requires new developments to incorporate design features that would strengthen transportation demand management (TDM) programs.

Goal and Objective C – New Neighborhoods: Connect new residential neighborhoods via continuous streets and/or open space linkages to surrounding neighborhoods and districts.

Residential Land Use Policy E-2: In areas of residential development, the City of Seaside shall provide for designation of access routes, street and road rights-of-way, off-street parking, bike paths, and pedestrian walkways.

Commercial Land Use Policy E-2: In areas of commercial development, the City of Seaside shall provide for designation of access routes, street and road rights-of-way, off-street parking, bike paths, and pedestrian walkways.

Pedestrian and Bicycles Policy A-1: Seaside shall provide and maintain an attractive, safe and comprehensive pedestrian system.

Pedestrian and Bicycles Policy B-1: Seaside shall provide and maintain an attractive, safe and comprehensive bicycle system.

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Fort Ord Lands General Plan Amendment include policies encouraging the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to link neighborhoods to one another and to the various assets of the former Fort Ord. The plans envision a comprehensive circulation network that provides a convenient pedestrian and bicycle network in addition to the street network. Several specific pedestrian and bicycle trails are indicated in the plans, including one that would parallel Monterey Road from the former Ord Gate to General Jim Moore Boulevard, either through or adjacent to the project site. The Seaside City Council adopted the Seaside Bikeways Plan in 1997, in furtherance of General Plan Circulation Policy 12. The Seaside Bikeways Plan includes Class II lanes on Monterey Road, a Class I path along General Jim Moore Boulevard, and recommendations for bicycle parking.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-111 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Transit Policy A-1: The City of Seaside with lands at former Fort Ord shall coordinate with MST to provide regional bus service and facilities to serve the key activity centers and key corridors within former Fort Ord.

A bus route exists on both Monterey Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard, on the west and east sides of the project site.

Level of Service Standards and Policies To help maintain acceptable traffic flows along roadways, public agencies adopt minimum level of service criteria for roads and highways in their jurisdiction. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) classifies levels of service by the acronym “LOS” and a letter designation of A–F, with LOS A having traffic operations with easy movement and very low delay, and LOS F having traffic operations that are very difficult or impossible and very long delays. The City of Seaside has adopted the following policy regarding level of service in the 1995 Seaside General Plan: Circulation Policy 2 – Street Performance Standards: …Generally maintain traffic conditions at LOS C at Seaside intersections and roadways except where it is determined that improvements needed to maintain LOS C at specific locations are infeasible, or where overriding social or economic benefits to the City can be identified... In addition, Fort Ord Reuse Plan and Seaside General Plan Program C-1.2 under Streets and Roads Policy C-1, requires the City of Seaside to assign an appropriate threshold performance standard for is roadway system, in order to measure the impacts of future growth on the system. Caltrans’ standards are applicable on State highways. Caltrans’ minimum acceptable level of service is LOS D. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) standard for urban roadway performance is LOS D; in some places LOS E is considered acceptable if that was the existing level of service at the time the standard was adopted. TAMC is responsible for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) in Monterey County, and for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Level of service standards and existing levels of service on specific roadways, and at specific intersections, are discussed later in this section.

Street Cross Section and Parking Standards

Streets and Roads Policy C-1: The City of Seaside shall identify the functional purpose of all roadways and design the street system in conformance with Reuse Plan design standards.

The Seaside General Plan contains street development standards that apply within the former Fort Ord portion of Seaside. The standard for local urban streets with a 25 mile- per-hour speed limit is a curb-to-curb width of 36 feet. Existing City of Seaside engineering standards would require a 40-foot curb-to-curb width for residential streets, but do not apply in the former Fort Ord portions of Seaside.

2-112 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The City of Seaside recently amended the Subdivision Ordinance to permit varied standards for privately owned streets in the City. The ordinance does not specify specific standards, but requires findings concerning adequacy of parking and emergency vehicle access. The streets must not be offered for dedication to the City, and must create a more aesthetically or environmentally desirable subdivision design.

Streets and Roads Policy D-1: The City of Seaside shall provide a program of on-street parking.

Programs under this policy require the provision of on-street parking, as appropriate, on all new urban roadways.

The Seaside zoning ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17-17.48.030) contains off-street parking standards for various land uses. The Seaside standard for hotels is the total of one space for each guest room, one space for each three employees, and one space for every 5,000 square feet of building space. No requirements have been adopted for timeshare units or mixed use projects. Detached single-family residences are required to have two covered parking spaces.

Transportation Improvements Funding Sources The Fort Ord Regional Transportation Study (TAMC 1997) reviewed potential funding options for transportation improvement capital expense as well as ongoing operations expenses, and a more detailed discussion may be found there. Below is a brief summary of transportation capital improvement funding sources. The majority of transportation funding comes from Federal and State programs, each of which has specific criteria for funds qualification. Much of this funding is generated by taxes on motor fuel. Some comes from other sources, such as the State sales and use tax. A portion of the fuel taxes are distributed directly to local agencies. Most of this money is used for roadway maintenance. Numerous other funding sources can potentially fund transportation improvements. Development-related financing includes development impact fees, benefit assessments, special taxes and development dispensation agreements. Development fees are typically collected at the time of permit issuance. A clear relationship must be shown between the impact of the development and the improvement for which the fee is intended. Benefit assessments involve the creation of an assessment district covering those properties that will directly benefit from an improvement. As with impact fees, a direct nexus must be shown. Special taxes are charged to everyone within the taxing authority's jurisdiction. Properties must benefit from the improvement only in a general way, rather in a clearly demonstrable way. Tax rates may be set differently for different types of land use. A two-thirds majority vote is required for approval of the special tax. A special tax is commonly set up through the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. The former Fort Ord also qualifies for tax increment financing through the establishment of the redevelopment area there. When a redevelopment area is established, the existing property tax allocations to each agency are frozen at the level at the time the

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-113 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

redevelopment area is established. Any increases in property tax revenues from then on are directed to the redevelopment agency. Since very few property taxes were being collected by local agencies at the former Fort Ord at the time the redevelopment district was established, increases in property taxes that will go to the redevelopment agency will be large. Local-option taxes can also be applied to transportation improvements. The most typical example of this is a local sales tax increase to serve specified needs. FORA Development Fees and Capital Improvement Program. The estimated costs of mitigation measures in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR and other FORA base wide obligations was approximately $276 million at the time the implementation program for Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR mitigation was prepared in 1998. Approximately two-thirds of the expected total cost of improvements at the former Fort Ord, as determined as appropriate mitigation in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR, would be financed through the development fee program adopted by FORA in November 1998. The remainder of FORA’s financing would come from other sources, such as redevelopment tax increment. Of the total projected FORA obligation, approximately 48.6 percent would be needed to fund transportation improvements. In addition to transportation projects, the FORA development fee program funds habitat management capital costs, public improvements capital projects, caretaker costs, and demolition costs. The FORA development fee is imposed on projects based on the number of residential or hotel units, and the acreage of commercial or industrial development. The current fee for new residential units is $34,324, and the current fee for hotel rooms is $7,653. Development fees are paid at issuance of building permits based on the current fee schedule. The development fees became a function of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) on May 10, 2002. The fee schedule was adjusted for inflation from the November 1998 schedule in conjunction with the formation of the CFD. The cost of transportation improvements was derived from the Fort Ord Transportation Study. A nexus analysis was performed to identify those improvements that would serve and/or be required to accommodate the redevelopment of Fort Ord. The results of the nexus analysis are summarized in the Fort Ord Transportation Study's Table 7-3, "2015 Fort Ord Regional Transportation Study Preliminary Nexus Analysis Results." The nexus analysis allocates the un-funded cost of identified transportation improvements to Fort Ord development, other regional development and public sources. The Fort Ord development share of transportation improvements identified in the nexus analysis is approximately $117 million in 1997 dollars. The FORA development fee schedule is based on funding a total of $176 million in transportation projects (FORA Board Report, November 13, 1998). Each year FORA adopts a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to direct the agency's infrastructure improvements spending. Transportation improvements included within the CIP are based on the Fort Ord Transportation Study's Table 7-3. Projects listed in Table 7-3 that are near the project site include the widening of State Highway 1 south of Fremont Boulevard to three lanes in each direction, improvements to General Jim Moore Boulevard, improvements to Del Monte Boulevard and improvements to State Highway 218. Under a Mello-Roos CFD, no nexus is required between funding sources

2-114 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation and projects on which funds are spent. Money collected as development fees is allocated based on the priorities established when the CIP is approved each year. Although the overall spending on transportation would be approximately 48.6 percent, in any given year the percentage of funds allocated to transportation projects could be more or less than that.

State Highway 1 Project Study Report Proposed Road Improvements

A Project Study Report (PSR) is being prepared for the State Highway 1 corridor through Seaside, from State Highway 218 to Lightfighter Drive, to address traffic conditions and potential improvements within the corridor. The latest draft of the PSR is from August 2001. The preferred set of improvements has been largely finalized, but the final PSR has not been adopted. The draft PSR recommends a new Monterey Road interchange between Fremont Boulevard and Lightfighter Drive, and additional lanes on State Highway 1 between State Highway 218 and the new Monterey Road interchange. Several changes are recommended in the vicinity of the Monterey Road/Fremont Boulevard intersection, and the Fremont Boulevard / Military Avenue / Del Monte Boulevard intersection. Monterey Road would be extended southward to connect into a new signalized Fremont Boulevard/Military Avenue intersection. Access to Del Monte Avenue would not be allowed at this intersection, and the existing connection of Monterey Avenue to California Avenue would be closed. The improvements expected to be recommended in the final PSR are shown in Table 23. Another alternative being studied includes the new interchange and additional highway lanes, but a different set of local street improvements.

Environmental Setting

Roadways Serving the Project Site

The project site is accessed primarily from General Jim Moore Boulevard, and to a lesser extent from Monterey Road and Coe Avenue. Access to surrounding communities is provided by General Jim Moore Boulevard, Monterey Road, Del Monte Avenue, and Fremont Boulevard. State Highway 1 is the principal regional highway in the vicinity of the project site, providing access to the south to the Monterey Peninsula and to the north to Santa Cruz County. State Highway 68 and Reservation Road provide access to the east, including Salinas and U.S. Highway 101, with State Highway 218 providing a connection between State Highway 1 and State Highway 68. State Highway 156 provides access to the east and northeast, and particularly to the San Francisco Bay Area, by way of U.S. Highway 101. Refer to Section 1.0 Introduction, for maps showing regional and local roads providing access for the project site. Del Monte Boulevard and Fremont Boulevard in Seaside, are the principal access routes to local services.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-115 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 23 Improvements Recommended in Draft State Highway 1 PSR

Phase Improvement Cost 1 Construction of a new interchange at State Highway 1 and Monterey $13.8 Road, approximately midway between the Lightfighter Drive and million Fremont Boulevard. This intersection would be approximately 1,500 feet due west of the project site. 2A Improve Old Monterey Road and Military Avenue/Fremont 4.5 Boulevard connection to Del Monte Boulevard. million 2B California Avenue improvements from southbound off-ramp to $0.7 Monterey Bay Shores site. million 2C Improve northbound on-ramp to two lanes with a Fremont $5.4 Boulevard connection. million 2D Local street improvements at California Avenue and Fremont $1.0 Boulevard. million 3 Southbound on-ramp improvements at California Avenue. $1.6 million 4 Widen State Highway 1 to six lanes from State Highway 218 to $12.3 Fremont Boulevard; and four northbound lanes, and three million southbound lanes from Fremont Boulevard to Monterey Road. Total $39.3 million

Source: Mark Thomas and Company Inc.

State Highway 1 is a four-lane freeway from Castroville to Marina and Sand City to Carmel, and a six-lane freeway from Marina to Sand City, with a 65-mile per hour (MPH) speed limit. State Highway 218 is a surface highway, with four lanes from State Highway 1 to Fremont Boulevard, and two lanes from Fremont Boulevard to State Highway 68. State Highway 68 is a two-lane highway from State Highway 1 to west of Salinas, with a speed limit of 55 MPH. State Highway 156 is a two-lane highway for most of the distance from Castroville to U.S. Highway 101, with a 55 MPH speed limit. Reservation Road is a four-lane city street in Marina, and a two-lane highway east of Marina. Fremont Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial connecting the City of Seaside with State Highway 1, and has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Del Monte Boulevard runs generally parallel to Fremont Boulevard, branching off from Fremont Boulevard just south of the Fremont Boulevard/State Highway 1 interchange. Both Fremont Boulevard and Del Monte Boulevard are classified as arterials in the Seaside General Plan. General Jim Moore Boulevard is a two-lane to four-lane arterial with a 35 MPH speed limit, providing access within the former Fort Ord. Lightfighter Drive is four lanes and connects General Jim Moore Boulevard to State Highway 1. Monterey

2-116 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Road is a two-lane collector street, with a 35 MPH speed limit, providing access to the residential areas west of the project site. All other roadways in the vicinity of the project site are local roads. Table 24 and Table 25 present a description of the study road network. Several highways in the vicinity of the project site are in the Monterey County Congestion Management Program network. These include State Highway 1, State Highway 68, State Highway 218, and Fremont Boulevard.

TABLE 24 Study Road Network Intersections Jurisdiction and Description

Intersection Lane Configuration Intersection Jurisdiction Control NB SB EB WB Gen. Jim Moore / Seaside1 4-way stop2 2L 1 T/R 1L,1T,1T/R 1L 1T 1R 1L 1T/R Lightfighter Monterey Road / Seaside1 4-way stop 1L/T/R 1L/T/R 1L/T/R 1L/T/R Normandy Road Gen. Jim Moore / 1L 1T Seaside1 4-way stop2 1L 2T 1R 1L/T/R 1L/T/R Normandy Road 1T/R Noumea Road / Seaside1 minor stop ––– 1L/T/R 1 L/T 1T/R Monterey Road Gen. Jim Moore / Seaside1 minor stop 2T ––– 1T 1T/R 1R Bayonet Drive no. Gen. Jim Moore / Seaside1 minor stop 1L 2T 1T 1TR 1L/T/R ––– Bayonet Drive so. Gen. Jim Moore / Seaside1 4-way stop 1L/T/R 1L/T/R 1L/T 1R 1L/T/R McClure Way Monterey Road / Seaside1 3-way stop 1T/R 1L/T ––– 1L 1R Coe Avenue Gen. Jim Moore / Seaside1 minor stop 1L 1T 1T 1R 1L 1R ––– Coe Avenue California Avenue 1L 1T Sand City signal 1T 1R 1L/T/R 1L 1R / Monterey Road 1T/R Fremont Blvd. / 1L 1T 1L 1L/T Seaside1 signal 1L 2T 1R 1L/T/R Monterey Road 1T/R 1R Fremont Blvd. / Seaside1 Del M. stop 1T 1T/R 2T 1R 1L 1T/R 1L 1R Del Monte Blvd. Gen. Jim Moore / Caltrans signal ––– 1L 1R 1L 1T 1T 1R Highway 218 1. Roads within the Seaside City Limits are not entirely under the jurisdiction of Seaside for purposes of maintenance and patrol, depending on the status of adjoining land transfers from the U.S. Army. 2. These intersections were under four-way stop control when the traffic report was prepared. The existing signal lights at these intersections have since been activated. Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-117 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

TABLE 25 Study Road Network Road Segments Jurisdiction and Description

Type of Lane Configuration Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Roadway NB SB EB WB Highway 1 north of Caltrans freeway. 3 Lanes Fremont NB Highway 1 north of Caltrans freeway. 3 lanes Fremont SB Highway 1 south of Caltrans freeway. 2 lanes Fremont NB Highway 1 south of Caltrans freeway. 2 lanes Fremont SB Highway 68 east of Caltrans Highway 1 lane 1 lane Highway 218 Highway 218 south Caltrans arterial 1 lane 1 lane of Gen. Jim Moore Gen. Jim Moore Seaside1 arterial 1 lane 1 lane south of Coe Ave. Gen. Jim Moore Seaside1 arterial 2 lanes 2 lanes south of Normandy Gen. Jim Moore south of Light Seaside arterial 2 lanes 2 lanes Fighter 1. Roads within the former Fort Ord section of Seaside are not entirely under the jurisdiction of Seaside for purposes of maintenance and patrol, depending on the status of adjoining land transfers from the U.S. Army.

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001.

Existing Traffic Conditions

The TIA analyzed existing traffic volumes and operating conditions for 13 intersections and nine roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site. Traffic counts were taken at nine intersections in September and October 2000. Two other intersections were counted in July and August 2000, and counts at two other intersections were obtained from April 2000 counts made for the City of Sand City. Intersections

Intersection analysis was conducted using TRAFFFIX analysis software. The 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for intersections level of service calculations. The existing conditions for these intersections are presented in Table 26. Currently, the intersections of Fremont Boulevard and Del Monte Boulevard, and Fremont Boulevard and Monterey Road operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours.

2-118 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 26 Intersection LOS Standards and Existing Conditions

LOS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Standard LOS LOS Gen. Jim Moore / Lightfighter C C C Monterey Road / Normandy Road C A A Gen. Jim Moore / Normandy Road C A B Noumea Road / Monterey Road C A A Gen. Jim Moore / Bayonet Drive north C A A Gen. Jim Moore / Bayonet Drive south C A A Gen. Jim Moore / McClure Way C B B Monterey Road / Coe Avenue C A C Gen. Jim Moore / Coe Avenue C A A California Avenue / Monterey Road C B C Fremont Blvd. / Monterey Road C D D Fremont Blvd. / Del Monte Blvd. C C F Gen. Jim Moore / Highway 218 C A A

Note: LOS below standards is indicated with bold text.

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001

As indicated in Table 26, two intersections in the project vicinity, Fremont Boulevard at Monterey Road and Fremont Boulevard at Del Monte Boulevard, currently operate at less than acceptable levels of service. Construction of several improvements proposed by the State Highway 1 PSR would improve these intersections to acceptable levels of service under existing conditions. Minimum necessary improvements would be the diversion of Monterey Road from its current intersection with California Avenue and Fremont Boulevard, to a new intersection with Military Avenue and Fremont Boulevard. This intersection would require signalization.

The Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrant is met at the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Lightfighter Drive, however the intersection still operates at an acceptable level of service with the existing four-way stops. At the intersection of General Jim Moore Boulevard and McClure Way, the right turn lane warrant is met for northbound traffic (onto Arloncourt Road). A right turn lane warrant is also met for northbound Monterey Road at Coe Avenue.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-119 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Roadway Segments Existing road segment level of service can be estimated using the Modified HCM-based level of service tables (Florida Tables), or computer software based on these tables. AMBAG approves these tables for use, as specified in the TAMC Traffic Congestion Management Program. These tables consider the capacity of individual segments based on numerous roadway variables, such as design speed, number of lanes, number of passing lanes, saturation, and flow. These variables were identified for the studied segments and the level of service tables applied to arrive at existing level of service conditions for each segment. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for road segment level of service calculations. The existing conditions for these roadway segments are presented in Table 27.

TABLE 27 Road Segment LOS Standards and Existing Conditions

Roadway Segment LOS Standard AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Highway 1 north of Fremont NB D B C Highway 1 north of Fremont SB D C C Highway 1 south of Fremont NB D/E1 B D/F 2 Highway 1 south of Fremont SB D/E1 D/F 2 C Highway 68 east of Highway 218 D/E1 E F Highway 218 south of Gen. Jim Moore D A B Gen. Jim Moore south of Coe Avenue C A A Gen. Jim Moore south of Normandy C A A Gen. Jim Moore south of Light Fighter C A A Note: LOS below standards is indicated with bold text. 1. Caltrans standard is LOS D; Monterey County CMP standard is LOS E. 2. Higgins traffic report lists existing LOS D, from the 1999 Draft State Highway 1 PSR; congestion monitoring data from Caltrans indicates existing LOS F from monitoring in November, 2001.

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001 and Monterey County Congestion Management Program, March 1994.

State Highway 68 east of State Highway 218 currently operates at a level of service below standards (LOS E in the AM peak period, and LOS F in the PM peak period). State Highway 1 is listed in the TIA and in the 1999 version of the State Highway 1 PSR as operating at acceptable levels of service on the segments north and south of Fremont Boulevard (LOS D in each peak period). According to congestion monitoring data from the Caltrans, the section of State Highway 1 south of Fremont Boulevard is at LOS F

2-120 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

southbound in the AM peak period and northbound in the PM peak period. Caltrans recorded average travel speeds as low as 33.8 miles per hour during an AM peak hour timing of the section of State Highway 1 between the 8 th Avenue overpass and Munras/Soledad undercrossing. On three runs between 7:20 AM and 8:20 AM on November 7, 2001, traffic speeds dropped below 10 miles per hour on six occasions between Lightfighter Drive and State Highway 218.

Existing Traffic and Parking at the Project Site Existing traffic at the project site is associated with the existing golf course and clubhouse. Trips associated with these uses are included in the existing conditions discussed above. The existing golf course and clubhouse are served by 254 parking spaces. The peak demand for parking typically occurs at approximately 1:00 PM, when approximately two-thirds of the spaces are occupied. Aside from special events, there is very little existing parking demand past 8:00 PM.

Existing Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Provisions There are no existing bicycle facilities adjacent to the project site. Monterey Road adjacent to the project site to the west, and General Jim Moore Boulevard, adjacent to portions of the project site to the east, and providing the main access to the project site, are designated bicycle routes in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Monterey County General Bikeways Plan. Coe Avenue, adjacent to a portion of the project site to the south, is shown as a bicycle route on the Seaside Bikeways Plan. These bicycle facilities are not yet built. The Monterey Bay Trail is a part of a 21-mile regional route, and part of the State designated Pacific Coast Bike Route. It is a Class I separated trail parallel to, and on the west side of State Highway 1, approximately one-mile, by road, from the project site. Few sidewalks exist in the vicinity of the project site. There are sidewalks along General Jim Moore Boulevard in the vicinity of Fitch Park and Stilwell Park housing areas, and along the west side of Monterey Road in the vicinity of Hayes Park and Stilwell Park. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides bus service in Seaside. Two routes serve the periphery of the project site. Route 16 runs along Monterey Road and Route 17 travels on Coe Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard. Both routes provide service to the Edgewater Shopping Center Transit Exchange and the Marina Transit Exchange, with service to California State University Monterey Bay. The routes run on an hourly schedule, with the combination of the two routes providing half-hourly service at some locations. Service on these routes is provided from approximately 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday, with reduced service on Sundays. Persons with disabilities are also served by the RIDES program, which provides wheelchair-equipped vans on an on-call basis mid-day hours during weekdays.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-121 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Project Analysis

Project Construction Traffic

Site preparation and construction of the project would involve the transport of materials and workers to and from the project site over an approximate eight-year period. Site preparation and construction would be concentrated in the initial two-year period following project approval, with the construction of the hotel, and the first timeshare and residential phases. Construction would continue less intensively through project build- out. Construction truck traffic could effect the operation of several intersections, including the intersection of Fremont Boulevard and Monterey Road, which is already operating at unacceptable LOS D during the AM and PM peak periods. Truck traffic could also be added to State Highway 1 and State Highway 68, which are already operating at an unacceptable level of service at peak hours.

Project Traffic Conditions

Trip Generation and Distribution. The project would add approximately 5,672 daily trips, with approximately 267 trips during the AM peak hour, and 362 trips during the PM peak hour. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, (6th edition) rates were used to project future traffic volumes. A rate of 90 percent of the standard resort hotel rate was used for the timeshare projection, based on observations made for the Highlands Inn hotel-to-timeshare conversion in 1998, and at several timeshare projects on the west coast in 1995. For the traffic analysis, it was assumed that the entire project was constructed for project conditions, and that half of the timeshares would be used as single-room lock-off units, resulting in a count of 255 timeshare units. Trip distribution was based on, and consistent with, observed home-based patterns, and regional patterns as used in FORA traffic modeling. Table 28 summarizes project condition trip generation by land use. Trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 21.

TABLE 28 Project Trip Generation by Component

Component Units ITE Daily Rate Total Trips AM Peak PM Peak Residential 125 9.57 1,196 94 126 Hotel 330 8.00 2,640 102 139 Timeshare 255 7.20 1,836 71 97 Total Project 5,672 267 362

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001.

Traffic Operations. Project conditions levels of service are presented in Table 29 and Table 30. The table provides the level of service under project conditions with the

2-122 EMC Planning Group Inc. California Ave.

2% Trip Distribution Percentage

Source: Higgins Associates Not to Scale Figure 21 Project Traffic Distribution Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

2-124 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

existing roadway network, and with the proposed State Highway 1 PSR improvements in place. The project would not result in any intersections or road segments that currently operate at acceptable levels, to degrade to unacceptable levels, although the project would add traffic to locations already operated below acceptable levels.

TABLE 29 Intersection Project Conditions LOS (With Existing Road Network and With State Highway 1 PSR Improvements)

Intersection LOS Standard AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Gen. Jim Moore / Lightfighter C C C C C Monterey Road / Normandy Road C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / Normandy Road C •B •B B B Noumea Road / Monterey Road C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / Bayonet Drive north C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / Bayonet Drive south C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / McClure Way C •C •C B B Monterey Road / Coe Avenue C •B A C A Gen. Jim Moore / Coe Avenue C A A A A California Avenue / Monterey Road C B •C C C Fremont Blvd. / Monterey Road C D A D B Fremont Blvd. / Del Monte Blvd. C C B F B Gen. Jim Moore / Highway 218 C A A A A Note: Project Conditions without mitigation are shown in plain text. Project Conditions with State Highway 1 PSR improvements are in italicized text. LOS below standards is indicated with bold text. Drops in LOS from existing conditions are marked with a dot (•).

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001.

The project would add traffic to two roadway segments (State Highway 1 south of Fremont Boulevard, and State Highway 68 east of State Highway 218) that are currently operating at an unacceptable level of service during both peak hours. The volume of traffic on State Highway 1 would increase by 63 southbound trips (from 3,397 to 3,460, an increase of 1.8 percent) during the AM peak hour, and by 87 northbound trips (from 3,446 to 3,533, an increase of 2.5 percent) during the PM peak hour. The volume of traffic on State Highway 68 would increase by 40 trips (from 2,629 to 2,669, an increase of 1.5 percent) during the AM peak hour, and by 53 trips (from 3,096 to 3,149, an increase of 1.7 percent) during the PM peak hour.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-125 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

The project would add traffic to two intersections (Fremont Boulevard/Del Monte Boulevard, and Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road) that are already operating at unacceptable levels of service during one or both peak periods. The level of service would not drop at these intersections, but delays would increase. The increased delays at intersections with unacceptable levels of service is summarized in Table 31.

TABLE 30 Study Road Network Segments Project Conditions LOS (With Existing Road Network and With State Highway 1 PSR Improvements)

Roadway Segment LOS Standard AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Highway 1 north of Fremont NB D B B C C Highway 1 north of Fremont SB D C C C C Highway 1 south of Fremont NB D/E1 B A D/F 2 C Highway 1 south of Fremont SB D/E1 D/F 2 C C B Highway 68 east of Highway 218 D/E1 E E F F Highway 218 south of Gen. Jim Moore D •B •B •C •C Gen. Jim Moore south of Coe Avenue C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore south of Normandy C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore south of Light Fighter C A A A A Note: Project Conditions without mitigation are shown in plain text. Project Conditions with State Highway 1 PSR improvements are in italicized text. LOS below standards is indicated with bold text. Drops in LOS from existing conditions are marked with a dot (•). 1. Caltrans standard is LOS D; Monterey County Congestion Management Program Standard is LOS E. 2. Higgins TIA: LOS D; based on Caltrans congestion monitoring: LOS F.

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001 and Monterey County Congestion Management Program, March 1994.

The intersections of Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road and California Avenue/Monterey Road are separated by only the width of the railroad right-of-way, and effectively operate as a single intersection. The TIA used standard TRAFFIX analysis to study these as independent intersections. In earlier analysis involving these intersections, the traffic consultant compared the results of this methodology with a more sophisticated Syncro analysis and determined that the standard analysis provided adequate results. Analysis prepared for the State Highway 1 PSR suggested that the only measure available to relieve traffic congestion at the Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road intersection was to close the Monterey Road leg of the intersection, as is proposed by the State Highway 1 PSR, which realigns Monterey Road to the south.

2-126 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

TABLE 31 Peak Hour Delays at Intersections with Unacceptable LOS

Delay with Project Location Existing Delay Delay with Project and PSR Improvements AM AM AM PM PM Peak PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Fremont Blvd. / 33.5 27.4 39.1 32.7 4.2 7.7 Monterey Road (+5.6) (+5.3) (-29.3) (-19.7) Fremont Blvd. / 12.11 587.2 14.11 622.9 8.61 6.5 Del Monte Blvd. (+2.0) (+35.7) (-3.5) (-580.7)

1. The intersection of Fremont Boulevard/Del Monte Boulevard operates at acceptable levels of service during the AM peak period.

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001.

Traffic Operations with State Highway 1 PSR Improvements. Under project conditions with the State Highway 1 PSR improvements in place, the levels of service improves to acceptable levels at both intersections that currently operate at unacceptable levels. State Highway 68 continues to operate at unacceptable levels of service with or without the State Highway 1 PSR improvements.

2000 Highway Capacity Manual Calculations. The TIA used the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for intersections, and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used for road segments. A review of project conditions using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology was performed by Fehr and Peers Associates for the several intersections with the greatest potential for traffic impacts, to determine whether the results would differ with the newer methodology. All but one of the intersections that were re-analyzed yielded similar results under both methodologies. The intersection of Lightfighter Drive and General Jim Moore Boulevard would require earlier implementation of mitigation, namely to activate the existing signal lights. However, this measure has already been implemented.

Del Monte Avenue/Reservation Road/Blanco Road. Del Monte Avenue, Reservation Road, and Blanco Road, between State Highway 1 and Salinas was not included in the TIA. The Twelfth Street connection between State Highway 1 and Imjim Road (bypassing Del Monte Avenue and Reservation Road in downtown Marina) is under construction and would be complete by the time the project is developed. Assuming that 10 percent of project traffic would use the Twelfth Street/Imjim Road route to Salinas, approximately 32 peak hour trips would be added to Reservation Road and Blanco Road. A lesser number would be added to the downtown Marina area, many of which would be commercial-based trips to the

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-127 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

shopping areas there. It is not expected that the level of service would be affected. Reservation Road currently operates at LOS D within Marina and LOS C between Marina and Blanco Road, and the CMP standard is LOS D. It is not expected that the addition of project traffic would result in a deterioration of traffic conditions on these roads.

Cumulative Traffic Conditions

Cumulative traffic conditions were developed by adding project trips to the trips generated by projects on the list of cumulative traffic projects. A summary of cumulative traffic conditions is presented in Table 32 and Table 33. Cumulative scenarios are discussed in Section 3.2 Cumulative Impacts.

TABLE 32 Intersection Cumulative Conditions LOS (With Existing Road Network and With State Highway 1 PSR Improvements) Intersection LOS Standard AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Gen. Jim Moore / Lightfighter C C C C C Monterey Road / Normandy Road C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / Normandy Road C B B B B Noumea Road / Monterey Road C A A A A Monterey Road at new interchange C A A Gen. Jim Moore / Bayonet Drive north C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / Bayonet Drive south C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore / McClure Way C •C C B B Monterey Road / Coe Avenue C •C •B •F •B Gen. Jim Moore / Coe Avenue C A A A A California Avenue / Monterey Road C B C C C Fremont Blvd. / Monterey Road C •F A •F B Fremont Blvd. / Del Monte Blvd. C •E B F B Gen. Jim Moore / Highway 218 C •B •B •B •B Note: Cumulative Conditions without mitigation are shown in plain text. Cumulative Conditions with State Highway 1 PSR improvements are in italicized text. LOS below standards is indicated with bold text. Drops in LOS from project conditions are marked with a dot (•). Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001.

Intersections Conditions. The intersection of Fremont Boulevard and Monterey Road would operate at LOS F during both peak periods. The intersection of Fremont Boulevard/Del Monte Boulevard/Military Avenue would operate at LOS E during the AM peak period, and at LOS F during the PM peak period. The intersection of

2-128 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Monterey Road and Coe Avenue would operate at LOS F during the PM peak period. Other study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under cumulative conditions.

TABLE 33 Study Road Network Segments Cumulative Conditions LOS (With Existing Road Network and With State Highway 1 PSR Improvements)

Roadway Segment LOS Standard AM Peak LOS PM Peak LOS Highway 1 north of Fremont NB D B B •D C Highway 1 north of Fremont SB D •D C C C Highway 1 south of Fremont NB D/E1 C B •E/ F 2 C Highway 1 south of Fremont SB D/E1 •E/F 2 C •D •C Highway 68 east of Highway 218 D/E1 •F •F F F Highway 218 south of Gen. Jim Moore D •B •B B B Gen. Jim Moore south of Coe Avenue C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore south of Normandy C A A A A Gen. Jim Moore south of Light Fighter C A A A A Note: Cumulative Conditions without mitigation are shown in plain text. Cumulative Conditions with State Highway 1 PSR improvements are in italicized text. LOS below standards is indicated with bold text. Drops in LOS from project conditions are marked with a dot (•). 1. Caltrans standard is LOS D; Monterey County Congestion Management Program Standard is LOS E. 2. Higgins TIA: LOS E; based on Caltrans congestion monitoring: LOS F.

Source: Higgins Associates, July 2001 and Monterey County Congestion Management Program, March 1994.

Street Segments Conditions. The studied street segments along General Jim Moore Boulevard would continue to operate at acceptable levels under cumulative conditions. State Highway Conditions. Under cumulative conditions State Highway 1 north of Fremont Boulevard would operate at LOS D during the southbound AM peak period and during the northbound PM peak period. The segment of State Highway 1 south of Fremont Boulevard would operate at LOS F southbound in the AM peak period and northbound during the PM peak period. State Highway 68 east of State Highway 218 would operate at LOS F at both peak periods.

FORA Development Impact Fee Payment The project would pay FORA development fees based on the fee schedule in effect at the time that building permits are issued. The fee for the timeshare units would be based on the hotel fee. At the current fee schedule, the project would pay approximately $8,117,000 to FORA. Although there is no assurance of how much of the fees collected

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-129 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

from the project would fund transportation improvements, because nearly half of FORA’s funding obligations are to transportation projects, a substantial portion of total of FORA fees collected would fund transportation improvements. FORA will re-order priorities on its existing improvements list to accommodate applicants’ requests.

Project Parking

Parking Capacity. Higgins Associates prepared a letter report addressing parking issues in January 2002. The project would include 885 parking spaces to serve the clubhouse, hotel and timeshare uses. No specific parking plans are included for the residential lots, but development of these lots would be subject to Seaside on-site parking requirements for single-family dwellings. The project would utilize shared parking between uses to minimize the total number of parking spaces.

The hotel would have 359 parking spaces in the lot located immediately to the north, east, and south of the hotel, and an additional 106 spaces at the parking lot near the project entrance off General Jim Moore Boulevard. A total of 340 parking spaces would be located near the timeshare units. The clubhouse would have 80 spaces provided. Parking for 30 golf course employee cars would be provided at the golf maintenance facility.

Parking Requirements and Demand. The Seaside Zoning Ordinance requires 494 parking spaces for the hotel, or 29 spaces more than provided in the proposed hotel parking lot. The clubhouse/golf course is likewise short of the required parking. However, there is a surplus of parking available in the Timeshare Parcel B parking area, located approximately 300 to 400 feet north of the main hotel building, and adjacent to the clubhouse parking. Golf course employees would park at the relocated golf course maintenance facility, thus reducing the demand at the clubhouse.

A total of 291 spaces have been identified as potential golf course spaces, being close enough to the clubhouse to be practical for use by golfers pulling clubs while walking. These include the 80 spaces in the clubhouse parking area, 193 hotel spaces north of the hotel building main entrance, and 18 nearby surplus spaces in the Timeshare Parcel B parking area. The 195 hotel spaces south of the main entrance of the hotel building are too far from the clubhouse to be easily used for the golf course, and the other timeshare spaces are either too distant or are considered to be required by the timeshare units during the day. In practice at the existing golf course parking lot, many golfers drive golf carts to their cars to retrieve clubs. The use of golf carts in the parking lot would make all of the hotel parking lot to be accessible to the golf course, although with the greater volume of automobile traffic in the parking lot, this use could present potential safety concerns.

Because the two major project site uses have off-set time demands for parking, the project is proposing to utilize some of the same parking spaces for both uses. The golf course demand is highest during the day, and peaks at 1:00 PM. The hotel and timeshare peak demand is overnight. The hotel demand drops fairly sharply during the day, and the timeshare demand also drops during the day, although to a somewhat

2-130 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

lesser degree because timeshare stays tend to be for a longer number of days, and there is an increased likelihood that timeshare visitors would remain during the day. The Higgins Associates letter report analyzed the combined hourly demand of the time off- set uses and determined that the combined peak demands would occur at approximately 5:00 AM to 7:00 AM and from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM. During peak times there would be excess parking capacity available of approximately 15 percent.

No parking requirements for timeshare buildings are currently included in the Seaside Zoning Ordinance. An appropriate number of spaces was determined based on a study prepared by Steven Minor Research and Appraisal, and cited in the Higgins Associates letter report, which determined a need for 1.5 spaces for each two-room timeshare unit (which takes into account the possibility that some units are used as two-room units and some as one-room units). Table 34 summarizes the demand for parking by use, and the proposed parking allocation.

TABLE 34 Parking Demand and Supply

Project Component Capacity Demand Surplus/Deficit Peak Demand Main Hotel / Bungalows 359 494 -29 evening Remote Parking 106 Clubhouse 80 152 -42 midday Maintenance Area 30 Timeshare Parcel A 1 114 90 +24 evening Timeshare Parcel B 1 168 111 +57 evening Timeshare Parcel C 1 58 54 +4 evening Total 915 901 1. 60 units in Timeshare parcel A; 74 units in Timeshare Parcel B, and 36 units in Timeshare Parcel C.

Source: Bestor Engineers, Inc. and Higgins Associates.

There would be some use of the hotel, clubhouse, and golf course facilities by persons already at the project site for another primary purpose, for example, someone staying at the hotel might play on the golf course, or have a meal at the clubhouse. Therefore, some sharing of parking would occur between the various uses. It is also likely that some of the people who purchase homes at the project would golf there, however, there is no provision to allow direct access from the homes to the clubhouse, so no parking savings would be realized.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-131 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

During special events, such as a major golf tournament, parking demand may exceed capacity. This deficit in parking availability could be accommodated on an occasional basis through the use of shuttle bus service from other parking areas in the vicinity. This approach is used successfully for major events at the Pebble Beach golf courses and at the Laguna Seca racetrack.

Emergency Access Emergency access, both between the developed urban core of the City and project site, and within the project, is discussed in Section 2.11 Public Services.

Project Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Accommodations Pedestrian Facilities. A path is proposed along McClure Way between the remote parking area and the main hotel building. The bungalows would be served by shared cart and pedestrian paths. Pedestrian facilities are not indicated elsewhere in the hotel and timeshare areas. No pedestrian facilities are shown within the timeshare areas. The residential streets would not have sidewalks. The new residential streets would be private, and are therefore not required to have sidewalks. Because the number of houses in each residential area is relatively low (the largest area would have 55 houses), the streets would be lightly traveled. Bicycle Facilities. No bicycle facilities are proposed as a part of the project. The Seaside Bikeways Plan designates Monterey Road as a Class II bikeway. Monterey Road and General Jim Moore Boulevard are also shown as bikeways in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Fort Ord Lands General Plan Amendment.

Transit Connections. The project does not include any public transit provisions. Transit Policy A-1 requires transit provisions at key activity centers. MST route 17 passes the main entrance to the golf course. The tentative map does not indicate a bus pull-out along General Jim Moore Boulevard, or a pedestrian connection from the corner of General Jim Moore Boulevard and McClure Way. For consistency with Transit Policy A-1, a bus stop and pedestrian connection would be required.

Transportation Demand Management. The Higgins Associates letter report investigated several transportation demand management strategies associated with addressing the limited parking capacity. These include a remote parking lot for employees, utilizing remote on-site and off-site parking areas for visitor and/or employee shuttles for major events, and preferential parking for vans or taxis. Other potential transportation demand management approaches could include passenger drop- off lanes for shuttles or taxicabs, bus shelters, bicycle and pedestrian pathways, bicycle parking, and shower facilities for workers.

2-132 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The project includes the remote employee parking lot near General Jim Moore Boulevard, and provides a turn-around drop-off circle at the front entrance to the hotel, which could accommodate vanpools and shuttles. The vesting tentative maps and project application materials do not address other measures to reduce vehicle trips or parking demand.

Transportation Demand Management Policy A-1 encourages the use of transportation demand strategies, but does not impose requirements. However, Transportation Demand Management Program A-1.3 requires new developments to provide improvements that would accommodate transportation demand strategies. Without inclusion of improvements to facilitate transportation demand management, the project would be inconsistent with Transportation Demand Management Program A-1.3.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR concluded that despite policies and programs in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, and mitigation measures in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR, the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord would have significant and unavoidable impacts on the regional transportation system. Mitigation measures presented below would reduce transportation effects to the extent feasible.

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system;

• Exceed, either cumulatively or individually, a level of service standard established by the City of Seaside, Caltrans, or Transportation Agency for Monterey County, for the roads or highways affected by the project;

• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment, golf carts, pedestrians); • Result in inadequate parking capacity; and/or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)

Significant and Unavoidable Project Impact – Additional Delay at Intersections with Existing LOS Below Standards: Fremont Boulevard at Del Monte Boulevard, and Fremont Boulevard at Monterey Boulevard. The addition of project traffic would add between 5.3 and 35.7 seconds to existing unacceptable delays at these intersections

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-133 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

during peak hours. The intersections currently operate below acceptable levels of service during peak hours. Implementation of the State Highway 1 PSR improvements would improve levels of service to acceptable levels. The project would pay a development impact fee to FORA. The FORA fee could be used, in part, fund the State Highway 1 PSR improvements. However, the timeframe for completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below acceptable standards at these intersections during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact – Intersections LOS Below Standards: Monterey Road/Coe Avenue; Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road; and Fremont Boulevard/ Del Monte Boulevard. Cumulative traffic increases would result in operations below acceptable levels of service at these intersections during one or both peak hours. The FORA development fee could be used, in part, to fund improvements to these intersections. However, the timeframe for completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below acceptable standards at these intersections during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Significant and Unavoidable Project Impact – Additional Traffic on Highway with Existing LOS Below Standards: State Highway 1 South of Fremont Boulevard, and State Highway 68 East of State Highway 218. The addition of project traffic on State Highway 1 would increase traffic volumes by between 1.8 and 2.5 percent during peak periods. The addition of project traffic on State Highway 68 would increase traffic volumes by between 1.5 and 1.7 percent during peak periods. The highway segment currently operates below acceptable levels of service during the afternoon peak hour. The FORA development fee could be used, in part, fund improvements to State Highway 1 and State Highway 68. However, the timeframe for completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below falling below acceptable standards on these roads during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact – Additional Traffic on Highway with Existing LOS Below Standards: State Highway 1 South of Fremont Boulevard and State Highway 68 East of State Highway 218. Cumulative southbound traffic would increase traffic volumes by 19.3 percent during the morning peak period and northbound traffic by 22.8 percent during afternoon peak period on State Highway 1, compared to existing conditions. The highway segment currently operates below acceptable levels of service during both peak periods. Cumulative traffic would increase traffic volumes by 10.1 percent during the morning peak period and 5.2 percent during afternoon peak period on State Highway 68, compared to existing conditions. The highway segment currently operates below acceptable levels of service during both peak periods.

2-134 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

The FORA development fee could be used, in part, to fund improvements to State Highway 1 and State Highway 68. However, the timeframe for funding and completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below acceptable standards on these roads during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Potentially Significant Impact – Parking Demand May Exceed Capacity During Special Events. The project may include fewer parking spaces than required during special events. Because the project uses are off-set in their times of peak demand, and surplus spaces are available in some adjacent parking lots, adequate parking would be available under typical peak demands. During special events, however, parking demand may exceed capacity. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

43. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Seaside Community Development Director and Public Works Director, the project shall include a special events transportation demand management plan for the hotel to address the following:

• Strategies for reducing parking demand during special events, and strategies for accommodating excess demand for parking during special events;

• Procedures for implementing the strategies, including arrangements with off-site parking lot owners for the provision of alternative parking locations, arrangements with bus or shuttle providers, and publicizing implementation of the strategies; and

• Thresholds for implementation of the strategies.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel component.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

Significant Impact – Conflict with General Plan Alternative Transportation Policies: Goal and Objective C – New Neighborhoods; Pedestrian and Bicycles Policy A-1 and A-2; Transit Policy A-1; and Transportation Demand Management Program A-1.3. The project would not provide the appropriate alternative transportation facilities as required under these objectives, policies, and programs. A major tenet of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan, is the provision of a comprehensive interconnecting network for pedestrian and bicycle travel. The project’s lack of such facilities, as required by the objectives, policies, and programs of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-135 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Mitigation Measure

44. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Seaside Community Development Director and Public Works Director, the project shall include the following components for the purpose of promoting alternative transportation to and within the project:

• Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide bicycle racks at the clubhouse and at the main hotel, providing no fewer than 15 bicycle parking spaces at each location;

• Prior to occupancy of each timeshare parcel, a sidewalk or pedestrian path shall be constructed to connect the timeshare units in Timeshare Parcel A and B to the clubhouse and hotel, and the timeshare units in Timeshare Parcel C with the path along McClure Way;

• Prior to occupancy of Phase 1, the project proponent shall construct a bus turn out and associated street and curb improvements, a covered shelter, and a bench, to be located on the west side of General Jim Moore Boulevard immediately south of McClure Way, and a path connecting the bus turn out to the entrance of the remote parking lot. The applicant shall construct the bus turn out in conformance with Monterey Salinas Transit District and City of Seaside Public Works Department standards;

• The project proponent shall dedicate adequate right-of-way on the east side of Monterey Road along the periphery of the project site for the provision of bicycle lanes;

• Prior to construction of the western residential area, the project proponent shall provide a right-of-way for a sidewalk or pedestrian pathway on the east side of Monterey Road along the periphery of the project site, or construct crosswalks and advance signing on Monterey Road at the southernmost residential street intersection with Monterey Road, and at the intersection of Noumea Road and Monterey Road; and

• Prior to occupancy, the project proponent shall provide a shower at the hotel, available for use by employees.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components. Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director.

2-136 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

2.13 Utilities and Service Systems

Utilities and Service Systems Policies

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy A-1. At the project approval stage, the City shall require new development to demonstrate that all measures will be taken to ensure that run-off is minimized and infiltration maximized in groundwater recharge areas.

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy B-2. The City shall condition approval of development plans on verification of an assured long-term water supply for the projects.

Hydrology and Water Quality Policy C-7. The City shall condition all development plans on verification of adequate wastewater treatment capacity.

These policies require that storm water be returned to the groundwater basin to the extent feasible, that adequate water supplies will be available from the water purveyor, that there is sufficient capacity for wastewater treatment. Based on these policies, a project should be approved only if adequate water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity are available to serve the project.

Environmental Setting

Sanitary Sewer Service

The project site lies within the service boundaries of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD). MCWD is responsible for the collection of wastewater. Treatment of wastewater takes place at the MRWPCA’s regional facility north of Marina. The design capacity of this facility is 29.6 million gallons per day (mgd), and it is permitted to process 27 mgd. Current flow ranges from 17–24 mgd depending on rainfall, with an average flow of approximately 21 mgd. The former Fort Ord is projected to produce a wastewater flow of 9.8 mgd at full build-out. Treated outflow from the plant is used during the summer months to irrigate approximately 12,000 acres of cropland between Marina and Moss Landing. In the winter, the treated wastewater is discharged two miles off-shore into Monterey Bay.

Wastewater from the project site currently flows to the Ord Village pump station (west of State Highway 1 and the project site) then is pumped north through the Gigling and Fort Ord pump stations on the way to the main treatment plant.

The U.S. Army built the existing wastewater collection system at the former Fort Ord. It is now under the operation of the MCWD. It consists of a system of sewer mains and

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-137 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

pump stations. While Fort Ord was still a fully active military base, the U.S. Army contracted with MRWPCA for a use allocation of 3.3 mgd at the wastewater facility. This use contract is still in effect; the U.S. Army has reserved a portion of that amount for their remaining uses at Fort Ord, and the remainder is being allocated to projects as they are approved, on a first-come, first-served basis.

Storm Drainage Facilities

Storm drainage on the project site is sheet flow on the surface, or stream flow through natural drainages. The project site is hilly, with a number of distinct drainage areas. Five upstream contributory areas drain onto the project site. Because of the high porosity of soils on the project site, much of the storm water that lands on the project site percolates into the soil. Some storm water flows from the project site onto locations down gradient of the project site.

Water Services

Water at the golf course parcel currently comes from two sources. Two off-site wells drawing from the Seaside Groundwater Basin provide irrigation water for the golf courses. One of the wells is located east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Coe Avenue, and one is located near Soper Field, along Coe Avenue. Potable water is supplied by the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Use of water from the Seaside Groundwater Basin is regulated by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. A permit is required from the MCWD for new or expanded water systems under its jurisdiction. The expanded water delivery to the project site from the Salinas Groundwater Basin is under the regulatory authority of the Monterey County Water Resource Agency.

Water distribution at the former Fort Ord is provided by the MCWD. The principal supply of water to the former Fort Ord is from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, under the control of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). Through an agreement between the U.S. Army and MCWRA, 6,600 acre-feet of water per year is available from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin for the former Fort Ord, provided that such provisions of water do not aggravate or accelerate the existing seawater intrusion in the basin. The City of Seaside has an allocation totaling 710 acre- feet of this water for projects within its city limits. Water is allocated to developments on a first-come first-served basis. Several water allocations were made by Congress to specified uses that are within the City of Seaside, and these, along with allocations already made by the City, must be subtracted from the City’s allocation when determining the available water. The Hayes Housing project was recently approved by the City and will have an allocation provided to it. Currently, MCWD water at the former Fort Ord comes from three wells located in the northeastern portion of the former base (wells 29, 30, and 31). Current withdrawals from these wells are approximately 3,500 acre-feet per year (Jim Dowless, telephone conversation, July 13, 1998). The wells are in good condition and have been upgraded since they were

2-138 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

acquired by MCWD. They are connected to storage and treatment facilities and serve the base-wide distribution network.

Portions of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin are suffering from seawater intrusion resulting from the excess pumping of groundwater. Seawater intrusion is particularly affecting the area near Castroville. In the event that withdrawals from the former Fort Ord wells cause additional seawater intrusion in the basin, the allotment could be reduced by MCWRA. Water quality impacts and seawater intrusion are discussed in Section 2.8 Hydrology.

MCWD capital improvement plans call for the development of an alternative water supply source. The MCWD is currently studying two options: a reclaimed wastewater processing and distribution system for irrigation of landscaped areas, and a desalination plant that would supplement the Salinas Groundwater Basin source (David Meza, telephone conversation, April 12, 2002). The alternative water supply system is in the initial determination phase, and water from this source is not likely to be available for between five and ten years. Because of the large irrigation water demand, golf courses are a principal target service area if a recycled water project is constructed. MCWD ordinance 29, approved in August 1995, requires MCWD customers to connect to the wastewater distribution system when it becomes available at their parcel. New irrigation systems must be constructed of purple pipe, which distinguishes them as intended for the use of reclaimed wastewater.

Solid Waste Disposal Services

Solid waste from the former Fort Ord is collected by Monterey Disposal Company and is disposed of in the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) landfill north of Marina. The Marina landfill serves the areas of Monterey County west of Salinas. It has a total capacity of approximately 40.3 million tons and a remaining capacity of approximately 32.2 million tons. The landfill is estimated to have sufficient capacity to meet cumulative development needs until approximately 2090, based on a growth rate of 1.3 percent per year. The site currently accepts 210,000 tons of refuse per year, and recycles an additional 140,000 tons of material per year (Rick Shedden, telephone conversation with consultant April 9, 2002). Currently, waste from the golf course and clubhouse is brought to the landfill.

FORA Public Services and Capital Improvement Program

FORA is in the process of implementing a capital improvement program for the purpose of mitigating the cumulative impacts on the sewer system and water supply system due to projects at the former Fort Ord. It is expected that the developer of the project would pay development fees to FORA under this program. The MCWD is engaged in preliminary engineering for a recycled waterline to serve portions of the former Fort Ord.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-139 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Project Analysis

Sanitary Sewer Services

The MCWD would provide wastewater collection. The project would be expected to add approximately 90,340 gpd of flow, assuming that approximately half of water used at the residential units flows into the sewer, and 80 percent of water used at the hotel flows into the sewer. Six and eight inch gravity sewers would be constructed on the project site and golf course parcel, and connect to existing MCWD lines near Monterey Road and Buna Circle, southwest of the golf course parcel. The project’s wastewater flow would utilize the existing system of collection pipes, lift stations, and force mains to reach the MRWPCA treatment plant near Marina. FORA completed upgrades to the downstream Ord Village and Gigling pump stations in 1999, based on an estimated 122,000 gpd flow from the hotel, and would be adequate to accommodate the project. According to the project engineer, approximately 2,400 linear feet of existing downstream sewer lines may require supplement (Carl Hooper, personal communication, July 3, 2002). The MRWPCD has indicated in a letter to the applicant that adequate treatment capacity is available.

Storm Drainage Facilities

The project would increase storm water run-off, but all of the increased run-off, and some of the existing run-off would be retained on-site in percolation ponds. Based on the Preliminary Drainage Analysis prepared for the project by Bestor Engineers in March 2001, there would be a net decrease of off-site flow of storm water. The Preliminary Drainage Analysis studies the anticipated storm flows from five upstream contributory areas and the on-site drainage areas. The increased run-off would be percolated in 12 ponds located throughout the project site and remainder parcel. Refer to Figure 16, presented in Section 1.0 Introduction.

Flows from Impervious Surfaces. The project would create new impervious surfaces, namely roofs, walk ways, other pedestrian areas, roads, and driveways. Storm water run-off would increase, but percolation pond on the remainder parcel would be sized to maintain off-site flows at or below existing levels.

Water Services

The project would result in an increase in demand for potable water supplies from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. All new water uses for the project, including domestic and landscape water uses, would be served from the City of Seaside’s 710-acre- foot allocation from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The MCWD would supply this water to the project.

Residential Water Use. Water use at single-family homes varies depending on the size of the home, the size of the lot on which it sits, the climate, and other factors. Residential use rates for three nearby jurisdictions range from 0.4 to 0.5 acre-feet per year per residence, for low-density residential development, including both interior and

2-140 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

exterior water use (FORA, MCWD, MPWMD). The MCWD figure of 0.33 acre-feet per year has been used for the residential component of the project. Based on this use rate, water use at the houses would be approximately 41.3 acre-feet per year.

Hotel and Timeshare. Water use rates from various sources also vary for hotel uses. Use rates for hotels varied from 0.15 to 0.25 acre feet per year, for interior use only (FORA, MCWD, MPWMD). A rate of 0.21 acre-feet per year was used for the hotel projection, and 0.20 acre-feet for the timeshare projection. Based on these use rates, water use at the hotel and timeshare components would be approximately 103.3 acre- feet per year.

Existing water supply lines serving the project site are undersized to provide adequate fire flow. An enlarged water supply line would be required to serve the hotel site.

Landscaped Common Areas. The project would have approximately 8.3 acres of landscaped areas surrounding the hotel, timeshare and clubhouse buildings. The MPWMD water use rate for non-turf landscaped areas is 1.8 acre-feet per year per acre and the rate for turf is 2.1 acre-feet per year per acre. For this projection, it was assumed that about half of the landscaping would be turf, although landscaping plans have not been completed, and the figure could be higher or lower. An averaged figure of 2.0 acre- feet per year per acre was used for the projection.

Projected water use is summarized in Table 35.

TABLE 35 Projected Water Use

Project Component Use Rate per Unit or Acre Total Projected Water Use Residential (125 units) 0.33 acre-feet per year 41.3 acre-feet per year Hotel (330 units) 0.21 acre-feet per year 69.3 acre-feet per year Timeshare (170 units) 0.20 acre-feet per year 34.0 acre-feet per year Landscaping (8.4 acres) 2.0 acre-feet per year 16.8 acre-feet per year Total Projected Water Use 161.4 acre-feet per year

Note: These are estimates of water use; actual water use will be measured by metering. Source: FORA, MCWD, MPWMD

The City of Seaside has water remaining from its allocation of 710 acre-feet. However, the water remaining may not be sufficient to provide water to all of the development planned for the Fort Ord portion of Seaside. As much as 40 acre-feet of water could be used for irrigation at the project. The water used for irrigation would be required to be

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-141 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

recycled if a recycled water supply were to be provided to the project site. Project plans indicate provisions for the use of recycled wastewater when a supply of recycled water becomes available.

Golf Courses. No changes to the existing golf course operations are proposed as a part of the project, and therefore, the project would not affect existing golf course irrigation demand. Domestic uses at the golf courses would continue to be supplied by MCWD from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. No delivery system expansions or additional water would be required from the Seaside Groundwater Basin as a result of the project.

Solid Waste Disposal Services Disposal rates from the California Integrated Waste Management Board were used to project the approximate rate of disposal from residences. Based on a per capita disposal rate of .44 tons per person per year in the coastal areas of California, the project would generate approximately 173 tons of waste per year at residential areas. Disposal rates from the California Integrated Waste Management Board were also used to project the approximate rate of disposal from the hotel and timeshare uses. Hotels on average generate approximately 2.1 tons of waste per employee per year. Based on this rate, the hotel and timeshare uses would dispose of approximately 735 tons of solid waste per year. The total waste stream from the project would be approximately 881 tons per year. Between 40 and 60 percent of waste brought to the MRWMD landfill is non-recyclable refuse (Rick Shedden, telephone conversation with consultant April 9, 2002).

The capacity of the regional landfill facility in Marina will be sufficient for approximately 90 years, with the cumulative effects of development and waste reduction and recycling efforts considered. The project is consistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and Seaside General Plan development densities and growth projections and has been accommodated in calculating remaining capacity. Therefore, the project would not increase the already anticipated demand for landfill capacity.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that the redevelopment of the former Fort Ord would result in significant impacts from inadequate utilities infrastructure, and lack of an adequate water supply. Policies in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, and mitigation measures presented in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR reduced these impacts to a less than significant level at the project level, but a significant cumulative water supply impact remained. Among the policies and mitigation measures that were determined to reduce the project level impacts to a less than significant level were requirements for the promotion of recycled water, and an increase in groundwater recharge. The proposed project would include detention ponds that would also serve to increase groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures presented below address the need to develop a recycled water system, and project site specific utility upgrades as provided in the reuse plan and the reuse plan EIR.

2-142 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Standards of Significance. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will:

• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board;

• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities;

• Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

• Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or new or expanded entitlements needed;

• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;

• Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; and

• Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Less Than Significant Impact – Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control District provides wastewater treatment at its facility north of Marina. The plant receives a peak flow of approximately 24 mgd and has a capacity of 29.6 mgd. The project would increase wastewater flow by approximately 100,000 gpd. Adequate capacity remains for the additional flow from the project. Therefore this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Potentially Significant Impact – Wastewater Collection System Existing sewer lines that would be utilized for sanitary sewage collection downstream of the project site may be inadequate to accommodate flows generated by the project. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

45. Subject to the review and approval of the Marina Coast Water District, and City of Seaside Public Works Department, the applicant shall prepare a final engineering study to determine the need for upgrades of sewer collection pipes serving the project. If the study indicates that the collection pipes are inadequate to accommodate anticipated daily or peak flow, the applicant shall construct new or supplemental lines in those areas where the capacity is not adequate.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-143 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director.

No Impact – Storm Water Drainage. The project would increase impervious surface areas, and storm water run-off would increase. All of the increased run-off and some existing run-off would be retained in on-site ponds and percolated into the soil. Off-site flow of storm water would decrease. Therefore the project would have no impact on storm water drainage.

Potentially Significant Cumulative Impact – Water Supply Entitlements. The City of Seaside has an allocation of 710 acre-feet of water to serve development within its borders at the former Fort Ord. While this supply is adequate to provide water for the project, the allocation may be inadequate to serve development planned for the former Fort Ord in the Seaside General Plan. This would be a significant cumulative impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

46. All commercial, residential, open space, and landscape irrigation systems shall be designed and installed by the Applicant utilizing American Water Works Association (AWWA) recycled water pipe connected with a backflow preventer to a potable water system. The system shall be designed to applicable standards and in such a way that should reclaimed water become available, the disconnect from the potable water system to the reclaimed water system be at minimal cost to the property owner or property owners’ association. This irrigation design shall be included in the project improvement plans prepared prior to approval of the first building permit, subject to review and approval of the City Community Development Director and the Manager of the Marina Coast Water District.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel, timeshare, and residential components, and infrastructure improvements.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Community Development Director. Significant Impact – Inadequate Fire Flow. The existing water lines serving the project site would not provide adequate fire flow capacity for the hotel. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

2-144 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

Mitigation Measure

47. Subject to the review and approval of the Marina Coast Water District, Seaside Fire Department, and City of Seaside Public Works Department, the applicant shall construct a new water line to the hotel site via General Jim Moore Boulevard and McClure Way, from a suitable point of connection to the Marina Coast Water District system. The water line shall be sized to provide adequate fire flow at the hotel, in accordance with Uniform Fire Code and/or California Fire Code.

Party Responsible for Implementation: Proponent of hotel component.

Party Responsible for Monitoring/Reporting: City of Seaside Public Works Director. Less Than Significant Impact –Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. The Monterey Regional Waste Management District landfill north of Marina has a remaining capacity of approximately 32,200,000 tons. The landfill is estimated to have sufficient capacity to meet cumulative development needs until approximately 2090, based on a growth rate of 1.3 percent per year. The project is consistent with growth projections and has been included in calculating remaining capacity. No mitigation is necessary.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-145 2.0 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

2-146 EMC Planning Group Inc.

3.0 Related Environmental Issues

3.1 Cumulative Impacts

CEQA Requirements CEQA Guidelines section 15130 requires a discussion of the significant cumulative impacts associated with the project. A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15130(b) requires the following: The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact...

CEQA requires a cumulative development scenario to consist of either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or, a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. When based on a list of past, present, and probable future projects, factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. “Probable future projects” may be limited to those requiring an agency approval for an application which has been received at the time the notice of preparation is released, unless abandoned by the applicant; projects included in an adopted capital improvements program, general plan, regional transportation plan or other similar plan; projects included in the summary of projections of projects (or development areas designated) in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated as later phases of a previously approved project; or those public agency projects for which money has been budgeted. The geographic area affected by the identified cumulative impacts, and an explanation of the basis of the geographic scope used in analyzing cumulative impacts, must be presented.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-1 3.0 Related Issues Seaside Resort EIR

Cumulative Projects

Golf Course Parcel Cumulative Projects

Several previously authorized activities have recently been completed, are currently in progress, or will soon be started on the golf course parcel in addition to the project. These improvements, which are not a part of the project, or the responsibility of the City or the golf course operator as a result of previously approved lease and operating agreements, are listed below to provide a complete picture of changes on the golf course parcel.

1) Realignment of several fairways and related golf features on each golf course;

2) Improvements required to accommodate portions of the project

• demolition of the existing golf course maintenance facility and construction of a new golf course maintenance facility on the remainder parcel to accommodate a portion of the timeshare component; and

• relocation of the existing driving range to the remainder parcel to accommodate the hotel component.

To the extent that those activities that are required to accommodate portions of the project (listed in item 2, above) are yet to be designed or undertaken, and are subject to discretionary permits, or otherwise subject to environmental review, the City would rely on the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR and this EIR in considering potential environmental effects of those activities. The City may require subsequent environmental review to the extent determined necessary by an initial study evaluating the proposed activities in the context of the thresholds set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15162.

Public Services Cumulative Projects List Cumulative projects included for public services analysis were those proposed by the Fort Ord Reuse Plan within the city limits of Seaside through 2015. These areas are expected to be added to the City's jurisdiction and therefore require additional City fire, police or public works services by 2015. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan projects additional growth beyond 2015, but this is contingent on resoevelopment projections in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and more recent information on projurce availability as outlined in the Development Resources Management Plan of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. The cumulative projects list is based on land use designations and dects that are currently proposed for development. The cumulative list excludes existing development, military development and private development that is not planned prior to 2015. Cumulative projects included in the analysis of cumulative public services effects, and additional projects planned for after 2015, are presented in Table 36.

3-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 3.0 Related Issues

TABLE 36 Public Services Cumulative Development (2015/ Build-out)

Residential Commercial Development Hotel Units Units Acres to 2015/ 2015+ to 2015/ 2015+ to 2015/ 2015+ Total Total Total Golf Course Resort Hotel 500/0 125/0 (Project) 500 125 Golf Course Community 380/0 Hayes Housing Area 380 Golf Course Community 352/0 - Stilwell Park/Kidney Housing 352 Area Other Golf Course Community 2,043/0 (Polygon 20g, and either 2,043 Polygon 20c, or Polygon 20h with Army land swap) South Extension - 264 /948 9/18 1,214 27 University Village - 540/0 18/14 540 32 Gateway area - - 12/32 44 Convenience retail - - 1/1 2 Total at 2015 500 units 3,704 units 40 acres Total at Build-out 500 units 4,654 units 105 acres Note: FORA projections as reflected in the source table have been reduced by 120 residential units for Hayes and 48 units for Stilwell to reflect actual proposals at the time the NOP was issued. 125 residential units have been moved from Other Golf Course Community to the project to reflect the residential component of the project. Source: EDAW, Fort Ord Base Reuse: Total Housing Program, November 1995, updated with current information as noted.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-3 3.0 Related Issues Seaside Resort EIR

Polygon 20h is the current Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex (see Figure 4 presented in Section 1.0 Introduction). There have been discussions in the past, and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan land use map is drawn this way, that the Army and the City of Seaside would swap the portions of Polygon 20h west of General Jim Moore Boulevard, (that border the golf courses) for Polygon 20c, which is located to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard. At this time such a swap appears to be unlikely (Michael Houlemard Jr., telephone conversation with consultant, October 19, 2000). In fact, the POM annex is considering redeveloping the adjacent land in Polygon 20b as additional military housing. If the land swap does not occur, Army housing would remain on the portions of Polygon 20h west of General Jim Moore Boulevard and the City of Seaside could develop Polygon 20c at the same density as the residential development that was planned for Polygon 20h. Allowable private development of Polygon 20c consistent with the planned densities for Polygon 20h was calculated by multiplying the gross acreage of Polygon 20c (267.3 acres) by .85 (the same ratio of gross to developable as Polygon 20h) and multiplying by the same ratio densities as allowed for Polygon 20h (23 percent at four units per acre; 71 percent at six units per acre; and six percent at eight units per acre). Polygon 20c could accommodate 1,284 single-family units based on this methodology.

Transportation Cumulative Projects List

For transportation, cumulative projects outside the City limits are included, since they may have equal effects on traffic, and traffic impacts of the project may be felt beyond the Seaside City limits. Table 37 presents the cumulative projects list from the Traffic Analysis Report prepared for the project by Higgins Associates in September 2000. The traffic cumulative list represents a total of 932 dwelling units, 126 timeshare units, 843 hotel rooms and 320,000 square feet of retail space. The cumulative scenario also includes the project, although it is not included on the list or in the cumulative totals. The cumulative list for transportation does not include the planned but not currently proposed residential development at the former Fort Ord that is included in the public services list. These projects are included in the general plan 2020 build-out scenario described in the traffic analysis study.

Other Cumulative Scenarios Other cumulative issues are addressed based on conditions at the build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Summary of Cumulative Impacts

Significant or potentially significant cumulative impacts were identified for fire and police protective services, emergency access, and transportation. These impacts are discussed more fully in Section 2.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The following sections summarize the project's cumulative effects.

3-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 3.0 Related Issues

TABLE 37 Cumulative Development Scenario for Traffic Analysis

Project Size Primary Trips Pasadera Golf Course and Residential 253 units 2,421 Monterra Ranch 141 units 1,349 Stilwell Park/Kidney Housing 350 units 3,350 Hayes Housing 400 units 3,828 The Oaks 11 units 105 Ryan Ranch Business Park 1,500 employees 6,060 Laguna Seca Business Park double existing 1,380 Del Rey Oaks Hotel 350 hotel rooms 2,881 Stone Creek Shopping Center 25,984 sq. ft. 2,589 Corral de Tierra Shopping Center 204,340 sq. ft. 3,180 North of Playa Shopping Center 70,000 sq. ft. 5,400 Marriott Courtyard Hotel 143 hotel rooms 1,177

Total 31,020 Note: Different assumptions were made in the traffic report than in the public services reports. The Stilwell Park/Kidney Housing project is no longer proposed at the time of EIR publication; the Hayes Housing project was approved with 380 units.

Source: Higgins Associates

Aesthetics The proposed project would add incrementally to development within the former Fort Ord. Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would result in an increase in urbanization of the area, as well as beneficial effects from the replacement of dilapidated structures with newer development.

Agricultural Resources

Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would result in the loss of only small areas of agricultural land. Very little active agriculture exists on the former Fort Ord. The proposed project would not contribute to any cumulative loss of agricultural resources.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-5 3.0 Related Issues Seaside Resort EIR

Air Quality

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR found that build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would have a less than significant impact on air quality. Based on the methodology of the MBUAPCD, which is a comparison of the project to population projections utilized in the air quality attainment plan, the project would not result in cumulative air quality impacts. Refer to the discussion in Section 2.3 Air Quality.

Biological Resources Although reuse of the former Fort Ord would result in cumulative effects on biological resources, about 17,900 acres of native habitat would be preserved in perpetuity within the conservation and corridor areas established by the HMP and the Conservation Element of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Although build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would result in the loss up to approximately 5,800 acres of undeveloped natural lands containing native habitats, the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR determined that it would also result in a beneficial cumulative impact on biological resources protection due to implementation of the HMP which will protect approximately 17,900 acres of native habitat in perpetuity within the conservation and corridor areas.

Cultural Resources

Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would potentially impact a number of areas with Native American and archaeological resources. Neither the golf course parcel nor the project site are identified as one of these areas. Impacts to cultural resources within the former Fort Ord would be reduced through implementation of the policies and programs prescribed in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Geology and Soils

Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would result in the disturbance or loss of soil resources. Disturbing the soil and removing vegetation from relatively undisturbed areas would increase the hazard of wind erosion of the predominantly sandy and poorly aggregated soils. The effects of cumulative development on moderately to highly erodible lands and on moderate to steep slopes would necessitate removing vegetation, excavating and disrupting the soil surface, and concentrating and redirecting runoff, which would result in greatly-accelerated water-induced soil erosion. Development in areas of recent and active landslides, areas susceptible to water erosion, and areas along the coast could be subject to damage from landslides. Increased water erosion would result in increases in creek channel sedimentation downslope and downstream of new development. Cumulative development in and around the former Fort Ord’s open lands could result in the suppression of low-temperature wildfires, resulting in a buildup of fuel and eventual high temperature wildfires. High-temperature wildfires could deplete the soil surface horizon reserve of organic matter, thus depleting the soil fertility and water- holding capacity.

3-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 3.0 Related Issues

Another cumulative effect of development is a decrease in the ability of the soils to support the natural ecosystem. Limited areas of native soil along the California coast are capable of supporting coastal chaparral and scrub vegetation. Development at the former Fort Ord and in the surrounding areas would add to the cumulative loss of these soil resources in the Monterey Bay region.

Project-level mitigation of impacts to geology and soils based on the policies and programs of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, would substantially reduce these effects within the former Fort Ord. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The former Fort Ord represents the largest known potential source of hazardous waste and toxic material regionally. The ongoing clean-up together with policies and programs designed to protect the public from any hazardous waste efforts would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would cause additional surface runoff that may contribute to future cumulative watershed problems, including increased flows and reduced direct rainfall infiltration. Cumulative development would also contribute to future water quality degradation in the watershed through increased urban runoff, increased construction-related erosion, and increased potential for hazardous materials spills during construction activities. Groundwater recharge from irrigation return flow, leaky water, and sewer pipes, and infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces could also degrade water quality. Implementation of the Hydrology and Water Quality policies and programs of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would substantially reduce these impacts.

Mineral Resources

Cumulative development at the former Fort Ord would reduce the potential availability of sand and gravel resources located beneath the western two-thirds of the former Fort Ord. Because sand and gravel resources are widespread in the region, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Noise

Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would increase ambient noise levels, primarily related to increased traffic. The proposed project would generate approximately 5,672 trips per day, which would contribute to cumulative ambient noise levels. The plans and policies of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan Noise Element would eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for cumulative noise impacts to occur.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-7 3.0 Related Issues Seaside Resort EIR

Public Services

Fire and Emergency Medical Services. Cumulative development in the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord would result in the addition of approximately one-fourth of the development currently served by the existing City of Seaside fire station. The project would constitute approximately 15.95 percent of the expected fire services demand at the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord through 2015. To serve cumulative development at the former Fort Ord, a City of Seaside fire station would be needed in the Fort Ord area, equipped with one engine company staffed with at least four fire-fighters per shift (Robert Rader, meeting with consultant, October 5, 2000).

Police Services. Locations in the vicinity of the project site that are currently in the jurisdiction of the Seaside Police Department are covered by Beat 2. At build-out of the Fort Ord areas of Seaside, including the project site, a new police substation and police beat would be needed. The area would represent approximately one-third of the total City, which is currently covered by two or three beats (depending on the shift). Geographic constraints make it difficult to reach and properly serve the project site within existing beats. While the current level of development in the area, (and the level of development with the addition of the project) may not by itself warrant an additional beat, the effect of stretching existing resources from Beat 2 to cover the area results in a decrease in the level of service in the principal areas of the beat. The project would constitute approximately 10.16 percent of the expected police demand at the Seaside portion of the former Fort Ord in 2015..

Emergency Access. The lack of direct access to the former Fort Ord from most parts of the existing urban core of the City of Seaside would result in inadequate response times for police. The severity of this effect will increase with each development within the former Fort Ord portion of Seaside, unless adequate connections are developed between the two parts of the City.

Transportation

Cumulative impacts from the project and other projects that are identified in Table U, above, would result in traffic congestion along portions of State Highway 1 and State Highway 68, and at the intersections of Fremont Boulevard and Del Monte Avenue, Fremont Boulevard and Monterey Road, and Monterey Road and Coe Avenue. Implementation of the draft State Highway 1 PSR improvements would improve all study roadways and intersections except State Highway 68 to acceptable levels of service. However, the timeframe for the implementation of the improvements is unknown. The improvements may not be constructed in time to avoid levels of service below acceptable standards on these roads during the interim period. Therefore, this is a short-term significant unavoidable impact. Cumulative traffic conditions are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.12 Transportation.

3-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 3.0 Related Issues

Utilities and Service Systems

Build-out of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan would increase the demand for utilities. The proportion of this cumulative impact attributed to the reuse of the former Fort Ord would be mitigated by the capital improvements and policies and programs in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. The cumulative demand for these services would not be considered a significant impact.

3.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15126(g), this section will include a discussion of any methods by which the project will directly or indirectly induce economic, population, or housing growth. “Growth inducing” generally refers to the likelihood that a project will foster growth in the surrounding area, either directly or indirectly. The most common factor in fostering growth is the removal of obstacles to population or economic growth.

The project is a part of the overall redevelopment of the former Fort Ord. The project is consistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, which was designed to provide a balance of growth in both housing and jobs. The residential component, although not specifically included in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, would be within the residential development totals for the Seaside Residential Planning area. As a furtherance of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, the project is expected to provide housing for the commercial, and research and development employment opportunities expected to be created at the former Fort Ord in the coming years.

The project would not extend existing infrastructure beyond the project site, nor result in the development of new infrastructure, that would foster growth beyond the project site. From an infrastructure standpoint, the project would not induce growth.

The project would enhance the desirability of the existing golf courses, and provide an additional tourist destination and sports and convention venue on the Monterey Peninsula. This increase in tourist, sports, and business activity could indirectly induce the growth of the surrounding areas. The presence of a resort hotel development would serve to increase the attractiveness of the surrounding area as both a business and residential location. Because the project would expand on the established reputation of the Monterey Peninsula as a desirable residential and tourist location, and increase the desirability of an area currently outside the focus of tourism, it would be likely to induce both residential and commercial growth, but not beyond that identified in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-9 3.0 Related Issues Seaside Resort EIR

3.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes

The project would use energy from non-renewable sources, committing the use energy resources to accommodate increased demands for natural gas and electricity. The project would use building materials from non-renewable, though recyclable, mineral resources, including concrete and stone. The project site and surrounding areas are largely developed, however, many mature trees would be cut down to accommodate the project.

3.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts

CEQA Requirements

An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that a lead agency make findings of overriding considerations for unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts before approving a project. CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a) requires the decision-making agency (City of Seaside) to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b) states that when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts

Because sections of State Highway 1 and State Highway 68 are already operating at unacceptable levels of service during peak periods, the additional trips generated by the project would result in significant project and cumulative impacts on these roadway sections. The State Highway 1 PSR has proposed several improvements to the State Highway 1 corridor in the Sand City/Seaside area that would improve levels of service on roads within the corridor to an acceptable level of service under cumulative conditions. The

3-10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 3.0 Related Issues

project would contribute development fees to FORA, some of which would fund these improvements. However, the timeframe for the implementation of the improvements is unknown. The improvements may not be constructed in time to avoid levels of service below acceptable standards on these roads during the interim period. Therefore, this is a short-term significant unavoidable impact.

The project's FORA development fees would also contribute towards improvements on the State Highway 68 corridor, but again, the timetable for implementation of the improvements is not known, and they may not be built until after the project is complete. Until the improvements are implemented, traffic would operate below acceptable levels of service. The project would result in the following specific significant unavoidable impacts:

Significant and Unavoidable Project Impact – Additional Delay at Intersections with Existing LOS Below Standards: Fremont Boulevard at Del Monte Boulevard, and Fremont Boulevard at Monterey Boulevard. The addition of project traffic would add between 5.3 and 35.7 seconds to existing unacceptable delays at these intersections during peak hours. The intersections currently operate below acceptable levels of service during peak hours. Implementation of the State Highway 1 PSR improvements would improve levels of service to acceptable levels. The project would pay a development impact fee to FORA. The FORA fee could be used, in part, fund the State Highway 1 PSR improvements. However, the timeframe for completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below acceptable standards at these intersections during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Significant and Unavoidable Project Impact – Additional Traffic on Highway with Existing LOS Below Standards: State Highway 1 South of Fremont Boulevard, and State Highway 68 East of State Highway 218. The addition of project traffic on State Highway 1 would increase traffic volumes by between 1.8 and 2.5 percent during peak periods. The addition of project traffic on State Highway 68 would increase traffic volumes by between 1.5 and 1.7 percent during peak periods. The highway segment currently operates below acceptable levels of service during the afternoon peak hour. The FORA development fee could be used, in part, fund improvements to State Highway 1 and State Highway 68. However, the timeframe for completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below falling below acceptable standards on these roads during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact – Additional Traffic on Highway with Existing LOS Below Standards: State Highway 1 South of Fremont Boulevard and State Highway 68 East of State Highway 218. Cumulative southbound traffic would increase traffic volumes by 19.3 percent during the morning peak period and northbound traffic by 22.8 percent during afternoon peak period on State Highway 1, compared to existing conditions. The highway segment currently operates below acceptable levels of service during both peak periods. Cumulative traffic would increase traffic volumes by 10.1 percent during the morning peak period and 5.2 percent during

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-11 3.0 Related Issues Seaside Resort EIR afternoon peak period on State Highway 68, compared to existing conditions. The highway segment currently operates below acceptable levels of service during both peak periods.

The FORA development fee could be used, in part, to fund improvements to State Highway 1 and State Highway 68. However, the timeframe for funding and completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below acceptable standards on these roads during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact – Intersections LOS Below Standards: Monterey Road/Coe Avenue; Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road; and Fremont Boulevard/ Del Monte Boulevard. Cumulative traffic increases would result in operations below acceptable levels of service at these intersections during one or both peak hours. The FORA development fee could be used, in part, to fund improvements to these intersections. However, the timeframe for completion of the improvements is unknown and therefore this mitigation measure would not avoid levels of service below acceptable standards at these intersections during the interim period. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact of uncertain duration.

3-12 EMC Planning Group Inc.

4.0 Alternatives

CEQA Requirements CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (a) requires a description of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and an evaluation the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (b) further emphasizes that the discussion of alternatives focus on those alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts or reducing them to a less than significant level, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.5 (d) requires an evaluation of impacts of the alternatives, but in less detail than the analysis of project impacts. The project would have impacts or potential impacts in several areas, but the impacts most specific to the project (i.e. impacts not common to most projects), are in the areas of air quality from operations, tree removal, habitat for special status species, and traffic. The project would also contribute to cumulative public services impacts, with new infrastructure required to serve the project, and cumulative traffic impacts, with major road and highway improvements required. Therefore the alternatives focus on eliminating or reducing one or more of these specific impacts.

Alternatives Analysis The following alternatives to the project are analyzed: • “No Project” alternative; • “Stilwell Park/Kidney location” alternative; • “Revised project design” alternative; and • “Reduced density” alternative.

A brief description of each alternative scenario is included in the introduction to that alternative. It is assumed that details of the alternatives are similar to the project, to the extent possible or applicable. The relative merits of each alternative are discussed for each environmental issue area.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-1 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

No Project Alternative

CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) stipulates that the “no project” alternative be evaluated along with its impacts. The “no project” alternative analysis must discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

With the no project alternative, the proposed resort hotel, timeshare, and residential units would not be constructed. The clubhouse and maintenance areas may remain in their present locations, although changes to the golf course would continue. The golf course operator is considering changes that would attract a major golf tournament to the facility, so with or without the resort hotel portion of the project, the stature of the golf courses would increase, and there would be incremental increases in their use.

Because the development of a resort hotel at the golf courses is considered a high priority for the City, if the project were not approved, it is likely that the City would actively seek a different resort hotel proposal for the site. A different development proposal might consist of a resort hotel alone, without timeshare or residential components, or might include a greater emphasis on convention center facilities, or a more diverse sporting component, such as a tennis club. In any case, in the absence of the project, a resort hotel in some form would be expected to be constructed at the project site.

Although a hotel is planned to be built at the golf courses eventually, the “no project” analysis assumes that the existing golf course use of the area would continue.

Aesthetics

The “no project” alternative would have no potential for adverse aesthetic effects. Minor changes to the golf course layouts, or changes to the existing structures would not be visible off the project site and not significantly affect views of the project site. The “no project” alternative would not have a significant visual effect. The “no project” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of visual resources.

Agricultural Resources

Neither the “no project” alternative nor the project would have any effect on agricultural resources.

Air Quality

The “no project” alternative would not result in increased traffic, and therefore, would not result in any air quality impacts from operations. The “no project” alternative would result in fewer air emissions from vehicle operations compared to the project, and would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of operational air quality. The

4-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

“no project” alternative would not require construction, so would not result in any construction emissions impacts. Therefore the “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of construction emissions impacts.

Biological Resources

The “no project” alternative would not result in loss of trees or habitat, and would not have any effect on special status species, or other biological resources within the project site. The “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of biological resources.

Cultural Resources

The “no project” alternative would not cause substantial soil disturbance, and would have no effect on cultural resources. The “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of potential cultural resources impacts.

Geology and Soils

Under the “no project” alternative the existing golf clubhouse would remain, rather than be replaced by a new structure. The structural soundness of the existing clubhouse building is not known, but single-story wood frame buildings such as the existing clubhouse, which was built some time ago, typically suffer little damage in earthquakes. Because current building codes require more stringent seismic designs than would have been employed in the existing clubhouse, there is a chance that the existing clubhouse would suffer more damage in an earthquake than would a newer building. The “no project” alternative would be similar to the project in terms of potential seismic impacts.

There would be no chance of soil erosion under the “no project” alternative, because there would be no ground disturbance for development. The “no project” alternative would be slightly superior to the project in terms of geological and soils impacts from erosion.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The project includes timeshare uses in the Site 33 area where the existing golf maintenance facility is located which was determined in the FOST to be unsuitable for residential uses without remediation. The “no project” alternative would avoid this conflict and avoid the need for remediation since residential structures would not be built on the affected site. However, with the “no project” alternative, the Site 33 area would not be cleaned of hazardous materials. The “no project” alternative would be approximately equal to the project in terms of hazards and hazardous materials, and their effect on land uses.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-3 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

Hydrology and Water Quality

The “no project” alternative would contribute fewer urban pollutants from the existing parking lot because it is smaller than the parking area proposed for the project, although the potential for those pollutants to be carried downstream, eventually to the ocean, is greater because the “no project” alternative does not detain run-off on site. Overall, the project and the “no project” alternative wold have similar environmental effects in terms of storm water quality.

The “no project” alternative would use less water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. Because the “no project” alternative would not retain storm water run-off on site, the potential for down-stream flooding would be somewhat higher. The “no project” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of groundwater , but would be inferior in terms of potential flooding hazard.

Land Use and Planning

The “no project” alternative would conform to the land use requirements of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and the Seaside General Plan, and would be consistent with the requirements of the Seaside Zoning Ordinance, although it would not carry out the vision of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan to establish a resort hotel at the golf courses. The “no project” alternative and the project would be consistent with land use designations, but the “no project’ alternative would fail to achieve a principal general plan objective. The “no project” alternative would be inferior to the project in achieving land use and planning goals of FORA and the City.

Mineral Resources

Neither the “no project” alternative nor the project would have a significant effect on mineral resources.

Noise

Neither the “no project” alternative nor the project would be likely to result in operational noise impacts in the surrounding community. The “no project” alternative would not result in construction noise impacts as would the project. The “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of noise.

Population and Housing

Neither the “no project” alternative nor the project would result in the loss of housing, or have a significant effect on population and housing. Although the project would include 125 residential units these would not significantly affect the regional supply of housing. The “no project” alternative would not include any housing. The project would be slightly superior to the “no project” alternative in terms of providing housing.

4-4 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

Public Services

The “no project” alternative would not increase demand for public services, nor contribute to a cumulative need for additional facilities. The “no project” alternative would not result in a need for new parkland. The “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of public services.

Recreation

Neither the “no project” alternative nor the project would have a significant effect on recreation facilities. Although the project could result in increased use of the existing golf courses, the golf courses are privately managed, and user fees should be adequate to cover operational, maintenance, and capital costs of the golf courses. The “no project” alternative and the project are essentially equal in terms of recreational opportunities.

Transportation

The “no project” alternative would not increase traffic. The “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of transportation.

Utilities and Service Systems Under the “no project” alternative storm water drainage would remain essentially unchanged, and no drainage basins would be constructed. More storm water would flow off-site with the “no project” alternative compared with the project. The project would be environmentally superior to the “no project” alternative in terms of storm water drainage. The “no project” alternative would use less water than the project, and generate less wastewater. The “no project” alternative would have no impact on utilities and service systems. The “no project” alternative would be environmentally superior to the project in terms of water and wastewater systems.

Stilwell Park/Kidney Alternative This alternative studies an alternative location to the project site at the Kidney area of the Stilwell Park housing area approximately one-quarter mile north of the project site. The Stilwell Park/Kidney site is bounded by Gigling Road to the north, the POM recreation center, General Jim Moore Boulevard, and Stilwell Elementary School to the east, and the occupied POM Stilwell Park housing area to the south and west. Monterey Road roughly bisects the Stilwell Park/Kidney site. The Stilwell Park/Kidney site is approximately 102 acres, rising from a low point in the northwest of approximately 160 feet above sea level to a high point along General Jim Moore Boulevard, at approximately 270 feet above sea level. The site is occupied by abandoned military housing and related infrastructure, with numerous large trees. The alternative project on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site would consist of residential uses on the portions of the site northwest of Monterey Road, and hotel and timeshare uses on the southeastern portion, nearest to the golf courses and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-5 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

The residential uses would be consistent with the Seaside General Plan and Fort Ord Reuse Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The hotel and timeshare uses would require amendments to the Seaside General Plan, the Seaside Zoning Ordinance, and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Conceptual land uses for the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative are shown in Figure 22. Although the Stilwell Park/Kidney site site is relatively close to the golf courses, the synergistic effects of the project located within the golf course would not be realized with this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would not be considered feasible from the standpoint of achieving the City’s goals of developing a first-class golf course resort. Proximity to the golf courses is essential to the principal objectives of the project. For similar reasons, the Stilwell Park/Kidney site alternative may not be an economically feasible project. The association with the golf courses would be required to give the project a competitive advantage compared to other resort opportunities in the region.

Aesthetics The Stilwell Park/Kidney site is more visible from off-site locations than the project site, particularly from General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road, and to a lesser degree from southbound State Highway 1 and the recreation trail. The Stilwell Park/Kidney site is closer to State Highway 1 and there is less vegetation to block views onto the site. The clearest view of the project site from the west is from the recreation trail just south of Lightfighter Drive, where there are relatively distant but unobstructed views towards the project site. Few buildings are visible, but numerous trees on the project site are. The Post Chapel and the Youth Center are partly visible beyond the trees on the project site, giving a fairly clear distinction of which trees are located on the project site or the schoolyard, and which are east of General Jim Moore Boulevard. Because the highway is lower than the recreation trail as it approaches Lightfighter Drive, the views of this site are somewhat less apparent from the highway. A large hotel building would be easily visible from State Highway 1 if built anywhere on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site. A small portion of the Stilwell Park/Kidney site is within 500 feet of State Highway 1 and within the State Highway 1 Special Design Area. Residential development on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site would be marginally visible from State Highway 1, and some residential development would be located within the State Highway 1 Special Design Area. Although the Stilwell Park/Kidney site has fewer trees than the project site, the numerous large trees give the site a park-like characteristic, particularly the eastern areas of the site near General Jim Moore Boulevard. Construction of a large hotel would result in the loss of most trees, and significantly alter the visual character of the site. Because there are fewer trees to begin with, the loss of trees on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site would have a more severe effect on the site’s character than would tree removal on the project site.

The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would have a greater adverse visual effect than the project.

4-6 EMC Planning Group Inc. CSUMB CSUMB Stadium

Monterey Dunes State Beach (Proposed)

Lightfighter Drive

Post Exchange

Commissary Fire Station Credit Union Fast Food Gigling Road Stilwell Comm. Center

State Highway 1 Residential

Hotel Marshall Park POM Annex Housing Chamberlin Library Post Chapel Timeshares Stilwell School

Youth Center Closed Stilwell Park POM Annex Housing Store

Marshall School Officer's Club Monterey Road

Jim Moore Blvd. Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses ral

Gene

Fitch Park POM Annex Housing

Alternative Site Boundaries

Source: WAC Corporation and EMC Planning Group Inc. 0 0.5 mile

Figure 22 Stilwell Park Alternative Conceptual Land Use Seaside Resort Hotel EIR 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

4-8 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

Agricultural Resources

Neither the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative nor the project would have any effect on agricultural resources.

Air Quality

The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would generate approximately the same number of automobile trips as the project, although there may be somewhat fewer residential trips and somewhat more hotel trips due to the location of transit and the golf courses relative to the Stilwell Park/Kidney site. Construction emissions would be similar for both. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project would have similar air quality impacts.

Biological Resources

The Stilwell Park/Kidney site also contains a large number of coast live oaks and other trees. A tree survey prepared for a proposed residential development on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site identified 633 trees with trunks 10 inches in diameter or larger. No information is available concerning the number of trees with trunk diameters between six and nine inches in diameter on the Stillwell Park/Kidney site. Of the trees over 10 inches in diameter, 181 trees (29 percent) are coast live oak, and 46 trees (seven percent) are Monterey cypress. Monterey pines make up 40 percent of the trees on the Stilwell/Kidney site, but all of them are considered to be in poor health. The remaining trees are landscape species, such as eucalyptus and acacia. Coast live oak makes up approximately 29 percent of the trees on both the Stilwell Park/Kidney site and the project site. The Stilwell Park/Kidney site differs significantly from the project site in having relatively few Monterey cypress (seven percent compared to 65 percent) and relatively many Monterey pine (40 percent compared to five percent). The Stillwell Park/Kidney site also has a far greater proportion of miscellaneous landscape tree species (23 percent compared to one percent). Trees on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site are generally spaced apart between buildings, rather than concentrated in groves.

Development of the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would result in the loss of many trees, although due to different tree survey parameters, a precise quantitative comparison to the project site is not possible. Analysis of an aerial photograph suggests that the Stilwell Park/Kidney site has considerably fewer trees. Approximately one-quarter as many coast live oaks might be removed with the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative, although many of these would be very large specimens. The loss of other types of trees would be less significant, because a very large proportion of trees on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site are Monterey pines in poor health, or are non-native landscape trees.

The overgrown and un-maintained nature of the developed areas of the Stilwell Park/Kidney site, make the developed areas suitable for some wildlife species, including small mammals such as voles and pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae). The presence of these small mammals provides an important prey source for predatory species, such as

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-9 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

red fox, various snakes, and raptors, including red-tailed hawk and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). In addition to small mammals, non-native grassland provides forage sites for large mammals, such as black-tailed deer. The three-acre undeveloped area in the southeast corner of the Stilwell Park/Kidney site would likely support similar species. Unlike the project site, the coast live oak trees on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site do not grow in natural groves, but are interspersed with structures and streets, and the understory is un-maintained non-native grass. Therefore, the coast live oaks at the Stilwell Park/Kidney site are less suitable as habitat for the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat.

Because losses of significant trees would be less and the Stilwell Park/Kidney site contains no habitat supporting protected species, the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of biological resources.

Cultural Resources

Both the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project have the potential to uncover buried archeological resources, so both have the potential for significant impacts. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project have similar potential impacts to cultural resources.

Geology and Soils

Both the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project include a variety of structures, and both would include soils conditions analysis and appropriate engineering. Erosion potential at both locations would be approximately equal. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project have similar potential impacts related to geology and soils.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Stilwell Park/Kidney site does not include areas of known soil contamination. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would not result in construction of residences or visitor accommodations on a contaminated site. The abandoned military housing on the Stilwell Park/ Kidney site is likely to contain lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, which would require removal and disposal in accordance with standard safety procedures. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of hazards and hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality

It is assumed that the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would employ similar storm drainage detention and water quality measures as the project. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar.

4-10 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

Land Use and Planning The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would include land uses that are not consistent with the Seaside General Plan, Seaside Zoning Ordinance, and Fort Ord Reuse Plan. It is assumed that under the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative that these would be amended to include the visitor-serving uses proposed, and that at least 500 of the 800 allowable hotel units from the project site would be transferred to the Stilwell Park/Kidney site. Therefore, up to 300 hotel units could remain developable at the project site under this alternative. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would locate a large resort hotel and timeshare units within an area of mixed residential, commercial and community uses. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would expand commercial land uses, which currently exist within one-quarter mile to the north, farther to the south along General Jim Moore Boulevard. Predominate existing uses along General Jim Moore Boulevard near the Stilwell Park/Kidney site are community-oriented, including a community center to the north and the Stilwell School (currently proposed for closure by the MPUSD) to the south. A library, chapel, and youth center are located on the east side of General Jim Moore Boulevard. General Jim Moore Boulevard would provide arterial access to the hotel. Timeshares would be accessible through the hotel site or from a collector street. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative does not utilize the opportunity presented by the golf courses to provide a unique resort setting. A hotel development at the Stilwell Park/Kidney site would not realize the same ambient benefits that the project, as proposed, would achieve from its setting within an open space area, would not realize the synergistic benefits that the project would receive from its association with the golf course amenities, and would not likely be viable economically without the golf courses as an amenity. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative does not present any considerable land use conflicts, as there is no intrinsic problem with adjacency of hotel, timeshare, residential, and school uses. However, the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would isolate the existing elementary school from the residential uses currently planned for the site. The existing land uses make better use of the school as a community resource, and would place more students within walking distance of the school. The currently planned land uses for the Stilwell Park/Kidney site are more appropriate for the site than the land uses of the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative. Therefore, the project would be superior to the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative from the standpoint of appropriate land use.

Mineral Resources Neither the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative or the project would have a significant effect on mineral resources.

Noise Both the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project would result in traffic noise impacts at some of the new residences. Both the project and the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative are likely to result in short-term construction noise impacts at neighboring

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-11 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR uses. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative is located closer to sensitive receptors (Stilwell Elementary School and occupied POM housing) and would have greater potential for construction noise impacts. The project would be environmentally superior to the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative in terms of noise.

Population and Housing

The Stilwell Park/Kidney site is planned for approximately 400 housing units in the Seaside General Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Approximately 275 of these planned housing units would be displaced from the Stilwell Park/Kidney site, but could be reassigned elsewhere in the Seaside Residential Planning area at the former Fort Ord. Approximately 400 existing housing units at the alternative location would be removed for the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative. These housing units were formerly used for military personnel, and have been vacant for approximately eight years. The houses are not currently habitable and are planned to be removed for redevelopment. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would have a less than significant impact on population and housing. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project would be similar in terms of population and housing.

Public Services

The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would place all of the development beyond the existing reach of the Seaside fire and police protective services, and require the construction of new substations. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would also contribute to a cumulative increase in demand for these services. Because some of the project site would be within the range of acceptable response times for fire and police protective services, the project would be superior to the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative in terms of its effect on public services. The effect on schools and public works would be similar for both the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project.

Recreation

Neither the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative or the project would have a significant effect on recreation. The project, as designed, would likely be economically infeasible without the availability of the existing golf courses as a recreation amenity

Transportation

The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would move all development northward, and increase usage of the Lightfighter Drive interchange with State Highway 1, while decreasing usage of the Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road intersection. A traffic report prepared for a proposed residential and neighborhood commercial development on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site determined that the development would generate approximately 4,359 daily trips, or approximately three-quarters of the traffic expected to be generated by the project. Therefore, traffic impacts of the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would be worse than those projected by the traffic report for residential and

4-12 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

neighborhood commercial development on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site. The traffic report for a previously proposed project on the Stilwell Park/Kidney site found significant project level impacts at Fremont Boulevard and Monterey Road, and at Lightfighter Drive and First Street (due to a proposed realignment of Monterey Road to this intersection). Without the realignment of Monterey Road, that impact might be reasonably expected to occur at the intersections of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road, and General Jim Moore Boulevard and Lightfighter Drive.

Trip generation of the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would be similar to that of the project, but the traffic effects would be shifted northward, with more traffic utilizing the Lightfighter Drive interchange with State Highway 1. Both the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project would contribute to cumulative traffic impacts on State Highway 1 and State Highway 68. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project would be similar in terms of transportation.

Utilities and Service Systems The demand for water, wastewater and other service systems would be similar with both the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative and the project. However, a water main extension to provide fire flow quantities for the hotel would not be necessary with the “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative. The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of utilities and service systems.

Revised Project Design The “revised project design” alternative would involve re-locating the golf maintenance facility, some of the proposed residential areas, and realignment of a portion of the Black Horse Golf Course. The residential uses would be concentrated within the eastern and southern portions of the project site, and some of the residential units would be in condominium units in order to obtain a more compact residential development footprint. The “revised project design” alternative would reduce tree loss by moving some development out of heavily treed areas of the project site and concentrating it in areas with fewer trees. No changes would be made to the hotel or timeshare components proposed in the project. In the “revised project design” alternative, the 125 residential units would be developed as a combination of custom view lots and condominiums in the area immediately north of Sun Bay Resort, the area immediately west of Fitch Middle School, and in the area between holes 11, 12, and 13 of the Bayonet course. The Black Horse course would need to be reconfigured to the west to accommodate the residential area (hole 10 would become hole 8, hole 17 would become hole 9, hole 16 would become hole 10, hole 15 would become hole 17, and new holes 15 and 16 would be constructed between existing holes 11 and 15). The residential access road from Coe Avenue would continue through to the timeshare area, providing a connection between the residential and visitor-serving areas. The existing Bayonet hole 11 would remain unchanged, and the residential area would be located between existing holes. The golf course maintenance operation would be re-located to the area between holes 5 and 6 holes of the Bayonet course. Changes to

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-13 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

Bayonet hole 16, and Black Horse hole 17 would remain as proposed in the project. The hotel, timeshares, clubhouse, and driving range would also be as proposed in the project. A conceptual land use plan for the “revised project design” alternative is presented in Figure 23. The feasibility of the “revised project design” alternative would be subject to the acceptability of the golf course re-alignments for championship play. The golf course operator has already initiated changes to the golf courses designed to achieve this objective, and the realignment proposed by this alternative may not be feasible for the golf course operator.

Aesthetics

The “revised project design” alternative would remove the houses and the golf course maintenance facility from the western portion of the project site. Potential visual impacts of the project site character as seen from Monterey Road would be eliminated. The “revised project design” alternative would result in slightly increased visual impacts when viewed from Coe Avenue, however, this is an area that is already partially developed, and the effect on project site character would be less severe than at Monterey Road. The aesthetic effects of the “revised project design” would not be different as seen from State Highway 1 or General Jim Moore Boulevard. The “revised project design” alternative would have reduced visual impacts compared to the project. The “revised project design” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of visual resources.

Agricultural Resources

Neither the project nor the “revised project design” alternative would have any effect on agricultural resources.

Air Quality

The “revised project design” alternative concentrates uses to the eastern portion of the project site. The more compact arrangement would place residential uses closer to the hotel, golf clubhouse, and transit, and would be more conducive to pedestrian and transit travel. The “revised project design” alternative could marginally reduce emissions from automobile trips if pedestrian or transit trips replaced automobile trips. Although this may happen to an extent, the effect on air emissions would be slight. Construction air emissions would be similar for both the “revised project design” alternative and the project. The “revised project design” alternative would be similar to the project in terms of air quality effects.

Biological Resources

The southern portion of the project site has significantly fewer trees than the northern and western areas, and loss of trees would be reduced with the “revised project design” alternative. The southern portion also has very few groves of coast live oak trees, so loss of potential habitat for the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat would be less. By

4-14 EMC Planning Group Inc. Monterey Road

11 12 3 Residential 2 4 Driving 13 Range 5 1 10 14 8 9 15 Maintenance Timeshares Area 16 6 5 4 Timeshares

13 7 6 Hotel

17 14 18 7 1 12 15 17 2 3 16 18 Timeshares

ulevard 15 17 9 re Bo

16 10 11 10 8 9 8

Coe Avenue General Jim Moo

Residential

Project Features Remaining shown with solid whit line Source: WAC Corporation; photo date: 2000 Revised Project Design shown with dashed white line

Scale: 1" = 1,200'

Figure 23 Revised Project Design Alternative Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

This side intentionally left blank.

4-16 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

reconfiguring the residential areas to the eastern and southern areas, and relocating the golf maintenance area to between holes 5, 8, and 9 of the Black Horse course, the loss of trees and potential habitat would be substantially reduced. Tree losses from the golf course maintenance facility would be almost entirely eliminated, and tree losses from residential development would be reduced to fewer than 100 trees. The “revised project design” alternative would result in a loss of approximately 530 trees, or less than half the tree loss expected with the project. The largest area of coast live oak woodland, near Monterey Road, where the relocated golf course maintenance facility is proposed, would remain undisturbed.

Losses of trees would still occur in the hotel and timeshare area, and in the area where golf course holes would be relocated. Loss of potential lizard habitat would occur in the re-located driving range area. The total loss of trees and habitat would be reduced. The “revised project design” alternative would be superior to the proposed project.

Cultural Resources

Both the “revised project design” alternative and the project have the potential to uncover buried archeological resources, so both have the potential for significant impacts. The “revised project design” alternative and the project have similar potential impacts to cultural resources.

Geology and Soils

The “revised project design” alternative would place similar types of structures on the project site. Potential geological impacts would be the same.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The “revised project design” alternative includes development of timeshare units at the site of the existing golf course maintenance area. Because the site has been identified as having contaminated soils, there is a potential danger involved with residential use, and residential use is not permitted under the terms of the FOST issued by the Army without remediation. A Phase 1 report was prepared, which recommended that the site be cleaned prior to residential use. The “revised project design” alternative and the project would have similar potential for environmental effects from hazardous materials without remediation.

Hydrology and Water Quality

The “revised project design” alternative would concentrate development on a portion of the golf course area. The impervious area of the “revised project design” alternative would be less than the project, because there would be fewer access roads to serve it. Roof, driveway and patio areas might also be less because the “revised project design” alternative would include some condominiums in place of single-family residences. Therefore, storm water run-off from the “revised project design” alternative would be

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-17 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

less. However, because the development would be concentrated on one portion of the project site, the run-off would be less dispersed than in the project. It is likely that fewer, but larger, drainage detention ponds would be required. The net off-site flow of storm water would be similar however. The quantity of urban pollutants would be less with the “revised project design” alternative, but not significantly so. The “revised project design” alternative and the project would have similar potential for environmental effects related to hydrology.

Land Use and Planning The “revised project design” alternative would include condominiums in addition to the uses proposed in the project. Residential uses are a conditional use in the V-FO zoning district, regardless of type of unit, as long as the average overall density is within 10 units per acre, exclusive of golf course and commercial areas. The “revised project design” alternative would include 125 units on approximately 35 acres for an overall density of four units per acre. The “revised project design” alternative would be consistent with the Seaside Zoning Ordinance. The “revised project design” alternative would be consistent with the design objectives of the Seaside General Plan and Fort Ord Reuse Plan, by providing connections between neighboring uses. The “revised project design” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of land use planning and consistency with land use plans, although it would provide fewer golf course frontage residential sites, and would achieve the City’s objective of broadening the range of available housing to a lesser extent.

Mineral Resources Neither the “revised project design” alternative nor the project would have a significant effect on mineral resources.

Noise Both the “revised project design” alternative and the project would be likely to result in operational noise impacts at residences. Both the project and the “revised project design” alternative are likely to result in short-term construction noise impacts. The “revised project design” alternative is locates more construction activities in proximity to sensitive receptors (Fitch Middle School and Sun Bay Apartments) and would have greater potential for construction noise impacts. The project would be environmentally superior to the “revised project design” alternative in terms of noise.

Population and Housing Both the “revised project design” alternative and the project would result in 125 new homes, consistent with the Seaside General Plan. Neither the project nor the “revised project design” alternative would have a significant effect on population and housing. The “revised project design” alternative would provide fewer golf course frontage residential sites, and would achieve the City’s objective of broadening the range of available housing to a lesser extent.

4-18 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

Public Services

The “revised project design” alternative would contribute to the cumulative need for additional fire and police protective services and facilities within the former Fort Ord. However, because development would be concentrated in a smaller portion of the project site, providing services to the “revised project design” alternative would be more efficient than with the project. Average fire and police response times to the residential areas of the “revised project design” alternative would be improved compared to the project. Neither the “revised project design” alternative nor the project would have a significant effect on public works. Both the “revised project design” alternative and the project would require the provision of parkland or a park fee. The “revised project design” alternative would be somewhat superior to the project in terms of public services.

Recreation

The “revised project design” alternative could have a significant effect on recreation if it were to prevent the golf course operator from modifying the golf courses to attract championship play and a major tournament. The design of the project has been coordinated with the golf course operator and satisfies the goals of the golf course operator to create golf course qualities that would attract championship play and a major tournament. The "revised project design" alternative could have a worse impact on the future recreational potential of the golf courses.

Transportation

The “revised project design” alternative would concentrate development to the southern and eastern portions of the golf course area. Less traffic would use Monterey Road, and more traffic would use General Jim Moore Boulevard and Coe Avenue. Although most trips into downtown Seaside would use the impacted Fremont Boulevard/ Monterey Road intersection under both the “revised project design” alternative and the project, some downtown bound traffic might make use of the General Jim Moore Boulevard/Broadway Avenue intersection with the “revised project design” alternative, thus adding fewer new trips to the congested Fremont Boulevard/Monterey Road intersection.

Residential development would be concentrated nearer a transit line, and nearer to the golf clubhouse and hotel. Residential development would also be located closer to the planned commercial area to the east of Coe Avenue. This would make walking more feasible, and shorten automobile trips. The “revised project design” alternative would increase the use of walking and transit, and could marginally reduce automobile traffic. Overall, however, the “revised project design” alternative would be equal to the project in terms of transportation congestion.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-19 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

Utilities and Service Systems Because development would be concentrated in a smaller portion of the project site, fewer utility lines would be required to serve the “revised project design” alternative, resulting in reduced impacts to the existing golf course recreation use. Water use and wastewater generation is typically lower for higher-density residential developments, so impacts on supplies and treatment capabilities would be somewhat less. The impact on cumulative water supply could be reduced marginally. Overall, however, the “revised project design” alternative would be similar to the project in terms of impacts on utilities and service system capacities.

Reduced Density Alternative

The “reduced density” alternative is designed to reduce potential biological impacts by avoiding tree removal. The “reduced density” alternative would reduce the number of lots, timeshare units, and hotel bungalow units by approximately one-third. The remaining lots, timeshare and hotel bungalow units would be arranged within the same development envelope as in the project, but the reduced density would allow greater flexibility in building placement to reduce the loss of trees. The main hotel building, including restaurants and conference facilities, would remain as in the project, as would the golf clubhouse. Parking would be reduced in proportion to the reduction in timeshare and hotel bungalow units. The “reduced density” alternative would have 83 residential lots, 170 main hotel guest rooms, 107 bungalow units, and 114 timeshare units. The reduced number of hotel rooms and timeshare units would likely have ramifications on the design of the conference and kitchen facilities at the hotel, which may not be supportable as planned if the number of accommodations is reduced.

Aesthetics

The “reduced density” alternative would reduce the number of structures on the project site, and the effects on views from off-site locations would be slightly reduced. The main hotel building would be the same as in the project. The number of timeshares would be less, and they could be arranged so as to avoid views from off-site. The “reduced density” alternative and the project would be similar in terms of visual resources impacts.

Agricultural Resources

Neither the “reduced density” alternative nor the project would have any effect on agricultural resources.

Air Quality

Because the “reduced density” alternative would have a smaller number of units, it would result in reduced emissions from automobile emissions at the project level. Cumulative air emissions would be the same, although the project contribution would be

4-20 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

marginally reduced. On a per unit basis, the “reduced density” alternative would result in the same air quality impacts as the project. However, because the “reduced density” alternative is smaller, air quality impacts would be less. The “reduced density:” alternative would be superior to the project.

Biological Resources Because the “reduced density” alternative would place development within the same development envelope as the project, the streets serving the development would be the same, and losses of trees from street development would remain unchanged. Tree losses from house construction on the residential lots would be reduced, because there would be greater latitude for arranging the houses to avoid more heavily treed areas. Loss of trees at the hotel bungalow and timeshare components would also be reduced due to greater flexibility in building placement. If tree loss were reduced by one-third in those areas where flexibility of building placement due to lower densities might allow it (residential lots, hotel bungalow, and timeshare), tree losses could be reduced by approximately 250 trees, or approximately 22 percent overall. Reduction in habitat loss would be less than reduction in tree loss, because the habitat would be fragmented from construction. The greatest potential for reducing habitat loss would be through clustering of residential lots in less sensitive areas, and retaining more contiguous areas of habitat as open space. The “reduced density” alternative would reduce tree loss and could reduce habitat loss to a lesser degree. The “reduced density” alternative would be superior to the project.

Cultural Resources Both the “reduced density” alternative and the project have the potential to uncover buried archeological resources, so both have the potential for significant impacts. The “reduced density” alternative and the project have similar potential impacts to cultural resources.

Geology and Soils Both the “reduced density” alternative and the project would result in the same infrastructure development, but reduced grading and construction. Geological limitations and engineering requirements would be the same for both. The potential extent of erosion would be somewhat reduced with the “reduced density” alternative because the project is smaller, but not to a significant degree. Similar measures would be required to mitigate potential erosion. The “reduced density” alternative and the project would be similar in terms of geology and soils.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials The “reduced density” alternative includes development of timeshare units at the site of the existing golf maintenance area. Because the site has been identified as having contaminated soils, there is a potential danger involved with residential use, and

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-21 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

residential use is not permitted under the terms of the FOST issued by the Army without remediation. A Phase 1 report was prepared, which recommended that the site be cleaned prior to residential use, and remediation will occur prior to construction of residential uses on the affected site. Because there would be fewer timeshare units, the “reduced density” alternative could potentially allow the relocation of timeshare units to avoid the contaminated areas. The “reduced density” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of potential for environmental effects from hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality

The “reduced density” alternative would reduce impervious surfaces on the project site compared to the project because there would be fewer buildings and related driveways and parking spaces. Therefore, storm water run-off from the “reduced density” alternative would be less. Because detention ponds would be used for both the “reduced density” alternative and the project, the net off-site flow of storm water would be similar. The quantity of urban pollutants would be less with the “reduced density” alternative, but not significantly so. The “reduced density” alternative and the project would have similar potential for environmental effects related to hydrology.

Land Use and Planning

The “reduced density” alternative would be consistent with the land use designation of the project site. Like the project, the “reduced density” alternative would not meet some of the design objectives of the Seaside General Plan and Fort Ord Reuse Plan, particularly regarding pedestrian scale, and connection of neighborhoods to one another. The “reduced density” alternative would be similar to the project in terms of land use planning and consistency with land use plans.

Mineral Resources

Neither the “reduced density” alternative nor the project would have a significant effect on mineral resources.

Noise

Both the “reduced density” alternative and the project would result in operational noise impacts at some residential lots. Both the “reduced density” alternative and the project are likely to result in short-term construction noise impacts. The “reduced density” alternative involves less construction, so it would have somewhat less potential for construction noise impacts. However, both the “reduced density” alternative and the project would have impacts on the same receptors. The “reduced density” alternative and the project would be similar the in terms of noise.

4-22 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 4.0 Alternatives

Population and Housing

The “reduced density” alternative and the project would result in 82 new homes, consistent with the Seaside General Plan. Although this is fewer homes than would be built in the project, the total number of available housing units in the Seaside Residential Planning Area would remain constant. Neither the “alternative project design” alternative or the project would have a significant effect on population and housing.

Public Services

Because the “reduced density” alternative has fewer units, it would not increase the demand on Seaside fire and police protective services as the much as the project, although, demand for these services would increase at approximately the same rate on a per unit basis. Response times to the farther portions of the reduced density” alternative would be beyond acceptable standards, and expanded police beats and new substations would be required. Although the “reduced density” alternative is smaller, it would result in significant effects on public services. The “reduced density” alternative would be equal to the project in terms of public services impacts.

Recreation

Neither the “reduced density” alternative nor the project would have a significant effect on recreation.

Transportation

Because the “reduced density” alternative has approximately two thirds as many units, automobile trips would be reduced. However, because trips associated with the hotel and its amenities, such as the restaurant, would remain, the decrease would be somewhat less than one-third. Although traffic impacts to roads, highways, and intersections would be less, the trip generation per unit would remain the same. The “reduced density” alternative would also reduce the feasibilty of pedestrian and transit use. However, because the congestion impacts on the local road network would be reduced, the “reduced density” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of transportation.

Utilities and Service Systems

Because there would be fewer units, the “reduced density” alternative would require less water supply and wastewater processing, although it would place similar demand on these service systems on a per unit basis. Because the “reduced density” alternative is smaller, the effects on utilities and service systems would be less. Therefore, the “reduced density” alternative would be superior to the project in terms of the provision of public services.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-23 4.0 Alternatives Seaside Resort EIR

Alternatives Evaluation

The alternatives to the project are compared in matrix form in Table 38, and discussed in text below. In the case where the “no project” alternative is the superior alternative, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 (c) (2) requires the identification of the second most environmentally superior alternative

Environmentally Superior Alternative

The “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, because it would eliminate or reduce nearly every environmental effect of the project.

The second ranking alternative would be the “revised project design” alternative, which avoids or reduces impacts to trees, habitat, and public services, and to a lesser extent, is superior in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, and transportation. The “revised project design” alternative clusters development to the southern and eastern portions of the golf course area to avoid tree removal (the eastern portion has fewer trees, and tree loss could be reduced by more than half), to place development closer to fire and police services, and to make walking and transit more feasible (distances are reduced). The “revised project design” alternative eliminates visual impacts along Monterey Road. The “revised project design” alternative is inferior to the project in terms of construction noise, because development is clustered near several sensitive receptors, and construction noise impacts would effect a larger number of receptors.

The “reduced density” alternative ranks third. Many of the areas in which the “reduced density” alternative out-scores the project are due to the alternative’s smaller size, while its per unit impacts are similar to those of the project. The “reduced density” alternative would reduce tree loss by approximately 22 percent.

The “Stilwell Park/Kidney” alternative results in a reduced loss of trees compared to the project, but has increased visual impacts, and land use concerns.

If substantially meeting the objectives of the City and the applicant are made a priority for alternatives to the project, only the “reduced density” alternative would be considered. The other alternatives do not substantially meet the objectives of the project. Many of the areas in which the “reduced density” alternative out-scores the project are due to the alternative’s smaller size, while its per unit impacts are similar to those the project.

4-24 EMC Planning Group Inc. TABLE 38 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives (Without Mitigation Incorporated) No Project Stilwell Park/Kidney Revised Project Design Reduced Density Compared Compared Compared Compared Issue Area Project to to to to Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Project Project Project Project Would not meet most Would not meet most May not meet golf course Would not fully meet hotel Meet Project Yes Objectives objectives objectives championship objectives or residential objectives Aesthetics Project site character as Slightly SIG NO SIG Worse SIG Equal SIG Equal viewed from off-site Better Agricultural Resources Loss of farmland Air Quality Construction SIG NO Better SIG Equal SIG Equal SIG Equal Slightly Operations PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal LTS Better Biological Resources Loss of Trees PS NO Better PS Better PS Better PS Better Special status animals PS NO Better LTS Better PS Better PS Better Nesting Raptors PS NO Better PS Equal PS Better PS Equal Lighting PS NO Better LTS Better PS Better PS Equal Cultural Resources Buried Resources PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal PS Equal Historic Resources NO NO Better NO Equal NO Equal NO Equal Geology Ground Shaking LTS LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal Soils Characteristics LTS LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal Slightly Erosion PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal PS Better

No Project Stilwell Park/Kidney Revised Project Design Reduced Density

Environmental Compared Compared Compared Compared Project to to to to Issue Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Project Project Project Project Hazards and

Hazardous Materials Slightly Site Contamination SIG LTS NO Better SIG Equal SIG Equal Better Ordnance PS LTS Better PS Equal PS Equal PS Equal Hydrology Water Quality PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal PS Equal (Construction) Water Quality PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal PS Equal (Operations) Aquifer LTS NO Better LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal Slightly Storm Flooding NO LTS NO Equal NO Equal NO Equal Worse Slightly Off-site Runoff NO LTS Unknown --- NO Equal NO Equal Worse Land Use and

Planning GP Policy Consistency SIG NO Better PS Worse LTS Better SIG Equal Mineral Resources Slightly Loss of Availability LTS NO LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal Better Noise Short term Slightly Slightly PS NO Better PS PS PS Equal Construction Worse Worse Ambient Noise at Slightly PS NO Better PS Equal PS PS Equal Residences Better Project Traffic Noise LTS NO Better LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Equal

No Project Stilwell Park Revised Project Design Reduced Density

Environmental Compared Compared Compared Compared Project to to to to Issue Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Project Project Project Project Police Protection

Services Response Times SIG NO Better SIG Worse LTS Better SIG Equal Cumulative Facilities SIG NO Better SIG Equal SIG Equal SIG Equal Fire Protection

Services Response Times SIG NO Better SIG Worse LTS Better SIG Equal Cumulative Facilities SIG NO Better SIG Equal SIG Equal SIG Equal Cumulative Access SIG NO Better SIG Equal LTS Better SIG Equal Turn-around Provisions SIG NO Better Unknown – SIG Equal SIG Equal Public Works Drainage Basin NO NO Equal NO Equal NO Equal NO Equal Maintenance Transportation Additional Trips on Slightly SIG UN NO Better SIG UN Equal SIG UN Equal SIG UN Congested Highways Better Additional Delay at Slightly Slightly SIG UN NO Better SIG UN SIG UN Equal SIG UN Congested Intersections Better Better Project and Cumulative SIG UN NO Better SIG UN Equal SIG UN Equal SIG UN Equal Highway LOS Pedestrian Policy SIG NO Better LTS Better LTS Better SIG Equal Conflicts Slightly Special Events Parking PS NO PS Equal PS Equal PS Equal Better Wastewater Slightly Slightly Treatment Capacity LTS NO LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Better Better Slightly Collection Capacity PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal LTS Better

No Project Stilwell Park Revised Project Design Reduced Density

Environmental Compared Compared Compared Compared Project to to to to Issue Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Project Project Project Project Storm Drainage Slightly Disposal capacity NO NO NO Equal NO Equal NO Equal Worse Solid Waste Slightly Slightly Disposal Capacity LTS NO LTS Equal LTS Equal LTS Better Better Water Supply Infrastructure Capacity SIG NO Better LTS Better SIG Equal SIG Equal Slightly Water Entitlements PS NO Better PS Equal PS Equal LTS Better Environmental – 1 4 2 3 Ranking

Objectives Ranking 1 5 4 3 2

Legend: SIG UN = Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impact PS = Potentially Significant Environmental Impact SIG = Significant Environmental Impact LTS = Less Than Significant Environmental Impact NO = No Environmental Impact

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc.

5.0 Documentation

5.1 Persons Contacted

Alison Imamura, Planner, Denise Duffy and Associates

Don Ballanti, Air Quality Assessment Consultant

Kristiann Choy, Engineer, Fehr and Peers

Steve Endsley, Fort Ord Reuse Authority

Carl Hooper, Bestor Engineers

Diana Ingersoll, City of Seaside Director of Public Works

Stan Kulakow, Creegan & D’Angelo Engineers

Leslie Lantero, City of Seaside Public Works Department

Mr. Leo Laska, General Manager, Marina Coast Water District.

Joe Lopez, Transportation Agency for Monterey County

David Meza, Marina Coast Water District

Joe Priddy, Director of Golf, Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses

Robert Rader, City of Seaside Fire Department

Chris Schaeffer, Caltrans District 5

Rick Shedden, Senior Engineer, Monterey Regional Waste Management Agency

Tony Sollectio, City of Seaside Police Chief

Pascal Volet, Engineer, Higgins Associates

Jerry Wombacher, City of Seaside Fire Chief

Rich Youngblood, Marina Coast Water District

EMC Planning Group Inc. 5-1 5.0 Documentation Seaside Resort EIR

5.2 Literature Cited

Archeological Consulting. Preliminary Archeological Reconnaissance of the Seaside Resort Project on the Former Fort Ord Golf Courses, Seaside, Monterey County, California. November 14, 2000.

Applied Development Economics. Letter review of 'Revenue and Cost Specialists LLC. Letter to Richard Guillen, City Manager: Additional Demands on City Capital by the Proposed 400 Hayes Park Homes.' October 2, 2000.

Bestor Engineers, Inc. Seaside Resort Preliminary Drainage Analysis. March 27, 2001.

California Department of Conservation. Monterey County Important Farmlands Map. 1998.

California Division of Mines and Geology Web Site. Accessed April 2002. Table 4. Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999 from the 1997 edition of Special Publication 42. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/rghm/a-p/affected.htm

Caltrans. Unpublished congestion monitoring data. November 7, 2001.

D&M Consulting Engineers Inc. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, Bayonet/Blackhorse Golf Course Maintenance Facility, McClure Drive, Seaside, California. October 2000.

Denise Duffy and Associates. Biological Assessment Report for the Seaside Resort, Monterey County, California. February 2002.

Denise Duffy and Associates. Seaside Resort Revised Project Description, City of Seaside Entitlements Application. January 31, 2002.

Denise Duffy and Associates. Utilities and Services Summary, Seaside Resort Development. August 17, 2001.

EMC Planning Group Inc. and EDAW. Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR. 1997.

Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42, Volume II, 1985.

Fort Ord Reuse Authority. Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Volume 1 Context and Framework. June 13, 1997 (as republished August 2001).

Fort Ord Reuse Authority. Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Business and Operations Plan. Land Use Inventory ad Demand Forecasts – Water PFIP 2-7. 1997.

Haro Kasunich and Associates Inc. Percolation Testing for Seaside Resort. June 2001.

Haro Kasunich and Associates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Study for Seaside Resort. June 2001.

5-2 EMC Planning Group Inc. Seaside Resort EIR 5.0 Documentation

Higgins Associates. Seaside Resort Traffic Analysis Study, Administrative Draft. July 6, 2001.

Higgins Associates. Seaside Resort, Parking and TDM addendum. January 17, 2002. mo’c Physics Applied. Noise Study. Hayes Housing Area. February 1998.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Water Resources Data Report: Water Year 1995.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Revised September 2000 (Adopted October 1995).

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2000 Air Quality Management Plan. May 2001.

Monterey Peninsula Unified School District. Five Year School Facility Plan/Needs Analysis and Developer Fee Justification Document. January 2000.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Commercial, Industrial, and Governmental Projects permit and fee information.

Revenue and Cost Specialists LLC. Letter to Richard Guillen, City Manager: Additional Demands on City Capital by the Proposed 400 Hayes Park Homes. January 18, 2000.

Seaside, City of. Bikeways Plan. March 20, 1997.

Seaside, City of. Seaside General Plan. 1995, and 1998 Fort Ord Land Amendment.

Seaside, City of and U.S. Department of Defense. Quitclaim Deed for Transfer of Bayonet and Black Horse Golf Courses to the City of Seaside, California. Recorded at Monterey County, January 15, 1997.

Staub Forestry and Environmental Planning. Forest Management Plan for Seaside Resort Development, LLC. February 18, 2002.

TechniGraphics. Visual Analysis, Seaside Resort Project. May 6, 2002.

Transportation Agency for Monterey County. Fort Ord Regional Transportation Study. 1997.

U. S. Army Corp of Engineers. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Final Environmental Impact Statement. June 1993.

U. S. Army Corp of Engineers. Fort Ord Disposal and Reuse Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. December 1995.

EMC Planning Group Inc. 5-3 5.0 Documentation Seaside Resort EIR

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Accessed December 2001. http://www.epa.gov/oar/

United States Environmental Protection Agency Web Site. Accessed December 2001. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/overview.nsf/

Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Committee of the Fort Ord Base Closure Task Force. Report to Fort Ord Task Force on Water, Sewer and Solid Waste. March 11, 1992.

5.3 Document Preparation

EMC Planning Group Inc.

Michael J. Groves, AICP, Senior Principal Principal In Charge/Project Manager

Richard K. James, Senior Planner Report Preparation and Assistant Project Manager

Erika K. Spencer, Associate Planner Report Preparation

Cara Galloway, Principal Planner/Biologist Report Preparation

Teri Wissler Adam, Principal Editing

Steve McMurtry, Assistant Planner Graphics Preparation

5-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.