FEIR Villas de Carmelo June 2011

FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
CARMEL, CALIFORNIA

SCH#: 2008071058

Lead Agency:
MONTEREY COUNTY

Prepared by:
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940

June 2011

DD&A i Villas de Carmelo
June 2011 Final Environmental Impact Report
PREFACE
This Final EIR is organized into the following sections:
Preface, contains an overview of the organization of the FEIR.
Table of Contents
Section 1.0, Introduction, contains this introduction to the Final EIR, including a discussion of the
background of the environmental review, a description of the contents of the Final EIR, a description
of the master responses, and a summary of the project decision-making process.
Section 2.0, List of Comments, contains a list of all written comments received on the Draft EIR
and RDEIR.
Section 3.0, Master Responses to Comments, contains master responses to several topics
frequently raised by the commenters on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR.
Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR contains a list of all written comments
received on the Draft EIR, copies of all comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and appropriate
responses to each comment.
Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft EIR contains a list of all
written comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR), copies of all comment letters
received on the RDEIR, and appropriate responses to each comment.
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, contains revisions to the text of
the Draft EIR and RDEIR in response to the public comments.
Section 7.0, References and Report Preparation, contains a list of report preparers, persons
contacted, and references.
Appendices, including Appendix A, Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the project.

DD&A ii Villas de Carmelo

This page is intentionally blank.
Table of Contents
DD&A iii Villas de Carmelo
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Public Participation .......................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Report Organization ......................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Master Response to Comments ........................................................................................................ 1-3

2.0 LIST OF COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 List of Draft EIR Comment Letters .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 List of Recirculated Draft EIR Comment Letters ............................................................................ 2-3

3.0 MASTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Organization of Master Responses to Comments ............................................................................ 3-1
3.3 Master Responses to Comments ...................................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE ON THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments ............................................................................... 4-2

5.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR .................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments ............................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR ............................................. 6-1
Revisions to the Text ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
Revised Sections from the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR ............................................................... 6-49
DEIR 4.9 Revised DEIR Land Use and Planning Section ........................................................... 6-49
RDEIR 4.13 Revised RDEIR Traffic Section .............................................................................. 6-67
Revised Graphics/Figures .................................................................................................................... 6-109

7.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARATION .............................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Report Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Peer Review Consultants .................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.3 Persons and Agencies Contacted...................................................................................................... 7-1
7.4 EIR Documents/Literature Cited ...................................................................................................... 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-3A Revised Project Layout Plan ........................................................................... 6-111
Figure 3-3B Revised Project Layout Plan ........................................................................... 6-112
Figure 3-3C Revised Project Layout Plan ........................................................................... 6-113
Figure 4.1-1 Revised Visual Assessment Locations ............................................................ 6-114
Figure 4.1-3A Revised Visual Assessment View One with Proposed Landscaping .............. 6-115
Table of Contents
DD&A iv Villas de Carmelo
Figure 4.1-3B Revised Visual Assessment View One Without Proposed Landscaping ........ 6-116
Figure 4.1-4A Revised Landscaping Plan, Plant List Enlargement ........................................... 6-8
Figure 4.1-4A Revised Landscaping Plan .............................................................................. 6-117
Figure 4.1-4B Revised Landscaping Screening ..................................................................... 6-118
Figure 4.1-4D Valley Way Landscaping, Key Enlargement .................................................... 6-10
Figure 4.1-5 Revised Lighting Plan ..................................................................................... 6-119
Figure 4.5-5 Revised Site Demolition Plan ......................................................................... 6-120
Figure 4.6-1A Project Site Slopes .......................................................................................... 6-123
Figure 4.13-1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................ 6-68
Figure 4.13-2 Intersection Levels of Service Summary Table ................................................ 6-79
Figure 4.13-3 Road Segment Levels of Service Table ............................................................ 6-80
Figure 4.13-4 Project Trip Generation .................................................................................... 6-88
Figure 4.13-5 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................... 6-89
Figure 4.13-6 Project Site Plan Assignment ............................................................................ 6-92
Figure 4.13-7 Routing Plan ..................................................................................................... 6-95
Figure 4.13-8 Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................ 6-101
Figure 4.13-9 Cumulative Trip Generation ........................................................................... 6-102
Figure 4.13-10A Cumulative Conditions (Weekday AM Peak Hours Volumes) ...................... 6-103
Figure 4.13-10B Cumulative Conditions (Weekday PM Peak Hours Volumes) ....................... 6-104
Figure 4.13-10C Cumulative Conditions (Saturday Peak Hours Volumes)............................... 6-105

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.9-1 Project Consistency with Relevant County of Monterey General Plan and Carmel
Area Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies ................................................................. 6-59
Table 4.13-1 Raw and Adjusted Traffic Volumes ................................................................. 6-75
Table 4.14-3 Available Water Use Credit for Convalescent Hospital Site ............................ 3-47
Table 4.14-4 Hospital Property Water Use History ............................................................... 3-49
Table 4.14-5 Consistency with Monterey County Ordinance 3310 ....................................... 6-28
Table 6.4-2 Comparison of Impacts - Project Alternatives .................................................. 6-46

FEIR APPENDICES
FEIR Appendix A Revised Summary (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan)
FEIR Appendix B Air Quality Risk Assessment
FEIR Appendix C Staff Recommended Modified Design Alternative Documentation
Excerpts from Monterey County Staff Report Planning Commission
Exhibit B Discussion
Exhibit C Attachment 3 LCP Amendment
FEIR Appendix D Additional Water Documentation
County Communication Regarding Ordinance 3310
Earthform Communications Regarding Water Usage
FEIR Appendix E Alternative 4 Noise Findings Letter

DD&A 1-1 Villas de Carmelo
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
The purpose of the public review process under CEQA includes sharing expertise, disclosing agency
analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter
proposals (CEQA Guidelines 15200). This Final EIR contains a list of the comments submitted on the
Draft EIR and RDEIR, copies of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR and RDEIR, responses to
the points raised in those comments, and limited revisions to the Draft EIR and RDEIR made as a result
of the public review process. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR has
been prepared to address the comments received during the public review periods and, together with the
Draft EIR and RDEIR, constitutes the Final EIR.

In April of 2009, the County of Monterey, as lead agency, circulated a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (herein referred to as either Draft EIR) prepared under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. The Draft EIR was prepared to analyze
the potential environmental impacts associated with the Villas de Carmelo Project (the proposed
project). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, between April 17, 2009,
and June 5, 2009, and 535 public comments were received. A Recirculated Draft EIR that presented
revised analyses of the proposed project's potential impacts relative to traffic and utilities, as well as
updated information relating to the Draft EIR's analysis of CEQA considerations and alternatives, was
circulated for public review between August 3, 2010, and September 24, 2010, and approximately 300
public comments were received. In response to the comments received on the DEIR and Recirculated
Draft EIR, this Final EIR (FEIR) was prepared and published in May 2011 as required pursuant to
Public Resources Code 21091(d)(2), 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines 15088.

The purpose of the public review process under CEQA includes sharing expertise, disclosing agency
analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter
proposals (CEQA Guidelines 15200). This Final EIR contains a list of the comments submitted on the
Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, copies of the comment letters received on the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR, responses to the points raised in both sets of comments, and limited revisions to
the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR made as a result of the public review process. In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR has been prepared to address the comments received
during the public review period and, together with the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, constitutes the
Villas de Carmelo Project Final EIR.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project, called the Villas de Carmelo, proposes infill development as redevelopment and
rehabilitation of existing structures as well as new residential development on a 3.68-acre site. The
proposed project would increase the development intensity of an underutilized lot. The project is located
in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County, bordering the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in an
urbanized area. The project site is the site of the former Carmel Hospital and is currently developed with
three buildings, parking lots, driveways, and paved pathways. Two of the buildings are considered
historically significant: the former hospital building and a garage/shop building. The existing hospital
building and garage/shop building would be preserved by the proposed project and additional new
buildings will be constructed on the site to accommodate the proposed forty-six (46) residential units, as
well as ancillary uses such as underground parking, a recreational room, gym, and storage. The project
site is currently designated as Medium Density Residential, and existing zoning allows two (2) units per
1.0 Introduction
acre. The project proposes a Local Coastal Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the
project site to high density residential allowing for twelve and a half (12.5) units per acre on the project
site. Additionally, the project proposes modification to the requirements of the County Inclusionary
Ordinance #04185 to allow the required onsite inclusionary units all to be designated at the moderate
income level. The project entitlements will include, but not be limited to, Carmel Area Land Use Plan
and Zoning Amendments, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Subdivision Map approval.

1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PUBIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(d) and 15088.5(f)(3), the County of Monterey notified all
responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals that the Draft EIR and Recirculated
Draft EIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment. Monterey County used
the following methods to solicit input during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The following list the
actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

In July 23, 2008, a public scoping hearing for the Villas de Carmelo Project was held. Monterey
County determined the need to prepare an EIR because of the potential environmental impacts of
the project, specifically in regards to aesthetics, land use, traffic, and utilities (water supply).

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on July 11, 2008. The
proposed project was assigned State Clearinghouse Number (SCH#2008071058). The NOP 30-
day comment period closed on August 11, 2008. 9 NOP comments were received from the
agencies and public. Of these, 2 comment letters were received after the close of the comment
period.

The Draft EIR was distributed to interested responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups,
organizations, and individuals on April 17, 2009, for a 45-day public review period, which ended
on June 5, 2009. 60 comment letters were received within the public review period.

Based on an evaluation of the Draft EIR comment letters, the County determined it was necessary
to prepare and circulate for public review a Recirculated Draft EIR, which contained revisions to
certain sections of the Draft EIR. The Recirculated Draft EIR was distributed to interested
responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals on August 3,
2010, for a 45-day public review period, which ended on September 24, 2010. 27 comment
letters were received by the County within the public review period; one late comment letter was
also received.

At least 10 days prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing to consider whether to certify the Final EIR and
approve the proposed project, proposed written responses to comments will be sent to those public
agencies that provided timely comments on the DEIR and RDEIR. No aspect of the proposed Villas de
Carmelo Project will be approved until after the Final EIR is considered.

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors, as Lead Agency, will review and consider the Final EIR. If
the Board of Supervisors finds that the Final EIR reflects the Countys independent judgment and has
been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Board of Supervisors will certify
the adequacy and completeness of the Final EIR, which will include the Draft, Recirculated Draft, and
Final EIR documents. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by written findings
prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and if applicable, Section 15093. For each
significant effect identified in the Final EIR, the findings will describe whether it can be reduced to a less-
than-significant level through feasible mitigation measures and if not, why there are no feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. If in approving the Villas de
1.0 Introduction
Carmelo Project, the Board of Supervisors adopts mitigation measures to reduce significant effects, it also
will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as required by Section 15097 of the
CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP describes how each of the mitigation measures will be implemented and
provides a mechanism for monitoring and/or reporting on their implementation. If the County Board of
Supervisors approves the Villas de Carmelo Project with associated significant effects on the environment
that cannot be feasibly avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels, the Board of Supervisors must
also adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explain the benefits that outweigh the significant
unavoidable environmental effects, in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Final EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0, Introduction, contains this introduction to the Final EIR, including a discussion of the
background of the environmental review, a description of the contents of the Final EIR, a description
of the master responses, and a summary of the project decision-making process.
Section 2.0, List of Comments, contains a list of all written comments received on the Draft EIR
and RDEIR.
Section 3.0, Master Responses to Comments, contains master responses to several topics
frequently raised by the commenters.
Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR contains a list of all written comments
received on the Draft EIR, copies of all comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and appropriate
responses to each comment.
Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft EIR contains a list of all
written comments received on the RDEIR, copies of all comment letters received on the RDEIR, and
appropriate responses to each comment.
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, contains revisions to the text of
the Draft EIR and RDEIR in response to the public comments.
Section 7.0, References and Report Preparation, contains a list of report preparers, persons
contacted, and references.
Appendices, including Appendix A, Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

1.5 MASTER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
As previously noted, this document contains master responses that address several topics raised by the
commenters. The master responses address comments related to the level of environmental analysis
required under CEQA, clarification of the relationship and compatibility of local land use plans, baseline
analysis, traffic impacts analysis, and various other topics. The master responses are presented in Section
3.0 of this document. The intent of a master response is to provide a comprehensive response to an issue
so that all aspects of the issue can be addressed in a coordinated, organized manner in one location. This
ensures that each topic is thoroughly addressed and reduces repetition of responses. When an individual
comment raises an issue discussed in a master response, the response to the individual comment includes
a cross-reference to the appropriate master response.
1.0 Introduction
2.0 LIST OF COMMENTS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Introduction Section provides responses to comments on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088. A total of 60 comment letters were received on the Draft
EIR during the public review process. A list of comment letters on the Draft EIR is included below in
Section 2.2. A total of 29 comment letters were received on the Recirculated Draft EIR during the public
review process. A list of comment letters on the Recirculated Draft EIR is included below in Section 2.3.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR
The following list identifies all of the comment letters received during the course of the public review
period on the Draft EIR for the Villas de Carmelo Project. Each of the comment letters have been
assigned an identification letter and the dates these letters were received. Comment letters received after
the close of the public review periods for the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs are also identified below.
Responses for all letters follow the comment letters in the following sections.

State Agencies Date

A. Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse #1 June 9, 2009
B. Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse #2 June 9, 2009
C. California Department of Fish and Game June 1, 2009
D. California Coastal Commission* June 8, 2009
E. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)* June 8, 2009

Regional Agencies

F. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Planning Department June 3, 2009
G. Monterey County Water Resources Agency June 4, 2009
H. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District June 5, 2009
I. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District #1* June 8, 2009
J. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District #2* June 8, 2009

Organizations/Individuals

K. Dr. Lois J. Roberts #1 May 6, 2009
L. Anne E. Crawford #1 May 7, 2009
M. Otto and Grete Heinz May 8, 2009
N. The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula May 12, 2009
O. Frank and Marguerite Primrose May 15, 2009
P. L.A. Paterson May 15, 2009
Q. Land Watch, Monterey County May 25, 2009
R. Karen M. Crossman June 1, 2009
S. Mark McDonald and Patricia Watson June 1, 2009
T. The Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter June 4, 2009
U. Genecia Johnson June 2, 2009
V. Lois Layton June 3, 2009
2.0 List of Comments
W. Dave and Melissa Loose June 3, 2009
X. Cheryl J. Moreland June 3, 2009
Y. Karen Wallin June 3, 2009
Z. Timothy D. Sanders June 4, 2009
AA. Aaron Barnes June 5, 2009
BB. Mark Bayne June 5, 2009
CC. Beverly Borgman June 5, 2009
DD. C. A. Chapman-Barnes June 5,2009
EE. California Native Plant Society June 5, 2009
FF. Carmel Residents Association June 5, 2009
GG. Anne E. Crawford #2 June 5, 2009
HH. Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #1 June 5, 2009
II. Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #2 June 5, 2009
JJ. Robert W. and Elaine S. Ewen June 5, 2009
KK. Nelson French June 5, 2009
LL. Pamela Gillooly June 5, 2009
MM. Bonnie Gillooly June 5, 2009
NN. Myrna Clark Hampton June 5, 2009
OO. Jane Hirsch June 5, 2009
PP. Wayne E. Iversen June 5, 2009
QQ. Kathleen Keatinge Karachale June 5, 2009
RR. Barry D. Kohler June 5, 2009
SS. Michael LePage June 5, 2009
TT. Dr. Mary Virginia McQuade June 5, 2009
UU. Tony and Chantal Melendez June 5, 2009
VV. Derinda L. Messenger & Associates June 5, 2009
WW. Herschel Peak June 5, 2009
XX. Dr. Lois J. Roberts #2 June 5, 2009
YY. Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition June 5, 2009
ZZ. Kelly Steele June 5, 2009
AAA. Carol Stollorz June 5, 2009
BBB. Richard and Barbara Warren June 5, 2009
CCC. Yoko Whitaker June 5, 2009
DDD. The Widewaters Group, Inc. June 5, 2009
EEE. High Meadows Neighborhood Association* June 8, 2009
FFF. Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #3* June 8, 2009
GGG. Joyce Stevens June 3, 2009

HHH. Monterey County Public Works Department* August 26, 2009

* Indicates a letter received after the close of the public comment period for the Draft EIR, June 5, 2009.

2.3 LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR
The following list identifies all of the comment letters received during the course of the public review
period on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the Villas de Carmelo Project. Each of the comment letters have
been assigned an identification letter and the dates these letters were received.

State Agencies Date

RDEIR-A. Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse #1 September 24, 2010
RDEIR-B. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection September 3, 2010
RDEIR-C. California Transportation Commission September 10, 2010

Regional Agencies

RDEIR-D. Monterey County Resource Management Agency September 24, 2010
RDEIR-E. Monterey County Water Resources Agency September 24, 2010
RDEIR-F. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District September 22, 2010
RDEIR-G. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Community Planning and Building Dept. September 21, 2010

Organizations/Individuals

RDEIR-H. LandWatch Monterey County August 25, 2010
RDEIR-I. Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #1 August 10, 2010
RDEIR-J. Mark McDonald September 9, 2010
RDEIR-K. Barbara Livingston September 20, 2010
RDEIR-L. L.A. Paterson September 20, 2010
RDEIR-M. Nelson French September 24, 2010
RDEIR-N. Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition September 24, 2010
RDEIR-O. Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition September 24, 2010
RDEIR-P. Mike and Lynn Patton September 24, 2010
RDEIR-Q. Bonnie Gillooly September 24, 2010
RDEIR-R. Anne E. Crawford September 24, 2010
RDEIR-S. Frank and Marguerite Primrose September 24, 2010
RDEIR-T. Barry G. Kohler September 24, 2010
RDEIR-U. Richard and Barbara Warren September 24, 2010
RDEIR-V. Elaine S. Ewen September 24, 2010
RDEIR-W. Yoko Whitaker September 24, 2010
RDEIR-X. Jon and Thelma Blades September 24, 2010
RDEIR-Y. Dr. Lois Roberts September 24, 2010
RDEIR-Z. Adam Jeselnick September 24, 2010
RDEIR-AA. The Widewaters Group, Inc. September 24, 2010
RDEIR-BB. Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #2 September 24, 2010

RDEIR-CC. California State Coastal Commission, Mike Watson**

** Indicates a letter received after the close of the public comment period for the Recirculated Draft EIR,
September 24, 2010.

3.0 MASTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides master responses to comments raised in multiple comment letters from both the
Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. The master responses address comments related to general issues
that are common throughout several comment letters. The intent of a master response is to provide a
comprehensive response to an issue so that all aspects of the issue are addressed in a coordinated,
organized manner in one location. This reduces repetition of responses. When an individual comment
raises an issue discussed in a master response, the response to the individual comment includes a cross-
reference to the appropriate master response. For example, if a comment identifies a question concerning
project documents that were included in the processing of the Draft EIR, the response will include the
statement, Please see Section 3.3 Master Response 1-A:. Individual responses to each comment are
included in Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR and Section 6.0, Comments and
Responses on the Recirculated Draft EIR.

3.2 ORGANIZATION OF MASTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Numerous comments covered similar issues. In order to reduce repetitive responses, Master
Responses to Comments are organized by these similar topical areas, as follows:
Master Response 1. Processing of the Draft EIR
1-A.Project Documents
1-B.Development Project Objectives Cited in the Draft EIR
1-C.Requirements for Flagging and Staking
1-D. Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR and Process for Comments
Master Response 2. Adequacy of the Draft EIR
2-A.EIR Standard of Review, Recirculation under CEQA Guidelines, Section 1562(a)
2-B.Substantial Evidence under CEQA
2-C.Availability of Information in Appendices is Considered Adequate
2-D.Peer Review Process
2-E.Deferral of Mitigation
Master Response 3. Aesthetics/Viewshed
3-A.Background
3-B. Visual Quality Impacts Applying Standards of Significance
3-C. Methodology of Visual Analysis
3-D. Setting and Viewpoints
3-E. Height Restriction Mitigation
3-F. Views from Private Property
3-G.Light and Glare
Master Response 4. Air Quality
4-A.Background
Master Response 5. Biological Resources
5-A. Background
5-B. Peer Review Process
3.0 Master Responses to Comments
5-C.Wildlife Protection
5-D. Biological Impacts on the Carmel River System
Master Response 6. Cultural Resources
6-A. Background
6-C. Secretary of Interiors Standards
6-D.Tortilla Flats
Master Response 7. Geology
7-A. Background
7-C.Proposed On-Site Grading, Areas Exceeding 30 Percent Slope, and Slope Stability
Master Response 8. Hazards
8-A.Background
Master Response 9. Hydrology
9-A. Background
9-C. Runoff
9-D.On-Site Detention Facilities
Master Response 10. Land Use
10-A. Background
10-B. Density and Zoning
10-C. Impacts of the Land Use Plan Amendment
10-D. General Plan Consistency
10-E.Local Coastal Plan Consistency
Master Response 11. Noise
11-A. Background
11-C. Figure 4.1-4A - Sound Wall
11-D.Forced Air Mechanical Ventilation System Requirements
Master Response 12. Population and Housing
12-A. Background
12-B. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Consistency
12-C.Growth Inducement, Development Potential and Precedence for New Development in the Carmel
Area Land Use Plan.
Master Response 13. Public Services
13-A.Background
Master Response 14. Traffic
14-A. Methodology
14-B. Project Trip Generation and Distribution
14-C. Thresholds of Significance
14-D. Highway 1 Analysis
14-E. TAMC Fees
14-F. Highway 1/Valley Way/Carpenter Street Intersection Improvements
14-G. Indirect Traffic Impacts/Neighborhood Concerns
14-H. Highway 1/Valley Way
14-I. Carpenter Street/Valley Way
14-J. Peer Review and Methodology
14-K. Historical and Current Project Site Uses
14- L. Construction Traffic
Master Response 15.Utilities
15-A.Background
15-B.Water Demand
15-C.Historic Water Use
15-D. MPWMD Rule 25.5, Agency Review
15-E. Landscaping under MPWMD Rule
15-F. Baseline
15-G. Order 95-10
15-H. Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement

Master Response 16. Alternatives
16-A. Background and Range of Alternatives
16-B. Alternative 4-A, Applicant's Revised Design
16-C. No Project Alternative
16-D. Types of Alternatives
16-E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
16-F. Revised Alternative 4 County of Monterey Staff Report Recommendations LUP Amendment
16-F. Revised Alternative 4 County of Monterey Staff Report Recommendation

Master responses to comments follow. Each individual master response is followed by the statement:
"This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments. The references shown after
this statement are to the individual coded comments from the Draft EIR or Recirculated Draft EIR.

3.3 MASTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Master Response 1. Processing of the Draft EIR
1-A. Project Documents
Certain comments expressed concern regarding the applicants source documents and the processing of
the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR reviewed numerous documents prepared by the Project Sponsors. The
Draft EIR consulting team peer reviewed all technical reports prepared by the Project Sponsors
consultants. During the course of the Draft EIR development, many of the project plans were modified
and evolved, and new information developed. The primary sources upon which the Draft EIR relied for a
project description are contained in the applicants development project application, its supplemental
information, and attachments submitted to the Monterey County Planning Department on December 20,
2007. The Application is available for review at the County of Monterey Resource Management Agency,
Planning Department offices.

The complete Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR were available for review at the County of Monterey
Resource Management Agency, Planning Department, the Steinbeck Library in Salinas, the Monterey
Public Library, the Harrison Library in Carmel, and on the Countys website. Additionally, the County
provided copies of CDs of the Draft EIR and the Appendices available for purchase at the Planning
Department.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: HH2, 4, 5, 8.
1-B. Development Project Objectives Cited in the Draft EIR
A number of comments on the project description expressed concern that the project objectives were too
narrowly defined or were not appropriate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA
Guidelines 15357, and 15378, the definition and objectives of the project are determined by the project
proponent, in this case the applicants for the Villas de Carmelo project. Under CEQA Guidelines 15124,
Project Description:

"The description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply
extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact:

(b) A statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project. A clearly written statement of
objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the
EIR and will aid decision-makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding
considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose
of the project."

The project objectives of the project are not determined by the EIR writers or the lead agency. It is not
the function of an EIR to question or modify the applicant's project objectives. The objectives are a
"given" that the EIR writers must use as a framework for developing a reasonable range of alternatives,
and that decision-makers must use in evaluating the feasibility of alternatives and mitigation measures
(See CEQA Guidelines, 15124(b)). Further, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an
EIR to evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. Alternatives identified should be capable
of eliminating any significant adverse impacts or reducing them to below a level of significance, even if
these alternatives could impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more
costly.

Numerous comments express disagreement with the stated objectives of the project in the Draft EIR.
Disagreement with the projects objectives is not within the scope of an EIR and is rather a matter to be
resolved by decision-makers responsible for approving or disapproving a project.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: K-1; M-2; N-12; P-6; T-13-
15; HH-5, PP-12; XX-1.
1-C. Requirements for Flagging and Staking
Several comments object to the form of staking and flagging used on the project site. The purpose of
staking and flagging a project site is to provide a visualization of a proposed project for visual analysis
and County policy evaluation. According to Board Resolution 09-360 (adopted July 21, 2009), flagging
should delineate the structure with flags of international orange, bright red, and/or other visible color(s)
attached to sturdy poles that are able to withstand weather conditions for that area. The resolution
specifically allows for the use of string with colored flags, of which the project planner must approve the
flagging colors. Previous staking and flagging procedure guidelines allow for snow fencing or another
equally suited material (in international orange, yellow, red or other contrasting color) to be used at the
discretion of the project planner. The project site was staked and flagged with the use of string with
colored flags. While traditionally orange snow fencing is used for flagging procedures, the flagging and
staking constructed clearly showed the outlines of buildings and additions to buildings on the project
property. The flagging was also visible in the photo vantage points and used for the visual analysis
during the field survey. County staff determined that the flagging used was preferable in order to prevent
damage to the numerous trees located on the project site. The staking and flagging installed on the
project site and the colors of flagging were approved by the project planner and supervising planner. This
staking and flagging was found to be sufficient for a thorough visual analysis to be conducted for the
analysis of the EIR. Staking and flagging was also replaced during the EIR preparation and additional
flagging was erected for the Modified Design Alternative 4 to show a comparison of visual impacts
compared to the proposed project (showing staking and flags of differing colors). For the Modified
Design Alternative 4, corners of the new building located along the Highway 1 scenic corridor were
shown with posts topped with orange flagging marked.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: PP-13, 15; YY-2-4.
1-D. Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR and Process for Comments
Since this Final EIR includes responses to the Draft EIR and Recirculated EIR, it is important to include
the following discussion of the CEQA Guidelines and the process for responses.

CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 describes the procedures for public comment on recirculation of a
portion of an EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2, when only portions of a Draft EIR
are recirculated, the lead agency need only respond to: (i) comments received during the initial circulation
period that relate to chapters or portions of the Draft EIR that were not revised or recirculated; and (ii)
comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the Draft EIR
that were revised and recirculated in a Recirculated Draft EIR.

Notification was provided to those agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comment on the
Draft EIR in the Notice of Availability that should they wish to comment on this Recirculated Draft EIR,
they should limit their comments to only the revised sections of the Recirculated Draft EIR and the
analyses contained therein. Comment letters submitted on the previously circulated Draft EIR during the
prior comment period are addressed in the Final EIR and notification was provided stating that these
comments need not be resubmitted in conjunction with this Recirculated Draft EIR. A number of
comment letters on the Recirculated Draft EIR made comments on those sections of the Draft EIR that
were not recirculated. These comments are noted in the responses in Section 5.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: G-1, 2; RDEIR A-1; RDEIR
H-3; RDEIR H-4; RDEIR M-5; RDEIR N-12-20; RDEIR O-13-16; RDEIR Q-3; RDEIR S-4; RDEIR V-
1; RDEIR BB-2.

Master Response 2. Adequacy of the EIR
2-A. EIR Standard of Review, Recirculation under CEQA Guidelines
This section discusses the standards of review and requirements for recirculation of an EIR as these were
common items addressed in letters of comment. As stated in the Draft EIR, The purpose of an [EIR] is
to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project,
and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided (Pub.
Resources Code, 21002.1, subd. (a)). It is intended to give the public and government agencies the
information needed to make informed decisions. Courts review an EIR not to direct or pass judgments
upon the correctness of an EIRs environmental conclusions, but to determine if the EIR is sufficient as an
informational document (CEQA Guidelines, 15003, subd. (i)).

Accordingly, [a]n adequate EIR must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes
account of environmental consequences (CEQA Guidelines, 15151). It must include detail sufficient to
enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the
issues raised by the proposed project. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project
need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably
feasible... The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith
effort at full disclosure (CEQA Guidelines, 15151). While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not
possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can (CEQA
Guidelines, 15144).

As discussed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of
an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of
the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the
project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and
experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. (See also CEQA Guidelines Section
15151.) The CEQA Guidelines define feasible as capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social,
and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged, [a] project opponent or reviewing court can always imagine some additional study or
analysis that might provide helpful information. It is not for them to design the EIR. That further study
might be helpful does not make it necessary (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco,
Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 415). Similarly, the CEQA
Guidelines also provide that [t]he description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is
necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a); see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(a)).

Certain comments also suggested that recirculation would be appropriate for specific issues addressed in
the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. The standards governing recirculation of an EIR prior to
certification are set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As provided in that section, a lead
agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review, but before the EIR is certified.
As defined in CEQA Guidelines subdivision (a) of Section 15088.5, significant new information
includes a disclosure showing that (1) a significant new environmental impact would result from the
project or a new mitigation measure; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact
would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
(3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously
analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the projects
proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) information that indicates that the public was deprived of a
meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.

Notably, [r]ecirculation is not required when the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or
amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5(b)).

Based on several public comments and additional new information brought to light as a result of
addressing those comments, the County determined that a Recirculated Draft EIR was appropriate to
revise several sections in the Draft EIR, including traffic and circulation, utilities and service systems,
CEQA considerations, and alternatives.

The Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft
documents were completed, and it contains additions, clarification, and modifications. Here, the
comments provided on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR and the responses provided herein, have not
resulted in the identification of new or more severe environmental impacts. Additionally, no feasible
project alternatives or mitigation measures, considerably different from others previously analyzed in the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, have been identified. Instead, this Final EIR clarifies and amplifies the
analysis and information previously disclosed in the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR; as such,
recirculation is not required.

The County of Monterey Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will each conduct public
hearings to solicit comments on the adequacy of the Draft, Recirculated Draft, and Final EIR.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-1; N-13; Q-13; YY-82-83;
Z-6; HH-1-102; RDEIR-F 1, 3-6; RDEIR-N 1, 24, 43; RDEIR-O 14-16, RDEIR-V 1; RDEIR-X 1, 4;
RDEIR-AA 4-7; RDEIR-BB 2,3.
2-B. Substantial Evidence under CEQA
Certain comments questioned the information and conclusions in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section
15064 incorporates statutory provisions, which define "substantial evidence." Specifically, subsection
(g), Public Resources Code section 21082.2 provides that the determination of significance shall be based
upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the agency. This may include materials that
are not part of the environmental document, but that are known to and have been considered by the
agency. Public Resources Code section 21082.2 states that: "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated
opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic
impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not
substantial evidence." Substantial evidence is defined to include facts, reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.

Courts have ruled that, in the CEQA context, substantial evidence is enough relevant information and
reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion,
even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made is to be
determined by examining the entire record. Uncorroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute
substantial evidence (215 Cal.App.3d at p. 621, fn. 6, 263 Cal.Rptr. 813). Since CEQA's concern is about
the likely future impact of a yet undeveloped project site, the evidence must consist of predictions with
varying degrees of plausibility.

Several commenters expressed their disagreement with the conclusion that the projects impacts would be
less-than-significant for several impact categories, such as traffic. The State CEQA Guidelines require
that decisions regarding the significance of environmental effects addressed in an EIR be based on
substantial evidence and recognize that other evidence suggesting a different conclusion may exist. The
DEIR, RDEIR, and this Final DEIR provide a comprehensive evaluation of the projects environmental
impacts in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and in accordance with professionally
accepted methodology for the evaluation of environmental resources.

The DEIR and RDEIR, and this Response to Comments document present substantial evidence to support
the conclusions drawn within these documents concerning the significance of the projects environmental
effects. When commenters disagree about environmental conclusions, the EIR can acknowledge that
disagreement, but it need not resolve all debates. Per Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main
points of disagreement among the experts. The lead agency will ultimately determine which conclusion
is appropriate, based on the substantial evidence presented in the EIR and other documents in the whole
of the record.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: HH-1, 102; YY-82, 83;
RDEIR-BB 2; RDEIR-O 14-16; RDEIR-V 1.
2-C. Availability of Information in Appendices is Considered Adequate
The Guidelines permit the use of appendices containing technical detail and the incorporation of
documents in the preparation of an EIR. Specifically, the Guidelines state that [p]lacement of highly
technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of
supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR that may be prepared in
volumes separate from the basic EIR document if readily available for public examination (Cal.
Admin. Code, tit. 14, 15147). Additionally, the Guidelines state that [a]n EIR ... may incorporate by
reference all or portions of another document, which is a matter of public record or is generally available
to the public, and the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text
of the EIR (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, 15150, subd. (a)). In this case, the technical analysis and
documentation, including water demand charts, were available for public viewing along with the Draft
EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR-O 14-16, RDEIR-V 1,
RDEIR-BB 2.
2-D. Peer Review Process
A number of comments questioned the information submitted by the applicants technical consultants and
whether this was appropriate for an EIR. The Guidelines permit the use of applicant prepared
information. This response addresses the assertion that the EIR is inadequate because it relies on reports
contracted by the applicant and that any applicant prepared reports are inherently biased. There is no
evidence to support the comment.

Application documents, maps and resource reports, and plans prepared by consultants for the applicant
were used as one source of information about the project and its resources. In these cases, the applicants
consultants reports were peer reviewed by qualified technical consultants or resource specialists at
DD&A. DD&A was independently hired by Monterey County and DD&A independently hired its
technical consultants to peer review the applicants documents. Monterey County independently hires,
contracts and provides payment for the EIR, not the applicant.

CEQA Guidelines allow an agency to enlist the initial drafting and analytical skills of an applicant's
consultant, subject to the requirement that the agency apply independent review and judgment to the work
product before adopting and utilizing it. This methodology is common in California; Monterey County
and other jurisdictions use it routinely. Moreover, a consistent series of appellate decisions have endorsed
local agencies using applicants' consultants in the preparation of not only technical reports but also draft
and final EIRs, subject to the qualification of independent agency involvement and judgment.

In this case, the applicant submitted the technical reports and the County and DD&A, as the EIR
Consultant, reviewed and considered them. Independent peer review was conducted for all technical
submittals (by either County staff, independent technical consultants, EIR staff or a combination of these
independent analysts) for studies and submittals. CEQA does not require the County to conduct
independent, duplicative tests to verify the information submitted by the applicants consultants nor is
there a CEQA requirement or authority assigning the County such a duty.

Additionally, technical peer review resulted in a number of revisions and additional studies conducted by
the applicants consultants and other independent consultants working for the County. DD&A also
reviewed literature research, studies conducted by independent scientists; conducted reconnaissance of the
project; and completed its own peer review. The following Master Responses identify by technical area
the peer review process for technical reports and plans in this Final EIR.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR N-56; RDEIR O-1b,
3-9, 11, 14-16; RDEIR-V 1; RDEIR BB-2, 8-10, 13-22, 28-29.

2-E. Deferral of Mitigation
Commenters questioned if mitigation measures constituted deferral, therefore, a general response is
addressed below. CEQA case law recognizes that there are circumstances in which it is not feasible to
provide all the details necessary to implement a mitigation measure. There has also been recognition that
for some projects there may be a range of mitigation options available; it is not necessary in the EIR to
select one strategy from the range of options to meet a mitigation standard. In situations where it is not
feasible to provide all mitigation details, the requirements of an adequate measure are: (1) commitment to
mitigation, and (2) a performance standard. There are valid reasons why it is not feasible to provide all
the details to implement all of mitigation measures at this time. As described in the EIR, it is not
practicable to fully develop the mitigation specifics because the best methodology to achieve the
mitigation commitment will be selected based on future regulatory agency decisions. For several of the
measures, the results of future studies are necessary in order to ensure that a measure is as effective as
possible.

Based on the court cases decisions Gray v. County of Madera ((2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099), the
mitigations within the EIR would not be considered deferred mitigation because the mitigations have
specific performance standards associated with mitigation. As an example, please see Master Response
6-C for a discussion of the appropriateness of the cultural standards as mitigation. The Lead Agencys
commitment to mitigate the significant impacts of a project satisfies CEQAs requirements, even if the
details of a particular mitigation measure are not known with particularity at the time of project approval
(California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 603). Therefore,
deferred mitigation is allowed under CEQA as the mitigation sufficiently commits the project proponent
to future mitigation by detailing specific performance standards.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: F-5, D-9, N-4, YY-44.

Master Response 3. Aesthetics/Viewshed
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Aesthetics/Viewshed Section of the
Draft EIR.

3-A. Background
There were numerous comments on the background and methodology used for the visual analysis. These
responses as well as standards of significance for the section are addressed below. Section 4.1, Aesthetic,
of the Draft EIR assesses the existing visual quality of the project site and potential changes to the visual
and aesthetic environment that would result from the proposed development, including the potential for
the proposed project to alter the existing visual character of the site and surrounding areas. The project
site was 'staked and flagged' to the approval of Monterey County in order to provide a visual
representation of the proposed development by outlining buildings and additions to buildings on the
project property. The visual analysis conducted for the project was based on field surveys conducted by
the EIR consultant as well as photos of the project site from selected vantage points and circulation
routes. The visual analysis also considered applicable data in the project's application, including
proposed design guidelines, setbacks and height limits, and zoning. The photo vantage points selected
were determined by review of the field survey, as well as specific surveys and consultations conducted
with County staff. After confirmation of viewing locations with the additional locations chosen by
County staff and EIR consultant input, County staff required visual simulations to be prepared by the
project architect. The visual simulations of the proposed development prepared by the project architect
were prepared based upon the specifications provided by County staff. Once submitted, these simulations
were reviewed by County staff and the EIR consultant prior to inclusion in the EIR. Additionally, prior to
the site surveys, aerial photographs and maps were studied and areas of special interest or potential scenic
value were noted for assessment during the field survey in conjunction with County staff.
3-B. Visual Quality Impacts Applying Standards of Significance
The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and its implementing
guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 requires that an EIR be prepared with a sufficient degree of
analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision that
intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of
a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
what is reasonably feasible. The Draft EIR provides a factual, objective, and good faith effort at full
disclosure of the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

In assessing the visual quality impacts of a project, the thresholds of significance for aesthetic impacts are
initially derived from the environmental checklist in the CEQA Guidelines at Appendix G, Section I.
This Environmental Checklist is approved in CEQA Guideline 15063 and used by the Draft EIR and
County of Monterey in its environmental review of projects. As stated in the Draft EIR on page 4.1-10,
the thresholds of significance for an aesthetic impact, as defined in Section I of the Environmental
Checklist, are as follows:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings with a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.

As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.1 Aesthetics on page 4.1-29, development of the proposed project
would result in significant and unavoidable aesthetic-related impacts. Moreover, the Draft EIR correctly
identifies that implementation of the proposed project would significantly impact a scenic resource, in this
instance existing mature vegetation, within view of a state scenic highway. More specifically, the Draft
EIR states that implementation of the proposed project would directly impact the visual integrity of the
Highway 1 Corridor.

Several comments express concern with the scale of proposed tree removal and request that measures be
incorporated into the project to minimize tree removal. In addition, the commenters also suggest that
adequate site design did not take into account tree removal. The Draft EIR identified that the removal of
existing mature vegetation, which includes mature pines and oaks, and the development of the proposed
project, would constitute significant and unavoidable impact to the scenic resources of the Highway 1
Corridor, and would impact the scenic vista and existing visual character of the site. To ensure that the
final design minimizes tree removal, the Draft EIR incorporated specific mitigation measures (Mitigation
Measures 4.1-2 and 4.1-4) to require that all final design-level plans are completed in accordance with the
recommendations of a registered arborist/forester, and mature trees are preserved to provide further
screening. Additional mitigation is provided in Draft EIR Section 4.4 Biological Resources to ensure that
retained trees are preserved and protective measures implemented during construction. Additionally,
revisions to Mitigation 4.1-4 of the Draft Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program require the
applicant retain mature trees along Highway 1 that provide substantial screening along Highway 1 (per
Carmel Land Use Policies 2.2.3.5 and 2.2.3.6). Mitigation 4.1-3 as revised requires the vertical, exterior
face or the walls of all buildings facing Highway 1 to provide additional modulation (intervals of building
width and depth), fenestration (arrangement and design of windows and doors on the buildings faade),
materials and other design and planning details as a means of breaking up these structures bulk and
reducing mass as seen from the Highway. Specific measures to reduce tree loss are also included. (Refer
to Section 6.0, Revisions to the DEIR and RDEIR, and the MMRP in Appendix A for mitigation
measures.)

Tree removal associated with the future development of the project site is also required to adhere to
existing County requirements pertaining to tree removal, which specifies replacement procedures for
removed trees. Moreover, additional mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure that there is
adequate monitoring to ensure the success of replacement trees. Mitigation language has been added to
Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 to require existing trees that provide screening for buildings and parking areas
near the current project entrance at Highway 1 to be retained. The tree planting along Highway 1 must
be of suitable caliper and height, and overall density, to produce an immediate and long-term visual
impact.

With the evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the thresholds of significance presented above
and in the Draft EIR, it was determined that even with mitigation of the Proposed Project's visual impacts
as proposed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur. The
project would result in the removal of existing mature vegetation adjacent to Highway 1 to accommodate
buildout of the project site into a residential condominium complex. Existing vegetation, particularly
mature pine and oak trees, located west of Highway 1 is considered a scenic resource that is an important
component of the visual integrity of the Highway 1 corridor. Removal of vegetation and the construction
of two new buildings along approximately 200 feet of Highway 1 front would impact views from
Highway 1 looking west towards the project site by introducing new structures into the scenic resource of
the highway corridor. To the extent that buildout of the proposed project would be inconsistent with its
surrounding area bordering a scenic highway, this represents a significant and unavoidable impact. This
finding is based on the combination of several factors, including:

The degree of change (from limited views of building and open space with vegetative screening);
The ease of view (ease of viewing passengers, drivers, and to a limited degree, pedestrians, and
bicyclists, to see the site);
The duration of the view (3 to 5 seconds average for drivers, longer for pedestrians and cyclists);
The massing and height and amount of building that would be visible (200 linear horizontal feet
at 28 foot height);
The number of passerby vehicle trips that would experience the changed view;
The proximity of the view (buildings forty feet from the road);
The change in view from dense tree and shrub cover along the Highway One frontage to new
landscaping along that frontage; and
The inconsistency of the Proposed Project in these respects with the LUP Policies designed to
protect scenic resources.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-8, F-1-3, T-10, HH-30,
VV-14, YY-3-5, and EEE-3.
3-C. Methodology of Visual Analysis
As mentioned in the Draft EIR on page 4.1-1, as part of the visual analysis, the visual character and
quality of the project site and adjacent areas located in the Highway 1 corridor were characterized using
the criteria for visual impact assessments developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Although these criteria were developed to evaluate the potential visual impacts associated with individual
highway projects, the terminology developed by FHWA to describe the existing visual quality and
character of a particular area is still useful for the purposes of CEQA review. As a result, the Draft EIR
analysis was guided by specific terminology developed by FHWA to describe the existing visual
environment of a project site and its surrounding area. The following is a brief description of each of the
respective visual criteria:

"Vividness is defined as the visual power of landscape components as they combine in striking or
distinctive visual patterns. Typical characteristics representative of vividness include distinctive
visual elements, such as trees, distant mountain ranges, scenic vistas, or other prominent visual
landmarks.

"Intactness is defined as the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its
freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural
landscapes, as well as natural settings.

"Unity is defined as the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered
as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the artificial
landscape.

According to the U.S. Forest Service and FHWA, these elements are the basic components used to
describe visual character. In addition to the criteria described above, other important factors utilized as
part of a visual assessment include the ability to determine the relative importance of existing views and
scenic resources. Although the importance of an existing view may be subject to the perspective of the
viewer, CEQA identifies that certain visual elements, such as scenic vistas, warrant consideration, and
impacts to these resources should be identified and mitigated where appropriate. As a result, it is
important that a visual assessment also consider a project's potential to limit and/or otherwise obstruct
existing views as perceived from the project site and surrounding area. Accordingly, the visual analysis
in the Draft EIR identifies the existing visual character of the site, as well as visually sensitive locations
immediately adjacent to the project site in the Highway 1 corridor.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-8, FF-2, HH-30, OO-4,
YY-3-5, and ZZ-1.
3-D. Setting and Viewpoints
A number of comments took issue with the viewpoints and description of the setting in the Draft EIR.
The setting described in the Draft EIRs Section 4.1 is the EIR preparers best effort to introduce and
describe the project site and its environs concerning aesthetic-related issues. The subjectivity of such
issues will undoubtedly result in differing opinions of what should or should not have been included in
this description; however, the EIR preparers view the description of the project sites environmental
setting included in the Draft EIR as adequate. The Draft EIR provides a factual, objective, and good faith
effort at full disclosure of the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

As stated in the Draft EIR on page 4.1-2, the project site is visible from multiple viewpoints on Highway
1 east of the project site. The selected viewpoints of the project site utilized by the Draft EIR for potential
viewing locations were considered appropriate locations representing potential viewpoints. Additionally,
the project site is visible from Valley Way south and west of the project site, from single family
residences located west and north of the project site, and from the apartment complex located south of the
project site. Figures 4.1-2A through 4.1-2D of the Draft EIR display the existing project site from
surrounding viewpoints. The figures also include the outlined flagging and staking of proposed buildings
that would be visible from these viewpoints. Additionally, the project site is partially visible from private
residences located in the neighborhood areas accessed via High Meadow Drive.

All site photography locations were verified on field maps for use with a computer model of the Proposed
Project. Additional field references were identified and delineated on maps to help verify computer
modeling and viewpoint location. To accurately illustrate the Proposed Project, the simulations included
proposed landscape planting at day one after the initial plantings, based on the Landscape Plan and
Planting List provided by the project sponsors.

To assist in understanding the mass, scale, and potential visibility and visual impact of the Proposed
Project, detailed realistic visual simulations of the revised project from six simulation viewpoints,
including points along Valley Way and Highway 1, were produced by the applicant upon request of the
County. These simulations were included in the Draft EIR as Figures 4.1-3A through 4.1-3L.

In response to comments related to visual concerns, additional review of the photo simulations was
undertaken by County of Monterey staff and consultants to ensure accuracy and appropriate analysis. It
was concluded that the photo simulations provide a reasonably accurate depiction of the appearance of the
proposed project.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: T-10; HH-30, 37; YY-3, 4,
14-16; ZZ-1; DDD-13; EEE-3.
3-E. Height Restriction Mitigation
Certain comments state the Draft EIR underestimates impacts from development along Highway 1. The
Draft EIR found the impacts from development to be significant unavoidable (Draft EIR Section 4.1
Aesthetics on page 4.1-29). Specifically, the EIR found that the construction of the two buildings along
Highway 1 would affect views from Highway 1 looking west towards the project site. Although
landscaping and height limitations mitigations are proposed, the EIR concludes the impact will remain a
significant unavoidable impact. The Draft EIR per Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 proposes a height limit to
ensure height for new structures is limited to a maximum height of 28 feet for all new structures along the
Highway 1 border with the parcel. This mitigation requires height restrictions be incorporated into final
design and construction plans. Certain comments question why this requirement is necessary and others
state that it is not enough of a height limitation and will not reduce impacts. Mitigation language per
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 requires architectural design features to reduce massing and a notation to the
mitigation identifies how height restrictions are defined per Monterey County. County conditions will
also be applied to ensure enforcement of height restrictions and design requirements. Mitigation 4.1-3
has been expanded to require rooflines to vary in height in order to break up linear roofline views under
the maximum height limit. As noted above, the level of impact remains significant unavoidable even with
the mitigation measure revisions and additions due to the concern of massing and impact of the two
buildings along Highway 1.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-9, HH-36, JJ-2, YY-5,
EEE-3.
3-F. Views from Private Property
Specific comment letters addressed concerns that views from their property were not considered. Based
on the thresholds of significance established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR
evaluates impacts to scenic vistas from public views and public view corridors. Under CEQA, the
question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will
affect a particular individual. Thus, the Draft EIR does not assess impacts to views from private property
because generally only views from public locations are appropriate for analysis under CEQA (Association
for Protection of Environmental Values in Ukiah v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal. App.4th 720, 734 [3 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 488]; Mira Mar Mobile Community vs. The City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App. 4th 477, 492-
3 [14 Cal.Rptr.3d 308]). However, in an effort to provide a thorough analysis of the proposed projects
impact aesthetic impact, on page 4.1-2 the Draft EIR discloses that the project site is visible from private
properties in the projects vicinity.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: K-3; HH-37; JJ-2, 5; OO-4-7;
VV-10 11; YY-3,4, 14-16; ZZ-1; EEE-3.
3-G. Light and Glare
Numerous comments were submitted that disagree with the Draft EIRs conclusion that with mitigation
the potential for the proposed projects impact upon light and glare would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level. Although the Draft EIR concludes that implementation of the proposed project would
introduce new light and glare to the project sites vicinity, the Draft EIR does not agree that the impact
would be significant and unavoidable. As stated on page 4.1-33, the potential effects from night lighting
would be minimized by conformance with the Countys policies and goals regarding outdoor lighting, the
proposed use of mature tree re-planting on the project site, replacement of trees removed, site design, and
the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-7. This mitigation requires a detailed lighting plan subject
to the review and approval of the Monterey County Planning Department prior to issuance of any grading
and/or building permit. The lighting plan must have specific elements designed to reduce impacts from
outdoor street/road/parking light fixtures, including requirements for recessed, and/or shielded lighting.
Additional requirements reduce light bleed and glare onto adjacent properties or public rights-of-way,
ensure that the light source (e.g., bulb, etc.) is not visible from off the site, and confine glare and
reflections within the boundaries of the subject site. In addition, no glare or lighting shall be directed
towards Highway 1. The EIR concludes that these specific requirements and standards will reduce
lighting and glare impacts to levels considered acceptable by Monterey County policies.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-10, T-11, HH-21, JJ-3, OO-
5-7, and EEE-4.

Master Response 4. Air Quality
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Air Quality Section of the Draft EIR.

4-A. Background
The Air Quality Section assesses the potential public health and safety impacts relating to air quality that
would result with implementation of the project. The Air Quality Section of the Draft EIR, Section 4.3, is
based on an air quality analysis prepared for the project by Denise Duffy & Associates. The following
sources of information were used in preparing this analysis: 1) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control District (MBUAPCD), CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (July 2008), 2) MBUAPCD, 2008 Air
Quality Management Plan (August 2008), and 3) MBUAPCD 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan (March 21,
2007). An Urbemis 2007 molding analysis was completed for the project to determine potential
emissions that would result from the proposed project. A diesel risk assessment was also completed for
the proposed project (See discussion below and Final EIR Appendix B).
4-B. Comments from MBUAPCD
Based upon comments from the MBUAPCD and others, a diesel risk assessment was completed by
William Popenuck whose resume is included in the Appendix B of the Final EIR. The diesel risk
assessment found that the proposed projects construction activities would not result in a significant
health risk impact due to diesel exhaust. In addition, MBUAPCD comment #H-5 states, Given the
amount of grading to be done for the project and the Districts suspension of the REL for acrolein, the
projects acute impacts from diesel equipment should be less-than-significant. The results of the
analysis are presented in the Final EIR under Section 6.0.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: H-1-9.

Master Response 5. Biological Resources
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Biological Resources Section of the
Draft EIR.

5-A. Background
Draft EIR Section 4-4 describes the biological resources and setting for the proposed project. A
Biological Resource Assessment (BA), a Forest Management Plan (FMP), a Spring Plant Survey Report,
and an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Evaluation were prepared for the project site.
Per County request, the Biological Resource Assessment and the Forest Management Plan submitted as
part of the project application materials underwent peer reviews by DD&A and Bill Ruskin Consulting,
consulting biologists and foresters for the Draft EIR. Additional information was provided for the BA
and FMP in order to include suggestions from the peer reviews. The peer reviews and subsequent
responses are available at the Monterey County Planning Department for review. Additional information
(i.e., regulatory background) is provided in this section by DD&A. This section provides data and
information presented in the following final reports and source documents included as Appendix D in the
Draft EIR.

Zander Associates (December 2007) Biological Resources Assessment Former Carmel
Convalescent Hospital Site, Carmel, California;
Zander Associates (July 29, 2008) Additional Information Biological Resources Assessment
Carmel Convalescent Hospital Site, Carmel, California;
Zander Associates (May 14, 2008) Spring Plant Survey Carmel Convalescent Hospital, Carmel,
California;
Forest City Consulting (August 28, 2008) Forest Management Plan for Parcels APNs 009-061-
002, 009-061-003, 009-061-005;
Zander Associates (September 14, 2008) ESHA Evaluation at Villas de Carmelo; and
Forest City Consulting (September 15, 2008) Letter: Response to Coastal Commission
Comment.

Based on the data collected and reports prepared for the proposed project site, the Biological section of
the Final EIR includes the following: 1) description of applicable laws and regulations; 2) description of
existing biotic resources within the project site; 3) identification of the special status botanical and
wildlife species and sensitive habitats that occur or may occur within the project site; 4) assessment of
impacts to biological resources including potential impacts from construction activities; and 5)
identification of avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce impacts in accordance with CEQA.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: VV-17.
Specific comments questioned the process for review of the applicant technical reports. As stated on page
4.4-1, per Monterey County request, the Zander Associates Biological Resource Assessment and the
Forest City Consulting Forest Management Plan submitted as part of the project application materials
underwent peer reviews by DD&A and Bill Ruskin Consulting, consulting biologists and foresters for the
Draft EIR. Additional information was provided for the BA and FMP in order to include suggestions
from the peer reviews. The peer reviews and subsequent responses are available at the Monterey County
Planning Department for review. Additional information (i.e., regulatory background) was provided in
the Draft EIR section by DD&A. This Draft EIR section provides data and information presented in the
following final reports and source documents included as Appendix D. The peer-review was completed
to ensure that the BA met all Monterey County requirements for biological reports, and to ensure that all
biological issues were sufficiently addressed.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: NN-5, YY-34.
5-C. Wildlife Protection
Several comments were received regarding impacts to wildlife species potentially present within, or
immediately adjacent to, the Villas de Carmelo project site. Various laws, ordinance, and policies
specific to the protection of wildlife (and other sensitive environmental resources) are presented on pages
4.4-2 4.4-7 of the Draft EIR. The CEQA Thresholds of Significance are presented on page 4.4-7 of the
Draft EIR. An assessment of special status wildlife species potential presence at the Villas de Carmelo
site is presented on pages 4.4-17 4.4-18 of the Draft EIR, with additional information available in the
BA included as an appendix. Impacts and Mitigations to special status wildlife species (and other
sensitive resources) are presented in pages 4.4-22 4.4-27 of the Draft EIR.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: C-1, T-12, MM-7, NN-5, YY-
34.
5-D. Biological Impacts on the Carmel River System
Comments on the EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR stated that the EIR must find that there is a significant
biological impact on the Carmel River system from the project due to State Water Resourced Control
Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10. Order 95-10 required Cal Am to find a new source of water to replace
diversions over and above the entitled 3,376 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the Carmel River and reduce
pumping from the river by 20 percent from historic levels (SWRCB, 1995b). The comments asserted that
the EIR did not apply the correct standard for evaluating the significance of the projects impacts from
water demand on the Carmel River system. Specifically, the comments stated that any increase in water
demand would result in a potentially significant impact on biological resources (in this case, the resources
of the Carmel River system) due to the constrained supplies from Order 95-10.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 lists certain conditions, which are considered mandatory findings of
significance, whereby the lead agency must find that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. One such condition is if [t]he project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species (Guidelines, 15065(a)[1].). Guidelines
Section 15380 defines the terms species, endangered, threatened and rare. The EIR found that
there was no evidence to substantiate there would be a significant impact in this instance.

Public Resources Code Section 21104.2 was also addressed. This section applies if the lead agency
consulted with and obtains written findings from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in preparing
an EIR on the project. The DFG received an EIR and Recirculated EIR and did not comment on the
impacts of significance for the Carmel River system resources. There was no evidence provided
documenting how project water use would have a significant impact under the criteria. Project water use
at 7.894 AFY is significantly lower than the historical average. Evidence was not provided as to how the
water demand for the project would substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare, or threatened species under Guidelines, 15065(a)[1]. Additionally, the CEQA
Guidelines under Appendix G were evaluated and addressed in the EIR. No thresholds were identified
that would require the significance criteria identified by the comment letters to be applied. Also refer to
Master Response 2-B.

The Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR also identified the status of water conservation measures and water
supply projects. The Coastal Water Project (CWP) was proposed in response to the 95-10 Order with the
objective of limiting CalAms annual water production from the Carmel River to the entitled diversion of
3,376 AFY. Project implementation would result in a reduction in pumping of river sub-flows from the
Carmel River by as much as 8,498 acre-feet per year (AFY) compared to existing conditions (1996-2006
annual average production), thus returning equivalent amount of flows to the Carmel River. Since
circulation of the Draft EIR, the California Public Utilities Commission certified the CWP EIR and
approved a project that would result in the above amount of pumping on the River, which would provide
a beneficial impact to fisheries resources.

The Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project will provide a new water supply to the Monterey
Peninsula. The Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Regional Project (Regional Project) is an approved
water supply project that will replace existing supplies that are constrained by the legal decisions
affecting the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin water resources from State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. WR 95-10 (Order 95-10) and the Monterey County Superior Court
adjudication of water rights in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The project will reduce California
American Waters (CAWs) use of its two primary sources of supply for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District. The Regional Project will provide a replacement water supply for the Monterey
Peninsula (defined as CAWs Monterey District Service Area) and a sustainable supply that will reduce
existing diversions from the Carmel River natural watercourse and withdrawals from the Seaside
Groundwater Basin/aquifers. Project benefits include protection of listed species in the riparian and
aquatic habitat below San Clemente Dam due to reduced pumping and conjunctive use. The project also
proposes to implement a conjunctive-use project consistent with regional integrated resource management
principles that will improve the Carmel River watershed.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR N-28, 31, 35; RDEIR
BB-4, 7.

Master Response 6. Cultural Resources
The following Master Responses address common questions or concerns regarding the DEIR section 4.5.
6-A. Background
DEIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, evaluates the potential impacts on nearby archaeological,
historical, and paleontological resources. Analysis includes an evaluation of potential direct impacts to
cultural resources, such as damage to historic or culturally significant structures, changes to historic
settings, or activities that could compromise or damage resources for future study, collection, or
preservation. Section 4.5 considered the following reports in its evaluation:

Archaeological Consulting (November 20, 2006) Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance
of Assessor's Parcels 009-061-002, -003, & -005 in Carmel, Monterey County, California.
JRP Historical Consulting, LLC (September 6, 2008) CEQA Impacts Analysis and Proposed
Mitigation Report for the former Peninsula Community Hospital, Monterey County,
California.
JRP Historical Consulting, LLC (November 19, 2008) Letter to Denise Duffy & Associates.

These reports are included in Appendix F of the Draft EIR.
Per Monterey County Planning Department request, the CEQA Impact Analysis and Mitigation Report
submitted, as part of the project application materials peer reviewed by ICF Jones & Stokes, expert
cultural resource consultants for the Draft EIR. JRP Historical Consulting, LLC revised the CEQA
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Report to include suggestions from the peer review. The revised report
was again subject to peer review from ICF Jones & Stokes. The final peer review determined that the
revised CEQA Impact Analysis and Mitigation Report "adequately and accurately provides information in
all areas required to conduct a sound CEQA impacts analysis." Once further detail of planned activities
was provided to the County, JRP Historical Consulting, LLC addressed impacts further in a letter to
Denise Duffy of Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc., the EIR consultants. The letter specifically addressed
the alteration of the southern elevation of the northern wing that includes the installation of the new
window and door openings, the alteration and re-use of the stone masonry retaining walls, and the repair
and preservation of the Valley Way entrance gate walls.
6-C. Secretary of Interiors Standards
The project identifies that the modifications to the historical resource proposed by the project have the
potential to create a significant impact on the historical resource on the project site. Mitigation Measure
4.5-1 requires the modifications be completed following the Secretary of Interiors Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (both referred to hereafter as the SOIs Standards) as
dictated by CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)(3). The guideline states, as shown on page 4.5-14 of the
Draft EIR, Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings, or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level
of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.

Mitigation Measures 4.5-2 through 4.5-8 further ensure that potential impacts will be avoided or
minimized by requiring the preparation of a site-specific Preservation Monitoring Plan; compliance with
professional qualification standards; mitigation monitoring and reporting; consultation with interested
parties; application of protective measures before, during, and after construction; repair of inadvertent
damage; recordation of the property to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards; and
videography of the interior and exterior of the main hospital building prior to initial project construction.
As such, potential significant impacts to historical resources have been identified in the Draft EIR as
impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level, as stated by the report prepared by JRP
Historical Consulting, LLC, and concurred with by ICF Jones & Stokes during the Peer Review process.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: HH-7, 42; PP-12; SS-1; YY-
43, 48; CCC-1.
6-D. Tortilla Flats
Commenters state that the northern portion of Carmel-by-the Sea may have been the inspiration for one of
the settings in John Steinbecks Tortilla Flats. The neighborhoods near the project site are not within the
project study area boundaries for historic architectural resources that were developed for the project
according to CEQA guidelines and standard cultural resources management practices. The study area
boundary was also informed by the historic boundary formed by Valley Way and Highway 1, in
accordance with these guidelines and practices. That said, the area around the project site has not been
designated as a Historic Resource Zoning district, nor is there evidence that the area meets the criteria to
be listed on any register as a historical resource or treated as a historical resource under CEQA. No
known historical resources associated with the nineteenth century neighborhood, or Tortilla Flats the
novel, exist on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Residences of people who inspired characters
in the Steinbeck novel may exist nearby, but these buildings are outside the study area for historic
architectural resources and will not be materially impaired by the project. Furthermore, the historic
Peninsula Community Hospital has been located adjacent to the northeastern neighborhood of the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea nearly eighty years. The residential neighborhood across Valley Way from the project
site was adjacent to the construction of the hospital when it was built in 1930, and that residential area has
been near the facility, its ancillary buildings, driveways, and parking lots ever since. The report
specifically states that the project site is not located within a historic district and thus not associated with
any historic district defined as Tortilla Flats (see page 11 of Draft Appendix A: DPR 523 Form attached
to the Draft EIR Appendix F-1). Inclusion of these sites in the cultural resource analysis would not result
in a change in the determinations of significance presented in the Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Section,
as based upon CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and thresholds of significance.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: YY-48, CCC-1.

Master Response 7. Geology
The following Master Responses address common questions or concerns regarding the DEIR section 4.6.

7-A. Background
Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, describes the geological and seismic
setting for the proposed project and evaluates its potential to cause geological impacts, including
construction-related erosion or geological hazards, such as earthquakes. Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology,
Soils, and Mineral Resources, was based on the following reports:

O'Brien & Gere (November 2007) Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Villas de Carmelo
Valley Way and Highway 1 Carmel, California.
O'Brien & Gere (December 2007) Geological Fault Investigation, Proposed Villas de
Carmelo Valley Way and Highway 1 Carmel, California.
O'Brien & Gere (August 29, 2008) Geologic Peer Review Response Supplemental
Investigation Report.

These reports are included in Appendix G of the DEIR.
In 2007, O'Brien & Gere performed a geological fault investigation and geotechnical assessment of the
project site relative to its proximity to the mapped trace of the Hatton Canyon fault. A Geotechnical
Assessment and a Geological Fault Investigation were prepared for the project site by O'Brien & Gere
and were submitted as part of the project application materials. Per County request, the Geotechnical
Assessment underwent peer reviews by Nolan, Zinn, and Associates, consulting geological specialists for
the EIR, and additional information was provided to address suggestions from the peer review. The peer
reviews and subsequent responses are available at the Monterey County Planning Department for review.
7-C. Proposed On-Site Grading, Areas Exceeding 30 Percent Slope, and Slope Stability
A number of comments questioned the proposed on-site grading of the project and the development
located on areas of 30% slope. Draft EIR Figure 4.6-2, Grading Plan, demonstrates proposed on-site
grading for the proposed project. Additionally, potential impacts from grading activities were analyzed in
the EIR through the Geotechnical Assessment and the peer-review by Nolan, Zinn and Associates,
County-approved consultants. Figure 4.6-1A is included in this Final EIR under Section 6.0 and indicates
where project development is proposed on areas of the project site exceeding 30% slope. Over ninety
percent of the project area and development is on slopes under 20%. The project site would be graded to
utilize the existing topography, including grading of slopes for parking garages to minimize the height
and visibility of the proposed new buildings; however, approximately 0.33 acre of development would
occur on areas exceeding 30% slope. The applicant shall be required to obtain a Coastal Development
Permit from Monterey County applying to all proposed work on slopes exceeding 30%. Most of the site
is pre-disturbed and the existing topography is manmade on the vast majority of the area crossing 30%
slope.

The geological suitability of the site for the proposed project was analyzed in a Geotechnical Assessment,
which was peer-reviewed by a County-approved consultant. The Geotechnical Assessment is included in
Appendix G of the Draft EIR. Geological impacts associated with the proposed project, including
erosion, were determined to be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.

As mentioned in the Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Minerals, and Appendix G-1, the
Geotechnical Assessment for the project site included measures to address cut and fill on slopes, retaining
wall requirements, and erosion prevention. The geotechnical assessment was also peer-reviewed during
the Draft EIR process. Results of the geotechnical assessment, peer-review, and Draft EIR conclude that
potential impacts to grading and soil erosion would be reduced to less than significant levels with the
application of mitigation measures, as identified in the Draft EIR, and conditions of approval. Grading
will be subject to grading plan approval by the Monterey County Building Services Department. All
grading requiring a County permit, which would occur on slopes steeper than 15%, shall be restricted to
the dry season of the year. The impact would be reduced by application of standard Best Management
Practices during construction in accordance with an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, which are a standard construction specification for professional engineers and required
by the Clean Water Act (under the General Construction Stormwater Permit program of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). All recommendations from the projects Erosion Control Plan
shall be implemented into construction. In order to ensure that increased levels of stormwater run-off are
detained onsite, the recommendations contained within the projects Preliminary Drainage Report
prepared by WWD shall be adhered to regarding the projects proposed on-site drainage storage facility.

Per Mitigation Measure 4.6-3, the requirements and restrictions in the Geotechnical Assessment will
reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project does propose areas of
development on slope at or exceeding a 30% slope however, the majority of the units and majority of the
developed area are not proposed for areas with 30% or higher slopes.

Development on slopes at or exceeding 30% is allowed subject to obtaining a permit under Monterey
County Zoning Coastal Implementation Plan Ordinance Title 20, Section 20.64.230. The purpose of the
Section 20.64.230 is to establish regulations, procedures and standards to consider development on slopes
in excess of 30%. Since portions of the proposed project will occur on slopes at or exceeding 30%,
Section 20.64.230 is applicable. The project is requesting a slope exemption as part of the Coastal
Development Permit, in accordance with Section 20.64.230(1), requiring all development on slopes of
30% or more have a Coastal Development Permit. The Monterey County Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors will consider the Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Section 20.64.230(1) as
part of the combined Coastal Development Permit.

In order to approve development on slopes of 30% or more, the County must find, in addition to other
necessary findings, based on substantial evidence, that: a) there is no feasible alternative which would
allow development to occur on slopes of less than 30%; or b) that the proposed development better
achieves the goals, policies and objectives of the Monterey County Local Coastal Program than other
development alternatives. In this case, the slopes are man made from previous development and no other
alternatives are available for the development in these areas. Much of the grading on slopes exceeding
30% is for reconfiguring the manmade slope below the historic structure in order to construct the
underground parking garage. In addition, Unit 32 and portions of Units 30-31 and 45-46 are to be
constructed on areas exceeding 30% slope. Existing roads and driveways are already crossing 30% slopes
as shown on Figure 4.6-1A. Commenters voiced concerns about potential impacts to slope stability for
the area in the northern portion of the project site. No grading on the steep slopes behind the historic
structure is proposed. All development is limited to the existing structures in the steeper northern area of
the project property.

Additional restriction and mitigations per Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 and conditions identified above will
apply.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: HH-17; MM-1, 4; AAA-7;
CCC-5.

Master Response 8. Hazards
8-A. Background
The Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section assesses the potential public health and safety impacts
relating to hazards that would result with implementation of the project. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment, dated October 13, 2006, was completed for the project by CapRock Geology, Inc and was
submitted as part of the project application materials. The Phase I report is available for review in
Appendix H of the Draft EIR.

Master Response 9. Hydrology
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Public Services Section of the Draft
EIR.
9-A. Background
Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, describes the hydrologic and drainage setting for
the proposed project and evaluates its potential to cause hydrologic and/or drainage impacts, including
construction-related and operation-related impacts. Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality,
was based on the following reports:

WWD Engineering (September 30, 2008) Preliminary Drainage Report for Villas de Carmel,
Carmel, CA 93921.

WWD Engineering (August 18, 2008) Clarifications to Preliminary Drainage Report.

These reports are included in Appendix I of the Draft EIR.
WWD Engineering performed a preliminary drainage assessment of the project site that was submitted as
part of the project application materials. Per County request, the preliminary drainage assessment
underwent a peer review by Whitson Engineers, consulting drainage specialists for the EIR, and
additional information was provided in order to address suggestions from the peer review. The peer
review and subsequent responses are available at the Monterey County Planning Department for review.
9-C. Runoff
A number of comments remarked upon the proposed projects potential to increase runoff volumes within
the vicinity of the project site and results of the Preliminary Drainage Report that indicate that post-
development runoff would be maintained at predevelopment levels. The Preliminary Drainage Report for
the proposed project (Draft EIR Appendix I) was reviewed and approved by the Monterey County Water
Resource Agency per Monterey County standards as having met preliminary County requirements. The
Drainage Report included preliminary design requirements to retain runoff onsite in order to maintain
runoff volumes at pre-development levels as required by the Carmel Area Local Coastal Plan Policy
2.4.3.2. As indicated in the Appendix I documents, the retention facilities would reduce runoff levels to
less than pre-development levels. Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR will ensure that increased levels of
stormwater run-off are detained onsite. The requirements include the projects Geotechnical Engineer
must provide evidence to the Monterey County Planning Department that recommendations contained
within the projects Preliminary Drainage Report have been adhered to regarding the projects proposed
on-site drainage storage facility prior to the issuance of building permits.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: N-6, Q-6, GGG-3.
9-D. On-Site Detention Facilities
Numerous comments address the proposed stormwater detention facilities proposed as a component of the
project. Please note, the statement on page 4.8-2 of the Draft EIR indicating that there would be three
underground storage facilities on-site as a component of the proposed project is an error. A correction is
included in Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. As stated in the remainder of Draft EIR Section 4.8,
Hydrology & Water Quality, only one detention facility is proposed.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: SS-2, 4, 5; AAA-8, CCC-5.

Master Response 10. Land Use
Numerous comments received during the public review period raise concerns regarding the
density of the Proposed Project in relationship to the surrounding residential area, the
consistency of the proposed project with the applicable planning policies, the adequacy of the
EIR discussion of land use impacts and the potential for future development to occur at the
density of the proposed project. The following Master Responses address comments received on
the Land Use Section of the Draft EIR.
10-A. Background
Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR evaluated the Proposed Project in terms of whether
it would 1) physically divide an established community; 2) conflict with any adopted plans, policies, and
regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and 3) conflict
with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As part of this
evaluation, the EIR preparers 1) reviewed applicable planning documents, including the 1982 Monterey
County General Plan, Title 20 of the Monterey County Municipal Code, Carmel Area Land Use Plan, and
Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan, 2) consulted with Monterey County Coastal Team staff
regarding policy interpretation, and 3) examined the surrounding area to determine whether the Proposed
Project would be compatible with land uses in the immediate project vicinity.

The analysis contained in the Draft EIR and Section 5.0 of the Recirculated Draft EIR specifically
evaluated the Proposed Projects consistency with the 1982 Monterey County General Plan, Carmel Area
Land Use Plan, Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan, Coastal Act and Title 20 of the Monterey
County Code. As identified in the Draft EIR, development of the Proposed Project would require the
approval of a zoning map amendment and an amendment to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to designate
the site as High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5). This Final EIR clarifies that the
standard for review for projects located within the Coastal Zone is the applicable Local Coastal Plan
(LCP), in this instance the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP)
1
. The Draft EIR determined that while the
Proposed Project may result in some limited inconsistencies with adopted plans and policies, these
inconsistencies would not constitute a significant and unavoidable land use impact since these potential
inconsistencies would not constitute a significant physical impact on the environment as defined by the
CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law. Revisions have been incorporated into the Final EIR to
provide additional clarification. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, for more
information.
10-B. Density and Zoning
Numerous comments received during the public review period raise concerns regarding the density of the
Proposed Project in relationship to the surrounding residential area. These comments state the opinion
that the scale of the Proposed Project is incompatible with the character of the area, and would result in
significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. These comments also suggest that because the
proposed zoning would be incompatible with the surrounding area, the only development that should
occur on the site should be under the existing designation, Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre
(MDR/2). Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the
merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further
consideration under CEQA. These comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as
part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.

Additional comments contend that the analysis in the Draft EIR is inadequate because it does not fully
evaluate potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from re-zoning the site to allow higher
density development (HDR) on the project site. The Draft EIR and RDEIR fully analyze impacts from
development of the Proposed Project and disclose that the proposed density would increase the overall
density of development on the project site as compared to existing conditions (see Draft EIR pages 4.9-5
and 6-8). The analysis discloses impacts of density change of development under the existing zoning
designation (MDR/2 units per acre) which would allow the construction of approximately seven single-
family residences (2 units x 3.68 acres). Physical impacts of rezoning of the site to HDR/12.5 units per
acre as proposed would allow up to 46 condominium units. The Draft EIR reviewed the physical impacts
of this development under each topical section in the EIR as well as under Cumulative Impacts. Also,
refer to Section 6.0 of this Final EIR, which further evaluates these impacts.

As noted, the Draft EIR found that although the residential density varies in the Hatton Fields area, the
overall density of the Proposed Project is not substantially inconsistent with densities within the
surrounding area. Single-family dwellings surround the project parcel including densities within the City
of Carmel-by-the-Sea of 3,000 square feet per unit. An apartment complex is located to the immediate
west of the project parcel, within the unincorporated County area. The size, density, and character of this
residential area vary. Draft EIR Figure 4.9-1 illustrates the proposed project relative to the existing
surrounding neighborhood. This figure and the discussion in the EIR support the conclusion that the
overall scale and intensity of the project is substantially consistent with other densities in the surrounding
area. It is acknowledged that densities vary and this has been clarified in the Final EIR. Please refer to
Section 6.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR for more information.

1
See General Plan Policies, below, which clarifies that only those land use policies from the Monterey County
General Plan that are not included in the LCP are applicable to development within the Coastal Zone. These are
related to noise, housing, air quality, and safety. Therefore, the analysis was modified to focus the evaluation of the
Proposed Projects potential to conflict with General Plan policies only to those policies applicable within the
Coastal Zone (i.e., noise, housing, air quality, and safety) and only those General Plan and LCP policies that are
pertinent to the Proposed Project.

The EIR fully analyzed the increased density of the Proposed Project and identified the level of physical
impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood based upon the increased development. The EIR
analyzed impacts to views, the increase in project generated traffic, increased noise, fugitive dust and
other construction related emissions, and the removal of vegetation including mature trees (See Draft EIR
pages 4.1-10 through 4.1-34, 4.3-19 through 4.3-29, 4.10-9 through 4.10-16, and 4.13-12 through 4.13-
23). These impacts were evaluated within the context of the Draft EIR in the applicable topical CEQA
section (i.e., Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, etc.). Project-specific mitigation
measures were also developed to minimize the extent of these impacts to a less-than-significant level
wherever feasible. Under Aesthetics, where the physical impacts of the proposed project were considered
significant, alternatives were identified to reduce the level of impacts. The Draft EIR and RDEIR include
evaluation of alternatives that include a range of use and densities. No alternative site has been identified
that has similar conditions as the site of the proposed project, including existing utility access and other
available infrastructure. The comments identifying the scale of the Proposed Project as incompatible with
the character of the area and suggesting that the only development should be under the existing zoning
designation (MDR/2) are referred to decision-makers as opinions on the project.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: K-3, 4; L-1; M-1; P-2; U-1, 3;
W-2-4; X-3; Y-2; Z-1, 2; EE-2; FF-1; GG-1; HH-44, 52, 66; PP-1, 2, 4; XX-1, 4; YY-14, 15, 17, 21;
AA-1; CCC-2, 3; GGG-1; RDEIR K-2; RDEIR M-1; RDEIR N-25-27, 41, 42; RDEIR O-6, RDEIR
W-2,5, 8; RDEIR Y-1-3, 5; RDEIR BB-37-44.
10-C. Impacts of the Land Use Plan Amendment
A number of commenters contend that the analysis in the Draft EIR did not fully evaluate potential
impacts associated with the land use amendments proposed. As described in the Draft EIR (see Draft EIR
pages 3-6 through 3-10; see also pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-8), the Proposed Project consists of a zoning
map amendment and an amendment to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP) to designate the site as
High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5). The proposed zoning map amendment and
amendments to the Carmel Area LUP are clearly described as a component of the Proposed Project.
Further, the zoning map amendment and amendment to the Carmel Area LUP are also evaluated in
Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The amendments evaluated in this
section, in addition to the individual analysis completed for the Draft EIR, consider the physical impacts
resulting from the proposed land use plan amendments. The Final EIR also provides additional
amplification and clarification; please refer to Section 6.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR.

A number of comments further contend that the Proposed Projects land use amendment to HDR, if
approved, may be used to justify other high-density developments within the Carmel area. This
contention is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. In the event that future high-density
development is proposed within the Carmel Area LUP, the environmental impacts and merits of that
future project will be evaluated at that time, as required by CEQA. It is speculative to state that the
proposed project would be used as justification for additional HDR development. CEQA analysis is
limited to what is known or reasonably foreseeable, assuming further rezoning is speculative and not a
part of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, any future LUP Amendments would be
subject to CEQA review, Monterey County review, and Coastal Commission review. The analysis
contained in the Draft EIR and RDEIR analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project, including the proposed Carmel Area LUP amendment, site-specific re-zoning to HDR/12.5 and
creation of the HDR zoning designation. The Draft EIR and RDEIR adequately address the
environmental effects of the proposed project including the LUP amendment. Please also see Master
Response 12-C Growth Inducement for further response.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-14-16; N-7; P-1, 3, 4; Q-5,
7, 9; T-1, 4; HH-11; RDEIR BB-2; RDEIR G-2, 8; RDEIR N-7-11, 14, 37, 39; RDEIR W-2, 3; RDEIR
Z-2, 5.
10-D. General Plan Consistency
Public comments received on the Draft EIR and RDEIR contend that the Proposed Project would conflict
with policies contained in the 1982 Monterey County General Plan related to visual resources, cultural
resources, land use, traffic and circulation, and utilities. According to the comments, this would
constitute a significant and unavoidable land use impact and the consistency analysis contained in Table
4.9-1 of the Draft EIR is inadequate.

CEQA specifically requires that an EIR evaluate potential conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The
analysis contained in the Draft EIR specifically evaluated the consistency of the Proposed Project with
applicable land use regulations and policies contained in the 1982 Monterey County General Plan, Carmel
Area Land Use Plan, Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan and Title 20 of the Monterey County
Code that are intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (see pages 4.9-4 through 4.9-7; see
also Table 4.9-1. Also please refer to the discussion of applicability of 1982 Monterey County General
Plan and 2010 General Plan Update on the following page under General Plan Policies)... The analysis in
the Draft EIR does not seek to make final determinations whether the Proposed Project is consistent with
the General Plan; it is ultimately up to the Monterey County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors to determine General Plan consistency. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR evaluates the
Proposed Project and its consistency with applicable policies and the potential for inconsistencies to result
in significant environmental impacts. Development of the Proposed Project, including the approval of the
Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Zoning Map amendments, has the potential to result in some limited
Plan inconsistencies and these conflicts are clearly disclosed within the Draft EIR (see pages 4.9-4
through 4.9-7) and Recirculated Draft EIR Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations. Mitigation is also
proposed to address these policy areas. As evaluated in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, it is
important to note that an inconsistency or conflict does not, in and of itself, constitute a significant
environmental effect under CEQA.

An inconsistency or policy conflict may be considered significant under CEQA when substantial evidence
in the record supports a fair argument that a project could cause a significant physical effect on the
environment due to potential conflicts with adopted land use policies and regulations. According to
applicable case law, an inconsistency or conflict is merely a factor to be considered in determining the
significance of changes in the physical environment caused by a project (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue
v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal. App.4th 1170). The consistency of the Proposed Project with
policies of relevant plans were appropriately assessed within the context of the Proposed Projects
potential to cause significant physical impacts to the environment. As identified under the Draft EIRs
Thresholds of Significance, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be
considered significant if the project would: conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. As evidenced in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, potential policy
inconsistencies or conflicts themselves would not constitute a significant physical effect on the
environment.
2
Moreover, with mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final

2
The EIR concludes the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts (e.g., aesthetics), and
addresses the physical impacts of this impact under the Aesthetics section of the EIR. The Land Use section of the
EIR and discussion of land use policy consistency within the EIR sections appropriately identify policy conflicts or
EIR, the EIR concluded that the Proposed Project is generally consistent with Plan policies intended to
avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (see pages 4.9-4 through 4.9-7; see also Table 4.9-1).
Mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR, would avoid and/or reduce
potential physical land use impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, the Proposed Project would
not result in a significant and unavoidable land use impact due to potential Plan conflicts or
inconsistencies.

General Plan Policies: Although the analysis in the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR evaluated
the Proposed Projects potential to conflict with policies contained in the 1982 Monterey County General
Plan, the standard for review for projects located within the Coastal Zone is the applicable Local Coastal
Plan (LCP), in this instance the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Both the LCP and General Plan overlap
each other in certain regards, but each plan addresses issues that the other does not. The Monterey
County General Plan incorporates the policies and programs contained in the LCP and supplements those
policies with additional policies that are required to have an adequate General Plan. The portions of the
Monterey County General Plan that are not included in the LCP, but would be applicable to development
within the Coastal Zone, include policies related to noise, housing, air quality, and safety. Therefore, the
analysis has been modified to indicate that the evaluation of the Proposed Projects potential to conflict
with General Plan policies is specific to only those policies that are applicable within the Coastal Zone
(i.e., noise, housing, air quality, and safety) or only those General Plan and LCP policies that are pertinent
to the Proposed Project. Revisions have been incorporated into the Final EIR to provide additional
clarification. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Regarding comments raised
regarding the 2010 General Plan, adoption of the 2010 Plan does not amend the governing plans in the
coastal zone, which include the certified Local Coastal Program and the 1982 General Plan to the extent
the LCP relies on the 1982 General Plan. This approach recognizes, in accordance with the California
Coastal Act (Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq.), that the coastal zone is a distinct and valuable
natural resource that requires unique planning considerations, has unique procedural requirements, and
may require different standards and policies than may apply in the inland areas of the County.

Conclusion on Land Use Impact: Based on the information contained above and the analysis in the
Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant and
unavoidable land use impact due to potential conflicts or inconsistencies with policies or regulations
intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR has
been modified to clearly reflect the General Plan and LCP policies that are applicable to the Proposed
Project. As a result, a number of General Plan policies are no longer applicable to the Proposed Project;
the analysis has been modified to clearly reflect those policies that are applicable within the Coastal Zone.
Moreover, as described above, the standard for review for projects located in the Coastal Zone is the
applicable LCP.

Ultimately, it is up to the discretion of the County, with appeal authority retained by the California
Coastal Commission, to determine whether the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and
LCP. An LCP amendment requires ultimate certification by the California Coastal Commission. The
analysis contained in the Draft EIR does not seek to determine LCP or General Plan consistency; LCP
and General Plan consistency occurs within a policy and planning framework, and it would be beyond the
scope of CEQA to make such a determination within this EIR. Rather, this analysis is specific to whether
the Proposed Project would conflict with a policy or regulation that was adopted for the purposes of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the

consistency for each area of policy. The fact that the Proposed Project would result in significant physical impacts
to the environment does not necessarily translate into a significant land use impact. In accordance with industry
practice, these impacts are appropriately evaluated within the applicable topical CEQA section, and mitigation
measures have been identified to reduce the extent of project impacts.
Proposed Project would result in some limited conflicts; however, these conflicts themselves would not
result in a significant physical impact on the environment. An impact is only considered significant when
the conflicts or inconsistency themselves would result in a significant physical impact to the environment.
In this case, the conflicts identified in the Draft EIR would not result in significant physical impacts to the
environment.
3
In response to comments, revisions have been incorporated to clarify and amplify the
analysis in the Draft EIR.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-14-16, 18; N-7; P-3-5; Q-5,
7-10; T-4; X-2; HH-11, 46-48, 59, 60, 62, 64-68; 70-74, 77, 78, 91; YY-18, 19, 29, 31; CCC-3; GGG-1-3;
RDEIR BB-2; RDEIR G-2, 8; RDEIR N-7-11, 14, 37, 39; RDEIR W-2, 3; RDEIR Z-2, 5.
10-E. Local Coastal Plan Consistency
Consistent with the comments identified above, a number of comments received on the Draft EIR also
identify specific concerns regarding the adequacy of the Local Coastal Plan consistency analysis. More
specifically, comments contend that the Proposed Project would conflict with numerous policies
contained in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. These comments contend
that potential inconsistencies and/or conflicts with the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act would constitute a significant and unavoidable land use impact. As a result, the comment
letters contend that the consistency analysis contained in the Draft EIR is inadequate.

The Draft EIR contains an analysis of the Proposed Projects consistency with the policies contained in
the Carmel Area Land Use Plan that are intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact. As
discussed above, the consistency analysis is not intended to determine whether the Proposed Project is
consistent with the Coastal Act, Carmel Area Land Use Plan, or other planning documents; only the
Monterey County Board of Supervisors can determine final project consistency, while the California
Coastal Commission retains the authority to appeal the project.

LCP Amendments Subject to Review for Consistency with Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act:
Legislative actions are the discretion of the appropriate decision-makers and the Coastal Commission for
such actions in the coastal zone. The Draft EIR evaluates the physical impacts of potential development
if the proposed LCP amendment is adopted and certified. It is not the purpose or intent of the Draft EIR
to evaluate if a LCP amendment should or should not be granted. The application to Monterey County
for the project in question includes both the project itself and the proposed LCP amendment. The County
has granted authority to consider the project via the certified Local Coastal Plan.

The County has processed the application for both actions within the EIR process in order to provide a
recommendation to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors will then
consider the proposed LCP amendment and forward its intent on to the California Coastal Commission.
The Coastal Commission, with the authority to certify a proposed amendment or not, shall then consider
the proposed LCP amendment by evaluating it in comparison to Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act
and shall return its decision to the Board of Supervisors. Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act concerns
the protection of natural resources with reasonable development/re-development/infill development
consistent with the purposes of the Coastal Act itself. For example, lower density developments could
result in greater impacts to natural resources, as opposed to higher density development.

3
Where the Draft EIR found that there was a physical impact that was significant and unavoidable, that analysis was
provided in the appropriate section of the EIR. The Draft EIR did identify a significant and unavoidable impact
associated with aesthetics. The significant physical impact on the environment, in and of itself, does not constitute a
significant land use impact related to the policy of the pertinent planning document.
The Board of Supervisors shall then make a determination on the actions and/or changes to the LCP
amendment provided by the Coastal Commission. The Board of Supervisors shall then consider the
proposed project, which is subject to appeal by the Coastal Commission.

The analysis in the Draft EIR is specific to those policies that are intended to avoid or mitigate an
environmental impact. Although inconsistencies were identified in the Draft EIR, an inconsistency does
not constitute a significant impact unless said inconsistency would result in a significant physical impact
on the environment. A California Coastal Act/Carmel Area LUP Consistency Analysis is provided in
Section 5.0 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Potential inconsistencies with applicable Carmel Area Land
Use Plan and applicable Coastal Act policies would not result in a physical impact to the environment.
As a result, the impacts are appropriately identified as less than significant. In addition, the incorporation
of mitigation measures to address physical impacts associated with project buildout, as discussed in the
applicable topical CEQA sections, would also ensure that the Proposed Project would be generally
consistent with applicable environmental policies.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-13-16, 18; P-3, 4; T-4; X-2;
HH-11, 46-48, 70, 74, 77, 91; CCC-3; GGG-1-3; RDEIR G-2, 8; RDEIR K 2; RDEIR M 1; RDEIR N 7-
11, 14, 25-27, 37, 39, 41; RDEIR O-6; RDEIR W-2, 3, 8; RDEIR Y-2, 3, 5; RDEIR Z-2, 5; RDEIR BB-2,
37-41,60.

Master Response 11. Noise
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Noise Section of the Draft EIR.
11-A. Background
DEIR Section 4.10 evaluates potential noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors from both short-term
sources, such as construction, and long-term sources, such as project operations. The section considered
the following reports in its evaluation:

Brown & Buntin Associates, Inc (September 16, 2008), Revised Acoustical Analysis Villas
de Carmelo, Monterey County, California.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc (January 29, 2009), Villas de Carmelo, Monterey County, CA,
Environmental Noise Assessment.

These reports are included in Appendix J of the DEIR.
As stated on page 4.10-1 of the Draft EIR, the Acoustical Analysis prepared by Brown & Buntin
Associates, Inc. was peer reviewed by Illingworth & Rodkin, per Monterey County request. Brown &
Buntin Associates, Inc. revised the Acoustical Analysis to include suggestions from the peer review. The
revised report was then incorporated into the Environmental Noise Assessment completed for the EIR by
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc for Monterey County and the subsequent Draft EIR Noise section.
11-C. Figure 4.1-4A - Sound Wall
A sound wall was proposed as part of an earlier version of the project along the entire eastern boundary of
the project site, bordering Highway 1. When consulted, the County staff and applicants agreed to
eliminate the sound wall. Therefore, the proposed sound wall was removed from the project application
and the proposed project analyzed in the Draft EIR did not include a sound wall. For clarification, Figure
4.1-4A has been corrected and the reference to a sound wall removed. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions
to the Draft EIR, for the corrected figure and text. Additionally, under Aesthetics, Section 4.1, page 4.1-
30, Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 has been revised to clarify that no sound wall structure bordering Highway
1 will be allowed as was previously proposed. Additionally, landscaped screening shall be required
including natural landscaping elements as proposed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, 4.4-1, and 4.4-2. This
measure must be recorded on the projects final map per conditions of County of Monterey.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: D-11; OO-2; PP-9; YY-6, 7;
YY-40.
11-D. Forced Air Mechanical Ventilation System Requirements
As summarized on page 4.10-10 of the Draft EIR and stated in both the Acoustical Analysis (Page 5 of
Draft EIR Appendix J1) and the Environmental Noise Assessment (Page 14 of Draft EIR Appendix J2),
in order to achieve compliance with an interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL, the proposed
construction will need to be capable of providing an outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of up
to 28.3 dB (73.3-45.0=28.3) at Units 1-8. Lower NLR requirements would apply to units to be located
farther from SR1 or that would be acoustically shielded by intervening buildingsit may be assumed that
typical residential construction methods in the Monterey County area that comply with current building
code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by a minimum of 25 dB if windows and doors are
closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the Monterey County 45 dB CNEL interior noise level
standard for all buildings, with the exception of habitable rooms within Units 1-8. Requiring that
windows and doors remain closed for the required interior noise insulation means that air conditioning or
mechanical ventilation will be required.

This discussion indicates that windows and doors would need to remain closed for the required interior
noise insulation to meet Monterey County interior noise standards, and subsequent mechanical ventilation
units would be required. While this requirement applies to Units 1-8, the requirement is not exclusive to
Units 1-8, as the remaining units would still need to meet Monterey County requirements for reducing
interior noise levels. Further, neither report limits the mechanical ventilation requirements to Units 1-8 in
their recommended mitigation measures. While there will be areas within the project site that will be less
than 60 dBA CNEL and standard construction with windows open would suffice to meet the 45 dBA
interior limit, several units, including but not limited to Units 1 through 8, would require air conditioning
or mechanical ventilation to meet interior standards. Changes to Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 have been
made to clarify that some units may not need this measure, those units that would attain the County
standards without the need to close windows.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: VV19, DDD20.

Master Response 12. Population and Housing
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Population and Housing Section of
the Draft EIR, including concerns with consistency with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and
potential for growth inducement within the Carmel area due to the project.
12-A. Background
Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR evaluates the impacts to population and housing
as a result of the proposed project. Analysis includes background and documentation to support the
growth inducement analysis contained within Draft EIR Section 6.0, CEQA Considerations.
12-B. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Consistency
A number of comment letters questioned the compliance of the project with the Monterey County
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Additionally, the applicants commented that the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance does not apply in the Coastal Zone. The following discusses compliance and applicability of
the Ordinance.

Applicability of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The applicants commented that the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance does not apply in the Coastal Zone. The Housing Element itself, although applied
countywide, is not subject to the Coastal Act (as it is not a resource protection document). Since the
Housing Element is not subject to the Coastal Act, it does not require certification by the Coastal
Commission. However, the County has regularly applied inclusionary housing requirements within the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the Coastal Zone. Carl Holm, Assistant Director of Planning, for the
Monterey County Resource Management Agency, confirmed County interpretation and application of the
ordinance requirements.

Project Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: Compliance with the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance, if units are to be provided onsite, requires the project to supply equal to 20% of the
total number of units proposed and further, that the 20% consist of 6% very low, 6% low and 8%
moderate-income units. The Ordinance calls for the units to be provided on-site unless an alternative
form of compliance is approved (with appropriate findings) by the approving authority. Based on the
project unit count of 46 units, this would require that the project supply 9.2 inclusionary units with 2 at
the very low income level, 3 at the low income level and 4 at the moderate income level and payment of
an in-lieu fee for the remaining fractional .2 unit, unless otherwise approved. The Draft EIR states on
page 4.11-6 (Draft EIR Section 4.11, Population and Housing) that the project as proposed, is not
consistent with the Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the provision of on-site inclusionary
housing for low income households. The project applicants, at the submittal of the project, proposed a
modification to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide 20% of all housing units affordable at the
moderate income level instead of providing units affordable at very-low and low-income levels, as
required by the ordinance. Exceptions to the compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance are
allowed in certain situations. In this case, a deviation from the percentage requirements for income levels
must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, supported by specific findings that document why the
exception is requested and how the objectives of the Inclusionary Program can still be met.

As indicated in the Draft EIR, a modification to the County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires an
applicant to provide evidence that due to the location, or type of project, the modification is warranted.
This modification is subject to approval by the Housing Advisory Committee as well as the decision-
making body (in this case, the Board of Supervisors). Overall, an applicant must demonstrate that the
modification suits the needs of the community. If an applicant does not submit sufficient evidence to
substantiate the modification, the request will be denied and the applicant is required to provide
affordable housing at levels and amounts designated in the Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. If
inclusionary units are provided on-site, they are subject to all other requirements and recommendations
contained in the in the Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 18.40, including
recommendations for the units to be interdispersed throughout the residential development to the extent
feasible.

After circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicants proposed alternative plans for compliance with the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to pay an in-lieu fee rather than develop units on-site. The developer of
a residential development containing five (5) or more units may elect to pay a fee in-lieu of providing
some or all of the required inclusionary units on-site if specific characteristics of the development are
demonstrated. As a public review comment on the Recirculated Draft EIR, Marti Noel of the Monterey
County Resource Management Agency, Redevelopment and Housing Office (RHO), provided an update
on the status of the applicants proposed plan for compliance with the County Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. The letter states that the project proponents and RHO staff held a number of discussions on
the projects form of compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and that the Housing Advisory
Committee met on July 14, 2009, to review the project. As the letter states: The applicant and the RHO
staff met several times to discuss options including constructing inclusionary rental units off-site,
converting and rehabbing existing rental units to inclusionary units, or paying a fee. Several constraints
were indentified with the off-site option. The only available land that could support a multi-family
project in the Planning Area is most likely in the cities. New development in the Planning Area is
severely constrained by availability of water. Additionally, the letter concludes that the Inclusionary
Ordinance requires off-site units to be in the same Planning Area and does not allow use of existing
inclusionary units for compliance. On July 14, 2010, the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC)
considered the proposal of paying the in-lieu fee for full compliance and supported this approach. The
HAC supported this approach but did state that they were interested in seeing the fee used for new or
rehabbed housing in the Planning Area, although they acknowledged the constraints associated with
water. The HAC acts as a recommending committee; RHO staff has prepared findings to support the
HAC recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to allow the payment of an In-lieu fee instead of
supplying units. This information will be presented and deliberated during the project hearings.

The Final EIR includes Staff Recommendations to the Modified Design Alternative (See this Final EIR,
Appendix C) which describes the proposed staff revisions to the applicants alternative (RDEIR
Alternative 4) and updates information regarding the proposal to pay an in-lieu fee rather than supply
units on site. Also, see Alternative 10 in the Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR Section
6.0, whereby the off-site option for compliance with Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
is removed from consideration and Alternative 10 solely considers compliance through payment of an in-
lieu fee.

Other comments were raised that non-compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is a
significant impact and the EIR should identify it as such. The project compliance with the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. Inconsistencies amongst
planning documents which do not result in a physical impact to the environment, are not considered
significant impacts under CEQA. The compliance will be determined at the Board of Supervisors level as
discussed above.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: N-8; Q-11; HH-9, 15, 57;
RDEIR D-1-4; RDEIR H-5; RDEIR N-2, 44.
12-C. Growth Inducement, Development Potential in Carmel Area LUP, Precedence for New
Development
A number of comments contend that the Proposed Projects land use amendment to HDR, if approved,
would induce growth and be a precedent used to justify other high-density development applications in
the Carmel LUP area. The following responses are organized to address these master comments.

Growth Inducement: Growth inducement is within Draft EIR Section 6.0, CEQA Considerations and
Draft EIR Section 4.11, Population and Housing. The 46 residential units could produce a population of
145 persons. Monterey County is anticipated to experience a 7 percent growth increase between the
planning years of 2005 and 2030, or a population increase of 7,511 persons (AMBAG 2008). The
Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, CEQA Considerations, appropriately analyzes growth in accordance
with CEQA 15162.29(d). The proposed increase of 46 new residential units would create housing
opportunities not currently available. However, this increase is well below the level currently projected
by AMBAG for the region. Additionally, the 46 units is only a small portion of the potential future
residential units identified with the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP) for future growth, thus would not
exceed residential growth capacity in the planning area. Approval of the proposed project would not
contribute a substantial portion of the future growth that is projected to occur within the County. This
potential increase in population is part of the future planned growth for the Carmel Area LUP; the project
site, even with the proposed increase in density and revised zoning for residential, would not exceed
residential growth capacity in the planning area per the LUP. Also, see Development Potential in LUP
discussion, below.

The effects of the population growth from the proposed project is not anticipated to foster substantial
economic growth in the project vicinity or create the need for additional community services facilities, per
the Draft EIR Section 4.12, Public Services, Section 5.0 of the RDEIR states: a project is considered to
be growth-inducing if it fosters economic or population growth beyond the boundaries of the project site.
Typical growth inducements might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a
previously unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major boundaries to development. The site
already contains buildings associated with the former convalescent hospital, improvements such as
parking and pavement area, and is surrounded by residential development. Importantly, the property is
already served by public infrastructure and utilities as are all other areas surrounding the project site. No
extension or expansion of services would be necessary to serve the property. Because the project site is
located in an area of fully developed existing residential properties, the project would not remove a major
obstacle to development. Additionally, the amendment and rezoning request and proposed improvements
are specific only to the project parcel. This project is also unique in that it is rehabilitation and adaptive
reuse of an existing historic hospital structure. There is no definitive basis on which to state that, if
approved, the project would directly or indirectly foster growth on other parcels. Based on this discussion,
the EIR determines that the project would not induce growth.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: K-2; O-3; Z-3; HH-98;
RDEIR N-42; RDEIR W-5; RDEIR Y-1, 3; RDEIR BB-42-44.

Development Potential in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan: Although a number of comments asserted
that the approval of this project and HDR zoning would increase development potential, the EIR did not
find evidence to support this contention. Development potential was analyzed based upon historical
development approvals in the Carmel Land Use Plan Area, as one method of determining the potential for
development in the area. Previous reports found limited development potential in the area. The 1982
Monterey County General Plan Update Existing Conditions report stated that the Carmel area of the
coastal zone is essentially built-out.
4
As reported: there have been very few subdivisions approved in the
Carmel coastal area since adoption of the plan, with the exception of the 67-lot residential and
commercial project known as the Coast (Odello) Ranch. The property owner never pursued this project
and the final map was never recorded. The Big Sur Land Trust is currently working with property owners
for acquisition for open space. Additionally, a former Pt. Lobos Ranch development project, located to

4
Excerpted from the Monterey County Existing Conditions Report created in September, 1999 for the Monterey
County General Plan Update http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/gpu/information/coastal_carmel.html

the east of Highway 1 across from the Point Lobos State Reserve, was withdrawn when the Big Sur Land
Trust acquired the property. Since the adoption of the Plan and the preparation of the Existing Conditions
report, there have been no major residential development projects proposed in the Carmel area of the
coastal zone. The report concluded that for parcels located within the MPWMD, there is no water
available for new construction on vacant lots. The Existing Conditions report also concluded that land
use in the Carmel area will continue to consist of in-fill on vacant lots of record with little or no potential
for future subdivisions.

Additional analysis on development potential and precedence was done by researching past development
applications in the area. Information found in records as documented by the Monterey County records
and website confirmed limited development activity for subdivisions in the area. This information was
also confirmed with conversations with Monterey County staff planners and personal knowledge of the
EIR writers.

The Monterey County Planning Department current and recent development applications as of Monday,
December 13, 2010, identified active planning projects in the Carmel Land Use Plan Area as
predominantly remodels or requests for demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new
home. Presumably, this is because, for parcels located within the MPWMD, there is no water available
for new construction on vacant lots and water credits can be transferred from the demolished residence to
the new one. Additional deterrents to development beyond water constraints are public sentiments and
strong opposition to area development or revisions of land uses. The existing Highlands Inn conversion
to a timeshare use was one of the most hotly debated land use issues in the community.
(See http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/projects/planning/active/2010/Active_Planning_Projects)

Precedence for New Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan: A number of comments
contend that the Proposed Projects land use amendment to HDR, if approved, will be used to justify
other high-density developments within the Carmel area. The Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR found
that this contention is factually wrong and inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA since it would be
speculative to address unknown future applications. Additionally, the Recirculated Draft EIR, Section 5.0
concludes that after evaluation, there is limited or no available land with urban services and water for
high-density housing. The EIR also concluded that there are real deterrents to development in the
Proposed Project area such as water constraints and limited land with urban services. An additional
recognized deterrent includes the well-established public sentiments and strong opposition to area
development or revisions of land uses.
5
Additionally, the project site is considered unique due to its
historic resources and proposal for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the existing historic structure.

A number of comments questioned how the analysis was conducted to conclude there were few parcels of
adequate size, services and attributes for high-density development. The following discusses the research
approach that was used to identify the potential area and how the conclusion in determining that there are
a limited number of areas in the Carmel Area LUP available for HDR development was reached. The
Carmel Area LUP areas were initially reviewed to look for land that would be available for HDR
development that is similar to the project site in that it has water, infrastructure, and would comply with
the LUP amendment parameters cited in the Draft EIR. County staff and EIR consultants discussed this
initially and interviews were conducted with the Coastal Planning Manager and EIR writers familiar with
the area. After an initial meeting between County staff and EIR preparers, other resources were identified
and utilized. Mapping research was conducted by County and EIR technicians, using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) data available from the County of Monterey. Monterey County zoning
information was merged with Monterey County Assessor's GIS parcel data, to determine the zoning of
each parcel within the Carmel LUP. The analysis reviewed all vacant or underutilized parcels, and then,

5
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/gpu/information/coastal_carmel.html
overlaid each of these parcels on the zoning base maps with the GIS data available from the County of
Monterey to identify all vacant parcels within the Carmel LUP. In addition to the GIS analysis, aerial
data was also reviewed to confirm GIS data and identify any underutilized parcels. The vacant and
underutilized parcels were then categorized by acreage, the five classes range from 0-1 acre, 1.1-2 acres,
2.1-105 acres, 105.1-205 acres, and 205.1-500 acres.

Commenters were concerned about the LUP amendment and forecast that there would be a large potential
for future LUP amendments based upon this project. The EIR fully evaluated this concern. The question
is whether the potential passage of the LUP amendment and rezoning would aid in the approval of
probable future large-scale projects, and whether the details of these potential future projects can be
considered reasonably foreseeable. The EIR considered this issue, evaluated the potential for potential
projects and likelihood of project sites with similar circumstances to the proposed property site.

Part of the EIR discussion centers on review of the LUP to determine whether there are other possible
properties that could be reasonably foreseeable for rezoning to a higher density. As noted, the EIR
indicated in the RDEIR and Draft EIR that the analysis was speculative. Additionally, the EIR and
County did not reasonably foresee any properties that would be induced to apply for a higher density
zoning based upon the approval of the LUP amendment. The factors considered were the specific
requirements of development at a high density (public utility service and availability, size of parcel,
availability of vacant or underutilized land, MPWMD restrictions on water use and public sentiment for
rezoning/difficulty of approval process). Further, in the Cumulative Section of the Recirculated Draft
EIR, the EIR disclosed and analyzed the potential impacts of adding the amendment and HDR zone by
subject area and addresses the potential cumulative and growth inducing impact of the LUP amendment.
The analysis contains a sufficient discussion in light of the uncertainties surrounding any future
development. The analysis is an objective, good faith effort to comply with CEQA in consideration of
growth inducing impacts and cumulative impacts from the LUP amendment.

Review of Properties for Development Potential and Indirect Impacts: As identified in the RDEIR
pages R.5-1-21, and this Final EIR, Section 6.0, Revisions to the EIR, a good faith effort was made to
assess potential growth inducement and cumulative impacts due to the land use plan amendment.
Normally, for cumulative impact discussion and definition of cumulative projects, reasonably
foreseeable applies to specific projects for which applications have been received, are in design or are
identified in adopted plans, or projects that have been publicly announced. In this case, the EIR
analysis reviewed whether there could be found properties or projects for which applications are likely to
be submitted or other reasonably foreseeable projects based upon the LUP amendment adoption. The
standard usually applied in CEQA for reasonably foreseeable was expanded in response to requests for
analysis of the precedence of this land use plan amendment.

An analysis of project impacts and its potential for direct and indirect impacts (including growth
inducement and cumulative impacts) was conducted. The analysis focused on potential indirect impacts
from the project, including the proposed land use plan amendment that leads to creating a HDR
designation for the Carmel Area Plan. In conducting analysis, the EIR addressed potential for growth to
occur as a result of the land use plan amendment. The EIR consultants and County reviewed the Carmel
Planning area to determine whether there were foreseeable other properties that would have a likelihood
of development at HDR zoning due to the introduction of a new zoning designation. This review was
conducted in order to address a number of public comments received that the project would remove an
obstacle that would induce growth (and was therefore growth inducing). The concern was also raised that
this project would create a significant cumulative impact from the future foreseeable projects that would
develop under HDR zoning.

The review of properties did not find reasonably foreseeable projects. A number of commenters objected
to the language in the RDEIR regarding the results of the review (stating that there were no properties
found with the specific characteristics of the proposed project for HDR). The concerns regarding this
language are acknowledged. Therefore, in response to this concern, language was revised in the Final
EIR for clarity. While the review did not uncover specific parcels with the same characteristics as the
proposed project site, it is appropriate to revise this language to very limited or low likelihood of such
properties.

It is important to note that in order to address the question of growth inducing or cumulative indirect
impacts, the EIR analysis did make a conclusion as to the likelihood of indirect impacts from a number of
other properties in the LUP being developed at HDR (as was expressed by public comments). It is
appropriate to state that there are few parcels with the specific characteristics of the project site and there
is a low likelihood of the property owners of those parcels requesting development at a higher density
based upon the factors discussed in the RDEIR pages R.5-1-21. It should be noted that this is not an
argument over the number of parcels in the area with similar characteristics to the proposed project, but a
valid and good faith attempt in the EIR to address the concerns over potential growth inducing impacts
and cumulative impacts due to the presumed precedent setting approval of a HDR density in this
Planning Area. CEQA limits the discussion of impacts to direct and indirect physical impacts of a project
and if the project has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Cumulative analysis generally
evaluates the incremental effect of the project on the environment when considered in conjunction with
closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

It should be noted that the draft Land Use Plan amendment and approval of HDR designation does not
involve any other specific property at this time but the proposed project.

Doing the analysis of the potential future effects of implementing the Land Use Plan amendment and
potential for growth inducement or cumulative impacts necessarily involves some degree of forecasting;
identifying specific examples of what could happen as a result of a plan amendment or development
proposal is too speculative at this time. As noted in the RDEIR pages R.5-1-21, any future land use plan
amendment or proposed project will be subject to an environmental analysis to be conducted at the time a
specific amendment or project is defined. Implementation of the Land Use Plan policies and in particular,
the proposed language of the HDR designation, which is limiting in the applicability of the HDR zoning,
would provide mitigation at this plan amendment level.

Without information about the specific project, it would be speculative to identify impacts in the Draft
EIR of specific properties or future unknown projects. The analysis in the RDEIR pages R.5-1-21
includes a reasonable projection of future trends, without being overly speculative or prescriptive.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: K-2; O-3; Z-3; HH-98;
RDEIR N-42; RDEIR W-5; RDEIR Y-1, 3; RDEIR BB-42-44.

Master Response 13. Public Services
The following Master Response addresses comments received on the Public Services Section of the Draft
EIR.
13-A. Background
This section discusses the potential for increase and impacts to public services due to the proposed project
and the addition of 46 residential units within the project site. While some comment letters express
concern that project development would result in an increase in the number of calls for fire protection
services, the Cypress Fire Protection District has indicated that the proposed development would have a
negligible impact on existing service levels, as the overall area of fire protection services would not be
expanded. The project site is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as identified by CalFire.
Monterey County conditions will require new construction to comply with Chapter 7A of the State
Building Code.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comment: RDEIR G-9.

Master Response 14. Traffic
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Traffic Section of the Draft EIR. The
revisions to RDEIR Traffic Section are included in Section 6.0. The section has been reprinted in its
entirety for the ease of the reader. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, Traffic Section,
of this document.
14-A. Methodology and Background
The purpose of the traffic study is to evaluate the effects of the additional trips generated by the proposed
project on the surrounding transportation system. An extensive road network, intersections and study area
were analyzed for the EIR analysis, and identified on Figure 4.13-1 and pages R4.13-1-5 in the RDEIR.
The TIA analyzed traffic conditions under Existing Traffic Conditions (2008); Existing Plus Project
Traffic Conditions; Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions and Cumulative Plus Project Traffic
Conditions. The analysis focused on the key roadways near the study area including Highway 1,
Carpenter Street, Ocean Avenue, Valley Way, and Flanders Drive and included discussion of other local
streets within the study area including 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Avenues, Monterey Street, Lobos Street, Lower
Trail, and Santa Fe Street. The project area roadway network was presented in Figure 4.13-1 of the
RDEIR.

The EIR and TIA include: 1) Traffic Analysis Methodology; 2) Presented Analysis for Existing, Project,
and Cumulative Conditions on the Roadway System; 3) Intersection Operations; 4) Road Segment
Analysis; 5) and Project Impacts and Recommendations. The analysis also included indirect traffic
impacts to the surrounding residential streets. The project study area covered the jurisdiction of multiple
public agencies. The TIA analyzed traffic conditions for intersections and road segments based on level
of service (LOS) methodology and standards adopted by the County of Monterey and California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Each agency LOS standards for roadway facilities within its
jurisdiction was identified in the RDEIR, Page R4.13-5. Study intersections and roadway segments were
selected based on the estimated addition of project traffic to the surrounding roadway network.

The traffic impact analysis evaluated 13 intersections, and five road segments in the vicinity of the project
site, as listed below by jurisdiction, including:
1. Caltrans intersections at Highway 1/Carpenter; Highway 1/Valley Way; Highway 1/Flanders
Drive; Highway 1/Ocean Avenue and Highway 1/Third Avenue;
2. Monterey County Intersections at Carpenter Street/Valley Way and Lower Trail/Valley Way;
3. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Intersections at Lobos Street/Valley Way; Monterey Street/1st

Avenue/Valley Way; Monterey Street/2nd Avenue; Carpenter Street/1st Avenue; Carpenter
Street/2nd Avenue and Santa Fe Street/3rd Avenue; and
4. Highway 1 Road Segments under Caltrans jurisdiction between the following segments:
Highway 1 between Holman Highway and Carpenter Street; Highway 1 between Carpenter Street
and Valley Way; Highway 1 between Valley Way and Flanders Drive; Highway 1 between
Flanders Drive and Ocean Avenue and finally, Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel
Valley Road.

Per the discussion in the RDEIR, pages R4.13-6 and 7, the methodology utilized in the analysis of the
project follows accepted industry standards for estimating trips to be generated by the proposed project,
intersection and roadways level of service analysis, and evaluation of impacts on roadway facilities due to
the addition of traffic generated by the proposed project. The potential impacts related to the proposed
development were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by each of the
applicable jurisdictions.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR H-1; RDEIR N-45;
RDEIR O-1a, 2, 7; RDEIR T-6; RDEIR U-1, 5; RDEIR W-4; RDEIR X-4; RDEIR Z-3, 4; RDEIR
AA-1a; RDEIR BB-16.
Exhibit 10 of Appendix K of the RDEIR provides estimated daily and peak hour trips for the proposed
project. The trip estimates developed for the project and utilized in the traffic analysis are based upon the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 7
th
Edition Trip Generation Manual. The County of
Monterey Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies requires that trip rates from the latest
edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual be utilized for traffic studies within the County. The ITE trips
rates are widely accepted as the industry standard and are utilized for the estimation of traffic in nearly
every Bay Area County as well as the Nation. The ITE Trip Generation Manual presents trip rates for
specific land use type base upon surveys completed throughout the Country that monitor the inbound and
outbound travel of vehicles for specific land uses on both a daily and peak hour basis. The trip rates are
based primarily on data collected at suburban locations having little or no transit service or nearby
pedestrian amenities. Thus, the trip estimates utilized in the traffic study for the proposed project do not
discount vehicular trips for the use of transit or walking rather than the use of private vehicle. Based on
the ITE rates, the project would generate an estimated maximum of 269 total daily trips, with 21 trips
during the weekday AM peak hour (4 in, 17 out), and 25 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (16 in, 9
out).

The information and data of the Breakthrough and previous Hospital uses of the project site were
provided within the traffic study and RDEIR as a comparison to the proposed project and convey the
incremental increase in traffic generation that is expected by the proposed project. The data indicates that
the proposed project will generate less traffic than previous uses of the site. However, the traffic analysis
presents a worst-case scenario in that it evaluates the effects of the addition of the gross trips to be
produced by the proposed project. The traffic analysis takes no credit for previous or existing uses of the
site.

The distribution of project-generated traffic utilized in the traffic analysis is based on the location of
complimentary land uses as well as existing traffic patterns in the project area. The distribution reflects
the existing land uses with the majority of major trip attractors located north of the project site. It is
impossible to predict the exact patterns of travel to and from the project site; however the evaluation
provides a best guess as to the potential effects of the traffic added to the surrounding roadway by the
project. Furthermore, the distribution utilized in the traffic study is similar to that which was used in the
traffic studies for the September Ranch and Rancho Canada, which are residential developments in the
area. Figure 4.13-5 displays the distribution of project trips for the proposed project and the trip
assignment for the new project trips.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR M-2; RDEIR N-45,
46; RDEIR O-3, 4; RDEIR T-6; RDEIR X-4; RDEIR AA-1b; RDEIR BB-9, 15, 17-22.
The traffic analysis and determination of significant impacts due to the proposed project were based upon
policies adopted by the Monterey County Public Works Department and outlined in the Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, April 2003. Many comments question the validity of the adopted
level of service standards and significance criteria; however, it is not the responsibility of the proposed
project to provide justification for changes to the adopted policies. Rather, the traffic analysis for the
proposed project is required to follow and meet the requirements of the policies in place. The proposed
project is not to be held to any other measures and standards other than those that have been adopted by
CEQA and applicable public agencies and those that are applied to other development proposals.

Appendix F of the traffic study, which is located in Appendix K of the RDEIR, provides the complete text
regarding significance criteria in the previously cited Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies.

The County of Montereys significance criteria for signalized intersections states that if a signalized
intersection currently operates at LOS D or LOS E, a significant impact occurs if the critical movements
volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is increased by 1% (0.01) with the addition of project trips. If a signalized
intersection currently operates at LOS F, the addition of a single project trip is considered significant.
The Countys significance criteria for unsignalized intersections states that a significant impact occurs if
any traffic movement has LOS F or if any traffic signal warrant is met. The Countys significance criteria
for roadway segments states that a significant impact occurs if any roadway segment operating at LOS A
through E degrades to a lower Level of Service of D, E, or F with the addition of project trips. If the
segment is already operating at LOS F, the addition of a single trip is considered significant.
55; RDEIR O-1b, 5, 8, 9, 11; RDEIR P-1; RDEIR R-1; RDEIR T-2, 4, 5; RDEIR U-3; RDEIR V-2, 3, 6;
RDEIR X-1-4; RDEIR Y-1; RDEIR Z-4; RDEIR AA-2, 9-11; RDEIR BB-8, 13, 14.
Project Conditions Analysis: After review of the Highway 1 analysis, the roadway facilities south of
Carpenter Street are considered to be more appropriately categorized as Urban Arterials
6
. Highway 1 is
more often analyzed as an urban arterial due to its lower speeds and scenic appeal. Portions of Highway 1
in this area directly traverse an urban area with a high frequency of private driveway access, greater

6
Appendix P of the RDEIR provides Caltrans confirmation of determination of Highway 1 as an urban arterial in
this area due to specific characteristics of Highway 1, such as high frequency of private driveway access, greater
pedestrian concentration, signal spacing of less than 2 miles, scenic views and other specifics noted above. Caltrans
confirmed that the Urban Arterial methodology is an appropriate methodology for this project-level analysis. The
2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum used this approach; peer review was conducted by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants; County of Monterey Public Works and Caltrans also concurred with this methodology
(See Appendix P of the RDEIR).

pedestrian concentration, and signal spacing of less than 2 miles. Because of these characteristics, the use
of the Urban Arterial methodology was approved by the County of Monterey and Caltrans as appropriate
for project-level analysis.

The 2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum letter analyzed the road segment of Highway 1 from
Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road using urban arterial methodology and determined it to operate at
LOS E. For informational purposes, the RDEIR included analysis of the Highway 1 segments utilizing
several classifications for the segments and significance criteria. Specifically, Figure 4.13-3indicates that
segment of Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road is currently and projected to
operate at LOS F. The reported LOS F for the Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley
Road segment is based on the use of the 2-lane rural highway classification. However, use of the agreed
upon urban arterial classification and analysis indicate that all study segments of SR 1 operate and will
continue to operate at an acceptable LOS E or better during each peak hours with the addition of project
traffic. Per the Countys significance criteria for roadway segments, the addition of project traffic will not
result in a significant impact to any of the Highway 1 study segments. The County of Monterey
significance criteria states that a significant impact would occur if a roadway is operating at LOS A
through E degrades to a lower level of service D, E, or F with the addition of project traffic.

Comments also have referred to the reported levels of service for segments of Highway 1 contained in
other documents, specifically, the April 2009 Partial Revision on the Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (PRDSEIR) for the Carmel Valley Traffic Improvement Program. The PRDSEIR, which
was a more conservative programmatic document, used the Two-Lane and Multilane Highways
methodologies for the segment of Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road and determined
LOS F. It is common professional practice for planning level documents to utilize broader assumptions
that yield results that are more conservative because the goal is to consider a wide range scenario.
(Monterey County Public Works, Personal Communication, April 14, 2010; also see Caltrans
correspondence, Appendix P).

Cumulative Conditions Analysis: Significance criteria were based on the CEQA Guidelines as well as
Monterey County Public Works Department Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, April
2003 for County roadways and the Caltrans level of service standard. CEQA and other state law establish
that new development cannot be required to correct existing deficiencies. In addition, a proposed
development is also only responsible for mitigating its own impacts or paying its proportional share of
cumulative impacts. This means that project mitigation does not have to result in an acceptable level of
service. It only has to result in conditions equal to the pre-project condition. The determinations made in
the traffic study regarding significance and mitigations are in accordance with these standards.

RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page 37 states that the projects incremental contribution to cumulative
impacts will be mitigated with the payment of Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
fees. In 2008, TAMC completed a Nexus Study that provides the necessary technical and legal basis
under the California Environmental Quality Act for implementing the Regional Development Impact Fee
program as mitigation for cumulative impacts to the regional transportation system. (Regional Fee
Implementation Guidelines, adopted August 27, 2008/Updated October 28, 2009).

14-E. TAMC Fees
RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page 37 states that the projects incremental contribution to cumulative
impacts will be mitigated with the payment of Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)
fees. In 2008, TAMC completed a Nexus Study that provides the necessary technical and legal basis
under the California Environmental Quality Act for implementing the Regional Development Impact Fee
program as mitigation for cumulative impacts to the regional transportation system. (Regional Fee
Implementation Guidelines, adopted August 27, 2008/Updated October 28, 2009).

The Nexus study identifies 17 regionally significant improvement projects throughout the County that the
collected fees will be directed towards. Page iv of the Regional Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (March
26, 2008) states With the proposed improvements, a number of major transportation links both in
developed and undeveloped areas will experience lessened congestion and reduced travel time. These
improvements by themselves wont solve the Countys traffic issues, but they will allow for improved
traffic flow throughout the County. Thus, the payment of TAMC fees to mitigate cumulative impacts is
intended to fund improvements on the regional roadway network that will improve operating levels on the
regional roadway network and also will alleviate congestion on local roadways although the fees may not
be used to fund improvements at specific impacted facilities.

Per CEQA Guidelines 15130(a)(3), payment of fees is an equitable and typical method for collecting
the necessary funds to implement transportation improvements.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR H-2, RDEIR L-1,
RDEIR Q-1, RDEIR R-1-3, and RDEIR T-6.
Based upon Monterey County significance criteria, the addition of project traffic to the local and regional
roadway system will not result in any impacts on the studied roadways or intersections. The traffic
analysis and RDEIR do indicate that the addition of project traffic will contribute to existing
operational/safety deficiencies at the intersections of Carpenter Street and Highway 1 with Valley Way.
The operational/safety deficiencies are not considered impacts based upon adopted level of service
policies. The mitigation outlined in the RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page 22 identifies proposed safety
improvements at each of the intersections. Since the improvements would serve to improve existing
operational problems, the project is only required to pay a pro-rata share of the costs of the identified
improvements. However, the project applicant has voluntarily agreed to fund and construct the identified
operational/safety improvements as a condition of approval.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR M-4, RDEIR N-54,
A number of neighbors and community letters raised concerns regarding additional traffic and impacts to
their neighborhood particularly on Valley Way and other neighboring roadways. The letters identified
impacts from increased traffic volumes, type, or makeup, of traffic (i.e. trucks, construction vehicles),
traffic speed, perception of through traffic, adequacy of current streets/roads, accident experience, on-
street parking, pedestrian traffic, and pedestrian safety. The EIR presented and discussed an analysis of
the indirect traffic related impacts. Unlike the level of service and roadway analysis methodology, which
has established impact thresholds, the analyses of indirect impacts are based on professional judgment in
accordance with the standards and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Therefore,
the analyses of indirect impacts are beyond the purview of CEQA and were provided for informational
purposes only.

Residential Street Traffic: The effect of the added project traffic on surrounding residential streets was
not considered significant in the EIR based upon a number of factors. The accepted level of service
standard for roadways within Monterey County is LOS C. The HCM recommended maximum ADT
range for level of service C on local streets is 1,500-1,600 vehicles ADT (Average Daily Traffic).
General guidelines regarding threshold volumes pertaining to local streets, including the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), were referenced in the RDEIR. The RDEIR identified the existing ADT on
Valley Way east of Carpenter Way as 740 vehicles. The addition of the estimated 269 daily trips from the
proposed project to Valley Way would result in daily volumes along the roadway that will be below the
accepted LOS C volume range. A speed survey also was completed along Valley Way between
Carpenter Street and Highway 1. The survey found that average recorded speed was 15 mph on Valley
Way; the posted speed limit is 25 mph.

The RDEIR also discussed the added volume of trips based upon an expected range of trip occurrence
during the day. As the RDEIR notes, assuming all the project traffic were to occur during a 12-hour
period (6:00 am 6:00 pm) rather than a 24-hour period, the daily project trips would equate to one
project trip every three minutes. Similarly, along 3
rd
Avenue, the daily project trips would equate to one
project trip every 60 minutes.

Neighborhood Quality of Life Evaluation: One method for evaluating the effect of traffic added by
development projects on residential neighborhoods is the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment
(TIRE) method. The TIRE method provides a means for qualitatively measuring impacts on the character
of residential streets including safety and comfort of human activities, such as walking, cycling, and
playing on or near a street and on the freedom to maneuver vehicles in and out of residential driveways
caused by increased traffic levels. The TIRE methodology assigns an index value based on the daily
traffic volumes on the subject street segments. The index values range from 0.0 to 5.0, with 3.0 or higher
representing a street that operates as an auto-dominated street. Any projected change of 0.1 or greater
would be noticeable to residents. Each TIRE index value has a specific minimum average daily traffic
volume increase threshold that must be met in order to trigger a change of 0.1 or more in the index value
(i.e., a noticeable change). When the volume thresholds are exceeded, the traffic volume change would
be noticeable to street residents.

Segments of Valley Way between Highway 1 and Guadalupe Street were analyzed using the TIRE
methodology. Project traffic will be added to each of the studied segments along Valley Way; however,
the addition of project traffic on each of the roadway segments along Valley Way would not exceed the
volume thresholds that would trigger a noticeable change in traffic volumes to residents along Valley
Way. Under cumulative conditions, no additional traffic is routed along Valley Way. The ADTs and
TIRE index for all study segments would remain unchanged and the addition of project traffic along
Valley Way under cumulative plus project conditions would not be noticeable to the residents.
This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR J-1; RDEIR N-47-53;
RDEIR O-1b, 10, 11; RDEIR S-3; RDEIR T-1, 2; RDEIR U-1, 2, 4, 6; RDEIR V-4, 5, 7; RDEIR Y-1;
RDEIR AA-9-11; RDEIR BB-13-29.
The proposed project will add an estimated 6 trips during the AM and PM peak hour to the intersection of
Valley Way and Highway 1. Mitigation 4.13-1 identifies proposed safety improvements to this
intersection and requires a pro-rata share payment by the applicant. The applicant has proposed to fully
fund these improvements. The proposed improvements at the Valley Way intersection with Highway 1
are intended to improve existing operational/safety deficiencies at the intersection. The proposed
improvements will improve sight distance and alignment at the intersection of Valley Way with Highway
1. The improvements will provide for safer ingress from northbound Highway 1 to Valley Way through
realignment, improve sight distance from Valley Way to southbound Highway 1, and provide for safer
exit from southbound Highway 1 to Valley Way with pavement widening.

The proposed improvements consist of the realignment of the Valley Way to southbound SR 1
movement. The realignment would serve to improve motorists view of the opposing oncoming
southbound SR 1 traffic. In addition, striping and signage will be implemented to restrict the left-turn
movement from Valley Way to northbound SR 1. The left-turn movement from northbound SR 1 to
Valley Way left-turn would be maintained and alignment improved with the proposed improvements.

The southbound SR 1 to Valley Way right-turn movement would also be improved by increasing the
radius at the northwest triangular corner of the intersection to improve maneuverability for the
southbound right turns from Highway 1 onto Valley Way. Also extension of the pavement on the west
side of southbound Highway 1 just before Valley Way was proposed by Hatch Mott MacDonald to
provide a flare for deceleration for vehicles making the right turn from Highway 1 onto Valley Way.
The proposed safety improvement for the right turn movement from southbound Highway 1 to Valley
Way improves a movement that currently exists. Some comments expressed concern with a potential
increase in traffic due to the proposed safety improvements for the right turn movement; however, the
described potential increase in volumes is not likely since the right-turn movement can currently be made.

Each of the proposed improvements at Highway 1 and Valley Way intersection are intended to improve
an existing safety deficiency and are necessary without the proposed project. The existing safety
deficiencies at the intersection have been acknowledged, developed in conjunction with, and approved by
County staff. The applicant of the proposed project has voluntarily agreed to complete the improvements
as part of the project approval. The addition of project traffic does not result in a significant impact
however, there is a current need for the improvements at the intersection.

55; RDEIR O-5, 8, 9; RDEIR P-1; RDEIR R-1; RDEIR T-2, 4, 5; RDEIR U-3; RDEIR V-2, 3, 6; RDEIR
X-1-4; RDEIR Z-4; RDEIR AA-2; RDEIR BB-8, 13, 14.
The proposed improvements at Carpenter Street and Valley Way are intended to improve an existing
safety deficiency and are necessary under current conditions. The applicant of the proposed project has
voluntarily agreed to complete the improvements as part of the project approval, although the traffic
analysis acknowledges the addition of project traffic does not result in a significant impact nor create the
need for the improvements at the intersection.

The proposed improvements at the Carpenter Street intersection with Valley Way consist of possible
pavement widening for the southbound lane of Carpenter Street to allow for the passage of vehicles that
are making the southbound left-turn from Carpenter Street to Valley Way. Right-of-way constraints exist
along both sides of Carpenter Street along with varied elevation. The pavement widening also would
require removal and relocation of utilities. Therefore, the widening of pavement may not be feasible.
Although the County has indicated that widening the southbound shoulder would be preferable to
implementing a four-way stop at this location, the traffic study prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald
alternatively recommends the adjustment of the intersection to a four-way stop to allow for safer left-
turns. With all-way stop control, the intersection would operate at LOS B during the weekday AM and
Saturday peak hours, and LOS C during the weekday PM peak hour. Taking into consideration the
acceptable levels of service, low-posted speed limits and low traffic volumes on the side streets at this
intersection, impacts would not be expected with the implementation of all-way stop control. The County
will review the proposed improvements and consider implementation challenges as they determine the
appropriate improvements at this intersection to improve existing conditions.

55; RDEIR O-5, 8, 9; RDEIR P-1; RDEIR R-1; RDEIR T-2, 4, 5; RDEIR U-3; RDEIR V-2, 3, 6; RDEIR
X-1-4; RDEIR Z-4; RDEIR AA-2; RDEIR BB-8, 13, 14.
Comments requested background on studies used for the Recirculated Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation
section. The Recirculated Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation (4.13) section replaced Section 4.13 of the
previously circulated Draft EIR in its entirety. The reports and independent peer review process included
the following documents and review:

1. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Villas de Carmelo project by Hatch Mott
MacDonald (December 2007) submitted as part of the project application materials
2. Peer Review by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, EIR consulting traffic engineers for the
Draft EIR, of the 2007 TIA
3. Hatch Mott MacDonald revised TIA to include suggestions from the peer review (September 4,
2008)
4. Peer Review by Hexagon Transportation Consultants of the 2008 Revised TIA
5. TIA addendum completed by Hatch Mott MacDonald, dated July 2010
6. Peer review by Hexagon Transportation Consultants of the TIA Addendum for the Recirculated
Draft EIR
7. Hatch Mott MacDonald also provided letters, dated January 5, 2010 and April 2, 2010, to address
traffic trip generation after the close of the convalescent hospital and impacts to Highway 1
8. Memorandum regarding roadway segments, provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants
dated February 17, 2010
9. Drawing of the Valley Way/Highway 1 intersection improvements originally prepared by Hatch
Mott MacDonald and revised by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, in coordination with
Monterey County staff.

As noted in Master Response 2-A, CEQA Guidelines allows an agency to enlist the initial drafting and
analytical skills of an applicant's consultant, subject to the requirement that the agency apply independent
review and judgment to the work product before adopting and utilizing it. In this case, the applicants
submitted the initial traffic reports and DD&A hired Hexagon Transportation Consultants as the EIR
Consultant for peer review. Hexagon, with the County Public Works Department, reviewed and
considered the traffic analysis. Independent peer review was conducted for all technical submittals
consistent with CEQA.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR O-1b, 11, 12, 15;
RDEIR Y-1; RDEIR AA-9-11.

Certain comments suggested that the traffic analysis was using an inaccurate baseline in comparing
impacts. The traffic analysis presents a worst-case scenario in that it evaluates the effect of project traffic
on the roadway system based on the gross estimated trips to be generated by the proposed project. No net
reduction of trips is applied based upon current or historic uses at the site.

The RDEIR also contains information and data of the current use of the site by a mens club,
Breakthrough, and previous Hospital uses of the project site are provided as a comparison to the
proposed project and convey the incremental increase in traffic generation that is expected by the
proposed project. There is a note in the EIR that states, A comparison of the trip generation
estimates for the proposed project and those of the sites historical uses indicates that the proposed project
will generate less traffic than the allowable hospital, clinic, and preschool uses on a daily basis as well as
during the AM and PM peak hours. Regardless, the proposed projects trip generation estimates used in
this traffic impact analysis did not apply any trip generation credit for the historical or current allowable
uses on the site. Therefore, a conservative analysis of the effects of project traffic on the surrounding
roadway network is evaluated. Revisions have been incorporated into the Final EIR to provide additional
amplification and clarification on this. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

34, 36.
14-L. Construction Traffic
The RDEIR acknowledges that the construction phase of the proposed project will result in temporary
impacts to the surrounding roadway system due to construction vehicles. Construction impacts and
mitigations are described in Section 4.13 of the DEIR. As part of the mitigation of the temporary
construction impacts, the project contractor will be required to prepare a Construction Management Plan,
which will include identification of haul routes that will be subject to review and approval by Monterey
County Public Works Department and California Department of Transportation. The Monterey County
Public Works Department will monitor the Construction Management Plan during construction of the
project. Additional conditions are described in Monterey County Grading, Building, and Encroachment
Permits. These will be imposed on the project as a routine part of the permitting process.

SEC.110-A of the Monterey County Encroachment Permit, item #6 states, In all cases where he or she
has disturbed the existing surface of a County highway, replace, repair or restore such highway in
accordance with the terms of his or her permit. In case his or her permit contains no such terms, then he
or she shall do such replacing, repairing, or restoring at his or her own expense promptly upon completion
of his or her permit work, in a good and workmanlike manner as directed by the applicable provisions of
this Chapter, to as good condition as before the permit work started; provided, however, that if the surface
which was disturbed was a bituminous-surfaced roadway, such surface shall be replaced, repaired or
restored with not less than one and one-half inches, compacted in thickness, of asphaltic concrete
surfacing, over a minimum of six inches, compacted, in depth, of aggregate base material of a type
approved by the Public Works Director.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR J-1; RDEIR N-47-53;
RDEIR O-10; RDEIR S-3; RDEIR T-1, 2; RDEIR U-1, 2, 4, 6; RDEIR V-4, 5, 7; RDEIR BB-13-29.

Master Response 15. Utilities
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Utilities Section of the Recirculated
Draft EIR. Numerous comments questioned information in the EIR on water demand and water
consumption, available water supply to serve the project, baseline and information on historic water
records.
15-A. Background
The Recirculated Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems section replaced Section 4.14 of the previously
circulated Draft EIR. The RDEIR updated the water demand and water consumption data from the Draft
EIR and the baseline historical analysis. The RDEIR also clarified the process for consultants contact
with staff from relevant regulatory agencies, including the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (MPWMD or the District) and Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA)
throughout the preparation of the RDEIR.

Summary of Water Discussion: In accordance with the regulations of the MPWMD, the applicants are
proposing to use water credits under Rule 25.5 that allows the property to convert water use, under their
existing entitlements for the existing buildings, from the convalescent and other commercial uses on the
site to the proposed residential use. Rule 25.5 under the MPWMD Rules and Regulations sets forth the
regulatory means by which a property owner may convert its water use under existing entitlements to
other new uses. Under this rule, the MPWMD recognizes the historical lawful use of water on the
property. Since both water demand and historical water use on the site are critical to the application of
water credit under this Rule, there were a number of comments on both water demand and historic use at
the site.

Historic Records Available in RDEIR: In the Draft EIR, water factors provided by the MPWMD of the
convalescent hospital and other uses at the site formed the Countys original consideration of baseline for
the project. The Districts water use factors provided the best available information at that time to derive
an estimate of the pre-project water use on the project site. Comments to the Draft EIR disagreed with the
use of the Districts water use factors instead of actual water use records for the project site. While the
actual water use records were unavailable to the developer due to the privileged nature of these records
during preparation of the Draft EIR, the developer was able to subsequently obtain permission from the
property owners to secure actual water use records from California American Water Company. These
water records were provided in the RDEIR, pages R4.14-17 to 19. The water use records from California
American Water Company revealed that documented water use for the convalescent and other uses on the
property was much higher than the estimated water use derived from the Districts water factors.

Rationale for Baseline for RDEIR: In a letter dated February 5, 2008, addressed to Ms. Elizabeth
Gonzales, Planner for County of Monterey Resource Management Agency, the District acknowledged
that the Carmel Convalescent Hospital Site has a potential Water Credit of 8.226 acre-feet of water using
the Districts current Non-Residential Water Use Factors. Thus, while the historic records identified a
higher annual water use, the County exercised its discretion in choosing a conservative baseline based
upon the Districts factors instead of a baseline based on actual water use during operations. This is
reasonable because the District, under its regulations, limits water use for future new uses of a property to
the pre-project water demand. The demand is based on the water use factors adopted by the District for
the categories of historical uses on the property (for this case, the 8.226 acre-feet year or AF/Y).
As explained in the RDEIR, page R4.14-21, the 8.226 AFY baseline is predicated upon the following
District water demand factors:
RDEIR Table 4.14-3
Available Water Use Credit for Convalescent Hospital Site
MPWMD under Rule 25.5
Category of Previous Use Unit Count
Demand
Factor
Acre-feet/Year (AF/Y)
Main Building, Skilled nursing beds 65 beds 0.12000 7.80 AF/Y*
Ancillary Building(s)
6,080 square
feet
0.00007 0.426 AF/Y**
Total 8.226 AF/Y
Source: MPWMD Rule 25.5, MPWMD Letter dated February 5, 2008, and MPWMD Demand Factors; Refer to
Appendix L-1 and L-2 of the Draft EIR. Excerpted from RDEIR Table 4.14-3

The following summarizes the estimated water demand for the proposed project. The interior water
demand was estimated by using the water projections/demand established by the MPWMD water use
factors. MPWMD will not assess an additional outdoor water use for the proposed project because
outdoor water use is recognized as a historical lawful use of water on the property.
7
However, the RDEIR
applied an estimate of landscaping water demand for outdoor use based upon an MPWMD accepted
formula (RDEIR pages R4.14-15 and 16). The Final EIR updates the irrigation demand for landscaping
using the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) formula which accounts for types of planting areas by
specified square feet of planting area and accepted irrigation application rates.

The additional landscaping demand for outdoor use was requested by comment letters on the Draft EIR.
This Final EIR clarifies the amount of landscape area and water estimated for newly irrigated project area
(see Appendix D).

Potential Water Use Credit Recognized by MPWMD under Rule 25.5 8.226
Projected Water Demand (Units and Gym)
(Per Water Release Form, MPWMD)
6.154
Projected Water Demand (Landscape/Outdoor Use)
Outdoor Irrigation based upon MWMPD/MAWA/ETWU)
1.74

Subtotal.

7.894
Total Projected Demand 7.894

Mitigations and Conditions for Water Limit: Overall, the estimated project water use of 7.894 AFY
will be less than the 8.226 AFY baseline water use. However, comments received on the RDEIR stated
that there should be further limitations to ensure water does not exceed the projected demand. The

7
Rule 25.5 J, states An On-Site Water Credit resulting from the non-permanent removal of a lawful use that
occurred on and after March 1, 1985, may be applied to, and shall allow, the future reuse of that increment of water
on that Site. MPWMD considers the existing use on the Site as a lawful use and under the Districts current
rules, will not reassess outdoor water use as long as the existing use is not permanently abandoned.
RDEIR and County of Monterey conditions include Mitigation Measure 4.14-5, which limits water use to
7.894 AF/YR. (Refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the DEIR and RDEIR and the MMRP in the Final EIR
Appendix A for mitigation measures.) This amount is less than the amount that would have otherwise
been credited and allowed for future uses by the MPWMD and is also less than the average historic water
use on the site (See Historic Use, 15-C, discussion below). Conditions imposed on the project to limit
water use on the project site also require monitoring and demonstration of compliance with the water
limitation, as well as requirements for further conservation or other measures should compliance not be
shown. Mitigation 4.14-6 requires and accompanying County conditions require annual and quarterly
water use reports that must demonstrate that actual water use for the entire subdivision is within the
maximum allowance. Should the water reports show water use within ten percent of the baseline, the
applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the allowable water credits through development of further
conservation measures including grey water reuse for landscaping, elimination of interior landscaping
areas or other methods as needed.
Summary of Conclusions: With the mitigation measures applied limiting water use to 7.894 AFY, the
project will use less water than the established baseline and less water than any of the historical baseline
numbers during project operations.
The following further provides a fuller description of the items summarized above.
15-B. Water Demand
MPWMD Demand Factors: Specific comments questioned the validity of the water factors used to
determine the water demand and the amount of total projected water use for the 46 units, and the 2,100
square foot gym. The MPWMD has used residential and non-residential water use factors since 1985 to
estimate water demand for new and expanding development. All properties that modify or add water
fixtures on a property within the MPWMD must obtain written authorization from the District prior to
taking action. MPWMD has reviewed the proposed project concerning water demand and has provided
input into the water demand numbers used. Based on the proposed project and the applicable water
demand factors for fixture counts per the MPWMD Residential Water Release Form, the estimated water
demand for the proposed residential project is approximately 6.154 AF/Y. Water demand estimates were
evaluated and confirmed with MPWMD in accordance with a letter from Stephanie Pintar, MPWMD,
dated August 10, 2009
8
. The RDEIR and Monterey County consider the water demand factors utilized by
the MPWMD to be appropriate for projecting water demand for this project in the RDEIR. It should be
recognized that the MPWMD does not apply a landscaping/outdoor application under its Rule 25.5.
Therefore, the RDEIR increased the overall water demand estimate to account for outdoor use in the
RDEIR, for a total estimated project demand of 7.894.

Specific commenters also stated the RDEIR should show water demand by unit. The MPWMD letter
dated August 10, 2009 was included in Appendix R of the RDEIR and Appendix L-2 of the Draft EIR
and showed the MPWMD table entitled Water Release Form. This table identifies water fixtures by type,
as well as total demand by individual unit and number.

A final review of the water demand by the MPWMD for each unit shall be required prior to building
permit approval and shall be conditioned to comply with MPWMDs water conservation requirements for

8
Based upon the detailed breakdown of the number and type of water fixtures for the proposed residential units,
along with the square-footage of the recreation room, per MPWMD letter: District staff concurs with the water
demand estimates of 6.164 FY in the attached spreadsheet for eight one-bath residential units, eighteen two-baths
residential units, and 20 two and one-half bathroom residential units and 4,450 square feet of Group I uses.
new construction, including low water consumption features, and shall be subject to the rules in effect at
the time a complete Water Release and Water Permit application is received

N33; RDEIR S-2; RDEIR V-8; RDEIR BB-53.
15-C. Historic Water Use
The RDEIR includes historic water records at the site that were located by the applicant and provided to
the County of Monterey identifying actual historic water use. In the Draft EIR, the documentation of
historic water use was based upon the water factors provided by the MPWMD of the convalescent
hospitals use at the site. Based upon these factors, a MPWMD letter included as Appendix L-2 in the
Draft EIR identified a water credit of 8.226 for the property. A number of comments on the previous
Draft EIR challenged any reliance on such water factors as hypothetical water use on the site for
determination of past use. Other comments questioned any amount of use and stated that no water should
be available to the site without actual records. These comments also questioned the validity of the
MPWMD water factors used to determine the water credit as a way to determine past water use on the site
and cited their own interpretations that water use at the convalescent hospital was much lower than the
8.226 AF/Y applied by the District. As discussed below, actual water records indicate the actual
historical water use under site operations is significantly higher when compared to the allowable water
credit provided under MPWMD rules. However, this does not discredit the Districts water use factors.
In fact, it provides for a conservative allowance upon project operation to a residential use.

Hospital Property Water Use History
from Table 4.14-4, RDEIR

Water Year Gallons
Total Acre
Feet/Year
2001 4,749,052 14.57
2002 4,122,976 12.65
2003 4,190,296 12.86
2004 4,778,972 14.67
2005 945,472 2.90
2006 29,172 0.09
2007 323,136 0.99
2008 58,344 0.18

Documentation in the RDEIR on pages R4.14-17 to 19 shows water meter records obtained by the
applicant and provided to the MPWMD and the County of Monterey identifying actual historic water use.
RDEIR Table 4.14-4 on page R4.14-19 (summarized above) provides the summary of these available
records. During the four year reporting period of operations at the site, the propertys water use averaged
13.68 AF/Y of consumption based upon available Cal-Am records. Water use varied particularly during
the last years of operation of the hospital. The documented water use on the site has been as high as
14.57 AF in 2001, and decreased as operations slowed down or ceased. After 2005, during the four-year
period when the hospital ceased operations at the site, only nominal water use was recorded. Averaging
the water use from Water Years 2001 to 2007, with both years of operation and years during no or
nominal water use, the average water demand was 8.39 AF/Y, which is consistent the baseline established
by the County (8.226 AF/Y discussed above and consistent with MPWMD Rule25.5).
In a letter dated February 5, 2008, addressed to Miriam Schakat, former representative for the applicant,
District staff acknowledged that the Carmel Convalescent Hospital Site has a potential Water Credit of
8.226 acre-feet of water using the Districts current Non-Residential Water Use Factors.
Historical Use in reference to Ordinance 3310. As identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project
site is within Cal Am service area and subject to a County ordinance whereby projects must control
intensification of water consumption (Regulations to Control Intensification of Water Consumption in the
California-American Water Company Service Area, Monterey County Ordinance 3310, 1988). Under
Ordinance 3310 (Municipal Code 18.46), new subdivisions must provide for a ten percent reduction in
water demand from uses at the time the ordinance took effect. The ordinance took effect during the time
the hospital was in operation; however, metered records were not available at the time of Draft EIR
publication. The RDEIR identified water demand from available meter records, (as discussed above and
documented in Table 4.14-4 in the RDEIR). During 2001, the closest year to the year the ordinance took
effect, water use at the site was 14.57 AF/Y. The RDEIR found the project consistent with requirements
of Ordinance 3310 (Municipal Code 18.46). Mitigations in Section 14.4 require demonstration to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director that the proposed project will result in a minimum of ten percent
overall decrease in the use of water.
A conservative approach was used to address the calculation for consistency by calculating the ten
percent reduction from the water factor derived baseline of 8.226 AF. The RDEIR found the proposed
subdivision allows for the ten percent reduction in water per the Ordinance and found the project
consistent with this requirement (of ten percent reduction from 8.226AF). This conservative approach
was questioned at the Subdivision Hearing in February 2011, and also in correspondence from the project
applicants representative. The County of Monterey Planning Department further reviewed project
consistency and addressed the appropriate approach to determine consistency with the Ordinance. The
following is the County Staff conclusion and their analysis follows; the text in full is contained in
Appendix D of this Final EIR:
Chapter 18.46 (Ordinance 3310, 1988) applies to unincorporated portion of Monterey County
within the service area of the California-American Water Service Company. The purpose is to
not intensify land use over that existing at the time the provision of this Chapter became effective
(Section 18.46.040.A MCC). This Chapter does not apply to or prohibit development projects
that include subdivision, where the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning that water conservation measures proposed on or off the site will result in a minimum 10
percent decrease in the overall water use (Section 18.46.040.B.6 MCC).
Planning Department interprets that the 10% reduction is measured against the water use of the
site when Ordinance 3310 went into effect, which was 1988. County received documentation
relative to the historical water use for the property based on actual water records between 2001
and 2008, and this data was included in the RDEIR. We have been informed that the last patients
left and the hospital property sold in 2005. Between 2001 and 2005, the water use ranged from
12.65 AF in 2002 to 14.67 AF in 2004, which averages to 13.688 AF/Y over the five year period.
Without specific records for 1988, it is reasonable to presume that there was similar water use
while the hospital was in operation at that time. Using the lowest, single year, "historical" value
(12.65 AF) and applying the requirement to reduce water by 10% from the time Ordinance 3310
became effective (1988), the County interprets that the project complies with Chapter 18.46 if the
project demonstrates the project would use less than 11.385 AF/Y (12.65 - 1.265).
Until we received the historical data, 8.226 was the only figure we had to apply Chapter 18.46.
Since we now have some "historical" data, the 10% reduction is not measured against the baseline
8.226 AF/Y figure provided by the MPWMD. Therefore, as long as the overall project (structural
or interior use and landscape use) remains within the 8.226 AF/Y, the project is within the project
baseline.
Therefore, the County interprets that the project complies with Chapter 18.46 and that the water use
during the time closest to when the ordinance came into effect was documented by the metered records
provided in the RDEIR and cited above. See Appendix D of this Final EIR.
33; RDEIR S-2; RDEIR V-8; RDEIR BB-6, 52, 53.

15-D. Rule 25.5 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) and Agency Review
In accordance with the regulations of the MPWMD, the applicant is proposing to convert their existing
water use credit or entitlement as provided for under Rule 25.5 from the existing buildings and
commercial water uses on the site to the proposed residential water uses. Under this rule, except where a
Water Permit has been abandoned, expired, Revoked, Suspended, or canceled under these Rules, a Person
may receive a Water Use Credit for the permanent abandonment of some or all of the prior water use on
that site by one of the methods set forth in this Rule to provide the basis for issuance of a water permit for
new or modified water use on the same site.
9
MPWMD rules authorize the issuance of a water permit
only where demand calculated for the existing use has been shown to fully offset the proposed, added
demand. MPWMD grants On-site Water Credits to document this demand off-set. Water Use Credits
shall be documented by written correspondence between the District and the property owner, and shall
remain valid unless prohibited by this Rule. Rule 25.5 is the only method under the Districts
regulations to use water for other purposes on a property, such as the change from historical commercial
uses on the site to the proposed residential uses.

The applicants have not abandoned use of the site as a convalescent hospital and other uses under the
regulations set forth by MPWMD Rule 25.5 and currently maintain an active water connection on the
property. The property owners propose to abandon such uses after the applied for residential uses are
approved by the County of Monterey. If such approval is not obtained, the property owner may resume
their full use of the previous commercial uses on the site.

Comments dispute the water figures and process for the water credit identified under Rule 25.5. The
water credit under Rule 25.5 and demand calculations were reviewed by Monterey County Water
Resource Agency, Monterey County Planning, and MPWMD. The District determined that upon
application for water credits (based upon demolition of building use or removal of the Property's water
meters), the District rules allow for the issuance of 8.226 AF/Y of on-site water credits.
In a letter dated August 10, 2009, MPWMD staff concurred with the water demand estimates for the new
project of 6.164 AFY that were submitted by Mr. Edward G. Shagen, Director of Development for
Widewaters. The District also acknowledged that the Carmel Convalescent Hospital Site has a potential
Water Credit of 8.226 acre-feet of water using the Districts current Non-Residential Water Use Factors.
The RDEIR references data and letters provided by MPWMD, Monterey County, and the applicant, as
well as independent review with County staff planners. Monterey County Water Resources and Monterey

9
District Rule 25.5A and 25.5G.
County Environmental Health Division provided correspondence on the EIR letters and documentation
used for this analysis includes:
o Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) (February 6, 2008)
Potential Water Use Credit for Carmel Convalescent Hospital
o Monterey County, Monterey County Use Permit #863
o Pintar, Stephanie (July 28, 2006) Water Use Credits for Carmel Convalescent
Hospital, Carmel Residential Care and A Childs View Preschool (APNs: 009-061-
002,003, and 005)
o Pintar, Stephanie (August 10, 2009) Villas De Carmelo Project, HWY One & Valley
Way, Carmel Draft Environmental Impact Report dated April 2009, Countys File
Number: PLN070497, State Clearinghouse #2002111038, APNs: 009-061-002, 003,
and 005
o Holm, Carl (September 2, 2009) Determination that Application for On-Site Water
Use Credits from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Will Not
Impact Monterey County Use Permit No. 863.
o Jeffers, Angus (December 3, 2009) Former Carmel Convalescent Hospital Historical
Water Use Data and Transmittal Letter
o Pintar, Stephanie (December 9, 2008) Former Carmel Convalescent Hospital Site
(APNs: 009-061-002,003, and 005) from Stephanie Pintar, dated December 9, 2008
o Monterey County Health Department, Environmental Health Bureau (EHB) also
provided a letter after their review of the RDEIR and documentation. The letter
indicates Mitigation Measures 4.14-1 through 4.14-4 provide the appropriate
mitigation and water demand requirements that are needed for the development to
proceed. The letter further states All the concerns that EHB had regarding the
infrastructure for availability and delivery of potable water to the project have been
fully addressed specifically citing the requirements of MPWMD Rule 25.5, MC
Municipal Code Title 18.46.030 and County Ordinance 3310.
o The letters and EHB correspondence are located in the Project File (PLN070497).

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR F-1, RDEIR F-6
15-E. Landscaping Water Estimates
A number of comments addressed the demand for outdoor water use (landscaping). The RDEIR
identified that under Rule 25.5, MPWMD does not assess an additional outdoor water use for the
proposed project because outdoor water use is recognized as a historical lawful use of water on the
property (Rule 25.5 J, On-Site Water Credit). The RDEIR, however, identified a water demand estimate
for landscaping outdoor use.
10
Commenters questioned the landscape acreage and demand identified.

10
As the methodology for applying an appropriate factor to approximate water for outdoor use for CEQA purposes,
the RDEIR applied the Model Water Efficient Landscape formula, per the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
of 1990, as amended by the Department of Water Resources in Assembly Bill 1881. The Maximum Applied Water
Allowance (MAWA) formula uses landscaped area (LA), evapotranspiration (ET) and is based upon geographic
areas and common conversion factors. Using this approach, the August 2010 RDEIR estimated outdoor water use
for landscaping at 1.0 to 1.32 AF/Y based upon 30,000 sq. ft of irrigated area. (The lower demand number in the
RDEIR assigned an overall reduction in water use for landscaping based upon ordinances and regulations requiring
use of drought tolerant landscaping and water conserving methods for irrigation, per State of California, MPWMD
and County provisions for water efficient landscaping).. Commenters on the RDEIR questioned both the acreage
and the approach for reduction in water demand. The Final EIR updates the irrigated acreage for landscaping area
based upon engineered mapping to 67,005 sq ft and also uses the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) formula per
the State Water Department of Water Resources. The MPWMD in September 2010 adopted Ordinance 145, which
The Final EIR, Section 6.0, and the notation below, explain the process for estimating water demand and
provides for increased landscape acreage and the conclusion of increased water demand to 1.74 AF/Y
11
.
The water demand estimates for landscaping do not change the conclusions reached in the RDEIR and
Final EIR. With the addition of water estimated for outdoor landscaping use, the RDEIR increases the
MPWMD 6.154 AF/water demand for indoor fixtures in the RDEIR to a total demand of 7.894 AF/Y for
both interior and exterior water demand. This accounts for outdoor water use for irrigation needs
assuming 1.74 AF/Y landscaping demand. The RDEIR conclusions remain valid; with the total water
demand for the project of 7.894 AF/Y; the project use less water compared to the 8.226 AF/Y defined
baseline conditions. The RDEIR also therefore concludes that the project does not exceed available water
supply based upon District Rule 25.5 for the documented historical uses of the subject property. With the
higher landscaping estimate, the Final EIR also concludes that the project does not exceed available water
supply.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR F-5; RDEIR N-33, 34,
36; RDEIR-M 7.
15-F. Baseline
According to section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the baseline condition against
which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition
that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published.
12
The CEQA Guidelines recognize that
the date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot be rigid however. The baseline environmental
setting is premised on realized physical conditions, and established usage of the property over time may
be properly considered part of the environmental setting.

In this case, the EIR defines and the County affirms that the environmental baseline that differs from the
date of the NOP is reasonable (RDEIR, page R4.14-21). An alternative baseline prior to the Countys
NOP date is warranted here for the water supply setting based on a number of factors. First, there is a
permitted use with documented historical water data detailing actual water usage. The County considered

identifies the ETWU approach for water use for landscaping. This results in a revised water demand for landscaping
of 1.74 AF/Y.

11
Documentation submitted to the County from Earthforms, Landscape Architects, is included in Appendix D of
this Final EIR. Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) formula, as compared to MAWA, accounts for types of
planting areas by specified square feet of planting area and specifies applied application rates. Estimated
landscaping water use calculations for the project are based on the specific landscape hydrozones or planting areas.
Additionally, the plant palette for the site was revised to achieve greater use of drought tolerant plants and to remove
plants that are higher water users.

12
The general rule in CEQA Guidelines 15125(a) is that the existing environmental setting should normally
constitute the baseline against which agencies assess the significance of project impacts. However, in specific
circumstances, an alternate baseline may be appropriate. For example, where an applicant proposes a project which
modifies an existing project, the baseline should consider any normal historical fluctuations in the existing project
operations. Amador County v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal App. 4th 931. See also, Fairview
Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal App. 4th 238, where the court held that historical mining operations
were an appropriate baseline, despite the fact that the original use permit had expired. Rather than using an actual
water year such as 14.57 AF in 2001 as an appropriate baseline, the County has chosen to assign a more
conservative baseline in this case. For informational purposes under CEQA, the RDEIR provides the public with
information of both the actual historical water use and the 8.226 AFY baseline, which reveals that under either
scenario the project will result in a decrease in water use.

the permitted and historical water use of the site, as documented in the Cal-American Water records for
the site, as well as the established information justifying a water credit to allow conversion of use on the
property as identified by the MPWMD
13
. In making these findings on historical water use on property,
there is no paper water but there is substantial evidence to show that the property was in fact fully
utilized for decades and water use historical data does accurately reflect these conditions. The RDEIR
obtained evidence from Cal-Am for water records, the Water Management District letters for
confirmation of use, as well as County Planning and Building Department for continuity of use (Refer to
RDEIR, page R4.14-1 and 2). Evidence was also obtained from the Department of Health Services and
the Department of Social Services to confirm the long-standing care facility operations on the site.
Additionally, the EIR considers the regulations of MPWMD, which consider that the property owners
water entitlement can be held as a water credit upon such time as there is a permanent abandonment of the
commercial uses on the site.

Rationale for Establishing Baseline for Water: The fundamental premise in the assignment of the
8.226 AFY baseline for water supply is the documented history of water delivery on the site (as
documented by water company records of actual water usage). The documented water use on the site has
been as high as 14.57 AFY in 2001 and decreased as operations slowed down and the convalescent
hospital suspended operations. The determination of the validity of the existing use permit by the County
(i.e., the operations of the hospital may be resumed without further permit or CEQA action); the
temporary nature of the suspension of water use in order for the entitlements processing to be completed
(though a number of years has passed since water was supplied to the site for the operation of the allowed
use); the indication by the applicants and the evidence in the record that the historical use of the site has
temporarily ceased while the applicants undergo required review for a change of use; and the regulatory
framework for converting water use on the Site under Rule 25.5 (assignment of water credit upon
permanent abandonment of use) all support the Countys conservative baseline of 8.226 AFY.

The RDEIR, pages R4.14-8 to 10 and 16-21, also considers the 8.226 AFY baseline as a water
entitlement, and not a hypothetical amount of water that the property owner had never used or had no
right to use on the project site. (Cf. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced, supra, 149
Cal.App.4th at p. 658 [established levels of a particular use have been considered to be part of an
existing environmental setting] with Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 121 [entitlement to
use additional water on project site was not the same as actual use].)

Therefore, rather than identify the date of the Countys NOP as the baseline for water use, the existing
water records of historic use for the site are considered part of the environmental setting (i.e., baseline) for
evaluating the environmental effects of water supply for the proposed project, as discussed in the
following sections.
14
Since the permit application and environmental review process can take a number
of years, the County considers the actual water consumption or water demand as of the time the project
was in operation to be a more accurate representation of the existing baseline against which to measure
the impact of the project (See, e.g. Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 238
[maximum estimated traffic was appropriate baseline].) The more recent water use figures represent the

13
MPWMD Letter and Cal Am records, RDEIR Comment Letter from MPWMD, Under Rule 25.5 J, An On-Site
Water Credit resulting from the non-permanent removal of a lawful use that occurred on and after March 1, 1985,
may be applied to, and shall allow, the future reuse of that increment of water on that Site.
14
In San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, the court highlighted the varying approaches
to the determination of a projects baseline, stating: Although the baseline environmental setting must be premised
on realized physical conditions on the ground, as opposed to merely hypothetical conditions allowable under
existing plans [citations], established levels of a particular use have been considered to be part of an existing
environmental setting. [(San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th
713, 721-722.)

period during which the project application(s) and environmental review process was underway, and not a
continuation of pre-project water usage. Therefore, the more recent figures do not appear to represent a
normal fluctuation in usage over time, but a temporary cessation of use for a specified reason related to
the redevelopment of the Site, project application and environmental processing.

Baseline for Other Subject Areas outside Water: The County, as lead agency, determined it
appropriate to evaluate project-level impacts against the conditions that existed when the NOP was
published for all issue areas other than water.
15
For instance, the project level impacts of potential loss of
viewshed or tree loss are evaluated against a baseline of existing conditions on the ground. For other
issue areas outside of water supply, project-level impacts are conservatively analyzed against existing
conditions at the time of the Countys NOP issuance. Unlike the case for water supply, these other
infrastructures do not have a documented record of historic use on the site nor do their service providers
or regulatory agencies have any established regulatory programs that hold on to a water entitlement as in
the case of the MPWMD Rules and Regulations (under Rule 25.5).
15-G. Order 95-10
Comments stated that because of SWRCB Order No. 95-10, any increase in water demand would result in
a potentially significant impact on biological resources (in this case, the resources of the Carmel River
system). The RDEIR addresses the background for SWRCB Order 95-10 and endangered species issues
on RDEIR pages R4.14-25 and 26 and R4.14-34 and 35. In Order No. 95-10, the SWRCB limited
production by Cal-Am from the Carmel River system, and ordered Cal-Am to implement actions to
terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River, and in the interim to maximize its production
from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Subsequently, production from the Seaside Groundwater Basin
(the large majority of which is Cal-Am production) was found to be exceeding on an annual basis the
annual recharge, and thus exceeding the safe yield of the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Carmel
River system provides habitat for both the Red Legged Frog and Steelhead, listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).

Based on the baseline that has been adopted for this project, there is no increase in water demand post-
project. The imposition of Order 95-10 does not per se compel a finding of significance for biological
impacts under CEQA for this project, as some commenters have stated, as there is no evidence that a
significant biological impact to wildlife on the Carmel River system will occur from the projected water
use of 7.894 in comparison with baseline (See RDEIR pages R4-14-25). As already noted above, in
accordance with CEQA standards, while the baseline is normally considered at the time of the NOP for a
project, CEQA and courts have ruled that an alternative baseline is appropriate under certain
circumstances. The suspension of the commercial uses of the convalescent hospital during the time of the
Countys NOP was to allow consideration of the redevelopment of this site. This was not considered an
appropriate baseline, as shown in the RDEIR pages R4.14-21-23. The Countys baseline is supported by
established historical uses of the Site. As addressed above, the baseline water use in the EIR is 8.226
AF/Y, per page RDEIR R4.14-21 and 22. This amount is less than the documented historic average use

15
The NOP for the proposed project was published in July 2008 by the lead agency, County of Monterey. Prior to
that date, application processing for redevelopment of the site was clearly being conducted. In early 2006, the
applicants embarked on an initial environmental review process under a different lead agency, the City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea, for annexation and future residential development of the site. The City held a public hearing on the
project in 2006, and subsequently circulated an Initial Study for a proposed project on the site in February 2007.
The proposal was for annexation and development of a condominium project on the site, a precursor to this project.
The applicants subsequently submitted an application for approval of the project to Monterey County in late 2007,
after the annexation request was denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in 2007.
of 13.68 AF/Y and is consistent with regulations of the MPWMD. Therefore, the proposed project will
not create a significant impact on the resources of the Carmel River system or a significant adverse
impact on the instream beneficial uses of the Carmel River. To the contrary, the proposed project will
result in a reduction in water use compared to the baseline use, and have a positive impact on instream
beneficial uses of the Carmel River.

Cumulatively, the adverse environmental effects to the Carmel River system were identified as
consequences of water withdrawal by Cal Am and other users. In order to address the cumulative effects
on the Carmel River system and its watershed, efforts to mitigate the effects have concentrated on
reducing Cal-Am withdrawals from the Carmel River system and reducing consumption of Cal-Am water
by consumers throughout its service area. Other efforts concentrated on development of replacement
water sources as reported in the Draft EIR and RDEIR on pages R4.14-33. Since publication of the
RDEIR, these efforts have resulted in an approved Regional Water Project and certified EIR for the
Regional Water Project. The Regional Water Project will result in increased benefits to the resources of
the Carmel River System by increasing flows in the river since alternative supplies will be drawn from
other sources outside the system. Upon implementation of the project, SWRCB Order No. 95-10 will be
addressed and there will be a decrease of water drawn from the system. Therefore, no significant impact
on biological resources has been identified.

Since publication of the RDEIR, the SWRCB also issued a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) ordering Cal-
Am to cease and desist from its unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance
with certain conditions. The CDO requires that Cal-Am: (a) must fully reduce its unlawful diversions
from the Carmel River by the year 2016; (b) may not set water meters for new construction or remodels
that intensify use; and (c) must not divert more than 10,429 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the Carmel
River in Water Year 2010, defined as October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. This amount is about
856 acre-feet, or 7.6%, less than Cal-Am was allowed to pump from the river in water year 2009. This
pumping limit will become smaller in successive future years. The CDO also requires Cal-Am to work
on smaller water supply projects that can be implemented in the near-term.
16
Cal-Am also filed an
amended petition to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize Cal-Am to refuse to
connect new customers in its Monterey District Main System, and to institute a moratorium on new or
expanded water service connections (except for certain specified situations).

MPWMD staff processes and issues Water Permits to projects that utilize water credits and has indicated
they will do so that until directed otherwise.
17
The conditions of the CDO do not restrict Cal-Ams supply
of water to the project site given the sites existing service connection and the projects reduction in water
use. The CDO also would not restrict Cal-Ams supply of water should the convalescent hospital
commercial uses resume on the project site. Per Section 15-H below, metering each unit will be required
to ensure the water use is under the baseline established; water metering is encouraged by the State in the
CDO (Footnote 47 of CDO).

Comments submitted as part of the EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR stated the EIR must find that there is
a significant biological impact to wildlife on the Carmel River system from the project. The comments
asserted that there must be a specific standard for evaluating the significance of the projects impacts from
water demand on the Carmel River system. Specifically, the comments stated that any increase in water
demand would result in a significant impact on biological resources (in this case, the resources of the
Carmel River system). The Draft EIR and RDEIR (Draft EIR Section 4.4 and RDEIR R4.14-25 and 26
and R4.14-34 and 35) found project impacts on the biological resources (including the resources of the

16
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/CDO/FAQ/CDO_FAQ_20110202_HS.pdf

17
Carmel River system).to be less than significant. The EIR carefully considered CEQA Guidelines section
15065, which identifies certain conditions whereby the lead agency must find that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The EIR considered if there was evidence whereby [t]he project
has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened
species (Guidelines, 15065(a)[1].). Guidelines section 15380 defines the terms species,
endangered, threatened and rare. The RDEIR page R4.14-25 found that there was no evidence to
substantiate there would be a significant impact in this instance (See above discussion and RDEIR pages
R4.14-25). As previously stated, the RDEIR found that the water use would be reduced under baseline
after project implementation, which would not in any way cause an impact to identified resources as
defined in CEQA Guidelines. Further, no evidence was provided in the comment letters that the water
use would substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species
under Guidelines, 15065(a)[1].

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR N-28, 30, 31, 35;
RDEIR P-2; RDEIR BB-5-7.
15-H. Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement
The project will employ District Rule 25.5 to convert its water entitlement for its historical commercial
uses into a water use credit; this will in turn form the basis for issuance of a water permit for the new
residential uses proposed by the project. Rule 25.5 requires that water use on the site be within MPWMD
demand factors. Comments requested additional mitigation to require water use to be within projected
demand. RDEIR Section 4.14, Page 4.14-24, Mitigation Measure 4.14-5, requires a restriction of water
demand to 7.894 AF/Y. This number is based upon 6.154 AF/Y for residential and gym uses (based on
the Water Release Form, above), as well as 1.74 AF/Y for landscaping and irrigation requirements for a
total of 7.894 AF/Y.

Implementation of the mitigation measures would require monitoring to ensure project demand is not
exceeded and to require conservation measures for water fixtures on site. Comments raised doubt or
concern regarding the adequacy of the mitigation and the efficacy of MPWMD monitoring and Monterey
County monitoring and enforcement.

For approximately the past 25 years, the MPWMD has strictly regulated and limited the intensification
of water use on all properties within the Monterey District service area of California American Water.
Specifically, MPWMD rules require that a water permit must first be obtained in order to install a new
water (plumbing) fixture in an existing residence, or expand the space occupied by a non-residential
structure if such action would result in an increase in water demand in that home or business. MPWMD
rules authorize the issuance of a water permit only where demand calculated for the existing use has been
shown to fully offset the proposed, added demand. MPWMD grants On-site Water Credits to
document this demand offset. Per County conditions, the homeowners association will be required to
have a meter that records all water use served to the project site and annual water use reports will be
required to be submitted to the County of Monterey documenting the total water use on the project site.

Commenters have raised concerns about the Countys ability to insure that the development does not
exceed the water usage evaluated in the DEIR. The County has enforced conditions and mitigation
measures in the past with respect to water conservation measures. In 2002, as part of mitigation
monitoring and compliance activity, the County required a homeowners association to remove all
landscaping at its entryway and replace this with drought tolerant landscaping as per the conditions of
approval. Similar enforcement was taken with respect to individual lots whose landscaping was not in
compliance. Similar action was taken in the same subdivision in 2006 with respect to denial of building
plans whose fixtures exceeded the estimated demand that had been assumed for total subdivision
consumption. Lastly, the County has filed code enforcement actions against development that does not
comply with conditions pertaining to drainage system operation. Recent adoption of a code enforcement
ordinance (Ordinance 5122, January 2009) provides additional tools for the County to enforce conditions
and mitigation measures in a more timely fashion and to obtain compliance.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR BB-6, 52.

Conclusion: With the mitigation measures applied limiting water use to 7.894 AFY, the project will use
less water than the established baseline and less water than any of the historical baseline numbers during
project operations.

Master Response 16. Alternatives
The following Master Responses address comments received on the Alternatives Section of the Draft
EIR.
16-A. Background, Range of Alternatives and No Project Alternative
Background: CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires the consideration of a range of reasonable
alternatives to a proposed project. The purpose of the alternative analysis, according to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(a), is to describe a range of reasonable alternative projects that could feasibly attain most
of the objectives of the proposed project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The
Guidelines further require that the discussion focus on alternatives capable of eliminating significant
adverse impacts of the project or reducing them to a less-than-significant level, even if the alternative
would not fully attain the project objectives or would be more costly.
Range of Alternatives: The range of alternatives evaluated in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason,
which requires the evaluation of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not
consider alternatives that have effects that cannot be reasonably ascertained and/or are remote and
speculative. Alternatives considered must include those that offer substantial environmental advantages
over the proposed project and may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering
economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. In accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines, the alternatives considered in this Recirculated Draft EIR include those that 1) could
accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and 2) could avoid or substantially lessen one or
more of the significant effects of the project.
This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR D-2; RDEIR G-1;
RDEIR L-2; RDEIR M-8; RDEIR N-3-7; RDEIR Q-2; RDEIR U-8; RDEIR BB-3, 45-51. Further, please
refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.
16-B. Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design Alternative
Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design Alternative, involves the consolidation of the two story
structures that incorporated units 1-8 and their associated lower level garage parking into a single two
story 10 unit building. The consolidation also includes the relocation of standalone units 12 and 13 into
the 10 unit building. There are five units on the lower level and five units on the upper level. The
previous garage parking has been removed and is now included as surface parking to the south. Building
size of units 12 and 13 has been reduced resulting in a reduction of total square footage. Project square
footage is also reduced through eliminating the garage structure from units 1-8, 12, and 13. The revised
project alternative reduces the building mass by removing a significant building from the Highway 1
viewshed. The reduced impacts include a reduction in Highway 1 viewshed, water usage, and gross
square footage. The water demand for Alternative 4 would be less than those of the proposed project due
to a proposed storm management system for reuse of stormwater for landscaping.
16-C. No Project Alternative
A number of comments addressed the No Project alternative". The purpose of the No-Project
alternative is to provide a comparison of the environmental impacts that would result if the project were
approved with what would occur if the project were not approved (15126.6(e)(1).). Specific comments
question the No Project Alternative included in the RDEIR. In accordance with CEQA, when the project
is not the revision of an existing plan, policy or ongoing operation (for example, a development project on
identifiable property); the "No Project" Alternative is the circumstance where the project does not
proceed, and the analysis compares the proposed project to the property remaining in its existing state.
This would normally be a "No Build" circumstance, except where the analysis demonstrates that failure to
proceed with the project would result in predictable actions by others, in which case the consequences of
those actions should be discussed. In this case, the property owners retain rights to existing water credits
and have a building permit, which the County has determined, is still valid for the convalescent hospital.
Thus, the no project alternative included analysis of development under this scenario as a predictable
action. It is reasonable that if the project does not proceed, already permitted uses could continue under
existing Cal-Am connections. All existing entitlements to water use and use permits would remain valid.
Historical water use would be available to be continued under existing entitlements and there would not
be an abandonment of use, as is proposed under the proposed project and MPWMD Rule 25.5.

This response is partially or entirely applicable to the following comments: RDEIR D-2; RDEIR G-1;
RDEIR L-2; RDEIR M-8; RDEIR N-3-6, 57; RDEIR Q-2; RDEIR U-8; RDEIR BB-3, 45-51.
16-D. Types of Alternatives
Certain comment letters question the set of alternatives analyzed and suggest that the EIR should consider
a greater range of alternatives, less alternatives, or additional specific alternatives. In response to a
number of comments received on the Draft EIR, additional alternatives were developed and the
Alternatives section was included in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Section 6 of the Recirculated Draft EIR
provides analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project, including a no project alternative, as listed
below:
1. No Project
A. No Project/No Development Alternative
B. No Project/Existing Building Use Alternative
2. Visitor-Serving Alternative
A. Full Buildout Visitor-Serving Alternative
B. Visitor-Serving Alternative/Existing Buildings
3. Existing Zoning Alternative
4. Applicants Modified Design Alternative
5. Reduced Density Alternative
6. Hybrid Residential Alternative: Applicants Modified Design and Reduced Density Combination
7. Hybrid Visitor-Serving Alternative: Applicants Modified Design and Reduced Density
Combination
8. Hybrid Existing and High Density Zoning Alternative
9. Increased Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Units Alternative
10. In-Lieu Fee Affordable Housing Alternative

Certain comment letters on the Recirculated Draft EIR further suggest that the EIR should consider a
greater or lesser range of alternatives or additional specific alternatives not included in the DEIR. The
CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, and that
an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative. However, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The lead agency
is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its
reasoning for selecting those alternatives. With the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, under the
Alternatives Section of each document, each of the selected alternatives is described, evaluated, and
compared to the proposed project. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the alternatives considered
in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR include those that 1) could accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the project and 2) could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of
the project.

The Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR also discuss the alternatives eliminated from the detailed
analysis, again providing a summary explaining why the alternatives were eliminated from further
discussion. In addition, for those alternatives selected for further evaluation, the ability of each
alternative to reduce potential impacts is discussed. The Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR identify
that the alternatives chosen for each analysis were developed to avoid or substantially reduce the
significant impacts associated with the proposed project. The DEIR provides a discussion on the
comparison of the impacts for each alternative and further presents this comparison in a matrix format.
The use of a matrix format is expressly authorized by CEQA Guidelines 15126.6, (d), which statues "a
matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may
be used to summarize the comparison." Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR consists
of a detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of each project alternative, including a
separate discussion of each environmental issue area for each alternative, and provides sufficient
information about each alternative to allow meaningful analysis in comparison with the proposed project.
While an EIR must "include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation,
analysis, and comparison with the proposed project" (See CEQA Guidelines 15126.6, (d)), "[t]he
discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive."
16-E. Discussion of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative
With this analysis, several alternatives would reduce environmental impact as compared to the proposed
project, aside from the No Project Alternatives 1A and 1B. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2)
states: If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also
identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. These alternatives fall into
the categories of Reduced Density Alternatives or Design Alternatives and include the potential
environmentally superior alternatives: Existing Zoning Alternative (3); Reduced Density Alternative (5);
and Hybrid Alternatives (6, and 8). As identified above, CEQA requires that an EIR identify a project
alternative that is environmentally superior and meets most of the basic project objectives. Section
15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives
to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project. Alternatives identified should be capable of eliminating any significant adverse impacts or
reducing them to below a level of significance, even if these alternatives could impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. Although not a reduced density alternative,
Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design reduces the significant unavoidable impact on scenic
resources of Highway 1 while also meeting project objectives.

An environmentally superior alternative, however, does not need to meet all of the project objectives.
Alternative 3, Existing Zoning Alternative, would reduce environmental impacts to the greatest degree
due to reduction in density and impacts. The other reduced density alternatives (5,6 & 8) also reduce
impacts in comparison to the project and lessen the significant unavoidable impacts to scenic resources to
less than significant, and are therefore, environmentally superior to the proposed project. Alternative 4
also reduces the significant unavoidable impacts to scenic resources in comparison to the proposed project
and is therefore environmentally superior to the proposed project.
16-F. Revised Alternative 4 County of Monterey Staff Report Recommendations for LUP
Amendment
Overview: This Final EIR provides information from the County Staff Report regarding the proposed
refinements to the Applicants Modified Design Alternative (Alternative 4). To distinguish the Staff
Recommendation, this refinement to Alternative 4 is referred to as Revised Alternative 4 County Staff
Recommendation within this document.

Revised Alternative 4 County Staff Recommendation is a variation of the RDEIR Alternative 4,
Applicants Modified Design Alternative, with some modifications. The Housing Advisory Committee
recommended the applicants proposal for payment of the in-lieu fee with regard to the proposed project
and the County Staff recommendation follows this approach. The County Staff recommendation proposes
specific language for the HDR land use amendment that is limited to the site, which varies from the
RDEIR Alternative 4, and is more limiting, as discussed below. Also, as presented in Appendix C of this
Final EIR and outlined below in Master Response 16-G, the County Staff Recommendation provide
further specifics to address aesthetic and tree loss mitigations included in the EIR.

Inclusionary Housing Approach: The applicant proposed an alternative to provide the affordable
housing units required by Monterey County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance through payment of an in-
lieu fee to Monterey County, an option available under Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. On July 14, 2010, the Housing Advisory Committee of Monterey County considered the
applicants proposal to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the proposed project through
payment of an in-lieu fee. The Housing Advisory Committee unanimously approved the applicants
proposal for payment of the in-lieu fee with regard to the proposed project; however, final project
approval would be up to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. The Revised Alternative 4 County
Staff Recommendation follows the recommendation of the HAC for the satisfaction of the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance. This approach is consistent with the analysis in the EIR for Alternative 10, In Lieu
Fee for Inclusionary Housing.

LUP Amendment Changes: Throughout the proposed projects EIR process, there have been three
iterations of proposed LUP Amendment language as described below. First, the Draft EIR identified
language proposed for High Density Residential (HDR) per County Staff proposed amendment to the
LUP (page 3-10, DEIR). The language in the DEIR identified the HDR designation as appropriate for a
broad range of higher intensity residential uses (5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing types. Second,
since the DEIR and the RDEIR a proposed alternative to the County HDR LUP amendment was
submitted by the applicant and was considered as part of Alternative 4 in the Recirculated DEIR. Third
was a revision of the original staff amendment language referenced in a staff report for the Subdivision
Committee in February 2011 and included in the Planning Commission May 25, 2011 Workshop
materials (See Appendix C of this Final EIR). This amendment revises the County proposed language, as
identified below. This section identifies each of these LUP amendments for comparison purposes:

1. Proposed Project LUP Amendment in Draft EIR. Per Section 4.9 Land Use and
Planning of the Draft EIR, page 3-10): The proposed language for the LUP
amendment was a component of the proposed project. The language included in the
Draft EIR was developed by staff in Monterey Countys Resource Management Agency,
as follows:
The projects implementation would include approval of a Carmel Area Land Use
Designation Amendment and a Coastal Implementation Plan Zoning Amendment, as
highlighted below:

Carmel Area Land Use Plan Amendment: Change of land use designation from existing
Medium Density Residential to proposed new designation for the area, High Density
Residential.

Coastal Implementation Plan (Zoning Code) Amendment: Rezoning of existing of
MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre to a proposed HDR/12.5 (High
Density Residential/12.5 units per acre) zoning designation in the Coastal Zone.

High Density Residential (HDR): High Density Residential areas are appropriate for a
broad range of higher intensity residential uses (5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing
types. Recreational, public/quasi-public, and other uses are incidental and subordinate to
the residential use and character of the area. High-density use is allowed in accordance
with the site-specific evaluation of resource and public facility constraints, and where
urban services - i.e., public water, sewer, roads, public transit, fire protection, etc. - are
available. New development in these areas is designated at densities to allow a mix of
housing types, including moderate to low income housing, in order to facilitate a
comprehensively planned project. Direct access from Highway One shall not be allowed
where alternative access is possible.

The project parcel is located in the Hatton Fields area of the Carmel Area Land Use
Plan. This area is residential in character. The property is made up of three legal lots of
record and abuts the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea boundary to the north, west, and south
and Highway 1 on the east. Within the city limits, single-family dwellings surround the
project parcel. An apartment complex is west of the project parcel, located within the
unincorporated County area. Parcels in this area average from 3,000 square feet to
approximately one quarter of an acre. The Hatton Fields area has generally been
developed to the extent that the natural environment has been significantly altered and
that the residential use is perceived as the primary use of the land. The size, density, and
character of this residential area vary; capacity is available to accommodate additional
residential demand. Infilling of development is encouraged. In general, this area has
adequate public services and facilities and has ready access to important commercial
services located in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or at the mouth of Carmel Valley.
Although there is currently no high density zoning in the Carmel Area Land Use
Planning area, Figure 4.9-1 presents the proposed project within the existing
surrounding neighborhood, and demonstrates that the proposed density of the project is
not substantially inconsistent with its surrounding area.

The Draft and RDEIR also noted that the proposed project requires exceptions to the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance because the project does not comply with provision of adequate levels of inclusionary
housing per the ordinance.

2. Applicant Proposed Project LUP Amendment: The applicant submitted proposed text
amendments as a comment letter on the Draft EIR and to the County of Monterey in
correspondence after the project was submitted. Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives,
presented and analyzed the applicants submitted LUP text under Alternative 4, the Applicants
Modified Design Alternative. The applicant proposed language to the County suggesting
designating the project site as a Special Treatment Zone in the Carmel Area LUP and proposed a
landscape berm along Highway 1. Since the submittal of the language, the applicants have stated
that they no longer propose a landscape berm and will utilize a landscaping plan with mature trees
and landscaping to screen the development from Highway 1. The applicants language was
presented in the in the RDEIR shows the specific amendments to the adopted current language of
the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Proposed text amendments are presented as underlined text
below:
2.2.4 Specific Policies
6. The existing forested corridor along Highway 1 shall be maintained as a scenic
resource and natural screen for existing and new development. New development along
Highway 1 shall be sufficiently set back to preserve the forested corridor effect and
minimize visual impact. All new development on the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site
shall include a landscape berm to screen the development from Highway 1.
Policy 4.4.3.E.15
The 3.68-acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property may be developed for residential
use. A maximum of 46 units may be approved. The units shall be screened from
Highway 1 through implementation of a landscape plan, which includes a landscape
berm along Highway 1.
Policy 4.4.3.E.2
E. Residential
2. Medium-density residential development shall be directed to existing residential
areas where urban services water, sewers, roads, public transit fire protection, etc.
are available. The density for new subdivision is two units per acre except for the
Portola Corporation property in Carmel Meadows and the Carmel Convalescent
Hospital property adjacent to Highway 1.
F. Special Treatment
The Special Treatment overlay is intended to be used in conjunction with the
underlying land use designation. Its purpose is to facilitate a comprehensive planned
approach for specifically designated properties where a mix of uses are permitted and/or
where there are unique natural and scenic resources of significant recreational/visitor-
serving opportunities. Particular attention is to be given towards siting and planning
development to be compatible with existing resources and adjacent land uses. Properties
designated for Special Treatment are shown on the map following the proposed land
use map. These are the Mission Ranch property, the Odello property, the frontal slopes
of Palo Corona Ranch comprising of 388 acres, the Sawyer property consisting of 466
acres, the Point Lobos Ranch which covers roughly 1,600 acres, and the 3.68 acre
Carmel Convalescent Hospital property. Policies governing the type and intensity of
uses and the location of development for each property are contained in the preceding
sections of this chapter, but are provided in greater detail as follows:
4.4.3.F.6 CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL SITE
The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property may be developed for residential
use. A maximum of 46 units may be approved. The units shall be screened from
Highway 1 through implementation of a landscape plan, which includes a landscape
berm along Highway 1.
Policy 4.5.H
H. Medium/High Density Residential
Medium-density residential development is the primary use. The density for new
subdivision is 2 units per acre, except on the Mission Ranch property where a density of
4 units per acre may be allowed subject to section 4.4.3.F.1 and, Odello (162 units)
subject to section 4.4.3.F.4 and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site where (46)
residential units are allowed. Minimal parcel size will be determined upon application
review. The designation is applied to the City of Carmel vicinity and the Carmel
Meadows. Public/quasi-public uses (5.5.1) and densities of overnight accommodations
currently in operation are permitted.

3. Revised LUP Amendment from Monterey County, 2011: In preparation of the proposed
projects staff report for submittal to Monterey County discretionary bodies, modified language
was proposed by Monterey County Staff. The full text of the draft amendment is located in
Appendix C of this Final EIR. The following is a summary of the proposed amendment:

The Local Coastal Program (LCP) applicable to this project consists of the Carmel
Area Land Use Plan (LUP), Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and
Part 1 of the Coastal Implementation Plan (Title 20 Zoning Ordinance). The project site
is currently designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and zoned for Medium
Density Residential, 2 units per acre in a design control overlay district in the Coastal
Zone (MDR/2-D (CZ)). Development of the proposed project requires amendment of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP) to amend the:
1) Carmel Area Land Use Plan to include High Density Residential (HDR)
designation. The HDR designation limits the density from a previous proposal that was
up to 20 units/acre to a maximum of 12.5 units/acre and defines the location of the HDR
to be where urban services - i.e., public water, sewer, roads, public transit, fire
protection, etc. - are available.
2) Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) to add the zoning designation
category of High Density Residential District to the CIP.
3) Land Use Map from the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density
Residential/2 units per acre) to HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre).

The revised language for the LUP Amendment would limit the density to 12.5 units/acre and define the
location of the HDR to be specifically, only where urban services (i.e., public water, sewer, roads, public
transit, fire protection, etc.) are available. This language specifies the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site
and states HDR is limited to the site where up to 46 residential units are allowed.

Provided below is a brief comparison of the three versions of the proposed LUP Amendment.

AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY DENSITY
ALLOWED
AREA WIDE or APPLICABLE
TO LIMITED AREA
1--Initial Amendment Language in
Draft EIR

County

5-20
units/acre
Area wide only limited by
specific parameters in the
text of site characteristics
2--Applicant Proposed Language in
RDEIR (Alternative 4)

Applicant

12.5
Limited to site, by special
treatment zoning language
units/acre
3Staff Revision LUP Amendment
January 2011
County 12.5
units/acre
Limited to site, by specific
LUP language proposed

Per the 2011 Staff Recommendation, the LUP Amendment #3 above is the proposed language
recommended by the County Staff in Revised Alternative 4. County of Monterey Staff Report
Recommendations discussed below.

The County proposed language specifies the property itself, as does the language proposed by the
Applicant above, thereby limiting the density to the site. However, it should be noted that the request for
a Land Use Plan amendment and potential approval of HDR designation for all alternative land use plan
amendments above does not involve any other specific property but the proposed project. As noted in the
Recirculated Draft EIR, pages R5-1 -24, any future land use plan amendment or proposed project will be
subject to an environmental analysis to be conducted at the time a specific amendment or project is
defined. Implementation of the Land Use Plan policies and in particular, the proposed language of the
HDR designation, which is limiting in the applicability of the HDR zoning, would provide mitigation at
this plan amendment level.

16-G. Discussion of Revised Alternative 4 County of Monterey Staff Report
Recommendation
County of Monterey Staff suggestions and recommendations to refine the Applicants Modified Design
Alternative (Alternative 4) are referred to as Revised Alternative 4 County Staff Recommendation
18
.
As noted in the Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated EIR Section 6.0, information on the County staff
recommendation and refinements to the Applicants Modified Design Alternative (Alternative 4), is
included in Appendix C of this Final EIR.

The Revised Alternative 4 County Staff Recommendation is generally consistent with the RDEIR
Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design Alternative. The primary difference between the proposed
project site plan originally analyzed by the EIR and the alternate site plans (RDEIR Alternative 4 and the
Staff Recommendation) is the location and configuration of the row of buildings closest to State Route 1
(SR1) in the northeast corner of the project site. The original design incorporated two closely spaced
buildings that stretched across nearly the entire SR1 frontage of the project. The alternate plan
incorporates a single multi-floor building that includes 10 living units (Units 1-8, 12 and 13). The County
Staff Recommendation is a variation of this RDEIR Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design
Alternative, with some modifications. The Housing Advisory Committee recommended the applicants
proposal for payment of the in-lieu fee with regard to the proposed project and the County Staff
recommendation follows this approach. The County Staff recommendation also proposes specific
language for the HDR land use amendment that is more limiting and specific to the project site, which
varies from the RDEIR Alternative 4 as discussed in Master Response 16-F, above. In addition, as
presented in Appendix C of this Final EIR, the County Staff Recommendation further addresses aesthetic
and tree loss mitigations.

The following is an excerpt from the County Staff Report for the Planning Commission Workshop of
May 25, 2011, discussing the refinements to the Applicants Modified Design Alternative 4:

18
Please refer to FEIR Appendix C, Staff Modifications to Alternative 4, for a description of Revised Alternative 4
and the County staff report for Planning Commission Workshop May 25, 2011 for the full staff report and exhibits.
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/cca/pc/2011/052511/SRpc_PLN070497_EXHIBITS_052511.pdf
With the RDEIR, Applicants Modified Design Alternative (Alternative 4) was introduced with a
primary focus to reduce aesthetic impacts along Highway 1. Staff is recommending this alternative, with
recommended changes, because it includes the avoidance of the scenic resources significant impact by:
- Removing two large buildings of the proposed projects design from public view off
Highway 1,
- Retaining the healthy, mature trees between the property line and Highway 1 which provide
substantial screening along Highway 1 and the parcel,
- Revising the site design for Units #30 through #33 to utilize the existing road, thereby
reducing grading amounts and reducing tree removal along the property line and near the
hospital, and
- Reducing or eliminating the retaining wall previously proposed along the road.

The Staff Recommendation specifies the retention of the trees along Highway 1, removing the two
buildings and elimination or reduction of the retaining wall. These are consistent with mitigation in this
EIR. Additionally, the Staff Recommendation requires revisions to the internal site design for Units #30
to #33 to reduce tree loss in this eastern portion of the site. Refer to Appendix C of this document for an
overview of this recommendation and a general discussion of the impacts of Revised Alternative 4
County Staff Recommendation compared to the proposed project. Overall, impacts and reduction of
impacts under the Staff refinements are consistent with the analysis contained in the EIR for Alternative
4, Applicants Modified Design Alternative.
4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIR

Letter A: Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Letter #1 ...................... 5
Letter B: Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Letter #2 ...................... 7
Letter C: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) ................................................................ 9
Letter D: California Coastal Commission ........................................................................................... 17
Letter E: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ............................................................ 22
Letter F: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Planning Department ............................................................... 27
Letter G: Monterey County Water Resources Agency ........................................................................ 33
Letter H: Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District ......................................................... 40
Letter I: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Letter #1 ................................................ 45
Letter J: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Letter #2 ................................................ 50
Letter K: Dr. Lois J. Roberts, Letter #1 .............................................................................................. 53
Letter L: Anne E. Crawford, Letter #1 ................................................................................................ 55
Letter M: Otto and Grete Heinz ........................................................................................................... 58
Letter N: The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula .................................................. 63
Letter O: Frank and Marguerite Primrose ........................................................................................... 68
Letter P: L. A. Patterson ..................................................................................................................... 73
Letter Q: Land Watch, Monterey County ............................................................................................ 77
Letter R: Karen M.Crossman .............................................................................................................. 81
Letter S: Mark McDonald and Patricia Watson .................................................................................. 84
Letter T: The Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter ....................................................................................... 89
Letter U: Genecia Johnson .................................................................................................................. 93
Letter V: Lois Layton .......................................................................................................................... 95
Letter W: Dave and Melissa Loose ...................................................................................................... 98
Letter X: Cheryl J. Moreland ............................................................................................................. 100
Letter Y: Karen Wallin ...................................................................................................................... 102
Letter Z: Timothy D. Sanders ........................................................................................................... 105
Letter AA: Aaron Barnes ...................................................................................................................... 107
Letter BB: Mark Bayne ........................................................................................................................ 110
Letter CC: Beverly Borgman ............................................................................................................... 114
Letter DD: C. A. Chapman-Barnes ...................................................................................................... 116
Letter EE: California Native Plant Society .......................................................................................... 118
Letter FF: Carmel Residents Association ............................................................................................ 121
Letter GG: Anne E. Crawford #2 ......................................................................................................... 123
Letter HH: Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Letter #1 .................................................................... 151
Letter II: Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #2................................................................................ 173
Letter JJ: Robert W. and Elaine S. Ewen ........................................................................................... 177
Letter KK: Nelson French .................................................................................................................... 180
Letter LL: Pamela Gillooly .................................................................................................................. 183
Letter MM: Bonnie Gillooly .................................................................................................................. 186
Letter NN: Myrna Clark Hampton ....................................................................................................... 191
Letter OO: Jane Hirsch ......................................................................................................................... 196
Letter PP: Wayne E. Iversen ............................................................................................................... 204
Letter QQ: Kathleen Keatinge Karachale ............................................................................................. 208
Letter RR: Barry D. Kohler .................................................................................................................. 211
Letter SS: Michael LePage .................................................................................................................. 215
Letter TT: Dr. Mary Virginia McQuade .............................................................................................. 219
Letter UU: Tony and Chantal Melendez .............................................................................................. 224
Letter VV: Derinda L. Messenger & Associates .................................................................................. 236
Letter WW: Herschel Peak ..................................................................................................................... 240
4.0 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Letter XX: Dr. Lois J. Roberts, Letter #2 ............................................................................................. 243
Letter YY: Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition ....................................................................... 263
Letter ZZ: Kelly Steele ........................................................................................................................ 277
Letter AAA: Carol Stollorz ..................................................................................................................... 281
Letter BBB: Richard and Barbara Warren .............................................................................................. 285
Letter CCC: Yoko Whitaker ................................................................................................................... 290
Letter DDD: The Widewaters Group, Inc. .............................................................................................. 297
Letter EEE: High Meadows Neighborhood Association ....................................................................... 302
Letter FFF: Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp, Letter #3 .................................................................... 321
Letter GGG: Joyce Stevens ..................................................................................................................... 325
Letter HHH: Monterey County Public Works Transportation Section ................................................... 327

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR. A list of the comment letters
is presented in Section 2.2, and copies of each of the comment letters are included in this section, with
responses to each comment provided following the letter.

4.2 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Each letter received on the Draft EIR, as identified in Section 2.2 above, is presented in this section. The
individual comments within each letter are numbered, and numbered responses to each of the
corresponding numbered comments are provided immediately following each comment letter. In those
instances in which a comment states an agency position or opinion and does not comment on issues
relevant to the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the sentence "The comment is
acknowledged" is provided. If the comment is directed at Monterey County regarding the decision on the
project, the sentence "The comment is referred to the decision-makers for their consideration" is
provided; typically, these comments do not raise issues relevant to the environmental analysis. Where the
response notes an addition or deletion to the text, tables, or figures in the Draft EIR, the reader is directed
to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR. When an individual comment
raises an issue discussed in a Master Response, the response to the individual comment includes a cross-
reference to the appropriate Master Response.

Letter A
A-1
Letter A OPR #1

DRAFT LETTER A: GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE, LETTER #1
A-1: The letter states the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected state agencies for
review, and no state agencies submitted comments during the public review period. This letter
acknowledges that Monterey County has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements as
required pursuant to CEQA. No response is required.

Letter B
B-1
DRAFT EIR LETTER B: GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE
B-1: The letter states the State Clearinghouse received a letter from the California Coastal Commission
after the close of the public review period. The California Coastal Commission comments are addressed
below under Letter D. No further response is required.

Letter C
C-1
DRAFT EIR LETTER C: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (CDFG)
C-1: DD&A concurs that an assumed avian nesting period of February 1 August 31 is appropriate for
the Villas de Carmelo project site, and Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 has been revised to clarify that no-
disturbance buffers will be placed around any active nest. In addition, the caveat referencing
depredation permits has been removed. For revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.4-5, please refer to Section
6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

Letter D
D-1
D-2
D-2
cont.
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-10
cont.
D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
D-17
cont.
D-18
D-19
D-20
D-21
DRAFT EIR LETTER D: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
D-1: The California Coastal Commissions position regarding the Draft EIR is noted. Individual
responses are addressed below. A Recirculated Draft EIR was completed and circulated for public review
in August/September 2010 which included revised traffic, utilities, CEQA considerations, and alternative
sections.

D-2: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,
Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Monterey County has
determined that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated
Draft EIR for the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated
Draft, for individual comments concerning water-related impacts.

D-3 through D-7: The entire Utilities Section was recirculated in the Recirculated Draft EIR. The
RDEIR included revised traffic, utilities, CEQA considerations, and alternative sections. Please refer to
Response to Comment D-2 and the Master Responses 15, Utilities, regarding water-related responses.
Also refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual responses
concerning water-related comments on the RDEIR Utilities section.

D-8: Please see Master Response to Comment 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C for discussion regarding the
determination of significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts. In order to minimize impacts, the
landscaping plan details required by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 ensures that mature vegetation will be
planted along the Highway 1 corridor, which would provide for an immediate natural screen for the
existing and new development. The project would still alter the Highway 1 scenic corridor; therefore, the
impacts to the scenic corridor were identified as significant and unavoidable. Impacts to the visual
character of the site are considered mitigated to less-than-significant by mitigation (Measure 4.1-1)
including the planting and maintenance of the mature vegetation screening along the borders of the
project. Due to the temporal nature of the impact prior to planting, the EIR found that the landscaping
and replanting plan would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level during project operations.
Also, the requirement to replant 148 trees on the property would replace the majority of the trees
proposed for removal. As is shown on Draft EIR page 4.1-4A through 4.1-4D, the main concentration of
vegetation proposed by the landscaping plan will be located along the borders of the property, specifically
along Highway 1 and Valley Way, which would minimize the visibility of the proposed projects as
identified in the post-project photomontages. Per the Carmel Area LUP, this would reduce impacts to the
forested corridor effect along the Highway 1 border.

Historic landscaping does not include the 213 trees on the property site. The natural element included in
the historic resource is the landmark oak tree located directly south of the main hospital building. The
remaining historic landscaping is the hardscape elements immediately surrounding the main historic
structures and the stone entrance walls on Valley Way. For discussions relating to the historical resource
on the project site, its character-defining elements, and the protection and rehabilitation measures
required, please see Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources.

D-9: The detail available at the time of the Draft EIR completion was sufficient to determine the impacts
related to visual impacts under CEQA. As shown on page 4.1-24 through 4.1-27 of the Draft EIR,
Figures 4.1-3A through 4.1-3L show the proposed landscaping plan with species lists, renderings of the
Highway 1 Corridor and Valley Way portion of the landscaping plan. Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-
2 are not deferring mitigation to a later stage. They serve to require greater detail and constraints for the
landscaping plan, as well as detailing the procedures, standards and work required by the replanting plan
for both aesthetic and biological reasons. As is shown on Draft EIR page 4.1-4A through 4.1-4D, the
main concentration of vegetation proposed by the landscaping plan will be located along the borders of
the property, specifically along Highway 1 and Valley Way, which would minimize the visibility of the
proposed projects as identified in the post-project photomontages. Per the Carmel Area LUP, this would
reduce impacts to the forested corridor effect along the Highway 1 border. Mitigation requires tree
planting in the area along the Highway must be of suitable caliper and height, as approved by the
Consulting Arborist, to produce an immediate and long-term visual impact. The potential impacts of
proposed tree removal and replanting have been considered in the Draft EIR. For the details regarding
tree removal, including which trees are proposed for removal and how many trees would be removed,
please see Draft EIR section 4.4 Biological Resources and the Forest Management Plan, Appendix D-4 of
the Draft EIR.

Please see Master Response to Comment 3-E Height Restriction Mitigation requiring a 28-foot building
height on Highway 1 and additional specific mitigation language to reduce visual impacts. The EIR found
the construction of the two buildings along Highway 1 would affect views from Highway 1 looking west
towards the project site, and proposed both landscaping and enforcement of a height limit of 28 feet for
buildings bordering the Highway, (Mitigation Measure 4.1-3). The EIR fully evaluated the implications
of the proposed project and building height along Highway 1. Mitigation and County conditions will also
be applied to ensure enforcement of height restrictions and design requirements. As noted above, the
level of impact remains significant unavoidable even with the mitigation measure revisions and additions
due to the concern of massing of the two buildings along Highway 1.

D-10: Please refer to Master Response 3-G regarding light and glare analysis.

D-11: For responses regarding the reference to Figure 4.1-4A and/or a sound wall, please see Master
Response to Comment 11-C and Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

Draft, for individual comments concerning traffic-related impacts.

D-13: The comment contends that project related infrastructure improvements, in addition to the buildout
of the project site, would visually transform the character of the surrounding area. The comment also
contends that development of the proposed project, including infrastructure improvements, would be
inconsistent with visual resource policies contained in the LCP, which are designed to protect visually
sensitive areas, particularly the Highway 1 Corridor. Moreover, this comment also contends that the
proposed projects visual impacts may be used to justify other higher density developments in the Carmel
area.

The physical development of the proposed project would visually alter the existing character of the
project site and surrounding area as the result of the introduction of new buildings, infrastructure, and tree
removal. The Draft EIR, as modified, clearly identifies that the proposed project would result in
aesthetic-related impacts, and mitigation measures have been identified to minimize the extent of these
impacts commensurate with the level of impacts associated with the proposed project. Although the
proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetic-related impact, the analysis
contained in the Draft EIR determined that the proposed project, as mitigated, would be generally
consistent with applicable viewshed policies contained in the Carmel Area LUP. Please refer to Master
Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E for further discussion. In response to comments received on the
Draft EIR, revisions have been incorporated to clarify and amplify the existing analysis contained in the
Draft EIR, please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for more
information.

The commenters contention that the proposed projects visual impacts may be used to justify other high
density developments within the Carmel area is factually wrong and inconsistent with the requirements of
CEQA. In the event that future high-density developments are proposed within the Carmel Area LUP, the
environmental impacts and merits of that future project will be evaluated at that time, as required by
CEQA. While the proposed project would create a new residential land use designation (HDR), it is
speculation that the proposed project would be used as justification for additional HDR development.
Nevertheless, any future development would be subject to CEQA review, Coastal Commission review,
and Monterey County review. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR is specific to the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed project, including the proposed Carmel Area LUP amendment and
site-specific re-zoning to HDR/12.5. The Draft EIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the
proposed project, and no further response is necessary.

D-14: Please refer to Master Response Comment 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E for a response to this comment.
Please also refer to Section 5.0, Recirculated Draft EIR and Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR, for an evaluation of the proposed projects consistency with the applicable
policies contained in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

D-15: Please refer to Master Response Comment 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E for a response to this comment.
Please also refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for an evaluation of
the proposed projects consistency with the applicable policies contained in Chapter 3 of the California
Coastal Act.

D-16: This comment contends that the proposed project would conflict with numerous policies contained
in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act that are intended : 1) to protect scenic areas; 2) water supplies; 3) coastal
habitats; 4) ensure adequate public services are available to serve the proposed development; and 5)
reserve development for priority visitor-serving and coastal-dependent uses. For a response regarding the
proposed projects consistency with applicable Carmel Area LUP policies please refer to Master
Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E; please also see Section 5.0, Recirculated Draft EIR. The Draft
and Recirculated Draft EIR evaluate the proposed projects consistency with the Carmel Area LUP and
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, for more
information. Although the proposed project would create an entirely new type of land use classification
in the Carmel Area LUP, the proposed LUP amendment and site-specific rezoning are generally
considered consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, as well as the existing, surrounding
neighborhood. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Draft EIR, as amended, which
ensure that the project will be consistent with applicable Coastal Act requirements and the LUP in
general. Please refer to Master Response Comment 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E for further information
regarding LUP consistency.

D-17: Comment acknowledged. Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the
Summary, Traffic and Circulation, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative
sections. The additional alternatives analyzed in the recirculated section include a Visitor Serving with
Existing Buildings Alternative, a Hybrid Visitor Serving Alternative, and a Hybrid Residential
Alternative. Monterey County has determined that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for
this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please refer to Section
5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning alternative-
related discussion.

D-18: Please refer to Master Response Comment 10-D and 10-E for a response to this comment. Also,
revisions have been incorporated to clarify that the standard of review for projects in the coastal zone is
the applicable LCP, not the General Plan; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR.

D-19: Comment acknowledged. Figure 3-3 has been revised and included in Section 6.0, Revisions to
the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

Draft, for individual comments concerning water-related impacts. Also, please refer to Master Responses
10-C, 10-D, and 10-E for discussions regarding land use consistency.

D-21: According to Appendix 13, Local Coastal Plan Amendment Procedures, Part 6 of the Coastal
Implementation Plan, the amendment language has to be approved by the decision making bodies, in this
case the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, which then makes the recommendation to the Coastal
Commission for approval. Once the amendments are certified, the Board of Supervisors must then adopt
the amendments prior to any action being taken to implement the physical elements of the project. This
comment is forwarded to decision-makers for further considerations as part of the deliberative process.
No further response is necessary.

Letter E
E-1
E-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER E: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
E-1: Comment acknowledged. The project design plans include the closure of the Highway 1 access
from the project site, as previously requested by Caltrans.

E-2: Comment acknowledged. Page 3-12 of the Draft EIR includes the Caltrans encroachment permit as
a requirement for the proposed project. The applicant is directed to consult with Caltrans regarding
encroachment permit requirements.
Letter F
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
F-9
F-10
F-11
F-12
F-13
F-14
F-15
DRAFT EIR LETTER F: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
F-1: Comment acknowledged. No further response is required.

F-2: The Forest Management Plan (FMP) submitted by Forest City Consulting (August 28, 2008)
presents photographic evidence that the majority of mature Monterey Pines on the site were planted after
the development of the hospital. This occurred primarily within islands of the constructed parking lot and
landscaping. There is no evidence as to the progeny of these trees (whether they came from a local seed
source); however, they clearly appear post construction and follow a logical planting plan. Therefore, it
may be inferred that they are not native (having occurred naturally) on the site. Although some of the
larger trees may fit the definition of significance in 20.146.040(B) as far as size (page 17-18 of Appendix
D-4 of the Draft EIR), an exemption for removal is provided within the development standards for those
trees that are not also visually or historically significant and cannot be avoided in the development, which
is the case here. During the course of preparation and review, the plan has been modified to preserve
visually and historically significant trees in other areas outside the parking lot. Tree #1822 and Tree
#1939 are examples of trees that are both visually and historically significant for which extensive building
plan alterations were made. Tree # 1802 is visually significant and planned for retention. Mitigation
proposed for preserving trees in the Highway 1 corridor is also provided. Additionally, aesthetic
mitigations (Mitigation Measure 4.1-4) require trees to be retained that provide visual screening from
Highway 1.

F-3: The visual simulations were completed by certified architects, based on the proposed landscape and
replanting plan. Please see Master Response Comment 3-B and 3-C, which discuss the results of the
visual assessment, the accuracy of the visual simulations, and the application of thresholds of significance
and the potential impacts to the Scenic Highway. The landscaping and Replanting plan incorporate
specific success criteria, which would ensure that the specific screening goals are met along Highway 1.

F-4: The commenter refers to the stated Impact on page 4.5-26 of the Cultural Resources section in the
Draft EIR that states, Development of the project and the resulting rehabilitation and renovation of the
two historical resources on the project site would cause a substantial, adverse change to a historical
structure eligible for listing in the California Register on the site. This represents a potentially significant
impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following
mitigation measures. Taken out of the context provided by the previous analysis and the sentence
following the statement, the first sentence may cause some confusion as to the actual significance
determination in relation to the impacts to the historical structure on the project site.

As discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 4.5-24 and 4.5-25 under the headings Historical Integrity,
Modifications to Past Additions, Modifications to the Historic Resource, and Main Hospital Building
Modifications, the analysis shows that impacts to the historical resource would be considered less-than-
significant with the proposed mitigation measures. Given the apparent confusion, the text has been
revised for clarification purposes to read that the proposed action would have the potential to cause a
substantial, adverse change to a historic structure The Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR text have been revised accordingly in Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

F-5: Comment noted. Individual standards mentioned by the commenter are addressed below in
Comments F-6 through F-9. The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR defers a determination of
consistency with the SOIs Standards to a future time. However, the consistency of the project with these
standards is not deferred. The Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 requires that the standards will be implemented.
By requiring mitigation that implements the standards and details how the SOIs Standards will be
applied to the project, specifically Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, in addition to compliance verification by
both a qualified professional and Monterey County, all applicable standards set forth in these documents
will be implemented and verified. The implementation of the SOIs Standards on the project is not
anticipated to create design change requirements during the final design phase that would be infeasible for
the project. As stated on page 4.5-26 of the Draft EIR, no new significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of implementing the mitigation measures, which includes rehabilitation of the historical resources
according to the SOIs Standards.

F-6: On page 4.5-13 of the Draft EIR, the single historical resource is identified as the two original
portions of the historic buildings that have not been structurally altered, the stone landscaping, and the
landmark oak tree, all of which are located immediately surrounding the original hospital structures, with
the exception of the stone entrance walls, which are located on Valley Way. These features are all
contributing elements of the historical resource on the project site. Further evaluation of the other
building and the remainder of the project site demonstrated that the other elements have lost historic
integrity and are not contributing features of the historical resource. The sense of openness and the
historical resources relationship with its surroundings that the commenter mentions are not character-
defining aspects of the historical resource because most of the hospital gardens and hardscape were
removed and paved over long ago and have no historic integrity. Non-contributing elements of the
resource are not under the purview of the SOIs Standards. Further, the SOIs Standards encourage the
use of similar, yet distinguishable materials and architectural styles to complement the historical
resource and to ensure that changes and/or repairs to the historical resources are easily identifiable. By
applying this similar yet distinguishable requirement to the remainder of the property, the new
structures will complement the historical resource, while still allowing the original elements to be easily
distinguishable. The design components available at the time of analysis for the Draft EIR follow this
principle. Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 has been revised to further ensure that the new constructions
architectural elements include the same stylistic elements as the historical resource and are
distinguishable from the original historic structures. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR for the specific text additions.

F-7: As proposed, the new structures would not be in conflict with the Spanish Eclectic architectural
style utilized in the historical resource. While the new structures would retain the same stylistic
vocabulary as the historic structure, the new construction would be easily distinguished from the
historical resource because, among other things, modern construction methods would be used. Further,
Mitigation Measure 4.5-8 would create interpretive exhibits for public education and clearly identify the
elements of the historical resource. As such, the addition of new structures on the project site would not
create a false sense of historic development and the project would be in compliance with the SOIs
Standards. To further ensure that these elements are implemented, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1A has been
added to the Draft EIR. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the
additional text.

F-8: As identified in the Draft EIR Impact analysis, the stone terracing and landscaping surrounding the
main hospital buildings are severely degraded and require rehabilitation for safety reasons. These
elements, as they currently exist, do not meet current health and safety codes required for residential use.
As such, the project proposes the rehabilitation of these elements, several of which need to be
reconfigured to comply with the aforementioned codes. As stated on page 4.5-16 of the Draft EIR, the
Cultural analysis and subsequent Draft EIR section was based on the understanding that the following
actions would be considered as part of the project:

The existing stonewalls at both historic locations are in poor condition; therefore portions would
be removed and rebuilt in their present locations in a format compatible with the new uses. The
original stone would be used in the new retaining walls.
The existing stone staircases would be relocated to meet health and safety codes, making them
more accessible, and accommodating the new entrance to the eastern portion of the north wing.
The parking garage would require the removal of the stone terracing and fountain during
excavation and construction. The fountain will be temporarily removed during construction,
protected and repaired, and then placed back in its original location and setting once the terraced
area has been reconstructed. The existing flagstone pavers in the patio will be removed and new
like-kind pavers will be installed. The old pavers will be saved and reused in other areas of
landscaping on the property.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that the modifications proposed to the historic stone landscaping would be
done to reduce safety hazards and the current materials and locations would be used, except the
replacement of the flagstone pavers in the patio near the fountain and the relocation of the existing
stairwells on the northern wing of the main hospital building. As stated above, and as required by
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-5, the modification to the historic stone-terracing and the
fountain are required for safety reasons. These actions would be documented and the original materials or
like-kind materials will be used; therefore, the modifications would meet SOIs Standards.

Further, the letter from JRP Historical Consulting, LLC, included as Appendix F2 of the Draft EIR,
specifically addresses the proposed alteration and re-use of the stone masonry retaining walls to the south
elevation of the north wing. The historical consultant determined that the proposed Mitigation Measures
4.5-1 through 4.5-8 would reduce the impacts to the historical resource to a less-than-significant level.
These mitigation measures require compliance with the SOIs Standards; the preparation of a site-specific
Preservation Monitoring Plan; compliance with professional qualification standards; mitigation
monitoring and reporting; consultation with interested parties; application of protective measures before,
during, and after construction; repair of inadvertent damage; recordation of the property to Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards; and videography of the interior and exterior of the main
hospital building prior to initial project construction. As such, DD&A does not concur that the project
would conflict with the mentioned standard.

F-9: The mentioned standard specifically states that new work shall be differentiated from the old and
be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of
the property and its environment. Most of the project site is not a contributing component of the
historical resource, and applying the similar yet distinguishable principle to the proposed structures
would maintain the required visible distinction from the contributing elements of the historical resource.
The proposed new structures would have similar architectural features to the historical resource as
directed by the mentioned standard. The addition of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1A would specifically
require that the architectural styles of the new construction follow the similar, yet distinguishable
principle to ensure that new construction would not adversely impact the character of the historical
resource, nor conflict with the mentioned standard. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 4.5-8 require the
creation of interpretive exhibits, which would clearly distinguish between the historic and non-historic
features of the project site.

F-10: Comment acknowledged. Text has been added to the setting information of Draft EIR Section 4.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, that identifies Carmel Bay as a designated Area of Special Biological
Significance (ASBS). Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for
added text.

F-11: This comment identifies that the proposed project is located within the City of Carmel-by-the-Seas
Sphere of Influence (SOI). This comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with City of
Carmels General Plan policies related to the continuation of existing low intensity development. The
proposed project is located within the City of Carmel-by-the-Seas SOI as identified in the Draft EIR.
Although the proposed project site is located within the Citys SOI, the site is currently within the
unincorporated area of the County of Monterey and the standard for review is the Carmel Area LUP, not
the City of Carmel General Plan. Carmel is recognized as a highly scenic area and the City has adopted
development standards and design review processes to maintain its scenic qualities. These City-adopted
requirements include limits on height, setbacks, and floor area, effects of light and glare and protection of
historic resources. Future development under County jurisdiction does not include the specified policies
or standards of the City, but the development is subject to Coastal Plan and mitigation requirements for
preservation of trees and additional planting, screening of new buildings and measures to mitigate impacts
from light and glare. Although future development under the City is no longer proposed, the density
proposed for the project under the County jurisdiction is 12.5 units per acre. City zoning surrounding the
site includes Carmel-by-the-Sea property to the west of the site at 11 units per acre. Additionally, the
existing site conditions are currently inconsistent with surrounding residential development. The existing
buildings are large and much of the open space in front of the main building is paved. These are not
characteristics common in the surrounding residential area.

F-12: This comment remarked that the project site is located within an area considered to be a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone and that a mitigation measure should be included within the Draft EIR
requiring new construction to be consistent with Chapter 7A of the State Building Code. The following
Mitigation Measure 4.12-1A has been included within Draft EIR Section 4-12, Public Services, reflecting
this requirement. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the
revised text.

F-13: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,


Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. The additional
alternatives analyzed in the recirculated section include a Visitor Serving with Existing Buildings
Alternative, a Hybrid Visitor Serving Alternative, and a Hybrid Residential Alternative. Monterey
County has determined that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be
addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and
Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning alternative-related discussion.

Letter G
G-1
G-2
G-3

DRAFT EIR LETTER G: MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
G-1 through G-3: The text has been revised as requested. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text.

Letter H
H-5
H-4
H-3
H-2
H-1
H-9
H-8
H-7
H-6
H-5
cont.

DRAFT EIR LETTER H: MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
H-1: The comment questions the use of 3.15 persons per household (versus the default of 2.861)
assumption in the Urbemis air quality model. The quantity of 3.15 persons per household was based upon
the 2008 Department of Finance average for persons per household unit for Monterey County, which is
consistent with the population and housing analysis in the Draft EIR. Use of the lower Urbemis default
value results in higher emissions of some area source pollutants; therefore, the assumption used for this
analysis represents a worst-case scenario, which still resulted in less-than-significant air quality impacts.

H-2: The comment questions the use of 5.86 trips per unit per day in the Urbemis air quality model
(applicable to the condo/townhouse component of the project). The project-specific trip rate was
developed by the traffic consultant and is, therefore, consistent with the analysis in the traffic section of
the Draft EIR, as is encouraged when using Urbemis. As noted in the traffic analysis, standard ITE trip
generation (ITE, 2003) rates were used for the analysis. ITE does not differentiate between market rate
condominiums and affordable housing units or workforce housing units, although public transit is more
likely to be used by affordable and workforce housing units. This study used the ITE trip generation rates
for the Residential Condominium/Townhouse land use for the market rate condominiums, affordable
housing units, and workforce housing units; therefore, project trip generation figures are conservative and
are likely to be lower. Also refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B.

H-3: The commenter questions the project completion year as assumed in the air quality analysis. The
air quality analysis was completed in October 2008; at that time, the completion year was assumed to be
2010. Subsequently, the year of completion was modified to 2011. Because the new project completion
will occur later rather than sooner, the air quality analysis assumption results in a conservatively higher
emission estimate because with each additional year, emission standards become more stringent and
older, higher emitting vehicles will be off the road. In addition, more stringent regulatory standards will
exist covering all project construction and operational activities. The standards include increased
regulation related to climate change (i.e., greenhouse gas reduction strategies and programs) and to toxic
air contaminants (in particular, diesel exhaust and its constituents). In summary, if the year of completion
were modified to 2011, emission results generated by Urbemis would be even lower, ensuring impacts
would remain less-than-significant.

H-4: The commenter made a point of clarification regarding Mitigation Measure 4.3-1. The text of the
EIR has been modified as requested. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR.

H-5: The commenter made a point of clarification regarding the analysis of acute effects from acrolein
and Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. The text on page 4.3-22 of the Draft EIR has been modified to indicate the
diesel risk assessment identified that risk would be mitigated. However, it is recommended that
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 remain due to location and proximity of nearby sensitive receptors and length
of construction period. .Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

H-6: The commenter notes that nuisance complaints due to fugitive dust are distinct from acute effects
of diesel exhaust and asks about haul routes. The Draft EIR addresses emissions of particulate matter
(including due to fugitive dust) on pages 4.3-19 through 4.3-21. In particular, nuisance concerns are
identified as a result of particulate matter emissions at the bottom of page 4.3-19. The Draft EIR contains
the haul routes for the project in Figure 4.13-7 on page 4.13-20. The fugitive dust emissions from this
construction hauling are included in the Urbemis emissions analysis for construction impacts.

H-7: A diesel risk assessment was completed for the construction period by William Popenuck, Air
Quality Specialist, whose resume is included in FEIR Appendix B of this Final EIR. The diesel risk
assessment found that the proposed projects construction activities would not result in a significant
health risk impact due to diesel exhaust. Specifically, the chronic effects were found to be 1.97 in 1
million, which is far less than the MBUAPCD threshold of 10 in 1 million. Based on the diesel risk
assessment and comment H-5, above, the identified risk would be mitigated. However, it is
recommended that Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 be retained to reduce nuisance to nearby property
residents due to location and proximity of nearby sensitive receptors and length of construction period.
Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

H-8: The comment adds information to the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the need for an asbestos
survey prior to demolition in accordance with MBUAPCD rules and regulations. Draft EIR page 4.3-20
describes the requirement for the project to comply with MBUAPCD Rule 439. Section 4.7, page 4.7-6
of the Draft EIR describes the impact due to asbestos and requires Mitigation Measures, including
asbestos surveys. The text of Draft EIR Sections 4.3 and 4.7, as well as Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 have
been revised to include direction provided by the commenter. Please refer Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the changes.

H-9: The comment adds information to the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the need for
consultation with MBUAPCD staff (Mike Sheehan) prior to demolition in accordance with MBUAPCD
rules and regulations. Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 has been revised to include direction provided by the
commenter. Please refer Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the changes.

Letter I
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
I-5
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER I: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, LETTER #1
I-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

I-2 through I-5: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment I-1 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding water-related responses.

Letter J
J-1
J-2
J-3
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
DRAFT EIR LETTER J: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, LETTER #2
J-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Utilities, CEQA Considerations, and
Alternative sections. Monterey County has determined that only comments received on the Recirculated
Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see
the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0,
Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning water-related
impacts.

J-2 through J-3: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment J-1 and the

J-4: The text has been revised as requested. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and

J-5 through J-8: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment J-1 and the

Letter K
K-1
K-2
K-2
cont.
K-3
K-4
DRAFT EIR LETTER K: DR. LOIS J. ROBERTS, LETTER #1
K-1: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
designation and references to cover are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly
raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. The Draft EIR was
completed based on Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines, which provides the basis for
environmental evaluation and thresholds of significance. The impacts upon the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and community are discussed throughout the document in their various
sections. For example, Section 4.1, Aesthetics, discusses the impacts of the project site to the visual
character of the site and surrounding areas while Section 4.9, Land Use, discusses the potential for the
project to physically divide an established community. For further discussion regarding project
objectives, please refer to Master Response 1-B.

K-2: The commenters opinion and opposition to the project are noted. Comments regarding
development under the existing zoning designation and references to cover are specific to the merits of
the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration
under CEQA. Please refer to Master Response 12-C, for discussion regarding the growth inducing
portion of the population and housing analysis.

Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,
Draft, for individual comments concerning growth inducing impacts in the CEQA Considerations section.

K-3: The reference to page 2-23 of the Draft EIR is in error. The statement on that page summarizes the
impact analysis of the Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land Use, under which it was determined that impacts
regarding land use policies were considered less-than-significant, and mitigation was required. The
statement does not discuss impacts and mitigation requirements for the whole document, just Section 4.9.
Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the
Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration
under CEQA. The impacts upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community are
discussed throughout the document in their various sections. For example, Section 4.1, Aesthetics,
discusses the impacts of the project site to the visual character of the site and surrounding areas and
Section 4.9, Land Use, discusses the potential for the project to physically divide an established
community. Please refer to Master Response 3-F in regards to views from private property.

K-4: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits
of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further
consideration under CEQA. Please refer to Response K-3 regarding the reference to page 2-23 of the
Draft EIR and analysis of potential impacts to the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
community. Please see Master Responses 3-B and 3-C for a discussion of specific thresholds of
significance used during the preparation of Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics.

Letter L
L-1
L-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER L: ANNE E. CRAWFORD, LETTER #1
L-1: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits
consideration under CEQA. The impacts upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
community are discussed throughout the document in their various sections. For example, Section 4.1,
Aesthetics, discusses the impacts of the project site to the visual character of the site and surrounding
areas. Section 4.9, Land Use, discusses the potential for the project to physically divide an established
community.

L-2: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

Letter M
M-1
M-2
M-2
cont.
M-3
M-4
DRAFT EIR LETTER M: OTTO AND GRETE HEINZ
M-1: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental
issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA.

M-2: Comment acknowledged. Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the
related discussion.

M-3: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

M-4: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment M-3 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses. Please refer to Response M-2 for a discussion
regarding a reduced size of the project.

Letter N
N-1
N-2
N-3
N-4
N-5
N-6
N-7
N-8
N-9
N-10
N-11
N-12
N-13
DRAFT EIR LETTER N: THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA
N-1: The comment requests that the Draft EIR address the increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
resulting from the loss of vegetation, which sequesters carbon, and increased GHG emissions resulting
from the disposal of the trees removed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines
carbon sequestration as the process through which carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere is
absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass (tree trunks,
branches, foliage and roots) and soils.
1
Carbon is released back into the atmosphere during
decomposition, both in a limited amount during seasonal changes for deciduous trees and removal of
leaves and limbs for maintenance, as well as in a greater amount upon tree death. As identified by the
U.S. EPA and others, the ability of trees to sequester CO2 is limited; mature trees are unable to sequester
additional CO2 beyond their saturation point, the point at which the amount of CO2 being sequestered in
a particular tree or area becomes significantly reduced.
2
According to the U.S. EPA and others, carbon
saturation may occur when trees reach maturity, or when the organic matter in soils builds back up to
original levels before losses occurred.
3
The accumulation of carbon in biomass slows with age, and
carbon releases during clipping and pruning typically will completely offset the small amount of carbon
accumulation in older trees.

A particular area may be considered a carbon sink when CO2 sequestration exceeds CO2 releases over a
period of time. Urban trees are only net carbon sinks when they are actively growing. Mature trees,
while having sequestered CO2 over a period a time, no longer serve in the capacity of a CO2 sink since
additional CO2 sequestration is severely limited.
4
Actual active growing periods are subject to, among
other things, species, climate regime, and planting density. As described throughout the Draft EIR and
supporting technical analyses, the existing trees located on the Villas de Carmelo site are considered
mature (see Draft EIR pages 4.4-2; see also page 3 of the Forest Management Plan). As a result, the
capacity of existing vegetation at the proposed project site to sequester additional CO2 and serve as a
CO2 sink is considered extremely limited for the purposes of this analysis. The permanent removal of
existing vegetation can contribute to net GHG increases by reducing existing carbon sequestration
capacity.
5

The net CO2 emissions released due to vegetation change will be effected by two processes: 1) the
removal of specified vegetation, which would lead to a one-time release of the sequestered carbon back
into the atmosphere,
6
and 2) the sequestration of carbon by new plantings. In this response, the units CO2
and CO2e (Carbon dioxide equivalents) are used interchangeably. CH4, N2O, and other GHGs that may
be emitted due to vegetation changes are assumed to contribute a negligible amount of global warming
potential (CO2 equivalents) when compared to the CO2 emissions from vegetation change. As carbon
sequestration for shrub and ground cover are less accurate to estimate, impacts to these types of
vegetation were analyzed based on the change in percentage of vegetation cover due to the
implementation of the proposed project.
7
Both processes used variables that would present a
conservative, worse-case scenario for consideration.

1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry: Frequent Questions.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html. Accessed August 5, 2009.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
The World Resource Institute (WRI) Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry Guidance for GHG Project Accounting
protocol available online at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/lulucf-final.pdf].
5
Ibid. It is assumed that all vegetation at the site is mature (at least 20 years old) and, therefore, is at steady-state.
6
Areas on the project site to be temporarily disturbed but re-vegetated with the same types of vegetation (i.e., shrubs, ground
cover) are assumed to have no net impact for the purposes of this analysis since the replacement plant will sequester the carbon
released from the temporary removal of the vegetation and there will be no net change in vegetation or land use.
7
It is assumed that there is no influx or out flux of carbon for the purposes of this analysis.
In order to estimate the GHG impact due to tree removal and replanting, the release of CO2 due to the
decomposition of biomass as estimated using the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
variables for forest biomass in a temperate climate, which is 111.6 metric tons (m.t.) of CO2 per acre of
forested land, assuming aerobic decomposition with all possible conversion to carbon dioxide.
8
If tree
removal waste is taken to a landfill, methane would also be release. The closest landfill to the project site
diverts and recycles at least 50% of their waste, mostly construction, by state mandate, and methane is
captured for conversion into electricity, which significantly reduces the amount of CO2 equivalent GHG
emissions compared to traditional landfill decomposition processes.
9

The project site currently consists of approximately 70 80% hardscape and 20-30% vegetation cover,
based on site survey and aerial photographic review. With the implementation of the proposed project,
the site would be 59% hardscape and 41% vegetated. As such, the project would result in an increase in
the amount (area) of vegetated land use (i.e., hardscape would be converted to vegetated areas).
Assuming for the purpose of analysis that the 156 trees proposed for removal equates to approximately
15% of the existing total project site area, then 0.552 acres would be considered forested for the purposes
of this worst-case estimate (15% of 3.68 acres). An estimated, one-time release of 62 mt (metric tonnes)
of CO2 would be due to the proposed tree removal (0.552 acres multiplied by 111.6 mt of CO2 release
per acre due to decomposition of removed trees).

The project proposes and is required (via mitigation) to provide some mature plantings for the
landscaping and replanting plan (see Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.4-2). While landscaping and
replanting requires mature trees, shrubs, and ground cover, it is likely and assumed that the replacement
trees will still have at least 15 years of active growth remaining, during which the replacement trees will
be sequestering carbon dioxide. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an
average of 0.035 tonne CO2 per year per tree can be assumed for trees planted, if the tree type is not
known (IPCC, 4th Assessment Report, 2008). As per the landscaping and replanting plan, 148 trees will
be planted on the project site to replace the trees proposed for removal. The carbon dioxide sequestering
potential for these 148 trees is estimated to be 78 m.t. of CO2 (148 trees multiplied by 0.035 tonnes of
CO2 sequestered per tree per year multiplied by 15 years). Therefore, the net change in greenhouse gas
emissions due to vegetation change (tree removal/decomposition CO2 emissions of 62 mt minus
sequestration by new trees of 78 mt) would be approximately an increase in sequestration potential of 16
mt of CO2. For perspective, the U.S. EPA estimates that an average of 5.5 m.t. of CO2 is released
annually by the use of a typical passenger vehicle.
10

Only trees are used to evaluate GHG sequestration potential for the purposes of the above analysis. In
addition, the amount of vegetation on the site will be increased from present conditions. Additional
shrubs and groundcover will be planted at the site creating a change from 20-30% vegetation cover on the
site in its current condition to 41% vegetation cover on the site with project implementation, creating an
additional net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to present conditions (i.e., additional CO2
sequestration potential). Vegetation removal and re-vegetation by the Villas de Carmelo project would
result in negligible beneficial changes to the amount of CO2 sequestration at the site. Consistent with the

8
To estimate the mass of carbon present in the biomass, biomass weight is multiplied by the mass carbon fraction, 0.47. The
mass of carbon is multiplied by 3.67 to calculate the final mass of CO2, assuming all of this carbon is converted into CO2. The
value for biomass weight corresponds to the IPCC value for temperate mountain/continental systems (other broadleaf above-
ground biomass 75-150 tonnes/hectare) on Table 4.4 of page 4.49 and North and South America for greater than 20 years on
Table 4.7 of IPCC. IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4: Agriculture,
Forestry, and Other Land Use. Available at 0020.
9
According to the U.S. EPA, one molecule of methane is equivalent to 21 carbon dioxide molecules at trapping heat in the
atmosphere over a 100-year time period. (Please see the EPA website for more information, available at
http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html.) However, when burned in the presence of oxygen, the one molecule of methane is
converted to one molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water, thus reducing its greenhouse gas potential by 95%.
10
U.S. EPA. 2005. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. EPA420-F-05-004.
February. Accessed August 27, 2009. Available at h.ttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.htm
conclusions in the Draft EIR, the project would not make a considerable contribution to the significant
cumulative impact of global climate change.

N-2: The comment requests clarification of a sentence in the Draft EIR. The text of Draft Section 4.3,
Air Quality, has been modified in response. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR, for the text changes.

N-3: This comment is referred to decision-makers for their consideration because it questions the
ability of Monterey County to fund enforcement of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, but does not comment on
the EIR analysis.

N-4: See Response to Comment H-7. Briefly, a diesel risk assessment was conducted and found that
there would be no significant health risks associated with the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation
Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 are no longer required, however, they are recommended. Please refer to Master
Response 2-E considering deferred mitigation.

N-5: On page 4.3-17, the Draft EIR notes that although the project is located entirely within 500 feet of
a roadway, it would not violate the recommendations in Table 1-1 of the Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook (California Air Resources Board, April 2005 found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/
ch/handbook.pdf). The table recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a
freeway or urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day. Highway 1 in this vicinity is considered an urban
road; however, Highway 1 accommodates far less than 100,000 vehicles per day. As such, the
recommendation is met. Specifically, it is estimated that between 48,500 and 54,000 vehicles per day use
Highway 1 in the vicinity of the proposed project.
11

An acoustical analysis was prepared for the Draft EIR with the intent of analyzing the potential noise
impacts to future residents of the project site, including noise from traffic on Highway 1. Discussion of
these findings are included in the Draft EIR on page 4.10-3 under the heading Acoustical Analysis. The
potential impacts to future residents, including impacts due to traffic, are identified as less-than-
significant with mitigation incorporated on page 4.10-10 under the heading Interior Noise Exposure.
Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 address potential noise impacts to future residents.

N-6: Please refer to Master Response 9-C for discussion regarding on-site retention of runoff.

N-7: The comment contends that the proposed project would represent a significant land use impact since
the Draft EIR identified that the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetic-
related impact. A response to this comment is provided in Master Response to Comments 10-C and 10-
D. As stated in those responses, a significant impact to the environment does not necessarily constitute a
significant land use impact under CEQA or applicable case law. Rather, a land use effect is considered
significant, if and only if, the policy inconsistency would result in a significant physical impact under
CEQA. Based on the analysis contained in this EIR and project-specific mitigation measures, the
proposed project is considered to be generally consistent and any perceived inconsistencies identified by
the commenter would not constitute a significant physical impact on the environment.

The visual effects of the project are appropriately analyzed within the context of the topical CEQA
section and the requirements of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 requires
the project applicant/developer to prevent any development within the 10' property-line setback and retain
all existing mature trees within the 10' setback as consistent with Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2
requiring the implementation of the proposed landscaping and replanting plan. The implementation of
these mitigation measures and landscaping would replace vegetation along the Highway 1 corridor that

11
Caltrans, 2008; available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2008all/r001i.htm.
would be disturbed by the implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Figures 4.1-3A through
4.1-3L, the landscaping would reduce impacts and restore the forested corridor along Highway 1 where
disturbed. Further, revisions have been incorporated into the EIR to provide additional clarification
regarding the proposed project and its consistency with applicable Carmel Area LUP policies, the
Monterey County, and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft
and Recirculated Draft EIR, for more information.

N-8: Please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussion regarding the projects consistency
determination with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

N-9: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

N-10: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment N-9 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

N-11: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Utilities section. Please see the
corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text.

N-12: Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for identification of the historic resource
on site, as well as an analysis of potential impacts to the historic resource and mitigation measures to
reduce impact to the resource. Please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussion regarding the
projects consistency determination with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project objective
discussing affordable housing states an intention to Provide market rate, affordable, and work force
housing stock to the Monterey Peninsula with 20% designated as affordable and workforce housing.
The objective does not state that providing affordable housing for all segments of the community is a
goal, Please refer to Figure 3-3, Project Layout Plan, on page 3-7 of the Draft EIR (as revised in Section
6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR) for a depiction of the proposed market rate,
affordable, and work force housing units. Further, please refer to Master Response 1-B for discussion
regarding the Project Objectives.

Per CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR identifies and includes the analysis of several alternatives, many of
which do not fully attain the project objectives: 1) No Project; 2) Alternative Land Use- Visitor Serving
Development; 3) Existing Zoning Project Alternative; 5) Reduced Density Project Alternative; as well as
Increased Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Units Project Alternative and Alternative Land Use-
Visitor Serving Development, Existing Buildings. For the analysis on this alternative, please refer to
Section 6.0, Alternatives, in the Recirculated Draft EIR.

N-13: The commenters preference for the Existing Zoning Alternative is noted. The commenters
previous comments are addressed above, and the discussions and corrections provided would have no
affect on the alternatives analysis.

Letter O
O-1
O-2
O-3
O-4
DRAFT EIR LETTER O: FRANK AND MARGUERITE PRIMROSE
O-1: Hydrology, traffic, and public services are discussed in their respective Draft EIR and Recirculated
Draft EIR Sections. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific
to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further
consideration under CEQA.

O-2: The traffic impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project are discussed in
Recirculated Draft EIR Section 4.13. The closure of the Highway 1 access point is a Caltrans
requirement for safety. Impacts to hydrology are discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality. Also, portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Utilities section
addressing water service and availability.

O-3: The comment questions the results of the impact analysis of the Population and Housing section in
the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analysis concludes that impacts to population and housing would be less-
than-significant. Please refer to Master Response 12-C for discussion of the growth inducement portion
of the population and housing analysis. Also, portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including
the CEQA Considerations section addressing growth inducement.

O-4: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
Letter P
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-3
cont.
P-4
P-5
P-6
DRAFT EIR LETTER P: L. A. PATTERSON
P-1: The comment suggests that the project entitlements and land use plan amendments necessary for the
proposed project should not be evaluated in the EIR. Please refer to Master Response to Comments 10-C
for further discussion.

P-2: The comment raises specific concerns related to the density of the proposed project in relationship
to the surrounding residential neighborhood. A response to this comment is provide in Master Response
to Comment 10-B; please refer to that response for more information.

P-3: The comment does not raise any environmental concerns that warrant further consideration under
CEQA. Rather, the comment paraphrases portions of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR related to
the proposed projects consistency with the Carmel Area LUP, Monterey County, and the Coastal Act. A
response to comments regarding the projects consistency with the Carmel Area LUP, Monterey County ,
and the Coastal Act is provided in Master Response to Comments 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E; please refer to
those responses for further discussion. No further response is necessary.

P-4: The comment does not raise any environmental issues that would warrant further consideration
under CEQA. The comment provides information that is intended for decision-makers regarding the
merits of amending the Carmel Area LUP. The comment is forwarded to decision-markers for further
consideration as part of the deliberative process. A response to comments regarding the projects
consistency with the Carmel Area LUP, Monterey County , and the Coastal Act is provided in Master
Response to Comments 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E; please refer to those responses for further discussion. No
further response is necessary.

P-5: Please refer to Response to Comment P-4, above.

P-6: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,
Further, please refer to Master Response 1-B for discussion regarding the Project Objectives.

Letter Q
Q-1
Q-2
Q-3
Q-4
Q-5
Q-6
Q-7
Q-8
Q-9
Q-10
Q-11
Q-13
Q-12
DRAFT EIR LETTER Q: LAND WATCH, MONTEREY COUNTY
Q-1: Please refer to Response to Comment N-2 regarding the correction of the statement concerning
project impacts on climate change.

Q-2: Please refer to Response to Comment N-1 regarding carbon sequestration of existing and
proposed trees and the effect on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Q-3: Please refer to Response to Comment N-3 regarding the ability of the County to fund monitoring
of mitigation implementation.

Q-4: Please refer to Response to Comment H-7 regarding the diesel risk assessment.

Q-5: The comment contends that the proposed project would represent a significant land use impact
since the Draft EIR identified that the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable
aesthetic-related impact. The comment further contends that the significant aesthetic-related impact
would result in an inconsistency with policy 2.2.4.6. A response to this comment is provided in Master
Response to Comments 10-C and 10-D. As stated in those responses, it is important to distinguish that a
significant impact to the environment does not necessarily constitute a policy inconsistency and thereby a
significant land use impact under CEQA or applicable case law. Rather, a land use effect is considered
significant, if and only if, the policy inconsistency would result in a significant physical impact under
CEQA. Revisions have been incorporated into the EIR to provide additional clarification regarding the
proposed project and its consistency with applicable Carmel Area LUP policies, the Monterey County,
and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR, for more information.

Q-6: The comment identifies specific concerns regarding whether the preliminary stormwater
management plan meets the requirements of Carmel Area LUP policy 2.4.3.2. A response to this
comment is provided in Master Response to Comment 9-C; please refer to that comment for further
discussion.

Q-7: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 26.1.1. A response to
this comment is provided in Master Response to Comments 10-C and 10-D. As stated in those responses,
the standard for review for projects located in the coastal zone is the applicable LCP, in this case the
Carmel Area LUP and implementing programs. As such, policy 26.1.1 is no longer considered applicable
to the proposed project. Revisions have been incorporated into the EIR to provide additional clarification
regarding the proposed project and its consistency with applicable Carmel Area LUP policies, the
Monterey County, and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft
and Recirculated Draft EIR, for more information.

Q-8: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 26.1.4.3. Please refer
to Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the applicability of policies within the coastal zone.
Moreover, please also refer to Master Response to Comment 15-B regarding available water supply.

Q-9: The comment suggests that the proposed project is inconsistent with Carmel Area LUP policies
requiring that medium density residential uses be located where adequate urban services are available to
serve the proposed project. The comment is factually incorrect in its assertion that urban services will not
be available to serve the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into this EIR to
ensure that the proposed project contributes its pro-rata share towards infrastructure improvements in the
surrounding area. These improvements will ensure that adequate roadway capacity will be available to
accommodate the proposed project, in addition to addressing existing deficiencies. The comment also
incorrectly asserts that the project does not have adequate water supplies available to meet project
demands. A response to this comment is provided in Master Response to Comment 15-B; please also
refer to Master Response to Comment 10-C and 10-D concerning LCP consistency.

Q-10: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 39.1.4. Please refer to
Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the applicability of policies within the coastal zone.Q-11:
Please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussion relating to the projects consistency determination
with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Q-12: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

Q-13: Please refer to Response to Comment Q-12.

Letter R
R-1
R-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER R: KAREN M. CROSSMAN
R-1: The commenters opinion and opposition to the proposed project are noted. Please refer to Section
4.12, Public Services, regarding impacts to police and fire services.

R-2: The commenters concern is noted. The comments are referred to decision-makers for further
consideration as part of the deliberative process. Also, please refer to Section 4.10, Noise, for discussion
regarding the noise impacts that would be associated with the proposed project. Further, please refer to
Section 4.12, Public Services, regarding impacts to police and fire services as well as Recirculated Draft
Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation, for impacts related to traffic. The impacts identified in these
sections were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with the incorporation of
mitigation measures.

Letter S
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
DRAFT EIR LETTER S: MARK MCDONALD AND PATRICIA WATSON
S-1: The commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. No further response is necessary.

S-2: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

S-3 through S-4: These comments have been previously addressed. Please refer to Response to
Comment S-2 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

S-5: Please refer to Response to Comment S-2. Comments regarding development under the existing
zoning designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an
environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA.

S-6: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

Letter T
T-1
T-2
T-2
cont.
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-7
cont.
T-8
T-9
T-10
T-11
T-12
T-13
T-14
T-15
DRAFT EIR LETTER T: THE SIERRA CLUB, VENTANA CHAPTER
T-1: Please refer to Master Response to Comment 10-C for a discussion of the impacts associated with
the proposed land use amendments. As described in that response, the land use amendments are clearly
identified as a component of the proposed project and are evaluated within the context of the Draft EIR
and Recirculated Draft EIR. Revisions have been incorporated in this EIR to provide additional
clarification regarding the potential effects of the proposed amendments; please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for more information.

T-2: According to Appendix 13, Local Coastal Plan Amendment Procedures, Part 6 of the Coastal
Implementation Plan, the amendment language as well as the proposed project must be approved by the
decision making bodies, in this case the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and the Coastal
Commission for certification of the amendments and the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. The
Board is a recommending body to the Coastal Commission. Once the amendments are certified, the
Board of Supervisors must then adopt the amendments prior to any action being taken to implement the
physical elements of the project. The proposed project includes the proposed land use plan amendments
and that both the amendments and the physical project are evaluated in the draft EIR.

T-3: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,
Draft, for individual comments concerning growth-related impacts.

Although the proposed project would create an entirely new land use classification, which future
applicants could apply for, the only property currently being considered for HDR uses is the proposed
project site. In the event an application is submitted in the future for additional HDR development within
the Carmel Area LUP, the merits of that proposal would be evaluated at that time.

T-4: The comment raises specific concerns about wording contained in the Draft EIR and the level of
analysis of the proposed LUP and Coastal Implementation Plan Zoning amendments. Project
implementation refers to the physical development of the proposed project, in addition to the proposed
amendments. The amendments are clearly described as components of the project and not as mitigation
measures as the comment implies. In regard to comments that the Draft EIR inadequately addresses the
potential effects of the proposed amendments, the Draft EIR clearly evaluated the potential
inconsistencies and related effects associated with the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response
to Comment 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E. Also refer to Section 5.0, of the Recirculated Draft EIR and Section
6.0, Revisions to the Land Use Section of the Draft EIR.


T-6: Comment noted. Please refer to the responses to Letters HH, II, and FFF for the comments
referenced.

T-7: Mature vegetation is show in the visual simulations because mature vegetation is proposed in the
landscaping and replanting plan as shown on Figures 4.1-4A through 4.1-4D and stated on page 4.1-10 of
the Draft EIR. The visual simulations provided in the Draft EIR are based on the landscaping and
replanting plan required by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Please see Master Response to Comments 3-B and
3-C for discussions regarding the determination of significant and unavoidable impacts with the
application of the thresholds of significance and the visual assessment completed for the Draft EIR
analysis. Further, Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 has been revised for clarity and consistency with the
requirements and mitigation presented in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR, Biological Resources. Please see
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text.

T-8: Policy 2.2.3.7 is intended to reduce tree removal through project siting. According to the registered
forester, Bill Ruskin, who completed the Forest Management Plan, the project plan was modified with
building plan alterations to preserve visually and historically significant trees throughout the site, for
example Tree #1822 and Tree #1939. Tree # 1802 is visually significant and planned for retention.
During the course of preparation and review the plan was also modified to preserve visually and
historically significant trees in specific areas. Further, the Forest Management Plan (FMP) submitted by
Forest City Consulting (August 28, 2008) found that the majority of mature Monterey Pines now on the
site were planted after the development of the hospital primarily within islands of the constructed parking
lot and landscaping. Certain of these trees in groups would be difficult to maintain on site due to their age
and location. Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 require compliance with the landscaping and
replanting plan, as well as the Forest Management Plan, which limits the specific trees proposed for
removal to those analyzed in the Forest Management Plan. Mitigation proposed for preserving trees in the
Highway 1 corridor (Mitigation Measure 4.1-4) require trees to be retained that provide visual screening
from Highway 1. Also, please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources.

T-9: Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 in the Draft EIR stated that, in addition to prohibiting development, such
as project signage, parking, or construction-related activities, within the 10' property-line setback, all
existing mature trees within the 10' setback shall be retained to the extent possible consistent with
mitigation measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 require compliance with the
landscaping and replanting plan, as well as the Forest Management Plan, which limits the specific trees
proposed for removal to those analyzed in the Forest Management Plan. However, for clarification, the
phrase to the extent possible has been removed from the text of the mitigation. Please refer to Section
6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text.

T-10: See Master Responses 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, and 3-D. Additionally, this comment states an opinion of
the proposed project.

T-11: Light and Glare is also addressed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics. Please see that section for
additional discussion and mitigation measures that reduce the impacts of light and glare. Please also refer
to Master Response 3-G.

T-12: The caveat referencing to possibility of a depredation permit has been removed from Mitigation
Measure 4.4-5. For revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.4-5, please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft
and Recirculated Draft EIR.

Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Additional alternatives
analyzed in the recirculated section include a Visitor Serving with Existing Buildings Alternative, a
Hybrid Visitor Serving Alternative, and a Hybrid Residential Alternative. Monterey County has
accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses
on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning alternative-related discussion.

Please refer to Table 4.6-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR (revised in Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft
and Recirculated Draft EIR) for a summary of the alternatives analysis. As you can see, the alternatives
would result in equal or less potential environmental impacts. Further, please refer to Master Response 1-
B for discussion regarding the Project Objectives.

T-14: Please refer to Table 4.6-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Section 6.0, Alternatives, for a summary
of the alternatives analysis. As noted, several alternatives were analyzed that would reduce impacts to
biological resources, traffic, hydrology, and aesthetics. Further, the Forest Management Plan (FMP)
submitted by Forest City Consulting (August 28, 2008) presents photographic evidence that the majority
of mature Monterey Pines on the site were planted after the development of the hospital. This occurred
primarily within islands of the constructed parking lot and landscaping. There is no evidence as to the
progeny of these trees (whether they came from a local seed source); however, they clearly appear post
construction and follow a logical planting plan. It may therefore be inferred that they are not native
(having occurred naturally) on the site. This determination affects their status for replacement and also
their eligibility for consideration as significant. Although some of the larger trees may fit the definition
of significance in 20.146.040 B as far as size, an exemption for removal is provided within the
development standards for those trees that are not also visually or historically significant and cannot be
avoided in the development, which is the case here. During the course of preparation and review the plan
has been modified to preserve visually and historically significant trees in other areas outside the parking
lot. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, for discussion of regulatory requirements
for biological preservation applicable to the project and the potential biological impacts associated with
the proposed project, including impact to wildlife species. As stated in the section, potential impacts to
biological resources are identified; however, these impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level
with the implementation of mitigation measures.

T-15: The commenters support of the existing zoning alternative is noted. Please refer to Response to
Comment T-13 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding alternative-related responses.

Letter U
U-1
U-2
U-3
DRAFT EIR LETTER U: GENECIA JOHNSON
U-1: The commenters opinion and opposition to the proposed project is noted. No further response is
necessary.

U-2: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

U-3: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation or reduced density are
specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that
warrants further consideration under CEQA. These comments are referred to decision-makers for further
consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.
Letter V
V-1
V-2
V-3
DRAFT EIR LETTER V: LOIS LAYTON
V-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

V-2 through V-3: This comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment V-1 and the

Letter W
W-1
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
DRAFT EIR LETTER W: DAVE AND MELISSA LOOSE
W-1: The Commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. Comments regarding development
under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly
raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. These comments are
referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further
response is necessary.

W-2: The Commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. Both light and glare impacts
(discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics) and noise impacts (discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.10,
Noise) identify these impacts as less-than-significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
Please see the referred sections for thresholds of significance required by the CEQA Guidelines and the
evidence that supports the identified significance determination.

W-3: The Commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, identifies biological-related impacts as less-than-significant with the implementation of
mitigation measures. Please refer to this section for thresholds of significance and analysis.

Further, portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and
Circulation, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Monterey
addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in
the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on
the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning traffic-related impacts.

W-4: The Commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics
of the Draft EIR for an impact discussion and mitigation measures to address light and glare that would
result from the implementation of the proposed project. Further, see Master Response to Comment 3-G
for additional discussion on the subject.

W-5: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits
Letter X
X-1
X-2
X-3
DRAFT EIR LETTER X: CHERYL J. MORELAND
X-1: Prior to the submittal of any application material for the proposed project, the commercial use of the
project site as a Convalescent Hospital was unofficially thought to have been a Legal Non-Conforming
Use, which is not a permit. With the submittal of the application material, evidence of a Use Permit was
submitted and confirmed. Use Permits, allowing specific uses outside the allowed uses for the zoning
district do not expire and are tied to the property in perpetuity. In this case, should the property owners
wish to convert the existing hospital structures on the project site back to a hospital use in the future, this
use would be permitted under the propertys existing valid Use Permit. A new Use Permit is not required
for the proposed conversion to residential uses since the residential zoning allows for residential uses.
The density of the proposed project would be resolved with the proposed Land Use Plan amendments,
also analyzed in the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

X-2: The comment contends that the proposed project would physically divide an established community
and would conflict with adopted plans, policies, and regulations intended to avoid an environmental
impact. Contrary to the commenters assertion, the proposed project would not physically divide an
established community, as the project proposed residential uses in and on the outskirts of a residential
community. In regards to comments regarding project consistency, please refer to Master Response to
Comments 10-D and 10-E. Please also refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR.

X-3: Please refer to Master Response 2-A for discussion regarding the required EIR standards of review.

Letter Y
Y-1
Y-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER Y: KAREN WALLIN
Y-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

Y-2: The commenters opposition to the project is noted. Comments regarding development under
reduced or existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not
directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. These comments
are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further

Letter Z
Z-1
Z-2
Z-3
Z-4
Z-4
cont.
Z-5
Z-6
DRAFT EIR LETTER Z: TIMOTHY D. SANDERS
Z-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

Z-2: Please refer to Master Response 10-B for discussion regarding density and zoning. Please refer to
Master Response 10-C and 12-C for responses on high density development. Further, the commenters
suggestion that approval of the proposed project may be used to justify other high density developments
within the Carmel area is factually wrong and inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. In the event
that future high-density developments are proposed within the Carmel Area LUP, the environmental
impacts and merits of that future project will be evaluated at that time, as required by CEQA. While the
proposed project would create a new residential land use designation (HDR) and additional high-density
residential projects could be pursued in the future, it is speculation that the proposed project would be
used as justification for additional HDR development. Nevertheless, any future development would be
subject to CEQA review, Coastal Commission review, and Monterey County review. The analysis
contained in the Draft EIR is specific to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project,
including the proposed Carmel Area LUP amendment and site-specific re-zoning to HDR/12.5. Further,
the Recirculated Draft and Draft EIR adequately address the environmental effects of the proposed
project, including biological impacts and traffic-related impacts. Tolerance to environmental impacts is
not a component of CEQA; however, identifying potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures is
included in the Draft EIR Section 4.4 and Recirculated Draft EIR Section 4.13. Please see Master
Responses to Comments Master Response 4, Biological Resources, and Master Response 14, Traffic.

accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. In Recirculated Draft EIR Section 5.0, CEQA
Considerations, the analysis discusses the projects impact to population growth in accordance with
Section 15126.2d of CEQA. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated
Draft, for individual comments concerning growth-related impacts. Please also refer to Master Response
12-C.


Z-5: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment Z-4 and the Recirculated
Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

Z-6: The commenters opinion is noted. These comments are referred to decision-makers for further
Letter AA
AA-1
DRAFT EIR LETTER AA: AARON BARNES
AA-1: The commenters opinion is noted. These comments are referred to decision-makers for further
consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary. Please note, the
existing access between Highway 1 and the project site will be closed per Caltrans requirements (see
Caltrans comment E-1). The restriction of direct access to and from the Highway for the project parcels
is included in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Draft EIR Appendix K) and the Recirculated Draft EIR
Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation.

Letter BB
BB-5
BB-4
BB-3
BB-2
BB-1
BB-11
BB-10
BB-9
BB-8
BB-7
BB-6
DRAFT EIR LETTER BB: MARK BAYNE
BB-1: As identified in the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, the proposed
project is explicitly tied to the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site and involves rehabilitation and
renovation of this historic property. There are few single sites remaining within the area that could
accommodate the project in terms water availability due to the restrictions on new development within the
MPWMD area. For water to be available to this site, the use of the existing water credits from the
previous use of the building is needed. Additionally, the project site contains previously disturbed
habitat. Most sites in the area are either developed or already committed to existing or planned
development. Moreover, development of the proposed project in another area would have similar impacts
related to traffic, air quality, noise, and other issues. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not examine in
detail an alternative location for the proposed project, and an alternative site was eliminated from further
consideration.

Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Utilities and Alternative sections.
Monterey County has determined that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section
will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding
section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and
Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning water-related impacts.

BB-2: As stated on page 6-4 of the Draft EIR, a previous application for annexation into the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea was withdrawn by the project proponents, which corresponds to the commenters
statement. The number of units described in this section was the number of units analyzed in the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration prepared for that particular application (please refer to Draft EIR Appendix
M). This alternative was eliminated from further consideration, as stated in the Recirculated Draft EIR
Section 6.0, Alternatives.

BB-3: As identified in CEQA Guidelines, if a project involves a development project on identifiable
property, the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed, and
analysis of this alternative is required. Further, analysis of potential feasible alternatives in the Draft EIR
included an Existing Zoning Alternative.

Please note, the existing access between Highway 1 and the project site will be closed per Caltrans
requirements (see Caltrans comment E-1); however, that access point will still be available for current
users from neighboring parcels. The restriction of direct access to and from the Highway for the project
parcels is included in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Draft EIR Appendix K) and the Recirculated Draft EIR
Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation.

BB-4: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Utilities section. Monterey County
has determined that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed,
in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in the
Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the
Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning water-related impacts.

BB-5: As identified in CEQA Guidelines, if a project involves a development project on identifiable
property, the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. As
such, the No Project Alternative cannot meet any of the project objectives. Analysis of this alternative is
required by CEQA Guidelines in an effort to provide decision-makers with a baseline for a comparison of
project-related impacts.

BB-6: Comment acknowledged. Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the
related discussion.

BB-7: Please refer to Response to Comment BB-6 for alternative-related responses. Further, please refer
to Master Response 1-B for discussion regarding the Project Objectives.

BB-8: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment BB-6 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding alternative-related responses.

BB-9: This comment is unclear. Terms such as less than, avoid, and reduced are used throughout
the Draft EIR.

BB-10: Comment acknowledged; however, the reduced density project, including 37 units, not 46 units,
as in the Recirculated Draft Alternative Section. Please refer to Response to Comment BB-6 for
alternative-related responses. The adaptive reuse of the historical buildings is an element of the majority
of the project alternatives and the proposed project, and impacts associated with the adaptive reuse is
discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, as well as the appropriate alternatives analysis.

BB-11: Please refer to the text that Table 4.6-1 summarizes for discussion of alternatives analysis in
Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives. As discussed in the section, the existing zoning
alternative does not meet Project Objectives.

Letter CC
CC-1
CC-2
CC-3
CC-4
CC-5
CC-5
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER CC: BEVERLY BORGMAN
CC-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

CC-2 through CC-5: These comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment CC-
1 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

Letter DD
DD-1
DRAFT EIR LETTER DD: C. A. CHAPMAN-BARNES
DD-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

Letter EE
EE-1
EE-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER EE: CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
EE-1: The Forest Management Plan submitted by Forest City Consulting does not propose to remove
any trees specifically due to ill health, but does accurately point out the need to control invasives (such
as ivy) for the future health of preserved trees. The significance of the larger trees is clearly a function
of their age, form, and history, as recognized in the ordinance. The uniform nature of the larger planted
trees, their general decline in health due to planting density and location, and their unknown origin refutes
their consideration as exemplary of their species under the ordinance 20.146.040(B), Development
Standards. The plan meets the requirements of the ordinance for tree removal and replacement.
Replacement of small trees is further provided for in Mitigation Measure 4.1-4.

EE-2: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits

FF-1
Letter FF
FF-2
FF-3
FF-4
FF-5
DRAFT EIR LETTER FF: CARMEL RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
FF-1: The proposed project analyzed in the Draft EIR, as revised in the Recirculated Draft EIR and Final
EIR, is independent of the project application to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. As such, the current
project application must be evaluated separately from the previous application, especially since the
applications were submitted to two different lead agencies and jurisdictions. For an evaluation of
applicable land use policies, please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land Use, as revised in the Final EIR,
and Master Responses 10-D and 10-E for discussions regarding land use plan consistency.

FF-2: The commenters opposition to the project is noted. Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and
Section 44, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR for a thorough discussion of the proposed removal of
trees from the project site, its potential impact, and mitigation measures to address the impacts. Further,
please see Master Responses to Comments 3-B and 3-C for further discussion.

FF-3: The commenter is correct that the existing access to Highway 1 to the project site will be closed
per Caltrans requirements (see Caltrans comment E-1). Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated,
including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations,
and Alternative sections. Monterey County has determined that only comments received on the
Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2.
Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text. Please refer to
Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning
traffic-related impacts.

FF-4: Comment acknowledged. Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the
related discussion.

FF-5: While the project is located in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Sphere of Influence, the project is in
Unincorporated Monterey County jurisdiction. The commenters suggestion that approval of the
proposed project may be used to justify other high density developments within the Carmel area is
factually wrong and inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. In the event that future high-density
developments are proposed within the Carmel Area LUP or the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the
environmental impacts and merits of that future project will be evaluated at that time, as required by
CEQA. While the proposed project would create a new residential land use designation (HDR) and
additional high-density residential projects could be pursued in the future, it is speculation that the
proposed project would be used as justification for additional HDR development. Nevertheless, any
future development would be subject to CEQA, Coastal Commission, Monterey County, and/or City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea review. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR is specific to the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed project, including the proposed Carmel Area LUP amendment and
site-specific re-zoning to HDR/12.5.

Letter GG
GG-1
GG-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER GG: ANNE E. CRAWFORD #2
GG-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

GG-2: The commenter is correct that the existing access to Highway 1 to the project site will be closed

As it is subjective, reliance on anecdotal information is not considered evidence appropriate for analysis
under CEQA. As such, the Traffic Impact Analysis maintained a scientific approach when determining
the potential impacts related to traffic. To ensure that the public participates, comments are sought
through responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), public EIR scoping meetings, public comments on
the Draft EIR, and public participation at hearings. Comments received on the NOP and at the EIR
scoping meetings were incorporated into the scope of work, as appropriate, for the technical documents
and analysis.

Letter HH
HH-1
HH-2
HH-3
HH-4
HH-5
HH-5
HH-6
HH-7
HH-8
HH-9
HH-9
HH-10
HH-11
HH-12
HH-13
HH-13
HH-14
HH-15
HH-16
HH-17
HH-17
HH-18
HH-19
HH-20
HH-21
HH-22
HH-23
HH-24
HH-25
HH-26
HH-27
HH-28
HH-29
HH-30
HH-30
HH-31
HH-32
HH-32
HH-33
HH-34
HH-35
HH-36
HH-37
HH-38
HH-39
HH-40
HH-41
HH-42
HH-43
HH-44
HH-45
HH-46
HH-46
HH-47
HH-48
HH-49
HH-50
HH-50
HH-51
HH-52
HH-53
HH-53
HH-54
HH-55
HH-56
HH-57
HH-58
HH-58
HH-59
HH-60
HH-61
HH-62
HH-63
HH-64
HH-65
HH-66
HH-67
HH-68
HH-69
HH-70
HH-71
HH-72
HH-73
HH-74
HH-75
HH-76
HH-77
HH-78
HH-78
HH-79
HH-80
HH-81
HH-82
HH-83
HH-84
HH-85
HH-85
HH-86
HH-87
HH-88
HH-89
HH-90
HH-91
HH-92
HH-93
HH-94
HH-95
HH-96
HH-97
HH-98
HH-99
HH-100
HH-101
HH-102
HH-103
HH-104
HH-105
HH-103
HH-104
HH-106
HH-107
DRAFT EIR LETTER HH: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP, LETTER #1
HH-1: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. These comments are referred to decision-makers
for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.

HH-2: Figure 3-5, in the Project Description of the Draft EIR shows the surrounding land uses and
zoning, including the residential uses on the opposite site of Valley Way to the South of the project site.
No revisions are necessary. As page 3-1 of the Draft EIR states The site is almost entirely covered with
parking lots, driveways, paved pathways, two out-buildings, and the hospital building itself. The portions
of the project site that are not paved have been extensively landscaped with numerous ornamental tree,
shrub, vine, and herbaceous species. As can be seen on Figure 3-2, the majority of the project site
(approximately 85 to 90 percent) has been developed to include paved parking lots, driveways, paths, and
three buildings. The paved portions of the development are present on 51 percent of the site. The
remaining, undeveloped portions of the project site were landscaped. The areas of 30% slope are shown
in Figure 4.61A, as added in the Final EIR. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revision to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR for the added figure.

HH-3: Page 4.5-25 of the Draft EIR, under the heading Landscaping Modifications, the text identifies
the historic landscaping as the landscaping and stone terracing immediately surrounding the main hospital
building and garage/shop building, as well as the stone entrance way on Valley Way. Specifically, the
historic landscaping is defined as the fountain and landmark oak tree immediately adjacent to the main
hospital building and the stone walls, stairways, entrance, and terracing surrounding the two historical
structures. The only natural, or vegetative, element to the historic landscaping is the landmark oak tree
mentioned above. The original landscaping vegetation included ornamental shrubs around the stone patio
and fountain, as well as the lawns and paths, which originally occupied the southern portion of the project
site. The original ornamental shrubs no longer exist and were replaced with trees, ivy, and a modern
concrete stairway with a metal railing, as stated on page 4.4-2 of Section 4.4, Biological Resources, in the
Draft EIR. The original lawns and strolling paths on the property were paved over to create a parking lot.
Therefore, it was determined that the only natural element to the historical resource was the landmark oak
tree. Page 4.5-16 of the Draft EIR describes the proposed modifications to the project site, and the
impacts relating to historical landscaping are discussed on page 4.5-25 of the Draft EIR, under the
heading Landscaping Modifications. These modifications are depicted in Figure 4.5-5, Site Demolition
Plan, and this figure has been revised to show the locations of the contributing historic landscape
elements. For clarification purposes, text has been added to the discussion in the Project Description that
describes the historic landscape components of the resource. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the additional text.

HH-4: The project description provided in the Draft EIR is based upon application materials submitted to
Monterey County for the proposed project, including the project plans and tentative map. Information
provided by the applicants public relations contractor, if not included in the application material, is not
considered part of the proposed project.

HH-5: Please refer to Master Response 1-B regarding Project Objectives, The applicant provides their
project objectives and these were identified in the Draft EIR under Section 3.4, Project Objectives, for the
stated purpose and Project Objectives, and in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for discussion of
the historic resources, required mitigation measures, and components proposed for adaptive reuse.
Installation of a residential community refers to the proposed projects intent to place a group of
residences on the project site within a specified area with common open space in between the units.
Language has been revised to change installation to development for clarity. The historic community
institution refers to the historic hospital resource identified in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, which is
listed in the local Historic Register. The Draft EIR addresses the Countys Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance in Section 4.11, Population and Housing. Further, please refer to Master Response 12-B for
additional discussion.

HH-6: Monterey County does not require title reports; however, the County does require deeds of trust
with legal metes and bounds descriptions as part of the application materials, which were provided to the
County.

HH-7: The small, semi-attached shed is proposed for demolition, as stated on page 3-5 of the Draft EIR.
The sheds location on the north side of the original hospital building is depicted graphically in Figure 3-
4, Existing Project Site, and Figure 4.5-5, Site Demolition Plan, which also indicates that the shed is
labeled for removal. As discussed on page 4.5-13 of the Draft EIR, the small storage shed to the north of
the main hospital building, while built as part of the original clinic complex, has a partially removed west
wall, does not retain integrity, and is not architecturally significant. As such, the shed, nurses quarters
building, and the southern landscaping are not considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.

The 10 percent of the original hospital building proposed for modification is discussed on page 4.5-16 of
the Draft EIR. The majority of these modifications are shown and described on Figure 4.5-5, Demolition
Plan, and the remainder is depicted in the architectural renderings in Figures 4.5-6 through 4.5-11,
Existing and Proposed Elevations for Historical resource. The historical evaluation of these modification
areas are discussed on page 4.5-13. Figure 4.5-5 of the Draft EIR has also been revised to show the
locations of the elements that comprise the historical resource. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

The historical evaluation determined that the main hospital building and garage/shop building were
modified subsequent to the 1930 period of significance. The structural modifications to the main building
made after 1930 include, but are not limited to, the lounge extension of the east end of the north wing, the
sun room at the west end of the north wing, the mechanical/elevator enclosure on the rear of the main
wing, and the modern replacement windows. The historical evaluation determined that the additions and
modifications were not character-defining features of the building; therefore, they are not considered part
of the historical resource. Please see Appendix F of the Draft EIR for further details from the Historical
Evaluation completed by JRP Consulting and peer reviewed by ICF Jones & Stokes.

The impacts to the main hospital building are discussed on page 4.5-25 of the Draft EIR under the
headings Modifications to Past Additions and Modifications to the Historic Resource. As stated here, the
historical evaluation concluded that the additions and modifications made to the historical buildings and
structures over the years have lost integrity and are not character-defining features or contributing
elements of the historical resource, thus the proposed modifications to these structures would not be
considered significant under CEQA. The modifications proposed to the original, historic portions of the
main hospital building include the addition and/or relocation of several windows and doors. The Draft
EIR states that these modifications would change the character-defining features of the resources;
however, Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8, ensure that potential impacts will be avoided or
minimized by requiring compliance with the SOIs Standards; the preparation of a site-specific
Preservation Monitoring Plan; compliance with professional qualification standards; mitigation
hospital building prior to initial project construction. These requirements will ensure that any alterations
to the historic structures are implemented in a way that would retain the integrity of the historical
resource, thus reducing these impacts to less-than-significant levels. For a discussion regarding the
appropriateness of the SOIs Standards as mitigation, please see Master Response 6-C.

With regards to the Draft EIRs use of the term residential village in describing the proposed installation
of the grouping of condominium buildings on the project site that would house future residents, the Draft
EIR preparers do not agree with the commenters contention that the inclusion of the descriptive
term "village" could be in any way viewed as a promotional term. The description was provided by the
project applicants as part of their objectives in seeking development of the property. See Project
Description, Section 3.0, Project Objectives in the Draft EIR which states as follows: "Establish a high
quality residential village community to house future residents within the County." As this is clearly a
project objective of the applicants and listed as such, there is no reason to change this language. The EIR
preparers reviewed other sections in the document where the term residential village was used and made
changes only where appropriate. No changes were made to terminology referencing the applicants'
objectives in the Draft EIR.

HH-8: References to measurements in the Draft EIR are taken from existing grade on the project site.

HH-9: Mitigation in the Draft EIR as well as County required building permit review process will ensure
that all units meet County noise, air quality, and safety requirements. Please refer to Master Response 12-
B for discussion regarding Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Consistency.

HH-10: This comment suggests the project alternative should consider a project that interspersed the
affordable housing units throughout the residential development instead of the clustering. This was not
considered as an alternative in the EIR because it would not lessen physical impacts of the project or the
potential project inconsistency with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. However, the EIR does
consider a project alternative for increased percentage of low and moderate units in Section 6.8 of the
Draft EIR, which would provide higher rates of affordable housing than what is proposed and what is
required by the Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Also refer to Master Responses 12-B which
addresses comments received the Draft EIR regarding with consistency with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.

HH-11: The comment contends that the Draft EIR did not adequately evaluate the proposed land use
amendments and their corresponding effects. As discussed elsewhere, the proposed amendments are
clearly described as components of the proposed project and are evaluated accordingly. Please see Master
Response to Comments 10-C, 10-D, and 10-E. Moreover, revisions have been incorporated to amplify
and clarify the analysis of the proposed projects land use components in relation to applicable planning
requirements and the California Coastal Act. Please refer to Recirculated Draft EIR, Section 5.0, and
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for more information. The comment also
contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policies contained in the LUP/LCP; please refer to
Master Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E and Master Response 12 for a response to this comment.

HH-12: As part of the proposed project, land use plan amendments were deemed necessary. It is the
Countys responsibility to prepare amendment language, and doing so does not indicate project advocacy.
Further, there is HDR zoning in the Coastal Zone elsewhere in the County. According to Appendix 13,
Local Coastal Plan Amendment Procedures, Part 6 of the Coastal Implementation Plan, the amendment
language as well as the proposed project has to be evaluated per CEQA standards and approved by the
decision making bodies, in this case the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, which then makes the
recommendation to the Coastal Commission for certification of the amendments and the issuance of a
Coastal Development Permit. Once the amendments are certified, the Board of Supervisors must then
adopt the amendments prior to any action being taken to implement the physical elements of the project.
Both the physical actions of the proposed project and the required land use plan amendments are
evaluated in the Draft EIR.

HH-13: For the LCP amendment process, please see Response to Comment HH-12. Appendix 13 also
states that in the event that the California Coastal Commission requires wording changes to the proposed
LUP amendment, the revised amendment is checked for consistency against Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission must both approve the new wording. Since the
Coastal Commission requires consistency with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Commission and the amendment
is included in the EIR analysis, the CEQA requirements are met. Additionally, please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for consistency discussion with the Coastal Act.

HH-14: The text for the HDR zoning amendment was provided by the County. The text provided in the
Project Description and the Land Use section was the text provided not a summary. The text has been
amended and the error revised. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR, for the text revisions.

HH-15: Due to the projects inconsistency with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (See Section 4.11
Population and Housing and Master Response 12-B), a modification to the application would be granted
to allow affordable units to be provided at only the moderate income level, or the application will have to
be revised to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. If units are provided on site, then the units
must be provided at the affordable housing levels of very low and low income levels. Text contained on
page 3-10 of the Project Description and 4.9-5 of the Land Use Section of the Draft EIR for the HDR
zoning described densities that will allow a mix of housing types so that the zoning district does not
restrict the affordability levels of housing units provided; considering the affordability levels in this zone
may vary and have yet to be determined, this language is sufficient. Text defining moderate income level
housing has been added to page 3-1 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft
and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text. Please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussion
regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance consistency determination.

HH-16: Chapter 20.10 HDR Zoning District requirements do not require provision for low income
housing. The comment addressed workforce housing within the projects application. The project
description in the Draft EIR cited the provision of 4 units of workforce housing per the project application
materials. Monterey County does not have a definition for workforce housing in their housing ordinance
or municipal code. Nor does the state Office of Housing and Community Development contain a
definition of workforce housing or set income restrictions to define workforce housing. Staff in the
Redevelopment and Housing Department of Monterey generally describe workforce housing as
affordable at or below market rate housing. The units proposed as workforce housing are not considered
to be affordable with income restrictions in the proposed projects application. The units do not
contribute to the applicants affordable housing application and are not considered in consistency with the
Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

HH-17: Please refer to Master Response 7-C for discussion regarding the areas proposed for grading and
existing slopes. Figure 4.6-1A has been added to the EIR to show the areas with slopes greater than 30%.
This illustration does not amend the analysis or mitigations in the EIR. Please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the figure. Also, Figure 4.6-3, Cut and Fill Plan,
included within the Draft EIR indicates the proposed amounts of cut and fill associated with the proposed
project. Please refer to Section 4.3, Air Quality, for discussion relating to impacts from construction
vehicles and transportation. Please refer to Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation, for discussion regarding
traffic impacts relating to construction vehicles. As discussed in Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral
Resources, the net cut would be exported to the Monterey Peninsula Landfill via the route defined by
Figure 4.13-7, Routing Plan.

HH-18: The Draft EIR includes an alternative that would decrease development on areas of 30% slope.
Please refer to Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, under the discussion on the Reduced Density
Alternative for this discussion and analysis. Over ninety percent of the project area and development is
on slopes under 20%. The project site would be graded to utilize the existing topography, including
grading of slopes for parking garages to minimize the height and visibility of the proposed new buildings;
however, and approximately 0.33 acre of development would occur on areas exceeding 30% slope. The
applicant shall are required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit from Monterey County applying to
all proposed work on slopes exceeding 30%. Most of the site is pre-disturbed and the existing topography
is manmade on the majority or all of the area crossing 30% slope. Per the Draft EIR Section 4.6,
Geology, Soils, and Minerals, and Appendix G-1, the Geotechnical Assessment for the project site
included measures to address cut and fill on slopes, retaining wall requirements, and erosion prevention.
Refer also to Master Response 7-C. The comment requesting a mitigation to eliminate development on
slopes over 30% is referred to decision makers.

HH-19: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including Section 4.14 Utilities and Service
Systems, which addresses water supply. Monterey County has determined that only comments received
on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text.
Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments
concerning water-related impacts.

HH-20: The comment asserts the proposal is spot zoning and contends that the DEIR does not address
this. Spot zoning occurs when a small area of land or section in an existing neighborhood is singled out
and placed in a different zone from that of neighboring property. In considering whether a proposal is
"spot zoning", it is important to understand whether the subject property is zoned in conformity with
surrounding existing uses and whether those uses are uniform and established. This project proposes an
increased intensity of residential use within an area of the same residential use. Even though the area
surrounding the project site is uniformly residential, the project site itself has been used for decades as a
convalescent hospital. There has been no change in the general character or existing uses in the
neighborhood during this period of use. The previous use of the site was not a typical residential use but
a complex of buildings used for a hospital and also a convalescent care facility. The project site is zoned
medium density residential and the proposal is for residential use, albeit at a higher density than existing
zoning allows. The density is compatible with the apartment complex located south of the site and also in
Carmel-by-the-Seas residential zoning west of the site. East of the site is Highway 1, the major
transportation corridor serving the area. The project is not considered to be spot zoning as proposed use
is residential and the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood will not change based upon the
project uses. The EIR adequately addresses issues associated with the proposed project and land use
amendment. Please refer to Master Responses 10B and 10C regarding density and the impacts of the
proposed changes in the land use designation on the property.

HH-21: Please see Figure 4.1-5, Project Site Lighting Plan, in the Draft EIR for specific locations of
each proposed light. The analysis of the proposed lighting plan is located in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of
the Draft EIR. Additionally, please see Master Response 3-G.

HH-22: The method of page numeration and mitigation measure numeration has been used in numerous
EIR formats. When referencing a mitigation measure, the term Mitigation Measure is presented before
the numeration in order to differentiate the measure from the page measure. The figures in the Draft EIR
have a compass identifying the direction north in order for the public to understand the orientation of each
figure. Figure 4.1-1 has been revised to correct the compass on the graphic.

Site Photo Camera View 6 is correctly marked as being on the east side of Highway 1, across from the
project site. Further, given the nature of the existing vegetation, the flagging and staking for Units 24
through 29 were not visible from the angle the picture was taken from; however, Camera View 4 depicts
the flagging and staking for Units 24 through 29. Please refer to Figure 4.1-2D on page 4.1-7 of the Draft
EIR.

The visual simulations provided in Figures 4.1-3A through 4.1-3L of the Draft EIR depict the proposed
project without the proposed landscaping plan and with the proposed landscaping plan. The simulations
that include the landscaping correspond to the proposed landscaping plan as shown on Figures 4.1-4A
through 4.1-4D. Figures 4.1-3A and 4.1-3B originally depicted some trees proposed for removal at the
center of the project site in the skyline; however, these figures have been revised. Please refer to Section
6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised figures. The remainder of the
figures were reviewed to ensure that the figures did not include trees proposed for removal.

HH-23: The proposed emergency access would be a gated entrance to the project site and only available
for use by emergency response providers. An emergency access only signs will be posted at the gated
entrance to ensure no public use.

HH-24: The commenter is correct that the existing access to Highway 1 to the project site will be closed

HH-25: Please refer to Response to Comment HH-24 for traffic-related responses.

HH-26: As shown on Figure 4.13-6, each unit has available parking in the garages attached to each unit,
as well as street parking along the border to Valley Way and in the underground parking garage. The
project meets the Monterey County parking requirements.

HH-27: Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of the impacts related to the
Scenic Highway 1 Corridor, as registered with the State Scenic Highway Program, and the identification
of the significant and unavoidable impacts to the Scenic Highway 1 Corridor.

HH-28: The description of what is to be demolished on page 4.1-9 of the Draft EIR is correct and is
reflective of the description of the proposed demolition activities described in Draft EIR, Section 4.5,
Cultural Resources, and the CEQA Impact Analysis conducted by the applicants historical consultants
and peer-reviewed by the applicants and the Countys Historical subconsultants. In this section, a
demolition plan is depicted in Figure 4.5-5 of the Draft EIR, as revised in the Final EIR. The impacts
associated with the proposed demolition are identified and mitigated in the Cultural Resources section of
the Draft EIR.

HH-29: The proposed landscaping plan can be found starting on Draft EIR page 4.1-24, Figures 4.1-4A
through 4.1-4D. As stated on Draft EIR page 4.1-9, the project proposes a day one mature landscaping
plan that utilizes large box trees and hedging designed to provide extensive screening of buildings to be
constructed on the project site as part of the construction phase on the site. In this context, the day one
means that that from the first day it is installed, it will look like what is shown in the visual simulations.
Text clarifying the terminology used has been added to the text in that section. Please see Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the additional text.

The proposed landscaping plan was analyzed as part of the project application materials provided by the
applicant. However, to ensure that specific criteria was included in the landscaping and replanting plan
and that the landscaping and replanting plan is completed to the satisfaction of the County, Mitigation
Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 were expanded in the Draft EIR to ensure that the plan includes specific criteria,
including success and screening coverage, and is completed to the satisfaction of the County. The
landscaping and replanting plan is part of the construction phase, and the construction impacts to traffic
are discussed in Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation. As stated on page 4.1-11 of the Draft EIR, the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 would not result in any new significant impact
beyond those previously identified in this DEIR.

HH-30: In the Draft EIR when referring to the visibility of proposed Units 24 through 29, the term
prominently visible means that the Units would be prominently seen or can be seen easily. Please refer
to the visual simulations in the Draft EIR, specifically Figures 4.1-3E through 3J. The height and
setbacks proposed by the structures are within both the existing and proposed zoning requirements for the
County of Monterey. As stated in the Draft EIR, the evidence considered in the analysis concluded that
impacts resulting from the introduction of new structures on the project site can be mitigated for these
units. Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 though 4.1-4 reduce visual impacts of the project site to a less-than-
significant level, even though the Draft EIR identifies that the mitigation cannot reduce impacts to the
scenic Highway 1. In particular, Mitigation 4.1-1, as revised, states in part that in order to minimize
potential aesthetic-related impacts due to the removal of existing trees and vegetation and the creation of
light sources, the project proponent shall contract a qualified landscape architect to prepare a Replanting
and landscaping Plan that provides adequate screening along the borders of the project site prior to the
issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The Replanting and landscaping Plan shall be required for
the borders of the project site, including the setback areas along Valley Way fronting Units 24-29. The
Plan shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 as defined in Section 4.4 Biological
Resources of the DEIR. For a discussion on the criteria and thresholds of significance used in the
analysis during the visual assessment, as well as the determination of significant and unavoidable impacts,
please refer to Master Responses 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, and 3-D.

HH-31: Comment acknowledged. The phrase The project sites historic landscaping shall be retained
to the maximum extent feasible has been revised in Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Mitigation Measures 4.5-
1 through 4.5-8 in the Draft EIR Cultural Section address historical landscaping. Please see Section 4.5,
Cultural Resources, in the Draft EIR for discussion of potential impacts to the historic resource.

HH-32: The phrase greatest extent possible in Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 was not removed since the
specific requirements following the initial sentence detail how to retain the existing trees to the greatest
extent possible, including consulting with a registered arborist/forester to minimize tree removal and
ensure the health of remaining trees, utilizing natural landforms and vegetation for screening, designing
structures, to minimize visual impacts, and providing evidence to the County that landscaped buffers,
setbacks, and screening will be provided along public roadways that border the project area, as well as
certain protocols required for tree removal.

The phrase to the maximum extent feasible in Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 was not removed because you
can visually determine the maximum extent feasible for confining glare and reflections within the
boundaries of the subject site. The second use of the phrase has been removed from the Mitigation
Measure. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revision.

There is no Mitigation Measure 4.1-11. Further, the phrases mentioned in the comment are only
mentioned once in Mitigation Measure 4.10-3, which has been revised. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 does
not contain the phrases mentioned.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 is not required to reduce an impact to a less-than-significant level, making the
term whenever possible acceptable for this mitigation. .

The phrase to the maximum extent feasible in Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 was revised. The mitigation as
written described the methods d how the mitigation measure would prevent the removal or disturbance of
vegetation. These methods include installing protective wood barriers and fencing to keep construction
vehicles and personnel from impacting trees and herbaceous vegetation adjacent to and outside the work
zones.

The reference to the cited phrases on the pages cited (two DEIR representations about project,
unsupported by citation to application and therefore unenforceable) is unclear. The reference is to
discussion in the Section, not mitigation; therefore, enforceability is not an issue.

The phrases in question has been revised, clarified or removed from Mitigation Measures 4.1-1, 4.1-4,
4.4-2, and 4.10-3. Language in Mitigation 4.10-3 requires all construction traffic to be routed to and from
the project site via designated truck routes and prohibits construction related heavy truck traffic in
residential areas where feasible. This language is limited, acknowledging that in certain locations, there
may not be alternative routes available that are not in a residential area, given the location of the project
site. Language in 4.10-2 identifies where installation of forced-air mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to
the local building official, must be placed in each unit exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60
dBA CNEL. As locations are not yet known, it is reasonable to provide clarifying language so that there
may be some flexibility to the building official. Standards are noted to ensure that the operation of the
units does not result in noise levels that would exceed ambient traffic noise levels at adjacent sensitive
receivers. The reference to Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 is related to weather patterns or other unknown
realities and should remain. It is reasonable that all cut and fill slopes should be stabilized as soon as
possible and the language is not considered unenforceable. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised mitigation measures. All mitigation measures have
been developed by the EIR consultant and reviewed extensively by the County of Monterey staff.

HH-33: An initial post-construction monitoring period of a minimum of three years is an industry
standard for CEQA projects; DD&A has prepared dozens of legally defensible CEQA documents and/or
Mitigation Monitoring and Restoration Plans with an initial three-year monitoring plan. DD&A has also
conducted follow-up monitoring programs to ensure the success of these plans. Mitigations 4.1-1 and
4.4-2 require preparation of Replanting and landscaping Plan. Each of these mitigations requires that
adaptive management techniques (i.e., additional replanting, extension of monitoring) be implemented in
the event that success is not achieved in the first monitoring period. As such, if success is not achieved
within the initial monitoring period, additional planting/monitoring/reporting would be required until
success is achieved. The mitigation is enforceable because the County requires evidence of compliance
with the mitigation and that certain standards have been met. However, the initial post-construction
monitoring period has been extended to six years, and Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 has been revised in
Section 6.0, Revision to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR. Additional revisions requested by the
commenter are not County procedure and were deemed unnecessary.

HH-34: The proposed landscaping plan as depicted in Figures 4.1-4A through 4.1-4D of the Draft EIR is
consistent with the proposed actions as stated and analyzed in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, Cultural
Resources, and the demolition plan shown in Figure 4.5-5 of the Draft EIR. Please keep in mind that the
only natural element of the historic landscaping is the landmark oak tree to the south of the main hospital
building, which is shown on the proposed landscaping plan. Impacts due to modifications to the
historical landscaping are identified as less-than-significant with the incorporation of mitigation. The
project applicant would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8, which
ensure that modifications to the historical landscaping elements of the historic resource would be
completed in a fashion that would preserve the integrity and the character-defining elements of the
resource. Figures 4.1-4C and 4.1-4D are magnifications of the details presented in Figure 4.1-4A. Please
refer to Figure 4.1-4A for the proposed landscaping plan for the project site. Also, not that Mitigation
4.1-1 requires submittal of a Replanting and Landscaping Plan to ensure that implementation of the
mitigations for tree replacement and adequate screening along the borders of the project site are consistent
with the intent of the mitigation. The Plan must be completed and approved prior to the issuance of any
grading and/or building permit, be reviewed by a qualified arborist/registered professional forester and
shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 as defined in Section 4.4 Biological
Resources of this DEIR.

The Forest Management Plan, Appendix D-4 in the Draft EIR, specifically identifies what trees are
proposed for removal and the replanting requirements necessary for the proposed project. Mitigation
Measure 4.4-1 requires the implementation of the Forest Management Plan prepared for the project.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 requires that the landscaping and replanting plan will be in compliance with
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 and the Forest Management Plan; therefore, trees not proposed for removal
cannot be replaced. Please see Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR for analysis of tree
removal impacts.

HH-35: The trees removed prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit were accounted for in the
Forest Management Plan, per County request prior to Draft EIR circulation. Remedial action required for
code violations based tree removal without a permit is CEQA review and replanting requirements. As the
impacts for all the tree removal, including the removal done previously, is included in the Draft EIR
analysis, CEQA conditions have been met. Per Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, the project is required to
replant for tree removal. As such, the issue has been addressed to the Countys satisfaction.

HH-36: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Master Comment 3-E. Also, refer to revised
Mitigations under Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

HH-37: Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in the Draft EIR, specifically page 4.1-30, for a discussion of
impacts to visual characteristics. The definition of degrade as used in the Draft EIR means to
deteriorate or lower in character or quality the project site. The visual analysis took into consideration
that the project site is currently degraded due to a lack of maintenance and use over the past several years.
Further, please refer to Master Response 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, and 3-F for discussions on methodology and
thresholds of significance that were used in the visual analysis.

HH-38: Please refer to Master Response 7-C for discussion relating to grading and development on
slopes at or exceeding 30% slope. An alternative requiring the units to be separate and detached was not
considered since the alternative would not reduce environmental impacts and, thus, would not meet
CEQA requirements for alternatives. Examples of increased environmental impacts that would be a result
of such an alternative include greater numbers of tree removal and increased noise levels due to less of a
noise barrier along Highway 1.

HH-39: The comments states that the Project Site Lighting Plan included as Figure 4.1-5 is illegible.
While the Draft EIR preparer concedes that a black and white copy of this plan may be difficult to read, a
colored copy of the figure was made available to the public via the CD-Rom copy of the Draft EIR.
Further, the electronic version made available online (http://www.co.monterey.ca.us /planning/major/
Villas%20De%20Carmelo/Villas_De_Carmelo_DEIR_Chapters/Villas20DEIR%20-%20Ch%204.5
%20Cultural.pdf) has magnification capabilities for the convenience of the public. Additionally, if
individuals had difficulty reviewing the proposed lighting plan, Monterey County has the application
materials on file and available for review at the Planning Department offices, including plan-sized panels
of the lighting plan.

HH-40: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and
Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Monterey County has determined that
only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for
the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, to
address individual comments concerning the updated Traffic Section from the RDEIR and traffic-related
impacts.

HH-41: Figure 4.5-5, Demolition Plan, as presented in the Draft EIR as a hard copy and electronic copy
is legible and clearly identifies the various demolition actions proposed by the project. The electronic
version, available online (http://www.com.monterey.ca.us/planning/
major/Villas%20De%20Carmelo/Villas_De_Carmelo_DEIR_Chapters/Villas%20DEIR%20-
%20Ch%204.5 %20Cultural.pdf), has magnification capabilities for the convenience of the public.
Further, all plans are available at the Monterey County Planning Department offices for public review.
However, out of consideration for the public, the Figure 4.5-5 has been reprinted on 11x17 paper and
included in Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

It is assumed that the commenter is referring to Figures 4.5-6 through 4.5-11, Existing and Proposed
Elevations for Historical resource. The orientation of each view is identified below each rendering with
the identification of an existing elevation or a proposed elevation. The purpose of including these figures
in the Draft EIR, as indicated by their titles, were to demonstrate graphically the specific, proposed
modifications to the historical resource and aid the public in understanding the proposed modifications to
the historic structures. The intent of the figures intent was not to show the historic structures in the
context of the proposed structures or an aesthetic analysis of the modifications, but to show proposed
modifications to the historical resource. As such, the exact orientation of each elevation is not included in
order to avoid confusing the public as to the purpose of the figures.

Further, the Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resource, evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on
the historical resource, which includes analysis based on the California Code of Regulations 15065.5 (b)
(See Draft EIR page 4.5-14) and the stated thresholds of significance for cultural resources in CEQA
Guidelines, Appendix G (See Draft EIR page 4.5-24). As stated and analyzed in the Draft EIR, most of
the project site is not a contributing element of the historical resource and changes to it would not
materially impair the historical resources. . Illustrations of the appearance of the historical resource
with the proposed new construction are provided in the analysis of visual impacts, which is addressed in
Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics.

HH-42: The commenter recommends several mitigation measures to address potential impacts to the
historical resource. Each recommended mitigation measure is addressed below.

Require the historic stone staircases to remain in their existing historic location.
The project is required to meet with the SOIs Standards as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. The
current materials and configuration of the stone staircases and retaining walls proposed for rehabilitation
and modification do not meet the necessary safety requirements for residential use. However, the
rehabilitation of the historic landscaping for safety reasons will be conducted in compliance with the
SOIs Standards, which require that the deteriorated historic feature be repaired with matching design,
color, texture, and materials. Per Mitigation Measures 4.5-2 and 4.5-5, the SOIs Standards would be
implemented and verified, and any modifications to the historical resource will be documented. Please
see Master Response 11-C for discussion relating to the appropriateness of the SOIs Standards as
mitigation. The potential impact to the historical landscaping due to proposed modifications would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through
4.5-8. Given the need to meet safety requirements, the requirements to retain the staircases in their
existing historic location is unfeasible.

Require the existing flagstone pavers to the reused in their original locations.
As stated in the Draft EIR page 4.5-25, the existing materials in the historic landscaping will be reused in
the rehabilitation of the stone stairwells, walls, and terracing. For safety reasons, the flagstone pavers on
the patio to the south of the main building surrounding the fountain must be replaced. The replacement of
materials that cannot safely be reused will follow the SOIs Standards for replacing deteriorated historic
materials, which includes installation of similar yet distinguishable materials and matching design, color,
and texture as required by Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Further, the project proposes to use the historic
materials elsewhere on the project site. Given the safety element and the requirements for compliance
with the SOIs Standards for the replacement of deteriorated features, the recommended mitigation
measure is unfeasible.

The comment requests that the County require a 25-foot radius buffer around the landmark oak tree
adjacent to the main hospital building, or at least a 20-foot buffer. The EIR did not consider this to be
required based upon the impact evaluation in the Draft EIR. As stated on page 4.5-26 of the Draft EIR,
the project includes a 15-foot buffer around the historic landmark oak tree. The impacts to the historic,
landmark oak tree were identified as having the potential to be significant; however, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8, as well as Mitigation Measures 4.4-1
through 4.4-3 on page 4.4-20 of the Biological Section of the Draft EIR, these impacts would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 requires the elements of the Forest
Management Plan (Draft EIR Appendix D-4) to be implemented for the protection of onsite trees to be
retained onsite, including the historical landmark oak tree. As such, the potential impacts to the historic
landmark oak tree are adequately mitigated, and additional buffer space during construction is not
necessary. Comment is referred to decision-makers for their consideration during final deliberations on
conditions.

For discussion and analysis regarding a project alternative with a reduced number of residential units,
please see Draft EIR Section 6.0, page 6-13, under heading 6.4.5 Reduced Density Project.

HH-43: Please see Master Responses 10-A through 10-E.

HH-44: Please see Master Responses 10-A through 10-E.

the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for
individual comments concerning traffic-related impacts. Please refer to Response to Comment X-1 for
discussion of the applicability of non-conforming use permits.

HH-46: Please see Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.



HH-49: Please see Master Response 10-B.

HH-50: The Warner Group was hired by the applicant to provide the visual simulations request for the
proposed project requested by the County. Please refer to Master Comment 3-D regarding the review of
the visual simulations.




HH-54: Please see Master Responses 10A and 10-B.

HH-55: Page 4.9-5 of the Draft EIR states the following when providing a general description of the
Hatton Fields area (the general area of the proposed project): The Hatton Fields area has generally been
developed to the extent that the natural environment has been significantly altered and that the residential
use is perceived as the primary use of the land. The size, density, and character of this residential area
vary; capacity is available to accommodate additional residential demand. Infilling of development is
encouraged. The phrase capacity is available to accommodate additional residential demand refers to
the ability of the area to absorb the population growth expected in areas typically used for residential uses.
As not all of the parcels are developed in this primarily residential area, and infill development is
encouraged, there is capacity that can be used to absorb expected population growth. The commenter
expresses an opinion of the current housing availability; however, please see Draft EIR Section 4.11,
Population and Housing, for discussion of the expected population growth in the area and the Countys
responsibility to plan for expected growth. Also see page 72 of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, 4.1.1
Residential Land Use. The specific discussion regarding the area characteristics and statement
regarding available capacity in the Hatton Fields area in this adopted County document are consistent
with the statements in the EIR.

HH-56: The EIR text questioned reflects County policies which encourage infilling on vacant non-
agricultural lands within existing developed areas, new development within designated urban service
areas (Policy 26.1.13 of the 1982 County and Policy 4.4.3.D.1 and Policy 4.4.3.D.2. of the Carmel Area
Plan which directs medium-density residential development to existing residential areas where urban
services are available. Also see page 77 of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan, 4.3.1 Objectives for
Different Planning Units of Carmel Area, Existing Developed Areas which states It is the County's
objective to promote the continued "infilling" of vacant parcels of record in all subdivided areas, namely,
Carmel Woods, Hatton Fields, Carmel Point, Mission Fields, Mission Tract, Carmel Meadows, Carmel
Highlands, and the Riviera. The specific statement in the EIR regarding infilling is consistent with the
Carmel Area Land Use Plan citations above.

HH-57: Please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussion relating to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
consistency.

HH-58: Please see Master Response 10-D and 10-E.

HH-59: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 26.1.6 since the
proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetic-related impact. Please refer to
Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the applicability of the Monterey County to the proposed
project. As discussed in that response, the standard for review for projects located within the coastal zone
is the applicable LCP. Revisions have been incorporated into this EIR to reflect the applicability of the
Monterey County. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

HH-60: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 40.2.2 since the
proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetic-related impact. Please refer to
Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the applicability of the Monterey County to the proposed

HH-61: The County has deemed a scenic easement along Highway 1 is not necessary since development
is prohibited within 10 feet of the property line along Highway 1, per Mitigation Measure 4.1-4.

HH-62: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 52.1.3. While the
policy states that the County should determine if they wish to pursue a Historical Resource zoning
overlay for the portions of the project site that contain the historical resource, it is not required that one is
applied to the project. Based on consultation with the County, it was determined that Mitigation Measure
4.5-1A will be added to the Draft EIR that requires a historic resource zoning overlay be applied to the
portions of the project site that contain the historical resource to ensure that the resource is protected in
perpetuity. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the
additional mitigation measure.

HH-63: The existing zoning for the project site is for residential use, including the portions of the
historical resource. The HR zoning designation applies in conjunction with the underlying zoning
designation already present on the property, in this case for residential use. The HR zoning overlay
would not preclude residential use of the historical resource as it is currently zoned for residential use;
therefore, an exception under the mentioned code is not necessary. The HR zoning adds constraints to the
modifications that can be made to the historical resource, but does allow provisions for correction of
unsafe or dangerous conditions, as well as the alterations that would not adversely affect the significant
architectural features of the resource, nor adversely affect the character of historical, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value of the resource. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 through
5.4-8, the impacts of the proposed modifications would be reduced to a less-than-significant level and
would meet the requirement for approval under the HR (Coastal) zoning designation. Further, the
mitigation measures require adherence with the SOIs Standards for the treatment of historical resources,
which allows for the adaptive reuse of historical resources. As such, the conditions for Policy 52.1.3 have
been met.

HH-64: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 26.1.3. Please refer
to Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the applicability of the Monterey County to the proposed

HH-65: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 26.1.4.3. Please
refer to Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the applicability of the Monterey County to the
proposed project. As discussed in that response, the standard for review for projects located within the
coastal zone is the applicable LCP. Revisions have been incorporated into this EIR to reflect the
applicability of the Monterey County. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR.



is the applicable LCP. Further, the discussion of potential inconsistency on page 4.9-18 in Table 4.9-1 for
policy 27.2.1 identifies that public transit is not convenient.

Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and Service
Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Monterey County has determined that only
comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the
revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for
individual comments concerning the updated Traffic Section from the RDEIR and traffic-related
responses.

individual comments concerning the updated Traffic Section from the RDEIR and traffic-related
responses.


HH-71: This comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with LUP policy 4.4.3.E.1
because, in the opinion of the commenter, the project is not consistent with the LUPs resource and scenic
protection standards due to the intensity and scale of the proposed project. A response regarding the
proposed projects consistency with the Carmel Area LUP is provided in Master Response to Comments
10-D and 10-E; please refer to those comments for a response to this comment. In summary, the
proposed project is considered generally consistent with this policy as mitigated. Revisions have been
incorporated into this EIR to provide additional clarification regarding the proposed projects consistency
with the Coastal Act and the policies contained in the Carmel Area LUP; please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.


HH-73: The comment contends that the proposed project is inconsistent with policies 38.1.5 and 39.1.4
because, in the opinion of the commenter, the proposed project would affect existing level of service of
the surround roadway network. Please refer to Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding the
applicability of the Monterey County to the proposed project. As discussed in that response, the standard
for review for projects located within the coastal zone is the applicable LCP. Revisions have been
incorporated into this EIR to reflect the applicability of the Monterey County. Please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

HH-74: The comment suggests that the proposed project is inconsistent with policy 6.1.1 and LUP
policies 2.4.4.A.1, 2.4.4.A.2, and 3.2.3.1. Please refer to Master Response to Comment 10-D regarding
the applicability of the Monterey County to the proposed project. As discussed in that response, the
standard for review for projects located within the coastal zone is the applicable LCP. Revisions have
been incorporated into this EIR to reflect the applicability of the Monterey County. Moreover, please also
refer to Master Response to Comment 15-B regarding available water supply. In order to provide
additional clarification, revisions have been incorporated into this EIR; please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for more information.

HH-75: As the use of the property by Breakthrough for Men was temporary and infrequent, the Draft
EIR did not consider this use in its analysis. Consideration of this use to determine environmental
impacts would result in a skewed and inaccurate determination, given the outlier behavior and
infrequency of the use.

HH-76: The comment suggests that the Draft EIR inadequately analyzes the proposed projects
consistency with the LUP. In addition, the comment contends that the County cannot approve the coastal
development permit associated with the proposed project until such time that the proposed LUP
amendments are approved by the Coastal Commission. The comment incorrectly identifies that the
County is relying on future mitigation of future compliance with the LUP. Please refer to Master
Response 10-E for discussion of the Local Coastal Plan consistency process. Further, the Coastal
Development Permits are granted by the Coastal Commission, not the County. The proposed project
includes the amendment of the LCP. Please refer to Response to Comment D-21 for discussion regarding
the procedures for amending the LCP.

HH-77: The comment contends that the Draft EIR fails to identify all of the relevant and LUP policies
and analyze the projects consistency with those policies. As noted in the Draft EIR, only those policies
which relate to an environmental issue are evaluated for project consistency and/or potential conflicts.
Please refer to Master Response 10-D and 10-E for further discussion. It is solely within the discretion of
Monterey County and the Coastal Commission to determine project consistency, and it would be
inappropriate and beyond the scope of CEQA to determine project consistency within the planning
framework. The analysis contained in the Draft EIR is specific to environmental issues only. Further,
please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussions of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

HH-78: The comment suggests that the proposed project would represent a significant and unavoidable
land use impact due to potential project conflicts with policies contained in the Monterey County and the
Carmel Area LUP. Moreover, this comment suggests that mitigation measures should be identified,
where feasible, to reduce the extent of land use conflicts. A response to this comment is provided in
Master Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E. Please refer to that response for further discussion.
Revisions have also been incorporated to provide additional clarification regarding the projects
consistency with applicable plans and policies. More specifically, Table 4.9-1 has been revised to clarify
that the project, as mitigated, is considered to be generally consistent with applicable plans and policies.
Please see Section 6.0 Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for further discussion. It is also
important to acknowledge that an inconsistency does not represent a significant impact on the
environment unless that inconsistency or conflict would, itself, result in a significant physical impact on
the environment. The analysis in the Draft EIR, as modified, appropriately evaluates the proposed project
in terms of land use conflicts, and mitigation identified in the EIR are adequate to ensure that the project
is considered to be generally consistent with relevant plans and policies.

HH-79: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the

HH-80: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Utilities section. The
Recirculated Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems section replaced Section 4.14 of the previously
circulated Draft EIR. The RDEIR updated the information about agency coordination, water demand and
water consumption data from the Draft EIR and the baseline historical analysis, as well as other water-
related issues addressed in these comments. Monterey County has determined that only comments
received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines 15088.5(F) 2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Please also
refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments
concerning the updated Water Section from the RDEIR and water-related responses. Please refer also to
Master Response 16 for water related responses to commonly raised items.

HH-81 through HH-90: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment
HH-80 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding water-related responses.

HH-91: The comment contends that the proposed project fails to incorporate water conservation
measures; therefore, the project is considered inconsistent with LUP policy 3.2.3.3. A response to this
comment is provided in Master Response to Comment 15-B; please refer to that response for more
information. As discussed in that response, revisions have been incorporated into this EIR to clarify that
the proposed project will be required to implement water conservation measures consistent with the
requirements of the County and MPWMD. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and

HH-92 through HH-97: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment
HH-80 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding water-related responses.

CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F) 2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for
individual comments concerning the updated Growth Inducing Section from the RDEIR and growth-
related responses.

HH-99: The Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities
and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Monterey County has determined
that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F) 2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR
for the revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for
individual comments concerning the updated Cumulative and Growth Inducing Section from the RDEIR
and cumulative impact responses.

HH-100: Comment acknowledged. Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the
related discussion.

HH-101: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment HH-100 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding alternative-related responses.

HH-102: The 2007 Update is mentioned in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality. The Draft EIR analysis
does measure the proposed project against the 1982. Given that neither the existing nor its associated EIR
address climate change and recent legislative actions (i.e., AB32 and SB375) and recent federal court
decisions qualifying greenhouse gases as pollutants that can be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act,
greenhouse gas emissions are now regulated. It was worth noting that the proposed project would be
consistent with the Draft 2007. This proposed does address greenhouse gases and includes policies that
would assist the County in meeting the legislative mandates. Therefore, if the project might hinder the
ability of the County to meet the legislative mandates (i.e., if it were in conflict with the Draft 2007),
project impacts on climate change could potentially be considered as significant impacts. This project
would not conflict with those policies; therefore, the project would not have a significant cumulative
impact for this reason (nor due to its direct emissions as described on page 4.3-24 of the Draft EIR).

Both documents were reviewed also in the preparation of Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources. As
stated on page 4.5-1, the EIR consultants included these documents in the literature review in regards to
the regional history, prehistory, and ethnography of the area. The information found in these two
documents had no bearing on the analysis of impacts on historical resources, but the additional review did
confirm information found in several other documents, also listed, concerning the history of the area.
HH-103 through HH-107: The Recirculated Draft EIR Utilities and Service Systems section replaced
Section 4.14 of the previously circulated Draft EIR. The RDEIR updated the information about agency
coordination, water demand and water consumption data from the Draft EIR and the baseline historical
analysis, as well as other water-related issues addressed in these comments. Please refer to the
Recirculated Draft EIR Section 4.14 regarding water-related responses, Section 5.0 for RDEIR individual
responses to comments and Master Response 16 for water related responses.

Letter II
II-1
DRAFT EIR LETTER II: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP #2
II-1: The State Water Resource Control Board Water Rights Department has received a copy of the Draft
EIR and will be included in the circulation of the Recirculated Draft EIR, which includes information
concerning water supply.

Letter JJ
JJ-3
JJ-2
JJ-1
JJ-7
JJ-6
JJ-5
JJ-4
JJ-3
cont.
JJ-8
JJ-7
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER JJ: ROBERT W. AND ELAINE S. EWEN
JJ-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,

JJ-2: For an analysis of aesthetic impacts from the implementation of the proposed project, please see
Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, as well as Master Responses to Comments 3-B and 3-C. Please note,
the term residential village refers to the description given to the project under the Applicant's Project
Objectives; refer to Master Response 3-E.

JJ-3: As stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed landscaping involves the use of fully-matured landscaping
that would resemble the visual simulations provided in the Draft EIR of the proposed project after
construction. Please refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in the Draft EIR. Further, a discussion of the
proposed projects potential impacts related to adding additional lighting in the project vicinity is
recognized as a potentially significant impact; however, as stated on page 4.1-33 of the Draft EIR, light
and glare from the proposed project would be minimized as artificial lighting would be down-lit and
shielded by the building design, location on the project site, mature vegetation required by the
landscaping plan. Therefore, the Draft EIR accurately determined that the project would not result in
spillover light that would impact surrounding land uses with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
4.1-7 on page 4.1-33 of the Draft EIR, which requires specified standards for lighting and allowed
illumination. As such, the Draft EIR correctly determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts
for light and glare to a less than significant level.

JJ-4: As provided in mitigation measure 4.1-7, no flood lighting would be allowed if the project were
approved. Figure 4.1-5 of the Draft EIR has been corrected to reflect this; please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised figure.

JJ-5: As stated on Page 4.1-34 of the Draft EIR, infill development occurring within or adjacent to
existing urbanized areas would result in less significant visual impacts, although it could adversely affect
views from adjacent parcels by increasing density, creating glare, and decreasing open space. The project
is considered infill development. Further, there are no other planned development projects in the project
sites immediate vicinity that would result in the intensification of development in the area and
substantially change the existing visual quality or character of the region. Please refer to Master
Response 3-B, 3-C, and 3-D for additional discussion concerning the application of thresholds of
significance and impact assessments.

JJ-6: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and
individual comments concerning water-related impacts.

JJ-7: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and
individual comments concerning traffic-related impacts.

JJ-8: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment JJ-7 and the

Letter KK
KK-1
KK-2
DRAFT EIR LETTER KK: NELSON FRENCH
KK-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

KK-2: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment KK-1 and the

Letter LL
LL-1
LL-2
LL-3
LL-4
DRAFT EIR LETTER LL: PAMELA GILLOOLY
LL-1: The comment raised concern over the proposed projects potential to impact area schools and
classroom sizes and the comment questioned the mitigation measure provided by the Draft EIR. As
stated in Section 4-12 of the Draft EIR, in order to minimize project impacts, school impact fees will be
paid to the school district to mitigate project-related impacts. California State law (Government Code
Section 65995) specifies that the payment of a school impact fee for each type of new development is an
acceptable method of offsetting the effect of new development on the adequacy of school facilities. The
fees set forth in Government Code Section 65996 constitute the exclusive means of both considering
and mitigating school facilities impacts of projects [Government Code Section 65996(a)]. Therefore,
development on the project site would result in payment of development fees to the CUSD. The
maximum statutory school fee the CUSD can currently collect for new residential development is $1.93
per square foot. These fees would be used for the development of new schools, expansion or
improvement of existing school facilities, or to fund school services.

The purpose of the Draft EIR is to state potential impacts of the project and to recommend mitigation that
may reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. It is not in the scope of the
Draft EIR to evaluate laws set forth by the State of California that have been designed to reduce impacts
from the development of projects such as the proposal in question. As such, compliance with the codes
stated above meets the requirements to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

LL-2: This comment raised concern on the proposed projects impact on recreational areas. As noted in
Section 4-12 of the Draft EIR, although the proposed project has the potential to result in an increased
demand on existing recreational facilities, project-related impacts are considered less-than-significant
since the project would be required to adhere to applicable County of Monterey standard conditions of
approval pertaining to recreational requirements. Specifically, Section 19.12.010 of the Monterey County
Subdivision Ordinance states that as a condition of approval of a tentative map, the developer shall
dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of land, or both at the option of the County for park and recreational
purposes. Therefore, the proposed development would be required to comply with the recreation
requirements, as contained in Section 19.12.010 of the Subdivision Ordinance, by paying a fee in lieu of
land dedication, as stated on page 4.12-7 of the Draft EIR.

LL-3: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

LL-4: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment LL-3 and the

DRAFT EIR LETTER MM: BONNIE GILLOOLY
MM-1: Please refer to Master Response 7-C for discussion relating to grading areas and Figure 4.6-2,
Grading Plan, in the Draft EIR. For discussion regarding the geological suitability of the project site,
slope stability, and erosion potential, please refer to Master Response 7-C.

MM-2: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

MM-3: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.MM-4:
For discussion regarding the geological suitability of the project site, slope stability, and erosion potential,
please refer to Master Response 7-C.

MM-5: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment MM-2 and the

MM-6: Internal roadways and access is shown on Figure 3-3, Project Layout Plan. Internal access is
needed in order to allow access to the individual units.

MM-7: The presence of fox in the vicinity of the proposed project does not require mitigation under
CEQA. Mitigations are included to reduce impacts on bats, raptors, and/or nesting avian species
potentially present at the site as required under CEQA. As noted on page 4.4-7 of the Draft EIR, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:

have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;

have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;

have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites;

conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance;

conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; or

impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites or directly harm nesting species protected under
the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Appropriate mitigations are included for potential impacts to candidate, listed, and/or special-status
wildlife species (first bullet). No impacts to riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities will occur
(second bullet). No wetlands will be impacted (third bullet). Given the existing fragmentation and
development of the site, the project will not interfere substantially with the movement of native species
(fourth bullet). The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources (fifth bullet). Given the existing fragmentation and development of the site, the project will not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
(sixth bullet). The project will not conflict with an adopted HCP or NCCCP. Finally, the project will not
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (except as noted and mitigated for bats and birds).

Letter NN
NN-1
NN-2
NN-3
NN-4
NN-4
cont.
NN-5
NN-6
NN-7
DRAFT EIR LETTER NN: MYRNA CLARK HAMPTON
NN-1: The Notice of Availability was a preliminary document sent out by the County. Removal
numbers were revised after analysis of the submitted documents. The statement on page 4.4-21 of the
Draft EIR refers only to trees proposed for removal that are 12 in diameter and larger, which can be
verified on Table 4.4-1. Table 4.4-1 of the Draft EIR presents the total number of trees to be removed by
size class and species. The reference to tree removal on page 4.1-10 that states, Therefore, removal of
213 existing trees, is an error and is revised to be consistent with Table 4.4-1. Please see Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for text revisions. Proposed removal trees were not
marked at the time of inspection, but they were verified in the field through existing tags and pre-existing
maps, which accurately depict the trees by number.

The Draft EIR Figures 4.1-3A through 4.1-3L show the visual simulations of the proposed project with
and without the proposed landscaping plan, now required by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. These figures
were checked to verify that trees proposed for removal were not included. Only two figures needed
revising, Figure 4.1-3A and 4.1-3B. The revised figures are located in Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Recirculated Draft and Draft EIR.

NN-2: The use of DNA analysis was not judged to be needed to verify that the large Monterey pines
within the landscaped areas were planted and was not required of the submitter. Coast live oak has the
ability to sprout from roots; Monterey pine does not. The use of different terminology when referring to
regeneration of these vastly different species is common and appropriate.

NN-3: The FMP presents clear evidence that most of the large Monterey Pines present within the parking
lots and developed landscaping were planted and therefore not native to the site. This determination
affects their status for replacement and also their eligibility for consideration as significant.

NN-4: The FMP does not propose to remove trees due to ill health. The FMP proposes to remove trees
that could not be preserved due to design constraints. When considering a tree for possible preservation,
there are several important attributes to consider. These include age, health, form, and potential
construction impacts. This information is gathered during the preparation of the forest management plan.

The Forest Management Plan prepared for the project site in Draft EIR Appendix D-4 states the
following:

In addition to its own inspection of the property, Forest City Consulting relied on information
provided by the property developers or their representatives in the preparation of this Plan (such
as, but not limited to, surveys, property boundaries and property ownership) and must reasonably
rely on the accuracy of the information provided.

The information provided by the property developers was items such as was mentioned, property surveys,
boundaries, and ownership. The disclaimer was not indicating that scientific analysis was based on bias
information provided by the developer, but it was intended to be a legal disclaimer to disclose that no
investigation into legal matters, such as property lines or legal ownership, was investigated since these
items are outside of the purview of the consultants expertise. The Forest Management Plan was peer
reviewed by DD&A and Bill Ruskin Consulting, per County requirements, to ensure that the analysis and
conclusions reached were accurate.

NN-5: Page 4.4-8 of the DIER states: ZA did not conduct directed studies for any special-status animal
species, but rather evaluated the habitat potential of the site to support those species. This is consistent
with CEQA and relates that no protocol-level wildlife surveys were deemed necessary based on existing
site conditions and/or onsite habitats. Also, page 4.4-17, the Draft EIR states: Directed surveys for
specific special status species were not conducted; however, the former convalescent hospital site was
evaluated for the ability to support special status wildlife. In addition, on page 4.4-8, As part of the
peer review process of the project, DD&As Senior Wildlife Biologist conducted a field
reconnaissance/site assessment of the property on April 24, 2008. The assessment consisted of walking
meandering transects of the site, concurrent with review of the BA and FMP for the project. Also, as
stated on page 4.4-15, The Biological Assessment prepared by ZA developed a target list of special
status plant and animal species and evaluated their potential presence to occur on the former Carmel
Convalescent Hospital site (See Table 1 in the Biological Resource Assessment). The list was
developed based on a review of CNDDB records (CDFG 20007) and California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) Electronic Inventory for the Monterey 7.5- minute USFWS quadrangle and the surrounding
quadrangles, including Soberanes Point, Mt. Carmel, Marina, and Seaside (USGS). Figure 4.4-2 presents
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences in the vicinity of the proposed site.
Qualified biologists prepared the BA for this project site in accordance with county requirements; the BA
underwent peer-review. Given the documentation provided above, DD&A is confident in the biological
analysis.

The presence of fox in the vicinity of the proposed project does not require mitigation under CEQA.
Mitigations are included to reduce impacts on bats, raptors, and/or nesting avian species potentially
present at the site as required under CEQA. As noted on page 4.4-7 of the Draft EIR, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would:

have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;

have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service;

have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites;

conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy or ordinance;

conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; or

impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites or directly harm nesting species protected under
the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Appropriate mitigations are included for potential impacts to candidate, listed, and/or special-status
wildlife species (first bullet). No impacts to riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities will occur
(second bullet). No wetlands will be impacted (third bullet). Given the existing fragmentation and
development of the site, the project will not interfere substantially with the movement of native species
(fourth bullet). The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources (fifth bullet). Given the existing fragmentation and development of the site, the project will not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
(sixth bullet). The project will not conflict with an adopted HCP or NCCCP. Finally, the project will not
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (except as noted and mitigated for bats and birds).

NN-6: Please refer to Response to Comment N-1 regarding carbon sequestration of existing and
proposed trees and the effect on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The Urbemis model
analysis provides estimates of CO2 emissions from construction and operation (including vehicular
travel). CO2 represents over 99% of the global warming potential of greenhouse gas emissions from
construction and operation of the proposed project.

NN-7: The linear, direct distance between San Francisco and Carmel is roughly 90 miles. No edits have
been made in response to this comment.

Letter OO
OO-1
OO-2
OO-3
OO-4
OO-5
OO-6
OO-7
DRAFT EIR LETTER OO: JANE HIRSCH
OO-1: The Draft EIR identifies that implementation of the proposed project would result in potential
light and glare impacts. The Draft EIR correctly identifies visual impacts related to new light and glare as
reduced to a significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures provided in Draft EIR
Section 4.1, Aesthetics. Figure 4.1-3L depicts the proposed project without the implementation of the
landscaping plan. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 requires the landscaping and replanting plan to be completed
and maintained until success criteria have been met. Please refer to Figure 4.1-3K for a visual simulation
of the Highway 1 viewpoint with the proposed landscaping. In addition to the landscaping and replanting
plan, Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 specifically addresses light and glare impacts. The mitigation requires
that no lighting or glare will be directed towards Highway 1. The measure does not state that no lighting
and glare would affect Highway 1. The mitigation also requires that landscaping be designed to screen
project site lighting to the maximum extent feasible. For example, low shrubs and bushes could be
positioned in a manner that shields ground lighting from Highway 1. For further discussion, please refer
to Master Response 3-F and 3-G.

While the Draft EIR preparer concedes that a black and white copy of this plan may be difficult to read, a
colored copy of the figure was made available to the public via the CD-Rom copy of the Draft EIR.
Further, the electronic version made available online (http://www.co.monterey.ca.us /planning/major/
Villas%20De%20Carmelo/Villas_De_Carmelo_DEIR_Chapters/Villas%20DEIR%20-%20Ch%204.5
%20Cultural.pdf) has magnification capabilities for the convenience of the public. Additionally, if
individuals had difficulty reviewing the proposed lighting plan, Monterey County has the application
materials on file and available for review at the Planning Department offices, including plan-sized panels
of the lighting plan.

OO2: For responses regarding the reference to a sound wall, please see Master Response 11-C and
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR. As there is no proposed sound wall,
Figure 4.1-3L would not need to be revised.

OO-3: The Draft EIR identifies that implementation of the proposed project would result in potential
light and glare impacts. The proposed project does include streetlamps located adjacent to the proposed
internal access road on the project site, Via Carmelo. However, as displayed in Figure 4.1-5 Lighting
Plan, the majority of the streetlamps would be essentially internalized by the site design of proposed
buildings on the project site. Those streetlamps located within the immediate vicinity of Valley Way are
intended to be at least partially obscured by the proposed replanting and remaining trees proposed in the
projects landscaping plan. Figure 4.1-3F depicts the proposed project without the landscaping required
by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Please see Figure 4.1-3E for the visual simulation with the proposed
landscaping. For further discussion, please refer to Master Response 3-F and 3-G.

OO-4: For proposed building elevations on the project site, please refer to FEIR Appendix B, Building
Elevations, in the Draft EIR. Figure 4.1-4I and 4.1-4J depict the proposed projected visually on Valley
Way. Mitigation measures designed to reduce potential impacts of the proposed project have been
included in the Draft EIR, including those impacts associated with light and glare for the whole project.
The proximity of proposed unit 32 is recognized by the Draft EIR, and a potential project alternative has
been included, the Reduced Project Alternative, which recommends removal of this proposed unit on the
project site. For further discussion, please refer to Master Response 3-F and 3-G.

OO-5: The reference to one foot candle in the mitigation measure refers to a unit of measurement used
to determine light exposure. One foot candle equals one lumen per square foot. The unit is measurable
and therefore is enforceable.
OO-6: Please refer to Master Response 3-B and 3-C for discussions related to the visual analysis
completed for the project and the appropriate thresholds of significance under CEQA. Additionally,
please refer to Master Response 3-F regarding views from private properties.

OO-7: The last paragraph on page 6-8 of the Draft EIR discusses the reduction of light and glare impacts
for the Existing Zoning Alternative. Page 6-13 discusses the reduction of light and glare impacts for the
Reduced Density Alternative. Text has been added to the discussion of the Applicants Modified Design
Project to address light and glare, which would still be considered less-than-significant. For the
additional text, please refer to the Recirculated Draft EIR. For additional discussion, please refer to
Master Response 3-G.

Letter PP
PP-1
PP-2
PP-2
cont.
PP-3
PP-4
PP-5
PP-6
PP-7
PP-8
PP-9
PP-10
PP-11
PP-12
PP-13
PP-14
PP-15
PP-16
DRAFT EIR LETTER PP: WAYNE E. IVERSEN
PP-1: The proposed project submitted in the application materials is the project that is analyzed in the
Draft EIR, and the thresholds of significance used in the analysis is the thresholds set by the CEQA
guidelines and relevant case law. Garage and auxiliary spaces were accounted for in the EIR analysis, as
they are components of the proposed project. Comments regarding development under the existing
environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. These comments are referred to
decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is
necessary.

PP-2: The commenters opinion is noted. Visual impacts associated with the proposed project are
analyzed, specifically concerning the Highway 1 corridor, in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and as
revised in the Final EIR. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are
specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that

PP-3: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

PP-4: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment PP-2 for discussion of
existing zoning discussion and visual impact analysis, as well as, Response to Comment PP-3 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses. Please refer to Response to Comment X-1 for
discussion of applicable use permits associated with the proposed project.

PP-5 through PP-7: Please refer to Response to Comment PP-3 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding
traffic-related responses.

PP-8: The impacts associated with the removal of the specific number of trees necessary for project
implementation are discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.4, Biological Resources.
The Forest Management Plan (Appendix D-4 in the Draft EIR) evaluates each tree proposed for removal
and evaluates the conditions necessary to reduce tree removal impacts to a less-than-significant level, per
Monterey County codes and policies. The proposed project, as any other proposed project in the area, is
subject to Monterey County codes and policies, specifically the Carmel Area Land Use Plan policies,
regarding tree removal. The Draft EIR and the Forest Management Plan evaluate the proposed project in
relation to these policies. As stated in the Draft EIR and the Forest Management Plan, proposed
landscaping and replanting plan (as required through Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.4-2) calls for
mature vegetation (referred to as a day-one plan in the EIR) to ensure that visual impacts will be
addressed and remediated as soon as possible, without the usual waiting period necessary for young
vegetation to grow.

PP-9: For responses regarding the reference to a sound wall, please see Master Response 11-C and
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR. As there is no proposed sound wall, the
graphic views of the project from Highway One would not need to be revised.

The project site is located in Monterey County, and no reference was made in the Draft EIR to Los
Angeles or San Jose.

PP-10: The Draft EIR was prepared for Monterey County, not the developer, and Monterey County and
State procedures for the management and environmental analysis of a submitted application under CEQA
was followed for the proposed project. Please refer to the Introduction subsections of each topic in the
EIR for discussions of the actions taken to ensure that the reports and analyses prepared for the EIR were
accurate. Further, this comment provides an opinion of the conclusions reached through analysis in the
Draft EIR, not a specific comment regarding an environmental impact of the proposed project. No further
response is deemed necessary. Also refer to Master Response 2-D.

PP-11: The proposed project analyzed in the Draft EIR, as revised in the Recirculated Draft EIR and
Final EIR, is independent of the project application to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. As such, the
current project application must be evaluated separately from the previous application, especially since
the applications were submitted to two different lead agencies and jurisdictions. Further, the commenter
presents his opinion of the submittal process. The commenters opinion is noted; however, the comment
does not specifically address an environmental impact of the proposed project. No further response is
necessary.

PP-12: The project is proposing to rehabilitate an identified historical resource, which is or will be listed
on the appropriate historical registers and inventories. County requirements for the treatment of historic
properties [Monterey County Municipal Code 18.25 and 20.54, and Page 4.5-15 of Section 4.5,
Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR] would ensure that the historical resource is preserved and its
historic integrity maintained. Further, Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR discusses which
elements comprise the historical resource and how the proposed project and its proposed modifications
will impact the historical resource. As the proposed project was identified to have the potential for
significant impacts to the historical resource, Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8 were included to
reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. In order for these structures to be usable, they must be
rehabilitated to meet the requirements for applicable health and safety codes, especially given the current
zoning designation for residential use. As such, the commenter is correct that the rehabilitation of the
structures will require alterations because the resource is so degraded in its present state that it is clearly
uninhabitable. However, not all of the elements suggested by the commenter will need to be replaced,
and the replacement of deteriorated elements of a historical resource is allowed under the SOIs
Standards within certain constraints, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. The historic landscaping
will be rehabilitated and replaced, not demolished, during the construction of the underground parking
structure and the renovations to the main hospital building. Rehabilitation of the patio pavers and
fountain may require replacement materials; however, this is allowed under the SOIs Standards. The
only remaining natural element to the previous gardens is the landmark oak tree to the south of the main
hospital building. No other natural elements have been retained over the course of the eighty years since
the facility was established. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 requires the creation
of a Preservation and Monitoring Plan that will detail specific work to be completed on the historical
resource and the specific preservation steps to be taken during the rehabilitation process so that the
historical resource will be rehabilitated into a usable resource while preserving its historic integrity, as
required by the applicable regulatory statutes and framework discussed on page 4.5-14 of the Draft EIR.
For a discussion of the appropriateness of the SOIs Standards as mitigation, please see Master Response
11-C. Preservation of the historical resource is a required element for the proposed project, and the
preservation mitigation actions are required to be monitored and verified by certified professionals and
various County agencies to ensure rehabilitation efforts are completed in an appropriate manner.

Further, the commenter presents his opinion of the proposed project. The commenters opinion is noted;
however, the opinion does not specifically address an environmental impact of the proposed project. No

PP-13: Staking and flagging is required for all projects in the Coastal Zone. The process is required and
was completed prior to the development of the EIR. As quoted by the commenter, another equally
suited material was used that utilized the specific colors required by the policy for the staking and
flagging. Please refer to Master Response 1-C for further discussion of staking and flagging procedures.

PP-14: The comment expresses an opinion of the overall merits of the project and not upon a specific
element of the Draft EIR; therefore, no response is necessary.

PP-15: As stated in the Draft EIR, the visual impacts to the Highway 1 scenic corridor have been
identified as significant and unavoidable. Please see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for further discussion. Also,
please refer to Master Response 1-C for discussion on flagging and staking for the project.

PP-16: The comment expresses an opinion of the overall merits of the project and not upon a specific
element of the Draft EIR; therefore, no response is necessary.

Letter QQ
QQ-1
DRAFT EIR LETTER QQ: KATHLEEN KEATINGE KARACHALE
QQ-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

Letter RR
RR-1
RR-2
RR-3
RR-4
RR-5
DRAFT EIR LETTER RR: BARRY D. KOHLER
RR-1 through RR-5: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic,
Letter SS
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
DRAFT EIR LETTER SS: MICHAEL LEPAGE
SS-1: Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, Cultural Resource, identifies the historical resource on the project site
and evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on that resource. The project includes the
adaptive reuse of the historic buildings into residential uses as identified in the Project Description. The
impacts of the project were identified as potentially significant, but can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8. The SOIs
Standards that would be implemented under Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, allow for rehabilitation of a
historical resource for its adaptive reuse, as stated on page 4.5-15 of the Draft EIR. (Please see Master
Response 11-C for discussion on the appropriateness of the SOIs Standards as mitigation for historical
resources to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.) The proposed project will be required to
comply with the SOIs Standards as shown in Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Further, Mitigation Measures
4.5-2 through 4.5-8 require the preparation of a site-specific Preservation Monitoring Plan; compliance
with professional qualification standards; mitigation monitoring and reporting; consultation with
interested parties; application of protective measures before, during, and after construction; repair of
inadvertent damage; recordation of the property to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)
standards; and videography of the interior and exterior of the main hospital building prior to initial project
construction. Because all of these mitigation measures include monitoring and verification requirements
by both a qualified professional and Monterey County, all applicable standards set forth in these
documents will be implemented and verified.

The reference the commenter makes to conclusions about which plan is preferred based upon unfounded
mitigation claims is unclear. The mitigation measures proposed (4.5-1 through 4.5-8) were developed to
specifically address the impacts of the proposed project on the Peninsula Community Hospital historical
resource. Please note, the analysis included in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, is based on the
project described in Section 3.0, Project Description. For analysis for Alternatives, please see
Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives.

SS-2: Please refer to Master Response 9-D and Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR, for discussion on the number of stormwater runoff detention facilities and corresponding text
corrections.

SS-3: While trees have been shown to reduce flooding effects due to soil retention and the amounts of
water absorption in the canopy during storm events,
12
the effects on runoff due to tree removal would be
negligible as the landscaping and replanting plan would replace the majority of trees removed with
mature trees and landscaping, and on-site retention facilities would allow runoff levels to be reduced to
less than pre-development levels. Construction-related runoff impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section
4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.

SS-4: Please refer to Master Response 9-D and Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR, for discussion on the number of stormwater runoff detention facilities and corresponding text
corrections.

SS-5: The Draft EIR states that the proposed project includes a stormwater detention facility with a 7,745
cubic feet capacity, enough for on-site runoff retention during a 100-year storm event (worst-case
scenario estimates) with a discharge of up to 1.35 cubic feet per second into the existing drainage ditch on
Valley Way, as allowed under the Local Coastal Plan policy 2.4.3.2., as 1.35 cubic feet per second is the

12
Seitz, Jennifer and Francisco Escobedo. 2008. Urban Forests in Florida: Trees Control Stormwater Runoff and
Improve Water Quality. Publication # FOR184. School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. May, 2008.
Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR239.
existing runoff level of the site currently. As stated in Appendix I of the Draft EIR, the proposed on-site
detention facilities would likely decrease discharge levels offsite to less than what currently exists;
therefore, the proposed project would reduce the pressure on existing facilities offsite.

SS-6: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

Letter TT
TT-1
TT-1
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER TT: DR. MARY VIRGINIA MCQUADE
TT-1: The analysis and preparation of Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in the Draft EIR
included an evaluation of possible hazards that may potentially be present on the project site and that may
affect or be affected by proposed development. Medical waste was not excluded from this analysis. No
evidence of medical waste was found during the Phase I site visit or identified in the records search, as
described in the Draft EIR (see pages 4.7-2). The Draft EIR does identify an area that was previously
used for the storage of medical biohazard materials (as per the door signage). No evidence of spillage or
stains were found, nor were any containers or waste present at the time of inspection. Further, the Phase I
did not find any signs of incineration sites or medical waste disposal areas. No indication of disposal
methods were found during the investigation performed by both the Phase I consultants and the Draft EIR
preparer. Additionally, no record of a registered incinerator was on file at the Monterey County Health
Department.

As it states on page 4.7-2 of the Draft EIR, the Phase I preparer completed a review of previous reports
for the site, oil and gas well activities, restricted materials permits, and government agencies and
databases for potential hazards nearby or onsite. The results of the report and database search found no
additional sources of hazardous materials or contamination resulting from onsite conditions. The Phase I
report specifically notes that no evidence of hazardous material dumping was found on the project site,
nor were any environmental liens, restricted material permits, or environmental releases or spills found, as
noted on page 3 of Appendix H of the Draft EIR. Also, no evidence of chemical storage was evident.
Any hazardous waste used or accumulated during the operation of the site was subject to Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which is discussed on page 4.7-5 of the Draft EIR. As the site
was being used as a convalescent hospital up until 2005, any waste generated previous to 1976 (as the Act
includes language to retroactively identify and apply to existing hazardous wastes on a site) and up until
the closure of the convalescent hospital is subject to proper handling and disposal as required by this law.

The County did not require a Hazardous Toxic or Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment for the project. Hospital use of radioactive materials is typically in trace amounts and
use is limited to specific locations, such as x-ray rooms and radiology departments. Further, no evidence
of dumping or spills of radioactive material was found on the project site during the completion of the
Phase I Assessment. RCRA regulations requires that current land owners at the time of a hazards
discovery are responsible for the proper disposal of the hazard; therefore, it is likely that any equipment or
materials containing these compounds would have been disposed of by the previous property owner
during the operation of the convalescent hospital, prior to the hospitals closure. To be conservative,
however, unlikely, there is potential for some traces of residual radioactivity to be found at the site if
proper disposal has not been completed during previous uses. ASTM E1760-09 guidelines states that
bulk materials containing residual amounts of radioactivity can typically be disposed of in a traditional
manner; however, to ensure that any materials on the site that may contain traces of radioactivity meet
these qualifications and pose no threat to construction personnel and future residents, Mitigation Measure
4.7-3A has been added to require radiological testing using a Geiger counter.

Even though no evidence of medial biohazards, besides those identified in the Draft EIR, were evident
during the investigation, the potential for these items to be located on the site was still identified on Draft
EIR page 4.7-6:

The presence of existing hazards on site may result in a significant public health hazard due to
the potential exposure of construction personnel and future residential occupants to these hazards
if not properly remediated. Demolition of existing structures and clearing, excavation, and
construction activities associated with the proposed project could also result in the exposure of
construction personnel and future site occupants to hazards and associated health risks as well.
The presence of known and possible unknown hazards on the project site is considered a
potentially significant impact.

As such, Mitigation Measures 4.7-3 through 4.7-5 specifically address the presence of unknown
contaminants and hazards on the site. These measures require the preparation of an Operation,
Maintenance, and Remediation Plan as well as proper safety requirements, handling, and disposal of any
unknown hazard found on the site to be completed in accordance with all state and local regulatory
requirements, which would include any medical waste found and any incineration areas used for the
disposal of medical biohazards. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 required lead and Title 22 metal
contaminant surveys to be conducted. Given the unknowns associate with past practices associated with
the former hospital use, additional mitigation is presented for soil testing upon demolition to determine
the absence/presence of any hazardous substances and to identify appropriate remediation as needed
(Mitigation Measure 4.7-3). Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR,
for additional text. Mitigation Measures in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section have been
clarified to specifically mention potential medical biohazards. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

The commenters reference to page 350 and 351 of Volume II of the Draft EIR is unclear. The potential
hazards identified in the Phase I report are included in the Draft EIR section, and the Draft EIR provides
for the potential of unknown hazards to be found and disposed of properly in accordance with state and
federal regulations. Specifically, the mitigation measures state that any hazard must be disposed of in a
manner compliant with applicable state and federal regulations as described earlier in the section under
the heading Regulatory Framework, which also applies to any medical waste found at the site.

Letter UU
UU-2
UU-1
UU-5
UU-4
UU-3
UU-2
cont.
UU-8
UU-7
UU-6
DRAFT EIR LETTER UU: TONY AND CHANTAL MELENDEZ
UU-1 Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

UU-2 through UU-7: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment UU-1
and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

UU-8: The commenters state their opinion of the traffic analysis, which is noted. Their opinion is
referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further

Letter VV
VV-1
VV-2
VV-3
VV-3
cont.
VV-4
VV-5
VV-6
VV-6
cont.
VV-7
VV-8
VV-9
VV-10
VV-11
VV-11
cont.
VV-12
VV-13
VV-14
VV-15
VV-16
VV-17
VV-18
VV-19
VV-20
VV-20
cont.
VV-20
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER VV: DERINDA L. MESSENGER & ASSOCIATES
VV-1: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR, for the revised text.

VV-2: Per County requirements and Part 6, Applicable County Ordinances, of the LCPs Coastal
Implementation Plan, the Housing Ordinance is applicable to the proposed project. Please refer to Master
Response 12-B for discussion concerning the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Master Responses 10-
D regarding the applicability of the Monterey County housing policies to the proposed project.

VV-3: The project is subject to Monterey County codes and policies as described and analyzed in the
Draft EIR. The project is not exempt from any Monterey County rules and regulations, specifically, the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance because of the projects location in the Coastal Zone. Please refer to
Response to Comment VV-2 and Master Response 12-B for discussion concerning the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance.

VV-4: As stated in Comment Letter E from Caltrans, Caltrans confirms the requirement to close the
Highway 1 access from the project site, as analyzed in the Draft EIR.

VV-5: Please see Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR and Master Response to Comments
10.

VV-6: Please refer to Response to Comment VV-4 for discussion relating to the Highway 1 access point
to the project site.

VV-7: Comment noted, but no further response is deemed necessary.

VV-8: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

VV-9: Comment noted. Please refer to Master Response 12-B for discussion relating to the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance. The requested revision to the fourth bullet is not required. For the remaining
revisions requested by the commenter, please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirulated
Draft EIR.

VV-10: The vegetation on the site is fully described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, in the Draft
EIR, as specified in the Forest Management Plan; however, the reference to Monterey pine and coast live
oak woodland has been removed. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR, for the revised text. For discussion regarding private property views, please refer to Master
Response 3-F.

VV-11: The text has been revised to include the correct square footage; please refer to Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text. For discussion regarding private
property views, please refer to Master Response 3-F.

VV-12: As a component of the proposed projects application submittal to the Monterey County
Planning Department, a Forest Management Plan and a preliminary landscaping plan were submitted
which were included for review by the Draft EIR. With regard to the Forest Management Plan, see
Master Response 5-B for explanation of peer review process conducted as part of the Draft EIR. With
regards to the preliminary landscaping plan, although the applicant has submitted this proposed
landscaping plan in order for the EIR preparers to evaluate the potential project-level impacts in the Draft
EIR, as standard Monterey County practice, the projects proposed landscaping plan would still need to
meet the specified requirements, be reviewed, and obtain approval as a stand-alone plan before any
building permits would be issued related to the propose project.

VV-13: Refer to VV-12. As standard Monterey County practice, the projects proposed plan would still
need to meet the specified requirements, be reviewed, and obtain approval as a stand-alone plan before
any building permits would be issued related to the propose project.

VV-14: Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for rationale behind conclusion that the
proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact. Further, please refer to
Master Responses 3-B and 3-C.

VV-15: As a component of the proposed projects application submittal to the Monterey County
Planning Department, a preliminary lighting plan was submitted which were included for review by the
Draft EIR. Although the applicant has submitted this proposed lighting plan in order for the EIR
preparers to evaluate the potential project-level impacts in the Draft EIR, standard Monterey County
practices dictate that the projects proposed lighting plan would still need to include the specified
requirements listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-7. Further, the plan will still need to be reviewed and
approved as a stand-alone plan before any building permits would be issued related to the propose project.

VV-16: The commenter is correct in stating that the appropriate General Plan for consistency review was
the 1983 General Plan if policies were not included in the Coastal Plan, as previously stated. The
information presented on the general plan process was for informational purposes. At the time of the
circulation of the Draft and RDEIR, the County General Plan Update and EIR had not been finalized.
The previous 1982 General Plan and its associated EIR did not address climate change and recent
legislative actions (i.e., AB32 and SB375) nor did it address recent federal court decisions qualifying
greenhouse gases as pollutants that can be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. The Proposed
Project EIR identified this and that greenhouse gas emissions are now regulated. It is considered
appropriate that the project EIR noted that the proposed project would be consistent with the General
Plan Update (GPU) that was in process at the time. The 2010 Final GPU EIR addresses greenhouse gases
and includes policies that would assist the County in meeting the legislative mandates. The intent in
mentioning this in the project EIR was to document that this project would not conflict with those
policies; therefore, the project would not have a significant cumulative impact for this reason (nor due to
its direct emissions as described on page 4.3-24 of the Draft EIR).

VV-17: Page 4.4-9 of the Draft EIR states that, The project site supports only one generalized habitat
type, herein referred to as Fragmented Mixed Monterey Pine and Coast Live Oak Woodland. As stated,
this is a generalized habitat description for the site; it is intended to describe dominant canopy species.
Subsequent to that statement in the Draft EIR, text from both the BA and FMP are also presented to
further detail onsite habitat conditions (see pages 4.4-13 4.4 -15 of the Draft EIR), including the
following description of the understory:

The understory on the hospital property varies, but consists primarily of ornamental shrubs and
groundcover, such as English ivy, cypress hedges (Cupressus sp.), fountain grass (Pennisetum
sp.),cotoneaster (Cotoneaster franchetii), summer snowflake (Leucojum aestivum), rosemary
(Rosmarinus officinalis), and nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), to name a few, as well as invasive
exotic species, such as French broom (Genista monspessulana), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
discolor), and kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). The predominance of planted ornamental
and invasive species has precluded the occurrence of a native understory. However, there are
limited areas where the understory contains fewer plants and is more park-like. This primarily
describes the grounds surrounding the lower residential unit, next to Valley Way. The area
appears graded as there is little topsoil, and there are a few planted ornamentals as well as
invasive weeds, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena barbata), and French
broom.

The commenter suggests that this additional information/clarification represents a contradiction; DD&A
does not concur.

VV-18: Comment noted. Please refer to Master Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E. Revisions have
been incorporated into this EIR to clarify the applicability of the General Plan. Please refer to Section
6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for further information.

VV19: For responses regarding the reference to Mitigation Measure 4-10.2(a) and the requirements for
forced air mechanical ventilation systems, please see Master Response 11-D.

VV-20: Comment noted, but no further response is deemed necessary.

Letter WW
WW-1
WW-2
WW-3
WW-4
WW-5
DRAFT EIR LETTER WW: HERSCHEL PEAK
WW-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

WW-2 through WW-5: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment
WW-1 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

Letter XX
XX-2
XX-1
XX-5
XX-4
XX-3
DRAFT EIR LETTER XX: DR. LOIS J. ROBERTS, LETTER #2
XX-1: Please refer to Master Response 1-B for discussion relating to the development of the Project
Objectives. The Draft EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR, and the Final EIR was completed on the basis of the
application submittal to the County, not on what was previously said by public relation figures hired by
the applicant.

The quote mentioned on page 2-23 of the Draft EIR Summary Section is a summary of the discussion
presented in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land Use. Please refer to that section for discussion of thresholds of
significance and impact determinations. Further, comments regarding development under the existing
environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. These comments are referred to
decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is
necessary.

XX-2: Please refer to Master Responses 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C for discussion on the visual analysis
methodology and the thresholds of significance applied to the project to determine what level of
significance that would result to visual impacts with project implementation. Further, please refer to
Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, (as revised in the Final EIR) for the complete discussion of impact
determinations for the proposed project that was summarized in Table 2.5-1 of the Draft EIR on page 2-6.

XX-3: In Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and all of the alternatives analyzed in Section 6.4,
Analysis of Alternatives Selected for Further Review, include the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the
historical resource onsite. Discussion of a project without the rehabilitation element is irrelevant as no
alternative is proposed that would not rehabilitate the historical resource. Further, even though portions
of the site are listed as a historical resource with the County, there are no requirements that renovation or
rehabilitation must be conducted by any and all developers who would develop on the project site. While
it is preferred for developers to do this, it is not required by Monterey County ordinances, especially for
any action that may occur on the remainder of the property outside the designated site of the historical
resource.
XX-4: Existing zoning for the proposed project site is discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land
Use, including the existing MDR (Medium Density Residential) zoning designation. The historic nature
of the zoning designation is not considered a relevant environmental issue per CEQA guidelines. In
regards to the request for addressing the change in community character or impacts to the community
ambiance, these issues are extremely subjective. Please refer to Master Response 10 regarding land use
and density. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of viewshed impacts and
Section 4.9, Land Use, for discussion of the change in nature of the uses, as well as appropriate CEQA
thresholds regarding these issues. The aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project are
discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, as revised in the Final EIR. Additional comments
regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed
Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA.
These comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative
process, and no further response is necessary.

XX-5: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,
Letter YY
YY-1
YY-2
YY-3
YY-4
YY-5
YY-6
YY-7
YY-8
YY-10
YY-11
YY-9
YY-12
YY-13
YY-14
YY-15
YY-16
YY-18
YY-19
YY-17
YY-20
YY-21
YY-22
YY-23
YY-24
YY-24
cont.
YY-25
YY-26
YY-27
YY-28
YY-29
YY-31
YY-30
YY-31
cont.
YY-32
YY-33
YY-34
YY-35
YY-35
cont.
YY-36
YY-37
YY-38
YY-38
cont.
YY-39
YY-40
YY-41
YY-42
YY-43
YY-44
YY-44
cont.
YY-45
YY-46
YY-47
YY-48
YY-49
YY-50
YY-51
YY-52
YY-53
YY-54
cont.
YY-54
YY-55
YY-56
YY-57
YY-58
YY-59
YY-60
YY-61
YY-62
YY-62
cont.
YY-63
YY-64
YY-65
YY-67
YY-68
YY-69
YY-70
YY-71
YY-66
YY-72
YY-73
YY-75
YY-76
YY-77
YY-74
YY-77
cont.
YY-78
YY-79
YY-80
YY-81
YY-82
YY-83
DRAFT EIR LETTER YY: SAVE OUR CARMEL NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION
YY-1: The comment presents the groups opinion of the proposed project. Comments regarding
development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and
do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. These
comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and
no further response is necessary.

YY-2: Please refer to Master Response 1-C for discussions regarding staking and flagging procedures.

YY-3: Please refer to Master Response 1-C for discussion regarding staking and flagging procedures.
The methodology and thresholds of significance used in the visual analysis of the Draft EIR is discussed
in Master Responses 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C, as well as Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics. The Draft EIR
section provides photographs of the existing site, as well as visual simulations with and without the
proposed landscaping plan. The Draft EIR section also accurately makes the determination that the
project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the Highway 1 scenic corridor. Mitigation to
reduce those impacts is provided in the document as required by CEQA although the mitigation would
not reduce impacts to less-than-significant level.

YY-4: For discussion regarding staking and flagging procedures, please refer to Master Response 1-C.
For discussion regarding view points from private property, please refer to Master Response 3-F.

YY-5: Comment noted. Please refer to Master Response 3-E for discussion of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3.

YY-6: For responses regarding the reference to a sound wall, please see Master Response 11-C and
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR. As there is no proposed sound wall,
Figure 4.1-3D would not need to be revised.

YY-7: For responses regarding the reference to a sound wall, please see Master Response to Comment
11-C and Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR. As there is no proposed sound
wall, the architectural renderings would not need to be revised, nor re-circulated. Please refer to Master
Response 3-B and 3-C for a discussion of the methodology, criteria, and thresholds of significance used
in the visual analysis. Please refer to Figures 4.1-3Athrough 4.1-3L in the Draft EIR, which depicts the
proposed project with and without the proposed landscaping plan, now required per Mitigation Measure
4.1-1. Trees proposed for removal were not included in the visual simulations.

YY-8: Figure 4.1-3A has been revised. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised figure.

YY-9: As described in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the use of fully-mature landscaping is a component
of the proposed project evaluated in the Draft EIR. The use of mature landscaping has been depicted in
the Draft EIR as it is intended to appear immediately after construction and with the use of mature
landscaping. The project site would be expected to have a similar appearance five years after
construction but with an extended canopy and density of screening. Mitigation includes measures to
ensure ongoing management and replacement of trees. Refer to FEIR Appendix A, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan in this FEIR.

YY-10: In addition to the hardcopy of Figures 4.1-4C and 4.1-4D, colored copies of the figures were
made available to the public via the CD-Rom copy of the Draft EIR. Further, the electronic version made
available online (http://www.co.monterey.ca.us /planning/major/Villas%20De%20Carmelo/Villas_De_
Carmelo_DEIR_Chapters/Villas%20DEIR%20-%20Ch%204.5 %20Cultural.pdf) has magnification
capabilities for the convenience of the public. Additionally, if individuals had difficulty reviewing the
figures in the available formats, Monterey County has the application materials on file and available for
review at the Planning Department offices, including plan-sized panels of the lighting plan. However, the
keys and plant list provided on these figures have been included in larger font previously provided in
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-24, on Figure 4.1-4A. This list has been revised to refine plantings and
provided in Appendix D of this FEIR. Refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR.

YY-11: The trees used for revegetation of the site would most likely come from an off-site, qualified
nursery, as is typically done in these circumstances. Mitigation Measures 4.1-1, 4.4-1, and 4.4-2 include
specific requirements, such as ensuring that the specific trees used for replanting the project site will be
required to be derived from native genetic stock, free from disease, and the specified species and size that
is specified by the landscaping and replanting plan. An initial post-construction monitoring period of a
minimum of three years is an industry standard for CEQA projects; DD&A has prepared dozens of legally
defensible CEQA documents and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Restoration Plans with an initial three-
year monitoring plan, and conducted follow-up monitoring programs to ensure the success of these plans.
The landscaping plan requires that adaptive management techniques (i.e., additional replanting, extension
of monitoring) be implemented in the event that success is not achieved in the first monitoring period. As
such, if success is not achieved within 3-years, additional planting/monitoring/reporting would be
required until success is achieved. As you can see, the survival rate of transplanted trees would not affect
the outcome of implementing the landscaping plan. Success criteria must be met. As the landscaping
plan has been included as a mitigation measure, approval of the plan and compliance is required by
Monterey County.

YY-12: The specific water requirements will be determined by the final landscape plan as required in
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Generally, smaller tree seedlings, when planted during the rainy season
(December through February) require little to no subsequent watering. Larger trees and transplants may
require 50 gallons per week (if planted during the dry season) until the start of rain. Such trees may
require only an initial watering if planted in the rainy season. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 has been revised
to specifically require the landscaping Plan to include landscape water requirements, sources, and
schedules based on planting time and selected species. Water will normally be used for the establishment
of native vegetation proposed for planting in the project landscape areas for a period of one or two
growing seasons, depending on the weather. This temporary use will not lead to an intensification of
historic water use in the area. All revegetation areas will be planted with species from the Countys plant
list; native and drought-tolerant species will not need watering after the vegetation becomes established.
As is typical in construction projects, there will be an initial period during construction and before full
occupation of units when water use for tree establishment will be greater. Therefore, as the project is
occupied, water demand for units will increase while demand for landscaping is reduced. Requirements
for trees and landscaping mandate low-water use landscaping and conditions placed on the project require
reporting of water use and limit the water to a water cap. Additionally, please see Section 6.0, Revisions
to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised text.

YY-13: Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 requires that certain success criteria will be met, including that onsite
monitoring and necessary replanting will occur. The initial monitoring time period has been modified in
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 to be for six years. The comment also expresses an opinion regarding the
ability of Monterey County to enforce mitigation, which does not directly raise an environmental issue
that warrants further consideration under CEQA. No further response is necessary.

YY-14: Please refer to Master Responses 3-B and 3-C as well as Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for
discussion of visual impacts associated with the proposed project and the aesthetics thresholds of
significance. The division of a community threshold is discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land Use. As
stated on page 4.9-4, The division or disruption of the physical arrangement of an established
community typically involves actions that would create physical barriers that would substantially separate
portions of a built community, such as the construction of a new road or freeway through an established
neighborhood. The proposed project is on the edge of an existing residential area, along Highway 1, and
the project proposes residential uses, which is consistent with the surrounding community. Please refer to
Draft EIR page 4.9-4 for further discussion.

In regards to the request for addressing the change in community character or impacts to the community
ambiance, these issues are extremely subjective. The physical impacts of the proposed project are
addressed under the topical sections as environmental impacts, consistent with requirements under
CEQA. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of viewshed impacts and Section
4.9, Land Use, for discussion of the change in nature of the uses, as well as appropriate CEQA thresholds
regarding these issues.

YY-15: Please refer to Master Response 3-F for discussions of views from private property.

YY-16: The comment criticizes photographs included with the Draft EIR for including trees that would
be removed as a component of the proposed project; however, such photos are clearly labeled with the
Draft EIR as Existing Project Site. The visual simulations required by Monterey County have been
reviewed for accuracy with the landscaping and replanting plan, and as a result, Figure 4.1-3A and 4.1-3B
have been revised to reflect tree removal. Please refer to Drat EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, (as revised)
for discussion of impacts associated with the proposed project.

The commenter expresses an opinion of the visual analysis, thus no response is provided for that portion
of the comment. Additionally, the application was submitted to Monterey County, not the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea, which does not require a volumetric study. Please refer to Master Response 3-F for
discussions regarding views from private property and Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion
of visual impacts and appropriate thresholds of significance.

YY-17: Draft EIR page 4.9-5 discusses the applicable land use plans that apply to the proposed project.
Figure 4.9-1 depicts the proposed project and the surrounding neighborhood, which includes properties
within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea jurisdiction and Monterey County jurisdiction. The proposed
project site is located completely within the unincorporated portions of Monterey County, thus it is
appropriate to discuss Monterey County land use plans. Density and zoning consistency with the
surrounding area is presented in the EIR. Refer to Master Response 10-B.

YY-18: The comment requests that additional clarification is provided regarding the projects
consistency with applicable land use regulations. A response to this comment is provided in Master
Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E; please refer to those responses for more information. A project
may conflict with some policies and/or programs, but still can be found to be generally consistent with the
purpose and intend of the General Plan and LUP. Revisions have been incorporated to provide additional
clarification regarding the projects consistency with applicable planning requirements. Please see
Recirculated Draft EIR Section 5.0, and Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR,
specifically revised Section 4.9, Land Use and Changes to the Cumulative Section, for more information.

YY-19: The Draft EIR identifies potential inconsistencies in Table 4.9-1. Please also refer to Master
Response 10-D and 10-E. Revisions have also been incorporated into the EIR to provide additional
clarification regarding project consistency; please refer to Recirculated Draft EIR Section 5.0, and Section
6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for more information.

YY-20: The entirety of Figure 4.9-1 depicts streets as negative (or white) space, including the project
site. Density is typically measured as units per acre. Information related to streets, driveways, and
parking areas are not considered appropriate measurements for density, thus the figure depicts the project
site in relation to the surrounding property boundaries. This comment is noted, but no further response is
necessary.

YY-21: The impacts associated with the proposed increase in zoning is discussed in Draft EIR Section
4.9, Land Use, and the additional environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and
mitigation to address these impacts are discussed in their appropriate sections. An Existing Zoning
Alternative is discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives. Comments regarding
development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and
do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA.
YY-22: The Recirculated Draft EIR shows Figure 4.13-5, Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. No
reference to climate change is located on this page. Please refer to Section 4.3, Air Quality, for a
thorough discussion of global climate change and the projects associated impacts, including construction
transportation impacts.

Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and Circulation,
Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning energy-related and traffic-
related discussions. Discussion of the projects estimated energy needs is included in Recirculated Draft
EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. Discussion of the projects transportation needs is
included in Recirculated Draft EIR Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation.

YY-23: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment YY-22 and the
Recirculated Draft EIR regarding energy-related and traffic-related responses. The noise relating to
forced air ventilation is included in Draft EIR Section 4.10, Noise, as revised. Please refer to Draft EIR
Section 4.3, Air Quality, for discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and the related identified impacts.

YY-24: Please refer to Response to Comment YY-22 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding energy-
related and traffic-related responses. PG&E is the utility provider, and as such, PG&E provides a mix of
fuel sources for their electricity distribution. According to PG&E, their fuel sources for their electricity
production for 2008 included non-emitting nuclear generation (22 percent), large hydroelectric facilities
(16 percent), and renewable resources (14 percent), such as wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydro.
The remaining portion came from natural gas (39 percent), coal (8 percent), and other fossil-based
resources (1 percent) (PG&E Clean Energy Solutions, available at
http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.shtml). For further information
concerning PG&Es efforts to obtain renewable fuel sources, please refer to their website.

For discussion regarding the electricity and natural gas use for the proposed project, including
construction and operational needs, please refer to Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems in the
Recirculated Draft EIR. The Urbemis model analysis discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality,
provides estimates of CO2 emissions from construction and operation (including vehicular travel). CO2
represents over 99% of the global warming potential of greenhouse gas emissions from construction and
operation of the proposed project. The Urbemis model analysis represents a conservative and worst-case
scenario of potential emissions.

YY-25: Please refer to Response to Comment N-1 regarding carbon sequestration of capabilities of
existing and proposed trees and the effect on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

YY-26: The proposed project includes clusters of units in buildings distributed throughout the project
site. For additional alternatives, please refer to the Recirculated Draft EIR. The additional alternatives
analyzed in the recirculated section include a Visitor Serving with Existing Buildings Alternative, a
Hybrid Visitor Serving Alternative, and a Hybrid Residential Alternative. Monterey County has
accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses
on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning alternative-related discussion.

YY-27: See Response to comment N-1 regarding carbon sequestration of existing and proposed trees and
the effect of the vegetation change on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Construction
emissions of COs were calculated using Urbemis and CCAR methodologies which include the
construction truck delivery trips (including vegetation). Installation of the vegetation is anticipated to
occur by hand resulting in human produced CO2 only, which is negligible relative to vehicular emissions.

YY-28: The Draft EIR provides quantification of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) on page 4.3-27 of the
Draft EIR. The proposed projects' effects on climate and its GHG emissions were found to be less-than-
significant; therefore, mitigation measures are appropriately not required to be imposed on the proposed
project. Analysis of GHG emissions for project alternatives has been conducted under Air Quality, which
is listed in Table 6.4-1.

YY-29: A plot plan for proposed removals was submitted with the Forest Management Plan by Forest
City Consulting. A conceptual landscape plan showing typical locations and species for replacement
planting was also submitted. A final landscape plan with specific locations and species for replanting is
required in Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. The FMP (as revised) contains all of the elements required in
ordinance 20.146.060. No removals outside the developed area are proposed.

YY-30: Figure 4.5-5, Site Demolition Plan, has been revised for clarification. Trees marked for removal
on this graphic include existing heights; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised graphic. For trees proposed for removal and their specific species,
tree numbers, and sizes, please refer to the Forest Management Plan (Appendix D-4 of the Draft EIR) and
Figure 4.1-4A through 4.1-4D for the proposed landscaping and replanting plan.

YY-31: The Forest Management Plan (FMP) submitted by Forest City Consulting, and peer-reviewed by
Bill Ruskin Consulting, presents photographic evidence that the majority of mature Monterey Pines on
the site were planted after the development of the hospital. This occurred primarily within islands of the
constructed parking lot and landscaping. There is no evidence as to the progeny of these trees (whether
they came from a local seed source); however, they clearly appear post construction and follow a logical
planting plan. Therefore, it may be inferred that they are not native (having occurred naturally) on the
site. The native determination affects their status for replacement and their eligibility for consideration
as significant. Although some of the larger trees may fit the definition of significance in 20.146.040 B
as far as size (page 17 and 18 of the FMP in Draft EIR Appendix D-4), an exemption for removal is
provided within the development standards for those trees that are not also visually or historically
significant and cannot be avoided in the development, which is the case here. During the course of
preparation and review, the plan has been modified to preserve visually and historically significant trees
in other areas outside the parking lot. Since the FMP determined that the mature Monterey Pines on the
project site are not naturally occurring, the policy stated by the commenter does not apply.

YY-32: The commenter is quoting text from the Draft EIR. No response is necessary.

YY-33: This comment restates the Impact found on page 4.4-21 of the Draft EIR. No further response is
necessary.

YY-34: This comment assumes that a new level of habitat fragmentation will occur as a result of the
proposed project; DD&A does not concur. As stated on page 4.4-15 of the Draft EIR: the fragmented
nature of pine/oak canopy on the site and in the general area, the lack of a viable native understory, and
the urban surroundings do not foster the development of a rich and diverse native fauna. While the trees
on the site may provide suitable nesting sites and cover for birds, some mammals and other wildlife, the
quality of wildlife habitat on the property is limited by its setting and long history of use.

However, DD&A concurs that tree removal will further degrade the site from a wildlife habitat
perspective as noted on page 4.4-21 of the Draft EIR (impact statement). As such, Mitigation Measure
4.4-2 is intended to reduce impacts to onsite habitat via a Replanting and landscaping Plan (to be
approved by the County). In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 is intended to reduce impacts to onsite
habitat due by requiring tree replanting and replacement.

Despite the erroneous quote offered by multiple commenters, the Draft EIR does not state that Zander &
Associates did not conduct surveys for any wildlife species. Page 4.4-8 of the DIER states: ZA did
not conduct directed studies for any special-status animal species, but rather evaluated the habitat
potential of the site to support those species. This is consistent with CEQA, and relates that no protocol-
level wildlife surveys were deemed necessary based on existing site conditions and/or onsite habitats.
Also, page 4.4-17, the Draft EIR states: Directed surveys for specific special status species were not
conducted; however, the former convalescent hospital site was evaluated for the ability to support special
status wildlife. In addition, on page 4.4-8, As part of the peer review process of the project, DD&As
Senior Wildlife Biologist conducted a field reconnaissance/site assessment of the property on April 24,
2008. The assessment consisted of walking meandering transects of the site, concurrent with review of
the BA and FMP for the project. Also, as stated on page 4.4-15, The Biological Assessment prepared
by ZA developed a target list of special status plant and animal species and evaluated their potential
presence to occur on the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site (See Table 1 in the Biological
Resource Assessment). The list was developed based on a review of CNDDB records (CDFG 20007) and
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory for the Monterey 7.5- minute USFWS
quadrangle and the surrounding quadrangles, including Soberanes Point, Mt. Carmel, Marina, and Seaside
(USGS). Figure 4.4-2 presents California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences in the
vicinity of the proposed site.

Qualified biologists prepared the BA for this project site in accordance with Monterey County
requirements, and the BA underwent peer-review. Given the documentation provided above, DD&A is
confident in our biological analysis.

YY-35: The Forest Management Plan does not contest that Monterey pine is native to the area. The FMP
discusses photographic and visual evidence (growth form, spacing, location, etc.) to argue that many of
the trees were planted after the construction of the hospital. The question therefore is, Is this tree
naturally occurring on the site? The evidence led the foresters who prepared and reviewed the plan to
believe the majority of the large Monterey pine were planted after the construction of the hospital and
therefore not native or occurring naturally where they were residing. This affects their status for
required replacement. Removal of the trees has been limited to those necessary for the proposed
development as per the Coastal Development standard.

YY-36: A plot plan for proposed removals was submitted with the FMP by Forest City Consulting. A
conceptual landscape plan showing typical locations and species for replanting is required in Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1. During the course of preparation and review of the Forest Management Plan, the plan was
modified to preserve visually and historically significant trees in other areas outside the parking lot. Tree
#1822 and Tree #1939 are examples of trees that are both visually and historically significant for which
extensive building plan alterations were made. Tree # 1802 is visually significant and planned for
retention. Mitigation proposed for preserving trees in the Highway 1 corridor is also provided. The FMP
(as revised) contains all elements required in 20.146.060. Additionally, please refer to the FMP
(Appendix D-4 of the Draft EIR) and Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, which analyzes the
impacts associated with tree removal and policy compliance.

Further, please see Table 4.4-1 on page 4.4-21, which states that 156 trees are proposed for removal out of
the total 212 trees on the project site. A Reduced Density Alternative is included in the analysis in the
Recirculated Draft ER Section 6.0, Alternatives, which includes a reduction in tree removal.

YY-37: Please refer to Response to Comment YY-36 for discussion of modifications made to reduce tree
impacts and Recirculated Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, for discussion of alternatives that would
reduce the trees needed to be removed. Further, the units have been clustered in the proposed project into
several buildings, across the project site, as mentioned by the commenter.

YY-38: As identified in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the impacts to the Highway 1 scenic corridor
have been identified as significant and unavoidable. Further, as identified in the Forest Management
Plan, some of the larger trees may fit the definition of significance in 20.146.040 B as far as size (page 17
and 18 of the FMP in Draft EIR Appendix D-4); however, an exemption for removal is provided within
the development standards for those trees that are not also visually or historically significant and cannot
be avoided in the development, which is the case here. During the course of preparation and review, the
plan has been modified to preserve visually and historically significant trees in other areas outside the
parking lot.

YY-39: On pages 4.10-3 and 4.10-10 of the Draft EIR Section 4.10, Noise, discussion based on the
Acoustical Analysis determined that the annual average traffic noise exposure at the proposed residential
building locations ranged from less than 60 dB CNEL to 73.3 dB CNEL. The text also specifically
identifies that the range in noise levels was attributed to existing buildings and current terrain that
provided noise shielding for portions of the project site, thus identifying the existing structures and
terrain of the project site as existing noise buffers.

The project site, as it exists currently is not designated as nor would it be considered open space, as
defined by Monterey County Coastal Zoning Ordinance 20.06.840. Please see Draft EIR Section 4.1,
Aesthetics for discussions of visual impacts that may result from the proposed project. Further, page 4.9-
4 of the Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land Use, determines that the proposed project would not divide an
established community. Therefore, there would not be a significant impact, so no mitigation is required.

In regards to the request for addressing the change in community character or impacts to the community
ambiance, these issues are extremely subjective. Physical impacts under topical issue areas from the
project are addressed as environmental topics under CEQA although changes in ambiance or character
elements are not. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of viewshed impacts
and Section 4.9, Land Use, for discussion of the change in nature of the uses, as well as appropriate
CEQA thresholds regarding these issues. Also refer to Density and Zoning Master Response 10-B.

YY40: No sound wall is proposed for the project. Please see Master Response 11-C and Section 6.0,
Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR in response to the query concerning the sound wall.

While it might seem to the neighborhood that the vegetation on the site absorbs the traffic noise generated
by Highway 1, this is not necessarily the case. Based on conversations with noise experts from
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. who have been retained by the County to peer review the acoustical analysis
prepared by Brown & Buntin, vegetation can reduce noise levels and be considered a noise buffer when
that vegetation is very thick and sufficiently dense from the ground up. As the vegetation on the site
contains mostly larger trees with foliage above the majority of the structures and the noise is not blocked
or absorbed between the ground level and foliage of the trees, the effectiveness of the vegetation as a
noise buffer is minimal. As such, the variation in noise measurements in both the Acoustical Analysis
and the Environmental Noise Assessment were attributed to existing structures and terrain on the project
site, not vegetation buffers (Draft EIR page 4.10-3 under the heading Acoustical Analysis). Further, solid
structures, such as buildings, provide a greater degree of noise buffering than vegetation. Therefore, the
construction of the proposed buildings, even with the proposed vegetation removal, would provide the
same buffering effect, if not a greater noise buffering effect for traffic noise for the neighboring
community to the west of the project site (personal communication, Michael Thill, July 8, 2009).
Discussion of this issue has been added to the EIR for clarification. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to
the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

Additionally, please see page 4.10-10 of the Draft EIR under the headings Exterior Noise Exposure and
Interior Noise Exposure for a discussion of the potential impacts to future residents, including potential
impacts relating to Highway 1 traffic. The technical reports and the Draft EIR identified these impacts as
less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 address
potential noise impacts to future residents by requiring additional elements to structurally reduce interior
noise levels. As mentioned in both the Draft EIR and the supporting technical documents, the mitigation
provided will reduce interior noise levels to Monterey County standards thus reducing impacts to a less-
than-significant level.

YY-41: Page 4.7-8 of the Draft EIR discusses the routine use of hazardous materials during the
operations of the proposed project. Existing hazardous materials on the site, such as asbestos and lead
paint, are discussed on page 4.7-6 of the Draft EIR, under the heading Existing Hazards. As it states, no
routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is proposed for the projects operation. As
such, the statement that impacts relating to hazardous materials use are considered less-than-significant,
and no mitigation measures are required on page 4.7-8 under the heading Hazardous Materials Use is
accurate.

YY-42: The Draft EIR analysis of hazards includes the consideration of all sensitive receptors that may
be potentially impacted by any hazardous materials released from the project site, which includes the
residences located immediately adjacent to the site. The school bus stop mentioned by the commenter is
included in the analysis, though not specifically called out. The Draft EIR assumes the use of some
pesticides on the project site, which would be associated with landscaping and property maintenance.
Any pesticide use would be minimal, localized in nature, and subject to all applicable regulatory
standards. The adjacent residences or the bus stop 500 feet from the project site would not be
significantly impacted by occasional pesticide use on the property, which is represents a typical urban
activity and is not unique or excessive. As such, the proposed pesticide use would be less-than-
significant.

Impacts from the proposed project in relation to existing hazardous materials are discussed starting on
page 4.7-6 of the Draft EIR. Impacts associated with existing hazards, including the potential release of
asbestos and lead-paint, are identified as potentially significant effects that can be reduced to less-than-
significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 through 4.7-6. Further, Mitigation
Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-3 address the impacts associated with construction and hazardous materials, such
as asbestos and lead-paint. These mitigation measures and the requirements set forth by local and state
regulations, including MBUAPCD demolition requirements and standards, require specific methods of
removal and transportation of asbestos and lead paint, including limiting any airborne particles that may
be released during demolition procedures. With implementation of these measures, impacts to sensitive
receptors, including the bus stop, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level as identified in the
Draft EIR. Further, revisions to these measures requested by MBUAPCD specifically address airborne
contaminants. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the text
revisions.

YY-43: The criteria mentioned by the commenter is a summary of Monterey County Municipal Code
18.25.170(D)(3). As stated on page 4.5-15 of the Draft EIR, the regulatory framework applicable to the
project includes Monterey County Municipal Code Title 18, Chapter 25. According to this statute,
designated site indicates a portion of a parcel on which a significant historical resource is or has been
situated and has been listed on the National Register of State Historic Places, the California Register of
Historic Places, the State Historic Landmark Register, or the County Register of Historic Sites. As such,
the designated site of the historical resource on this project site includes only the original portions of main
hospital building, the garage/shop building, the stone landscaping immediately surrounding the main
hospital buildings, the stone entrance on Valley Way, and the landmark oak tree to the south of the Main
hospital building. Even though the proposed new structures would not be on located on the designated
site, as defined above, the project description used for analysis in the Draft EIR includes the similar but
distinguishable principle recommended by the SOIs Standards. As identified in the Draft EIR, the
proposed project, including new construction and modifications to the existing structures to be retained on
site, would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact with the implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8. The implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the
proposed project meets Title 18, Chapter 25 County requirements for the treatment of historical resources.
Specifically, the mitigation and compliance with SOIs Standards will ensure that the project would not
adversely affect, and will be compatible with the use and exterior of the historical resource, as required by
Monterey County Municipal Code 18.25.170(D)(3).

As stated on page 4.5-26, the only natural element, or vegetative element of the historical resource is the
landmark oak tree located south of the main hospital building. The remainder of the vegetation on the
project site does not date to the historic period, and is not part of the historical resource. The analysis of
potential impacts to the built historic landscaping is discussed on page 4.5-25 of the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8 are applicable to all elements of the historical resource,
including the historic landscaping. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the potentially
significant impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level, as described in the report by JRP
Historical Consulting, LLC, and the peer review by ICF Jones and Stokes. Please see Master Response
11-C for discussion as to the appropriateness of the SOIs Standards as mitigation.

Additionally, the project does not propose the removal of any portion of the historical resource to a
location outside of the project site. The project does call for the rehabilitation and repair of the majority
of the historic landscaping, and materials not used in this process, due to the extent of deterioration and/or
hazard to health and safety, will be re-used on the project site.

YY-44: The commenter is unclear as to the location of the last paragraph that states any issue that is
identified will be mitigated. The Draft EIR does not analyze additional mitigation that may be required
in Attachment F from JRP Historical Consulting. The mitigation suggested in the CEQA Impact
Analysis and Mitigation Report, prepared by JRP Historical Consulting, was integrated and expanded
upon in the Draft EIR. Potential impacts to historical resources identified during the Draft EIR analysis
process and based on the current information available, have been addressed and would be mitigated by
the measures presented in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources.

In order to address potential impacts that may result from the rehabilitation of the historic structures for
adaptive reuse, Mitigation Measures 4.5-2 requires preparation and implementation of a Preservation
Monitoring Plan (PMP). The PMP would include descriptions of the specific proposed changes;
measures to protect the resource before, during, and after construction; a history of the resource and its
significance; a comprehensive list of character-defining features; a list of materials to be retained,
preserved, salvaged, and/or reused; documentation of the resources current condition; and discussion of
the applicable SOIs Standards and how the SOIs Standards will be implemented. These specific
requirements and the incorporation of specific performance standards set forth by the SOIs Standards
and additional guidance documents listed will ensure that the integrity of the historical resource is
protected and that details of what and how to address any issues that may arise during the building
rehabilitation will be completed.

To ensure that the PMP and the mitigation measures will address any unforeseen impacts identified
during the rehabilitation, the PMP will be prepared by a qualified professional and used as a practical
guide by the construction and restoration teams. Because the PMP will be incorporated into the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the project and will be subject to review and approval by
both the Monterey County Historical resources Review Board and the Planning Department, the
specifications provided in the PMP will be vetted and implemented as a legally binding constraints
required for project implementation. As such, the mitigation is enforceable. Based on the information
known at this time and a review of the SOIs Standards, no new significant impacts beyond those
addressed in the Draft EIR are anticipated from the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, as is
stated on Draft EIR page 4.5-26.

The Draft EIR preparer did use their best efforts to identify all possible impacts that would not be
considered speculation, which is outside the realm of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines 15145). Further,
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 addresses those potential impacts that are currently not known and cannot be
identified at this time. For example, if during the temporary removal of the fountain and surrounding
terraced landscaping, it is discovered that the fountain plumbing and foundation is in serious need of
repair and modification, the PMP will describe what actions and guidelines should be followed to ensure
the repairs stay true to the rehabilitation intent and preserve the integrity of the historical resource. As we
are unable to dismantle the fountain at this time, the information is not available to determine whether this
would be an impact or not. However, by providing this mitigation, these unknown impacts can be
addressed, and appropriate mitigation can be incorporated during project implementation to ensure that
the resources are protected.

Based on the court cases decisions Gray v. County of Madera ((2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099), the PMP
would not be considered deferred mitigation because the PMP has specific performance standards
associated with mitigation, and the SOIs Standards. Please see Master Response 6-C for a discussion of
the appropriateness of the SOIs Standards as mitigation. The Lead Agencys commitment to mitigate
the significant impacts of a project satisfies CEQAs requirements, even if the details of a particular
mitigation measure are not known with particularity at the time of project approval (California Native
Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 603). Therefore, deferred mitigation is
allowed under CEQA as the mitigation sufficiently commits the project proponent to future mitigation by
detailing specific performance standards for the historic rehabilitation. Further, the mitigation describes
the required elements in the PMP in order for the plan to be effective in protecting the historical resource
to the specifications of the SOIs Standards. To clarify the intent of the mitigation measure, text has been
added to ensure the intent is clear. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR for text revisions.

YY-45: Please see page 4.5-16 of the Draft EIR for a description of the relevant proposed project actions
related to landscaping, which were analyzed for potential impacts. The project description includes
specific proposed modifications to the historic landscaping, as identified in Section 4.5, Cultural
Resources. The majority of these modifications are shown and described on Figure 4.5-5, Demolition
Plan, and the remaining modifications are depicted in the architectural renderings in Figures 4.5-6 through
4.5-11, Existing and Proposed Elevations for Historical resource. The analysis of impacts to the historic
landscaping is located on page 4.5-25 of the Draft EIR, under the heading Landscaping Modifications.
The historical consultants and the EIR preparer identified the potential project impacts that would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through
4.5-8. These mitigation measures require compliance with the SOIs Standards the preparation of a site-
specific Preservation Monitoring Plan; compliance with professional qualification standards; mitigation
hospital building prior to initial project construction. As all of these mitigation measures include
monitoring and verification requirements by both a qualified professional and Monterey County, all
applicable standards set forth in these documents will be implemented and verified.

For discussion and analysis regarding a project alternative with a reduced number of residential units,
please see Draft EIR Section 6.0, page 6-13, under heading 6.4.5 Reduced Density Project.

YY-46: Figure 4.5-5 has been modified to reflect the text of the Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural
Resources, which identifies the stone entrance walls on Valley Way as part of the historical resource,
which must be retained per the SOIs Standards required by Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Mitigation
Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8 are applicable and include requirements for the preservation of the entirety
of the historical resource, including the stone entrance walls, during construction. Further, Mitigation
Measures 4.5-2 through 4.5-5 have been revised to more clearly include the stone entrance walls on
Valley Way. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised
figure and text.

YY-47: The historical consultants and the EIR preparer identified the stone entrance walls on Valley
Way as character-defining elements of the historical resource on page 4.5-25 under the heading
Landscaping Modifications in the Impacts discussion area. Impacts to the historical landscaping were
identified as reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-
1 through 4.5-8. These mitigation measures require the use of professional qualification standards,
mitigation monitoring and reporting according to a project specific Preservation Monitoring Plan,
consultation with interested parties, application of protective measures before, during, and after
construction, repair of inadvertent damage, recordation of the property according to HABS standards,
videography of the interior and exterior of the main hospital building prior to the initial project
construction, and preparation and installation of an interpretive exhibit addressing the history of the
property, including oral histories. As all of these mitigation measures include monitoring and verification
requirements by both a qualified professional and Monterey County, all applicable standards set forth in
these documents will be implemented and verified.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 on page 4.5-27 of the Draft EIR requires compliance with the SOIs Standards.
Please see Master Response 11-C for discussion on the adequacy of these standards as mitigation under
CEQA. The measure also specifically states that all activities regarding historical architectural resources
and historic preservation carried out as part of this project shall be carried out by, or under the direct
supervision of, persons meeting the Secretary of the Interiors professional qualifications standards (48
FR 44738-9) in these disciplines. As such, the public can be assured that these proposed actions will be
carried out under the monitoring of a qualified professional. Further, Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 requires a
Preservation Monitoring Plan (PMP) that details specific proposed changes, protective measures to
protect the resource, a history of the resource and its significance, a comprehensive list of character-
defining features, a list of materials to be retained, preserved, salvaged, and/or reused, documentation of
the resources current condition, and discussion of the applicable SOIs Standards and how the standards
will be implemented. These specific requirements and the incorporation of specific performance
standards set forth by the SOIs Standards and additional guidance documents listed ensure that the
integrity of the historical resource is protected and that details of what and how to address any issues that
may arise during the building rehabilitation will be completed.

By requiring Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, which will apply the SOIs Standards, the stone entrance walls on
Valley Way must be preserved because they are character-defining elements of the historical resource.
Any action that would impair the integrity of the historical resource, such as the demolition of the
entrance walls, would not be consistent with this mitigation measure. The proposed project will retain the
entrance walls to that the potentially significant impact to the historical resource would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level and no additional mitigation regarding these features is necessary.

YY-48: For responses to comments regarding the proximity of the project site to the inspiration for one
of the settings in John Steinbecks novel Tortilla Flats setting, please see Master Response 6-E. In
regards to the request for addressing the change in community character or impacts to the community
ambiance, these issues are extremely subjective and not addressed as environmental topics under CEQA.
Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of viewshed impacts and Section 4.9,
Land Use, for discussion of the change in nature of the uses, as well as appropriate CEQA thresholds
regarding these issues.

YY-49: The sources of each graphic not produced by the EIR consultant are located on the bottom of the
graphic above the name and figure number. Please refer to Master Response 3-D for discussion of visual
simulation review. See also Response YY-50.

YY-50: All graphics provided by the applicant were checked for accuracy against the material and plans
submitted as part of the application. If inconsistencies were identified, the EIR consultant revised the
graphic (if the revisions were simple) or the applicant was asked to revise the graphic. The source for
every graphic that was not prepared by the EIR consultant is located at the bottom of the graphic, above
the graphic name and figure number. The Warner Group was hired by the applicant to provide visual
depictions of the proposed project and visual simulations, per the request of the County. Please refer to
Master Response 3-D for discussion of visual simulation review. Further, the visual simulations and
elevations shown in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, were reviewed by the EIR consultants
with the proposed design details to ensure that the proposed graphics accurately represented the proposed
actions. All graphics provided by the applicant were placed onto graphic templates by the EIR consultant.
The list of consultants hired by Monterey County and the EIR preparers is located under Draft EIR
Section 7.2, Peer Review Consultants. Their field of expertise is also stated at this location. The original
authors of the applicants submittal material are described in the introduction of each topic area, along
with the peer-review process that was taken for each report. Refer to Master Response 2-D and 3-C.

YY-51: The comment expresses an opinion of one existing use of the property, but the comment does not
directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. No further

YY-52: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and
individual responses concerning traffic-related comments. Also refer to Master Responses 14, Traffic.

YY-53 through YY-83: The comments have been considered. As discussed under Master Responses
14, Traffic, and in Response to Comment YY-52, above the Traffic Section was included in the
Recirculated Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft,
for individual responses concerning traffic-related comments. Also refer to Master Responses 14, Traffic.
Letter ZZ
ZZ-3
ZZ-2
ZZ-1
ZZ-3
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER ZZ: KELLY STEELE
ZZ-1: The commenters opinion is noted and referred to decision-makers for further consideration as
part of the deliberative process. For discussion regarding visual assessment methodology and thresholds
of significance please refer to Master Responses 3-B and 3-C. For discussion regarding to views from
private property, please refer to Master Response 3-F.

ZZ-2: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

ZZ-3: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment ZZ-3 and the

Letter AAA
AAA-1
AAA-6
AAA-5
AAA-4
AAA-3
AAA-2
AAA-8
AAA-7
DRAFT EIR LETTER AAA: CAROL STOLLORZ
AAA-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the
under CEQA. These comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the
deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.

AAA-2: The impacts of the proposed project in relation to geology and soils, biological resources, and
aesthetics are discussed in their respective Draft EIR sections, including the acceptable thresholds of
significance determined by the CEQA guidelines. As noted in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the
potential impacts to the Highway 1 scenic corridor were identified as significant and unavoidable.
Further, the referenced Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 has been revised to remove the phrase to the extent
possible. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised
text.

The technical reports prepared by the applicant were peer-reviewed for accuracy, per Monterey County
requirements. The commenters opinion of the analyses presented in the Draft EIR does not present
evidence that errors were made. No further response is necessary. Refer to Master Response 2-D.

AAA-3: The Draft EIR page 4.3-24 quantifies the air pollutant emissions during project construction and
operation. Based on a comparison to MBUAPCD adopted thresholds, the project would have a less-than-
significant impact on air quality during operation of the project. Urbemis modeling includes cold start
and hot start emissions in its results; therefore, the resulting emissions evaluated in the analysis include 86
cars starting in the morning.

AAA-4: As stated in on page 4.3-2 of the Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, the climate in the summer
for the coastal valleys in the region are generally comprised of fog and relatively cool air due to the semi-
permanent high pressure cell located off the coast in the eastern Pacific. As such, air conditioning units
are not usually needed for this region. However, mechanical ventilation systems, which could include
individual air conditioning units or other forms of mechanical ventilation satisfactory to the local building
official (e.g., forced air heating system with a summer switch so that air can be circulated using the forced
air fan systems) are part of Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 to allow for the interior noise exposure for the
proposed units to meet County standards. The noise generated from these systems would mostly be
created by compressor and/or fan noises outside. These noises are typical of residential areas. Carmel-
by-the-Sea identifies air conditioners as a source of noise complaints for some members of the
community, but does not establish a quantitative noise level limit to regulate the noise level output from
such equipment. Monterey County regulates noise-producing devices as follows:

Monterey County Ordinance (MCC 10.60.030) OPERATION OF NOISE-PRODUCING
DEVICES RESTRICTED.

No person shall, within the unincorporated limits of the County of Monterey, operate any
machine, mechanism, device, or contrivance which produces a noise level exceeding 85 dbA
measured fifty feet there from. The prohibition in this section shall not apply to aircraft nor to
any such machine, mechanism, device, or contrivance which is operated in excess of two
thousand five hundred feet from any occupied dwelling unit. (Ord. 2450 Section 3, 1978.)

Monterey Countys Noise Control Ordinance is a nuisance ordinance, designed to address noise
levels which may be detrimental to mental or physical health, or may depreciate property values.
(MCC 10.60.010).

Neither Carmel-by-the-Sea nor Monterey County establish appropriate thresholds that could be used in
this analysis to identify potential noise impacts resulting from the operation of such ventilation
equipment.

According to the BBA Acoustical Analysis, only residential units proposed nearest Highway 1 (Units 1-8)
would be exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. The remaining units would either
be shielded by existing or proposed residential buildings or located at a sufficient distance from the
highway that exterior noise levels would be less than 60 dBA CNEL. Units 1-8 would require some form
of mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to the local building official, so that occupants could control
interior noise levels by closing the windows. Care should taken to locate such mechanical ventilation
equipment as far as practical from adjacent noise-sensitive uses or in areas shielded by noise barriers or
the residential unit itself. Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 has been augmented to require outdoor compressors
and fans for the ventilation systems to be placed in locations as far as possible from resident and
neighboring outdoor activity areas and to be screened with noise barriers or the buildings themselves as a
further precaution against increases in ambient noise levels given the close proximity of neighboring
residences to the proposed structures. A solid noise barrier would provide a minimum of 5 dBA of noise
reduction if it interrupts the line of sight between the ventilation unit and receiver. Locating the
ventilation unit on the opposite side of the residential unit and away from existing residences would
provide at least 10 dBA of noise reduction. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR for changes to Mitigation Measure 4.10-2.

AAA-5: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment AAA-1 and the

AAA-6: Building heights along the Highway 1 scenic corridor will be limited to 28 feet in elevation.
Urbemis modeling does consider impact to nearby sensitive receptors from chimneys associated with the
proposed development. Urbemis modeling accounts for fireplace use in their emissions calculations
based on assumptions and the amount of residential units expected to contain fireplaces. The Urbemis
calculations for the Villas De Carmelo project anticipated that 10% of the units would have fireplaces.
The Urbemis models assumes that on average 82 days per year the fireplaces will be used, 1.48 cords
would be burned per year per unit, and quantifies amounts of anticipated PM10, PM 2.5, CO, and ROG
emissions. Emissions projected from fireplaces were included in the Urbemis model, which for project
operation and construction were found to be less than significant.

AAA-7: For a discussion regarding the geological suitability of the project site, slope stability, and
erosion potential, please refer to Master Response 7-C.

AAA-8: Please refer to Master Response 9-C and Response to Comment SS-5 for discussion on the on-
site stormwater runoff detention facilities proposed as part of the project and evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Letter BBB
BBB-4
BBB-3
BBB-2
BBB-1
BBB-4
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER BBB: RICHARD AND BARBARA WARREN
BBB-1: The commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. Please refer to Master Response
14-B for discussion of the technical traffic report and the required peer review process conducted.
Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and Service
Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Monterey County has determined that only
comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please see the corresponding section in the Recirculated Draft EIR for the
revised text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for

BBB-2 through BBB-3: The comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment BBB-
1 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

BBB-4: The commenter offers an opinion of the proposed project, which is referred to decision-makers
for further consideration as part of the deliberative process. In regards to the request for addressing the
change in community character or impacts to the community ambiance, these issues are extremely
subjective. CEQA focuses on assessment of physical changes and ambiance and character are not
generally addressed as environmental topics under CEQA. Please refer to Master Response 10-B for
discussion of Density and Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of viewshed impacts and
Section 4.9, Land Use, for discussion of the change in nature of the uses, as well as appropriate CEQA
thresholds regarding these issues. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
Letter CCC
CCC-2
CCC-1
CCC-3
CCC-2
cont.
CCC-3
cont.
CCC-4
CCC-5
CCC-6
CCC-7
DRAFT EIR LETTER CCC: YOKO WHITAKER
CCC-1: For responses to comments regarding the proximity of the project site to the inspiration for one
of the settings in John Steinbecks novel Tortilla Flats setting, please see Master Response 6-E.

CCC-2: The commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. For discussion regarding the
views from private properties, please refer to Master Response 3-F. In regards to the request for
addressing the change in community character or impacts to the community ambiance, these issues are
extremely subjective and not addressed as environmental topics under CEQA. Please refer to Draft EIR
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for discussion of viewshed impacts and Section 4.9, Land Use, for discussion of
the change in nature of the uses, as well as appropriate CEQA thresholds regarding these issues. Further,
comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of the
under CEQA.

CCC-3: The commenters opposition to the proposed project is noted. Historic landscaping will be
preserved under the requirements of the mitigation in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources.
Analysis determined impacts to historic resources will be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the
implementation of the mitigation measures. The impacts to the scenic Highway 1 corridor was
determined to be significant and unavoidable, and mitigation measures were still included to reduce
impacts even though impacts couldnt be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Further, Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1 requires a landscaping and replanting plan to minimize impacts to the forested corridor
appearance along Highway 1. As a mitigation measure, the landscaping plan and its required success
criteria will be incorporated into the projects Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which
requires verification of compliance. For discussions regarding the visual assessment the methodology and
threshold of significance used in the visual assessment, please refer to Master Response 3-B and 3-C.

Noise, vehicle emissions, and glare relate to the traffic on Highway 1 are discussed and mitigated in their
respective Draft EIR Sections. The project does not propose a 10-foot tall berm along Highway 1.
Landscaping planting along Highway 1 is proposed. Significant trees proposed for removal are discussed
and mitigated for in Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources and the Forest Management Plan in
Draft EIR Appendix D-4. Please refer to Master Responses 10-D and 10-E for discussions of consistency
with land use plans.

CCC-4: This comment seems to address several mitigations but only specifies Mitigation Measure 4.4-1
on page 2-11 (Summary). This comment also seems to present misconceptions regarding mitigation
under CEQA. Tree retention does not represent mitigation. Tree retention may be considered a form of
impact minimization (i.e., for light and glare), but tree retention is the opposite of mitigation (tree
retention is avoidance).

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 states that: A Forest Management Plan was prepared for the site according to
County standards contained in Title 20.146.060; all measures presented in the FMP for the protection of
on-site trees shall be implemented as conditions of the project (see sections 6.1 - 6.7 of FMP in Appendix
D of the Draft EIR).

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 specifies preparation and implementation of a landscaping and Replanting plan
to mitigate for project-related habitat and landscaping impacts.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 specifies tree replanting as mitigation for tree limbing and removal impacts; the
proposed tree replanting ratios (i.e., 1:1, 3:1) are the mitigation for tree impacts, not an avoidance of
mitigation.

While DD&A concurs that tree removal will further degrade the site from a wildlife habitat perspective,
specific mitigations are presented for special-status species deemed potentially present (bats, raptors, and
other nesting avian species). With implementation of proposed mitigations (including tree replanting and
a landscaping plan), it is anticipated that onsite habitat will recover to pre-project (or nearly pre-project)
conditions over time.

The commenter suggests that The mitigation is preposterous because it assumes a biologist will make
weekly checks. This is not a reference to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, but rather, is a reference to
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5. Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 does not assume a biologist will make weekly
checks, it requires that biologists will make weekly checks. Biological monitoring at a site before and
during construction is a common and enforceable requirement, and these procedures have been
implemented on numerous project sites within Monterey County that have the potential to impact specific
biological resources. However, Mitigation Measure has been revised for clarification. For revisions to
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5, please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.
CCC-5: The policy mentioned by the commenter applies to new development on ridges. The proposed
project is not located on a ridge, so the mentioned policy is not applicable. Please refer to Master
Response 7-C for discussion regarding slope stability of the project site. Please refer to Master Response
9-C for discussion regarding on-site runoff retention.

CCC-6: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

CCC-7: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the
consideration under CEQA. The mitigation measures regarding the landscaping plan (MM 4.1-1 and 4.4-
2) and the lighting (MM 4.1-7) will be included in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and
verification of compliance is required by Monterey County. Requirements that ensure evidence of
compliance are built into each mitigation measure to ensure they are enforceable. Further, the
landscaping and replanting plan requires biological monitoring to ensure success criteria are met or
adaptive management strategies are implemented; evidence of biological monitoring must also be
submitted to Monterey County to ensure compliance.

Please refer to Master Response 6-E for discussion relating to the purported historic neighborhood and
Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for the specific components identified as part of the historic
landscaping. The project site is located in the unincorporated area of Monterey County, and compliance
with the City of Carmel-by-the-Seas planning documents is not required. Please refer to Master
Response 10 for discussion relating to consistency with Monterey County planning documents. The
commenters opinion and opposition to the proposed project are noted, but the opinions do not provide
evidence of additional environmental issues that warrant further considerations under CEQA.

Letter DDD
DDD-1
DDD-2
DDD-3
DDD-4
DDD-5
DDD-6
DDD-7
DDD-8
DDD-9
DDD-10
DDD-11
DDD-12
DDD-13
DDD-14
DDD-15
DDD-16
DDD-17
DDD-18
DDD-19
DDD-20
DDD-21
DDD-22
DDD-23
DDD-24
DDD-25
DRAFT EIR LETTER DDD: THE WIDEWATERS GROUP, INC.
DDD-1: Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated
Draft EIR, for the revised text.

DDD-2: The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance does apply to the proposed project. Please refer to Master
Response 12-B and Responses to Comments VV-2 and VV-3 for discussion of the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance applicability.

DDD-3: For discussion of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 requiring the landscaping and replanting plan please
refer to Response to Comment VV-12. For discussion relating to Mitigation Measure 4.1-2, please refer
to Response to Comment VV-13. The project is proposing the installation of several new buildings
within the 30 feet of an identified scenic corridor where there currently is no structures. Draft EIR
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, identifies this impact as significant and unavoidable. For further discussion
regarding visual impacts, please refer to Master Responses 3-B and 3-C.

DDD-4: Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Response to Comment DDD-3, and Master
Responses 3-B and 3-C for rationale and discussion regarding the significant and unavoidable visual
impact regarding the scenic Highway 1 corridor.

DDD-5: For discussion of Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 requiring the lighting plan please refer to Response
to Comment VV-15. For discussion of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 requiring the landscaping and
replanting plan please refer to Response to Comment VV-12.

DDD-6: Comment noted. While the FMP does include the same replanting numbers, Mitigation
Measure 4.4-4 has been revised for clarification; please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and
Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text.

DDD-7: For responses regarding the reference to Mitigation Measure 4-10.2(a) and the requirements for
forced-air mechanical ventilation systems, please see Master Response 11-D.

DDD-8: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and
individual comments concerning traffic-related impacts. Note Monterey County conditions require
evidence of closure.

DDD-9: The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance does apply to the proposed project per the County of
Monterey. Please refer to Master Response 12-B and Responses to Comments VV-2 and VV-3 for
discussion of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applicability. Figure 3-3, Layout Plan, has been
revised. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised
graphic. Please refer to Response to Comment DDD-8 for traffic-related responses.

Comment requests statement on building heights not exceed 35 feet be clarified on page 3-10 of the Draft
EIR under Building Construction. Refer to Section 6, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.
Please also see Master Response 3-E for more information on Height Restriction. Please note that height
of structure means the vertical distance from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the
natural grade of that portion of the building site covered by the structure, to the topmost point of the
structure, but excluding certain features, as specified in Chapter 20.62 (Height and Setback Exceptions)
and Title 20.06.630.

DDD-10: Comment noted, but no further response is deemed necessary. The Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance does apply to the proposed project. Please refer to Master Response 12-B and Responses to
Comments VV-2 and VV-3 for discussion of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance applicability.

DDD-11: Comment noted. The text has been revised to clarify the setting of the project in Draft EIR
Section 4.1, Aesthetics. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR for the
revised text.

DDD-12: Comment noted. The text has been revised as requested. Please see Section 6.0, Revisions to
the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR, for the revised text.

DDD-13: With regards to the preliminary landscaping plan, although the applicant has submitted this
proposed landscaping plan in order for the EIR preparers to evaluate the potential project-level impacts in
the Draft EIR, as standard Monterey County practice, the projects proposed landscaping plan would still
need to be reviewed and approved as a stand-alone plan before any building permits would be issued
related to the proposed project. Further, Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 requires additional information be
included in the plan, such as success criteria and maintenance requirements prior to approval by Monterey
County.

Please refer to Master Responses 3-B and 3-C for discussion concerning the visual assessment
methodology and thresholds of significance and the determination of significance for impacts to resources
along the scenic Highway 1.

DDD-14: Figure 4.1-4B has been revised. Further, please refer to Figure 4.1-4C for proposed landscape
screening along Highway 1. Please refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR, for the revised figure.

DDD-15: The specific inclusion into Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 requiring colors and materials to
effectively reflect the architectural style of the main hospital building ensures that such measures would
be required as conditions of approval for the project.

DDD-16: Please refer to Response DDD-13 for discussion relating to the landscaping and replanting plan
requirement.

DDD-17: Comment noted. Please refer to Master Responses 10-D and 10-E regarding applicable land
use plans and their consistency.

DDD-18: The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance does apply to the proposed project. Please refer to
Master Response 12-B and Responses to Comments VV-2 and VV-3 for discussion of the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance applicability.

DDD-19: Comment noted. Please refer to Master Responses 10-D and 10-E regarding applicable land
use plans and their consistency.

DDD-20: For responses regarding the reference to Mitigation Measure 4-10.2(a) and the requirements
for forced-air mechanical ventilation systems, please see Master Response 11-D.

DDD-21: This comment has been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment DDD-8 and the

DDD-22: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic and
Circulation, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. The
additional alternatives analyzed in the recirculated section include a Visitor Serving with Existing
Buildings Alternative, a Hybrid Visitor Serving Alternative, and a Hybrid Residential Alternative.
Monterey County has determined that only comments received on the Recirculated Draft for this section
will be addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2. Please refer to Section 5.0,
Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft, for individual comments concerning alternative-
related discussion.

DDD-23 through DDD-25: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment
DDD-22 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding alternative-related responses.

Letter EEE
EEE-1
EEE-2
EEE-3
EEE-4
DRAFT EIR EEE: HIGH MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
EEE-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

EEE-2: Please refer to Master Response 3-F regarding views from private property. Draft EIR Section
4.1, Aesthetics, identifies the impacts to the scenic Highway 1 corridor as significant and unavoidable.
Please refer to Master Responses 3-C and 3-D for further discussion regarding visual impacts. Please see
Response to Comment YY-40 regarding the effectiveness of vegetation as a noise barrier on the project
site. The biological impacts of tree removal are discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources,
and the Forest Management Plan located in Appendix D-4 of the Draft EIR.

EEE-3: Please refer to Master Response 3-E for discussion regarding the height mitigation measure.
Further, please refer to Master Response 3-B and 3-C for discussions relating the visual assessment
methodology and thresholds of significance. Also, please refer to Master Response 3-F for discussions
regarding viewpoints from private properties.

EEE-4: Please refer to Master Response 3-G for discussion regarding lighting and glare.

Letter FFF
FFF-2
FFF-1
FFF-4
FFF-3
FFF-5
DRAFT EIR LETTER FFF: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP, LETTER #3
FFF-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

FFF-2 through FFF-5: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment
FFF-1 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding water-related responses.

Letter GGG
GGG-3
GGG-1
GGG-2
GGG-3
cont.
DRAFT EIR LETTER GGG: JOYCE STEVENS
GGG-1: Please refer to Sections 4-1 Aesthetics, 4-4 Biological Resources, 4-9 Land Use & Planning, 4-
10 Noise, and 4-13 Traffic of the Draft EIR for specific discussions related to the potential impacts of the
proposed project on the vicinity surrounding the project site. For a response regarding the proposed
projects consistency with applicable Carmel Area LUP policies please refer to Master Response to
Comments 10-D and 10-E; please also see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

GGG-2: Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, as well as Master Response 7-C for
discussion regarding slope stability. Please refer to Response to Comment GGG-1, above regarding
consistency with the Coastal Act. For a response regarding the proposed projects consistency with
applicable Carmel Area LUP policies please refer to Master Response to Comments 10-D and 10-E;
please also see Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR.

GGG-3: Please refer to Response to Comment GGG-1, above for discussion on policy applicability, as
well as Master Response to Comment 9-C and 9-D for discussions regarding the number of stormwater
runoff detention facilities. As stated in Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project
is required and has been designed to have the capabilities for on-site retention of stormwater run-off for
up to a 100-year storm event. As such, the development of residential uses is not excluded under the
Coastal Act.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martinez, Raul R. x4628
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:49 AM
To: Gonzales, Liz x5102
Cc: Sauerwein, Rick P. 796-3071; Alinio, Chad S. x4937
Subject: Villas de Carmelo DEIR comments.
Good morning Liz,
After review of the Villas de Carmelo Draft Environmental Impact Report I have the
following comments:
x Under mitigation 4.13-1 correct first sentence to read, Prior to recordation of the proposed
projects final Map, the project applicant/ developer is responsible for building the following improvements:
x Under mitigation 4.13-1 the first bullet states, Widening of the southbound shoulder at the
Carpenter Street/ Valley Way intersection to allow vehicle to pass other vehicles waiting to turn left onto
Carpenter Street, due to the limited sight distance on the Eastbound approach of Valley Way at the
intersection with Carpenter Street; widening of the southbound shoulder is not recommended.
x The applicant is required to perform a vehicle queuing study on the Southbound approach of
Carpenter Street from Valley Way to Highway 1, if study determines that vehicle queuing is an issue then
the applicants traffic engineer should propose a left turn lane on Carpenter/ Valley Way and an
adjustment to the alignment on Carpenter Street to accommodate the left turn lane.
If you have any question please let me know.
Raul Martinez
Assistant Engineer
County of Monterey Public Works Transportation Section
168 W. Alisal St. 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901
Direct: (831) 755-4628; Fax: (831) 755-4958
www.co.monterey.ca.us
Letter HHH
HHH-1
HHH-2
HHH-3
DRAFT EIR LETTER HHH: MONTEREY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SECTION
HHH-1: Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Summary, Traffic, Utilities and

HHH-2 through HHH-3: The comments have been considered. Please refer to Response to Comment
HHH-1 and the Recirculated Draft EIR regarding traffic-related responses.

5.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR

Letter RDEIR A: Governors Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse ................................. 5
Letter RDEIR B: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ................................................... 11
Letter RDEIR C: California Transportation Commission .............................................................................. 13
Letter RDEIR D: Monterey County Resource Management Agency, Redevelopment and Housing ...... 16
Letter RDEIR E: Monterey County Water Resources Agency ..................................................................... 18
Letter RDEIR F: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ............................................................ 22
Letter RDEIR G: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Community Planning and Building Department .............. 28
Letter RDEIR H: Landwatch Monterey County .............................................................................................. 32
Letter RDEIR I: Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp #1 ............................................................................... 35
Letter RDEIR J: Mark McDonald .................................................................................................................... 37
Letter RDEIR K: Barbara Livingston ............................................................................................................... 39
Letter RDEIR L: L.A. Patterson ........................................................................................................................ 42
Letter RDEIR M: Nelson French ........................................................................................................................ 46
Letter RDEIR N: Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition ...................................................................... 67
Letter RDEIR O: Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition ...................................................................... 79
Letter RDEIR P: Mike and Lynn Patton .......................................................................................................... 82
Letter RDEIR Q: Bonnie Gillooly ..................................................................................................................... 86
Letter RDEIR R: Anne E. Crawford ................................................................................................................. 88
Letter RDEIR S: Frank and Marguerite Primrose .......................................................................................... 90
Letter RDEIR T: Barry G. Kohler ..................................................................................................................... 94
Letter RDEIR U: Richard and Barbara Warren ............................................................................................. 102
Letter RDEIR V: Elaine S. Ewen .................................................................................................................... 107
Letter RDEIR W: Yoko Whitaker .................................................................................................................... 112
Letter RDEIR X: Jon and Thelma Blades ...................................................................................................... 117
Letter RDEIR Y: Dr. Lois Roberts .................................................................................................................. 120
Letter RDEIR Z: Adam Jeselnick ................................................................................................................... 123
Letter RDEIR AA: The Widewaters Group, Inc. ............................................................................................. 129
Letter RDEIR BB: Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp#2 .............................................................................. 151
Letter RDEIR CC: California Coastal Commission** .................................................................................... 166

**late comment

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides responses to the comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Copies of each
of the comment letters are included in this section, with responses to each comment provided following
the letter.

5.2 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Each letter received on the Recirculated Draft EIR, as identified above, is presented in this section. The
individual comments within each letter are numbered, and numbered responses to each of the
corresponding numbered comments are provided immediately following each comment letter. In those
instances in which a comment states an agency position or opinion and does not comment on issues
relevant to the environmental analysis presented in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the sentence "The
comment is acknowledged" is provided. If the comment is directed at Monterey County regarding the
decision on the project, the sentence "The comment is referred to the decision-makers for their
consideration" is provided; typically, these comments do not raise issues relevant to the environmental
5.0 Comments and Responses on the Recirculated Draft EIR
analysis. Where the response notes an addition or deletion to the text, tables, or figures in the Draft EIR,
the reader is directed to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR.

Portions of the Draft EIR have been recirculated, including the Traffic and Circulation, Utilities and
Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Per CEQA, only comments received
on the Recirculated Draft for these sections are addressed in these Response to Comments, in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2, which stipulates that when the EIR is revised only in part and the
lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request
that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of the recirculated EIR. The lead
agency need only response to (i) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to
chapter or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received
during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised
and recirculated. The lead agencys request that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be
included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to revised EIR.
Letter RDEIR A
A-1
LETTER RDEIR A: GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE
A-1: The letter states the State Clearinghouse submitted the Recirculated Draft EIR to selected state
agencies for review, and no state agencies submitted comments during the public review period. This
letter acknowledges that Monterey County has complied with the State Clearinghouse review
requirements as required pursuant to CEQA. No response is required.

Letter RDEIR B
1
2
3
LETTER RDEIR B: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
B-1: Comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic, Utilities
and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Only comments received on the
Recirculated Draft sections are addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2 and as
stated in the Notice of Availability on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.0, Comments
and Responses on the Draft EIR, for individual comments concerning biological resources related
impacts. Refer to Master Response 5 to Comments for discussion regarding the review of biological
resources on the project site, as well as Master Response 13-A concerning building codes

B-2: See B-1, above. A Biological Resource Assessment (BA), a Forest Management Plan (FMP), a
Spring Plant Survey Report, and an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Evaluation were
prepared for the project site. Per County request, the Biological Resource Assessment and the Forest
Management Plan submitted as part of the project application materials underwent peer reviews by
DD&A biologists and Bill Ruskin Consulting, registered professional forester.

Letter RDEIR C
1
2
LETTER RDEIR C: CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
C-1: The letter states the State Transportation Commission received the Recirculated Draft EIR and has
no comments. No response is required.

C-2: This letter acknowledges that should the project involve the allocation of State Transportation
funds, the Commission should be notified. No response is required.

Letter RDEIR D
1
2
3
4
LETTER RDEIR D: MONTEREY COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY, REDEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSING OFFICE
D-1: The letter provides a status on the Inclusionary Housing Compliance issue related to the project and
indicates that project proponents and staff have held a number of discussions on the projects form of
compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The letter indicates that the Ordinance requires the
project supply compliance equal to 20% of the total number of units proposed and further, that the 20%
consist of 6% very low, 6% low and 8% moderate income units. The units are to be provided on site
unless an alternative form of compliance is approved (with appropriate findings) by the approving
authority. This requires that the project supply 9.2 inclusionary units with 2 at the very low income level,
3 at the low income level and 4 at the moderate income level and payment of an in-lieu fee for the
remaining fractional .2 unit. The letter provides a number of concerns identified by the Housing
Advisory Committee from July 14, 2010 review of the project. The letter states the HACs concerns as
the following:

The proposal did not address the need for housing for very low and low income households in
the Planning Area.
The HOA fees would be too expensive for the Moderate Income Inclusionary Owners.
With the down turn of the economy there are non-restricted for sale units affordable to the
Moderate income level in the County so there may not be enough interested buyers.
A rental component could be considered for the lower income families but would be difficult to
integrate into this high end project.

D-2: This letter identifies that the applicant and the RHO staff met several times to discuss options
including constructing inclusionary rental units off-site, converting and rehabing existing rental units to
inclusionary units, or paying a fee. Several constraints were indentified with the off-site option. The
letter states that the only available land that could support a multi-family project in the Planning Area is
most likely in the cities and new development in the Planning Area is severely constrained by availability
of water. The Inclusionary Ordinance requires that the off-site units by in the same Planning Area and
does not allow use of existing units for compliance. See Master Response 12-B.

D-3: Commenter identifies that the option of paying an in-lieu fee was discussed with staff. The fee
would be approximately $2.5 million and could be leveraged by the County in partnership with a non-
profit to construct affordable and/or special needs housing. This option would likely allow a greater
number of units developed under this approach. No further response is necessary.

D-4: On July 14, 2010 the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) considered the proposal of paying the
in-lieu fee for full compliance. The HAC supported this approach but did state that they were interested
in seeing the fee used for new or rehabbed housing in the Planning Area, although they acknowledged the
constraints associated with water. No further response is necessary.

Letter RDEIR E
1
LETTER RDEIR E: MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
E-1: The letter states the Monterey County Water Resources Agency received the Recirculated Draft
EIR and has no comments. No response is required.

Letter RDEIR F
1
2
3
4
5
6
LETTER F: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
F-1: The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) requests that a
clarification and correction be made under the Recirculated Draft EIR Utilities and Service System, Page
4.14.-2, New Information Available Since the Draft EIR to clarify the actions relating to the applicant
locating and providing water records from California American water for the two separate water meters
on the site and correspondence provided by the MPWMD to the County. This information has been
updated in the Final EIR. See Master Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft
EIR.

F-2: The District advises that documentation of the Water Credits will take place upon verification of
permanent abandonment of use or upon permitting a change in use. At that time, the District will make a
final determination of the Water Credit available. No permanent abandonment of use has yet been
confirmed. Changes in the Water Use Factors between now and the time the project is permitted could
reduce or increase the amount of Water Credits available.

This information is included in the Recirculated Draft and Final EIR. See Section 6.0, Revisions to the
Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR.

F-3: Comment noted. This information has been updated in the Final EIR. See Section 6.0, Revisions
to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR.

F-4: District Rule 142, Water Efficiency Standards, was amended by Ordinance No. 141. This
information has been updated in the Final EIR. See Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR and

F-5: As stated in the comment letter, MPWMD staff requests a clarification on statement in the RDEIR
that the proposed project would not involve a new connection, and that there would be no inclusion of
the projects estimated landscaping water demand included within the projects application in accordance
with Rules and Regulations of the MPWMD. Per the comment letter, MPWMD will not assess an
additional outdoor water use for the proposed project because outdoor water use is recognized as a
historical lawful use of water on the property. This statement has been clarified that the proposed project
per the MPWMD will require individual water meters for each new User pursuant to Rule 23 B-2 (a).
This information has been updated in the Final EIR. See Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR and
Recirculated Draft EIR. See also Master Response 15-8, which explains that the County will require
reporting and monitoring of water use to ensure total water use will not exceed the water cap. The project
will be required to report total water use from its main meter. Separate sub-meters will also be installed
for each unit on the site, as well as for landscaping.

F-6: Comment notes that Rule 25.5 J, states An On-Site Water Credit resulting from the non-
permanent removal of a lawful use that occurred on and after March 1, 1985, may be applied to, and shall
allow, the future reuse of that increment of water on that Site. As stated above, MPWMD considers the
existing use on the Site as a lawful use and under the Districts current rules, will not reassess outdoor
water use as long as the existing use is not permanently abandoned.

This information has been updated in the Final EIR. See Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR and
Letter RDEIR G
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
cont.
LETTER RDEIR G: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
G-1: The commenters opinion is noted regarding the Citys preference for Alternative 8. This comment
is referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further
response is necessary. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion regarding the analysis of alternatives
to the Proposed Project.

Comment states that their previous comment letter addressed items that were not fully addressed.
Comments not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic, Utilities and
Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections are addressed in Responses to the Draft
EIR. See Master Response 2-F.

G-2: The commenters opinion is noted.

G-3: See Master Response 1-D. Comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were
recirculated, i.e., the Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative
sections. Only comments received on the Recirculated Draft sections are addressed, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2 and as stated in the Notice of Availability on the Recirculated Draft EIR.
Please refer to Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR, for individual comments
concerning aesthetic related impacts. Refer to Master Response 3 for discussion regarding the aesthetic
impacts and mitigation.

G-4: See G-3, above.

G-5: See G-3, above. Also see Master Response 6 for discussion regarding the cultural impacts.

G-6: See G-3, above. Also see Master Response 6 for discussion regarding the cultural impacts.

G-7: See G-3, above.

G-8: See G-3, above. See Master Response 1-D and10.

G-9: See G-3, above. See Master Response 1-D. Further, standard Monterey County conditions of
approval regarding new construction requires that California State Building Codes shall apply to the
proposed project.

G-10: The commenters opinion is noted. The resolution by the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-
the-Sea is referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no

Letter RDEIR H
3
2
1
3
cont.
4
5
LETTER RDEIR H: LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY
H-1: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-F.

H-2: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-E.

H-3: The comment states that LandWatch comments on the Draft EIR related to greenhouse gas
emissions were not addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Only portions of the Draft EIR were
recirculated, related only to Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative
sections. Per CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2, only comments received on the Draft EIR for these revised
sections are addressed in the Recirculated Draft, in accordance with CEQA and as stated on Page R1-2 of
the Recirculated Draft EIR and the Notice of Availability released with the document. Please see the
corresponding section in the Final EIR for the responses to comments noted. Also see individual
responses to comments on the Draft EIR for responses to Landwatch Letter Q, Section 4.0.

H-4: The comment states that LandWatch comments on the Draft EIR related to land use policies
applicable to the proposed project were not addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Only portions of the
Draft EIR were recirculated, specifically related to Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA
Considerations, and Alternative sections. Per CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2, only comments received
on the Draft EIR for these revised sections are addressed in the Recirculated Draft, as stated on Page R1-2
of the Recirculated Draft EIR and the Notice of Availability released with the document. Please see the
corresponding section in the Final EIR for the responses to comments noted. Also see individual
responses to comments on the Draft EIR for responses to Landwatch Letter Q, Section 4.0.

H-5: Please refer to Master Response 12-B.

Letter RDEIR I
1
LETTER RDEIR I: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP #1
I-1: Adequate public notice concerning the Recirculated Draft EIR was provided within the required
time periods in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15089, such notice having been given by
notice, to all those who commented on the Draft EIR; mailing to all property owners within a 300 foot
radius of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; organizations and individuals who
previously requested such notice or who previously commented on the Draft EIR as well as publication in
newspaper of general circulation in the affected area and posting on and off the project site of the Notice
of Availability of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Adequacy of notice was confirmed by consultation with
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse personnel by the County.

In order to address any concerns raised, although not required by CEQA, the County provided additional
notice with redistribution of the Notice of Availability in all of the forms addressed above, This resulted
in an extended (over 45 day period) for review of the Recirculated Draft EIR.
Letter RDEIR J
1
2
LETTER RDEIR J: MARK MCDONALD
J-1: These comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative

The comment regarding the Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection and the general traffic comments are
addressed in Master Responses 14, Traffic.

The commenter refers to the lack of evaluation of the combined effects of approved and pending projects
within Carmel and surrounding areas on traffic circulation as well as utilities and schools. The traffic
study and RDEIR present analysis of the effects of all approved and pending projects within the
cumulative conditions analysis. The cumulative analysis is intended to provide decision makers with a
planning level evaluation of long-term traffic conditions with the planned development. The cumulative
conditions analysis is required of all individual development projects.

J-2: These comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative

Letter RDEIR K
1
2
LETTER RDEIR K: BARBARA LIVINGSTON
K-1: These comments are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative

K-2: The comment regarding the precedence of the proposed LCP amendment is addressed in Section
5.0, Master Response 10 and Master Response 12-C This comment opines that there are many other
potential properties that should be considered as potentially foreseeable projects in the EIR analysis of
cumulative or growth inducing impacts. The examples cited are existing visitor serving uses and are
addressed specifically herein. The 26-room Colonial Terrace Inn is located at 13th Street and San
Antonio, in the jurisdiction of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The potential for rezoning a property under a Carmel
Area Land Use designation (County jurisdiction), when the property is under the jurisdiction of the City is
nil. If the property were to be within the County LUP area, the site is one block from the Carmel Beach
and a visitor serving use with potential coastal access and recreational opportunities. As such, an
amendment from visitor serving, coastal dependent use to a residential use is contrary to Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act. The Carmel Resort Inn is a small inn located at Carpenter and 2
nd
. Per the property manager
of the inn, this site is also within the City limits of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Additionally, the water
demand for an inn/motel per MPWMD adopted water factors is 0.10 AF/Y per motel unit. The
opportunity to apply for water credit to increase density to residential uses is limited by the water
availability for smaller sites and the available existing water credits. The examples cited in the letter
include the Carmel Resort Inn, less than one acre, and the Carmel Terrace Inn. These represent visitor
serving units located on relatively small lot sizes. In these examples and for visitor serving uses in
general, the opportunity to apply for water credit to increase density to residential uses is limited by the
water availability since water use demand factors for residential are more than 50% higher per unit when
compared to visitor serving demand factors. Additionally, these sites are limited by Coastal Act policies
that preclude revision to residential uses, as well as the practicability of increasing density when water
limitations are in place. Also, the EIR considered sites only within the Carmel Area Land Use plan of the
Monterey County unincorporated areas as the City of Carmel-by-the Sea has its own LCP and policies
with residential densities already set. City of Carmel-by-the Sea policies include residential densities for
R-4 designation which allows greater or comparable densities as proposed by the project. (City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea Initial Study/Negative Declaration included in Draft EIR Appendix M).

Letter RDEIR L
2
1
2
cont.
LETTER RDEIR L: L.A. PATTERSON
L-1: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR H-1 and RDEIR H-2.

L-2: Comments stating opinions on preferred alternatives or development scenarios do not directly raise
an environmental issue that requires comment. The comment is referred to decision-makers for further
consideration as part of the deliberative process. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion regarding
the analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Letter RDEIR M
3
2
1
7
6
5
4
8
LETTER RDEIR M: NELSON FRENCH
M-1: The EIR does not come to two conclusions that contradict each other as asserted in the comment.
The RDEIR provides a mitigation to reduce the proposed density of the project and Land use plan
amendment allowable density under the HDR designation within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to be
lower than the language proposed by the -County and included in the Draft EIR. This original language
on the amendment proposes a density of between 5-20 units per acre. This actually addresses concerns
raised by the community and neighborhood about density: by limiting the density allowed, the land use
impacts from future development are reduced.

M-2: The data regarding the current uses of the Hospital site by the Breakthrough Mens Community
group are provided for informational purposes only and reiterate comments received from the public. The
trip generation and parking data for the Breakthrough uses were not utilized in the traffic analysis
completed for the proposed project and have no bearing on the results presented in the neither the traffic
study nor RDEIR. The information and data of the breakthrough and previous Hospital uses of the project
site are provided as a comparison to the proposed project and convey the incremental increase in traffic
generation that is expected by the proposed project. The data indicates that the proposed project will
generate less traffic than existing uses of the site. However, the traffic analysis presents a worst case
scenario in that it evaluates the effects of the addition of the gross trips to be produced by the proposed
project. The traffic analysis takes no credit for previous or existing uses of the site.

M-3: The commenters opinion is noted. See Biological Resources Master Responses 5-A and 5-B.

M-4: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-L. RDEIR Figure 4.13-7 indicates the most likely haul
route for trucks originating from and bound for the project site. The proposed haul route utilizes Highway
1, Carpenter Street, and Valley Way since the trucks will be bound for site located north of the project site
and Carmel. There is no proposed use of Third Avenue as the comment states. The use of Third Avenue
would provide a circuitous route from the north that would not provide adequate turn radii for larger
trucks as the comment infers. The RDEIR makes no mention of construction traffic coming to and from
Third Avenue every 60 minutes as the comment states.

M-5: The comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic,
Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Refer to Master Response
11 to Comments for discussion regarding noise impacts and mitigation, including construction noise.
Only comments received on the Recirculated Draft sections are addressed, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines 15088.5(F)2 and as stated in the Notice of Availability on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Please
refer to Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR, as well as Section 4-10 of the Draft EIR
which discusses potential noise impacts, including construction noise, and mitigation measures.

M-6: The facility opened as the original Peninsula Community Hospital in 1934. In 1963, new owners
Ralph Drummond and Nick La Sorella renovated and reopened the project site as the Carmel
Convalescent Hospital. The Peninsula Community Hospital soon outgrew the site and moved to its
current location on Highway 68 in 1962.The Convalescent Hospital was in use for the next 35 years. Use
of the convalescent hospital predates the water credit program identified in this comment.

M-7: The EIRs methodology of estimating historical water use on property is based upon documentation
of the actual use. In this case, there is no paper water but there is substantial evidence to show that the
property was in fact fully utilized for decades and water use historical data does accurately reflect these
conditions. The EIR obtained evidence from Cal-Am for water records, as well as the Water Management
District for confirmation of use and County Planning and Building Department for continuity of use.
Evidence was also obtained from the Department of Health Services and the Department of Social
Services to confirm the long standing care facility operations on the site. See Master Response 15-C and
15-D.

M-8: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion
regarding the analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Letter RDEIR N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
cont.
8
12
cont.
13
14
14
cont.
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
cont.
21
22
23
24
25
cont.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32
cont.
36
35
33
34
37
38
39
39
cont.
40
41
42
42
cont.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
52
cont.
53
54
55
56
56
cont.
57
58
58
cont.
LETTER RDEIR N: SAVE OUR CARMEL NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION
N-1: Comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic, Utilities
and Responses on the Draft EIR, for individual comments concerning the proposed projects description.

N-2: After circulation of the Draft EIR, the applicants proposed alternative plans for compliance with the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. As a public review comment on the Recirculated Draft EIR, Marti
Noel, Monterey County Resource Management Agency, Redevelopment and Housing Office (RHO),
provided an update on the status of the projects proposed plan for compliance with the County
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. On July 14, 2010 the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) considered
the proposal of paying the in-lieu fee for full compliance. Please refer to Master Response 12-B.

N-3: The commenters opinion is noted and no further response is necessary.

N-4: The commenters opinion is noted. Further, Table 6.4-1 on page 6-31 of the Recirculated Draft EIR
provides a list, or key, of the project alternatives. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion regarding

N-5: The applicants correspondence provided to neighboring residents of the project site represent
independent actions on behalf of the developer and are not a component of the proposed projects Draft
EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR, or Final EIR. Additionally, opinions and/or conclusions stated by the
applicant do not express the independent analysis and conclusions of the project through the EIR process.

N-6: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits
consideration under CEQA.

N-7: The commenters statement is noted and no further response is necessary.




N-11: The commenters opinion is noted and no further response is necessary. Further, the Proposed
Project considered by the EIR process analyzes the application submitted to Monterey County.

N-12: The comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic,
Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. The comment references
a mitigation measure previously identified in the Draft EIR, which was included in a summary of
significant environmental impacts and mitigation table as reference alone within the Recirculated Draft
EIR. Only comments received on the Recirculated Draft sections are addressed, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2 and as stated in the Notice of Availability on the Recirculated Draft EIR.
Please refer to Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR, for individual comments
concerning aesthetic related impacts. Refer to Master Response 3 to Comments for discussion regarding
the aesthetic impacts and mitigation. The landscaping and replanting plan incorporate specific success
criteria, which would ensure that the specific screening goals are met along Highway 1.

N-13 to -N:-22: The comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the
Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Refer to Master
Response 3 to Comments for discussion regarding the aesthetic impacts and mitigation. The comment
references analysis and mitigation measures previously identified in the Draft EIR. The mitigation
measures were included in a summary of significant environmental impacts and mitigation table as
reference alone within the Recirculated Draft EIR. Only comments received on the Recirculated Draft
sections are addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2 and as stated in the Notice of
Availability on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the
Draft EIR.

N-23: The comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic,
Utilities and Service Systems, CEQA Considerations, and Alternative sections. Refer to Master Response
3 to Comments for discussion regarding the aesthetic impacts and mitigation. The comment references
analysis and mitigation measures previously identified in the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures were
included in a summary of significant environmental impacts and mitigation table as reference alone
within the Recirculated Draft EIR. Only comments received on the Recirculated Draft sections are
addressed, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2 and as stated in the Notice of Availability
on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Please refer to Section 4.0, Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR,
for individual comments concerning aesthetic related impacts.

Additionally, street lighting conditions require lighting plans to be submitted to Planning Department for
approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits for street lights Commenters have raised
concerns about the Countys ability to enforce mitigations or conditions. The County has filed code
enforcement actions against development that is not in compliance with conditions. Recent adoption of a
code enforcement ordinance (Ordinance 5122, January 2009) provides additional tools for the County to
enforce conditions and mitigation measures in a more timely fashion and to obtain compliance.

N-24: Refer to Master Responses 10-C and 12-C for discussion of precedent issue.

N-25: Refer to Master Responses 10-C and 12-C for discussion of precedent issue. Also, see Responses
RDEIR K-1 and K-2 and RDEIR BB-37.

N-26: Refer to Master Responses 10-C and 12-C for discussion of precedent issue.

N-27: The comment states that Section 5.0 of the RDEIR does not provide a factual basis to support the
statement that the proposed project would not be expected to induce growth beyond the limits of the
project site or set a precedent for additional growth in the area. The basis of this statement is clearly stated
in Section 5.0, however. As the discussion states, a project is considered to be growth-inducing if it
fosters economic or population growth beyond the boundaries of the project site. Typical growth
inducements might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously
unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major boundaries to development. The site already
contains buildings associated with the former convalescent hospital, improvements such as parking and
pavement area, and is surrounded by residential development, and is currently served by public
infrastructure and utilities. No extension of services would be necessary, however upgrading of existing
infrastructure and services will be required. Because the project site is located in an area of existing
residential development, the project would not remove a major obstacle to development. On the basis of
this discussion, the EIR determines that the project does not include any components that would induce
growth in areas off-site. The land use plan amendment and rezoning request and proposed improvements
are specific only to the project parcel. There is no definitive basis on which to state that, if approved, the
project would directly or indirectly foster growth on other parcels. Please refer to Master Responses 10-C
and 12-C.

N-28: The reference is clearly identified in the RDEIR as specific to the temporal nature of the impact as
well as that the convalescent care facility ceased its operation in 2005. The cessation of this use on the
site has lasted approximately 3-4 years and had the effect of temporarily reducing water demand from the
Cal-Am system. Upon development of the proposed use, water production requirements for this site will
be less than the historical demand averaging 13.68 AF/Y.

N-29: Comment is referred to Monterey Peninsula Water Management District; terminology is specific to
characterization of water years by the District and is generally accepted as a measurement by resource
agencies. Additional information is available via www.mpwmd.org.

N-30: There is no Table 4.16-6 in the RDEIR.

N-31: Please refer to Master Response 5-D and 15-G regarding impact to Carmel River and Order 95-10.
This comment suggests that the EIR should adopt a significance threshold wherein any reduction in water
availability (i.e., as a result of any use of water from Carmel River System) would constitute a significant
and unavoidable impact per se due to Order 95-10 and the current status of the area's water supply,
without reference to CEQA thresholds, the nature or magnitude of those impacts and their effects on other
resources, or current status of regional water supply planning. The SWRCB Order No. 95-10 and the
NOAA Fisheries 2002 Report, as well as other regulatory guidance documents, were carefully reviewed.
As explained below, these documents primarily address circumstances that are substantially factually
different than those presented by the proposed project. Moreover, to the extent these documents discuss
the Carmel River generally, a fact-specific review of the documents demonstrates that they do not require
the adoption of a per se significance threshold for water availability and supply. To the contrary, as
explained below, those documents contain factual information that supports the significance thresholds
adopted in the Recirculated and Draft EIR and the impact conclusions derived from those thresholds.
First, the propertys reduction of demand occurred subsequent to Order No. WR 95-10. As such, the
temporary cessation of the previous use has contributed to reducing consumption during this period.
Upon resumption of either the previous use or the new proposed use, water production requirements for
this site will be less than the historical demand. Historical demand during production averaged 13.68
AF/Y. There is also no evidence in the comment that provides a nexus between the temporary cessation
of use of the service from Cal-Am to the site to impacts to resources on the Carmel River. As identified
in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the variation of withdrawal in the Cal-Am system fluctuates well within the
parameters of the proposed project. Further, the project will use less water than documented in the water
supply records for Cal Am as accepted by the County, MPWMD and CalAm. Subsequent to the EIR
publication, the Regional Water Project has been approved. This project will provide a net benefit to
Carmel River flow and fisheries due to reduction in withdrawal for the Cal Am system. The Regional
Water Project has an approved EIR by the California Public Utilities Commission in addition to signed
agreements for approval and implementation by affected agencies. Overall, the evidence of a significant
impact in the short term or long term is not addressed or documented in the comment. Also, refer to
Master Response 5-D.

N-32: Water use per actual water bills on the site for the specific use has been provided in the RDEIR.
Information in the study regarding other sites is not specific to this site and is not a part of this EIR
analysis. Refer to the discussion on Utilities and Master Response 15-C and 15-D. Any study questions
regarding general water use for senior care facilities are referred to the MPWMD. Water use fixtures are
provided in the documentation on use for MPWMD and available as public record.

N-33: Water use per actual water bills has been provided in the RDEIR. Explanations regarding amount
of water used for historical use is referred to the County and MPWMD. Retrofitting is required under
requirements of MPWMD in accordance with their adopted Rules and Regulations. Information on
payment of water bills is not an environmental impact.

N-34: Water use per actual water bills on the site for the specific use and an appropriate time period has
already been provided in the RDEIR.

N-35: Please refer to Response N-31. The Cease and Desist Order (CDO) does not deprive existing
properties with water credits under MPWMD programs, as discussed under Effect of CDO on Water
Credit Program, Page R4.14-35 of the RDEIR. An On-Site Water Credit resulting from the non-
permanent removal of a lawful use that occurred on or after March 1, 1985, may be applied to, and shall
allow, the future reuse of that increment of water on that site, per MPWMD rules. The project site is not
applying to use more water beyond approved and entitled uses. The property will be required to get all
necessary approvals from the MPWMD prior to development. Page R4.14-35 of the RDEIR provides
information from the State Water Board that concludes that CDO does not deprive valid users from use of
their water credits. MPWMD Rule 25.5 J, states An On-Site Water Credit resulting from the non-
permanent removal of a lawful use that occurred on and after March 1, 1985, may be applied to, and shall
allow, the future reuse of that increment of water on that Site. MPWMD considers the existing use on
the Site as a lawful use.

N-36: Impacts from rezoning are discussed in the EIR. Please also refer to Master Response to Comments
on Land Use and Water (12-C and 13) and discussion above.

N-37: Pursuant to County ordinance, the County requires development projects that have a cumulative
traffic impact to pay a Regional Development Impact Fee (each of the cities within the county has also
adopted a similar regional traffic impact fee ordinance). The fee is transmitted to a regional joint powers
authority (JPA) for the purpose of funding specified improvements and is administered by the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). TAMC collects traffic improvement fees on
behalf of the JPA from development projects in the County and cities for the purpose of funding all or a
portion of specific road infrastructure projects within Monterey County. Refer to Master Response 14-E.

N-38: The nearest services are located in Carmel proper and accessible via bus routes, pedestrian or bike
travel. Additional services are accessible to the shopping centers at the Crossroads and Rio Road. Should
the residents wish to access these shopping facilities, access is provided via bus routes and roads, not only
Highway 1. In order to provide a conservative estimate of transportation impacts, the traffic impact
assessment did not discount vehicle miles travelled for those residents using public transportation, or
pedestrian and bike in the EIR in reference to vehicle miles travelled. Traffic assumptions for travel
assumed all routes for shopping would be via vehicle. Thus, air quality modeling and impacts on energy
use are considered in this document.

N-39: Refer to Master Response 6-D regarding Tortilla Flats. The comment regarding character of the
neighborhood is referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process.

N-40: Refer to Master Responses 10-C and 12-C. See also the discussion under the Land Use Plan
amendment in Master Response 12.

N-41: Refer to Master Responses 10-C and 12-C. It is more appropriate to state that the likelihood of
another parcel with these similar characteristics to be available for development at a higher density is not
high and the review by the County of properties did not find any reasonably foreseeable projects, per the
discussion above. The repetitive language identified by the commenter will be revised in the Final EIR for
clarity. Properties were evaluated and the review conducted independently. There is no information
necessary to provide on developer involvement in the review process as there was none.

N-42: Refer to Master Responses 10-C and 12-C. The Cumulative List Table 5.-2.1was completed for
purposes of the traffic analysis. The projects listed on Table 4.13-9 and accompanying map were
reviewed by the County of Monterey Coastal Staff Planner. The list was updated in May 2010 as
indicated on the footnote to the Table. Table 5.2-1 provides project details of the projects identified that
are greater than the updated numbers. As this table is in reference only to the Cumulative Traffic analysis,
the additional unit counts provide a more conservative analysis in the EIR cumulative traffic assessment.
Tables do not need to be specifically exact as cumulative analysis may use different geographic areas or
parameters as allowed under CEQA. In this case, the more conservative analysis is appropriate. The
information questioned in the comment is on previously approved but not fully constructed projects.
Including these projects is a common approach for traffic cumulative analyses and is used by the County
of Monterey and other jurisdictions to account for undeveloped parcels yet to be constructed on each of
these developments. This approach is more conservatively inclusive for the cumulative traffic impact
analysis. Since the overall unit count is higher than actually approved in these cases, it also addresses the
traffic impacts from the proposed Trevett Court Carmel Foundation project.

The comment stated that the cumulative impacts of construction and operation of the Carmel High School
Performing Arts building was not considered in the EIR analysis. The building is now constructed and
operational, thus there are no anticipated construction impacts that would contribute to cumulative
impacts. Use and operation of the building is scheduled for off-peak evening and non-school hours for
performances, thus limiting any conflicts with traffic. The cumulative impact of the Carmel High School
performing arts building and other projects are within the impacts analyzed by the traffic engineers.
Please refer to Master Response to Comments under Traffic.

N-43: Additions and clarifications are noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR. Changes in advisory
committee decisions or ownership do not constitute an environmental issue that requires modification to
the timeline documented in the EIR. The timeline is presented for purposes of determination of when
environmental analysis was initiated as discussed in the RDEIR Utilities Section RDEIR 14.

N-44: Correspondence between the applicant and the County concerning the proposed projects
compliance with the Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was included as an appendix of the Draft
EIR in order to provide background concerning the ongoing discussions between the applicant and
County. Also please see Master Response 12-B.

N-45: Though it is not clear as to which LOS levels the comment is referring too, it is presumed the
reference is in regards to the Level of Service standards that were utilized within the traffic study. The
levels of service standards utilized in the traffic study are those adopted by the County of Monterey and
Caltrans. The level of service standards are presented in detail in the RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page
15. The levels of service standard are adopted policy measures that establish a minimum operating level
for intersections and roadways throughout the County and region. All traffic study analysis for
development within the County of Monterey is required to utilize the adopted level of service standards
and impact criteria as those described on page 15.

N-46: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B. The comment applies a simple mathematical
calculation that does not account for varying travel patterns for residential land uses. The comment
implies that the estimated trip generation is not correct since it results in an odd number of daily trips and
suggests that roundtrips are not accounted for in the estimations. However, it is possible that one-way
trips will occur to and from the project site (ex. travel to an airport or vehicle to auto shop). The traffic
analysis is based upon AM and PM peak hour trip estimates for the project. Vehicular trips to and from
the project site will primarily consist of trips being made by residents to and from employment during the
AM peak hour (7:00 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 - 6:00 PM). However, trips also will be made to
schools, shopping, and other activities throughout the day by residents and the times of these trips also
will vary. Therefore, peak hour trip estimates indicate both inbound and outbound trips during each of the
peak hours.

N-47: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-L. The RDEIR acknowledges that the construction
phase of the proposed project will result in temporary impacts to the surrounding roadway system due to
construction vehicles. The mitigation outlined in the RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page 22 identifies
proposed improvements at the intersections of Carpenter Street and Highway 1 with Valley Way that are
intended to improve existing operational/safety deficiencies and are not considered impacts based upon
adopted level of service policies. The improvements are not necessary to serve construction traffic and
therefore, are not required to be completed prior to the commencement of construction.

The Monterey County Public Works Department will monitor the Construction Management Plan during
construction of the project. The project will be required to restore any roads damaged by construction
vehicles to, at a minimum, the conditions prior to the start of construction.

N-48: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-L. The RDEIR acknowledges that the construction
phase of the proposed project will result in temporary impacts to the surrounding roadway system due to
construction vehicles. The mitigation outlined in the RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page 22 identifies
proposed improvements at the intersections of Carpenter Street and Highway 1 with Valley Way that are
intended to improve existing operational/safety deficiencies and are not considered impacts based upon
adopted level of service policies. The improvements are not necessary to serve construction traffic and
therefore, are not required to be completed prior to the commencement of construction.

The Monterey County Public Works Department will monitor the Construction Management Plan during
construction of the project. The project will be required to restore any roads damaged by construction
vehicles to, at a minimum, the conditions prior to the start of construction.

N-49: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J.

N-50: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J.

N-51: The school bus stop referenced in the comment is an existing stop along Valley Way. Though it is
correct that the proposed project will in fact increase traffic volumes along Valley Way and at the location
of the reference bus stop, the addition of project traffic will not create new operational nor safety
deficiencies at the stop or its function. Valley Way currently lacks adequate width and parking capacity to
serve the existing bus stop functions. The CEQA mandates that impacts of the project be mitigated.
There is no requirement to improve existing deficiencies unless exacerbated by the project. The addition
of project traffic result will not result in such a significant increase in volume that requires further
safety/operational improvements. This comment may be better made as a recommendation to the County
or School District.

N-52: The maps included within the RDEIR and traffic study are intended to show only those roadway
facilities that will be directly be effected by the proposed project. It would be confusing to the reader to
show each of the minor streets within Carmel that the proposed project will have little to no effect on. Not
one trip from the proposed project will utilize the reference street segment, Monterey Street north of
Valley Way. The intersection of Monterey Street and Valley Way was analyzed as part of the completed
traffic study dated September 4, 2008 and included within Appendix K of the RDEIR. The results of the
analysis indicate that the addition of project traffic will not result in significant impacts to the intersection.

N-53: The Carmel High School Theater for the Performing Arts project was not included within the list
of 37 approved and pending projects in the area because it will not generate a significant amount of peak
hour trips. Events that will be held at the Theater will occur during the evenings, likely after 6:00 PM,
after the PM peak hour conditions analyzed as part of the traffic analysis. In addition, the Carmel High
School Theater for the Performing Arts project is responsible for mitigating its impacts on the roadways
system.

N-54: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-A. Figure 4.13-5 of the RDEIR indicates that the
proposed project will result in the addition of no more than two peak hour trips to the intersection of 2
nd

Avenue and Santa Fe Street. The addition of two peak hour trips will have little to no effect on traffic
conditions at the referenced intersection.

N-55: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-A. Projected traffic of the proposed project was
assigned to the roadway system based upon the most direct and logical routes that may be utilized by new
residents. Intersections along each of the referenced roadways were included in the analysis.

N-56: The traffic analysis for the proposed project applies no discount to estimated trips for non-
primary residence ownership. The traffic analysis conservatively assumed permanent occupancy of all
units. The traffic study (Page 15) dated September 4, 2008 and included as Appendix K of the RDEIR
states, The analysis for project conditions in this study assumes permanent occupancy of all units and the
same trip generation estimates for market rate, affordable housing and workforce housing units as a
worst-case condition.

N-57: Comments stating opinions on preferred alternatives or development scenarios do not directly raise
consideration as part of the deliberative process.

N-58: This comment references a letter provided by the applicant and not a part of the EIR. The comment
does not directly raise an environmental issue that requires comment.

Letter RDEIR O
1a
2
1b
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LETTER O: SAVE OUR CARMEL NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION
O-1a: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-A.

O-1b: Appendix B of the traffic study which is included as Appendix K of the RDEIR presents level of
service thresholds based upon total peak hour volumes upon which the roadway segment analysis is
based. There is no adjustment of peak hour trips to reflect the referenced 10% of Average Daily Traffic
(ADT). Figure 4.13-3 of the RDEIR incorrectly classifies the referenced roadway segment as 4E when
in fact the segment is classified as 4F. The figure does identify the roadway segment as a 4-lane
freeway (4F). The analysis presented in Figure 4.13-3 is correct with regards to application of the
appropriate classification and level of service thresholds.

O-2: The commenter is referred to Exhibits 4A and 4B of Appendix K of the RDEIR. The exhibits
provide existing conditions peak hour turn movements at each of the study intersections.

O-3: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J. In addition, the adjustment of trip
distribution as suggested in the comment would result in no change to reported impacts of the project.

O-4: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J.

O-5: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J. In addition, the traffic analysis is based on
peak hour commute periods since they typically represent the hours of greatest traffic congestion. The
majority of the referenced trips to the supermarket and other ancillary trips will occur outside of the peak
hours, late evening, when residents return home from employment.

O-6: The commenters disagree with the results of the traffic study and stated unsubstantiated and
general opinions regarding the methodology and results of the traffic study. The County conducted its
own review of the study through the independent review of the Public Works Department in addition to
the EIR peer review and disagrees with the opinions noted regarding the validity of the study results.
Please also refer to Traffic Master Responses and Response to Comment RDEIR O-7, below.

O-7: The commenters opinion is noted. Section 3.0, Master Response 14, Traffic provides the
background and information for questions raised in the following categories:
14-A. Methodology
14-E. TAMC Fees
14- L. Construction Traffic
Please refer to 14-D, Highway 1 Analysis.

O-8: Please refer to Traffic Master Responses 14-C and 14-D, and Responses to Comments RDEIR
BB13 and 14. The addition of project traffic to a roadway facility that is operating at levels below adopted
standards does not equate to a project impact if adopted significance criteria states otherwise. The
January 2011 EIR Traffic Section stated that the addition of project traffic to Highway 1 segment
between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road does not represent an impact, because that segment was
identified as operating at LOS E based upon revised LOS criteria. The 2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA
addendum letter analyzed the road segment of Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road
using urban arterial methodology and determined it to operate at LOS E. Caltrans confirmed that the
Urban Arterial methodology is an appropriate methodology for this project-level analysis. The 2010
Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum used this approach; peer review was conducted by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants; County of Monterey Public Works and Caltrans also concurred with this
methodology (See Appendix P of the RDEIR). Use of the accepted urban arterial classification and
analysis indicate that all study segments of SR 1 operate and will continue to operate at an acceptable
LOS E or better during each peak hours with the addition of project traffic. Per the Countys significance
criteria for roadway segments, the addition of project traffic will not result in a significant impact to any
of the Highway 1 study segments. Refer to Master Response 14-D.

O-9: Please refer to Traffic Master Responses 14-C. and Response to RDEIR O-7 and O-8, above.

O-10: Please refer to Traffic Master Responses 14-C.

O-11: Please refer to Traffic Master Responses 14-C and 14-D.

O-12: Please refer to Master Response 2.The commenters opinion is noted.

O-13: Please refer to Master Response 2.The commenters opinion is noted.

O-14: Please refer to Responses to Comments RDEIR O-6, O-7 and O-8, above. Comments received on
the Recirculated Draft for this section are addressed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(F)2.
Please also refer to Master Response 14-C and D.

O-15: Please refer to Master Responses 14-J and 2-D. CEQA does not prohibit the applicant from
providing the data, information and reports required for the preparation of the EIR. CEQA merely
requires that the agency independently perform its reviewing, analytical and judgment functions and to
participate actively and significantly in the preparation and drafting process." (Id. at p. 908, 165 Cal.Rptr.
401.). Courts have stated the rule to be that "[w]hile [the agency] may require [the applicant] to submit
an EIR, the document may not be adopted by [the agency] as its own without independent evaluation or
analysis and must reflect [the agency's] independent judgment." (Id. at p. 1042, 202 Cal.Rptr. 366.) The
preparation requirements of CEQA ( 21082.1, 21151) and the Guidelines turn not on some artificial
litmus test of who wrote the words, but rather upon whether the agency sufficiently exercised independent
judgment over the environmental analysis and exposition that constitute the EIR. As documented in the
Master Response to Comments cited above, as well as in the individual sections in the EIR, the
independent judgment and analysis occurred through the independent peer review of the County, EIR
consultant and traffic consultant peer review. Further, the County draft findings for the certification of
the EIR attest to their compliance with CEQA Section 15085(e).

O-16: The commenters opinion is noted.

Letter RDEIR P
1
2
3
LETTER RDEIR P: MIKE AND LYNN PATTON
P-1: Please refer to RDEIR Response to Comment Letter N-52.

P-2: A discussion of water demand and project impacts on water supply is included in the Recirculated
EIR, under Section 4.14, Utilities. Also, please refer to Section 3.0, Master Response 15.

P-3: Comments stating opinions on preferred alternatives or development scenarios do not directly raise
consideration as part of the deliberative process. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion regarding

Letter RDEIR Q
1
2
3
3
cont.
LETTER RDEIR Q: BONNIE GILLOOLY
Q-1: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-E.

Q-2: Comments stating opinions on preferred alternatives or development scenarios do not directly
raise an environmental issue that requires comment. The comment is referred to decision-makers for
further consideration as part of the deliberative process. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion
regarding the analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Q-3: Comment letter attaches the previous letter submitted on the Draft EIR. Refer to Draft EIR
Responses to Comments, Section 4.0, under Letter MM, Bonnie Gillooly for responses to comments on
those sections that were not recirculated. See Section 3.0, Master Response 1-D.

The proposed driveway on Valley Way identified in the comment letter will provide the primary access to
the individual units. Emergency access is identified for the second entrance (western) on Valley Way.
Internal roadways and access points are shown on Figure 3-3, Project Layout Plan. There is no vehicle
access at the existing entrance at Highway 1, per County conditions and Caltrans direction. General Plan
policies are not applicable as the underlying land use plan is the Carmel Area LUP. No access is
proposed to Upper Trail.

For responses on the traffic and funding comments, see RDEIR Response to Comment Q-1.

Letter RDEIR R
1
2
LETTER RDEIR R: ANNE E. CRAWFORD
R-1: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-F.

R-2: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-E. For responses on the traffic and funding comments,
see RDEIR Response to Comment Q-1.
Letter RDEIR S
1
2
3
4
LETTER RDEIR S: FRANK AND MARGUERITE PRIMROSE
S-1: Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation are specific to the merits of
the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that warrants further consideration
under CEQA.

S-2: A discussion of water demand by unit and analysis of project impacts on water supply was included
in the Recirculated EIR, under Section 4.14, Utilities. Also, please refer to Section 3.0, Master Response
15.

S-3: The analysis on impacts to the neighborhood was included in the Recirculated EIR under Section
4.13, Traffic. Please refer to Master Response 14. Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-G.

S-4: The project description provided in the Draft EIR is based upon application materials submitted to
Monterey County for the proposed project, including the project plans and tentative map. Information
provided by the applicants in meetings, if not included in the application material, is not considered part
of the proposed project.

1
Letter RDEIR T
1
cont.
2
3
4
5
5
cont.
6
LETTER RDEIR T: BARRY G. KOHLER
T-1: The comment is correct in the misrepresentation of intersection control at Lobos Street and Valley
Way. However, the designation of the intersection control, specifically northbound Lobos Street as stop-
controlled vs. yield-control, has no bearing on the reported levels of service for the intersection. The
methodology of two-way controlled unsignalized intersections is based upon delays experienced by
vehicles on the minor street. The stop and yield control of the minor street result in the same calculated
delay. The comment also refers to existing safety/operational deficiencies at the intersection, specifically
the left-turn movement from Lobos Street to Valley Way. The proposed project will add traffic to Valley
Way through its intersection with Lobos Street; however the project will not add traffic to the movement
described. The CEQA mandates that impacts of the project be mitigated. There is no requirement to
improve existing deficiencies unless exacerbated by the project. The addition of project traffic result will
not result in a significant increase in volume that requires further safety/operational improvements at the
intersection. This comment may be better made as a recommendation to the County.

T-2: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-C and 14-F. Please also refer to Response to Comment
Letter RDEIR N-54.

T-3: Please refer to response to comment Letter RDEIR N (54).

T-4: Refer to Section 3.0, Master Response 14. Please also refer to response to comment Letter RDEIR
N (55)

T-5: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-F.

T-6: The analysis on impacts to the neighborhood was included in the Recirculated EIR under Section
4.13, Traffic. Please also refer to Master Responses 2-A and 2-D and 1-D regarding EIR processing
and14-J regarding the peer review process for this EIR.

Letter RDEIR U
1
2
2
cont.
3
4
5
6
7
8
LETTER RDEIR U: RICHARD AND BARBARA WARREN
U-1: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14A. The comments describe existing traffic congestion
within Carmel and specifically within Carmel Woods and Serra Avenue. Though it may be true that
alternate routes are utilized by motorists, as the comment describes, the proposed project is not
responsible for improving existing traffic deficiencies. The CEQA mandates that impacts of the project be
mitigated. There is no requirement to improve existing deficiencies unless exacerbated by the project.
The addition of project traffic result will not result in a significant increase in volume that creates the need
for improvements at the described roadways.




U-5: The traffic analysis and process on the independent peer review conducted by Hexagon and the
County of Monterey Public Works Department was included in the Recirculated EIR under Section 4.13,
Traffic. Please also refer to Master Responses 2-D and 14-B and 14-J regarding the peer review process
for this EIR. Also see RDEIR Response to Comments RDEIR O-15 and RDEIR V-2.

U-6: The school bus stop referenced in the comment is an existing stop along Valley Way. Though it is
correct that the proposed project will in fact increase traffic volumes along Valley Way and at the location
of the reference bus stop, the addition of project traffic will not create new operational nor safety
deficiencies at the stop or its function. Valley Way currently lacks adequate width and parking capacity to
serve the existing bus stop functions. The CEQA mandates that impacts of the project be mitigated.
There is no requirement to improve existing deficiencies unless exacerbated by the project. The addition
of project traffic result will not result in such a significant increase in volume that requires further
safety/operational improvements. Please also refer to Traffic Master Response 14A. The comments
describe existing traffic congestion within Carmel and specifically within Carmel Woods and Serra
Avenue. Though it may be true that congestion is heavy and alternate routes are utilized by motorists, as
the comment describes, the proposed project is not responsible for improving existing traffic deficiencies.
The CEQA mandates that impacts of the project be mitigated. The addition of project traffic result will
not result in a significant increase in volume that creates the need for improvements at the described
roadways.

U-7: Please see Master Response Traffic, 14-B, for discussion on trip generation rates. Individual trip
generation rates are addressed also in the Trip Generation Rate discussion in Traffic Section 13.0 of the
RDEIR.

U-8: It is assumed that this comment was intended to reference Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations. The
commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning designation
are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise an environmental issue that
consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary. Further, see Master
Responses 14 and 15 concerning responses to comments on Traffic and Water Supply. Please see Master
Response 16 for discussion regarding the analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Letter RDEIR V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LETTER RDEIR V: ELAINE S. EWEN
V-1: Comment noted. As there was no specific reference included, no further response is provided.
Individual responses to specified comments are listed below.

V-2: An initial traffic study was completed for the proposed project in December 2007. That initial study
utilized traffic data from Years 2005 and 2006. At the request of Caltrans, all traffic data was updated and
included within an updated traffic report dated September 4, 2008. The count data utilized in the latest
traffic report is based upon Year 2008 data. At the time of the completion of the traffic analysis, the
traffic data was less than two years old as required by Caltrans and generally accepted practice. The
comment states that traffic volumes and congestion has increased in the project area since 2008. The
increase in volumes and congestion would be unlike the decrease in traffic volumes and congestion that is
seen throughout the Bay Area due to the economic downturn. However, no current data is available to
contradict the claim. It should be noted, that traffic conditions can fluctuate based upon time of year,
weather, and day of the week. All traffic data collection utilized within the report was completed on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays which are typically the busiest days of the week.

V-3: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-H and 14-F.

V-4: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-G. Also, in reference to the single driveway, the project
design of a single drive meets County and fire code requirements. Comment is referred to decision
makers.

V-5: The proposed project is not required to mitigate or improve existing deficiencies due to other
existing development. The proposed project will supply parking supply that meets the Monterey County
Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. The proposed 18 surface parking spaces are intended to serve
guests of the project and meet zoning requirements. Residents will utilize the underground parking garage
and private garages.

V-6: The comment describes an existing safety/operational deficiency at Valley Way/Highway 1 that
inhibits the left-turn movement from Valley Way to northbound Highway 1. The deficiency has been
identified in the RDEIR and traffic study and safety improvements at the intersection are proposed. The
improvements at the intersection will include a realignment of Valley Way at its intersection with
Highway 1 that will prohibit the left-turn movement from Valley Way to northbound Highway 1. The
assignment of project traffic shown in Figure 4.13-5 indicates that no left-turns from Valley Way to
northbound Highway 1 were assumed.

V-7: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14A. Projected traffic of the proposed project was assigned
to the roadway system based upon the most direct and logical routes that may be utilized by new
residents. Carpenter Street provides a more direct route than the route described within the comment.
Additionally, Figure 4.13-5 of the RDEIR indicates that the proposed project will result in the addition of
no more than two peak hour trips to roadways and intersections south of Valley Way and west of
Highway 1. Though project traffic may potentially use the route described within the comment, it will
result in less than two peak hour trips at facilities along the described route. The addition of two peak
hour trips will have little to no effect on traffic conditions at the referenced intersection.

V-8: Refer to Master Response 15.

V-9: Alternative 8 was appropriately reviewed in the EIR and compared to the proposed project. The
commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding preference for an alternative are specific to the
merits of the Proposed Project and are referred to decision-makers for further consideration as part of the
deliberative process.
Letter RDEIR W
1
2
2
cont.
3
3
cont.
4
5
6
7
8
LETTER RDEIR W: YOKO WHITAKER
W-1: Several of the comments received during the public review period raise concerns regarding the
density of the Proposed Project in relationship to the surrounding residential area. The land use plan
amendment and rezoning request and proposed improvements are specific only to the project parcel.
There is no definitive basis on which to state that, if approved, the project would directly or indirectly
foster growth on other parcels. As the EIR identifies, under CEQA, a project is considered to be growth-
inducing if it fosters economic or population growth beyond the boundaries of the project site. Typical
growth inducements might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a
parking and pavement area, and is surrounded by residential development, and is currently served by
public infrastructure and utilities. No extension of services would be necessary, however upgrading of
existing infrastructure and services will be required. Because the project site is located in an area of
existing residential development with provision of urban services available, the project would not remove
a major obstacle to development. On the basis of this discussion, the EIR determines that the project does
not include components that would induce growth or further land use amendments in areas off-site. Please
refer to Master Responses 10 and 12-C. Also refer to Response RDEIRW-2, below.

W-2: The comments also suggest that the scale of the Proposed Project would be incompatible with the
character of the area and, therefore, would result in significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
Comments raised in this letter are specific to the merits of the Proposed Project and do not directly raise
an environmental issue that warrants further consideration under CEQA. Please refer to Master
Responses 10 and 12-C. Additional comments regarding the appropriateness of the density for the
neighborhood are referred to decision makers. The comment also raises question as to why the county
proposed the LUP language. The County staff provided the language independently because the staff
considered it important that the County develop the language for the County document as opposed to
accepting language provided by the applicant.

W-3: Language regarding to the extent feasible has been removed from the mitigation cited. Revisions
to the Final EIR also address the language raised regarding extremely. Refer to Master Responses 10
and Master Response 12-C.

W-4: Please refer to Traffic Master Responses 14-A and14-G.

W-5: Revised language for the LUP Amendment limits the area of the HDR zoning to the project site
and also reduce the maximum density to 12.5 dwelling units per acre compared to the 20 maximum
proposed by language previously prepared by the County. Also refer to Response RDEIR W-1, above for
a discussion of growth inducing impacts. Please refer to Master Responses 10 and 12-C for comments on
land use density and precedence. Also, refer to Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft
EIR, under Growth Inducing, for clarification on language.

W-6: Comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic, Utilities
and Responses on the Draft EIR, for individual comments concerning aesthetic related impacts. Refer to
Master Response 3 to Comments for discussion regarding the aesthetic impacts and mitigation.

W-7: The commenters opinion is noted.

W-8: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning
Letter RDEIR X
1
2
2
cont.
3
4
LETTER RDEIR X: JON AND THELMA BLADES
X-1: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-H and 14-F and Response to Comment Letter RDEIR
RDEIR V-3.

X-2: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-H.

X-3: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-I.

X-4: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-G and Response to Comment Letter RDEIR N-52.

Letter RDEIR Y
3
2
1
4
5
LETTER RDEIR Y: DR. LOIS ROBERTS
Y-1: The comment does not provide a factual basis to support the statement that the proposed project will
induce growth beyond the limits of the project site or set a precedent for additional growth in the area.
Typical growth inducements include the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a
parking and pavement area, and is surrounded by residential development, and is currently served by
roadways, public infrastructure and utilities. No extension of services would be necessary; however
limited upgrading of existing infrastructure and services will be required. Because the project site is
located in an area of existing residential development, served by the major highway providing existing
access to the community, the project would not remove a major obstacle to development. On the basis of
this discussion, the EIR determines that the project would not induce growth. Please refer to Master
Responses 10 and 12-C and Response to Comment RDEIR W-5.

Y-2: Please refer to Master Responses 10 and 12-C and Response to Comment RDEIR BB-37.

Y-3: Please refer to Master Responses 10 and 12-C and RDEIR Response to Comments RDEIR K-2 and
RDEIR BB-40.

Y-4: The commenters opinion regarding the project is noted. These comments are referred to decision-
makers for further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.

Y-5: It should be noted that the comment was intended to reference CEQA, rather than CEQU and
CEQUA. Per CEQA, the purpose of an [EIR] is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a
project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects
can be mitigated or avoided. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002.1, subd. (a).) It is intended to give the
public and government agencies the information needed to make informed decisions. The purpose of
CEQA therefore is not to provide a detailed analysis of how the development can enhance a community
or environment as requested by the commenter. That is the role of the deliberative process for decision
making.

The commenters opinion regarding the project is noted. This comment is referred to decision-makers for
further consideration as part of the deliberative process, and no further response is necessary.

Letter RDEIR Z
1
2
3
4
5
5
cont.
LETTER RDEIR Z: ADAM JESELNICK
Z-1: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning

Z-2: Comment is not on those portions of the Draft EIR that were recirculated, i.e., the Traffic, Utilities
and Responses on the Draft EIR, for individual comments concerning aesthetic related impacts. Refer to
Master Response 3 to Comments for discussion regarding the aesthetic impacts and mitigation.

Z-3: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-G and 14-H. There is no requirement for a trip-reduction
checklist for this project site.

Z-4: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-H.

Z-5: Comment noted. Land use consistency is addressed in the Draft and Final EIR.

Letter RDEIR AA
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
cont.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LETTER RDEIR AA: THE WIDEWATERS GROUP, INC.
AA-1: No response required. Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR M-2.

AA-2: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-H.

AA-3: Text of RDEIR revised as noted in comment.






AA-9: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-D.



AA-12: Text of RDEIR revised.








AA-20: In reference to Cumulative with Project conditions, the text of the RDEIR states that all five
studied roadway segments will operate at deficient conditions during the PM peak hour and four during
the Saturday peak hour. The segment of Highway 1 between Ocean and Carmel will operate deficiently
during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours.


AA-22: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-E. Text of RDEIR also revised.

Letter RDEIR BB
1
2
3
4
4
cont.
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
cont.
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
18
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
cont.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
36
37
cont.
38
39
39
cont.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
51
cont.
52
53
54
54
cont.
54
cont.
54
cont.
54
cont.
54
cont.
LETTER RDEIR BB: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP #2
BB-1: The commenters opinion is noted. Comments regarding development under the existing zoning

BB-2: The County disagrees with the commenter's assertion and feels that the correct application of the
LUP policies will preclude the effects the commenter is concerned with. The statement in the comment
letter references page R-2-25 of the RDEIR; this is a comment on the Draft EIR. Comments on the Land
Use Section have been addressed under Master Responses 10, Land Use and Revised Section 4.9 under
Section 6.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Additionally, the EIR contains mitigation measures to address
the physical impacts of the project as addressed under Master Responses to Comments, Land Use. As
identified under the Draft EIR Thresholds of Significance, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a
project impact would be considered significant if the project would: conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to,
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As evidenced in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, potential
policy inconsistencies or conflicts themselves would not constitute a significant physical effect on the
environment.
1
Moreover, the EIR does provide mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR, and
modified in the Final EIR, and concludes that the Proposed Project is generally consistent with Plan
policies intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (see pages 4.9-4 through 4.9-7; see also
Table 4.9-1). Mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR, as modified in the Final EIR, would avoid
and/or reduce potential physical land use impacts to a less-than-significant significant level.

BB-3: Commenters opinion is noted. It is not clear, however, what typographical error the comment is
noting without commenter including the page number of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

BB-4: Refer to Master Response 15 and Master Response 5-E for a discussion of water use and impacts
to Carmel River System.

BB-5: The comment requests that the County mandate grey water as a project condition to limit water
use for this property. The Mitigation Measures included in Section 4.14 in the RDEIR adequately address
water use efficiency measures and cite grey water as a potential resolution. Mitigation Measure 4.14-6
requires regular reporting to ensure project water limits are met. If water approaches the water limit, a
water usage audit will be performed by a third party and methods for water use reduction to ensure no
exceedance must be applied. One measure identified is mandatory grey water reuse for landscaping. The
request to require mandatory grey water as a project condition is not proposed in the EIR. This comment
is referred to decision-makers for their consideration.

BB-6: The comment requests the County impose certain conditions to limit water use for this property in
addition to the Mitigation Measures included in Section 4.14 in the RDEIR. The conditions of approval
for the project are at the discretion of the County staff and approving body. The County has proposed
additional Conditions of Approval to adequately conserve and monitor water use.

BB-7: See RDEIR Response to Comment RDEIR BB-6.

BB-8: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-D.

BB-9: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR V-2. The percent increases presented in
Columns F though I are comparisons of the adjusted volumes uses in the traffic analysis shown in
Column E versus each of the respective years that raw data was collected in, Columns A through D.

BB-10: Please refer to Master Response 14-J. The recommended improvements described are proposed
for existing operational deficiencies. They are not created by the project. Per Robert Del Rio of Hexagon,
Consulting Traffic Engineers for the EIR, the statements are simply providing an evaluation of traffic
conditions for which recommendations are made. The described improvements are only recommendations
and are not necessary to mitigate impacts of the project. The existing operational deficiencies do not meet
impact criteria for the project and the project is not required to mitigate existing deficiencies.

BB-11: The comment requests that the County restrict construction on weekends. Commenter is referred
to Mitigation 4-10.3, construction is prohibited on weekends and holidays also per this mitigation.

BB-12: See Response BB-11. The comment requests that the County restrict construction prior to 7:30
a.m. at the project site. Mitigation 4-10.3 requires noise-generating activities at the construction site or in
areas adjacent to the construction site to be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

BB-13: The statement made by Hexagon is in reference to the fact that there are established impact
criteria for roadway facilities. The addition of project traffic to a roadway facility that is operating at
levels below adopted standards does not equate to a project impact if adopted significance criteria states
otherwise. The County of Monterey states that the addition of project traffic to an intersection or roadway
segment operating at LOS D or E, which are considered unacceptable levels by County standards, must
equate to a 0.01 increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio of the facility. Caltrans has historically utilized a
1% of capacity threshold for determining significant impacts to freeways that are operating at LOS F
conditions.

BB-14: It appears that Comment RDEIR BB14 is a continuation of comment RDEIR BB-13 above. The
commenter asserts that the footnote referenced in comment RDEIR BB13 is not consistent with the
statement on page 4.13-21 of the EIR. The footnote states that traffic can be added to facilities operating
at sub-standard levels without causing an impact. However, the August 2010 EIR states that the addition
of project traffic to the Highway 1 segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel, Valley Road, which is
operating at LOS F, results in a significant impact. The January 2011 EIR text stated that the addition of
project traffic to Highway 1 segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road does not represent
an impact, because that segment was identified as operating at LOS E based upon revised LOS criteria.

The 2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum letter analyzed the road segment of Highway 1 from
Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road using urban arterial methodology and determined it to operate at
LOS E. Caltrans confirmed that the Urban Arterial methodology is an appropriate methodology for this
project-level analysis. The 2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum used this approach; peer review
was conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants; County of Monterey Public Works and Caltrans
also concurred with this methodology (See Appendix P of the RDEIR). Use of the accepted urban arterial
classification and analysis indicate that all study segments of SR 1 operate and will continue to operate at
an acceptable LOS E or better during each peak hours with the addition of project traffic. Per the
Countys significance criteria for roadway segments, the addition of project traffic will not result in a
significant impact to any of the Highway 1 study segments. Refer to Master Response 14-D.

The Traffic and Circulation section was recirculated and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
15088.5(F)2, when the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised
chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the
revised chapters or portions of the recirculated EIR.

BB-15: Figure 4.13-5 of the RDEIR indicates that the project will add three trips to the southbound
direction and one trip to the northbound direction of Highway 1, south of Ocean Avenue during the AM
peak hour. The same figure indicates the project will add two trips to the southbound direction and four
trips to the northbound direction of Highway 1, south of Ocean Avenue during the PM peak hour.

BB-16: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-J for a list of traffic references.

BB-17: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR BB-15. The project trips referenced in
Response to Comment RDEIR BB-15 are gross project trips that take no credit or discount for historical
or existing uses on the project site. There are existing uses on the project site that are currently generating
peak hour traffic and adding trips to the segment of Highway 1, south of Ocean Avenue. Therefore, the
addition of project trips results in a net increase of 1-2 peak hour trips to the referenced roadway segment
when accounting for existing traffic that is being generated on the project site. Also refer to Responses to
Comments RDEIR BB 13 and 14.

BB-18: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J and Response to Comment Letters
RDEIR BB-17 and M-2.

BB-19: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J.

BB-20: Comment Noted. Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J

BB-21: The commenter presents an example of a Condominium/Townhouse in a downtown setting and
states that their example could not be same the land use as the proposed project which is in a suburb
setting. The land use for the proposed project is not defined by its location. For example, a
condominium/townhouse is referred as such in both a downtown setting and a rural environment. The
proposed project meets the definition of a condominium project set by Monterey County Code of
Ordinances (19.02.075). For information on the trip generation methodology please refer to Traffic
Master Response 14-B and 14-J.

BB-22: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR BB-21

BB-23: The commenter states that widening the shoulder will not allow people to pass as state in
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1-a. The comment is referring to the text within the August 2010 EIR that
incorrectly states that the southbound shoulder along Carpenter Street can be widened to allow vehicles to
pass other vehicles waiting to turn left onto Carpenter Street. The January 2011 EIR correctly states.the
identified improvement will widen the shoulder along southbound Carpenter Street to allow vehicles
traveling southbound on Carpenter Street to bypass vehicles waiting to turn left from southbound
Carpenter Street to eastbound Valley Way. Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-I.

BB-24: The comment correctly states that there is no existing prohibition from eastbound Valley Way to
northbound SR 1 as was identified in the August 2010 EIR. The January 2011 EIR text was corrected to
reflect the proposed improvement that will restrict the referenced left-turn movement. Please refer to
Traffic Master Response 14-H.

BB-25: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-H. An exclusive right-turn lane currently does not
exist on southbound Highway 1. The commenter asks very specific questions as to what is an appropriate
right-hand lane. The word appropriate should not have been used as it is not accurate. The right-turn lane
on southbound SR 1 at Valley Way would provide adequate width for vehicles travelling southbound
along SR 1 and bound for Valley Way to decelerate outside of the SR 1 southbound travel lanes to
complete the right-turn. The right-turn lane will be designed to meet Caltrans standards for required
deceleration length and will require pavement widening and removal of trees in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection.

BB-26: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR M-4. Detailed specifics including
physical dimensions, number of axels, weight, of potential dump trucks used for construction are not
investigated or analyzed in the EIR. The physical conditions of the streets adjacent to proposed project
site were evaluated per typical CEQA and reporting requirements for traffic impacts. Mitigation 4.13-3
requires that Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project contractor will prepare a
Construction Management Plan, which will include, but not be limited to, a traffic construction
management plan with the following conditions and shall be subject to review and approval by Monterey
County Public Works Department and California Department of Transportation prior to issuance of any
encroachment permits. Specific information requested by the comment can be made a part of the plan.

BB-27: For more information on traffic impacts, please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-A and 14-G.
The threshold of significance for project traffic found in the RDEIR under Traffic states, The County of
Montereys significance criteria for signalized intersections states that if a signalized intersection currently
operates at LOS D or LOS E, a significant impact occurs if the critical movements volume to capacity
(v/c) ratio is increased by 1% (0.01) with the addition of project trips. If a signalized intersection currently
operates at LOS F, the addition of a single project trip is considered significant. The Countys significance
criteria for unsignalized intersections states that a significant impact occurs if any traffic movement has
LOS F or if any traffic signal warrant is met. The Countys significance criteria for County roadway
segments states that a significant impact occurs if any County roadway segment operating at LOS A
through C degrades to a lower LOS of D, E, or F with the addition of project trips. If the segment is
already operating at LOS F, the addition of a single trip is considered significant.

BB-28: Comment Noted. Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-A and 14-G

BB-29: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR N-53.

BB-30: Comment noted. This sentence has been stricken in the Final EIR so that the meaning will not be
interpreted as noted in the comment.

BB-31: Comment noted. The addition of a condition requiring all units to have recirculating hot water
systems is added to Mitigation 4.14-1. The request for an addition of a condition regarding required use
of grey water is also referred to the County for consideration in the County conditions. Please also refer to
Response B-5, above.

BB-32: Comment noted. Mitigation Measures 4.14-1 in the EIR require All residential units shall be
equipped with High Efficiency Toilets and High Efficiency appliances. A final review of the demand
projection by the MPWMD shall be required prior to building permit approval. Each water permit
application shall be conditioned to comply with MPWMDs water conservation requirements for new
construction, the proposed low water consumption features, and shall be subject to the rules in effect at
the time a complete Water Release and Water Permit application is received. The mitigation measure is
revised to include requirement for these ultra-low flow washing machines, dishwashers and toilets per the
comment. See also Master Response 15-8, which explains that the County will require reporting and
monitoring of water use to ensure total water use will not exceed the water cap. The project will be
required to report total water use from its main meter. Separate sub-meters will also be installed for each
unit on the site, as well as for landscaping. These conditions are also included as a Conditions of
Approval that must be met before a building permit is issued. The County approval process requires that,
before a building permit is issued, a water release water form must be preapproved by the MCWRA and
the MPWMD. The document gets stamped for approval based on the units of water each residence is
using (Liz Gonzales, Monterey County Planning Department).

Additionally, for approximately the past 25 years, the MPWMD has strictly regulated and limited the
intensification of water use on all properties within the Monterey District service area of California
American Water. Specifically, MPWMD rules require that a water permit must first be obtained in order
to install a new water (plumbing) fixture in an existing residence, or expand the space occupied by a non-
residential structure if such action would result in an increase in water demand in that home or business.
MPWMD rules authorize the issuance of a water permit only where demand calculated for the existing
use has been shown to fully off-set the proposed, added demand. MPWMD grants On-site Water
Credits to document this demand off-set.

BB-33: Refer to Master Response 15.

BB-34: The information regarding fixture units is included in the appendices to the EIR. The MPWMD
letter dated August 10, 2009 was included in Appendix R of the RDEIR and Appendix L-2 of the Draft
EIR and showed the MPWMD table entitled Water Release Form on two pages. This table identifies
water fixtures by type, as well as total demand by individual unit and number. No revisions to the tables
are considered necessary.

BB-35: The comment asserts that there were random assumptions regarding landscaping. Acreage for
amount of landscaped area in the RDEIR was provided by the applicant's architect in response to the
request from the EIR consultant to identify newly irrigated project area of the site. The EIR preparers
originally reviewed amount of softscape on the project plans (on the legend) and estimated the amount of
area that would be newly irrigated and asked the project architect to confirm the information. This was
confirmed and the number then used for the RDEIR assumptions. The water demand for irrigation was
then determined based upon the MPWMD factors assigned to the calculated landscape area identified
using the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) formula. Applying the factors to the formulas,
the water use for outdoor use was included in the RDEIR based upon the identified acreage. The
comment also requests more detail regarding square footage for landscaping. This detail has been
provided with corresponding water demand calculations for project landscape water use.

Specific assumptions for landscaping acreage have been revised in the Final EIR and new factors are
included in Section 6.0, Changes to the RDEIR. Changes were made to the amount of landscaped area to
update and correct the total amount of planted area. Additionally, MPWMD Ordinance 145 adopted in
September, 2010, amends Rule 24-A-5-a and b to use the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) as the
appropriate outdoor water demand estimate. The ETWU is considered a more accurate reflection of water
use and is required under the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, California Code of Regulations, Title 23. Waters, Division 2. Department of Water
Resources, Chapter 2.7, Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.) The MPWMD process for
consideration of outdoor water use is included in Master Responses 15-E. As noted, under Rule 25.5,
water credit assumes a lawful use and therefore, does not include water demand for outside uses.

BB-36: Comment regarding requirement for deed restriction on individual properties within this project
is a request for an additional condition; as such, it is referred to decision-makers.

BB-37: The following address the questions raised in the comment letter. Please also see Master
Response 10-C and 12-C.

a. The focus of the review was to find comparable properties that could be considered for
HDR. The criteria included size of parcel, availability of urban services, available water
credits, access to urban services, and location (i.e., the parcel must be within the Carmel
Area LUP).
b. Not applicable to analysis.
c. Review was conducted for all areas within Carmel Area LUP planning area initially.
Review then focused on the area north of Carmel River bridge since the areas south were
not considered to be provided with urban services
2
.
d. Factors of determination included: development of mapping area, above criteria,
assignment of tasks for GIS work, GIS output based upon search criteria, identification of
vacant parcels, refinement based upon further development of parcel size and
underutilization, assignment by use or zoning, etc. Additionally, knowledge of properties
and land uses within the area was considered since EIR preparers have over 30 years of
knowledge conducting EIR and land use analysis for the Carmel area.
e. See notes above
f. There were four planning professionals and two planning managers involved in the
process including County Project Planner, GIS County staff, EIR preparers, and GIS
professional from DD&A. The analysis involved the study personnel above, and the EIR
writers, and County Planner made the determinations after review of the information.
Final confirmation was confirmed by a senior staff County Planning Manager for the
project with extensive experience on projects and land use issues within the Carmel Land
Use Planning area.
g. See County language on HDR includes water availability, connection to urban services,
etc. developed by County staff
3
.
h. Same as f, above.
i. City of Carmel staff was not contacted as the City would not be subject to Countywide
LUP Amendment. As noted in Responses RDEIR K-1 and K-2, the City of Carmel
already has a residential density comparable to the density proposed for the project in its
LCP. The analysis is focused on foreseeable projects that would be applicable to the
HDR zoning, properties outside the Carmel Area Land Use Planning area would not fit
within this parameter.
j. Not applicable to analysis.

BB-38: It is appropriate to state that the likelihood of another parcel with these similar characteristics to
be available for development at a higher density is very low. The language identified by the commenter
will be revised in the Final EIR for clarity. There are no assurances that no other property owner will
request an amendment to HDR. However, as addressed in the above responses and in Master Responses
10-C and 12-C, there is evidence provided in the EIR to confirm the conclusions that there are limited
properties with the same characteristics as the project site, the review of potentially foreseeable projects
did not find definitive properties on the horizon.

It should be noted that this is not an argument over whether there is one parcel in the area or two with
similar characteristics to the proposed project, but a valid and good faith attempt in the EIR to address the
concerns over potential growth inducing impacts and cumulative impacts due to the presumed precedent
setting approval of a HDR density in this Planning Area. CEQA limits the discussion of impacts to direct
and indirect physical impacts of a project and if the project has a potential for resulting in either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. Cumulative analysis generally evaluates the incremental effect of the project on the
environment when considered in conjunction with closely related past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects. Reasonably foreseeable projects are not known at this time; and a good faith
effort to assess whether available sites for high density zoning are known has been considered as noted
above.

2
Specific policies address maintaining stable urban boundaries. Carmel Area Land Use Plan policy4.4.2.1 provides: The Carmel
River shall be considered the dividing line between the urban and rural areas of the Monterey Peninsula. The river shall provide
the natural boundary between urban and higher intensity uses to the north and rural, lower intensity uses to the south.
3
LUP Policy 4.4.3.E.2 directs medium density residential development .to existing residential areas where urban services-
water, sewers, roads, public transit fire protection, etc. are available. Thus, the focus is also on these areas for HDR properties.

While doing the analysis of the potential future effects of implementing the Land Use Plan amendment
and potential for growth inducement or cumulative impacts necessarily involves some degree of
forecasting, identifying specific examples of what could happen as a result of a plan amendment, or
development proposal is too speculative at this time. As noted in the EIR, any future land use plan
amendment or proposed project will be subject to an environmental analysis to be conducted at the time a
specific amendment or project is defined. Implementation of the Land Use Plan policies and in particular,
the proposed language of the HDR designation which is limiting in the applicability of the HDR zoning,
would provide mitigation at this plan amendment level. Language proposed to amend the LUP creates
limiting language for this one project so that future projects would need their own LCP amendment. As
such, adding the HDR designation would not be growth inducing.

Without information about the specific project, it would be speculative to identify impacts in the Draft
EIR of specific properties or future unknown projects. The analysis in the RDEIR includes a reasonable
projection of future trends, without being overly speculative or prescriptive. Additionally, as detailed in
Master Response 10-C, there were few parcels of adequate size and services. that is similar to the project
site in that it has water, infrastructure and would comply with the LUP amendment parameters cited in
the Draft EIR including potential reuse and rehabilitation of the historic structures.

Moreover, additional mitigation identified in the Final EIR amends the language of the new HDR
designation to further reduce impacts related to growth by requiring HDR is specific only to parcels with
water, public services, and adequate size to provide for higher density (See Revisions to the Draft EIR,
Section 5.0, Cumulative Impacts and Mitigations. Also, the County through its deliberative process for
the project hearings considered the EIR mitigations and recently provided revised HDR amendment that
Staff proposed to replace the original amendment language. This new language also specifically cites this
property for HDR and does not identify other properties for HDR in the amendment. This new language
will therefore ensure limited distribution of the HDR zone as identified in the EIR. Refer to Master
Response 10-C and 12-C.

BB-39: It is appropriate to state that the likelihood of another parcel with these similar characteristics to
be available for development at a higher density is very limited. The language identified by the
commenter is revised in the Final EIR for clarity. Refer to Response 37 and 38 above as well as Master
Response 12-C.

BB-40: In reference to hotel properties, the Carmel Area LUP and the Coastal Act identify recreational
and visitor serving uses as primary uses for the Coastal Zone. The letter on this project EIR from the
California Coastal Commission underscores that the Coastal Commission and Coastal Act promote visitor
serving uses above others. The comment that the visitor serving users of the Carmel Area would be likely
candidates for rezoning to HDR assumes that the major hurdle of a coastal amendment can be obtained
changing from a coastal dependent/visitor serving use to a residential use. Additionally, Per LUP policy
4.4.3.E.2, the policies of the LUP direct medium density residential development .to existing residential
areas where urban services- water, sewers, roads, public transit fire protection, etc. are available. Thus,
the focus of the review for potential HDR stayed within the parameters under the LUP policy for medium
density and was not on commercial users for the RDEIR. In reviewing the potential properties identified
in the responses to comments, all areas of the Carmel Area Land Use Planning area and various
designations were identified per the comment. Further review of visitor serving, commercial properties is
not necessary. It is speculative to state that the proposed project would be used as justification for
additional HDR development. CEQA analysis is limited to what is known or reasonably foreseeable;
assuming further rezoning will occur and predicting areas of occurrence is speculative and contrary to the
intent of CEQA. Refer to RDEIR BB Responses 37 and 38 above as well as Master Response 12-C.

The commenter also identifies potential properties in the City of Carmel as appropriate for amendments to
HDR. The City of Carmel already has a high density residential designation within their LCP. As state
above, the City would not be subject to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan amendment as they are subject to
their own LCP policies and designations. Assuming de-annexation of these properties from the City of
Carmel to the County would be highly speculative and involve a complex reorganization and would be
contrary to Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirements and
provisions of the Knox-Cortese Act. Additionally, the City-of-Carmel by the Sea already has a high
density zoning district within its designations under the adopted city ordinances.

It is appropriate to state that the likelihood of parcels with these similar characteristics to be available for
development at a higher density is not high based upon the factors discussed above. The review of
properties did not find reasonably foreseeable projects, per the discussion above.

While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and
disclose all that it reasonably can."(CEQA Guidelines 15144). Based upon evidence presented in this
Final EIR, the agency used its best efforts to disclose reasonably foreseeable outcome, per the discussion
above. Refer to Response to Comments RDEIR BB 37 and 38 above as well as Master Response 12-C.

BB-41: Refer to Response to Comments RDEIR 37 and 38 above as well as Master Responses 10C and
12-C. The evaluation was not limited to underutilized or vacant lots. The commenter's opinion is noted.
The investigation has been detailed in the previous responses. In questions and Responses 37 to 42, the
commenter requested and received information on 10 specific parameters of the investigation.

BB-42: No response is necessary; opinion noted.

BB-43: Refer to Response to Comment RDEIR N-42. A review of current applications was conducted
and found that as of December, 2010, there were 14 active applications in the Carmel LUP area. The
geographic and project scope of Table 5.2-1 and the traffic cumulative impact assessment presented in
the EIR conservatively addresses potential foreseeable projects without listing all and every single family
development County-wide. It is not clear what the commenter is addressing as the statement that
applicants devote time and resources to applications is not a comment on the EIR or the physical impacts
of the project. No response is necessary.

The County and the EIR consultant reviewed single-family residential applications and found there were
14 single family residential applications currently before the County, the majority of those within the area
south of Carmel River in the Carmel Planning area. Adding these applicants to the cumulative impact
table (Table 5.21) in consideration with all other applications would not impact any of the conclusions in
the Draft and Final EIR.

BB-44: The County provided an updated table of cumulative projects at the initiation of the RDEIR in
2009 and 2010. The table reflects this data. Refer to Response to Comment RDEIR N-42.

BB-45: The commenters opinion is noted and no further response is necessary.

BB-46: The commenters opinion is noted and no further response is necessary. Furthermore, comments
process, and no further response is necessary. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion regarding the
analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

process, and no further response is necessary. Please see Master Response 16 for discussion regarding the
analysis of alternatives to the Proposed Project.

process, and no further response is necessary. See Master Response 12-B concerning the Monterey
County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

BB-49: The commenters opinion is noted and no further response is necessary. Please see Master
Response 12-B. Also see Alternative 10 in the Changes to the Draft EIR Section 6.0, whereby the off-site
option for compliance with Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is removed and
Alternative 10 solely considers the applicants compliance through payment of an in-lieu fee.

Alternative 10 solely considers the applicants compliance through payment of an in-lieu fee.

In reference to the discussion on impacts, it is the size of the units and the fixture counts of such units that
account for water use, not the socio-economic conditions of the residents of the unit. Additionally, per
the Traffic Section 4.13, traffic generation rates considered the smaller size and unit types. The traffic
impact and traffic analysis specified an ITE trip generation rate based upon size and type of unit, which
does not consider whether the units residence are low or moderate income. Therefore, the analysis in the
EIR does address the 46-units as market rate providing size and fixture units are consistent.

The County conditions and mitigations in this EIR require the project to report annual water use and
provide that the project may not exceed a specified water cap per year. See Response RDEIR BB-49
above. The HAC supported the use of an in-lieu fee for this project and stated that they were interested in
seeing the fee used for new or rehabbed inclusionary housing in the Planning Area. They also
acknowledged the constraints associated with water. For the Planning Area, there is an existing cease and
desist order for new water uses for areas in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
Therefore, the inclusionary housing fee will likely rehab existing market rate units into inclusionary
housing, using existing water credits. No additional water impacts will therefore result. ,

Alternative 10 solely considers the applicants compliance through payment of an in-lieu fee. See
discussion of impacts in Revisions to Draft EIR, Section 6.0.

BB-52: The comment requests the County to impose certain conditions to limit water use for this
property in addition to the Mitigation Measures included in Section 4.14 in the RDEIR. Comment is
referred to County staff for consideration. County has considered several of these as Conditions of
Approval for the Proposed Project. These are included in the May 2011 Planning Commission staff report
for the project.

BB-53: The commenters suggestion to consider additional mitigation measures and condition is noted.
The commenter provides specific language from another project as suggested additions. These are
included as part of the comment record. County has considered several of these as Conditions of
Approval for the Proposed Project. These are included in the May 2011 Planning Commission staff report
for the project.

BB-54: The commenter lists several mitigations measures and conditions. These include:

Water Use Report
Water Intensive Uses
C.C.&R. Water Conservation Provisions
Landscaping Requirements
Water Supply and Availability
Landscape Plan and Maintenance (Other Than Single Family Dwelling)
Water Use Plan (Added to Mitigation Measures 4.14)
Landscape Water Demand
Water Supply and Availability
Water Permit
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water Quality

County has considered several of these as Conditions of Approval for the Proposed Project. Additionally,
requirements for a Water Use Plan is included in revised Mitigation Measures 4.14. Mitigation requires,
in part, that Prior to final map approval of the site, a quarterly water use report shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning. If any report demonstrates that actual water use for the entire subdivision is within
10% of the maximum entitlement, the Director of Planning shall submit the final map for any subsequent
phase to the Board of Supervisors for a discretionary determination as to whether water supply is
adequate for that phase. The Board may deny the final map for that phase, limit the number of units
approved, limit total fixture counts for the phase or for individual buildings and/or permits and/or take
other measures as appropriate based upon their review of the Water Use Plan and quarterly reports to
ensure that the total use over the entire subdivision does not exceed 7.894 acre feet per year. This
mitigation and water limits on the entire project will satisfy many of the conditions requested in the
comment. Additionally, water restrictions on intensive uses, monitoring and reporting, is already required
under the Mitigation measures in the RDEIR.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877

October 7, 2010
Elizabeth Gonzales
Monterey County Resource Management Agency
Planning Department
168 West Alisal Street, 2
nd
Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Subject: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Villas de
Carmelo Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2008071058)
Dear Ms. Gonzalez:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced Recirculated
Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR). As you are aware, we have previously commented
on the CEQA review process for the proposed project, the coastal development permit (CDP),
and the project-driven amendment to the Monterey County Local Coastal Program (LCP). Please
see our prior correspondence addressed to you (i.e., August 26, 2008 letter on the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) and June 5, 2009 letter on the Draft EIR (DEIR)). As indicated in past
correspondence, the CEQA process plays a critical role in evaluating the consistency of the
project with the relevant policies of the certified LCP, as well as facilitating development of
information necessary to support the required LCP amendment. Accordingly, we offer the
following comments and supplemental information requests in order to help you gather the
necessary information in preparation of the appropriate analysis needed to reach the proper
conclusions regarding the proposed project and project-driven LCP amendments.
With regard to the necessary LCP amendments, we recommend that the County first submit any
required LCP amendment requests, and wait until after the Commission has acted on them,
before final consideration or action on a CDP for a project for the site. The project cannot be
approved absent an LCP amendment, and the outcome of the LCP amendment deliberations will
explicitly prescribe the appropriate form of development at this location (not the other way
around), and thus the LCP amendment, including consideration of the broader planning context
within which this project finds itself, must proceed ahead of project level CDP review.
Also as noted in the past, the Villas de Carmelo project is the largest to be proposed in the
Carmel Area since certification of the LCP, and thus it requires careful and thoughtful
consideration. In this respect, we continue to be concerned that some of the fundamental coastal
resource issues raised by the project are not framed correctly in the RDEIR, and that this
significantly compromises the utility of the document for purposes of LCP amendment and CDP
analysis. Specifically, we do not believe that the DEIR accurately and appropriately analyzes the
water supply, traffic, and land use issues associated with the project, and that the analysis of
consistency with existing plans and policies is incorrect and incomplete.

Letter RDEIR - Late Comment - CC
1
2
Liz Gonzales, Monterey County Planning Department
Villas de Carmelo DEIR (SCH # 2008071058)
October 7, 2010
Page 2

Historical Uses and Entitlements
In our June 5, 2009 letter on the DEIR, we indicated that we believed it to be inappropriate to
consider historical uses in evaluating project impacts, and rather that the analysis be based on the
physical condition and baseline that exists currently. In response the RDEIR identifies the
presence of a 1962 Use Permit as justification for using a historic baseline associated with long
past (and no longer ongoing) historic uses and development. It continues to be unclear as to how
a decades old use permit for a development that has long since ceased could possibly form the
basis for LCP amendment and project review. Absent compelling evidence directing an analysis
to the contrary, the evaluation baseline needs to be based on the current baseline associated with
the site. Please ensure that the RDEIR includes an analysis framed in this manner, both for
necessary CDP review as well as as a means to develop information that will be necessary for the
Commission to consider the LCP amendment under the Coastal Act.
CEQA Baseline and Water Supply
In our previous letter on the DEIR, we noted that the water supply analysis would be one of the
more important issue areas for the DEIR to effectively explain, particularly given the well-
documented and critical water supply and resource issues on the Monterey peninsula, including
those associated with Carmel River withdrawals and State Board requirements thereto. As
indicated previously, we continue to believe that the concept of using of historic water use data
from over five years ago to establish the baseline condition for assessing project impacts is
inappropriate in that context, and we note that CEQA guidelines establish the baseline condition
as the physical condition that exists at the time of the environmental review process. It appears
that our observations on this point have been largely ignored in the RDEIR. As described above,
please ensure that the RDEIR is supplemented to include an analysis framed in terms of the
current baseline in this regard as that information is going to necessary for LCP amendment and
CDP review.
Even if the baseline for water availability was to be based on historical uses and entitlements as
the RDEIR indicates, it does not appear even in that scenario that the project includes actual
water credits. Although the DEIR presumes and bases the water availability analysis on the
existence of 8.226 afy of historical credit, MPWMD has only stated that this is a potential water
credit for the site, and one that is subject to final determination by the District, including in terms
of historic use, baseline, and water supply (and State Board order) questions and issues described
above. Again, the RDEIR needs to include an appropriate baseline discussion and analysis, and
needs to include a determination from the District regarding their take on water availability for
the project. Moreover, as indicated previously, the site is currently not utilizing 8.226 afy of
water and the DEIR still must evaluate the actual physical increase in water supply to the site
that would occur under the proposed development over existing conditions. This analysis would
presumably follow the same analysis described above, and would lead to the same significant
and unavoidable impact. The CEQA thresholds of significance outlined in the RDEIR are clear
that sufficient water must not only exist from entitlements, but also in terms of the water
3
4
October 7, 2010
Page 3

resource itself, in order to make a determination that the project would not have a significant
impact. Based on our current understanding, we do not see how such a finding could be made,
and it appears that there is inadequate water to supply the proposed project. Again, the RDEIR
water supply analysis needs to be correctly framed for baseline, updated in those terms, and the
data clearly presented relative to the water supply question as it relates to the site, to the area, and
to water supply resources (including the Carmel River and Seaside Aquifer)
Traffic and Circulation
Direct Impacts
The traffic analysis prepared for the RDEIR uses an Urban Street methodology to asses the
baseline level of traffic volumes and to evaluate the impacts of the additional vehicle trips
originating from the proposed development. On a scale of A to F (i.e., free flow condition to
severe congestion), the RDEIR concludes that Highway 1 is operating at a level of service (LOS)
E. Previous analysis for this same stretch of Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel
Valley Road (see the April 2009 Partial Revision on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (PRDSEIR) for the Carmel Valley Traffic Improvement Program) used the Two-Land
and Multilane Highways methodology and concluded that the highway is operating at a LOS F.
Under either methodology, the level of service along this stretch of highway falls short of
minimum acceptable levels (i.e., LOS C) and the additional contribution to daily traffic
originating from the project has the potential for significant adverse impacts over existing
conditions. Such traffic impacts residents, but also impacts coastal visitors for whom the
Highway is the primary means of access to Carmel as well as to popular up and downcoast
destinations.
The RDEIR suggests that the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approves of the Urban
Streets methodology used to derive traffic volumes and levels of service. Did Caltrans also
review and comment on the April 2009 PRDSEIR? If so, please provide a copy of all comments
prepared on the PRDSEIR for the Carmel Valley Traffic Improvement Program. Please also
ensure that the RDEIR includes information about the alternatives and mitigation measures
identified in that PRDSEIR.
The RDEIR further indicates that the traffic analysis was prepared during August 2008 when
schools were not in session and thus adjustments were made to the existing condition AM peak
hour volumes to account for the decrease in vehicle volumes. Adjustments were based on
information gathered at five intersections in November 2006 and extrapolated to the data
collected in 2008. Please indicate the magnitude of the adjustments and the underlying
assumptions for same. Wouldnt it be more appropriate and accurate to simply prepare additional
(new) traffic counts during the appropriate timeframe? The same is true for seasonal variation in
traffic volumes. Please identify the seasonal adjustment factors for the average month and the
underlying assumptions.
Area roadways and intersections are already operating at unsatisfactory level (i.e., LOS D to F).
The RDEIR notion that additional trips generated by the proposed project are insignificant
because they do not cause the LOS to degrade from one class to another (e.g., LOS D to LOS E)
4
cont.
5d
5c
5b
5a
October 7, 2010
Page 4

underestimates the impact of the proposed project on area roadways and intersections. Although
such an analytic construct may be useful in CEQA terms, it falls short of appropriately
identifying impacts under the Coastal Act and the LCP. In short, the proposed project will
contribute to the worsening of area traffic and circulation that is already operating well below the
stated minimum levels of service, and well below optimum for public access. Remember, per the
LCP, Highway 1 capacity is to be reserved for priority uses including coastal dependent uses and
coastal access. Where services are not adequate for a proposed non-coastal dependent use they
are to be reserved for only coastal dependent uses. Please supplement the RDEIR to: 1) identify
all LOS assumptions and methodologies; 2) identify all additional trips associated with the
proposed project; and 3) analyze all additional trips in relation to current traffic baseline in terms
of the LCP requirements associated with ensuring capacity for priority uses, and how the project
odes or does not facilitate that LCP requirement, including through mitigation.
Indirect Impacts
The RDEIR indicates that the forecasted trip generation associated with 46 condominium units is
approximately 270 trips per day, as compared to 70 daily trips for seven single family residences
identified under Alternative 3 (Existing Zoning). This equates to roughly 5.5 daily trips on
average for the proposed 46 residential units and 10 daily trips for the Alternative 3 residential
project. Please describe the differences in residential uses that result in such divergent trip
generation The RDEIR states that the new development is only responsible for mitigating its own
impacts and proportional share of cumulative impacts. Aside from re-classifying the Highway 1
roadway as suggested in the RDEIR, please identify all specific measures / mitigations that are
proposed to mitigate for direct project impacts and to maintain area roadways and intersections at
pre-project conditions To clarify statements made on page 4.13-28 under the Section Indirect
Impacts Residential Street Traffic, the addition of 270 additional daily trips on Valley Way
represents a 36% increase over existing conditions (i.e., 740 daily trips). Many, if not most, of
these trips will inevitably occur during A.M. and P.M. peak periods (i.e., to/from school, work,
etc.). Accordingly, please evaluate the indirect impacts on residential street traffic under the
assumption that 70% of all trips will occur during 2 two-hour periods (i.e., 7am 9am and 4pm
6pm).
The RDEIR concludes that the addition of project traffic on Valley Way under existing plus
project conditions would not be noticeable to Valley Way residents (see Quality of Life
Evaluation pp. 4.13-29). Similarly, it is reported that the number of new trips per 24-hour period
would not be noticeable to Valley Way residents. We note that there are approximately 22
residential properties along Valley Way between Carpenter and Highway 1 and roughly 10
residential properties on the block immediately adjacent to the project site. The introduction of
46 new residential units and generated traffic volumes at the heart of this low density residential
neighborhood will have a significant and noticeable impact to area residents. Thus, it would
appear that the conclusions drawn from Quality of Life: Tire Index analysis downplays the
significance of the impacts to area residents.
The Valley Way accident analysis reviews accident data over a three year period between
December 2005 and November 2008, a period when the historical use of the site had ceased (i.e.,
5d
cont.
6a
6b
6c
October 7, 2010
Page 5

traffic volumes ceased). A more accurate assessment of the accident rate of the Valley Way and
Highway 1 intersection could be prepared by choosing a review period that covers the time when
the convalescent hospital and associated uses were in operation such as 2000 2004.
Cumulative Impacts
The RDEIR indicates a number of significant adverse cumulative impacts on area intersections
and roadway segments associated with the proposed project. To address this issue, the RDEIR
indicates that a regional transportation fee be paid to TAMC to mitigate for the proposed
projects incremental contribution to cumulative traffic impacts. In previous correspondence we
commented on the inability to rely upon future traffic and circulation improvements to mitigate
for project specific impacts. Those projects will require coastal development permits and
possible LCP amendments which may not approvable. Many of the proposed projects could
result in unacceptable resource impacts to ESHA and visual resources, and even if the projects
could be approved, it may many years before construction of improvements is completed. As
noted, in the absence of region-wide improvements, the project would add trips to area
intersections and Highway 1, which are already operating at unacceptable levels of service. This
would be inconsistent with the LCP which notes that Highway 1 capacity should be reserved for
coastal dependent uses and coastal access, which should be given priority over other
development projects. Where services are not adequate for a proposed non-coastal dependent
use they are to be reserved for only coastal dependent uses. Accordingly, please identify feasible
mitigation measures and project alternatives that would reduce both individual and cumulative
traffic impacts (i.e., retaining existing MDR zoning, reduction in the number of units, rezoning to
less intensive or coastal dependent use).
We hope that these comments prove helpful help to frame the CDP and LCP amendment context
for this project. Please consider these comments along with those provided in our August 26,
2008 letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and June 5, 2009 letter on the Draft EIR (DEIR)
in the preparation of the final EIR. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further,
please feel free to contact me or Dan Carl at (831) 427-4863.
Sincerely,
Mike Watson
Coastal Planner

cc: State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2008071058)

6c
cont.
7
LETTER RDEIR CC: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION **
CC-1: No response is necessary. Comment noted.

CC-2: The project application proposes a Local Coastal Plan Amendment that must be certified by the
Coastal Commission (CCC) before the County can take final action on the project. Per the County
processing, the project may be processed concurrently with the EIR to the Board of Supervisors where the
project must wait action until the CCC has acted. The County identified the following multiple actions
required including:

1) Subdivision Committee. The application will go before the Subdivision Committee to
evaluate the proposed project to consider consistency: 1) if the proposed LCP Amendment is
certified and 2) if the LCP Amendment is not certified (current conditions), so that the Board
can take final action on the project without having to refer back to the Committee regardless
of what action the Coastal Commission takes.
2) Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will be presented the entire project to
evaluate and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding: 1) the LCP
Amendment, and 2) the EIR and the project.
3) Board of Supervisors. The Board must first consider the LCP Amendment. If the Board
agrees with the proposed amendment, they can 1) approve the LCP Amendment, or 2) adopt a
Resolution of Intent to approve the amendment, and then the County submits an application
to the Coastal Commission (limit 3 applications per year). If the Board does not agree with
the proposed amendment, then the project would also be denied and there is no action for the
Coastal Commission to consider.
4) Coastal Commission. If the Board adopts a Resolution of Intent to approve the LCP
Amendment, the Coastal Commission considers if the amendment should be certified as part
of Monterey Countys Local Coastal Plan. The Coastal Commissions action to certify the
LCP is referred back to the Board of Supervisors to consider accepting the Commissions
action and any amendment thereto.
5) Board of Supervisors. If the LCP Amendment is certified by the Coastal Commission, the
Board must accept the Commissions action before the amendment is certified. At that point
the Board may act on the proposed project.

The comment is noted regarding the recommended process is referred to decision makers.

CC-3: CEQA and the courts have ruled that Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and
in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods. In San Joaquin Raptor
Rescue Center, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, the court highlighted the varying approaches to the
determination of a projects baseline, stating: Although the baseline environmental setting must be
premised on realized physical conditions on the ground, as opposed to merely hypothetical conditions
allowable under existing plans, established levels of a particular use have been considered to be part of an
existing environmental setting. Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases
it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods. See Master Response 15 regarding
baseline. In this EIR, there is an established record of years of water use that averages 13.69 AF/Y from
2001 to 2004, based upon actual records. When the convalescent facility closed in 2005, the water credit
remained with the land and the building permit is effective still.

Courts have ruled that established usage of the property may be considered to be part of
the environmental setting. In this case, there is evidence of the sites water production
average and a record of established previous use, whereas the evidence of the more
restrictive permit was not part of the record. (Id. at p. 659.)

CC-4: See Master Response 15 regarding baseline. The proposed project would use approximately 6.154
AF/Y of water from the existing water supply system for indoor fixtures without outdoor landscaping use
and 7.894 AF/Y to account for water for irrigation needs. The proposed project will be using less water
compared to defined baseline conditions for this project (8.226 AF/Y per the MPWMD Rule 25.5).
Therefore, there will be a decrease in water demand in comparison to baseline conditions. The project
would not exceed available water credits based upon previous documented use of water on the subject
property, as there has been historic use on the project site and based upon MPWMD rules and regulations
and the proposed project would use less than the historic documented use on the project site.

CC-5a: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-D.

CC-5b: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-D. The request of additional environmental
documents not in reference to the proposed project may be better made as a request of County staff.

CC-5c: Please refer to Response to Comment Letter RDEIR V-2. The adjustment methodology is
presented in RDEIR Section 4.13, Traffic, page 7 and statesSince the counts were performed in August,
when schools were not in session, adjustments were made to the existing condition AM peak hour volumes
to account for this decrease in vehicle volumes. Adjustments were made only to weekday AM peak hour
volumes because the start of the school day occurs during the AM peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM), while
the end of the school day occurs prior to the PM peak period (4:00 to 6:00 PM). Counts were also
performed in November 2006 at five of the study intersections while school was in session, and these were
used to determine appropriate adjustment factors for the existing condition AM peak hour volumes
collected in August 2008. The ratio between the 2006 AM and PM peak hour volumes for each
intersection movement was determined and applied to the 2008 PM peak hour volumes to calculate the
adjusted AM peak hour volumes.

In addition to the adjustments made to the existing AM peak hour volumes to account for school traffic, a
seasonal adjustment was made to existing weekday AM and PM and Saturday peak hour volumes to
adjust for seasonal fluctuation in the area. The average of the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes along Highway 1, as published by Caltrans, were used to
determine an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor between the August volumes and an average month.
This adjustment factor was then applied to the traffic volumes collected during the August counts.

CC-5d: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-A and 14-C.

CC-6a: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-B and 14-J, 14-C, 14-F, 14-H, 14-I and Response to
Comment Letter RDEIR N-46. Trip rates for residential uses vary based on size of units (condos vs.
single-family homes) and location. Trip rates for single-family homes are the largest of all residential land
uses because they generally are larger in size, equating to more residents and vehicles per unit, and result
in more trips because they are located further away from complimentary trip attractors such as shopping
and employment land uses.

CC-6b: The comment is an opinion on the project impacts to the residential neighborhood regarding the
introduction of additional traffic trips from the proposed project. The opinion is noted. Please refer to
Traffic Master Response 14-G for further discussion of the TIRE index. This index is one method for
evaluating the effect of traffic added by development projects on residential neighborhoods is the Traffic
Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) method. This is on approach to measuring impacts on the
character of residential streets. The TIRE methodology assigns an index value based on the daily traffic
volumes on the subject street segments. The index values range from 0.0 to 5.0, with 3.0 or higher
representing a street that operates as an auto-dominated street. Any projected change of 0.1 or greater
would be noticeable to residents. Each TIRE index value has a specific minimum average daily traffic
volume increase threshold that must be met in order to trigger a change of 0.1 or more in the index value
(i.e., a noticeable change). When the volume thresholds are exceeded, the traffic volume change would
be noticeable to street residents.

CC-6c: The project site has been occupied by a counseling group known as Breakthrough since 2005.
Therefore the accident analysis does include traffic associated with uses on the site during the analysis
timeframe.

CC-7: Please refer to Traffic Master Response 14-E. The alternatives section of the EIR identifies a
number of alternatives that would reduce density and impacts cited in the EIR. Coastal Commission staff
letter on the Draft EIR suggested visitor serving alternatives which were also included in the RDEIR
alternatives analysis. The reduced density and design alternatives fall into the categories of Reduced
Density Alternatives or Design Alternatives and include the potential environmentally superior
alternatives: Existing Zoning Alternative (3); Reduced Density Alternative (5); and Hybrid Alternatives
(6, and 8). Mitigation measure has been proposed to reduce impacts from the proposed project as
documented in Final EIR Appendix A, MMRP. Also refer to FEIR Appendix C, Staff Modified Design
Alternative, for a description of Revised Alternative 4.

6.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR

The following section provides revisions to the text of the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR, in
amendment form. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are presented in
underline, and all deletions are shown in strikeout. Text indicates whether the change is made to the Draft
EIR or Recirculated Draft (RDEIR) sections.

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR

Under RDEIR, Section 2.0, Summary, Page R2-1, under the heading Summary of Project
Description, the second paragraph is revised as follows:

Full implementation of the Villas de Carmelo project would introduce a new residential village
community consisting of 46 condominium units with a mix of market rate and affordable
housing. New housing would include 33 market rate condominiums, 9 affordable housing units,
and 4 workforce housing units. The proposed project would create a residential village
community on the 3.68-acre project site with the existing hospital structure as the focal point of
the project. The Villas de Carmelo project proposes the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of most
of the existing 21,400 square-foot hospital structure and 1,600 square-foot garage/shop building.
Demolition on the project site would include the former nurses quarters building and a semi-
attached shed located on the northern extent of the hospital building. The proposed projects
implementation would consist of conversion of 16,150 square feet of the existing hospital
structure into 9 condominium units, the conversion of the remaining 5,250 square feet into a
community room, gym, storage, and mechanical areas, the addition of and conversion of the
garage/shop building into 3 condominium units totaling 4,150 square feet, and the construction of
34 additional condominium units in 10 to-be-constructed buildings, for a total of 46 condominium
units. Implementation of the project would involve a standard subdivision to convert 10,350
square feet of the existing hospital structure into 9 condominium units and construction of 37
additional condominium units in 10 to-be-constructed buildings, for a total of 46 condominium
units. The project would include common residential village space for underground and surface
parking, a recreation room, and storage facilities. The project entitlements will include, but not
be limited to, Local Coastal Plan Designation Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Coastal
Development Permit to allow tree removal and development on slopes of 30% or greater; Design
Approval, Housing Element Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and
Development Agreement approval to allow for the proposed development. A full project
description is provided in Section 3.0 of this DEIR.

Under RDEIR 2.3, Summary, Alternatives Evaluated, page R2-1-R2-6, replace entire section with
the following:

Alternatives Evaluated in the RDEIR. The following alternatives were evaluated in this EIR:

No Project Alternatives Use of Existing Building: No Project Alternatives
(#1(A) No Project/No Development Alternative and
(#1(B) No Project/Existing Building Use Alternative);

Visitor Serving Alternatives: (Visitor Serving Uses)
(#2(A&B) Visitor-Serving Alternative/Existing Buildings (up to67 hotel rooms)
6.0 Revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR

(#7) Hybrid Visitor-Serving Alternative (50 hotel rooms);

Modified Design Alternatives (Applicants Modified Design Alternative) (Residential)
1

(#4) Applicants Modified Design Alternative (46 units)

Reduced Density Alternatives (All Residential Uses)
(#3) Existing Zoning Alternative (7 units)
(#5) Reduced Density Alternative (37 units)
(#6) Hybrid Residential Alternative with Applicants Modified Design (37 units)
(#8) Hybrid Existing Building/High Density Alternative combining 10 units at
the existing building and building 7 units on the site (17 units)

Inclusionary Housing Variations (Alternative Approaches to Inclusionary Housing)
(#9) Increased % of Low/Moderate Income Inclusionary Units at same density
(#10) Inclusionary Fee/ Applicants Proposal

Under RDEIR 2.4, Environmentally Superior Alternative, Summary Section pages R2.4-6, replace
entire section with the following. Also refer to this Final EIR, Page 6.38:

Environmentally Superior Alternative

With this analysis, several alternatives would reduce environmental impact as compared to the
proposed project, aside from the No Project Alternatives. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA
Guidelines requires an EIR to evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to
the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project.
Alternatives identified should be capable of eliminating any significant adverse impacts or
reducing them to below a level of significance, even if these alternatives could impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. The following Reduced
Density Alternatives reduce the significant adverse impact of the project to below a level of
significance: Existing Zoning Alternative (3); Reduced Density Alternative (5); and Hybrid
Alternatives (6, and 8). These alternatives would avoid the significant unavoidable impact
associated with the development of buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor that would
adversely impact this scenic resource. As identified above, CEQA requires that an EIR identify a
project alternative that is environmentally superior and meets most of the basic project objectives.
Although not a reduced density alternative, Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design lessens
the significant unavoidable impact on scenic resources of Highway 1 to less than significant while
also meeting all identified project objectives. An environmentally superior alternative, however,
does not need to meet all of the project objectives. The analysis previously discussed in this
section conclude that Alternatives 6 and 8 represent the alternatives that would meet most of the
project objectives and policy objectives of Monterey County while still significantly reducing
project related impacts. Alternative 3, Existing Zoning Alternative, would reduce environmental
impacts to the greatest degree due to its lowest number of new construction and development.
Alternative 3, Existing Zoning Alternative may not be able to meet the basic project objective of
rehabilitation of the historic structure. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are
the other reduced density alternatives (5, 6 & 8) due to reduction in density and impacts and
ability to reduce the significant unavoidable impact to scenic resources to less than significant.

1
Revisions to Modified Design Alternative 4 have been recommended by Monterey County Staff (refer to Staff
Report to Planning Commission dated May, 25 2010). Modifications are consistent with mitigations in the EIR as
discussed in the Staff Report. See Appendix C of this Final EIR document.


Alternative 4 is the next alternative that reduces impacts to scenic resources of Highway 1 to less
than significant; this alternative also meets identified project objectives.

A full discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative is located on Pages 6.38-39, of this
document.

Under RDEIR 2.5, Summary of Project Impacts, Summary Section, page R2.-6, add the following
note to replace previous summary and see Revised Summary in Appendix A of this document:

Final EIR revised summary chart and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program are located in
Appendix A of this Final EIR document. Please refer to Final EIR Appendix A, MMRP.

Under Draft EIR, Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-1, paragraph 1, the text is revised as
follows:

This section presents the project description as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15124.
The project, called the Villas de Carmelo, proposes infill development as redevelopment and
rehabilitation of existing structures as well as new residential development on a 3.68-acre site.
The proposed project would increase the development intensity of an underutilized lot. The
project is located in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County, bordering the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea in an urbanized area. The project site is the site of the former Carmel
Hospital and is currently developed with three buildings, parking lots, driveways, and paved
pathways. Two of the buildings are considered historically significant: the former hospital
building and a garage/shop building. The existing hospital building and garage/shop building
would be preserved by the proposed project and eight additional new buildings will be
constructed on the site to accommodate the proposed forty-six (46) residential units, as well as
ancillary uses such as underground parking, a recreational room, gym, and storage. The project
site is currently designated as Medium Density Residential, and existing zoning allows two (2)
units per acre. The project proposes a Local Coastal Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation of the project site to high density residential allowing for twelve and a half (12.5)
units per acre on the project site. Additionally, the project proposes onsite inclusionary units at
the moderate-income level. The project submitted by the applicant does not propose modification
to the requirements of the County Inclusionary Ordinance #04185. However, to allow the
required onsite inclusionary units all to be designated at the moderate income level without
provision of low-income units is inconsistent with the requirements of the Ordinance. To
approve the project, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would require approval of this exception
or modification to the Ordinance, with specific findings of justification, by the decision-making
body. Units affordable at the moderate income level are defined by family income between 80%
to 120% of the medium income for an area. The project entitlements will include, but not be
limited to, Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Zoning Amendments, Coastal Development Permit to
allow tree removal and development on slopes of 30% or greater; Design Approval and Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map approval.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-2, the first full paragraph is revised as
follows:

The project site currently contains three buildings: the hospital building, constructed between
1928 and 1930; a garage/shop building; and a separated one-story building known as the nurses
quarters. The hospital building and garage/shop building were designed by master architect
Gardner A. Dailey in the Spanish Eclectic architectural style, a derivation of Spanish Revival.
The main hospital building, the garage/shop buildings, and the landscaping immediately

surrounding these two structures, as well as the stone walls at the entrance on Valley Way, have
been identified as contributing features of the historical resource. The historic landscaping
includes the stone patio, tiled fountain, and landmark oak tree on the south side of the main
hospital building, as well as the stone walls, stairways, and terracing immediately surrounding the
main hospital building and the garage/shop building. The only natural, or vegetative, element of
the historical resource is the landmark oak tree to the immediate south of the main hospital
building. The hospital and garage/shop buildings are considered historically significant. The
nurses quarters is a separate one-story building and is not considered to be historically
significant. The site was originally developed as a clinic, later became a general hospital serving
the Monterey Peninsula, and was most recently occupied by a 78-bed convalescent hospital,
Alzheimers clinic, and pre-school. Other than use of the nurses quarters, the site has been
essentially abandoned since 2005. The existing buildings are in decline and require extensive
renovation and rehabilitation.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-2, the second bullet under the heading
Project Objectives is revised and a footnote added as follows:

3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The applicants have identified the purpose of the project as adaptive reuse of two historic buildings and
installation of a residential community of market rate and affordable residences
2
. The project objectives
are as follows:

Rehabilitate and preserve a historic community institution;
Establish a high quality residential village community to house future residents within the
County;
Provide market rate, affordable, and work force housing stock to the Monterey Peninsula with
20% designated as affordable and workforce housing; and
Reuse of vacated buildings on a site with infill development.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-5, the text is revised as follows:

Project Components: The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of
two of the three existing buildings on the site and the demolition of the nurses quarters building.
In addition, a small semi-attached shed located on the northern extent of the hospital building will
be demolished. Refer to Figure 3-4, Existing Project Site for the locations of these buildings on
the site and Table 3.5-2 for the identification of unit types. The following outlines the
rehabilitation and redevelopment of the existing structures, the new construction, and proposed
demolition on the project site:

Existing Hospital Building: The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse of 90% of the existing 11,500 square-foot hospital structure. This would
result in the renovation and conversion of 10,350 square feet of the existing hospital

2
Added Footnote: The applicant proposed an alternative to provide the affordable housing units required by
Monterey County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance through payment of an in-lieu fee to Monterey County, which is
allowed under Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. On July 14, 2010, the Housing Advisory
Committee of Monterey County considered the applicants proposal to comply with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance for the proposed project through payment of an in-lieu fee. The Housing Advisory Committee
unanimously approved the applicants proposal for payment of the in-lieu fee with regard to the proposed project;
however, final project approval would be up to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

structure into 9 condominium units. The Villas de Carmelo project proposes the
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of most of the existing 21,400 square-foot hospital
structure and 1,600 square-foot garage/shop building. Demolition on the project site
would include the former nurses quarters building and a semi-attached shed located on
the northern extent of the hospital building. The proposed projects implementation
would consist of conversion of 16,150 square feet of the existing hospital structure into 9
condominium units, the conversion of the remaining 5,250 square feet into a community
room, gym, storage, and mechanical areas, the addition of and conversion of the
garage/shop building into 3 condominium units totaling 4,150 square feet, and the
construction of 34 additional condominium units, for a total of 46 condominium units.
The renovated hospital building will also house the recreation room and gym located in
the buildings basement.

Demolition: The project would involve demolition of the nurses quarters building and
demolition of a semi-attached shed located on the northern extent of the hospital building.
The demolition of these structures allows for the new construction of the new buildings
on the project site with the hospital building proposed as the focal point of the residential
village community.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-7, the Figure 3-3 is replaced with Figure
3-3A, 3-3B, and 3-3C as shown at the end of this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-10, the text of the middle of the
paragraph, Building Construction is revised as follows:

Building heights would not exceed 35 feet Building heights would not exceed 35 feet above
average natural grade. Footnote is added to clarify: Height of structure means the vertical
distance from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the natural grade of that portion
of the building site covered by the structure, to the topmost point of the structure, but excluding
certain features, as specified in Chapter 20.62 (Height and Setback Exceptions) and Title
20.06.630.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-11, the text of the first full paragraph is
revised as follows:

Storm Drainage System: The proposed project would result in increased impervious area
(paved surfaces and buildings) on the project site. Buildout of the proposed project would result
in a total of 41,945 square feet of additional building coverage and 2,689 square feet of additional
paved areas. Current run-off from the project is directed to Highway 1 and Valley Way. The
project proposes to accommodate storm water run-off onsite with storm-water retention detention
facilities. Storm water runoff is proposed to be routed as surface flow to a proposed underground
facility that would release into existing drainages. The proposed Stormwater Control Plan is
discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality and is included as Figure 4.8-1.

Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Page 3-12, the second bullet point under the sub-
heading Monterey County is revised as follows:

Amendment of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan/Local Coastal Program including new and
amended policies to incorporate the High Density Residential land use designation and tree
removal;


Under Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description Page 3-12, the last bullet point under the sub-
heading Monterey County is revised as follows:

Review and approval of all required permits that include, but are not limited to, tree removal,
building, grading, 30% slope exception, encroachment, and occupancy permits.

Under the following sections in the Draft EIR and RDEIR, in the subsection Regulatory
Framework, all references to the Monterey County General Plan policies are removed (as directed
by Monterey County since the applicable land use document governing policy consistency is the
Carmel Area Land Use Plan):
Draft EIR:
Section 4.1, Aesthetics
Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources
Section 4.4, Biological Resources
Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Minerals
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation
RDEIR:
Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-1, the revised Figure 4.1-1 is as shown at the end
of this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-2, paragraph 3, the text is revised as follows:

The existing visual character of the site consists of three buildings in various states of disrepair or
abandonment. The buildings were originally used as a hospital, garage/shop, and nurses
quarters. Approximately 50% of the project site is occupied with these buildings and paved
areas. The portions of the project site that are not paved have been extensively landscaped with
numerous ornamental tree, shrub, vine, and herbaceous species. Site vegetation can be
characterized primarily as areas of mixed Monterey pine and coast live oak woodland with an
understory of landscaped shrubs and groundcover. As is typical of the surrounding, urbanized
Carmel area, site vegetation is characterized by a fragmented Monterey pine overstory intermixed
with shorter-stature coast live oak and ornamental tree species.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-9, the last paragraph is revised as follows:

The project site is the former Carmel Hospital site, which is located on 3.68 acres between
Highway 1 and Valley Way in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County. The Villas
de Carmelo project proposes the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of most of the existing 11,500
21,400 square-foot hospital structure and 1,600 square-foot garage/shop building. Demolition on
the project site would include the former nurses quarters building, an extension of the original
hospital building, and a semi-attached shed located on the northern extent of the hospital building.
The proposed projects implementation would consist of conversion of 10,350 16,150 square feet
of the existing hospital structure into 9 condominium units, 5,250 square feet of the existing
hospital structure into common use areas, conversion of the 1,600 square foot garage/shop
building into 3 condominium units, and construction of 3734 additional condominium units in 10
to-be-constructed buildings, for a total of 46 condominium units. The proposed residential design
is a Spanish/Mediterranean style. Additionally, the project proposes a day one mature

landscaping plan utilizing large box trees and hedging designed to provide extensive screening of
buildings to be constructed on the project site as part of the construction phase on the site. A
day one landscaping plan means that from the first day it is installed, the landscaping will look
like what is shown in the proposed plan, specifically due to the use of mature vegetation.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-10, the second paragraph under the Scenic Vista
heading, the text is revised as follows:

Development of the proposed project would result in the construction of urban features, including
condominium buildings of varying height, and their associated uses that would require the
removal of existing trees and other vegetation. Removal of trees from the project site for
construction of the project would affect the forested character of the project site both from within
and adjacent to the project site; however, site design, including proposed landscaping which
would include replanting of mature growth trees, would minimize the impact of the
implementation upon scenic vistas. This is shown in the visual simulations of the proposed
development, which are included as Figures 4.1-3A through 4.1-3L, displaying the project site
with and without proposed landscaping. Therefore, removal of 213 156 existing trees, as
proposed by the project, would constitute a potentially significant impact to a portion of the
scenic vista along Highway 1; however, the impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level with
consideration that a total of 148 replacement trees would be planted on the project site as a
component of the projects Replanting and Landscaping Plan (see Figures 4.1-4A through 4.1-
4D, Conceptual Landscape Plan). In addition, the proposed planting of the Highway 1 corridor
as planned, with incorporation of mitigation measures, would ensure that development of the
proposed project retains the existing forested character to the maximum extent feasible.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would not result in any new significant impact
beyond those previously identified in this DEIR.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-11, Impacts and Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 is
revised as follows:

Impact: Development of the proposed project would result in the removal of existing trees and
alteration of the natural landscaping of the project site and the creation of new light sources,
resulting in a potential impact to a scenic vista. Significance After Mitigation: Less than
Significant.

4.1-1 In order to minimize potential aesthetic-related impacts due to the removal of existing
trees and vegetation and the creation of light sources, the project proponent shall submit
contract a qualified landscape architect to prepare a detailed Replanting and Landscaping
Plan that provides adequate screening along the borders of the project site prior to the
issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The plan shall be reviewed by a qualified
arborist/registered professional forester. The project sites historic landmark oak tree
located directly south of the main hospital building landscaping shall be retained. to the
maximum extent feasible. The Replanting and Landscaping Plan shall be in accordance
with Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 as defined in Section 4.4 Biological Resources
of this DEIR. All replanting and landscaping shall be in conformance with the design and
implementation measures contained in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and the Monterey
County Coastal Implementation Plan. The Replanting and Landscaping plan shall include
specific measures for the management and eradication of invasive/non-native species, as
recommended in the FMP, as well as specific planting recommendations (species, size,
placement, etc.), use of mature plantings, sources and schedules for plantings, landscape
water requirements, prescribe care and maintenance for all plantings, success criteria,

require periodic monitoring of the site for a minimum of threesix years, require annual
reporting during the three six year period on replanting success, and adaptive
management techniques (i.e., additional replanting, extension of monitoring) in the event
that success is not achieved in the first monitoring period for all proposed replanting and
landscaping. The landscaping plan shall utilize the native species palette presented in the
FMP and/or other native species with approval by Monterey County (i.e., other species
may be preferred within historic landscaping portions of the site). The approved plan
shall also specify the specific placement of replacement oaks and pines at the ratios
prescribed in Mitigation Measure 4.4-4, located in the Biological Section. Seeds,
seedlings, and/or relocated/transplanted Monterey pine and Coast live oak tree must be
free of disease (i.e., pitch canker) and derived from native genetic stock. The landscape
architect shall submit bi-annual monitoring reports to the Monterey County Planning
Department after each six months detailing the condition of the project sites landscaping.
Adaptive management techniques and/or an extension of the monitoring period shall be
required in the event that replanting is not successful during the initial (fivesix year)
monitoring period. If during the course of monitoring it is determined that re-planting has
not been successful, where success shall be defined as a greater than 80% survival rate of
all plantings as determined by an arborist or landscape architect, the project applicant
shall be required to provide replacement planting as deemed necessary by the Monterey
County Planning Department. The Replanting and Landscaping Plan shall be subject to
the approval of the Monterey County Planning Department.

Note: The historic landscaping includes the stone patio, tiled fountain, and landmark oak tree on the south
side of the main hospital building, as well as the stone walls, stairways, and terracing immediately
surrounding the main hospital building and the garage/shop building. The only remaining natural element
of the historic landscaping is the landmark oak tree south of the main building.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, make the following changes:

Page 4.1-12, the revised Figure 4.1-3A is as shown at the end of this section.

Page 4.1-13, the revised Figure 4.1-3B is as shown at the end of this section.

Page 4.1-24, the revised Figure 4.1-4A is as shown at the end of this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-24, the plant list on Figure 4.1-4A is revised to
refine plantings and provided in Appendix D of this FEIR.

Plant List
Botanical Name Common Name Botanical Name Common Name
SCREEN TREES HERBACEOUS
Such as Such as:
Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Heuchera sp. Coral Bells
Sequoia Sempervirens Coast Redwood Iris Douglasiana Douglas Iris
Cedrus deodora Deodar Cedar Polystichum munitum California Sword Fern
Pinus SP Pine Pennisetum sp. Fountain Grass
Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass
ACCENT TREES Miscanthus sp. Banner Grass
Such as: Calamagrostis sp. Eulalia Grass
Lyonothamnus Floribundus Catalina Ironwood Achillea sp. Yarrow
Maytenus Boaria Mayten Tree Teucrium fruticans Germander
Olea europea Olive Stachys lanata Lambs Ear
Acer palmatum Japanese Maple Limonium Perezii Sea Lavender
Cercis Forest Pansy Redbud Nepeta faassenii Catmint

Botanical Name Common Name Botanical Name Common Name
Arbutus Marina Phormium sp New Zealand Flax
Cornus Nuttallii Dogwood Boronia Sharks Bay Boronia
Agave sp. Agave
STREET TREES Lavandula sp. Lavender
Such as: Strelitzia Reginae (Protected) Bird of Paradise
Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand Christmas Trees
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore GROUND COVERS
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Such as:
Ceanothus g. Horizontalis California Lilac
ADDITIONAL TREES: Ceanothus g.Yankee Point California Lilac
Such as: Mahonia repens Creeping Mahonia
Cordyline Indivisa Draceana Ribes viburnifolium Evergreen Currant
Gingko Biloba Maidenhair Tree Dymondia margaretae
Magnolia Little Gem Magnolia Thymus sp. Thyme
Magnolia soulangiana Tulip Magnolia Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebells
Fragaria chiloensis Beach Strawberry
SCREEN SRUBS Polygonum capitatum Knotweed
Such as: Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-Summer
Carpenteria californica California Anemone Rosmarinus sp. Rosemary
Ceanothus Ray Hartman California Mountain Lilac Pachysandra variegated Japanese Spurge
Ceanothus sp. California Mountain Lilac Cotoneaster lowfast Ground Cotoneaster
Cistus Sp. Rockrose
Cotoneaster lacteus VINES
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Such as:
Fremontodendron California Flannelbush Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea
Mahonia aquifolium Oregon Grape Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine
Plumbago auriculata Caple Plumbago Jasminum polyanthum Pink Jasmine
Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry Solanum jasminoides Potato Vine
Rhamnus c. Eve Case Coffee Berry Wisteria sinensis Wisteria
Rhus ovata Lemonade Berry
SHRUBS
Such as:
Berseris Ruby Glow Crimson Pigmy Barberry All planting to be on Monterey Countys approved planting list.
Camellia sp. Camellia
Cistus sp. Rockrose
Correa sp. Australian Fuchsia
Hebe sp. Hebe
Ilex sp. Holly
Loropetalum sp. Chinese Fringe Flower
Nandina Gulf Stream Heavenly Bamboo
Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo
Pieris Japonica Lily of the Valley Shrub
Pittosporum crassifolium Karo
Pittosporum sp. Pittosporum
Rapheolepis sp. Indian Hawthorne
Rosmarinus sp. Rosemary
Salvia sp. Sage
Teucrium sp. Germander
Viburnum sp. Viburnum

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-25, the revised Figure 4.1-4B is as shown at the
end of this section.


Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-27, the key for Figure 4.1-4D, Valley Way
Landscaping, is enlarged as follows:

Plant Schedule
Sym QNTY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QNTY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
EXISTING TREES: SHRUBS:
#1 4 (E) Cedrus atlantica Atlas Cedar 5 15g Corpinteria californica Bush Anemone
#2 10 (E) Pinus radiate Monterey Pine 19 15g Ceanothus Julia Phelps Julia Phelps Ceanothus
#3 15 (E) Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 21 15g Ceanothus Ray Hartman Ray Hartman Ceanothus
5 15g Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
NEW TREES: 15 15g Pittosporum tabira variegata Variegated Tobira
4 60 Box Cedrus deodora Deodor Cedar 11 15g Rhamnus alternus Italinan Buckhorn
5 48 Box Cedrus deodora Deodor Cedar 8 15g Ribes viburnifolium Evergreen Currant
11 36 Box Arbutus Marina NA
3 60 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak GROUNDCOVERS:
2 48 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak GC 1g Frageria chiloensis Beach Strawberry
GC 1 g Juniperus conferta Shore Juniper

Under Aesthetics, Section 4.1, Page 4.1-28, the middle of the first paragraph, under Scenic
Resources is revised as follows:

Scenic resources visible from Highway 1 include existing mature forested canopy, an important
component of the visual quality of the corridor, the residential neighborhoods of the
unincorporated coastal zone to the west, including the project site, and the City of Carmel-by-the
Sea. The historical hospital building is primarily obscured from view by the trees, and is not
considered a scenic resource. As discussed below, development of the proposed project has the
potential to impact the scenic resources, considered to be the forested corridor of mature pine and
oak trees within view of Highway 1 looking west.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-30, Impact section is revised as follows:

Impact The project would result in the removal of existing mature vegetation
adjacent to Highway 1 to accommodate buildout of the project site into a
residential condominium complex. Existing vegetation, particularly mature
pine and oak trees, located west of Highway 1 is considered a scenic resource
that is an important component of the visual integrity of the Highway 1
corridor. Removal of vegetation and construction of two buildings of the
overall complex as close as 30 feet from the highway would impact views
from Highway 1 looking west towards the project site. The buildout of the
proposed project bordering a scenic highway will alter the Highway 1 scenic
corridor, this represents a significant and unavoidable impact. Significance
After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-30, Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 is revised as
follows:

4.1-3 In order to assure thatreduce impacts to a scenic resource, the Highway 1 corridor, are
minimized, the two buildings housing Units 1-8 located adjacent to Highway 1 on the
proposed project site plan shall be constructed with a maximum elevation of 28 feet.
Roof lines for each of the two buildings housing Units 1-4 and 5-8 shall vary in height in
order to break up appearance of linear roof line views (with lower height on the southern

portion of each of these buildings to reduce maximum height elevation as the property
slopes). This maximum elevation shall be uniform for both of the buildings and recorded
on the projects final map, subject to approval by the County of Monterey. The vertical,
exterior face or the walls of all buildings facing Highway 1 shall also provide additional
modulation (intervals of building width and depth), fenestration (arrangement and design
of windows and doors on the buildings faade), materials and other design and planning
details as a means of breaking up these structures bulk and mass as seen from the
Highway. The architectural details and building design shall be reviewed and approved
through the County design review process to ensure compliance with the above mitigation
for final design. No building permits may be issued until such approvals are granted.

Add note: Height of structure means the vertical distance from the average level of the highest
and lowest point of the natural grade of that portion of the building site covered by the structure,
to the topmost point of the structure, but excluding certain features, as specified in Chapter 20.62
(Height and Setback Exceptions) and Title 20.06.630.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-30, Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 has been revised as
follows:

4.1-4 In order to assure that reduce impacts to scenic resources as viewed from the Highway 1
corridor are minimized, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that at no time shall
any development, including project signage, parking, or construction-related activities, be
permitted within the 10' property-line setback. All existing mature trees within the 10'
setback shall be retained to the extent possible consistent with mitigation measures 4.1-1
and 4.1-2. Existing trees that provide screening for buildings and parking areas along
Highway 1 and the area near the current project entrance at Highway 1 shall be retained.
Retaining walls and noise barriers as required by Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 must be
screened from Highway 1 by natural and proposed landscaping elements per Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1, 4.4-1, and 4.4-2. The tree planting along Highway 1 must be of suitable
caliper and height, and overall density, so as to produce an immediate and long-term
visual impact. This measure shall be recorded on the projects final map, subject to
approval by the County of Monterey.

Note: The areas identified in Mitigation 4.1-4 above reference the cluster of trees near the
project site existing entrance along Highway 1 and trees along Highway 1. Retention of
existing trees and tree canopy in this mitigation should be used to assist in the
development of day one landscape screening proposed by the project to protect
viewshed of Highway 1. Trees such as the major oak tree at the project entrance and
surrounding oaks are important to be retained to provide for day one canopy for
screening.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-31, Mitigation Measure 4.1-5 is revised as
follows:

4.1-5 Prior to obtaining any building permit, the project applicant shall ensure exterior
appearance and architectural styles for the new structures in the final design shall be
differentiated from the historical resource, yet are in keeping with the nature of the
Spanish Eclectic style of the historical resource. In order to minimize the contrast
between built elements and the surrounding environment, all buildings shall be designed
with colors and materials that effectively reflect the architectural style of the main
hospital building, blending the structures with the on-site landscape. Building

applications for new structures shall include color and material sample photo sheets and
shall be approved by the Monterey County Planning Department and Historic Review
Board prior to the issuance of building permits. Reflective building material shall not be
allowed, unless otherwise approved by the County.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-32, the revised Figure 4.1-5 is as shown at the end
of this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1-34, the last bullet in Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 is
revised as follows:

Landscaping shall be designed to the maximum extent feasible in order to screen project site
lighting.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Page 4.3-16, paragraph one and two are revised as
follows:

The Villas de Carmelo project proposes the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of most of the
existing 21,400 square-foot hospital structure and 1,600 square-foot garage/shop building.
Implementation of the project would involve a conversion of 10,350 square feet of the existing
hospital structure into 9 condominium units and construction of 37 additional condominium units
in 10 to-be-constructed buildings, for a total of 46 condominium units. Approximately 8,036
square feet of the existing site structures will be demolished to accommodate development of the
proposed project. Existing structures to be demolished include portions of the hospital building
and garage building, the entire nurses building and two storage sheds. The newly-built structures
would be two to three stories. Each residential unit is proposed to have a wood burning fireplace.
The project would include common residential village space for underground and surface
parking, a recreation room, gym, and storage facilities. Total parking located on the project site
would be 108 spaces, with 90 covered spaces and 18 uncovered spaces. The sites existing
entrance from Highway 1 would be abandoned. The sites existing entrance on Valley Way
would be relocated 180 feet south on Valley Way. The Villas de Carmelo Project is based upon a
Tentative Map, which shows proposed lots and infrastructure improvements.

Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in September of 2009 and be completed by
April of 2011. The proposed project would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 would include
all planned demolition and grading activities on the project site, as well as all utility access
infrastructure extensions. Phase 1 would also involve construction of thirty of the proposed forty-
six units on the project site (units 1-13 and units 30-46). Phase 2 would involve construction of
the remaining proposed sixteen units on the project site (units 14-29). The project will require
extensive grading on the site to facilitate construction of proposed uses. The site would be graded
to utilize the existing topography, including grading of slopes for parking garages and to
minimize the height and visibility of the buildings. The portion of the project site that borders
Highway 1 would include an earth berm and a wall that will be densely landscaped in order to
screen the site from Highway 1 and to minimize traffic noise from Highway 1. Proposed grading
would occur throughout most of the site and would involve approximately 13,242 cubic yards
(CY) of cut/fill. Total earth disturbance, has been estimated by the project applicant to be
approximately 9,589 CY of cut and 3,653 CY of fill for a net export of approximately 5,936 CY.
The grading will be subject to grading plan approval by the County of Monterey.


Under Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Page 4.3-18, second paragraph under the heading
Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Global Climate Change Significance Thresholds, the text is revised as
follows:

GHG emissions associated with a single development project of this scale would do not create
any environmental effects; rather it is the cumulative increased concentration of CO
2
(and other
GHGs) in the atmosphere that results in global climate change and associated consequences.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Page 4.3-20, paragraph 3, the text is revised as follows:

Fugitive dust emissions would occur during construction. Additionally, during the initial
construction phase, approximately 8,036 square feet of existing structures would be demolished,
resulting in release of lead and dust particulate matter. Assumptions for the demolition activities
are accounted for in the Urbemis 2007 model analysis. All demolition activities are subject to
approval of a demolition permit from the MBUAPCD and adherence to the Districts Rule 439,
Building Removals, and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs),
which contains requirements for the purpose of limiting particulate emissions, lead paint removal
and asbestos during building removal to acceptable levels. The requirements include consulting
with the MBUAPCD and conducting an asbestos survey prior to commencement of demolition
activities. The highest estimate of PM
10
emissions would occur during the initial construction
phase when demolition and grading activities are at the highest levels.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Page 4.3-21, the first bullet in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1
is revised as follows:

Water all active construction areas, including haul roads, at least twice daily and more
often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to existing businesses residences
should be kept damp at all times. If necessary, during windy periods, watering is to occur
on all days of the week regardless of onsite activities (reduces fugitive dust PM
10
from
wind blown dust from active areas and unpaved road sources by 55%).

Under Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, Page 4.3-22, paragraph 4 et seq, the text is revised as
follows:

Diesel exhaust includes air contaminants that can cause health effects. The increased health risk
from these types of emissions (i.e., increased cancer risk) is calculated over a 70-year continuous
exposure period at locations of sensitive receptors. In addition, compounds within diesel exhaust,
such as acrolein, have been documented to cause adverse health effects during short term
exposures. The project site is directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood and less than mile
from the Carmel High School. Truck travel and construction equipment exhaust may result in
elevated levels of diesel particulate matter for short time periods. Although construction
activities at the site would occur for temporary and relatively short periods of time, the impact
would be considered potentially significant due to the proximity of the sensitive receptors and the
intensity of the project construction.

Based upon comments from the MBUAPCD and others, a diesel risk assessment was completed
by William Popenuck whose resume is included in the Appendix of the Final EIR. The diesel
risk assessment found that the proposed projects construction activities would not result in a
significant health risk impact due to diesel exhaust. Specifically, the chronic effects were found
to be 1.97 in 1 million which is far less than the MBUAPCD threshold of 10 in 1 million. The
diesel risk assessment is found in the Appendix of this Final EIR. In addition, MBUAPCD

comment #H-5 states, Given the amount of grading to be done for the project and the Districts
suspension of the REL for acrolein, the projects acute impacts from diesel equipment should be
less-than-significant. Nonetheless, the following State Anti-Idling Regulation should be observed
by all applicable vehicles:

2485. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor
Vehicle Idling. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to
reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other air contaminants by limiting
the idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles. (b) Applicability. This section
applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of California
with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be
licensed for operation on highways. This specifically includes: (1) California-based
vehicles; and (2) Non-California-based vehicles. (c) Requirements. (1) Idling
Restriction. On or after February 1, 2005, the driver of any vehicle subject to this section
shall comply with the following requirements, except as noted in subsection (d) below:
(A) the driver shall not idle the vehicles primary diesel engine for greater than 5.0
minutes at any location. (B) the driver shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power
system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that
vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any
location when within 100 feet of a restricted area.

Based on the diesel risk assessment and comments from the MBUAPCD, Mitigation Measures
4.3-2 and 4.3-3 are recommended but not required to reduce impacts to less than significant from
diesel exhaust. The impacts related to emissions of diesel exhaust would be can be reduced to a
less-than-significant based upon the risk assessment. level provided the mitigation measures
below are implemented to minimize exposure. Previously, the analysis in the Draft EIR found,
Bbased on consultation with MBUAPCD, the mitigation measures provided below would reduce
the diesel particulate matter emissions below the MPUAPCD threshold of cancer risk of 10 per
1,000,000 people. Specifically, addition of currently available catalytic diesel particulate filters
(those emission control devised classified as Level 3 by the Air Resources Board) on to diesel
construction equipment and vehicles has been verified (demonstrated) to reduce diesel particulate
matter emissions by 85% (Air Resources Board website at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm). Implementation of these mitigation measures
would not result any new environmental impacts beyond those previously identified in this Draft
EIR. Although the diesel risk assessment identified risk would be less than significant, it is
recommended that the mitigation measures remain as a further reduction of potential impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors.

Impact Construction activities would involve use of the heavy-duty off-road
equipment and large trucks that would generate diesel exhaust, compounds
of which may would not result in unacceptable health risks to nearby
sensitive receptors per the diesel risk assessment but may cause nuisance to
receptors. This is a significant potential impact that can be reduced to a less-
than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation.

Note: no changes are proposed to Mitigation 4.3-2 and 4.3-3.


Under Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Page 4.4-20 and 21, Mitigation Measures 4.4-2
and 4.4-3 are revised as follows:

4.4-2 The project sites historic landscaping shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible.
In order to minimize potential biological-related impacts due to the removal of existing
trees and vegetation and the creation of light sources, Tthe applicant shall contract a
qualified landscape architect to prepare a Replanting and Landscaping Plan for the site to
be approved by Monterey County prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed
project. The Replanting and Landscaping Plan shall be in accordance with Mitigation
Measures 4.1-1 defined in Section 4.1 Aesthetic Resources and 4.4-2 below in this
DEIR. Consistent with Mitigation 4.1-1, the project sites historic landmark oak tree
located directly south of the main hospital building shall be retained. The plan shall be
reviewed by a qualified arborist/registered professional forester. All replanting and
landscaping shall be in conformance with the design and implementation measures
contained in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and the Monterey County Coastal
Implementation Plan. The landscaping plan shall utilize the native species palette
presented in the FMP and/or other native species with approval by Monterey County (i.e.,
other species may be preferred within historic landscaping portions of the site). The
approved plan shall also specify the specific placement of replacement oaks and pines at
the ratios prescribed in mitigation measure 4.4-4 below. Seeds, seedlings, and/or
relocated/transplanted Monterey pine and Coast live oak tree must be free of disease (i.e.,
pitch canker) and derived from native genetic stock. The plan shall include specific
measures for the management and eradication of invasive/non-native species, as
recommended in the FMP, and shall include care/maintenance, monitoring, duration,
success criteria, and reporting requirements, and adaptive management techniques (i.e.,
additional replanting, extension of monitoring) in the event that success is not achieved in
the first monitoring period for all proposed replanting and landscaping.

4.4-3 Trees and vegetation not planned for removal shall be protected during
construction per Monterey County standards for tree protection to the maximum extent
feasible. Protective fencing shall be placed to keep construction vehicles and personnel
from impacting trees and herbaceous vegetation adjacent to work zones, but outside the
work limits. This shall include the use of exclusionary fencing (i.e., placement of
temporary fencing and/or straw bales to prevent access) and protective wood barriers for
trees of herbaceous and woody vegetation to prevent unauthorized access by personnel
and equipment.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Page 4.4-22, Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 is revised
as follows:

4.4-4 Each of the twenty-one (21) coast live oaks greater than twelve inches DBH proposed for
removal will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Although most of the Monterey pines slated for
removal appear to have been planted and therefore do not require mitigation per the FMP,
two (2) Monterey pines greater than twelve inches DBH scheduled for removal appear to
have seeded in from adjacent native trees and shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio (see FMP).
In addition, 11 multi-stemmed trees (generally oaks) that have cumulative stem diameters
equivalent to 12 inches DBH are proposed for removal; these trees will likewise be
replaced at a 1:1 ratio (see FMP). All replacement trees shall be pitch canker free and
derived from local genetic stock.


Each of the Coast live oak and Monterey pine trees at the site between 6-11 inches DBH
proposed for removal shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. All replacement trees shall be pitch
canker free and derived from local genetic stock.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Page 4.4-22, Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 is revised
as follows:

4.4-5 If project activities including grading, excavation, or tree-limbing/removal will initiate
during the typical avian nesting season (February 15 August 31), a qualified biologist
shall conduct preconstruction nesting avian surveys no more than 14 days prior to
initiation of construction activities; surveys should be conducted in all areas that may
provide suitable nesting habitat on-site or within 300 feet of proposed construction
activities. If active nests are found, a suitable no disturbance buffers construction
buffer shall be established around each nest by a qualified biologist, and no work and/or
disturbance shall occur within thisat buffer until August 31 when young are assumed
fledged.

Alternatively, a qualified biologist can conduct weekly nest checks to gauge
nestling/fledgling status, and construction may proceed once fledglings have dispersed
from the nest, provided written concurrence from CDFG. No active nest shall be
impacted or removed without a depredation permit from CDFG; a depredation permit
will not be issued for impacts to Fully Protected Species. No active nest shall be
impacted or removed.

For activities that occur outside of the nesting season (generally September 1-August 2-
January 31 February 14), preconstruction surveys are not required. If construction is
initiated outside of the nesting season and continues into the nesting season,
preconstruction surveys are required if construction will occur in areas not previously
accessed and/or disturbed (>300 feet from previous construction activities).

Implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in any new significant impact
beyond those previously identified in this Draft EIR.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-17, Figure 4.5-5, Site Demolition Plan, is
revised as shown at the end of this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, page 4.5-25, paragraph 4, the text is revised as
follows:

Several changes to the landscaping and terracing features are proposed. As mentioned by the
historical evaluation, the landscaping and stone terracing immediately surrounding the main
hospital building and garage/shop building, as well as the stone entrance way, are considered part
of the historical resource, as they are character-defining features. According to the historic
evaluation, the SOIs Standards, and the Monterey County Historic Review Board (March 6,
2008), the landscaping and terracing included as part of the historical resource would consist of
the fountain and landmark oak tree immediately adjacent to the main hospital building and the
stone walls, stairways, stone walls at the entrance on Valley Way, and terracing. The project
initially proposed the removal of the stone entrance walls on Valley Way; however, they have
been identified as part of the historical resource and in order to meet Mitigation Measures 4.5-1
through 4.5-8 requiring compliance with the SOIs Standards, the project description has been
changed and they will be retained, and any alterations would be made in accordance with the

SOIs Standards. The project proposes to replace and/or relocate stone walls and stairways to
both the west and the east of the main hospital northern wing. Further, the construction of the
underground parking garage attachment would require the removal of the stone terracing and
fountain, as well as extensive excavation near the landmark oak tree and the main hospital
building foundation.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-26, the impact is revised as follows:

Impact Development of the project and the resulting rehabilitation and renovation of the two
historic resources on the project site would have the potential to cause a substantial,
adverse change to a historical structure eligible for listing in the California Register on
the site. This represents a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less-
than-significant level with implementation of the following mitigation measure.

Under Draft EIR Cultural Resources, Section 4.5, Page 4.5-27, the following Mitigation Measure is
added before Mitigation Measure 4.5-2:

4.5-1A In order to protect the identified historical resource into perpetuity, the applicant shall
apply and obtain from Monterey County a Historical Resource (Coastal Zone) zoning
designation overlay for the portions of the project site that contain the historical resource
prior to recordation of the final project map. The historical resource is defined as the
original portions of the main hospital building, the garage/shop building, and the historic
landscaping around those two buildings, which includes the stone entrance walls on
Valley Way, the fountain, landmark oak tree, stone patio to the south of the main hospital
building, and the stone terracing and landscaping immediately surrounding the two main
hospital structures. The application and overlay adoption process shall serve as evidence
for compliance to the Monterey County Planning Department and the Historic Resources
Review Board.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-27, Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, the text of
the first paragraph is revised as follows:

4.5-2 Prior to the issuance of any permits, the project applicant/developer shall prepare a
Preservation and Monitoring Plan (PMP) that will act as a work plan for the restoration
rehabilitation of the historical resources on the site. In general, the PMP should will
identify changes to the property that could reasonably be expected to occur and detail
protective actions that will be undertaken to retain the so that the changes would not
disrupt the historical integrity of the resource. The PMP would will be prepared by a
qualified professional, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, above. The purpose of
the PMP is to provide practical guidance to the construction and restoration teams for the
Villas de Carmelo project to ensure that the historical resource is protected and its
historic integrity is retained. The PMP shall contain the following features:

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-27, the third bullet point under
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 is revised as follows:

A comprehensive list of both character-defining historic features and non-historic elements of
the two historic buildings and historic surrounding landscaping that contribute to the
structures historical significance, as well as materials to be retained, preserved, salvaged,
and/or reused;


Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-28, the first paragraph of Mitigation
Measure 4.5-3 is revised as follows:

4.5-3 Prior to the start of any project work, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that the
main hospital building, its surrounding terraced the identified historic landscaping, and
the garage/shop building is recorded and documented in accordance with the Level II
recordation standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American
Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) program. This level of recordation shall include:

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-28, Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 is revised
as follows:

4.5-4 At least 30 days prior to commencing any work on the property, the project
applicant/developer shall produce video documentation of the main hospital building, the
historic with its surrounding landscaping, and the garage/shop building. This video
documentation shall include footage of the exterior and interior of the building, as well as
the grounds of the property. The video documentation shall be submitted to the Monterey
County Historical Society (or its designee), and a copy of the video documentation shall
be provided to interested parties upon request. The project applicant/developer shall
make the videography available for other mitigation measures described in this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Page 4.5-28, Mitigation Measure 4.5-5 is revised
as follows:

4.5-5 The project applicant/developer shall develop and implement protective measures to
safeguard the character-defining features of the main hospital building, its surrounding the
historical landscaping, and the garage/shop building from damage by the implementation
of the project. The features include, but are not limited to tile roofing, decorative
chimney tops, tower, arched window and passageway openings, the original footprint of
the building, the fountain, the landmark oak tree, stone stairways, terrace, and retaining
walls. The original fenestration and doors shall be retained, repaired, or replaced in kind.
Preservation, repair, and appropriate replacement activities shall be consisted consistent
with SOI Standards and other National Park Service Technical Preservation Services
guidance, as mentioned in Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, above. Replacement of non-historic
windows and doors shall be sensitive to the appearance of the original fenestration design.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, Page 4.6-2, New Figure 4.6-1A
is added as shown at the end of this section. The following text is also added to text on Page 4.6-2:

Figure 4.6-1A identifies areas over 30% slope proposed for development. Development
on slopes at or exceeding 30% is allowed subject to obtaining a permit under Monterey
County Zoning Coastal Implementation Plan Ordinance Title 20, Section 20.64.230. The
purpose of the Section 20.64.230 is to establish regulations, procedures and standards to
consider development on slopes in excess of 30%. Since portions of the proposed project
will occur on slopes at or exceeding 30%, Section 20.64.230 is applicable. The project is
requesting a slope exemption as part of the Coastal Development Permit, in accordance
with Section 20.64.230(c)(1), requiring all development on slopes of 30% or more
requires a Coastal Development Permit. The Coastal Development Permit pursuant to
Section 20.64.230(c)(1) will be considered by the Monterey County Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors as part of the combined Coastal Development
Permit. In order to approve development on slopes of 30% or more, the County must

find, in addition to other necessary findings, based on substantial evidence, that: a) there
is no feasible alternative which would allow development to occur on slopes of less than
30%; or b) that the proposed development better achieves the goals, policies and
objectives of the Monterey County Local Coastal Program than other development
alternatives. The County will be required to make findings regarding the 30% slope
exemption.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, Page 4.6-10, under the
heading Grading and Soil Erosion, paragraph 1, the text is revised as follows:

The project will require extensive grading on the site to facilitate construction of the proposed
project (see Figure 4.6-2, Grading Plan). The project site would be graded to utilize the existing
topography, including grading of slopes for parking garages to minimize the height and visibility
of the proposed new buildings; however, development would occur on areas exceeding 30%
slope. The portion of the project site that borders Highway 1 would include an earth berm that
will be densely landscaped in order to screen the site from Highway 1 and to minimize traffic
noise from Highway 1. Proposed grading would occur throughout most of the site and would
involve approximately 13,242 cubic yards (CY) of cut/fill (see Figure 4.6-3, Cut and Fill Plan).
Total earth disturbance, has been estimated by the project applicant to be approximately 13,242
CY with 9,589 CY of cut and 3,653 CY of fill. Therefore, the net amount of cut would be 5,936
CY, which will be exported from the project site to the Monterey Peninsula Landfill (see Section
4.3 Air Quality and Section 4.13 Traffic and Circulation of this Draft EIR for further
discussion).

Under Draft EIR Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Page 4.7-5, after paragraph 3, the
following text is added:

Local

The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) enforces the compliance
with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations,
specifically regarding exposure to asbestos. Further, all projects that contain proposed building
removals, deconstructions of painted components, or demolitions must be in compliance with the
MBUAPCD Rule 439 - Building Removals, as adopted September 20, 2006. The proposed
project will be required to comply with the following requirements and standards from Rule 439:

3.1. Visible Emissions. There shall be no visible emissions whatsoever from building removals.

3.2. Work Practice Standards. The following work practice standards shall be followed during
building removals:

3.2.1. As necessary to prevent visible emissions, sufficiently wet the structure prior to
removal. Continue wetting as necessary during active removal and the debris reduction
process.

3.2.2. Demolish structure inward toward building pad. Lay down rood and walls to that
they fall inward and not away from the building.

3.2.3. Commencement of removal activities are prohibited when the peak wind speed
exceeds 15 miles per hour.


Under Draft EIR Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Page 4.7-7, Mitigation Measure
4.7-1 is revised as follows:

4.7-1 In order to reduce human health risks to construction personnel and future site occupants,
the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant to survey all buildings for asbestos
under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
guidelines enforced by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
(MBUAPCD) and Rule 439 prior to the issuance of any demolition permit. The project
applicant shall contact the MBUAPCDs Compliance Division to coordinate the work. If
asbestos containing material is documented within existing on-site structures, all
potentially friable asbestos shall be removed prior to building demolition in accordance
with NESHAP guidelines. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project
applicant shall submit written evidence to Monterey County Division of Environmental
Health from a qualified consultant demonstrating that all asbestos containing material has
been properly removed and demolition activities may proceed without exposing
construction personnel to asbestos-related hazards.


4.7-3 An Operations, Maintenance, and Remediation Plan shall be prepared and implemented
for asbestos, lead, and any other toxic material, including unknown medical waste,
discovered on site to reduce contamination to acceptable levels, maintain the safety of
construction workers and future site users, and assure proper management of
contaminated materials in accordance with state and local regulatory requirements. The
project applicant shall coordinate with the MBUAPCDs Compliance Division during the
preparation of the Operations, Maintenance, and Remediation Plan to ensure that no toxic
materials will become airborne. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, a detailed
accounting of contaminated materials found on site, standards and requirements for
construction personnel for handling contaminated materials, and required procedures and
industry standards for removal and remediation of contaminated materials. This plan
shall be subject to review and approval by Monterey County Division of Environmental
Health. Evidence shall be provided to Monterey County, prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, demonstrating that all necessary remedial actions have been completed
pursuant to the approved Remediation Plan.

4.7-3A Upon demolition of existing facilities, analytical testing of soil shall be conducted for
hazardous substances (including lead, Title 22 metals, and medical waste). Further,
Geiger testing shall be conducted throughout the property to ensure no harmful
radiological materials are present. If results indicate the presence of such materials in
excess of applicable health standards, site remediation shall be completed to reduce
contamination to acceptable clean-up levels for residential uses, in accordance with all
state and local regulatory requirements. The results of this testing and the resulting
remediation requirements shall be incorporated into the Operations, Maintenance, and
Remediation Plan described in Mitigation Measure 4.7-3.


4.7-4 If hazardous chemicals, such as paints, photo-processing wastes, chemical sterilants,
disinfectants, paint-related chemicals, medical waste, x-ray waste, or cleaning chemicals

are discovered on the site during the demolition of the outlying buildings, the restoration
of the former hospital and garage, or construction of the proposed residential structures,
the applicant shall ensure that the chemicals shall be disposed of at an appropriate
permitted facility. Once removed, any and all exposed surfaces shall be visually observed
to confirm the presence/absence of staining. Should staining be observed, the stained
surface, including concrete or asphalt, shall be removed and disposed of at an approved
landfill and the underlying soils visually observed to confirm the vertical extent of
contamination. If staining is observed, stained soils shall be tested to identify appropriate
remedial activities.


4.7-5 In order to ensure that future construction personnel are not exposed to previously
unknown environmental hazards or if suspected hazardous materials are discovered prior
to or during construction, the contractor shall complete the following steps if a previously
unknown hazard or evidence of a potential hazard is found on the project site during
construction, which includes evidence of medical waste or areas of suspected
contaminants:

1. Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing
workers and the public from the area;
2. Notify the Project Engineer of the implementing agency;
3. Secure the area as directed by the Project Engineer; and
4. Notify the implementing agencys Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator.

A qualified consultant shall then be retained to determine the nature of the potential
hazards. The consultant findings shall be subject to compliance with all applicable state
and federal statutes regarding hazardous wastes and review and approval by Monterey
County Division of Environmental Health. Evidence shall be provided to Monterey
County Division of Environmental Health, prior to continuation of demolition in the
specified area, demonstrating that all necessary remedial actions have been completed
pursuant to the approved recommendations of the qualified consultant and applicable
regulations.

Under Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Page 4.8-2, add text at the end of Setting:

Carmel Bay was designated by the State Water Resources Board as an Area of Special Biological
Significance (ASBS) in the mid 1970s.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Page 4.8-2, the first paragraph is
revised as follows:

The proposed project would result in increased impervious areas (paved surfaces and buildings)
on the project site. Buildout of the proposed project would result in a total of 41,945 additional
square feet of building coverage and 2,689 additional square feet of paved areas. Current run-off
from the project is directed to Highway 1 and Valley Way. The project proposes to accommodate
storm water run-off on site. Storm water run-off would be routed as surface flow to three one
proposed underground detention facilities facility. The project proposes one cul-de-sac road
served by one full-time access driveway and one emergency access from Valley Way to be

named Via Carmelo, to serve the residences. The road would be constructed of permeable
materials.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.9, Land Use, Pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-24, the text is revised as found at
the end of this section.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.10, Noise, Page 4.10-10, the first full paragraph is revised as follows:

Building layouts for the proposed residential units strategically positioned outdoor activity areas
to minimize direct exposure to traffic noise. For example, patios for Units 1-8 are located on the
opposite side of the buildings from Highway 1. Further, the buildings containing Units 1-8 form
a sound barrier for other buildings on the project site. Even with the proposed vegetation
removal, the construction of the proposed buildings would provide the same buffering effect, if
not a greater noise buffering effect from Highway 1 traffic noise for the neighboring community
to the west of the project site than is there currently. However, g Given this layout, the greatest
noise exposure would be to the east side of proposed Units 1-8. Future noise exposure
projections with the implementation of the project would range from 70 dB at Unit 1 to 73.3 dB
at Unit 8.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.10, Noise, Page 4.10-11, Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 is revised as follows:

4-10.2 In order to reduce interior noise levels to applicable standards set forth by Monterey
County of 45 dBA CNEL or lower within each unit on the project site, the project
applicant/developer shall submit evidence to demonstrate provisions for following
measures prior to building permit issuance from the Monterey County Planning
Department:
a. Installation of forced-air mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to the local building
official, in each units exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA
CNEL, to be placed at locations the furthest from all outdoor activity areas as
possible and screened with noise barriers as necessary to ensure that the
operation of the units does not result in noise levels that would exceed ambient
traffic noise levels at adjacent sensitive receivers;
b. Exterior wall finish of stucco or an approved acoustical equivalent;
c. Exterior doors, excluding glass doors, shall be solid-core wood or insulated steel
with perimeter weather-stripping and threshold seals;
d. Acoustic baffles shall be installed on the interior side of roof vents that face (or
partially face) Highway 1 in the first row of buildings along the roadway; and
e. Project-specific acoustical analyses, as required by Chapter 12, Appendix Section
1207.11.2 of the California Building Code to determine each unit will meet
interior noise levels as set forth by Monterey County. Further treatments may be
needed to meet acceptable noise levels, treatments could include sound rated
windows and doors, sound rated wall constructions, acoustical caulking,
protected ventilation openings, etc.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.10, Noise, page 4.10-14, the 8
th
bullet in Mitigation Measure 4-10.3 is
revised as follows:

All construction traffic shall be routed to and from the project site via designated truck routes
where possible and prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where
feasible.


Under Draft EIR Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, Page 4.12-5, the last paragraph is
revised as follows:

The proposed project would result in the addition of 46 residential units within the project area
and could accommodate between 82 and 145 persons (for further discussion see Section 4-11
Population & Housing). While project development would result in an increase in the number
of calls for fire protection services, the Cypress Fire Protection District has indicated that the
proposed development would have a negligible impact on existing service levels, as the overall
area of fire protection services would not be expanded. The project site is located in a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as identified by CalFire. However, Standard Monterey County
conditions of approval would apply. Additionally, CalFire commented that new construction
shall be in compliance with Chapter 7A of the State Building Code. This represents a less-than-
significant impact, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Implementation of the suggested
condition/mitigation identified below would ensure that project-related impacts are reduced to a
less-than-significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation would not result in any
new environmental impact beyond those identified in this Draft EIR.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, Page 4.12-7, the Impact is revised as
follows:

Impact The project would result in an increased demand for educational services.
This would represent a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a
less-than significant level with implementation of the following suggested
condition/mitigation measure.

Under Draft EIR Section 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, Page 4.12-7, the suggested project
condition/Mitigation Measure 4.12-1A is added (per the request of CalFire) as follows:

Add Suggested Condition/Mitigation (per the request of CalFire)

4.12-1A Due to the project sites location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, all
new construction on the project site shall be consistent with Chapter 7A of the
California State Building Code. Abidance with this measure shall be subject to
the review of the Monterey County Planning Department prior to the issuance of
any building permits on the project site.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service System, Page 4.14.-2, under New Information
Available since the Draft EIR, clarify the first and third paragraphs as follows: (Note: this text
also identifies new information available since the RDEIR.

Since the release of the Draft EIR, the MPWMD and the County of Monterey obtained historic
records at the site were located by the applicant and provided to the MPWMD and the County of
Monterey identifying actual historic water use. Additional correspondence from and the
MPWMD was also received after the release of the Draft EIR updated their correspondence on
the propertys water use credit. Specifically, the following actions occurred after the close of the
Draft EIR review period: (1) The applicant located and provided water records for the property
from California American Water for two separate water meters. Previously, only one water meter
had been identified. The second meter is located at a different street address for the property. (2)
In a letter dated August 10, 2009, addressed to Ms. Elizabeth Gonzales, Planner for County of
Monterey Resource Management Agency, District staff concurred with the water demand
estimates for the new project of 6.164 AFY that were submitted by Mr. Edward G. Shagen,

Director of Development for Widewaters. The District also acknowledged that the Carmel
Convalescent Hospital Site has a potential Water Credit of 8.226 acre-feet of water using the
Districts current Non-Residential Water Use Factors.

Additionally, the County of Monterey established that the propertys existing use permit is still
valid. After the close of the review period for the RDEIR, the County also confirmed the project
consistency with Ordinance 3310. As discussed below, a Cease and Desist Order was issued per
State Order 95-10 by the SWRCB.

Documentation of the Water Credits will take place upon verification of permanent abandonment
of use or upon permitting a change in use. At that time, the District will make a final
determination of the Water Credit available. No permanent abandonment of use has yet been
confirmed. Changes in the Water Use Factors between now and the time the project is permitted
could reduce or increase the amount of Water Credits available.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.14.-2, Overview of Water Supply
Constraints and Regulatory Authority, the text is revised as follows:

Regionally, available water supplies and meeting water demand are under close scrutiny.
Currently, the key constraints on available water supplies in the Monterey Peninsula are legal and
relate to SWRCB Order No. WR 95-10, which limits Cal-Ams production from the Carmel
River and underlying alluvial aquifer, and the decision in the Seaside Groundwater Basin
adjudication that limits Cal-Ams production from the coastal subareas of the Seaside Basin.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.14-3, State Water Board Order
WR 2009-0060: The following statement is updated as follows:

The RDEIR reported that tThe CDO is currently being was challenged by the MPWMD and Cal-
Am in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the Court hads stayed implementation of the
CDO pending the result of the lawsuit. On April 22, 2010, the Santa Clara County Superior
Court (Judge Kevin Murphy presiding) ruled to lift the stay on Order WR 2009-0060, the Cease
& Desist Order (CDO), issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in October
2009. The CDO is now in effect and will remain in effect until litigation filed against the
SWRCB by MPWMD, California American Water (Cal-Am) and other parties is resolved by the
court. Note: The full text of the CDO is on the State Water Resources Control Board web site:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2009/wro2009_006
0.pdf. The CDO order for Cal-Am to cease and desist from its unauthorized diversion of water
from the Carmel River in accordance with certain conditions is discussed under Cumulative
conditions in this section.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.14-12, Water Demand, the first
paragraph is amended as follows:

Additionally, provision ofThe RDEIR reported that District Rule 142 Water Efficiency
Standards, as amended by District Rule 142, would apply. However, District Rule 142, Water
Efficiency Standards, was amended by Ordinance No. 141.


Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.14-13, Table 4.14-1, Water
Demand Projections for Housing the Gym; the third footnote is revised as follows:

***Per personal communication with MPWMD staff, the proposed project would not involve a
new connection, thus there would be no inclusion of the projects estimated landscaping water
demand included within the projects application in accordance with Rules and Regulations of the
MPWMD. Additionally, separate water meters would be required for installation for each
residential unit, the gym, and irrigation. The proposed project will require new connections (i.e.
individual (or sub-water meters) for each new User pursuant to Rule 23 B-2 (a). MPWMD will
not assess an additional outdoor water use for the proposed project because outdoor water use is
recognized as a historical lawful use of water on the property.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page R4-14-14, Utilities and Service
Systems, Table 4.14-2, Post Project Demand.

Based upon MPWMD Factors, correct the Gym/Lounge area Commercial use Type water factor
column and result for water use on that line. The total demand does not change, but factor for
gym/lounge square footage should be 4450 square feet x .0007 units/sq ft= 3.115AF.

Systems, MPWMD Water Conservation Programs, add the following sentence at the end of the
paragraph.

MPWMD Ordinance 145 was adopted in September 2010 to amend Rule 24-A-5-a and b to use
the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) as a standard approach to estimate outdoor water
demand related to landscaping.

Systems, Landscaping and Irrigation; the first two paragraphs of this section are revised as follows:

Landscaping and Irrigation

The staff of the MPWMD reviewed the Draft EIR and the water demand calculations for the
project site as shown in Draft EIR Appendix R. The project water demand under Rule 25.5 does
not specify a water demand for outdoor landscaping since the assumption inherent in the Rule is
that landscaping would be within the available water use credit. MPWMD has determined that
the existing landscaping on the site is a lawful use. The District therefore will not assess an
additional outdoor water use for the proposed project because outdoor water use is recognized as
a historical lawful use of water on the property. Rule 25.5 J, states An On-Site Water Credit
resulting from the non-permanent removal of a lawful use that occurred on and after March 1,
1985, may be applied to, and shall allow, the future reuse of that increment of water on that Site.
As stated above, MPWMD considers the existing use on the Site as a lawful use and under the
Districts current rules, will not reassess outdoor water use as long as the existing use is not
permanently abandoned.
3

Therefore there was no estimate of the projects proposed landscaping water demand included
within the projects application to the MPWMD or a demand factor identified in the Draft EIR.

3
Under the Rules of the MPWMD (Rule 25.5), in applying water credit for existing parcels, the District does not
require an additional increment of water for exterior water usage for existing parcels with existing uses; however the
District would require a separate water meter for landscaping irrigation purposes.

However, a, Based upon the MPWMD Rule, the propertys landscape use is not subject to further
restrictions or limitations by the District. For CEQA purposes, and in response to comment
letters on the Draft and RDEIR, the County requested the EIR include information regarding the
existing water use for landscaping, and the estimated water demand for landscaping under the
project. number of comments were received on the Draft EIR that These comments requested the
acreage for landscape/outdoor use be estimated and considered as future water demand. The
following addresses these comments and estimates outdoor/landscape water use for the project;
the methodology uses available water factors and the adopted approach from the MPWMD
Model Ordinance including Estimated Total Water Use or ETWU. This approach is based
upon the area of landscaping and the types of plant material used in the landscaping (as
determined by Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) classifications). The
sum of the ETWU calculated for all hydrozones shall not exceed MAWA.

Strict application of the MPWMD Rules provides for a total water demand of the proposed
project of 6.154 AF/Y for indoor use exclusive of an amount projected for outdoor use for
landscaping. Rule 25.5 MPWMD does not assess an additional outdoor water use for the
proposed project because outdoor water use is recognized as a historical lawful use of water on
the property (Rule 25.5 J, On-Site Water Credit). In review of the project plans, new areas of
irrigated landscaping is proposed for a portion of the 1.58 acres of open space and common area
throughout the site. Conceptual landscaping plans do not provide the square footage of common
area requiring irrigation. In order to provide a basis for assumptions for water demand for
landscaping, it is estimated that The RDEIR used the Maximum Applied Water Allowance
(MAWA) formula as listed in the MPWMD Water Budget Requirements and provided the
formula for landscaped area. Approximately 0.68 acres (30,000 67,000 square feet) of the
common area would be landscaped based on engineering maps and more specific information on
planting areas (See Appendix D for information on landscape area and water calculations for
water demand).
4

In order to calculate the maximum allowable outdoor water use for a proposed project, MPWMD
uses a standard formula, the Model Water Efficient Landscape formula, of the Water
Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990, which was amended by the Department of Water
Resources in Assembly Bill 1881. This Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) formula
is listed in the MPWMD Water Budget Requirements and uses a formula for landscaped area,
evapotranspiration based upon geographic areas and common conversion factors.
5
MPWMD

4
The previous acreage for new landscaped irrigated area was estimated in the RDEIR to be .68 acres based upon
information from the project architects during the RDEIR process (personal communication, Warner Group, 2010).
The acreage was then applied to the MAWA formula using water factors accepted by the MPWMD. The acreage
has been increased in the Final EIR(See Final EIR, Appendix D) to 67,00 square feet. This includes all proposed
planting areas and an average of 15 feet beyond the property line along Highway 1, intended for screening purpose.
Of this amount, 24,825 square feet of landscaping is dedicated to screening the buildings from Highway 1 and along
Valley Way. Approximately 42,181 square feet of landscaping is proposed for the interior of the project. This
number is based on square footage calculations measured by computer off the Landscape Plans, and confirmed by
review of the areas by GIS from the EIR consultant. Documentation submitted to the County from Earthforms,
Landscape Architects, is included in Appendix D of this Final EIR.

5
The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) formula is expressed as MAWA = ETo x ETadj x LA x 0.62,
where Eto= evapotranspiration rate; ETadj= evapotranspiration adjustment factor (0.7); LA= landscaped area in
square feet and 0.62= conversion factor. The resulting figure of this equation is in gallons per year, which in order
to be converted into acre-feet per year must be divided by 325,851. Evapotranspiration zones are defined by the
Department of Water Resources and local agencies, such as MPWMD, in order to estimate evaporation and

Ordinance 145 adopted in 2010, which amends Rule 24-A-5-a and b to use the Estimated Total
Water Use (ETWU) as the appropriate outdoor water demand estimate. Per Ordinance 145, the
ETWU is a more accurate reflection of water use and is required under the State Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance or MAWA. In this case, calculations for applied exterior water
under the ETWU are based upon an estimated 0.68 acres (30,000 square feet) of landscaped area
(LA) of the total 1.58 acres (68,825 area of 67,000 square feet open space of the project site.
The ETWU under MAWA for sustaining 0.68 67,000 square feet acres of irrigated landscaped
area pursuant to the Model Water Efficient Landscape formula would be 1.32 1.74 AF/Y.
6
Under
this approach, the proposed project will be using less water compared to the 8.226 AF/Y defined
baseline conditions for this project.
7

As noted earlier, per existing regulations within the MPWMD and the County, new and
rehabilitative developments are required to implement water conservation measures consistent
with local ordinances and regulations for landscaping, including compliance with MPWMD
Regulation XIV and Rule 142 Water Efficiency Standards, as amended by Rule 141. Mitigation
measures have been identified in this Recirculated Draft EIR to address landscaping irrigation,
including the requirement for drought tolerant landscaping.

Consistent with ETWU, the estimated landscaping water use calculations for the project are based
on the specific landscape hydrozones developed for the project. Additionally, the plant palette for
the site was revised to achieve greater use of drought tolerant plants and remove certain plants
depending on water use. The revised plant list is included in Appendix D of this document. The
size, location and massing of the plants remains the same, but more drought tolerant species have
replaced moderate water using plants.

However, applying The requirements for drought tolerant landscaping vegetation and water
conserving methods for irrigation, as would be required by mitigation proposed as well as by
State of California and MPWMD provisions for model water efficient landscaping, would result
in a reduction in outdoor water use for the project site would occur, reducing water usage for
landscaping purposes to (1.74 AF/Y). As shown in Table 4.14-2, above, based upon identifies
the detailed breakdown of the number and type of water fixtures for the proposed project, the
District staff confirmed an interior water demand 6.164 AF. and Adding the landscaping estimate
for outdoor water use (1.74 AFY) results in a total of 7.894 AF/Y. The landscaping demand with
the interior water demand (6.164 AF) would be less than the MPWMD assigned water credit of

transpiration rates in locations around the state. The Villas de Carmelo project site is located in ETo Zone 1, which
has an average annual ETo of 33.

6
The RDEIR identified water use under the MAWA formula. ETWU or Estimated Total Water Use is determined
based upon the area of Landscaping and the types of plant material used in the Landscaping (as determined by Water
Use Classification of Landscape Species classifications. (MPWMD Ordinance No. 145, September 20, 2010).The
calculations under ETWU are included in Appendix D of this Final EIR.

The Estimated Total Water Use is calculated using the equation for ETWU, where: ETWU = Estimated Total Water
Use per year (gallons); ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration (inches); PF = Plant Factor from WUCOLS; HA =
Hydrozone Area [high, medium, and low water use areas] in square feet; SLA = Special Landscape Area (in square
feet); 0.62 = Conversion Factor and IE = Irrigation Efficiency (minimum 0.71). The ETWU provides the estimated
total water use calculated using hydrozones or planting areas. The sum of the ETWU calculated for all hydrozones
shall not exceed MAWA. This results in 1.74 AF/Y landscape water demand based upon the formula above.


8.226 AF for the site
7
. Therefore, the proposed project will be using less water compared to the
8.226 AF/Y defined baseline conditions for this project. Based upon water use for landscaping
area per the assumptions provided above, and the MPWMD potable interior use demand, the
project does not exceed available water supply based upon District Rule 25.5 for the documented
historical commercial uses of the subject property.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page R4.14-20, Application and
Consistency with Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (Municipal Code 18.46) and Consistency with
Monterey County Municipal Code 18.46 Regulations (Ordinance 3310) are revised as follows:

Application and Consistency with Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (Municipal Code 18.46)

Under Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (Municipal Code 18.46), new subdivisions must provide for a
10% reduction in water demand from uses at the time the ordinance took effect. Application of the
required reduction in water demand per County Ordinance is shown in Table 4.14-5. As the ordinance
took effect during the time the hospital was in operation, the following table identifies historical average
use based upon actual Cal-Am metered records. (Note: Table 4.14-5 also evaluates whether the project
would meet a 10% reduction if MPWMD water use credit of 8.226 AF/Y were applied and demand for
irrigation were added.) Before the County received the historical data, 8.226 from the Alternative
Approach, was the only figure available to apply Chapter 18.46 (Ordinance 3310). Since the retrieval of
"historical" water use data, the 10% reduction is not measured against the baseline 8.226 AF/Y figure
provided by the MPWMD. Using the lowest, single year, "historical" value (12.65 AF) and applying the
requirement to reduce water by 10% from the time Chapter 18.46 (Ordinance 3310) became effective
(1988), the project complies with Chapter 18.46 if the project demonstrates water use less than 11.385
AF/Y (12.65 - 1.265). The table below demonstrates compliance. Also, refer to Final EIR, Appendix D,
which includes a memorandum from Monterey County regarding consistency determination for the
project for this Ordinance.

7
Under this drought tolerant planting assumption and applying the total water interior water demand for the project
of 6.154 AF/Y with the 1.74 AF/Y landscape water demand based upon the formula above, would result in 7.894
AF/Y total water demand for the project.

Table 4.14-5
Consistency with Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (County Municipal Code 18.46)

Acre-feet/Year
(AF/Y)
Historical Use Based Upon Cal-Am Records Per Ordinance
Using Four Year Average Lowest Recorded Year (2001-2005) 12.65 13.68 AF/Y
Inclusion of Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (13.6812.65 AF/Y -10%)* 1.265 1.368 AF/Y
Residual available to meet project demand 11.385 12.312 AF/Y
Historical Use Based Upon Rule 25.5 (Alternative Approach)**
MPWMD Rules and Factors 8.226 AF/Y
Inclusion of Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (8.226-10%) 0.8226 AF/Y
Residual available to meet project demand 7.4034 8.226 AF/Y
The proposed project would be considered consistent with the Monterey County
Municipal Code 18.46 Regulations (Ordinance 3310).
* Per requirements of Chapter 18.46 of Title 18 Monterey County Buildings & Construction Code.
** Using the water use credit of 8.226 AF/Y as an alternative base number and the projected demand of 6.154 AF/Y, there
is 1.249 AF/Y unused credits with application of Ordinance 3310 10% reduction (7.4034-6.154=1.294). Irrigation demand
is projected to be approximately 1.00AF/Y. Therefore, project meets Requirements of Chapter 18.46: under both historical
and MPWMD conditions, and allows for use of applied water for landscaping, as shown above. The 6.154 water demand
does not include irrigation. Therefore, The project is consistent with requirements of Chapter 18.46 under both historical
and MPWMD conditions. As the ordinance took effect during the time the hospital was in operation, the table identifies
historical average use based upon actual Cal-Am metered records as the appropriate method for consistency with this
County ordinance.

Consistency with Monterey County Municipal Code 18.46 Regulations (Ordinance 3310): The
applicant will be required to comply with Monterey County Municipal Code 18.46 Regulations
(Ordinance 3310) as part of the conditions of approval for the project; these regulations require
demonstration to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that water conservation measures proposed on
or off the affected building site will, in combination with the project for which approval is sought, result
in a minimum of 10% overall decrease in the use of water. As identified above in Table 4.14-5, and
FEIR Appendix D, the project is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.46.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page R4.14-23, Impact section is revised
as follows:

Impact The proposed project would use approximately 6.154 AF/Y of water from the existing
water supply system for indoor fixtures without outdoor landscaping use and 7.154
7.894AF/Y to account for water for irrigation needs. The proposed project will be using
less water compared to defined baseline conditions for this project (8.226 AF/Y).
Therefore, there will be a decrease in water demand in comparison to baseline conditions.
The project would not exceed available water credits based upon previous documented
use of water on the subject property, as there has been historic use on the project site and
based upon MPWMD rules and regulations and the proposed project would use less than
the historic allowed use for the project site. Significance After Mitigation: Less than
Significant.


Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Pages R4.14-23 through R4.14-24,
Mitigation Measures 4.14-1 through 4.14-4 are revised as follows:

Mitigation

4.14-1 All residential units shall be equipped with High Efficiency Toilets and High Efficiency
appliances including high efficiency washing machines, dishwashers, toilets and recirculating hot
water heaters. All toilets installed in the Project shall meet the requirements of the U.S. EP.A.'s
WaterSense Tank-Type High Efficiency Toilet Specification. All clothes washing machines shall
meet the requirements of the U.S. EPA for high efficiency devices. A final review of the demand
projection by the MPWMD shall be required prior to building permit approval. Each water
permit application shall be conditioned to comply with MPWMDs water conservation
requirements for new construction, the proposed low water consumption features, and shall be
subject to the rules in effect at the time a complete Water Release and Water Permit application is
received. Prior to filing the final map, applicant shall submit CC&Rs for review and approval of
the Director of Planning which prohibit water intensive uses, including but not limited to
ornamental fountains that do not recirculate water, washing of hard surfaces such as streets,
gutter, sidewalks and driveways within any portion of proposed site.

4.14-2 The project applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Monterey County Planning
Department and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency that the water credit to serve the
proposed project is available for the site through the MPWMD and that the available water credit
under Rule 25.5 has been obtained for the property. Documentation of the water use credits to be
applied to the site will also require verification by the MPWMD of permanent abandonment of
use and final determination of the water use credit for the site. Evidence shall include written
verification from the MPWMD that of 8.226 AFY of water use credit is available and a letter
from the MPWMD District Manager that the water credit is consistent with previous use of the
Carmel Convalescent Hospital as applied under Rule 25.5 and that the application of the water
credit would not impact the Monterey County Water Allocation. The District advises that
documentation of the Water Credits will take place upon verification of permanent abandonment
of use or upon permitting a change in use. At that time, the District will make a final
determination of the Water Credit available. No permanent abandonment of use has yet been
confirmed. Changes in the Water Use Factors between now and the time the project is permitted

4.14-3 The project applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Monterey County Planning
Department and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency shall ensure compliance with that
water use on the site reduces the water demand on the site in comparison with historic use of the
Carmel Convalescent Hospital by 10% in accordance with Monterey County Ordinance 3310
(Code 18.46) requirements. Evidence of compliance shall be provided to the Monterey County
Planning Director and Monterey County Water Resources Agency Director for review and
approval prior to recordation of the proposed projects final map.

4.14-4 The Monterey County Planning Department and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency
shall confirm their independent review of the water meter records provided by the applicant. This
information may then be used to satisfy Mitigation Measure 4.14-3, above.


Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Pages R4.14-24 through R4.14-25,
Impacts and Mitigation Measure 4.14-5 through 4.15-7 are revised as follows:

Impact The project proposes to use 7.894 AF/Y from the Cal-Am system which draws water
from the Carmel River System. The resumption of water use would result in more water
drawn from the Carmel River System since the convalescent hospital closure. This would
represent a less-than-significant impact that is further reduced with application of
existing rules and regulations of the MPWMD, Monterey County Code as identified
above, and the implementation of the following mitigation measures.

Mitigation

4.14-5 The project site shall be restricted to water demand of 7.894 AF/Y (6.154 AF/Y for market-rate
lots, inclusionary, and workforce units, as well as for interior uses and 1.74 AF/Y for landscaping
and irrigation requirements; therefore, the total project demand should not exceed for a total of
7.154 7.894 AF/Y). Prior to filing the final map (or if filed in phases, each final map), the
applicant shall submit a Water Use Plan showing the proposed total fixture unit count based upon
the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Residential and/or Commercial Water
Release Form. The plan shall be submitted to the Water Resources Agency and the Director of
Planning for review and approval. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall also submit a
complete Landscape Documentation Package to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District for review and approval.

4.14-6 Prior to final map approval of the site, a quarterly water use report shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning. If any report demonstrates that actual water use for the entire subdivision is
within 10% of the maximum entitlement, the Director of Planning shall submit the final map for
any subsequent phase to the Board of Supervisors for a discretionary determination as to whether
water supply is adequate for that phase. The Board may deny the final map for that phase, limit
the number of units approved, limit total fixture counts for the phase or for individual buildings
and/or permits and/or take other measures as appropriate based upon their review of the Water
Use Plan and quarterly reports to ensure that the total use over the entire subdivision does not
exceed 7.894 acre feet per year. After project completion of all final map filings, Aan annual
water use report shall be submitted to the Water Resources Agency and Director of the Planning.
If any report demonstrates that actual water use for the entire subdivision is within 10% of the
maximum allowance, the applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the allowable water
credits through development of further conservation measures including, grey water reuse for
landscaping as needed. Reports shall show total water usage (total of the project master meter
including all on-site sub-meters) from data that will be made available from Cal-Am with
permission from the property owner. In the case where water usage may come within 10% of the
total annual water allotment, a water usage audit will be performed by a third party to identify
methods for water use reduction to ensure no exceedance. Measures will be taken accordingly to
the audits recommendations. Further conservation measures may include mandatory grey water
reuse for landscaping, elimination of interior landscaping water use or other conservation
measures to ensure compliance with the water limit.

4.14-7 The project site will maintain its water credits onsite and will not be allowed to reuse any residual
credit under MPWMD Rule 28.8. A deed restriction recorded on the site shall be filed with the
Monterey County Recorder at the time of issuance of the water credit under Rule 25.5 and
permanent abandonment of use of the convalescent hospital on the site. The project will be
required to have a master meter and each unit shall be required to have individual water use sub-
meters installed. Dedicated sub-meters will also be used for landscaping and the gymnasium. In

addition to the measures identified in Mitigation 4.14-6, a homeowners association, or some
other similar responsible entity, shall regularly monitor individual meters and serve as additional
monitoring and enforcement to ensure the project does not exceed the overall water limit.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page R4.14-33, Utilities and Service
Systems, Updates to Water Supply Projects is revised as follows:

Since the circulation of the Draft EIR, the CWP EIR was certified by In December 2009, the
CPUC certified an EIR for the Coastal Water Project that evaluated numerous alternatives for
meeting the water supply needs of the region. In December 2010, the CPUC and MCWD
approved with athe Monterey Bay Regional Water Desalination Project Alternative (Regional
Desalination Project). The Regional Desalination Project is a new water supply project that will
replace existing supplies that are constrained by Order 95-10 and the Monterey County Superior
Court adjudication of water rights in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. In addition, the Regional
Desalination Project will assist Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) in meeting their long-term
obligations to supply potable water for approved redevelopment of the former Fort Ord area. The
Regional Desalination Project will extract seawater and potentially brackish water, produce
desalinated water, convey it to the existing MCWD and CAW distribution systems, and increase
the systems use of storage capacity in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Regional
Desalination Project will consist of several distinct components: Brackish Source Water Wells
and Brackish Source Water Pipelines; a Desalination Plant; brine disposal Outfall Facilities;
Product Water Pipelines, storage facilities, and an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system.
that included the following components:

The Regional Desalination Project is one component of Aa collection of projects components that
would comprised Phase One of the Monterey Regional Water Project Supply Program evaluated
in the Coastal Water Project EIR. Specifically, phase Phase Oone would be composed of also
included the following:

Enhanced conservation measures and improved inspection and maintenance of
water mains to reduce current leakage., a 300 AF/Y Sand City desalination
facility, the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project, Seaside Basin Aquifer
Storage and Recovery, and a regional desalination facility potentially powered by
renewable energy from the adjacent landfill.

An existing The 300 AF/Y Sand City desalination plant that is owned by the
City of Sand City and will be operated by Cal-Am for the first 15 years and will
provide water to address the Carmel River overdraft and Seaside Basin
adjudication.

The 1,000 AF/Y, non-potable Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project:
Recycled Water Project, a joint effort of MCWD and the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), will provide 1,000 AF of recycled
water annually for non-potable uses to urban users at Fort Ord from the Agency's
tertiary treatment plant.

The MPWMDs and CAWs Seaside Groundwater Basin ASR project, which
stores excess winter flows from the Carmel River and the Carmel Valley aquifer
for use in peak demand periods, will provide an average of 920 AF/Y and will be
expanded to provide an additional 380 AF/Y on average.


The regional desalination facility, a joint effort of the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency, MCWD, and the MRWPCA, will use six brackish water
wells along Highway 1 to annually produce up to 10,900 AF of treated, potable
water and safely dispose of brine using the existing pollution control agency
outfall.

Under RDEIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.14-35, add the following
paragraph after the last paragraph of Effect of CDO Against Cal-Am:

Since publication of the RDEIR, the SWRCB issued a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) ordering
Cal-Am to cease and desist from its unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in
accordance with certain conditions. The CDO requires that Cal-Am: (a) must fully reduce its
unlawful diversions from the Carmel River by the year 2016; (b) may not set water meters for
new construction or remodels that intensify use; and (c) must not divert more than 10,429 acre-
feet per year (AFY) from the Carmel River in Water Year 2010, defined as October 1, 2009
through September 30, 2010. This amount is about 856 acre-feet, or 7.6%, less than Cal-Am was
allowed to pump from the river in water year 2009. This pumping limit will become smaller in
successive future years. The CDO also requires Cal-Am to work on smaller water supply projects
that can be implemented in the near-term.
8
Cal-Am also filed an amended petition to the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize Cal-Am to refuse to connect new
customers in its Monterey District Main System, and to institute a moratorium on new or
expanded water service connections (except for certain specified situations).

MPWMD staff processes and issues Water Permits to projects that utilize water credits and has
indicated they will do so that until directed otherwise.
9
The conditions of the CDO do not restrict
Cal-Ams supply of water for the convalescent hospital should this use resume on the project site.
The CDO does not restrict Cal-Ams supply of water to the project site given the sites existing
service connection and the projects reduction in water use. However, metering each unit will be
required to ensure the water use is under the baseline established; water metering is cited by the
State in the CDO (Footnote 47 of CDO).

Under RDEIR Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations, Page R5-1, add the following Introduction to the
section at the top of the page:

Introduction

It is important to note that in order to address the question of growth inducing or cumulative in
direct impacts, the EIR addresses the likelihood of indirect impacts from a number of other
properties in the LUP being developed at HDR (as was expressed by public comments on the
Draft and RDEIR). The EIR concludes that there are few if any parcels identified with the
specific characteristics of the project site and there is a low likelihood of the property owners of
those parcels requesting development at a higher density based upon the factors discussed in this
Final EIR. It should be noted that this is not an argument over whether there is one parcel in the
area or two with similar characteristics to the proposed project, but a valid and good faith attempt
in the EIR to address the concerns over potential growth inducing impacts and cumulative
impacts due to the presumed precedent setting approval of a HDR density in this Planning Area.
CEQA limits the discussion of impacts to direct and indirect physical impacts of a project and if

8

9

the project has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Cumulative analysis
generally evaluates the incremental effect of the project on the environment when considered in
conjunction with closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

It should be noted that the draft Land Use Plan amendment and approval of HDR designation
does not involve any other specific property at this time but the proposed project. As noted above
and in the RDEIR and Final EIR, a good faith effort was made to review properties for potential
direct and indirect impacts resulting from the project including potential for growth inducement
and cumulative impacts of the whole of the project, including the proposed land use plan
amendment creating a HDR designation for the Carmel Area Plan. In conducting analysis, the
EIR addressed potential for growth to occur as a result of the land use plan amendment. The EIR
consultant and County reviewed the Carmel Planning area to determine the likelihood of
foreseeable other properties that would have a likelihood of development at HDR zoning due to
the introduction of a new zoning designation. This review was conducted in order to address a
number of public comments received that the project would remove an obstacle that would induce
growth (and was therefore growth inducing). The concern was also raised that this project would
create a significant cumulative impact from the future foreseeable projects that would develop
under HDR zoning.

The review of properties did not find reasonably foreseeable projects, per the discussion above.
A number of commenters disagreed with both the conclusions in the EIR regarding the results of
the review. Commenters also argued against the language in the EIR that there were no
properties found with the specific characteristics of the proposed project for HDR. A number of
comments identified specific properties that they felt had the same characteristics or would be
subject to pressures to amend their designation to HDR. While these properties were addressed in
the FEIR Responses to Comments, the conclusion reached after review of suggested properties
was similar to the Draft and RDEIR. The review did not uncover specific parcels that with the
same characteristics as the proposed project site that could be considered a foreseeable project.

While doing the analysis of the potential future effects of implementing the Land Use Plan
amendment and potential for growth inducement or cumulative impacts necessarily involves
some degree of forecasting, identifying specific examples of what could happen as a result of a
plan amendment, or development proposal is too speculative at this time. As noted in the EIR,
any future land use plan amendment or proposed project will be subject to an environmental
analysis to be conducted at the time a specific amendment or project is defined. Implementation
of the LUP policies and the HDR designation, which is limiting in the applicability of the HDR
zoning, would provide mitigation at this plan amendment level. Appendix C of this Final
EIR includes also includes excerpts from the Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497) Staff Report to the
Planning Commission, dated May 25, 2011. Staff recommended LUP modifications further limit
the application of the HDR designation.

Without information about the specific project, it would be speculative to identify impacts in the
Draft EIR of specific properties or future unknown projects. The analysis in the RDEIR includes
a reasonable projection of future trends, without being overly speculative or prescriptive.

Under RDEIR Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations, Page R-5-11, under the heading, Coastal Act
Section 30251, revise the text as follows:

Potentially Inconsistent: Amending the LUP/CIP to create a new land use designation would not
directly conflict with this policy. While future HDR uses could affect the existing visual

character of the surrounding area, the impacts of future developments can only be analyzed at the
time of a formal application submittal since aesthetic impacts are highly contingent upon site-
specific factors and project-design. In addition, any future development within the Carmel Area
LUP would be required to comply with the Coastal Act and would be subject to a coastal
consistency analysis. The proposed amendments, for the purposes of this analysis, are therefore
considered consistent with this policy. The physical elements of the proposed project, however,
are considered potentially inconsistent with this policy. As a result, the project is considered to
be inconsistent with Section 30251. As identified in the Draft EIR, the physical development of
the proposed project would result in significant aesthetic-related impacts. The physical
development of the project site would result in a significant impact to a scenic resource within the
Carmel Area LUP and therefore is considered potentially inconsistent with this policy. In order
to ensure that the visual effects of the proposed project are minimized, project-specific mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the Draft EIR; please refer to Mitigation Measures 4.1-1
through 4.1-7 as amended. These mitigations will ensure that adequate landscaping and
replacement trees are incorporated into the project design and that visual impacts are minimized
to the extent feasible. The proposed project, however, is located in an area that is considered
visually sensitive and the Draft EIR identified a significant impact that cannot be reduced to a
less-than-significant level with the project plan proposed. The physical elements of the project,
as proposed, are inconsistent with the requirements of this policy. The selection of a project
alternative that minimizes impacts to the scenic nature of the Highway 1 corridor would be
consistent with this policy.

Under RDEIR Section 5.1, CEQA Considerations, Page R5-20, revise the following impact and
mitigation measure for Cumulative Impacts as follows:

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project would result in the establishment of a new land use
designation, High-Density Residential (HDR), within the Carmel Area LUP
that would allow a maximum density of 20 12.5 units/acre. This would
represent the first instance of HDR development within planning area and
may result in future applicants applying for HDR development. As a result,
the projects land use elements have the potential to indirectly induce
growth by amending a land use plan to allow higher intensity uses than
proposed under the project and than previously planned for the area. In
order to minimize the extent of this impact it is recommended that the following
mitigation measure be adopted to ensure that the relatively insignificant
growth-inducing impacts are further minimized to an acceptable level.

Cumulative Mitigation

5.1-1 In order to ensure that future high-density residential development does not exceed the density
standards associated with the Villas de Carmelo project, the final LUP/CIP amendment language
shall be revised to lLimit maximum allowable density to 12.5 units/acre. To ensure compliance
with this mitigation, the following limitations shall be included in the final amendment language
prior to project approval: Maximum allowable density in the HDR District shall be limited to
12.5 units/acre. High-density residential uses shall not be permitted where such uses would
increase water use beyond historical documented use levels, cause existing services to exceed
applicable level of service standards, cause service providers to fail to meet existing peak
demand, require the expansion of public facilities such that significant growth-inducing impacts
would occur, or in such instances where said uses would significantly and permanently alter the
existing character of an area due to increase levels of noise, traffic, and air quality impacts that

cannot reasonably be mitigated through the environmental review process or standard conditions
of approval.

RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, on Page R6-5, under the heading Description - No
Project/Existing Building Use Alternative (1B), revise as follows:

Description - No Project/Existing Building Use Alternative (1B)

As previously stated, another No Project Alternative scenario could also consider the restoration
of the project site in order to provide use as a convalescent hospital under the existing
entitlements. With the No Project/Existing Building Use Alternative (hereafter referred to as
Alternative 1B), the physical conditions of the project site, including the existing surface parking
areas adjacent to the existing buildings, would remain as they are today. The property buildings
currently in use (previous Nurses Facility) would continue their existing use, and the buildings
used for the convalescent hospital would be restored to function as a convalescent hospital. It is
assumed that the existing surface parking would remain unchanged. Additionally, the road access
from Highway 1 would remain open. No demolition activities would occur on the project site,
and no permitting or project approval would occur in order to change the use designation of the
project site. Therefore, conditions such as the project sites existing water allocation and
potential for traffic impacts are considered to be valid for consideration of Alternative 1B. As
such, the potential impacts of the operation of the hospital would be those that were originally
approved for use of the project site, including historic trip generation rates, such as 306 daily trips
as described in Section 4.13 Traffic and Circulation. Between 2001 and 2005, the water use
ranged from 12.65 AF in 2002 to 14.67 AF in 2004, which averages to 13.688 AF/Y over the five
year period. Therefore, it is assumed that and historic water usage of 8.226 of up to averaging
13.688 AF/Y based upon historic meter records could occur, MPWMD Rule 25.5 as described in
Section 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems. Traffic and water impacts as described above in
Alternative 1B would be greater in comparison to the proposed project.

RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, on Page R6-5, under Impacts for the No Project/Existing Building
Use Alternative (1B), revise as follows:

Cultural Resources. Alternative 1B would reuse existing buildings on the project site, resulting
in less, if any, potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources comparable to the
proposed project. The reuse of the hospital buildings comprising the historic resource would
follow all preservation requirements as necessitated as a listed historic resource. Therefore, the
potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than similar to those of the proposed project.

Public Services & Utilities. The project sites existing water use credit, which has not been used
since the previous convalescent hospitals closure, would be accessed for the hospitals reuse.
Therefore, Alternative 1B could result in a similar greater demand for water as the proposed
project based upon the average 13.688 AF/Y of water use in the meter records. As there would
be no additional development, resulting in a smaller footprint on the project site, it is likely that
overall other public services and utilities impacts, besides water use, would be less than those of
the proposed project.

Traffic. Alternative 1B would reintroduce non-residential traffic into an existing residential
neighborhood with the reuse of the convalescent hospital, as described in Recirculated Draft EIR
Section 4.13 Traffic and Circulation, which results in an impact of a lesser greater extent than
that of the proposed project. Historic uses and trip generation rates based upon Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7
th
Edition, 2003, identify 306-413 daily trips

compared to the proposed project 269 daily trips. It is assumed that the access to Highway 1
from the project site would remain open, with continued conflicts and safety issues. as there
would be no additional permits needed to reuse the existing buildings under the existing use
permits.

RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, on Page R6-7 and 8, under the heading Full Buildout Visitor-
Serving Alternative (Alternative 2A), Impacts, revise as follows:

Cultural Resources. Alternative 2A would involve development on the majority of the site,
resulting in potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources comparable to the
proposed project. The impacts to cultural resources, including the historical resource on site,
generally wcould be equal to those of the proposed project under the assumption that the historic
structure is rehabilitated with development of the site for visitor-serving facilities.

Land Use. Development of an alternative land use, such as visitor-serving commercial, would be
inconsistent with the allowable land uses for the site, and it would be foreseeable that a similar
LCP Amendment, as required for the proposed project, would be necessary to accommodate
future development as envisioned in this alternative. Land use impacts of compatibility with
existing residential area would be greater as compared to the proposed project. Additionally,
installation of However, visitor-serving facilities on the project site would meet California
Coastal Commission goals of expanding visitor-serving facilities within the coastal zone.

RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, on Page R6-11, under the heading Existing Zoning Alternative
(3), Description, delete the last sentence of the first paragraph and revise as follows:

The Existing Zoning Alternative (hereafter referred to as Alternative 3) consists of developing the
project site with residential uses as proposed, but under the existing zoning for the site of MDR/2.
As such, Alternative 3 would result in the construction of 7 single-family residences consistent
with the current land use plan and zoning designation for the project site. Alternative 3 assumes
that the residential lots would be created through a subdivision with the majority of the new lots
developed along Valley Way and the remainder within the interior of the project site. No
structures are assumed to be located immediately adjacent to the project sites boundary with the
Highway 1 corridor. Building mass and design for residential structures is unknown; however,
the residential homes are assumed to have a scale and mass similar to the larger homes in the
project vicinity with similar lot sizes to houses on Valley Way. small lots. As a component of
Alternative 3, 4 units would be designated as market rate units, 1 unit would be designated as an
affordable to moderate-income unit, 1 unit would be designated as a low-income unit, and 1 unit
would be designated as a very low-income unit, per Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. This alternative would be required to comply with Monterey Countys Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance. It is assumed that this would be through payment of an in-lieu fee per the
requirements of the ordinance.

RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, on Page R6-13, under the heading 6.4.4, Applicants Modified
Design Alternative (4), revise as follows:

Description

As proposed by the project applicant, the Modified Design Alternative for the Villas de Carmelo
Project (hereafter referred to as Alternative 4) would consist of the development of 46 units with
the same designation of affordable moderate income, workforce, and of market rate housing. as
proposed under the project, however,


The project layout would change to avoid impacts to scenic resources on Highway 1.
Specifically, Alternative 4 consists of modifying the project design to relocate Units 5-8 and 12-
13 from the southeast corner of the project site along Highway 1 to a building located in the
northeast portion of the site, along Highway 1 in the area proposed under the existing site plan for
Units 1-4. The new two-story structure would be approximately 35 not exceed 28 feet above
average grade high and would be approximately 120 125 feet in length and 50 feet deep. A site
plans and elevations for the Modified Design Project are is included within Appendix N of the
Draft EIR.

The applicants purpose in proposing this alternative design is to avoid the significant impacts of
the project on aesthetics from the development of the building housing Units 5-8, as this building
in the proposed project would be the most visible structure from Highway 1. The proposed
location for Units 5-8 and 12-13 in the proposed project would be replaced with a parking area
and additional landscaping in Alternative 4.

Further, this alternative consists of adapting the storm water detention facility and providing
additional piping to allow recycled water use for irrigation purposes, thus decreasing the need for
potable water for irrigation on site by an estimated 0.173 AF/Y. This alternative also includes the
use of water cisterns to collect gray storm water for localized irrigation purpose. For further
discussion on the gray storm water irrigation proposal, please refer to Recirculated Draft EIR
Appendix X.

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Pages R6-15, above the heading Impacts, delete the last
sentence regarding affordable housing for the alternative and replace with:

This applicant proposes no changes in the proposed affordable housing under Alternative 4.

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Pages R6-16, under the heading Impacts, the text is
revised as follows for the Applicants Modified Design Alternative (4):

Impacts

Aesthetics. Alternative 4 would avoid the projects significant impact upon a scenic resource by
removing two buildings: 1) one 28-foot high, approximately 45 x 100 foot building containing
Units 5-8, located on the southeast border of the project and fronting on Highway 1; and 2) one
28-foot high, approximately 3,000 square foot building containing Units 12 and 13. The area
would then be used for parking and landscaping in the Alternative 4 design. The units would be
housed in a building located to the north along Highway 1. In the proposed project, the design
included a gap between Units 1-4 and Units 5-8. In that area, there was a proposed portico/roof
overhang structure between the two buildings with pavement and landscaping underneath this
overhand (per elevations provided in Draft EIR Appendix B, North and West Elevations Units 1-
8). The alternate design removes the 110 foot long building previously housing Units 5-8 as well
as the portico/roof structure previously connecting the two buildings. The modified design in
Alternative 4 utilizes the footprint of Units 1-4 and expands the previous footprint of the building
by approximately 25 feet to the south and then eliminates the buildings previously housing Units
5-8 and Units 12-13 entirely. Additionally, garages of the original Units 1-4 were eliminated in
the Alternate design. By eliminating two buildings within the viewshed of Highway 1.

Alternative 4 would avoid the unmitigable aesthetic project impacts on a scenic resource;
therefore, the impacts of this alternative on aesthetics would be less than those of the proposed

project. Additionally, all project mitigation would be applicable to this project regarding
viewshed and tree protection. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 proposes a height limit to ensure height
for new structures is limited to a maximum height of 28 feet for all new structures along the
Highway 1 border with the parcel. This mitigation requires height restrictions be incorporated
into final design and construction plans. Additional mitigation language per Mitigation Measure
4.1-3 requires architectural design features to reduce massing and enforcement of height
restrictions and design requirements. In order to minimize impacts, the landscaping plan details
required by Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 ensures that mature vegetation will be planted along the
Highway 1 corridor, which would provide for an immediate natural screen for the new
development. In comparison to the proposed project, there is 6.05 AF/Y of interior water demand
for the alternative plan (5.736 AF for the units and .3115 AF for the Public space and gym),
compared to 6.154 for the proposed project. The interior water use for Alternative 4 does not
account for landscaping. Assuming similar assumptions for newly planted irrigated acreage, and
landscaping demand of 1.74 AF/Y, the total water demand for Alternative 4 is (6.05 + 1.74) =
7.79. This number is further reduced in Alternative 4 by the stormwater reuse (7.79-0.173) for a
total of 7.62AF/Y for Alternative 4 compared to 7.894 AF/Y for the proposed project.
10

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Pages R6-17, under the heading Impacts, the text is revised
as follows for the Applicants Modified Design Alternative 4:

Noise. Alternative 4 would result in the similar construction and operational noise sources
associated with the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts generally would be comparable to the
project since traffic generated under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project.
The noise impacts of Alternative 4 generally would equal to those of the proposed project. Noise
exposure is addressed through measures recommended by Brown Buntin Associates (BBA) for
the project and in mitigation in this EIR. On pages 4.10-3 and 4.10-10 of the Draft EIR Section
4.10, Noise, discussion based on the Acoustical Analysis determined that the annual average
traffic noise exposure at the proposed residential building locations ranged from less than 60 dB
CNEL to 73.3 dB CNEL. The text also notes the range in noise levels was attributed to existing
buildings and current terrain that provided noise shielding for portions of the project site,
identifying the existing structures and terrain of the project site as existing noise buffers. In
addition, BBA addressed a noise analysis for the Applicants Modified Design Alternative 4.
(See FEIR Appendix E, BBA letter dated May 18, 2009 for the alternative analysis on file with
Monterey County Planning Department). BBA stated the alternate plan allows for an unshielded
exposure of portions of Units 1-8, 12, 13, 14-16 and 43-46 to traffic noise. However, outdoor
activity areas for those units are located so that they are on the opposite side of the buildings from
the traffic noise source. Noise exposure within the outdoor activity areas designated on the
alternate site plan would therefore comply with the Monterey County exterior noise standard of
60 dB DNL. Compliance with the Monterey County interior noise standard of 45 dB D/NL will
require that windows with a minimum laboratory-tested STC rating of 35 be installed on the east
facing side of Units 1-8, 121 and 13, on the north-facing side of Units 14-16, on the south-facing
side of Units 43-46, and on the east-facing side of Unit 46. The building elevations reviewed by
BBA indicated that a stucco exterior wall finish will be used throughout the project. Compliance
with the countys interior noise level standard will also require that acoustic baffles be installed

10
Refer to FEIR Appendix D for water calculations for Alternative 4.


on the interior side of attic vents that face or partially face Highway 1 for Units 1-8, 12, 13, 14-16
and 43-46.
11

Population /Housing. The applicant proposes to comply with the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance through payment of an in-lieu fee rather than develop units on-site. The developer of a
residential development containing five (5) or more units may elect to pay a fee in-lieu of
providing some or all of the required inclusionary units on-site if specific characteristics of the
development are demonstrated. All units on site would be market rate units. Please refer to
Alternative 10 which addresses this approach.

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Pages R6-18, insert the following text prior to the first full
paragraph:

Revised Alternative 4A County Staff Recommendation

County staff reviewed the Applicants Modified Alternative 4 and proposed some adjustments
and revisions to the Alternative (Revised Alternative 4 County Staff Recommendation). The
Final EIR is not required to include a new analysis of this Revised Alternative 4A County Staff
Recommendation
12
, since the environmental considerations are evaluated within Alternative 4
above. The Revised Alternative 4A County Staff Recommendation is similar to the RDEIR
Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design Alternative, however, the County Staff alternative
differs slightly in the revision to the land use amendment language, as presented in Section 3.0 of
this Final EIR, Master Responses to Comments (See Master Response 16F). . Revised Alternative
4 County Staff Recommendation is presented in the County staff report for Planning
Commission hearing May 25, 2011 and was also presented at the Subdivision Hearing for the
project. Refer to Appendix C of this document for an overview of this project, per the staff report.

Please refer to FEIR Appendix C, Staff Modifications to Alternative 4A, for a description and
discussion of Revised Alternative 4A.

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Pages R6-30 and R6-31, under the heading 6.4.10; the text
is revised as follows:

Off-Site or In-Lieu Fee Affordable Housing Alternative (10)

Description

The applicant proposeds an alternative to provide the affordable housing units required by
Monterey County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance at an alternate location or pay through
payment of an in-lieu fee to Monterey County, both of which are is considered as a viable options
to a proposed projects compliance with Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
The applicants proposal, as well as correspondence between the applicant and Monterey
Countys Redevelopment and Housing Office, is located in Appendix Y. The County requested
that the Off-Site or The In-Lieu Fee Affordable Housing Alternative (hereafter referred to as

11
An example of a suitable attic went baffle is included in BBAs report dated 9/16/08, located in Appendices to the
Draft EIR. Recommendations regarding exterior doors and mechanical ventilation or air conditioning described on
page 6 of BBAs 9/16/08 report remain applicable to the alternative site plan.

12
Please refer to FEIR Appendix C, Staff Modifications to Alternative 4, and County of Monterey Staff Report for
Planning Commission Hearing of May 25, 2011, for a description of Revised Alternative 4.

Alternative 10) be is evaluated to determine if there would be a reduction in environmental
impacts in comparison to the proposed project. The project, as proposed, does not include units
for low-income and very low-income households. Under Alternative 10,According to County
staff, if an in-lieu fee is paid, the 46 units constructed at the project site could be designated as
Market Rate units. This Alternative assumes the units would be either the same size and
configuration of the project or with the modification in configuration as addressed in Alternative
4.

In the case of an Off-Site option in order comply with Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, the applicant would provide, at another location within the County, seven low-income
and seven very-low income units. Under Alternative 10, the location for the low and very low-
income units would be determined at a later date and could potentially result in the conversion of
an existing building from market rate units to the specified affordable income housing brackets,
in order to reduce the likelihood of additional environmental impacts. In the case of a The
payment by the applicant to Monterey County of an in-lieu fee in order to complies y with
Monterey Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the applicable payment amount would be
utilized by Monterey County for its affordable housing program., which, perceivably would result
in a similar amount of residential units designated within the County as would the Off-Site option
of this alternative. Both Alternative #9, Increased % of Low/Moderate Income Inclusionary
Units at same density and Alternative #10, Inclusionary Fee/ Applicants Proposal alternatives
have equal to or greater impacts in comparison to the proposed project and thus would not reduce
impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. Impacts of Alternative 10 would result in equal
or greater environmental impacts that the proposed project on the site as the same units and
configuration of units would result as the project.

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Page R6-31, under the heading Impacts; the text is revised
as follows:

Impacts

Alternative 10 was originally proposed by the applicant to address the projects lack of low and
very-low income housing. The payment of an in-lieu fee would result in the same physical
impacts on the project site as evaluated in the RDEIR as 46 units would be developed on-site.
The fee would be used by the Monterey County Housing Authority for development of affordable
housing in Monterey County. Precise use of the applicants in-lieu fee is not known and cannot
be defined for purposes of the EIR, as these further decisions would be decided-upon by
Monterey County at a future date. The project plans and location for the additional units is not
known at this time; therefore, A discussion of potential environmental impacts in relation to the
additional units Monterey Countys use of the funds would be considered speculation and outside
the realm of CEQA. as previously stated. Further, impacts resulting from the additional units off-
site would be in addition to the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.
While this alternative would meet the applicants project objectives, the environmental impacts
would be greater than the proposed project. Discussion of the impacts of development of 46 units
at the site has already been included in the EIR. The type of units is changed from affordable to
Market Rate, but the physical impacts would not be substantially different (i.e. size and number
of structures, amount of fixtures, etc will not be revised).

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Page R6-32, Table 6.4-1; the text under Alternative 3,
Existing Zoning Alternative, in column Number/Category of Units is revised to read 7 units).
Delete assumptions regarding number of units of inclusionary housing as text has been revised.


Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Page R6-33, revise Table 6.4-2, Comparison of Impacts
Project Alternatives, as shown on the pages following this section.

Under RDEIR Section 6.0, Alternatives, Pages R6-34 and R6-35, under the heading 6.5,
Environmentally Superior Alternative, the text is revised as follows:

6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Background on Alternatives Evaluated in the RDEIR

During the public review period of the Draft EIR, public comments requested analysis of
additional possible alternatives for the proposed project. In response to these comments, Section
6-0 of the Draft EIR was recirculated Draft EIR with an increased amount of additional
alternatives. In particular, the Coastal Commission staff requested that additional analysis be
considered for visitor serving alternatives. Additional public input requested variations of the
reduced density alternatives related to use of the site. The project applicant also requested that an
alternative related to an inclusionary housing approach be analyzed. While some RDEIR
comments called for a wider range of alternatives for the project site, others questioned the
increase in the number of alternatives analyzed.

The additional analysis of alternatives in no way diminishes the review of the application of the
proposed project and is in fact, consistent with CEQA. The approach to widen the alternative
analysis was in response to public comments. Also, though the alternatives increased in number,
the alternatives are variations on specific approaches to development of the project or categories
of project type, as illustrated below:

No Project Alternatives Use of Existing Building: No Project Alternatives
(#1(A) No Project/No Development Alternative and
(#1(B) No Project/Existing Building Use Alternative);

Visitor Serving Alternatives: (Visitor Serving Uses)
(#2)(A&B) Visitor-Serving Alternative/Existing Buildings (up to67 hotel rooms)
(#7) Hybrid Visitor-Serving Alternative (50 hotel rooms);

Modified Design Alternatives (Applicants Modified Design Alternative) (Residential)
13

(#4 Applicants Modified Design Alternative (46 units)

Reduced Density Alternatives (All Residential Uses)
(#3) Existing Zoning Alternative (7 units)
(#5) Reduced Density Alternative (37 units)
(#6) Hybrid Residential Alternative with Applicants Modified Design (37 units)
(#8) Hybrid Existing Building/High Density Alternative combining 10 units at
the existing building and building 7 units on the site (17 units)

Inclusionary Housing Variations (Alternative Approaches to Inclusionary Housing)
(#9) Increased % of Low/Moderate Income Inclusionary Units at same density
(#10) Inclusionary Fee/ Applicants Proposal

13
Revisions to Modified Design Alternative 4 have been recommended by Monterey County Staff (refer to Staff
Report Planning Commission dated May, 25 2010 and Appendix C of this document).



Consideration of Environmentally Superior Alternatives and Alternatives Evaluated in the
RDEIR
14

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be specified,
if one is identified. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is supposed to minimize
adverse impacts to the project site and surrounding environment while achieving the basic
objectives of the project. The No Project/No Development Alternative (1A) could be considered
the environmentally superior alternative because all adverse impacts associated with project
construction and operation would be avoided. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Buildings
Alternative (1B) could be considered the environmentally superior alternative as development
would be restricted to existing structures on the project site. However, CEQA Guidelines section
15126.6(e)(2) states: If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative,
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

The analysis presented below addresses the impact as identified in the alternatives discussion and
the matrix chart in Table 6.4-2, above. Based on the analysis in the alternatives discussion,
several alternatives could be eliminated from further discussion as the environmentally superior
alternative as they fail to reduce the environmental impacts of the project as proposed or meet the
basic project objective of development of a residential community.

The Inclusionary Housing Variations (Alternative Approaches to Inclusionary Housing) include
Alternative #9, Increased % of Low/Moderate Income Inclusionary Units at same density and
Alternative #10, Inclusionary Fee/ Applicants Proposal. These alternatives have equal to or
greater impacts and thus would not reduce impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project.

The Increased Percentage of Low and Moderate Income Units Alternative (9) would
increase the amount of low and moderate income units amongst the residential units
proposed for construction on the project site; however, this alternative would otherwise
result in the same impacts as the proposed project.

The In-Lieu Fee Affordable Housing Alternative (10) would increase the overall amount
of residential units associated with the proposed project through an off-site increase in
low and very low-income housing. Impacts of Alternative 10 would result in equal or
greater environmental impacts that the proposed project.

Based on the analysis in the alternatives discussion, several design changes could and comparison
in Table 6.4-2, above, the Visitor-Serving Alternatives could be also be eliminated from further
discussion as the environmentally superior alternative as they fail to reduce the environmental
impacts of the project as proposed or meet even the basic project objectives of development of a
residential community.

The Full Buildout Visitor-Serving Alternative (2A) would involve the construction of a
67-room hotel facility on the project site. Alternative 2A would have similar or greater
impacts as the proposed project in all areas. aside from its significant The analysis
identifies an increase to traffic in the project sites vicinity. Alternative 2A would result
in greater land use impacts in comparison to the proposed project and also be inconsistent
with the surrounding land use of the project site while not meeting the primary project

14
Some text has been reordered in this section of the Final EIR.

objective of establishing a residential community condominium complex on the project
site.

The Visitor-Serving Alternative/Existing Buildings (2B) would involve construction of a
hotel facility on the project site as with the Visitor-Serving Development Alternative;
however, the difference being that Alternative 2B would limit development on the project
site to existing buildings. Alternative 2B represents less potential impacts than the
proposed project in all areas except traffic and land use. Alternative 2B would result in a
comparable amount of traffic generation as the proposed project. Alternative 2B would
also result in greater land use impacts in comparison to the proposed project and be
inconsistent with the surrounding land uses of the project site. This alternative does not
meet while not meeting the primary project objective of establishing a residential
community condominium complex on the project site.

Hybrid Visitor-Serving Alternative: Applicants Modified Design and Reduced Density
Combination (7) would involve the construction of 50-units on the site. This alternative
would lessen the significant unavoidable impact associated with the development of
buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor to less than significant by reducing the
building footprint and relocating Units 5-8 and 12 and 13 to the structure housing Units
1-4. Alternative 7 would also reduce impacts in most other areas by decreasing the
decreasing the development density and building footprint on the project site. This
alternative would, however, result in decreased increased operational air quality, noise,
and transportation impacts due to projected increases in traffic trips. This alternative
would also result in greater land use impacts in comparison to the proposed project and
be inconsistent with the surrounding land uses of the project site. Alternative 7 would not
meet the primary project objective of the establishment of a larger residential community
condominium complex on the project site.

Based on the analysis in the alternatives discussion, and comparison in Table 6.4-2, above,
several reduced density alternatives and design changes could reduce the environmental impacts
of the project as proposed: These include the remaining alternatives, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, discussed
below

The Existing Zoning Alternative (3) consists of developing the project site with
residential uses as proposed, but under the existing zoning for the site of MDR/2. Under
this alternative, 7 units would be developed on site. Alternative 3 would avoid the
unmitigable impact of the proposed project to a scenic resource and would significantly
reduce impacts in comparison to the proposed project. This alternative by nature of the
reduction of units and construction on site would reduce the impacts in comparison with
the impacts of the proposed project. However, this alternative would may not be capable
of meeting the majority of the project objectives, considering the reduction in units
compared to the Proposed Project. It is not known if the including a principal project
objective of the adaptive reuse of a historic building could be met either or the
establishment of a residential community (proposed as a 46 unit condominium complex)
on the project site.

The Modified Design Alternative (4) would avoid the significant unavoidable impact
associated with the development of buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor that
would adversely impact this scenic resource. Alternative (4) would otherwise result in
impacts similar to the project as proposed and would meet the applicants project
objectives of the adaptive reuse of a historic building and to develop a condominium

complex on the project site. This design alternative reduces the bulk and mass of
construction of two large buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor thus reducing
the significant unavoidable impact as compared to the proposed project. Appendix C of
this Final EIR includes excerpts from the Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497) Staff Report to
the Planning Commission, dated May 25, 2011. Staff recommended LUP modifications
further limit the application of the HDR designation.

The Reduced Density Alternative (5) would avoid the unmitigable impact upon a scenic
resource by reducing construction within the Highway 1 viewshed, and would also
reduce impacts in most other areas by decreasing the development density and building
footprint on the project site in specified areas. This alternative by nature of the reduction
of units to 37 would reduce the impacts in comparison with the impacts of the proposed
project.

The Hybrid Residential Alternative: Applicants Modified Design and Reduced Density
Combination (6) would avoid the significant unavoidable impact associated with the
development of buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor that would adversely
impact this scenic resource. Alternative 6 would also reduce impacts in most other areas
by decreasing the development density and building footprint on the project site. This
alternative would reduce the impacts in comparison with the impacts of the proposed
project.

The Hybrid Existing and High Density Zoning Alternative (8) would rehabilitate the
historic resource under a new High Density residential zoning and provide 7 single
family residences on the remainder of the project site under the existing MDR/2 zoning.
This alternative by nature of the reduction of units to 37 would reduce the impacts in
comparison with the impacts of the proposed project. Alternative 8 would avoid the
significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project to a scenic resource.
Alternative 8 would lessen the overall impacts of the development by reducing the area of
development and reducing the residential units. While on a reduced scale, the objectives
of the proposed project would be met. Alternative 8 would rehabilitate an preserve a
historic resource, establish a high quality residential community to house future residents
of the County, provide market rate, affordable, and workforce housing stock to the
Monterey Peninsula, and reuse vacated buildings on a site with infill development.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

With this analysis, several alternatives would reduce environmental impact as compared to the
proposed project, aside from the No Project Alternatives 1A and 1B. CEQA Guidelines section
15126.6(e)(2) states: If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative,
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
These alternatives fall into the categories of Reduced Density Alternatives and Design
Alternatives and include the potential environmentally superior alternatives: to the proposed
project include: Visitor-Serving Alternative/Existing Buildings (2B); Existing Zoning
Alternative (3); Reduced Density Alternative (5); and Hybrid Alternatives (6, and 8). As
identified above, CEQA requires that an EIR identify a project alternative that is environmentally
superior and meets most of the basic project objectives. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA
Guidelines requires an EIR to evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to
the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project.
Alternatives identified should be capable of eliminating any significant adverse impacts or
reducing them to below a level of significance, even if these alternatives could impede to some

degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. Modified Design
Alternative (4) would avoid the significant unavoidable impact associated with the development
of buildings within the Highway 1 scenic corridor that would adversely impact this scenic
resource. Although not a reduced density alternative, Alternative 4, Applicants Modified Design
reduces the significant unavoidable impact on scenic resources of Highway 1 while also meeting
identified project objectives. An environmentally superior alternative, however, does not need to
meet all of the project objectives. The analysis previously discussed in this section conclude that
Alternatives 6 and 8 represent the alternatives that would meet most of the project objectives and
policy objectives of Monterey County while still significantly reducing project related impacts.
Even though the majority of project objectives would not be fully met and there may be potential
for further decline of the historic resource, Alternative 3, Existing Zoning Alternative, would
reduce environmental impacts to the greatest degree in comparison due to its lowest number of
new construction and development. As such,However, it is not known if Alternative 3, Existing
Zoning Alternative would be considered thecould meet the basic project objective of
rehabilitation of the historic structure. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for
the purposes of this document are the other reduced density alternatives (5,6 & 8) due to
reduction in density and impacts and ability to reduce the significant unavoidable impact to scenic
resources to less than significant. Alternative 4 would be the next environmentally superior
alternatives since this alternative also reduce impacts to scenic resources of Highway 1 to less
than significant while also meeting identified project objectives.


Table 6.4-2
Comparison of Impacts Project Alternatives
Impact
No
Project
/No
Dev.
(1A)
No
Project/
Existing
Build.
Use (1B)
Full
Buildout
Visitor-
Serving
(2A)
Visitor-
Serving/
Existing
Build.
(2B)
Existing
Zoning
(3)
Applicants
Modified
Design
(4)
Reduced
Density
(5)
Hybrid
Residential
(6)
Hybrid
Visitor-
Serving
(7)
Hybrid
Existing/H
igh
Density
Zoning (8)
Increased
% Percent
Low/Mod.
Income
Units (9)
And In
Lieu Fee
(10)
Aesthetics < < = < < < < < < < =
Air Quality < < = < < = < < > < =
Biological Resources < < = < < = < < < < =
Cultural Resources < = = = > = = <= = = =
Geology/Soils < < = < < = < < < < =
Hazards/Hazardous Materials < < = < < = = < < = =
Hydrology & Water Quality < < = < < = < < < < =
Land Use & Planning < < > > < < < < => < <
Noise < < = < < = < < >= < =
Public Services & Utilities < > = < < < < < < < =
Traffic < > > = < = < < > < =
Ability of Alternative to Meet
Project Objectives Compared
to the Project*
< < < < < = < < < < =
Overall Impacts Compared to
Project
< < > < < < < < => < =
> Impact Greater than Project
= Impact Comparable to Project
< Impact Less than Project


This page is intentionally left blank.



REVISED SECTIONS FROM THE DRAFT AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR

4.9 Revised Land Use Section from Draft EIR
Please note: This section is provided in its entirety as revised from draft EIR.

DEIR 4.9 Land Use and Planning

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING REVISED FROM DRAFT EIR
Please note: This section is provided in its entirety as revised from draft EIR.
FINAL EIR REVISIONS TO SECTION 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING, FROM DEIR

Introduction

The following section analyzes the projects land use effects, specifically its consistency with applicable
plans and zoning ordinances, including the Monterey County General Plan, Carmel Area Land Use Plan
(LUP), Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, California Coastal Act, and other relevant
planning documents.

Setting

The 3.68-acre project site, consisting of three privately-owned parcels (APNs: 009-061-002, 009-061-
003, 009-061-005), is located west of Highway 1 within the unincorporated coastal zone of Monterey
County that borders the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Highway 1, the major north-south transportation route
along the Central Coast, passes through the Carmel area, linking it to other cities on the Monterey
Peninsula and Santa Cruz County to the North.

According to the County of Monterey General Plan and City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan, the
project site is bordered by Highway 1 on its eastern boundary as well as areas of medium density
residential zoning east, south, and north of the project site within the Monterey County unincorporated
coastal zone. The project site is located in the Hatton Fields area, which is predominantly residential in
nature. Valley Way, a County-maintained road, borders the project at its southern extent. The northwest
portion of the project site immediately borders a residential area of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The project site is
currently zoned Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre (MDR/2) and is located within the City of
Carmel-by-the-Seas Sphere of Influence (SOI). Figure 3.5 displays the project site and surrounding land
uses.

The project parcel is located in the Hatton Fields area of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. This area is
residential in character and abuts the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Within the city limits, single-family
dwellings surround the project parcel. An apartment complex is located to the immediate west of the
project parcel, also within the unincorporated County area. Parcels in this area average from 3,000 square
feet per lot to approximately one quarter of an acre. Residential use is the primary land use in the
surrounding vicinity. The size, density, and character of this residential area vary. In general, this area
has adequate public services and facilities and has ready access to important commercial services located
in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or at the mouth of Carmel Valley. Although there is currently no high
density zoning in the Carmel Area Land Use Planning area, Figure 4.9-1 presents the proposed project
within the existing surrounding neighborhood, and demonstrates that the scale and intensity of the project
is not substantially inconsistent with its surrounding area.

The projects implementation would include approval of a Carmel Area Land Use Designation
Amendment and a Coastal Implementation Plan Zoning Amendment, as highlighted below:

Carmel Area Land Use Plan Amendment: Change of land use designation from existing Medium
Density Residential to proposed new designation for the area, High Density Residential.

Coastal Implementation Plan (Zoning Code) Amendment: Rezoning of existing of MDR/2
(Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre to a proposed HDR/12.5 (High Density
Residential/12.5 units per acre) zoning designation in the Coastal Zone.

Regulatory Environment

1982 Monterey County General Plan. Although Tthe Monterey County General Plan provides policies
regarding residential development, the standard for review for projects located within the Coastal Zone is
the applicable Local Coastal Plan (LCP), in this instance the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP). Both the
LCP and General Plan overlap each other in certain regards, but each plan addresses issues which the
other does not. The Monterey County General Plan incorporates the policies and programs contained in
the LCP and the General Plan supplements those policies with additional policies that are required to have
an adequate General Plan. The portions of the Monterey County General Plan that are not included in the
LCP, but would be applicable to development within the Coastal Zone, include policies related to noise,
housing, air quality, and safety. Since the General Plan applies to all portions of the unincorporated areas
of Monterey County, only certain policies are applicable within the Coastal Zone. The following policies
are applicable to the project site and the proposed project. Project consistency for each of the applicable
policy policies is analyzed in Table 4.9-1.

Note: Final EIR deletes discussion of General Plan Policies previously provided here as applicable
policy policies are provided in Table 4.9-1.

2010 County General Plan. Per the 2010 General Plan, the County is not amending the Countys
certified Local Coastal Program through adoption of the 2010 Plan. Adoption of the 2010 Plan does not
amend the governing plans in the coastal zone, which include the certified Local Coastal Program and the
1982 General Plan to the extent the LCP relies on the 1982 General Plan. This approach recognizes, in
accordance with the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq.), that the
coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource that requires unique planning considerations, has
unique procedural requirements, and may require different standards and policies than may apply in the
inland areas of the County.

Carmel Area Land Use Plan / Local Coastal Program. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan provides
policies regarding residential development. The following policies are applicable to the project site and
the proposed project. Project consistency for each policy is analyzed in Table 4.9-1.

Policy 4.4.3.D.1 Infilling of existing residential areas according to the resource and scenic protection
standards set forth in this plan is preferred over new residential development elsewhere.

Policy 4.4.3.D.2. Medium-density residential development shall be directed to existing residential areas
where urban services - water, sewers, roads, public transit, fire protection, etc. - are available. The
density for new subdivision is two units per acre except for the Portola Corporation property in Carmel
Meadows. As a condition of development, covenants must be recorded acknowledging agricultural use
on the adjacent parcel and holding the owner (State) harmless for any nuisance due to the agricultural use.

Monterey County Zoning Ordinance. According to Title 20 (Coastal Zoning), the project site is zoned
as MDR/2. The purpose of this zoning district is to accommodate medium density residential uses in
those areas of the County of Monterey where adequate public services and facilities exist or may be
developed to support medium density developments. It is intended with this zoning district to have
required on-site facilities and amenities to assure proper, usable, and livable development while allowing
sufficient design flexibility to provide such development.

Monterey County Housing Element. The County of Monterey Housing Element is one of seven
General Plan Elements mandated by California State Law. The housing element law, enacted in 1969,
mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all
economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to
adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and
regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.
The programs presented in the Housing Element must reflect the commitment of the locality to address a
range of housing needs, including those for affordable housing. The Housing Element is intended to
provide citizens and public officials with an understanding of the housing needs in the community and set
forth an integrated set of policies and programs to attain housing goals. The County of Monterey
Housing Element is consistent with California Government Code Section 65581.

The Housing Element is most affected by development policies contained in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. The Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land
uses throughout the County. The standards set in the Land Use Element determine the density of
residential development and sets the upper limit for housing units that can be built in the County. The
Land Use Element also addresses the development of other land uses, such as industrial, commercial, and
professional offices that create demand for housing in the County.

Monterey County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
was originally adopted in 1980 and has been revised several times since that date. Ordinance No. 04185,
adopted in 2003, now requires that 20% of all new development meet the Countys affordable housing
need either through provision of housing (either on or off-site) and/or payment of in-lieu fees and is
applicable to the proposed development application.

California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Commission was established by voter initiative in 1972
(Proposition 20) and later made permanent by the California State Legislature through the adoption of the
California Coastal Act of 1976. The Coastal Commission, in partnership with coastal cities and counties,
plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. The Coastal Act requires that each local
government lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone prepare an LCP for that portion of the
coastal zone under the local governments jurisdiction, unless the local government asks the Commission
to prepare the LCP. ( 30500, subd. (a).) An LCP consists of two principal components: an LUP, and
implementing actions, such as zoning ordinances and maps. (See 30108.6 [LCP consists of a local
governments (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive
coastal resources areas, other implementing actions]; see also 30108.4 [defining implementing
actions], 30108.5 [defining land use plan].) Under the statute, [t]he precise content of each local
coastal program shall be determined by the local government . . . in full consultation with the commission
and with full public participation. ( 30500, subd. (c).) The Commission must certify an LUP if it
finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 30200). . . . ( 30512, subd. (c).) The Commissions role in the amendment
process is similarly circumscribed. The Coastal Act provides for amendment of a certified LCP. As
stated, the LCP may be amended by the appropriate local government, subject to review by the
Commission. ( 30514, subd. (a).)

Development activities, which are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others)
construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public
access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit from either the Coastal Commission or the
local government. As the proposed project would require California Coastal Commission approval,
California Coastal Act policies and those policies identified in the Carmel Area LUP would be further
considered when the proposed project is applied applies for California Coastal Commission approval.
Since the proposed project includes an amendment to the Carmel Area LUP to establish a new land use
classification consisting of a High Density Residential land use designation, in addition to a site specific
rezoning from MDR/2 to HDR/12.5, these components of the project were evaluated for consistency with
Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act in the Recirculated Draft EIR Cumulative Analysis and also
specific policies summarized below.

Relevant Project Characteristics

The project proposes residential build-out of 46 condominium units on the project site in a developed area
surrounded by residential uses. In addition, the proposed project also includes an amendment to the
Carmel Area LUP and a zoning map amendment to designate the site as High Density Residential in order
to accommodate the intensity and scale of development as currently proposed, as highlighted below:

Carmel Area LUP Amendment: Change of land use designation from existing Medium Density
Residential to proposed new designation for the area, High Density Residential.

Coastal Implementation Plan (Zoning Code) Amendment: Rezoning of existing of MDR/2
(Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre to a proposed HDR/12.5 (High Density
Residential/12.5 units per acre) zoning designation in the Coastal Zone.

The County has provided a description of the proposed zoning language for the proposed zoning district
(High Density Residential Zoning District HDR (CZ)). A summary of the text is provided below.

High Density Residential (HDR): High Density Residential areas are appropriate for a broad
range of higher intensity residential uses (5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing types.
Recreational, public/quasi-public, and other uses are incidental and subordinate to the residential
use and character of the area. High density use is allowed in accordance with the site-specific
evaluation of resource and public facility constraints, and where urban services - i.e., public
water, sewer, roads, public transit, fire protection - are available. New development in these areas
is designated at densities to allow a mix of housing types, including moderate to low income
housing, in order to facilitate a comprehensively planned project. Direct access from Highway
One shall not be allowed where alternative access is possible.
15

The project would also require an amendment to the Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) to
add the zoning designation category of High Density Residential District to the CIP. The full text of the
proposed land use plan amendment is presented in the Project Description of this DEIR.

It should be noted that while the HDR designation provides for a density of up to 20 units per acre, the
proposed project application requests a specific density to allow 12.5 units per acre, identified above
(HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre). Note: The County of Monterey has proposed
revision to the HDR density language above which reduces the allowable density to 12.5 maximum
density of units per acre and specifies additional parameters to limit the location of HDR designated
properties. A full discussion of this is included in the Master Responses to Comments Section of the
Final EIR, under Master Response 16-F.Revised Alternative 4 County of Monterey Staff Report
Recommendations.

15
Note: The proposed land use plan amendment language per the Draft and RDEIR is included above. During
recirculation of the RDEIR, the applicants proposal for land use amendment language was also located in the
Alternatives Section, RDEIR 6.0.
Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered significant if the project
would:

physically divide an established community;

conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect; or

conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Impacts and Mitigation

Physically Divide an Established Community

The project site is located within a residential neighborhood, and there are no business communities
within the project area. The proposed residential use of the project site would be consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood area of the project site and would not divide an established community. The
project site is surrounded by a neighborhood primarily comprised of single-family residences with
minimal undeveloped lots. The division or disruption of the physical arrangement of an established
community typically involves actions that would create physical barriers that would substantially separate
portions of a built community, such as the construction of a new road or freeway through an established
neighborhood. Construction of the proposed project would not divide or disrupt the physical arrangement
of an established community since there are no business districts located within the vicinity of the project
site, and due to the fact that the nature of the proposed project, as residential build-out of a primarily
abandoned property, would be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Therefore, the
proposed project would not physically divide an existing established community.

Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation

The project would result in potential impacts associated with aesthetic, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, noise, population & housing, public services, and traffic.
These impacts are addressed within their respective sections of this DEIR. The following section
addresses the conformance of the project with applicable land use policies and regulations, as well as
policies and regulations intended to avoid or mitigated an adverse environmental impact. Relevant land
use documents were reviewed to address project consistency, including the County of Monterey General
Plan, Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Housing Element, and Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. The following discussion examines the proposed projects consistency with these documents
and the projects conformance with land use plans, policies, or regulations.

Consistency with County of Monterey General Plan

Table 4.9-1 summarizes the projects consistency with applicable policies of the County of Monterey
General Plan The Draft EIR evaluated the Proposed Projects potential to conflict with policies contained
in the Monterey County General Plan. However, the standard for review for projects located within the
Coastal Zone is the applicable Local Coastal Plan (LCP), in this instance the Carmel Area Land Use Plan.
Both the LCP and General Plan overlap each other in certain regards, but each plan addresses issues that
the other does not. Therefore Table 4.9-1 has been revised to remove Monterey County land use policies
that are not applicable to the proposed project. Project approval would conflict consistency with several
General Plan policies as is identified throughout this DEIR.

Consistency with Carmel Area Land Use Plan /Local Coastal Program/California Coastal Act

The proposed development is required to be consistent with the plans, policies, requirements, and
standards of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP for this site consists of the Carmel Area Land
Use Plan, Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and Part 1 of the Coastal Implementation
Plan (Title 20 Zoning Ordinance). Table 4.9-1 summarizes the projects consistency with the Carmel
Area Land Use Plan / Local Coastal Program policies. The proposed project also includes a LUP
amendment to rezone the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2 units per acre)
to proposed HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre) in the Coastal Zone. Since the
proposed project entails amending the Carmel Area LUP to allow High Density Residential land uses, an
evaluation of the LUP amendment with the applicable portions of Chapter 3 of the California Act is
necessary. The following Coastal Act policies are considered to be relevant, or potentially relevant, to the
proposed project. A discussion is provided below documenting why the proposed project is considered to
be consistent with the applicable policies, and therefore, with the Coastal Act, as a whole.

The proposed project would result in the addition of 46 residential units within the project area and could
accommodate between 82 and 145 persons. Under the existing zoning, the site would allow for 7.36 units
which potentially could accommodate 13 to 23 new persons. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would result in an increase of 38 units beyond the total allowed on the project site under existing
zoning.

Evaluation of Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment Language in Draft EIR Proposed for High Density
Residential (HDR): High Density ResidentialThe LUP Amendment language states HDR areas are
appropriate for a broad range of higher intensity residential uses (5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing
types. and Rrecreational, public/quasi-public, and other uses are incidental and subordinate to the
residential use and character of the area. The proposed language limits HDR use High density use is
allowed in accordance with the site-specific evaluation of resource and public facility constraints, and
where urban services - i.e., public water, sewer, roads, public transit, fire protection, etc. - are available.

The project parcel is consistent with this proposed language. The site is located in the Hatton
Fields area of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. This area is residential in character. The property
is made up of three legal lots of record and abuts the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea boundary to the
north, west, and south and Highway 1 on the east. Within the city limits, single family dwellings
surround the project parcel. An apartment complex is west of the project parcel, located within
the unincorporated County area. Parcels in this area average from 3,000 square feet to
approximately one quarter of an acre. The Hatton Fields area has generally been developed to the
extent that the natural environment has been significantly altered and that the residential use is
perceived as the primary use of the land. The LUP Amendment language in the Draft EIR also
states New development in these areas is designated at densities to allow a mix of housing types,
including moderate to low income housing, in order to facilitate a comprehensively planned
project. Direct access from Highway One shall not be allowed where alternative access is
possible.

The project parcel is consistent with this proposed language. The size, density, and character of
this residential area vary; capacity is available to accommodate additional residential demand.
The project site represents Iinfilling of development is encouraged. In general, this area has
adequate public services and facilities and has ready access to important commercial services
located in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or at the mouth of Carmel Valley. Although there is
currently no high density zoning in the Carmel Area Land Use Planning area, Figure 4.9-1
presents the proposed project within the existing surrounding neighborhood, and demonstrates
that compares the proposed density of the project is not substantially inconsistent with its
surrounding area.

Since the proposed project entails amending the Carmel Area LUP to allow High Density Residential land
uses, an evaluation of the LUP amendment with the applicable portions of Chapter 3 of the California Act
was conducted. The Recirculated Draft EIR included this analysis in RDEIR Cumulative, CEQA
Considerations Section 5.0, Page R5-1, under the heading Carmel Area Land Use Plan Amendment.
Section 5.0 addresses project potential for cumulative impacts from the proposed LUP amendment to
establish a new land use designation. Discussion of project consistency with pertinent sections of Chapter
3 of the Coastal Act is also included below.

Please refer to CEQA Considerations Section 5.0, Page R5-1, under the heading Carmel Area Land Use
Plan Amendment. Section 5.0 addresses impacts from the proposed LUP amendment to establish a new
land use designation. The following Coastal Act policies associated with scenic resources also are
addressed in this section, below.

Coastal Act Section 30251: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and
protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land
forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore
and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as
those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department
of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

Project Consistency: As identified in this EIR, the physical development of the proposed project
would result in potential aesthetic-related impacts; the visual effects associated with project
buildout could be construed as being inconsistent with this policy. The project does not propose
any new development in highly scenic areas designated in the California Coastline Preservation
and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation but is within the Scenic
Highway 1 corridor. The area north and south of the property contains single family and multi-
family residential development that is visible from travelers along Highway 1. These properties,
however, have established landscaping that reduces the visual impact and views of these
structures. The proposed project as designed is not consistent with this policy as the massing of
the two structures along Highway 1 (two buildings housing Units 1-4 an 5-8) represent
significant new building and massing which is not subordinate as proposed. In order to ensure
that the visual effects of the proposed project are minimized, project-specific mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the EIR; please refer to Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 through 4.1-7, as
amended. These mitigations will ensure that adequate landscaping and replacement trees are
incorporated into the project design and that visual impacts are minimized to the extent feasible.
However, this residual impact of the project on scenic views from Highway 1 is considered
significant unavoidable as currently designed and proposed.

Consistency with County of Monterey Housing Element
The project would be consistent with the County of Monterey Housing Element by providing new
residential housing within the Carmel area designated for residential development.

Consistency with County of Monterey Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

The project, as proposed, would be inconsistent with the Countys Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, as it
would not contribute 20% of all new development on site as affordable housing. The proposed project is
composed of 46 residential units on the project site with 9 units designated as moderate income housing,
which meets the 20% requirement. However, the project is inconsistent with the Countys Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance requirements as the Ordinance requires that of the 20% designated low income
housing, 6% should be designated as very low, 6% designated as low, and 8% designated as moderate
income housing.

Conclusion

Project development proposes amendments to the Local Coastal Plan (Carmel Area Land Use Plan),
Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and Part 1 of the Coastal Implementation Plan (Title
20 Zoning Ordinance), as discussed above. Approval of the proposed project would create an entirely
new land use classification, High Density Residential, within the Carmel Area LUP. Although amending
the LUP to create a new land use designation would allow other property owners within the Carmel Area
LUP to apply for LUP amendments to designate their properties HDR, the only property currently being
considered for HDR uses is the proposed project site. Establishing a new land use designation would not
directly conflict with policies contained in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act or policies contained in the
Carmel Area LUP. When, and if, an application is submitted to the County of Monterey in the future
seeking the HDR designation within the Carmel Area LUP, the impacts of that amendment would be
evaluated at that time based on site-specific characteristics, available infrastructure, and other
considerations deemed appropriate by the County of Monterey.

According to the County of Monterey Land Use Plan Amendment language proposed in the Draft EIR:
High Density Residential areas are appropriate for a broad range of higher intensity residential uses (5-20
units/acre) and a blend of housing types. Recreational, public/quasi-public, and other uses may be
permitted within HDR areas if and only if said uses are incidental and subordinate to the residential use
and character of the area. Moreover, the County has indicated that the location and intensity of high-
density uses is contingent upon site-specific characteristics and public facility constraints - i.e., public
water, sewer, roads, public transit, fire protection, etc. (personal communication, Laura Lawrence, e-mail
correspondence dated October 2, 2008). The extent to which HDR uses would be allowed in the Carmel
Area LUP is largely a function of these factors and future applications to amend the LUP to permit
additional HDR areas would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis consistent with these standards and the
requirements of the Coastal Act. (Refer to Section 5.0 of the RDEIR for cumulative impacts of LUP
amendment.

With the amendments, Based on the Coastal Act consistency analysis, revised Table 4.9-1, and supporting
technical analysis contained in each of the respective topical CEQA sections, the project would be
generally consistent with applicable land use policies and regulations pertaining to the development of the
project site. Although the project would create a new land use designation (HDR) within the Carmel Area
LUP, the proposed amendment, itself, is not inconsistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Where
appropriate, mitigation measures have been identified in this EIR to minimize project impacts and ensure
consistency with applicable planning considerations, including Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. If approved
as it has been proposed, the project does not have the potential to result in conflicts with adopted land
uses policies and regulations that are intended to avoid and/or mitigate an adverse environmental impact
and thereby result in a significant and unavoidable land use impact under CEQA.

Pursuant to CEQA, a significant environmental effect must involve an adverse change in the existing
physical condition of the site. As proposed, project development would result in minimal changes in the
physical environmental, such that development does not have the potential to conflict with adopted
policies intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact. See Table 4.9-1 for more
information regarding the projects consistency with applicable General Plan and Local Coastal Program
policies and regulations pertaining to the development of the project site. As seen in this table, some
project elements are inconsistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies, however these
inconsistencies would not be in conflict with policies intended to avoid and/or mitigate environmental
effects. Moreover, an inconsistency does not, in and of itself, constitute a significant impact under
CEQA. A policy inconsistency is only considered significant when the policy conflict would result in a
significant physical impact to the environment. As demonstrated in the preceding analysis, the limited
policy conflicts/inconsistencies associated with the proposed project would not result in a significant
physical impact to the environment Therefore, as the proposed project would not conflict with policies
intended to avoid and/or mitigate an environmental impact, the impact is considered to be less-than-
significant.

Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plan

There are no habitat or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. Therefore, the
project will not conflict with any applicable Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans. An
expanded discussion of this issue is provided in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. The project would
not adversely impact any habitat or natural community conservation plans.

Project-and Cumulative Impacts

The geographic scope of this analysis is the local project vicinity as well as the Carmel Land Use
Planning Area as designated by the Monterey County General Plan. If approved as it has been proposed,
the project does not have the potential to result in conflicts with adopted land uses policies and
regulations that are intended to avoid and/or mitigate an adverse environmental impacts and it would not
result in any cumulative impacts to land use policies. Potential cumulative impacts associated with the
project are addressed within the respective sections of this Draft EIR. (Refer to Section 5.0 of the RDEIR
for impacts of LUP amendment. There are no other known planned or foreseeable development projects
in the project sites immediate vicinity within the Carmel Area Land Use Planning Area or within the City
of Carmel-by-the-Sea that would, in consideration with the Villas de Carmelo Project, result in the
intensification of development in the area. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan identified residential housing
capacity of 148 units, at 2 units per acre on 656 acres, in the City of Carmel Vicinity and Carmel
Meadows. The project proposes a land use plan amendment resulting in a higher density designation than
what is currently allowed, resulting in increases of residential units and population for the project site. If
other parcels in the Carmel Land Use Plan area are proposed for plan amendments or re-zoning related to
a change to higher density, those actions would be subject to discretionary review and approvals. (See
Section 5.0 RDEIR for discussion of cumulative impacts of LUP amendment.

Pending projects will require review under the appropriate regulatory authority for conflicts with
respective plans prior to project approval. As shown on the referenced Table 5.2-1, there are no projects
within the geographic scope of this analysis that propose land use plan amendments to increase residential
density or residential development amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Planning Area that would
be considered cumulatively considerable. The review of recent applications in the Carmel Area Land Use
Plan area shows 14 new residences are currently within the review process in the planning area.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact upon land use planning.


Final EIR Revised Table 4.9-1
Project Consistency with Relevant County of Monterey General Plan and Carmel Area Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies
16

Policy
Number
Policy Summary Consistency
AREA PLAN (LUP) Visual Resources
2.2.2
(LUP)
To protect scenic resources of the Carmel area in perpetuity, all future development
within the viewshed must harmonize and be clearly subordinate to the natural scenic
character of the area. All categories of public and private land use development
including all structures, the construction of public and private roads, utilities, and
lighting must conform to the basic viewshed policy of minimum visibility except
where otherwise stated in the plan.
Project consistent with mitigation. The project site is located in an
existing residential area and has previously been developed with
buildings and parking areas. As identified in Section 4.1 Aesthetics,
the physical development of the proposed project has the potential to
adversely affect the scenic quality of the Highway 1 Corridor, the
surrounding area, and existing visual character due to the introduction
of new urban features on-site. The proposed project would increase the
density and intensity of development on site and thereby potentially
impact the visual character of the area. In order to ensure that the
physical development of the site is visually compatible with the
surrounding area, mitigation measures were identified in this EIR
requiring the retention of healthy, mature trees between the property
line and Highway 1 that will provide substantial screening and
additional landscaping for screening between Highway 1 and the
parcel. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1 Aesthetics would
minimize impacts associated with the existing visual character of the
site and its surroundings. As a result, the proposed project, as
mitigated, is considered to be generally consistent with this policy.
2.2.3.6
(LUP)
Structures shall be subordinate to and blended into the environment, using appropriate
materials to that effect. Where necessary, modification of plans shall be required for
siting, structural design, color, texture, building materials, access, and screening.
Project consistent with mitigation. Mitigation measures identified in
Section 4.1 Aesthetics shall insure compliance with policies regarding
siting, structural design, color, texture, building materials, access, and
screening in order to insure that buildout of the project site blends into
its surroundings. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 proposes a height limit to
ensure height for new structures is limited to a maximum height of 28
feet for all new structures along the Highway 1 border with the parcel.
This mitigation requires height restrictions be incorporated into final
design and construction plans. Additional mitigation language per

16
Note: Table 4.9.1 was revised in this Final EIR to remove policies from the General Plan. The Draft EIR evaluated the Proposed Projects potential to conflict
with policies contained in the Monterey County General Plan. However, the standard for review for projects located within the Coastal Zone is the applicable
Local Coastal Plan (LCP), in this instance the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Both the LCP and General Plan overlap each other in certain regards, but each plan
addresses issues that the other does not. Therefore Table 4.9-1 does not include any Monterey County land use policies which are not applicable to the proposed
project. In addition, Table 4.9.1 identifies only those LUP policies that have been revised from the Draft EIR. Changes are shown in strike out and underline.

16

Policy
Number
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 requires architectural design features to
reduce massing. As a result, the proposed project, as mitigated, is
considered to be generally consistent with this policy.
2.2.3.7
(LUP)
Structures shall be located and designed to minimize tree removal and grading for the
building site and access road. Where earth movement would result in extensive slope
disturbance or scarring visible from public viewing points and corridors, such activity
will not be allowed. Extensive landform alteration shall not be permitted.
Project consistent with mitigation. Physical development of the project
site, as proposed, would result in the removal of approximately 156
trees. In order to minimize the extent of visual impacts associated with
tree removal, mitigation is necessary. Mitigation measures identified in
Section 4.1 Aesthetics, Section 4.4 Biology, and Section 4.6 Geology
shall insure compliance with policies regarding tree removal and
grading. As a result, the proposed project, as mitigated, is considered to
be generally consistent with this policy.
2.2.3.8
(LUP)
Landscape screening and restoration shall consist of plant and tree species consistent
with the surrounding vegetation. Screening on open grassy slopes and ridges should
be avoided.
Section 4.1 Aesthetics and Section 4.4 Biology shall insure that
landscape screening and restoration shall consist of plant and tree
species consistent with the surrounding vegetation. As a result, the
proposed project, as mitigated, is considered to be generally consistent
with this policy.
2.2.4.1
(LUP)
All applications for development within the viewshed shall require individual on-site
investigations. The dimensions, height, and rooflines of proposed buildings shall be
accurately indicated by poles and access roads by stakes with flags.
Project consistent. The project site was staked and flagged to convey
dimensions, height, and rooflines of proposed buildings. Photographs
of the project site with the staking and flagging of proposed buildout
are included in Section 4.1 Aesthetics.
2.2.4.6
(LUP)
The existing forested corridor along Highway 1 shall be maintained as a scenic
resource and natural screen for existing and new development. New development
along Highway 1 shall be sufficiently set back to preserve the forested corridor effect
and minimize visual impact.
Project consistent with mitigation. As identified in Section 4.1
Aesthetics and 4.4 Biology, the proposed project would result in the
removal of approximately 59% of existing on-site trees. This was
identified as a significant and unavoidable impact to a scenic resource.
In order to ensure consistency with this policy and minimize the extent
of the physical effect of the proposed project, mitigation was identified
in the EIR (see Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 through 4.1-7). Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1 to 4.1-3 and others require architectural design features
to reduce massing and additional design restrictions and landscaped
screening requirements. The majority of trees proposed to be removed
from the project site are located in areas not clearly visible from
Highway 1. Further, mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1
Aesthetics and Section 4.4 Biology shall insure compliance with

16

Policy
Number
policies regarding development within scenic highway corridors.
Additional mitigation requires the retention of healthy, mature trees
between the property line and Highway 1 that will provide substantial
screening and additional landscaping for screening between Highway 1
and the parcel. As a result, the proposed project, as mitigated, is
considered to be generally consistent with this policy.
2.2.4.10
(LUP)
The following siting and design control measures shall be applied to new development
to ensure protection of the Carmel area's scenic resources, including shoreline and
ocean views:
a. On ridges, buildings shall be sufficiently set back from the precipice to avoid
silhouetting and to be as visually unobtrusive as possible. Buildings located on
slopes shall be sited on existing level areas and sufficiently set back from the
frontal face. Buildings should not be located on slopes exceeding 30 percent,
except when all other plan guides are met and siting on slopes over 30 percent
better achieves siting consistent with the policies of the plan.
b. Where clustering of new residential or visitor-serving development will preserve
desirable scenic and open space areas or enable structures to be sited out of the
viewshed, it shall be preferred to more dispersed building site plans.
c. Structures located in the viewshed shall be designed so that they blend into the
site and surroundings. The exterior of buildings must give the general
appearance of natural materials (e.g., buildings should be of weathered wood or
painted in earth tones). The height and bulk of buildings shall be modified as
necessary to protect the viewshed.
d. Exterior lighting shall be adequately shielded or shall be designed at near-ground
level and directed downwards to reduce its long-range visibility.
e. Existing trees and other native vegetation should be retained to the maximum
extent possible both during the construction process and after the development is
completed. Landscape screening may be used wherever a moderate extension of
native forested and chaparral areas is appropriate. All new landscaping must be
compatible with the scenic character of the area and should retain existing
shoreline and ocean views.
Section 4.1 Aesthetics and Section 4.4 Biology are identified to
reduce project impacts.
a. The project site is not located on a ridge or and the majority of
the site is not on an area exceeding 30 percent slopes. Portions
of the project site have been graded previously and have slopes
over 30%.
b. Project design would be clustered and mitigations are provided
in order to limit impacts to the scenic quality and viewshed of
the project site.
c. Project buildout would include design of buildings to blend into
the surrounding area as much as possible.
d. Exterior lighting shall be designed in order to reduce its long-
range visibility. Mitigation measures require lighting to be
directed downward per the policy.
e. Existing trees on the project site will be retained to the
maximum extent possible and landscape screening would be
compatible with the scenic character of the project area.
Mitigation measures were identified in this EIR requiring the
retention of healthy, mature trees between the property line and
Highway 1 in concert with the landscape planting will provide
screening between Highway 1 and the parcel.
f. Mitigation requires architectural design features to reduce
massing, height restrictions and design requirements.

GENERAL PLAN / AREA PLAN (LUP) Air Quality

16

Policy
Number
20.1.1 The Countys land use and development policies shall be integrated and consistent
with the natural limitations of the Countys air basin.
Project consistent. Although this policy represents a general directive
for the County and does not necessarily pertain to development
projects, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the
general intent of this policy. The proposed projects potential impact
upon the Countys air basin is discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality.
20.1.3 The County should develop and implement, where appropriate, a roadside tree
program and should encourage and maintain vegetated/forested areas to the maximum
extent feasible, for their air purifying functions.
Project consistent. Trees will be retained and replanted on the project
site to the maximum extent possible. See discussion and mitigation
measures in Section 4.1 Aesthetics and Section 4.4 Biology.
20.2.2 The County shall adopt and support, at a minimum, the Air Quality Plan for the
Monterey Bay Region as prepared by AMBAG.
Project consistent. The proposed projects potential impact upon the
air quality is discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality.
20.2.5 The County shall encourage the use of the best available control technology as defined
in the most current Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District rules and
regulations in reducing air pollution emissions.
Project consistent. Construction activities will be required to use best
available control technologies as outlined in mitigation measures in
Section 4.3 Air Quality.
38.1.1 The County shall support the implementation of measures for reducing air pollution
from transportation sources.
Project consistent. The project site is located within the reasonable
vicinity of public transportation options, thereby posing a possible
reduction in personal vehicles. See discussion in Section 4.13 Traffic.

AREA PLAN (LUP) Biology
2.3.3.2
(LUP)
Land uses adjacent to locations of environmentally sensitive habitats shall be
compatible with the long-term maintenance of the resource. New land uses shall be
considered compatible only where they incorporate all site planning and design
features needed to prevent habitat impacts and where they do not establish a precedent
for continued land development which, on a cumulative basis, could degrade the
resource.
Project consistent. No limited or threatened plant communities defined
as ESHA by the Carmel Area LUP will be impacted by development of
the project site. See discussion in Section 4.4 Biological Resources.
2.3.3.3
(LUP)
New development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be allowed
only at densities compatible with the protection and maintenance of the adjoining
resources. New subdivisions shall be approved only where potential impacts to
environmentally sensitive habitats from development of proposed parcels can be
avoided.
as ESHA by the Carmel Area LUP will be impacted by development of
the project site. See discussion in Section 4.4 Biological Resources.
2.3.3.5
(LUP)
Where private or public development is proposed in documented or expected locations
of environmentally sensitive habitats - particularly those habitats identified in General
Project consistent. The project site has been surveyed for habitat and
mitigation measures proposed for impacts to species to ensure

16

Policy
Number
Policy No. I - field surveys by qualified individuals or agency shall be required in
order to determine precise locations of the habitat and to recommend mitigating
measures to ensure its protection. This policy applies to the entire segment except the
internal portions of Carmel Woods, Hatton Fields, Carmel Point (Night heron site
excluded), Odello, Carmel Meadows, and Carmel Riviera. If any habitats are found on
the site or within 100 feet from the site, the required survey shall document how the
proposed development complies with all the applicable habitat policies.
protection, consistent with this policy. No limited or threatened plant
communities defined as ESHA by the Carmel Area LUP will be
impacted by the project or are immediately adjacent to the site. See
discussion in Section 4.4 Biological Resources.
2.3.3.7
(LUP)
Where development is permitted in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat
areas, the County, through the development review process, shall restrict the removal
of indigenous vegetation and land disturbance (grading, excavation, paving, etc.) to
that needed for the structural improvements themselves.
Project consistent. The project site is located in an existing residential
area, and has previously been developed. No limited or threatened
plant communities defined as ESHA by the Carmel Area LUP is
present within or immediately adjacent to the site. Also, see mitigations
in Section 4.4 Biological Resources for restrictions on land
disturbance.
2.3.3.8
(LUP)
The County shall require the use of appropriate native species in proposed
landscaping.
Project consistent. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.1
Aesthetics and Section 4.4 Biology shall insure that landscape
screening and restoration shall consist of plant and tree species
consistent with the surrounding vegetation.
2.3.4.8
(LUP)
The County should work with landowners or other public agencies (such as the Coastal
Conservancy), as the need arises, to protect both significant stands of Monterey pine
and coast redwood forest through permanent conservation easements, deed restrictions,
or, where necessary, fee acquisition.
as ESHA by the Carmel Area LUP is present within or immediately
adjacent to the site. However, mitigation measures have been included
to minimize potential impacts from tree removal on the project site.
See discussion in Section 4.4 Biological Resources.
2.5.3.2
(LUP)
All cutting or removal of trees shall be in keeping with the broad resource protection
objectives of this plan. Specific policies, criteria, and standards of other sections of
this plan shall govern both commercial and noncommercial tree removal.
Project consistent with mitigation. Mitigation measures have been
included to minimize potential impacts from tree removal on the
project site. See discussion in Section 4.4 Biological Resources. As a
result, the proposed project, as mitigated, is considered to be generally
2.5.3.3
(LUP)
Restoration of native forest resources is encouraged for public agencies and residents
as a means of maintaining and enhancing the Carmel area's natural character.
Removal of non-native tree species is encouraged except where such vegetation
provides important wildlife habitat.
Project consistent with mitigation. Mitigation measures have been
included to minimize potential impacts from tree removal on the
project site. See discussion in Section 4.4 Biological Resources. As a
result, the proposed project, as mitigated, is considered to be generally
2.5.3.8 In addition to compliance with forestry and soils resources policies, all developments, Project consistent. Mitigation measures have been included to

16

Policy
Number
(LUP) forest management activities, and tree removal shall specifically conform to the LAP
policies regarding water and marine resources, sensitive habitat area, and coastal visual
resources.
minimize potential impacts from tree removal on the project site and to
minimize potential impacts to other LCP policies. See discussion in
Section 4.4 Biological Resources.

AREA PLAN (LUP) Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils,Hydrology & Water Quality and Utilities Refer to Draft EIR Table 4.9.1, No changes in these sections in
the FEIR




6.0 Revision to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR

REVISED SECTIONS FROM THE DRAFT AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR

4.13 Revised Traffic and Circulation Section from Recirculated DEIR

Please note: This section is provided in its entirety as revised from the recirculated draft EIR.

RDEIR 4.13 Traffic and Circulation


4.13 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

Introduction

The Recirculated Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation section replaces Section 4.13 of the previously
circulated Draft EIR in its entirety and evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on nearby roadways
due to project implementation and operation. Discussions also include determinations of significance and
corresponding mitigation. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed Villas de
Carmelo project by Hatch Mott MacDonald (December 2007) and was submitted as part of the project
application materials. Per Monterey County Planning Department request, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, the Countys consulting traffic engineers for the Draft EIR, conducted a peer review of the
TIA. Higgins Associates revised the TIA to include suggestions from the peer review (September 4,
2008). The revised TIA was again subject to peer review by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and
subsequently circulated for public review as part of the Draft EIR for the project.

Hatch Mott MacDonald prepared an addendum to the September 2008 TIA in order to address specific
comments received on the Draft EIR. The TIA addendum completed by Hatch Mott MacDonald, dated
July 2010, is located in Appendix O of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The Hatch Mott MacDonald July
2010 addendum was subject to peer review by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the Recirculated
Draft EIR. Hatch Mott MacDonald also provided letters, dated January 5, 2010 and April 2, 2010, to
address traffic trip generation after the close of the convalescent hospital and impacts to Highway 1; these
letters are located in Appendix P. A memorandum regarding roadway segments, provided by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants dated February 17, 2010, is located in Appendix Q of the Recirculated Draft
EIR.

Appendix Q also contains a conceptual drawing of the proposed safety/operational improvements at the
Valley Way/Highway 1 intersection improvements, originally prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald and
revised by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, in coordination with Monterey County staff. The
complete set of documents and their respective peer reviews are available for review at the Monterey
County Planning Department. Hexagon Transportation Consultants as peer reviewers for the EIR,
reviewed the conclusions and recommendations of the TIA and documentation provided by Hatch Mott
MacDonald. The Monterey County Public Works Department also reviewed drawings and all
supplemental information provided. The following incorporates information from the revised TIA
(Appendix K of the Draft EIR), the Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA Addendum, the Hatch Mott MacDonald
supplemental letters cited above, the supplemental analysis from Hexagon, and also incorporates this
updated information prepared as a result of the public comments received on the Draft EIR.

Setting

Roadway Network

Key roadways near the study area are Highway 1, Carpenter Street, Ocean Avenue, Valley Way, and
Flanders Drive. Other local streets within the study area are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Avenues, Monterey Street,
Lobos Street, Lower Trail, and Santa Fe Street. The project area roadway network is presented in Figure
4.13-1 and summarized below. The intersections analyzed for the project are also summarized below
with discussion of the responsible agencies.

Figure
N
Roadway Network
4.13-1
Source: Higgins Associates, 2007
Key Roadways

Highway 1 has four travel lanes (2 lanes in each direction) north of the Ocean Avenue/Highway 1
intersection. Southbound Highway 1 transitions to one southbound lane and two northbound lanes south
of its intersection with Ocean Avenue. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph) north of
Carpenter Street and 40 mph south of Carpenter Street. Highway 1 south of Carpenter Road has a
number of private driveways with traffic signals as well signalized intersections at its intersections with
Carpenter, Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road.

Carpenter Street is a two-lane collector street that extends northerly from Ocean Avenue to Highway 1,
providing access to downtown Carmel. The posted speed limit on Carpenter Street is 30 mph north of
Valley Way and 25 mph south of Valley Way.

Ocean Avenue is an east-west, two-lane arterial street that extends from Highway 1 to downtown Carmel
and the coast. The posted speed limit on Ocean Avenue is 25 mph.

Valley Way is a local street that extends from Guadalupe Street to Highway 1. It primarily serves the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. The posted speed limit along Valley Way is 25 mph. There is an
unmarked bus stop at the intersection of Valley Way with 1st Avenue and Monterey Street.

Flanders Drive is a local street that provides access from Highway 1 to Carmel High School and
surrounding residential neighborhoods. The posted speed limit on Flanders Drive is 25 mph.

1st Avenue is a local street that extends in an east-west direction between Junipero Street to the west and
Valley Way to the east.

2nd Avenue is a local street that extends in an east-west direction between Junipero Street to the west and
Monterey Street to the east.

3rd Avenue is a local street that extends in an east-west direction between Mission Street to the west and
Highway 1 to the east. However, 3rd Avenue does not provide continuous access between these two
points because the roadway dead ends at Carpenter Street. Vehicles traveling eastbound on 3rd Avenue
west of Carpenter Street must turn either left or right at Carpenter Street. Similarly, vehicles traveling
westbound on 3rd Avenue east of Carpenter Street must turn either left or right at Lobos Street to avoid
the dead end. This roadway configuration was implemented in order to reduce cut-through traffic to and
from Highway 1.

Monterey Street is a local street that extends in a north-south direction between Valley Way to the north
and 3rd Avenue to the south.

Lobos Street is a local street that extends in a north-south direction between Valley Way to the north and
4th Avenue to the south.

Lower Trail is a local street that extends in a general north-south direction between Carpenter Street to
the north and Valley Way to the south. Lower Trail provides access to the homes located on Lower Trail
and Upper Trail.

Santa Fe Street is a local street that extends in a north-south direction between Pico Avenue to the north
and 6th Avenue to the south.

Study Intersections

The Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection is a signalized four-leg intersection. Left-turn bays are
provided on all approaches with dual left-turn lanes on the eastbound approach. Protected left-turn
phasing is provided on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound
approaches provide split phase left turns. The westbound approach provides a permitted right-turn, as
well as right-turn overlap phasing. The southbound right-turn movement is a free movement with no stop
control. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over this intersection.

The Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection is a four-leg intersection with two-way stop control on the
eastbound and westbound approaches. Although the westbound approach is not striped as two lanes, it is
flared such that it operates as a right turn lane and shared through-left turn lane. The County of Monterey
(Monterey County Department of Public Works) has jurisdiction over the intersection.

The Highway 1/Valley Way intersection is a three-leg intersection with stop control on the eastbound
approach. Valley Way intersects Highway 1 at approximately a 20-degree angle measured from the
north. There is currently no right turn lane provided on southbound Highway 1. A two-way left turn lane
is provided on northbound Highway 1 at Valley Way. Eastbound left turns onto Highway 1 are not
prohibited, but are discouraged by the existing intersection geometry. As such, they are rarely observed.
The State of California agency that has jurisdiction over the intersection is Caltrans.

The Highway 1/Flanders Drive intersection is a three-leg intersection with stop control on the westbound
approach. A left turn bay is provided on the southbound approach. The State of California agency that
has jurisdiction over the intersection is Caltrans.

The Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersection is a signalized four-leg intersection. Left turn bays are
provided on all approaches. Protected left turn phasing is provided on the northbound and southbound
approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide split phase left turns. The southbound
approach provides a permitted right turn, as well as right turn overlap phasing. Just south of the
intersection, southbound Highway 1 transitions from two southbound through lanes to one southbound
through lane. The State of California agency that has jurisdiction over the intersection is Caltrans.

The Lower Trail/Valley Way intersection is located immediately east (approximately 80 feet) of the
Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection. The southbound Lower Trail approach is stop-controlled. The
Monterey County Department of Public Works has jurisdiction over the intersection.

The Lobos Street/Valley Way intersection is located approximately 175 feet east of the Lower
Trail/Valley Way intersection and has stopyield-control on the northbound Lobos Street approach. The
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea holds jurisdiction over the intersection.

The Monterey Street/1st Avenue/Valley Way intersection is a skewed four-leg intersection located
approximately 350 feet east of the Lobos Street/Valley Way intersection. The northbound Monterey
Street and eastbound 1st Avenue approaches are stop-controlled at this intersection. The City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea has jurisdiction over the intersection.

The Monterey Street/2nd Avenue intersection is a three-leg intersection with stop control on the
eastbound 2nd Avenue approach. This intersection is located approximately 460 feet south of the
Monterey Street/1st Avenue/Valley Way intersection. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has jurisdiction
over the intersection.

The Carpenter Street/1st Avenue intersection is a four-leg intersection located approximately 450 feet
south of the Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection. Stop control is provided on the eastbound and
westbound 1st Avenue approaches. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has jurisdiction over the intersection.

The Carpenter Street/2nd Avenue intersection is a four-leg intersection located approximately 450 feet
south of the Carpenter Street/1st Avenue intersection. This intersection is all-way stop controlled. It
should also be noted that signage at this intersection directs southbound trucks to turn right at 2nd Avenue
to follow the truck route, rather than proceeding straight on Carpenter Street. A five-foot landscaped
median is located on Carpenter Street just south of this intersection. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has
jurisdiction over the intersection.

The Highway 1/3rd Avenue intersection is a three-leg intersection located approximately 140 feet south
of the Highway 1/Valley Way intersection. The eastbound 3rd Avenue approach is stop-controlled. The
State of California agency that has jurisdiction over the intersection is Caltrans.

The Santa Fe Street/3rd Avenue intersection is a four-leg intersection with stop control on the
northbound Santa Fe Street and westbound 3rd Avenue approaches. The southbound Santa Fe Street and
eastbound 3rd Avenue approaches are not stop-controlled and are part of the designated truck route. The
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea holds jurisdiction over the intersection.

Traffic Impact Report

As mentioned previously, a TIA was prepared for the project by Hatch Mott MacDonald (refer to
Appendix K, Draft EIR). Discussion from the report includes: 1) Traffic Analysis Methodology; 2)
Presented Analysis for Identified Existing, Project, and Cumulative Conditions on the Roadway System;
3) Intersection Operations; 4) Road Segment Analysis; 5) and Project Impacts and Mitigation
Recommendations. The impacts identified in this report the TIA and the recommended mitigation
measures have been integrated into the impacts and mitigation discussion of this recirculated section. The
TIA also provided an analysis of indirect traffic impacts to surrounding residential streets associated with
the project, which has been included at the end of this section. The TIA analyzed traffic conditions under
the following scenarios:

1. Existing Traffic Conditions (2008)
2. Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions
3. Cumulative Without Project Traffic Conditions
4. Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions

Traffic Methodology

The TIA analyzed traffic conditions for intersections and road segments based on level of service (LOS)
evaluations. LOS is a measure of roadway quality of service. LOS describes traffic conditions on a scale
of A to F, with LOS A indicating free flow conditions with minimum delay and LOS F representing
severe congestion with major delay.

The project study area covers the jurisdiction of multiple public agencies. Each agency establishes
acceptable LOS standards for roadway facilities within its jurisdiction. These standards are identified
below.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has established LOS C as its LOS standard.
The County of Monterey suggests LOS C as an acceptable LOS.
The Caltrans level of service goal is the transition between LOS C and D.

Study intersections and roadway segments were selected based on the estimated addition of project traffic
to the surrounding roadway network. Facilities were selected for study at which it is expected that the
project will result in a significant increase in traffic volumes (10 trips or more) and a degradation of levels
of service. The traffic impact analysis evaluated 13 intersections, and five road segments in the vicinity of
the project site, as listed below by jurisdiction.

Caltrans Intersections

Highway 1/Carpenter
Highway 1/Valley Way
Highway 1/Flanders Drive
Highway 1/Ocean Avenue
Highway 1/Third Avenue

Monterey County Intersections

Carpenter Street/Valley Way
Lower Trail/Valley Way

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Intersections

Lobos Street/Valley Way
Monterey Street/1st

Avenue/Valley Way
Monterey Street/2nd Avenue
Carpenter Street/1st Avenue
Carpenter Street/2nd Avenue
Santa Fe Street/3rd Avenue

Road Segments - Caltrans

Highway 1 between Holman Highway and Carpenter Street (Additional)
Highway 1 between Carpenter Street and Valley Way
Highway 1 between Valley Way and Flanders Drive
Highway 1 between Flanders Drive and Ocean Avenue
Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road (Additional)

For both signalized and two-way stop controlled intersections, LOS calculations were performed using
the SYNCHRO software program (version 7), based on technical procedures documented in the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM). The 2000 HCM methodology is based on control delay per
vehicle. Total control delay includes not only the actual time stopped but also time to slow down,
accelerate, and travel at reduced speeds in queues. LOS for a two-way stop-controlled (TWSC)
intersection is determined by the control delay for each minor movement, as per 2000 HCM methodology
definition. The analysis also includes LOS for the unsignalized intersection as a whole. Overall
intersection delays presented in this report are based on a weighted averaging of the control delay on each
individual lane grouping on all intersection approaches.

The existing signal timing information for the Highway 1/Carpenter Street and Highway 1/Ocean Avenue
intersections was obtained from the Caltrans District 5 office and was used as the basis for the
SYNCHRO analyses. LOS for road segments were determined based upon capacity threshold volumes
and GPS-based travel time studies for the appropriate roadway type. It was assumed that the study
segments along Highway 1 operate as a four-lane expressway freeway north of Carpenter Street and a
four-lane urban street between Carpenter Street and Ocean Avenue. South of Ocean Avenue, Highway 1
was analyzed as a two-lane urban street in the northbound direction and a one lane urban street in the
southbound direction. Additionally, the impact of the project on the regional roadway network is
evaluated in the 2005 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the Transportation
Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

For informational purposes, Hexagon Transportation Consultants completed analysis of the Highway 1
segments utilizing several classifications for the Highway 1 study segments and significance criteria (See
Hexagon memo dated February 17, 2010, RDEIR Appendix Q-1). The analysis indicated that the segment
of Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road is currently operating at LOS F during
each of the peak hours. The reported LOS F for the Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel
Valley Road segment is based on the use of the 2-lane rural highway classification.

After review of the Highway 1 analysis, the roadway segments south of Carpenter Street are considered
more appropriately categorized as Urban Streets
1
rather than rural highways as previously assumed in the
DEIR. Highway 1 is more appropriately analyzed as an urban street due to its lower speeds and scenic
appeal. Portions of Highway 1 in this area directly traverse an urban area with a high frequency of private
driveway access, greater pedestrian concentration, and signal spacing of less than 2 miles. Because of
these characteristics, the use of the Urban Street methodology was approved for use by the County of
Monterey and Caltrans as appropriate for project-level analysis. After review of the Highway 1 analysis,
the roadway facilities are considered to be more appropriately categorized as a two-lane highway.
2

Highway 1 is more often analyzed as a Class II two-lane highway due to its lower speeds and scenic
appeal. Portions of Highway 1 in this area directly traverse an urban area with a high frequency of private
driveway access, greater pedestrian concentration, and signal spacing of less than 2 miles. Because of
these characteristics, the Urban Streets methodology is an appropriate project-level analysis. The change
in classification only affects the segment of Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road. The
2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum letter (included in RDEIR Appendices) analyzed the road
segment of Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road using the urban streets methodology
GPS based travel time studies and determined the segment currently operates at LOS E in the northbound
direction during each of the peak hours.

The April 2009 PRDSEIR for the Carmel Valley Traffic Improvement Program, a more conservative
programmatic document, used the Two-Lane and Multilane Highways methodologies for the same
Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road segment and determined existing operations

1
Per the Caltrans communication with Julie Oates of Hatch Mott MacDonald included in Appendix P-2, Caltrans confirmed
analysis of Highway 1 as a urban street in this area. Due to specific characteristics of Highway 1, such as high frequency of
private driveway access, greater pedestrian concentration, signal spacing of less than 2 miles, scenic views and other specifics
noted above, Caltrans has confirmed that the Urban Street methodology is an appropriate methodology for this project-level
analysis. Therefore, this approach is used in the 2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum, and has been confirmed by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, County of Monterey Public Works and Caltrans (See Appendix O and Appendix P).

Per the Caltrans communication with Julie Oates of Hatch Mott MacDonald included in Appendix P, Caltrans confirmed
analysis of Highway 1 as a Class II two-lane highway in this area. Due to specific characteristics of Highway 1, such as high
frequency of private driveway access, greater pedestrian concentration, signal spacing of less than 2 miles, scenic views and other
specifics noted above, Caltrans has confirmed that the Urban Streets methodology is an appropriate methodology for this project-
level analysis. Therefore, this approach is used in the 2010 Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum, and has been confirmed by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, County of Monterey Public Works and Caltrans (See Appendix P).
3
Per May 27 and June 7, 2010, conference calls to discuss safety improvement for the Valley Way/Highway1
intersection with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Monterey County Planning Department and Monterey
County Public Works Department. Revised plan is shown in Appendix Q; See also Mitigation Measure 4.13-2.
of LOS F. It is common professional practice for planning level documents to utilize broader
assumptions that yield more conservative results, because the goal is to consider a wide range scenario.
(Monterey County Public Works, Personal Communication, April 14, 2010; also see Caltrans
correspondence, Appendix P).

Identified Existing Conditions

To establish existing traffic flow conditions, traffic counts were performed during the weekday on
Wednesday, August 6 and Thursday, August 7, 2008, from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM and on
Saturday, August 9, 2008, from 1:00 to 3:00 PM at all 13 study intersections.

Since the counts were performed in August, when schools were not in session, adjustments were made to
the existing condition AM peak hour volumes to account for thisany decrease in vehicle volumes due to
school inactivity. Adjustments were made only to weekday AM peak hour volumes because the start of
the school day occurs during the AM peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM), while the end of the school day
occurs prior to the PM peak period (4:00 to 6:00 PM). Counts were also that were performed in
November 2006 at five of the study intersections while school was in session, and these were used to
determine appropriate adjustment factors for the existing condition AM peak hour volumes collected in
August 2008. The ratio between the 2006 and 2008 AM and PM peak hour volumes for each intersection
movement was determined and applied to the 2008 APM peak hour volumes to calculate the adjusted AM
peak hour volumes.

In addition to the adjustments made to the existing AM peak hour volumes to account for school traffic, a
seasonal adjustment was made to existing weekday AM and PM and Saturday peak hour volumes to
adjust for seasonal fluctuation in the area. The average of the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes along Highway 1, as published by Caltrans, were used to
determine an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor between the August volumes and an average month.
This adjustment factor was then applied to the traffic volumes collected during the August counts.

Table 4.13-1 presents the raw and adjusted traffic volumes. As can be seen in Table 4.13-1, the volumes
used in the analysis are in most cases considerably higher than the raw counts, whether they were
conducted during the summer or during the school year.


Table 4.13-1
Raw and Adjusted Traffic Volumes*
*Raw Count Adjustments to Account for Seasonal, School and Tourist Related Traffic Variation
Intersection
Total Volume Entering Intersection (Raw Counts)
Total
Volume
Entering
Intersection
(Adjusted)
Percent
Increase
over
August
2005
Percent
Increase
over Nov.
2006
Percent
Increase
over
March
2008
Percent
Increase
over
August
2008
August
2005
Nov. 2006
March
2008
August
2008
Analyzed
Volumes
A B C D E F G H I
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Highway 1/Carpenter St. - - 3,774 4,742 - - 3,688 4,913 4,341 5,303 - - 15% 12% - - 18% 8%
2 Carpenter St./Valley Way - - 583 727 - - 533 838 724 995 - - 24% 37% - - 36% 19%
3 Highway 1/Valley Way - - 2,497 3,036 - - 2,585 3,425 3,164 3,806 - - 27% 25% - - 22% 11%
4 Highway 1/Flanders 2,404 3,006 2,404 3,257 - - 2,438 3,264 3,174 3,791 32% 26% 32% 26% - - 30% 16%
5 Highway 1/Ocean Ave. 3,122 3,958 3,122 3,528 3,205 3,543 2,701 3,654 3,592 4,174 15% 5% 15% 18% 12% 18% 33% 14%
6 Lower Trail/Valley Way - - - - - - 28 80 62 80 - - - -- - - 121% 0%
7 Lobos St./Valley Way - - - - - - 13 56 38 58 - - - - - - 192% 4%
8 Valley Way/1
st
Ave./Monterey St. - - - - - - 11 61 26 61 - - - - - - 136% 0%
9 Monterey St./2
nd
Ave. - - - - - - 9 42 16 42 - - - - - - 78% 0%
10 Carpenter St./1
st
Ave. - - - - - - 523 886 666 946 - - - - - - 27% 7%
11 Carpenter St./2
nd
Ave. - - - - - - 531 905 689 964 - - - - - - 30% 7%
12 Highway 1/3
rd
Ave. - - - - - - 2,586 3,424 3,174 3,809 - - - - - - 23% 11%
13 Santa Fe St./3
rd
Ave. - - - - - - 278 467 361 497 - - - - - - 30% 6%
Notes: Columns A, B, C, and D provide raw traffic counts with no seasonal or school adjustments. Columns A, B, and C present data from previous counts conducted in August
2005, November 2006, and March 2008, respectively. The counts in columns A and C were conducted for other projects in the area, while the counts in column B were conducted
for an earlier draft of the Villas de Carmelo traffic study. Column D provides the most recent (August 2008) raw traffic counts that were conducted for the final Villas de Carmelo
traffic study. Column E provides the adjusted data, which are the volumes that were used in the analysis. The data in column E includes the adjustments made for seasonal
variations and for school not being in session during the August 2008 counts. Source: Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA and Addendum 2010 (Appendix O, RDEIR). The
methods used to adjust the counts to account for school traffic and seasonal variations are discussed on page 7 of the traffic study (Appendix K of the DEIR).
Intersection Operations

All of the study intersections operate acceptably during the weekday AM peak hour under existing
conditions. During the weekday PM peak hour, all of the study intersections operate acceptably, except
for the Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection, which operates at a deficient LOS D. All of the study
intersections operate acceptably during the Saturday afternoon peak hour, except for the Highway
1/Ocean Avenue intersection, which operates at a deficient LOS D. The summary of the existing LOS for
study intersections is shown in Figure 4.13-2.

The Monterey County left-turn warrant is met during both the AM and PM peak hours at the Carpenter
Street/Valley Way intersection under existing conditions. The Monterey County left-turn lane warrant
methodology can be discounted in this application for several reasons. First, the posted speed limit on
Carpenter Street is only 30 miles per hour north of Valley Way and 25 miles per hour south of Valley
Way. The County warrants are primarily used for high speed roadways, where left turning vehicles
require longer gaps in traffic to complete a left turn movement and the severity of accidents is far higher
than at low speed locations such as Carpenter Street. Secondly, volumes at this intersection are far below
warrants that have been adopted by other agencies including the United States Transportation Research
Board, Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans. Therefore, although desirable, a left turn lane is
not essential at this location.

Note: The discussion below analyzed existing conditions and in some cases identifies recommended
improvements for existing operational deficiencies. The existing operational deficiencies do not meet
impact criteria for the project and the project is not required to mitigate existing deficiencies, however,
study results are described to present the data as well as possible recommendations.

Carpenter Street and Valley Way Safety/Operational Deficiencies

Constraints exist on both sides of Carpenter Street at its intersection with Valley Way, making the
installation of a southbound left-turn lane potentially infeasible. Therefore, the County should consider
widening the southbound shoulder to provide additional pavement for vehicles to more easily pass
vehicles waiting to turn left onto Valley Way in lieu of a full left turn lane. However, the right-of-way
constraints along both sides of Carpenter Street along with varied elevation and requirement of the
removal and relocation of utilities may make the pavement widening infeasible also. A second alternative
the County could consider is changing the Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection into an all-way stop
controlled intersection. Although the all-way stop control warrant is not met at this location, due to the
relatively low minor street volumes, the change to all-way stop control would eliminate the need for the
southbound left-turn lane. It should be noted that because the Monterey County left-turn lane warrant is
met at the Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection under existing conditions, the County is responsible
for implementing an improvement at this location.

Highway 1 and Valley Way Safety/Operational Deficiencies

The Highway 1/Valley Way intersection does not currently experience capacity-related problems;
however, the existing intersection geometry at the Highway 1/Valley Way intersection is such that Valley
Way intersects Highway 1 at approximately a 20-degree angle measured from the north. Due to the
existing geometry, it is difficult for vehicles to make the right turn from Highway 1 onto Valley Way
without encroaching into the opposing lane of traffic on Valley Way. In addition, there is not currently a
right turn lane at the southbound Highway 1 approach at Valley Way. Vehicles on southbound Highway
1 must decelerate substantially in the through lane in order to maneuver the sharp right turn at Valley
Way. Furthermore, sight distance from Valley Way to Highway 1 is currently hindered by landscaping
(cypress/juniper trees and shrubs) located on a narrow strip to the north of Valley Way, which impedes
visibility for vehicles making the eastbound right turn from Valley Way onto Highway 1.

The Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA proposed improvements at the Highway 1/Valley Way intersection to
improve safety at the intersection. Recommended improvements to the intersection include increasing the
radius at the northwest triangular corner of the intersection to improve maneuverability for the
southbound right turns from Highway 1 onto Valley Way and trimming/cutting trees and shrubs on this
corner to provide sufficient sight distance from Valley Way to Highway 1. Also extension of the
pavement on the west side of southbound Highway 1 just before Valley Way was proposed by Hatch
Mott MacDonald to provide a flare for deceleration for vehicles making the right turn from Highway 1
onto Valley Way. County of Monterey staff and Hexagon Transportation Consultants reviewed the
proposed improvements to Valley Way and Highway 1 in coordination with this RDEIR. The
improvements proposed by the Applicant were revised in order to better conform to County and Coastal
policy requirements. Refer to Appendix Q for the conceptual drawing and County revisions.
3

Road Segment Analysis

Under existing conditions, one of the five study road segments, Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel
Valley Road, operates at an unacceptable LOS EF during the weekday AM peak hour. During the
weekday PM and Saturday afternoon peak hours, four study road segments operate at a deficient LOS D
or worse. A summary of the existing LOS for study road segments is provided in Figure 4.13-3.

TIA Recommendations

The RDEIR referenced the TIA identified several recommended improvements discussed in the 2005
Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), prepared by TAMC, which would affect the
project vicinity. The report also included several additional recommendations in their analysis to improve
existing conditions. Planned improvements and additional recommendations are discussed below in the
RDEIR from the 2005 document. Since the recirculation of the RDEIR, the 2010 RTP was adopted by
TAMC (November, 2010) which updates the Highway Improvements identified in the RDEIR. While the
improvements were revised, the updated 2010 RTP does not change any of the conclusions of the TIA or
RDEIR. Comment letters on the RDEIR also challenged including these improvements since they were
unfunded (or were on the Unconstrained Regional Project List from the 2005 RTP), therefore, they have
been deleted from the discussion.

The 2005 Monterey County RTP includes capacity improvements along the Highway 1 corridor in
Carmel between the Carmel River Bridge and Carpenter Street on its Unconstrained Regional Project
List. These improvements include, but are not limited to, widening Highway 1 in this area to add two
more lanes with at-grade or grade-separated interchange improvements. This improvement corridor
includes three of the study intersections analyzed in this report, namely the Highway 1/Carpenter Street,
Highway 1/Flanders Drive, and Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersections.

As a component to the corridor-wide improvements, the RTP Unconstrained Regional Project List
recommends that northbound Highway 1 be widened to accommodate three northbound lanes. This
widening would begin south of the Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection and continue through the
intersection as an auxiliary lane north of the intersection. The auxiliary lane would end at the Highway
1/Highway 68 interchange. In addition, it is recommended that the eastbound approach at the Highway

3
Per May 27 and June 7, 2010, conference calls to discuss safety improvement for the Valley Way/Highway1
intersection with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Monterey County Planning Department and Monterey
County Public Works Department. Revised plan is shown in Appendix Q; See also Mitigation Measure 4.13-2.
1/Carpenter Street intersection be widened to accommodate two left-turn lanes, a shared left-through lane,
and a dedicated right-turn lane. Additional RTP improvements also include widening of the eastbound
and westbound approaches of the Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersection to accommodate a left-turn lane,
a shared left-through lane, and a dedicated right-turn lane.

In addition to the planned improvements in the RTP, the following improvements are recommended in
the Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA and its peer review to improve existing conditions:

1. Consider either widening the southbound shoulder at the Carpenter Street/Valley Way intersection to
allow vehicles to pass vehicles waiting to turn left onto Valley Way, or consider changing this
intersection to all-way stop control to eliminate the need for left-turn channelization on the
southbound approach.
2. Increase the radius at the northwest triangular corner of the Highway 1/Valley Way intersection to
improve maneuverability for the southbound right turns onto Valley Way.
3. Remove and/or trim any trees or shrubs remaining on this corner that interfere with sight distance
from Valley Way to Highway 1.
4. Provide a right-turn flare on the southbound Highway 1 approach to Valley Way to provide
deceleration for vehicles turning right from Highway 1 to Valley Way.
Existing Existing Overall
Operational Intersection LOS
N S E W Lane Control Standard AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Saturday Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Saturday Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Saturday Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Saturday Peak Hr
Street Street Configuration Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c
(sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec) (sec)
1 Highway 1 Carpenter NB 1 L, 1 T, 1 T/R
Street SB 1 L, 2 T, 1 R Signal C/D 22.4 C 0.74 53.7 D 1.05 31.3 C 0.86 22.5 C 0.74 54.2 D 1.05 31.4 C 0.86 34.9 C 0.87 76.0 E 1.13 69.7 E 0.98 35.3 D 0.87 76.4 E 1.13 69.8 E 0.98
EB 2 L, 1 T, 1 R
WB 1 L, 1 T/L, 1 R
Mitigation
9
18 3 B 0 68 24 8 C 0 79 21 0 C 0 79 18 4 B 0 68 25 1 C 0 79 21 2 C 0 80 20 7 C 0 73 30 8 C 0 89 27 6 C 0 89 20 8 C 0 73 31 3 C 0 87 27 7 C 0 89
2 Carpenter Valley NB 1 L/T/R
Street Way SB 1 L/T/R Stop Sign (EB/WB) C 1.2 A 1.2 A 1.0 A 1.4 A 1.4 A 1.2 A 1.2 A 1.2 A 1.0 A 1.4 A 1.4 A 1.2 A
EB 1 L/T/R WA (WB) 15 9 C 23 1 C 15 6 C 16 1 C 23 7 C 16 0 C 15 9 C 23 3 C 15 7 C 16 2 C 24 0 C 16 1 C
WB 1 L/T, 1 R
3 Highway 1 Valley NB 1 L, 2 T
Way SB 2 T Stop Sign (EB) C/D 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A
EB 1 T/R WA (EB) 19 3 C 18 6 C 21 0 C 19 6 C 18 7 C 21 1 C 21 2 C 23 7 C 27 1 D 21 6 C 24 0 C 27 4 D
4 Highway 1 Flanders NB 1 T, 1 T/R
Drive SB 1 L, 2 T Stop Sign (WB) C/D 0.3 A 0.5 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.5 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.6 A 0.2 A 0.3 A 0.6 A 0.2 A
WB 1 L/T/R WA (WB) 11 3 B 14 1 B 10 2 B 11 3 B 14 1 B 10 2 B 13 3 B 15 6 C 11 4 B 13 3 B 15 6 C 11 4 B
5 Highway 1 Ocean NB 1 L, 1 T, 1 T/R
Avenue SB 1 L, 2 T, 1 R Signal C/D 25.3 C 0.85 33.2 C 0.93 36.6 D 0.94 25.4 C 0.85 33.5 C 0.93 36.9 D 0.94 29.1 C 0.90 47.3 D 0.97 55.0 D 1.04 29.3 C 0.90 47.7 D 0.97 55.6 E 1.04
EB 1 L, 1 L/T/R
WB 1 L, 1 L/T/R
Mitigation
9
22 6 C 0 78 26 6 C 0 84 27 5 C 0 85 22 6 C 0 79 26 7 C 0 84 27 6 C 0 85 25 0 C 0 83 33 4 C 0 87 38 3 D 0 95 25 2 C 0 83 33 6 C 0 87 38 5 D 0 95
6 Lower Valley NB 1 L/T/R
Tra l Way SB 1 L/T/R Stop Sign (SB) C 3.2 A 2.8 A 2.2 A 2.7 A 2.3 A 1.8 A 3.2 A 2.8 A 2.2 A 2.7 A 2.3 A 1.8 A
EB 1 L/T/R WA (SB) 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A 8 6 A
WB 1 L/T/R
7 Lobos Valley NB 1 L/T/R
Street Way SB 1 L/T/R <LHOG (NB)' 0.0$ 0.$ 0.$ 0.0 $ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.0 $ 0.6 $ 0.4 $
EB 1 L/T/R WA (NB) 0 0 A 8 7 A 8 8 A 0 0 A 8 7 A 8 8 A 0 0 A 8 7 A 8 8 A 0 0 A 8 7 A 8 8 A
WB 1 L/T/R
8 Valley Way First Avenue NB 1 L/T/R
Monterey Monterey SB 1 L/T/R Stop Sign (NB & SB) D 2.2 A 2.9 A 2.8 A 1.8 A 2.7 A 2.6 A 2.2 A 2.9 A 2.8 A 1.8 A 2.7 A 2.6 A
Street Street EB 1 L/T/R WA (SB) 8 7 A 8 8 A 8 8 A 8 8 A 9 0 A 8 8 A 8 7 A 8 8 A 8 8 A 8 8 A 9 0 A 8 8 A
WB 1 L/T/R
9 Monterey Second NB 1 L/T/R
Street Avenue SB 1 L/T/R Stop Sign (WB) D 5.6 A 3.7 A 5.2 A 5.3 A 3.8 A 5.0 A 5.6 A 3.7 A 5.2 A 5.3 A 3.8 A 5.0 A
EB 1 L/T/R WA (WB) 8 3 A 8 5 A 8 5 A 8 3 A 8 5 A 8 5 A 8 3 A 8 5 A 8 5 A 8 3 A 8 5 A 8 5 A
WB 1 L/T/R
10 Carpenter First NB 1 L/T/R
Street Avenue SB 1 L/T/R Stop Sign (EB & WB) D 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.5 A
EB 1 L/T/R WA (EB) 15 2 C 19 8 C 14 3 B 15 2 C 19 8 C 14 3 B 15 3 C 19 9 C 14 4 B 15 3 C 20 0 C 14 4 B
WB 1 L/T/R
11 Carpenter Second NB 1 L/T/R
Street Avenue SB 1 L/T/R All way Stop D 11.6 B 15.2 C 10.9 B 11.6 B 15.5 C 11.0 B 11.6 B 15.5 C 11.5 B 11.7 B 15.7 C 11.1 B
EB 1 L/T/R
WB 1 L/T/R
12 Highway 1 Third NB 1 L, 2 T
Avenue SB 1 T, 1 T/R Stop Sign (WB) C/D 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A
EB 1 L/T/R WA (WB) 26 0 D 31 3 D 21 4 C 26 1 D 31 4 D 21 4 C 29 8 D 47 2 E 27 6 D 29 9 D 47 4 E 27 7 D
13 Santa Fe Third NB 1 L/T/R
Street Avenue SB 1 L/T/R Stop Sign (NB & EB)
10
D 8.2 A 9.8 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 9.9 A 8.2 A 8.2 A 9.9 A 8.2 A 8.3 A 9.9 A 8.2 A
EB 1 L/T/R WA (EB)
WB 1 L/T/R
NOTES
1 L, T, R Left, Through, Right
2 NB, SB, EB, WB Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3 WA Worst Approach
4 Level of service calculated using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies
5 Overall Monterey County level of service standard is LOS C
6 Overall Caltrans level of service standard is LOS C/D
7 Overall City of Carmel level of service standard is LOS D
8 Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required
9 These improvements could be implemented as a component to the corridor wide improvements to Highway 1 in the vicinity of Carmel, as included in the 2005 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan Unconstrained Regional Projects List
10 Synchro is unable to model the acutal configuration of this intersection (stop control on NB and EB approaches) Therefore, this intersection was analyzed as all way stop, as a worst case
Cumulative + Project Conditions Existing Conditions Existing + Project Conditions Cumulative Conditions

D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
Intersection Levels of Service Summary Table
4.13-2
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
Road Segment Levels of Service Table
4.13-3
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Classification Lanes (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph)
Highway 1
btw Holman Highway
and Carpenter Street
/a/
Highway 1
btw Carpenter Street
and Valley Way /b/
Highway 1
btw Valley Way and
Flanders Drive /b/
Highway 1
btw Flanders Drive
and Ocean Avenue
/b/
Highway 1 2 lane Rural
btw Ocean Avenue Highway
and Carmel Valley
Road /a//c/
F
Source: Villas De Carmels Traffic Impact Analysis, September 4, 2008, by Higgins Associates and Hatch Mott MacDonald, 2010
/a/ Addional roadway segments analysed by Hexagon.
/b/ Roadway segments included in the Villas De Carmelo trac impact analysis.
/c/ Assumes capacity of 1,500 vehicle per hour (vph) per HCM 2000. Reported level of service based on GPS travel me and classicaon of Roadway as an urban street.
1,989 1,952 1,991 FE FE FE F F F
1,873 E E 1,877 E
1,625 1,582 1,584 1,633 1,940
3,099
1,899 E 1,651 D
3,622 D
FE
E 1,647 D
FE 1,631
1,387
D 3,693 C
3,658 D 3,777
4,288 D 4,213 3,536 C 4,284 D 4,209 D 3,104 C 3,697 D
3,804 D 3,694
3,570 C
E
D
D 3,618 D
C 5,799 D 5,416
3,602 D 4,395 D 4,285
C
D
D
C C C 4,818 C 5,786 D
D 4,280 D D D
5,358 C
2,129 2,125 1,903 1,689 D
3,541 C
1,759 F
1,688 D
1,756 F
1,388
1,628
D
FE
4,370 D 4,251 D 3,569 C 4,042 D 4,249 D
4E
4E
3,133 C 3,799 D 3,660 D
4,612 4,601 C 4,171 C 5,201
3,160 C 3,799 D 3,689 3,597 C 4,390 3,165 C
LOS
HCM
Direction
NB
SB
2R
1 lane Rd
4,760 5,188
3,132
C
C
4-Lane
Expressway
4-Lane
Expressway
4-Lane
Expressway
Both
Both
Both
4E4F
4E
Both
4-Lane
Freeway
4,160
LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Segment LOS
PM Peak Hr Sat Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Sat Peak Hr
Number of
Existing Condition Existing + Project Conditions Cumulative Conditions Cumulative + Project Conditions
PM Peak Hr Sat Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Sat Peak Hr AM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr
LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS
(Updated by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2010)
Construction Traffic

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over approximately nineteen months.
Construction would primarily be accomplished using diesel-powered heavy equipment. A variety of
project construction activities would include clearing, excavation, and grading operations, import/export
of fill material, and construction vehicle travel. The proposed project would be constructed in two
phases. Phase 1 would include all planned demolition and grading activities on the project site, as well as
all utility access infrastructure extensions. Phase 1 would involve construction of thirty of the proposed
forty-six units on the project site (units 1-13 and units 30-46). Phase 2 would involve construction of the
remaining proposed sixteen units on the project site (units 14-29). The project will require extensive
grading on the site to facilitate construction of proposed uses. The site would be graded to utilize the
existing topography including grading of slopes for parking garages and to minimize the height and
visibility of the buildings. Proposed grading would occur throughout most of the site and would involve
approximately 13,242 cubic yards (CY) of cut/fill. The grading will be subject to grading plan approval
by the County of Monterey.

There are typically two different periods of grading: a rough or mass grading phase that requires
excavators and dozers and then a fine grading phase that may include motor graders, rollers, scrapers,
and loaders. This equipment is typically used from four to eight hours per day. Other phases of
construction use smaller sized equipment (e.g., some loaders, forklifts), but include numerous heavy-duty
truck deliveries for cement, asphalt, building materials, and landscaping materials.

Total earth disturbance is estimated to be approximately 13,242 cubic yards (CY) with 9,589 CY of cut
and 3,653 CY of fill. Therefore, the net amount of cut, which would be exported from the project site,
would be 5,936 CY. Additional material would be imported to the site. This would include base rock,
select soil/gravel for trenches and building pads, concrete, and asphalt for paving. Building materials
would also be imported to the site. Net cut would be exported from the project site to the Monterey
Peninsula Landfill north of Marina or another appropriate disposal site. As such, traffic from these
various activities would be ongoing throughout the demolition, building, and rehabilitation processes for
the project site. The contractor is required to prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan and obtain
approval from the Monterey County Public Works Department, Monterey County Planning Department,
and the California Department of Transportation; the contractor must also adhere to their specific
requirements regarding traffic from construction vehicles. Construction hours as well as parking will be
restricted; construction vehicles are permitted only between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

Regulatory Framework

Monterey County General Plan. The traffic element of the General Plan provides policies that promote
a safe, effective, and economical transportation system that will service the existing and future land uses
of the county. Carmel Area Land Use Plan polices are the governing document and only those land use
policies from the Monterey County General Plan that are not included in the LCP are applicable to
development within the Coastal Zone. The following traffic goals apply to development in the project
area are identified below:

37.2.1 Transportation demands of proposed development shall not exceed an acceptable level of service
for existing transportation facilities, unless appropriate increases in capacities are provided for.

37.4.1 The County shall encourage overall land use patterns which reduce the need to travel.

37.5.1 The design and location of new development shall consider and incorporate provisions for
appropriate transportation modes.

38.1.2 The effects of road noise on County roads and highways shall be mitigated to comply with all
noise control policies of this General Plan.

38.1.5 Adequate traffic capacity shall be a criterion for development consideration.

39.1.1 All available public and private sources shall be used for the funding of road and highway
development, improvement, and maintenance.

39.1.2 The cost of new roads shall be borne as equitably as possible among benefiting property owners
and/or users.

39.1.3 Rights-of-way needed for new roads or expansion of existing roads shall be planned for; land
uses that would preclude the timely development of such rights-of-way shall be prohibited.

39.1.4 New development shall be located where there is existing road and highway capacity or where
adequate road and highway capacity will be provided.

39.2.1 All new road and interior circulation systems shall be designed, developed, and maintained
according to adopted County standards.

39.2.5 Driveways, mid-block access points, intersections, and on-street parking shall be limited along
major roads and highways, where possible.

40.2 Employ a cooperative planning effort among all public and private interests to implement
appropriate land use techniques and controls for maintaining the scenic beauty and atmosphere of the
scenic corridor.

40.2.1 Additional sensitive treatment provisions shall be employed within the scenic corridor, including
placement of utilities underground, where feasible; architectural and landscape controls; outdoor
advertising restrictions; encouragement of area native plants, especially on public lands and dedicated
open spaces; and cooperative landscape programs with adjoining public and private open space lands.

40.2.2 Land use controls shall be applied or retained to protect the scenic corridor and to encourage
sensitive selection of sites and open space preservation. Where land is designated for development at a
density which, should maximum permissible development occur, would diminish scenic quality, the
landowner shall be encouraged to voluntarily dedicate a scenic easement to protect the scenic corridor.

Carmel Area Land Use Plan/Local Coastal Program. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan includes
policies regarding traffic and circulation in the Carmel Area. Relevant, project-specific, polices are listed
below.

3.1.3.7 The number of private roads and recreational access road entrances off Highway 1 should be
limited whenever possible for traffic safety and management purposes.

3.1.3.9 Major development projects - both residential and recreation and visitor-serving, including
significant expansion of existing facilities - should be required to contribute their "fair-share" towards
improvements of Highway 1 required as a result of traffic generated by the particular project.

Evaluation for project consistency with applicable Monterey County General Plan and Carmel Area Land
Use Plan policies is provided in Table 4.9-1 within Section 4.9 Land Use and Planning.
Thresholds of Significance

Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes a project impact. For this analysis, the
significance criteria are based on the Monterey County Public Works Department Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, April 2003 for County roadways and the Caltrans level of service
standard
4
. The following summarized the significance criteria:

County of Monterey. The County of Montereys significance criteria for signalized intersections states
that if a signalized intersection currently operates at LOS D or LOS E, a significant impact occurs if the
critical movements volume to capacity (v/c) ratio is increased by 1% (0.01) with the addition of project
trips. If a signalized intersection currently operates at LOS F, the addition of a single project trip is
considered significant. The Countys significance criteria for unsignalized intersections states that a
significant impact occurs if any traffic movement has LOS F or if any traffic signal warrant is met. The
Countys significance criteria for County roadway segments states that a significant impact occurs if any
County roadway segment operating at LOS A through EC degrades to a lower LOS of D, E, or F with the
addition of project trips. If the segment is already operating at LOS F, the addition of a single trip is
considered significant.

Caltrans. The standard from Caltrans for freeway facilities is stated as the transition between LOS C and
D. Though there are no published Caltrans significance criteria, based upon standard industry practice as
confirmed by the peer review traffic consultant for this EIR and as used historically, the addition of traffic
equivalent to 1% or more of a freeway segment capacity already operating at LOS F has been considered
a potentially significant impact.

CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project impact would be considered
significant if the project would:

cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);

exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways;

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);

result in inadequate emergency access;

4
Per Hexagon, traffic increases could occur at intersections and on roadways currently operating at undesirable
levels of service without creating a significant impact. CEQA and other state law establish that new development
cannot be required to correct existing deficiencies. In addition, a proposed development is also only responsible for
mitigating its own impacts or paying its proportional share of cumulative impacts. This means that project
mitigation does not have to result in an acceptable level of service. It only has to result in conditions equal to the
pre-project condition. The determinations made in the traffic study regarding significance and mitigations are in
accordance with these standards.

result in inadequate parking capacity; or

conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks).

Impacts and Mitigation

Increase in Traffic Load

Existing Plus Project Conditions

The project trips were combined with existing condition volumes to develop existing plus project
volumes for peak AM, and PM, and Saturday afternoon peak hour conditions.


Under existing plus project conditions, all of the study intersections operate acceptably during the AM
peak hour. During the PM peak hour, all of the study intersections operate acceptably, except the
Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection, which is expected to continue to operate deficiently at LOS D.
The intersection already operates deficiently during the weekday PM peak hour under existing conditions.
The addition of project trips will not result in a significant impact at this intersection, because the critical
movement volume to capacity (v/c) ratio does not increase at the intersection with the addition of project
trips.

All of the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably during the Saturday afternoon
peak hour under existing plus project conditions, except for the Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersection,
which is expected to continue to operate deficiently at LOS D. The addition of project trips will not result
in a significant impact at this intersection, because the critical movement volume to capacity (v/c) ratio
does not increase at the intersection with the addition of project trips. The addition of project trips will not
result in a noticeable increase in delay at this intersection, which already operates deficiently during the
Saturday afternoon peak hour under existing conditions.

As defined by the Monterey County significance criteria, and the analysis contained herein, the project
does not create a significant impact on any of the selected intersections. A summary of the existing
intersection LOS is provided in Figure 4.13-2.

Road Segment Operations

Under existing plus project conditions, one of the study road segments is shown to operate at an
unacceptable LOS EF during the AM peak hour (Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley
Road). Four of the five study segments will continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse
during the weekday PM and Saturday afternoon peak hours. Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel
Valley Road additional discussion is presented below. For all other study segments, The project does not
create a significant impact on any of the segments identified to operate deficiently as defined by the
Monterey County significance criteria, because the addition of project trips does not cause the LOS on
any of the segments to degrade.

Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road. The addition of project traffic to the Highway 1
segment from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road during each of the peak hours represents will not
create a potentially significant project impact Based on the criteria for significant project impacts, the
because project would not have an unavoidable significant impact on this road segment, as it the addition
of project traffic would not degrade the existing LOS E to a lower level of service based upon the HCM
2000 most appropriate classification of Highway 1 as an urban street wo lane highway.
5

A summary of the existing road segment LOS is provided in Figure 4.13-3.

The effect of project traffic on the roadway segments is based on the gross estimated trips to be generated
by the proposed project. The analysis does not apply any credit/discount to the estimated trips for existing
uses of the site. As identified, the existing uses are ongoing and not related to historic use of the site
(previous and permitted use of the convalescent hospital). Assuming the traffic from existing uses of the
facilities operating on site, and that these uses will be eliminated with the implementation of the project,
reduces the estimated trip generation for the project. In this scenario, the net added trips to the Highway 1
southbound segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road would be less than one trip. The
addition of project traffic would not result in an impact to the identified segment based upon County of
Monterey significance criteria, if it were to be applied to this highway segment.

Additionally, per the February 17, 2010 Hexagon memorandum included as Appendix Q, the roadway
segment analysis utilizes County of Monterey significance criteria for a Caltrans facility. The Caltrans
level of service standard for freeway facilities is stated as the transition between LOS C and D. Based
upon standard industry practice as confirmed by the peer review traffic consultant for this EIR, the
addition of traffic equivalent to 1% or more of a highway segment capacity already operating at LOS F is
considered a potentially significant impact.

The addition of one or more peak trips to the Highway 1 segment from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley
Road during each of the peak hours adds traffic to an already impacted road segment. However, the
project would not degrade the existing LOS E to a lower level of service based upon the HCM 2000 most
appropriate classification of Highway 1 as a two-lane highway and therefore would not be considered a
significant impact. This conclusion is consistent with the analysis identified by Hexagon (Appendix P),
discussed above.

Impact: The proposed project would add one or more peak hour trips to the Highway 1 roadway
segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road that is operating at unacceptable LOS E
conditions under existing conditions. This is a potentially significant impact based upon County of
Monterey significance criteria under LOS F conditions for Highway 1 segment, although is not
considered a significant impact based upon typical highway criteria, or under the LOS E existing
condition.

The effect of project traffic on the analyzed roadway segments is also based on the gross estimated trips
to be generated by the proposed project. The roadway segment analysis is based upon Caltrans Highway
classification and significance criteria for a Caltrans facility (Highway 1) indicates an E LOS.
Additionally, the proposed project will add an estimated 1-2 2-3 trips to the Highway 1/Ocean Avenue
Southbound roadway segment during the peak hour. This equates to approximately one additional
vehicle every 30 to 60 20-30 minutes and is not therefore considered a significant impact.

5
Highway 1 between Rio Road and Carpenter Street has four signals over its 1.9 mile length, resulting in an average
signal spacing of about 0.6 miles with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour, multiple driveways and pedestrian
crossings at Highway 1 and Ocean. HCM 2000 classifications for determining level of service include Class II two
lane highway which assumes a higher free flow speed. According to the Hatch Mott MacDonald TIA addendum, as
summarized in Appendix O and Appendix P, Highway 1 south of Ocean Avenue operates at LOS E in the
southbound direction.

Mitigation: None proposed. No funding program or improvement has been identified for this
road segment for capacity improvements. Applicant shall pay required TAMC Regional Impact
Fee.

The following discussion is pertinent to cumulative mitigation programs for Highway 1. As a policy,
Monterey County and TAMC charge the TAMC fee to individual projects in order to fully mitigate the
cumulative impacts to the regional highway system, based upon their incremental contribution to the total
trips generated by all cumulative projects. There are no adopted funding programs for capacity
improvements to traffic operations along Highway 1 southbound between Ocean Avenue and Rio Road in
this section of Highway 1 in the TAMC regional impact fee program. However, there is a project and
improvement that is identified in the 2005 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan, Item CT007.
While it is an unconstrained project, the description does include capacity improvements and widening of
Highway 1 (2005 Regional Transportation Plan, Unconstrained Item CT007 Caltrans SR 1 - Carmel
Corridor Capacity Improvements (MON-1-72.9/74.56) widen to add two more lanes with at-grade or
grade separated interchange improvements, between Carmel River Bridge and Carpenter Street).

Physical mitigation of the impacted roadway segment is not likely, as it would require the widening of the
identified segment to two travel lanes in the southbound direction. The roadway widening may require
acquisition of right-of-way and cause adverse environmental effects such as increases in noise and air
pollution due to the additional roadway segment capacity. Per CEQA Guidelines 15130(a)(3), payment
of fees is an equitable and typical method for collecting the necessary funds to implement transportation
improvements. Monterey County has had a history of collecting the Carmel Valley Traffic Impact Fee
(CVTIF), which has been used for funding the planned improvements along Carmel Valley
Road.However, in this area of Highway 1, there are no identified specific improvements that are proposed
other than the capacity improvements identified in the 2005 RTP, which are not currently funded.
Currently, Caltrans is also proposing safety improvements through construction of an extended
northbound right turn lane on Highway 1 from Carmel Valley Road to Rio Road. Construction has
recently been completed on and to provide intersection improvements at both Carmel Valley Road and
Highway 1 for the pedestrian and bicycle lane project. Improvement is also planned for Highway 1 and
Rio Road intersection as well as southbound Highway 1 pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Project Trip Generation

The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) evaluated the trip generation that would result from the
implementation of the proposed project. The recommended trip generation rates for use in the County of
Monterey are those contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual.
The TIA used the ITE Trip Generation 7
th
edition rates for Residential Condominium/Townhouse (land
use code 230) for the market rate condominiums, affordable housing units, and workforce housing units
to estimate the trips that will be generated by the proposed project. It is reasonable to assume that the ITE
trip generation rates for the condominium/townhouse land use used to estimate the proposed project will
closely resemble the actual trip generation of the proposed project because the ITE
condominium/townhouse land use is similar to the proposed condominium/affordable housing/workforce
units. Since the completion of the TIA, the ITE has published a more recent trip generation handbook.
The daily trip generation rate for the Residential Condominium/Townhouse land use in the 8
th
Edition
(2008) has been reduced to 5.81 daily trips per unit. Thus, the use of the 7
th
edition rates yields a more
conservative estimate of project-generated trips. Exhibit 10 of Appendix K shows a summary of the AM
and PM peak hour, trip generation characteristics for the proposed project.

Trip Generation Historic Trip Generation

A summary of the trip generation rates for the proposed uses is provided in Figure 4.13-4 and discussed
below. Figure 4.13-5 illustrates Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.

(Note: The following deleted text on Historic Trip Generation is summarized in Footnote 6, below).
Although the site has been predominantly vacant for three years with limited traffic generation, the site
has historically generated traffic on the surrounding street network. The site of the proposed project was
home to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) from about 1934 until 1961.
More recently, the site was home to a convalescent hospital, Alzheimers Clinic, Montessori school and
pre-school until 2005. Additionally, a counseling group known as Breakthrough currently occupies a
portion of the site and has been meeting at the site for approximately two to three years. Below are the
trip generation estimates for the hospital, clinic, and preschool uses, as estimated using standard trip
generation rates for each use as cited from Trip Generation, 7
th
Edition, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003. A summary of the trip generation rates for the historic uses and
for the proposed uses is also provided in Figure 4.13-4 and in Appendix O and P of the RDEIR.
discussed below. The information and data of the breakthrough and previous Hospital uses of the project
site is provided for informational purposes only and to present a comparison to the proposed project and
convey the incremental increase in traffic generation that is expected by the proposed project. The data
indicates that the proposed project will generate less traffic than existing and historical uses of the site.
However, the traffic analysis presents a worst-case scenario in that it evaluates the effects of the addition
of the gross trips to be produced by the proposed project. The traffic analysis takes no credit for previous
or existing uses of the site. As a 35-bed hospital, it is estimated that the project site generated
approximately 413 daily trips, with 40 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (28 in, 12 out) and 46 trips
during the weekday PM peak hour (17 in, 29 out). As a 78-bed convalescent hospital, Alzheimers clinic,
and pre-school, it is estimated that the project site generated approximately 306 daily trips, with 34 trips
during the AM weekday peak hour (21 in, 13 out) and 39 trips during the PM weekday peak hour (16 in,
23 out).
6

(Note: Trip Distribution discussion located here in the RDEIR is now after Trip Generation)

6
Figure 4.13-4 identifies trip generation estimates for the proposed project. Although the site has been predominantly vacant for
three years with limited traffic generation, the site has historically generated traffic on the surrounding street network. The site
of the proposed project was home to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) from about 1934 until 1961.
More recently, the site was home to a convalescent hospital, Alzheimers Clinic, Montessori school and pre-school until 2005.
Additionally, a counseling group known as Breakthrough currently occupies a portion of the site and has been meeting at the
site for approximately two to three years. The sites historical trip generation estimates for the hospital, clinic, and preschool
uses, as estimated using standard trip generation rates for each use as cited from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 2003. Per RDEIR Appendix O and P, uses the proposed project will generate less
traffic than the allowable previous hospital, clinic, and preschool uses on a daily basis as well as during the AM and PM peak
hours. As a 35-bed hospital, it is estimated that the project site historically generated approximately 413 daily trips, with 40 trips
during the weekday AM peak hour (28 in, 12 out) and 46 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (17 in, 29 out). As a 78-bed
convalescent hospital, Alzheimers clinic, and pre-school, it is estimated that the project site generated approximately 306 daily
trips, with 34 trips during the AM weekday peak hour (21 in, 13 out) and 39 trips during the PM weekday peak hour (16 in, 23
out). . Regardless, the proposed projects trip generation estimates used in this traffic impact analysis did not apply any
trip generation credit for the historical or current allowable uses on the site. Therefore, a conservative analysis of the effects
of project traffic on the surrounding roadway network is evaluated..
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
Historic Site Project Trip Generation
4.13-4
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR

ITE
LAND
USE
CODE
PROJEC
T SIZE
DAILY
TRIPS
TOTAL
PEAK
HOUR
%
OF
ADT IN / OUT
TOTAL
PEAK
HOUR % OF ADT IN / OUT
TRIP GENERATION RATES
1

Residential Condominium/Townhouse (per unit) 230 5.86 0.44 8% 17% / 83% 0.52 9% 67% / 33%
Pre-School (Day Care Center) (per student)
2
565 4.48 0.80 18% 53% / 47% 0.82 18% 47% / 53%
Hospital (per bed) 610 11.81 1.13 10% 70% / 30% 1.30 11% 36% / 64%
Nursing Home (per bed) 620 2.37 0.17 7% 69% / 31% 0.22 9% 33% / 67%
Alzheimers Clinic (Nursing Home
3
) 620 2.37 0.17 7% 69% / 31% 0.22 9% 33% / 67%
PROPOSED USE

Market Rate Condominiums 230 33 Units 193 15 8% 3 / 12 18 9% 12% / 6
Affordable Housing Units 230 9 Units 53 4 8% 1 / 3 5 9% 3 / 2
Workforce Housing Units 230 4 Units 23 2 9% 0 / 2 2 9% 3 / 2
TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 46 Units 269 21 8% 4 / 17 25 9% 16 / 9

HISTORIC USES

Convalescent Hospital 620 78 Beds 185 13 7% 9 / 4 17 9% 6 / 11
Alzheimers Clinic 620 4 Beds 9 1 11% 1 / 0 1 11% 0 / 1
Pre-School 565 25
Students
112 20 18% 11 / 9 21 19% 10 / 11
Total Historic Trip Generation 306 34 11% 21 / 13 39 13% 16 / 23

NET PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 37 13 35% 17 / 4 14 38% 9 14
(proposed use minus historic use)

Hospital 610 35 Beds 413 40 10% 28 / 12 46 11% 17 / 29
NET PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 144 -19 13% -24 / 5 -21 15% -1 -20
(proposed use minus historic use)

Notes:
1
Trip generation rates published by Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7
th
Edition, 2003, unless otherwise noted.
2
ITE does not have published rates for a pre-school land use. Rates used here are for a day care land use.
3
ITE does not have published rates for an Alzheimers clinic. Rates used here are for a nursing home land use.
Figure
N
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
4.13-5
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Based on the ITE rates, the project would generate an estimated maximum of 269 total gross daily trips,
with 21 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (4 in, 17 out), and 25 trips during the weekday PM peak
hour (16 in, 9 out). The traffic analysis takes no credit for previous or existing uses of the site.
As deficiencies have been identified under existing conditions for these areas, the addition of 269 trips
would represent a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to less-than-significant with
incorporation of the following mitigation measures as a condition of the projects approval.

Implementation of the following mitigation would not result in any new environmental impact beyond
those identified in this Draft EIR
7
.

Impact The proposed project would add an estimated 269 total daily trips to the local street
system and Highway 1, which have been identified as deficient in LOS standards.
This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level
with the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation

4.13-1 Prior to recordation of the proposed projects Final Map, the project applicant/developer shall
provide evidence to the appropriate responsible agency of the future costs of construct the
following improvements to the Monterey County Planning Department:

a. Widening of the southbound shoulder at the Carpenter Street / Valley Way intersection to
allow vehicles to pass other vehicles waiting to turn left onto Carpenter Street Valley Way. or
conversion of the intersection to a 4-way stop controlled intersection.

b. Provide intersection improvements at Highway 1 and Valley Way to include:
8

1. Provision of additional pavement widening to increase the southbound right turn
radius for better maneuverability;
2. Addition of a median and additional signage to restrict reinforce the proposed left turn
prohibition from Valley Way to northbound Highway 1. Median design shall be painted
or raised depending on final design approval;
3. Removal and/or trimming of trees or shrubs on the triangular corner of Highway 1 /
Valley Way that interfere with the sight distance from Valley Way to Highway 1 to be
subject to the approval of the Monterey County Planning Department to ensure that
existing landscaping is maintained.
4. Provide an appropriate right-turn flare for Highway 1 southbound approach to Valley
Way for safe deceleration for vehicles turning right from Highway 1 to Valley Way.
Responsible agencies identified for these improvements include Monterey County and Caltrans for
Highway 1 improvements. Note: The Draft EIR under Mitigation 4.13-1 required the applicant to
pay a pro-rata share of the costs of proposed safety improvements to the appropriate responsible
agency. The applicant has stated they intend to volunteer to perform all of the proposal safety
improvements as a condition of the projects approval. Mitigation 4.13-1 was revised to indicate
that the project applicant/developer shall construct the improvements.

8
For the Conceptual Plan for this improvement, refer to shown in Appendix Q. Proposed improvements are
conceptual and subject to the review and approval by the Monterey County Planning Department and Monterey
County Public Works Department. All improvements must be coordinated with Caltrans and required encroachment
permits granted.


Project Trip Distribution

The distribution of trips generated by the project was developed based upon existing traffic patterns and
land uses in the vicinity of the project. Figure 4.13-5 displays the distribution of project trips for the
proposed project and the trip assignment for the new project trips. The following distribution was used
for the trips:
To/from North (via Highway 1) ....................................................................... 50%
via Valley Way 20%
via Carpenter St. 30%

To/from South (via Highway 1) ....................................................................... 30%
via east Ocean Ave. 5%
via Highway 1 south of Ocean Ave. 25%

To/from the West.............................................................................................. 20%
via Valley Way west of Carpenter St. 5%
via Ocean Ave. to Carpenter St. 15%
_____
TOTAL: 100%

Project Access and Circulation

Access to the project site is currently provided via a driveway on Highway 1 and a second driveway on
Valley Way. The existing access driveway on Highway 1 will be closed as described below and required
by Caltrans, thus no direct access to Highway 1 from the proposed project site will be provided. A new
driveway on Valley Way will provide primary access to and from the project site. This proposed
driveway is located southeast of the existing driveway. Emergency access will be provided to the site via
a landscaped driveway in the approximate location of the existing driveway on Valley Way. The
driveway will be gated to restrict its use to emergency vehicles only. Additionally, one of the proposed
residential units (Unit 23) will be served by a driveway directly from Valley Way. Valley Way is a local
street with its primary function to provide access to the adjoining properties. It is aligned with single-
family residential driveways and has a 25-mile per hour speed limit. A driveway, serving Unit 23, is
similar in nature to the other driveways along this roadway and will not represent a hazardous condition.
Figure 4.13-6 shows the proposed project site plan. The width of all internal roadways is 20 feet, which is
considered adequate for two-way traffic. Additionally, Monterey Salinas Transit (MST) offers bus
service from Carmel to the Edgewater Transit Exchange in Sand City (Route 11). Bus stops are located
on Carpenter Street near Valley Way.

Highway 1 Existing Access Closure

Sight distance analysis was performed for the existing driveway access to the project site from Highway 1
to determine if the existing sight distance is adequate for both the left and right turn movements out of the
driveway given the geometric design of Highway 1 and the prevailing vehicle speeds on Highway 1.

Highway 1 is a four-lane undivided highway in the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit on
Highway 1 is 40 mph and the highway descends at an approximate 2% grade from north to south along
the project frontage. The existing driveway is located on the outside of a curve on Highway 1 and is stop-
controlled.

D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
Project Site Plan
4.13-6
N
There are existing operational problems associated with the right and left turns entering and exiting the
existing driveway. This driveway is currently deficient for use by even one vehicle. As such, additional
use of this deficient driveway generated by any additional development (1 single family home, 7 single-
family homes, or 46 condominiums) would exacerbate the existing unsafe conditions created by the
deficient sight distance at this driveway. The extensive improvements required to allow them would
require excessive grading and possible right-of-way acquisition. Even then, less-than-desirable
operational problems would remain due to the very high traffic volumes and relatively high speeds on this
section of Highway 1. It is expected that the improvements needed to provide the required sight distance
from this driveway and to provide necessary channelization on Highway 1 might be completely infeasible
due to physical constraints. As the project would result in unsafe conditions for immediate access to
Highway 1 and improvements are infeasible, there would be potentially significant impacts related to
project access. This represents a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to less-than-
significant with incorporation of the following mitigation measure. Implementation of the following
mitigation would not result in any new environmental impact beyond those identified in this Draft EIR.

Impact The project has the potential to result in unsafe conditions for immediate driveway
access to Highway 1. This is a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a
less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation

4.13-2 Prior to issuance of any project-related permits, the applicant/developer shall submit to the
Monterey County Planning Department evidence provided by the California Department of
Transportation that access to the existing driveway on Highway 1 that serves the project site has
been closed to vehicular traffic due to significant sight distance and traffic operational
deficiencies.

Primary Access Points

The intersections of Carpenter Street and Highway 1 with Valley Way were identified as having
operational/safety problems under existing conditions. The operational/safety problems are primarily due
to inadequate existing roadway capacity and sub-standard design of the roadway system. Improvements
were recommended to improve existing operational problems at each of the intersections in the TIA and
are also identified in Mitigation Measure 4.13-1, above.

The Carpenter Street and Highway 1 intersections with Valley Way essentially serve as project access
points since there are no other means of access to the project site and the addition of project traffic will
contribute to the existing operational problems at the intersections. Each of the identified improvements
would improve access to the project site. As such, the project should contribute a fair-share towards the
cost of the identified improvements.

Construction Related Traffic

The project would require extensive grading on the site to facilitate construction of proposed uses.
Construction related traffic would occur due to the movement of 13,242 cubic yards (CY) of cut/fill, the
movement of heavy machinery and supplies, and the removal of construction and demolition materials for
disposal. Traffic related to the importation of additional material to the site would also increase. These
materials would include base rock, select soil/gravel for trenches and building pads, concrete, and asphalt
for paving. Construction related truck traffic of the proposed project would result in approximately 59
truck trips during project grading to remove 5,936 cubic yards of earth materials. Each truck will haul
approximately 100 cubic yards of cut from the project site to the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. A
proposed routing plan for the delivery of earth materials to be exported from the project site to the landfill
is included as Figure 4.13-7.

As such, there is potential for traffic-related impacts to occur from construction activities at the site.
Although construction related traffic impacts are temporary in duration, a significant impact could occur
without appropriate mitigation in order to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
those identified in this Draft EIR.

Impact The project would result in increased traffic loads in the project vicinity due to
construction related traffic. This would represent a potentially significant impact that
can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the following
mitigation measure.

Mitigation

4.13-3 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project contractor will prepare a
Construction Management Plan, which will include, but not be limited to, a traffic construction
management plan with the following conditions and shall be subject to review and approval by
Monterey County Public Works Department and California Department of Transportation prior to
issuance of any encroachment permits. The traffic Construction Management Plan shall, at a
minimum, include the following measures:
In order to minimize impacts from construction-related traffic, the project contractor shall
ensure that the exportation of earth materials from the project site only occur between the
hours of 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM.
The project contractor shall implement truck haul routes for construction trucks deemed
acceptable by the County, designed to help mitigate traffic congestion during the peak traffic
hours. The truck haul routes shall be limited to the roadways and accesses to the project site,
which will avoid commuter and special event traffic to the maximum extent.
Additionally, signs shall be posted along roads identifying construction traffic access or flow
limitations on one-way road or single lane conditions during periods of truck traffic during
the peak hour. Signs shall be placed: (a) at the intersection preceding the traffic access
limitation; and (b) not more than 50 feet before such traffic access limitation as necessary
during the hauling of materials.
Construction equipment shall be stored on the project site and construction vehicles shall not
be allowed to park in front of residential homes within the residential neighborhood during
the construction phase of the project.
The Construction Management Plan shall be implemented by all relevant contractors at the
site and shall be monitored by the Monterey County Planning Department and Building
Services Department during demolition and grading activities at the site.

D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
N 4.13-7
Routing Plan
Source: WWD, 2008
Project Parking Analysis

Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Section 20.58.040 provides requirements for adequate parking for
proposed projects. The following calculations identify the projects parking requirements, based on
condominium standards.

27 2-bed units @ 2 per unit 54 stalls
19 3-bed units @ 2.2 per unit 42 stalls
1 stall every 4 units 12 stalls
Total required 108 stalls

The project proposes to make the following parking available for the project:

38 2-car garages 76 stalls
Underground parking garage 14 stalls (includes 2-handicapped)
Surface parking 18 stalls (includes 1-handicapped)
Total provided 108 stalls

Per the project site plan (Figure 4.13-6 in the DEIR), 38 of the 46 units will have their own 2-car garage.
The underground parking garage will contain 14 stalls and an additional 18 stalls will be provided as
surface parking. Based on these calculations, the projects parking supply for residents and guests meets
the requirements of the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Section 20.58.040. As such, no impacts
related to parking availability would result from project implementation.

Indirect Traffic Impacts

The TIA also conducted an analysis of indirect traffic related impacts to surrounding residential streets.
Unlike the level of service and roadway analysis methodology, which has established impact thresholds,
the analyses contained in this section are based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards
and methods employed by the traffic engineering community. Several studies have been made regarding
the indirect impacts of traffic on the residential neighborhoods. The variables affecting these impacts
include traffic volumes, type, or makeup, of traffic (i.e. passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, emergency
vehicles, etc.), traffic speed, perception of through traffic as a percentage of total traffic, adequacy of
street alignment (i.e., horizontal and vertical curvature), accident experience, on-street parking, residential
dwelling set backs from the street, pedestrian traffic, and street pavement conditions (which would add to
traffic noise as the pavement deteriorates). Other factors that may be a contributor to neighborhood
nuisance levels include socio-economic status of the neighborhood, and expectations of the residents
regarding traffic volumes; however, these are beyond the purview of CEQA and are provided here for
informational purposes only.

Residential Street Traffic

General guidelines regarding threshold volumes pertaining to local streets have been recommended within
several studies and reference material including the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). There is
variation in these accepted threshold volumes, but in general, it is recommended that residential streets
carry no more than 2,000 to 4,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic). The accepted level of service standard
for roadways within the Monterey County is LOS C. The HCM recommended maximum ADT range for
level of service C on local streets is 1,500-1,600 vehicles. The existing ADT on Valley Way east of
Carpenter Way is 740 vehicles. The addition of the estimated 269 daily trips from the proposed project to
Valley Way would result in daily volumes along the roadway that will be well below the accepted LOS C
volume range. If all the project traffic were to occur during a 12-hour period (6:00 am 6:00 pm) rather
than a 24-hour period, the daily project trips would equate to one project trip every three minutes.
Similarly, along 3
rd
Avenue, the daily project trips would equate to one project trip every 60 minutes. The
effect of project traffic on surrounding residential streets is insignificant when evaluating the magnitude
of traffic that will be added to surrounding roadways.

Neighborhood Quality of Life Evaluation

The Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index is a measure of the impact of traffic on
residents along a street. The TIRE index scale ranges from 0 to 5 depending on daily traffic volume. An
index of 0 represents the least infusion of traffic and 5 the greatest, and thereby, the poorest residential
environment. Typical street types associated with the various index levels are shown on the TIRE index
chart.
TIRE INDEX CHART
TIRE Index Daily Traffic Volume Residential Environment Typical of:
0 1 A cul-de-sac street with one home.
1 10 A cul-de-sac street with 2 to 15 homes.
2 100 A 2-lane minor street.
3 1,000 A 2-lane collector or arterial street.
4 10,000 A 2 to 6-lane arterial street.
5 100,000

The TIRE index is based on the theory that a given increase in traffic volume has a greater impact on
residential environment along a residential street with a low traffic volume than along a street with a high
pre-existing volume. TIRE effects are separate from noise and air pollution impacts. TIRE represents the
effect of traffic on the safety and comfort of human activities, such as walking, cycling, and playing on or
near a street and on the freedom to maneuver vehicles in and out of residential driveways.

The TIRE Index Table gives values associated with various daily traffic volume ranges. A street with a
TIRE value of three or greater is considered to function primarily as a traffic street and exhibit
significantly impaired residential environment. The projected difference between a pre and post project
TIRE value is the predicted impact of the project on residential environment. Any projected change of
0.1 or greater would be noticeable to residents.

Valley Way

The neighborhood quality of life under existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus
project conditions using the TIRE index was analyzed for the following three street segments:

1. Valley Way between Highway 1 and the Project Driveway
2. Valley Way between the Project Driveway and Carpenter Street
3. Valley Way between Carpenter Street and Guadalupe Street

The ADT volumes were estimated based on the PM peak hour volumes, assuming that the PM peak hour
volumes account for 10% of the daily traffic volume. Under existing plus project conditions, the TIRE
index for all three study segments remain unchanged from that under existing conditions. Therefore,
using the TIRE index method of analysis, the addition of project traffic along Valley Way under existing
plus project conditions, would not be noticeable to the residents. Additionally, the number of new trips
per 24-hour period would not be noticeable to the residents, per the TIRE index method of analysis.

Under cumulative conditions, no additional traffic is routed along Valley Way. The ADTs and TIRE
index for all study segments would remain unchanged and the addition of project traffic along Valley
Way under cumulative plus project conditions would not be noticeable to the residents, nor would the
number of new trips per 24-hour period, estimated to be 1 trip, be noticeable. Therefore, indirect traffic
impacts would be considered less-than-significant.

Valley Way Accident Analysis

The accident history along Highway 1 in the vicinity of Valley Way was evaluated and compared with
statewide reported average accident rates for similar roadways. The accident data along Highway 1 in the
vicinity of Valley Way was obtained from Caltrans and covers a period of three years between December
1, 2005 and November 30, 2008.

A review of accident data along the corridor received from the Caltrans indicates eight accidents
involving two injuries and no fatalities, over the three-year span. The recorded accidents equate to an
accident rate of 0.14 accidents per million vehicle miles (MVM). The calculated accident rate is lower
than the statewide average of 0.30 per MVM for similar roadways. Based on the provided data and
accident rate calculations, there does not appear to be an issue with traffic accidents along Highway 1 in
the vicinity of Valley Way. A speed survey also was completed along Valley Way between Carpenter
Street and Highway 1. The posted speed limit on Valley Way is 25 mph. The survey found that average
recorded speed was only 15 mph.

The proposed project will add an estimated 6 trips during the AM and PM peak hour to the intersection of
Valley Way and Highway 1. Mitigation 4.13-1 identifies proposed safety improvements to this
intersection and requires a pro-rata share payment by the applicant. The applicant has proposed to fully
fund these improvements. The addition of project trips is insignificant considering that the addition of
project trips to the intersection equates to one vehicle every ten minutes and also the required safety
improvements. Therefore, these traffic impacts would be considered less-than-significant.

Valley Way Pavement Structure

A traffic index assessment was conducted to determine the required pavement structure on Valley Way
and the effects that project traffic will have on the pavement structure. Traffic Index (TI) is the traffic
measure used to determine the minimum pavement thickness in the design of roadway pavements. The
Traffic Index is determined using Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) constants that represent the
estimated total accumulated traffic loading during the pavement design life. Standard Caltrans
methodology was used to calculate the traffic index.

It is estimated that the highest daily volume of traffic on Valley Way occurs immediately east of
Carpenter Street. The daily traffic volume at this location is estimated to be 740 vehicles per day based
on the existing PM peak hour volume of 74 vehicles. With the project developed, the daily volume would
increase to 89 vehicles during the PM peak hour and 890 vehicles per day on Valley Way east of
Carpenter Street. The Equivalent Single Axle Load of the existing traffic on Valley Way immediately
east of Carpenter Street is 68,228 and the existing Traffic Index is 6.5. The project will increase the
ESAL on Valley Way west of Carpenter Street to 82,058 and the Traffic Index will remain at 6.5.
Because the Traffic Index will not change under Existing Plus Project Conditions, the project impact to
the road structure is not significant. Therefore, these traffic impacts would be considered less-than-
significant.

Cumulative Impacts

The following discussion describes the potential, traffic-related impacts on a cumulative level that may
result from the implementation and operation of the proposed project as well as other approved and
pending developments. The TIA prepared by Higgins Associates and peer-reviewed by the traffic
engineers for the Draft EIR analyzed cumulative traffic conditions without the proposed project and the
cumulative conditions with the proposed project. The geographic scope for this analysis is the project
sites local vicinity and the Carmel Land Use Planning Area as designated by the Monterey County LCP.

Cumulative without Project Traffic Conditions


Under cumulative conditions, all of the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the
weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection
is expected to operate at a deficient overall LOS E, which is a decline from the existing LOS D. The
Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersection is expected to continue operate at a deficient at an overall LOS D,
which is a decline from the existing LOS C, during the weekday PM peak hour under cumulative
conditions. The Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS E
during the Saturday afternoon peak hour under cumulative conditions, which is a decline from the
existing LOS C. The Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersection is expected to continue operating at LOS D
during the Saturday afternoon peak hour under cumulative conditions. A summary of the existing
intersection LOS is provided in Figure 4.13-2.

Road Segment Operation

Under cumulative conditions, one of the study road segments is expected to continue operate at an
unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour (Highway 1 from Ocean Avenue to Carmel Valley Road).
All five segments will operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse during the weekday PM peak hour, and
four segments will operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse during the Saturday afternoon peak hour.
A summary of the existing road segment LOS is provided in Figure 4.13-3.

Trip Distribution, Generation, and Assignment

Figure 4.13-8 shows the location of the known pending and approved development projects that may
contribute traffic to the studied intersections and roadways. The projects are listed on Figure 4.13-9 with
their traffic generation.

The cumulative projects would generate 13,162 daily trips, with 877 trips during the AM peak hour (266
in, 611 out) and 1,193 trips during the PM peak hour (730 in, 462 out). The peak hour trips generated by
the cumulative projects were assigned to the road network based upon existing network patterns, the
location of complementary land uses, and previous analyses of the projects. Based upon review of the
traffic studies for two of the largest pending projects in the area (i.e., September Ranch and Rancho
Canada), it was assumed that 50% of all the cumulative trips would travel to/from Highway 1 north of
Carpenter Street. The September Ranch study estimated 33% and the Rancho Canada study estimated
40% during the AM peak hour and 50% during the PM peak hour. These cumulative trips were added to
the existing condition traffic volumes to determine cumulative condition traffic volumes, as shown on
Figure 4.13-10A 4.13-10C.

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

This section describes traffic conditions with cumulative projects developed and full buildout of the study
project. Cumulative plus project condition traffic volumes were developed by adding the project trip
assignment to the cumulative condition volumes.


The Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection is expected to degrade from LOS CD under cumulative
conditions to LOS D E under cumulative plus project conditions, during the weekday AM peak hour.
This represents a significant project impact. The Highway 1/Carpenter Street intersection is expected to
continue operating deficiently with an overall LOS E during the weekday PM and Saturday afternoon
peak hours. The Highway 1/Ocean Avenue intersection is expected to continue operating deficiently at
an overall LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour and an overall LOS E during the Saturday afternoon
peak hour. The remaining study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably under
cumulative plus project conditions. A summary of the existing LOS is provided in Figure 4.13-2.

Road Segment Operations

Under cumulative plus project conditions, one study road segment, Highway 1 between Ocean Avenue
and Carmel Valley Road, will continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour.
In addition, the study road segment of Highway 1 between Valley Way Road and Flanders Drive will
degrade from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour. This represents
significant project impact. All five of the study road segments will continue to operate at an unacceptable
LOS D or worse during the weekday PM peak hour and four segments will operate at an unacceptable
LOS D or worse during the Saturday afternoon peak hour. The addition of project traffic to the Highway
1 segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road during each of the peak hours represents a
significant project impact. A summary of the existing LOS is provided in Figure 4.13-3.

As the project would cause the LOS to degrade to an unacceptable level on one segment and add one or
more trips to a segment operating at an unacceptable LOS, this represents a potentially significant
project impact. TAMC has developed a Nexus Study for a Regional Development Impact Fee to provide
a basis for the adoption of a countywide impact fee program for transportation. As a policy, Monterey
County and TAMC charge the TAMC fee to individual projects in order to fully mitigate the cumulative
impacts to the regional highway system, based upon their incremental contribution to the total trips
generated by all cumulative projects. As such, cumulative traffic impacts can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with the implementation of TAMC Regional Development Fee payment.
those identified in this Draft EIR.

In 2008 TAMC completed a Nexus Study that provides the necessary technical and legal basis under the
California Environmental Quality Act for implementing the Regional Development Impact Fee program
as mitigation for cumulative impacts to the regional transportation system. (Regional Fee
Implementation Guidelines, adopted August 27, 2008/Updated October 28, 2009).The Nexus study
identifies 17 regionally significant improvement projects throughout the County that the collected fees
will be directed towards. Page iv of the Regional Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (March 26, 2008)
states With the proposed improvements, a number of major transportation links both in developed and
undeveloped areas will experience lessened congestion and reduced travel time. These improvements by
themselves wont solve the Countys traffic issues, but they will allow for improved traffic flow
throughout the County. Thus, the payment of TAMC fees to mitigate cumulative impacts is intended to
fund improvements on the regional roadway network that will improve operating levels on the regional
roadway network and also will alleviate congestion on local roadways although the fees may not be used
to fund improvements at specific impacted facilities.

As a policy, Monterey County and TAMC charge the TAMC fee to individual projects in order to fully
mitigate the cumulative impacts to the regional highway system, based upon their incremental
contribution to the total trips generated by all cumulative projects. As such, cumulative traffic impacts
can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of TAMC Regional Development
Fee payment. Implementation of the following mitigation would not result in any new environmental
impact beyond those identified in this Draft EIR.

Impact All of the study intersections and road segments would contribute an increase The
total trips generated by all cumulative projects will result tingin unacceptable LOS
ratings for one study intersection and two road segments under cumulative plus
project conditions. These are significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-
significant impacts with the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation

4.13-4 The project applicant/developer shall pay the Transportation Agency of Monterey County
(TAMC) Regional Development Fee in order to mitigate the proposed projects incremental
contribution to cumulative impacts to the regional highway system. Payment of the TAMC fee is
not intended to fund specific improvements but instead mitigates a proposed projects incremental
contribution to cumulative impacts on the regional highway system. Evidence of payment shall be
submitted to the Monterey County Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building
permits.

1
2
19
6
9
10-16, 18,
20, 21,
3-5, 7-
8, 22-
26, 28-
37
17
27

Figure
N
Cumulative Projects
4.13-8
ITE WEEKDAY TOTAL % TOTAL %
LAND USE PROJECT DAILY PEAK OF PEAK OF
CODE SIZE TRIPS HOUR ADT IN OUT HOUR ADT IN OUT
TRIP GENERATION RATES
1
Single Family Detached Housing (per unit) 210 9.57 0.75 8% 0.25 0.75 1.01 11% 0.64 0.36
Apartment (per unit) 220 6.63 0.51 8% 0.16 0.84 0.62 9% 0.67 0.33
Residential Condominium/Townhouse (per un t) 230 5.86 0.44 8% 0.17 0.83 0.52 9% 0.67 0.33
Specialty Retail (per 1,000 SQ. FT) (814) 40.00 1.20 3% 0.60 0.40 3.60 9% 0.50 0.50
Resort Hotel (per occupied room)
2
330 8.00 0.37 5% 0.72 0.28 0.49 6% 0.43 0.57
Motel 320 5.63 0.45 8% 0.37 0.63 0.47 8% 0.54 0.46
TRIPS
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea:
APPROVED
1. Mixed Use SE corner Dolores & 7th
Condominiums/Apartments 8 Units 53 4 8% 1 3 5 9% 3 2
Commercial Retail 3,000 SQ. FT. 120 4 3% 2 2 11 9% 6 5
PROPOSED
2. Carmel Sands Lodge Redevlopment
3
16 Rooms 128 6 5% 2 4 8 6% 4 4
County of Monterey:
APPROVED
3. Quail Meadows
4
mixed use 463 14 3% 10 4 30 6% 16 14
4. Canada Woods
5
Single Family Units 44 Units 421 33 8% 8 25 44 10% 28 16
Home Improvement Center 18,000 SQ. FT. 631 27 4% 14 13 52 8% 24 27
5. Rancho San Carlos (Santa Lucia Preserve) 338 Units 3,235 254 8% 64 190 341 11% 218 123
6. Sunrise Assisted Living
6
64 Units 112 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0
7. September Ranch
7
110 Units 1,053 83 8% 21 62 111 11% 71 40
8. Rancho San Carlos - Potrero Creek Area 29 Units 278 22 8% 6 16 29 10% 19 10
9. Crossroads Shopping Center Expansion
8
20,260 SQ. FT. 2,070 80 4% 48 32 101 5% 45 56
10. 195 Spindrift Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
PROPOSED
11. Regan Bed & Breakfast 10 Rooms 56 5 9% 2 3 5 9% 3 2
12. 2973 Cuesta Way 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
13. 176 Spindrift Drive 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
14. 300 Corona Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
15. 74 Corona Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
16. 340 Corona Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
17. 26327 Scenic Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
18. New SFD West of Hwy 1 btwn. Hwy 1 & Spindrift 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
19. 25498 Hatton Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
20. 30780 San Remo Drive 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
21. 244 San Remo Drive 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
22. 12 Rancho San Carlos Road 3 Units 29 2 7% 1 1 3 10% 2 1
23. 15 Oak Meadow Lane 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
24. Rosie's Cracker Barrel
9
3,821 SQ. FT. 153
5 3% 3 2 14 9% 7 7
25. 701 Country Club Drive 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
26. 3 Valley Hills Lane 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
27. Val Verde Affordable Housing 89 Units 590
45 8% 7 38 55 9% 37 18
28. 16 Vista Ladera 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
29. 32829 Carmel Valley Road Micro Winery
10
- 10
1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
30. 350 Via Los Tulares 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
31. 14345 Hitchcock Canyon Road 1 Unit 10 1 10% 0 1 1 10% 1 0
32. Holman Ranch Winery
11
1,200 SQ. FT. 4 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 0 0
33. Carmel Valley Village Park and Commons
12
39 Units 374
37 10% 9 28 46 12% 29 17
34. Rancho Canada
13
281 Units 2,689 211 8% 53 158 284 11% 182 102
35. Carmel Valley Ranch
14
12 Units 115 9 8% 2 7 12 10% 8 4
36. Robles Del Rio Lodge
15
35 Units 280 13 5% 9 4 17 6% 7 10
37. Bernardus Lodge Expansion
16
16 Rooms 128
5 4% 4 1 7 5% 3 4
TOTAL
TOTAL CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TRIPS 301 14 5% 5 9 24 8% 13 11
TOTAL COUNTY OF MONTEREY TRIPS 12,861 863 7% 261 602 1,169 9% 717 451
TOTAL CUMULATIVE TRIPS 13,162 877 7% 266 611 1,193 9% 730 462
Notes:
1. Trip generation rates published by Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation," 6th Edition, 1997 & 7th Edition, 2003, unless otherwise noted.
2. ITE does not have published rates for weekday daily trips for the Resort Hotel use. Rates used here were taken from the San Diego Association of Governments,
Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002.
3. Trip generation for the Carmel Sands Lodge Redevelopment Project is based on the additional 16 rooms at the resort as a result of the revelopment.
4. Quail Meadows trip generation from Quail Meadow Study, Higgins Associates, 2001.
5. Canada Woods trip generation information obtained from Canada Woods Traffic Analysis Report, Higgins Associates, July 1992.
6. Sunrise Assisted Living trip generation is based on Sunrise Assisted Living Project Traffic and Parking Evaluation, Higgins Associates, December 2000.
7. The September Ranch project was approved at only 94 units. The number of units shown here is the number of units included in the Traffic Impact Study
for the September Ranch Subdivision, TJKM Tansportation Consultants, October 2004.
8. Crossroads Shopping Center Expansion trip generation obtained from Carmel River Inn Master Plan Traffic Impact Report, Higgins Associates, May 2004.
9. No specific information regarding the rehabilitation of Rosie's Cracker Barrel was available. Trip generation rates for the Specialty Retail land use were
used toestimate the project trip generation based upon the building square footage.
10. 32829 Carmel Valley Road Micro Winery trip generation obtained from "Monterey County Planning Commission Findings & Decision" dated January 10, 2001.
11. Holman Ranch Winery trip generation obtained from Monterey County Planning Commission minutes from meeting on July 30, 2003.
12. Carmel Valley Village Park and Commons trip generation obtained from Carmel Valley Village Park and Commons Traffic Impact Analysis, Higgins
Associates, November 20, 2006.
13. Rancho Canada trip generation obtained from Rancho Canada Residential Development Draft Traffic Study, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.,
April 7, 2004.
14. Carmel Valley Ranch trip generation obtained from Carmel River Inn Master Plan Traffic Impact Report, Higgins Associates, May 2004.
15. Robles Del Rio Lodge trip generation obtained from Robles Del Rio Lodge Draft Traffic Impact Report, Higgins Associates, May 2008.
16. Bernardus Lodge Expansion trip generation obtained from Bernardus Lodge Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis,Higgins Associates, March 13, 2003.

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

Figure
Cumulative Trip Generation
4.13-9
Figure
N
Cumulative Conditions
4.13-10A
(Weekday AM Peak Hours Volumes)
Figure
N
4.13-10B
(Weekday PM Peak Hours Volumes)
Figure
N
4.13-10C
(Saturday Peak Hours Volumes)


REVISED FIGURES AND TABLES

1. Figure 3-3A, Revised Project Layout Plan
2. Figure 3-3B, Revised Project Layout Plan
3. Figure 3-3C, Revised Project Layout Plan
4. Figure 4.1-1, Revised Visual Assessment Locations
5. Figure 4.1-3A, Revised Visual Assessment View One With Proposed Landscaping
6. Figure 4.1-3B, Revised Visual Assessment View One Without Proposed Landscaping
7. Figure 4.1-4A, Revised Landscaping Plan
8. Figure 4.1-4B, Revised Landscaping Screening
9. Figure 4.1-5, Revised Lighting Plan
10. Figure 4.5-5, Revised Site Demolition Plan (11x17)
11. Figure 4.6-1A, Project Site Slopes
12. Table 4.9-1, Project Consistency with Relevant County of Monterey General Plan and Carmel
Area Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies


D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
N 3-3A
Revised Project Layout Plan
Source: The Warner Group, 2007
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
N 3-3B
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
N 3-3C
Camera View 6
Camera View 5
Camera View 1
Camera View 2
Camera View 3
Camera View 4
Figure
N
4.1-1
Revised Visual Assessment Locations
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
4.1-3A
Site viewed from southeast on opposite side of Highway 1.
Revised
Visual Assessment View One With Proposed Landscaping
Units 5-8
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
4.1-3B
Site viewed from southeast on opposite side of Highway 1.
Revised
Visual Assessment View One Without Proposed Landscaping
Units 5-8
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
N 4.1-4A
*Conceptual only. For the
proposed planting along
Highway 1 and Valley Way for
screening purposes refer to
FEIR Revised Figure 4.1-4B ,
DEIR Figures 4.1-4C and 4.1-4D. Source: Earthform Design, 2008
Revised Conceptual Landscaping Plan*
Screen
Planting
and Fence
Open Jointed
Stone Paving
Exist.
Oaks (Typ)
6 HT Wood Fence
With Bush Screen
Special Entry
Pavers
New Pines
Boundary
Fence
Existing
Pines (Typ)
Courtyard with
Fountain
Fire Access
5 Side Setback
5 Side Setback
Oaks with Tree Wells
Fire Access
Source: Earthform Design, 2008
WWD revisions, 2009
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
N
Revised Proposed Landscaping Screening
4.1-4B
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
Revised Lighting Plan
4.1-5
N
Oaks and Tree Wells
Screen
Planting
and Fence
Open Jointed
Stone Paving
Existing Oaks
(TYP)
Fire Access
6 HT Wood Fence
with Lamp Screen
(17)
(69)
(60)
(11)
(10)
Special
Entry Pavers
Fire Access
Courtyard with
Fountain
Existing Pines (TYP)
Boundary Fence
New Pines
Directional Light House
BK Teka - 7215 - 35W
Miniature Beacon Path Light
BK Teka - MBP 2310 - 35W
Illuminaries Fine Wroght Iron Lighting
El Socarrar Noche Burning Night
40H x 12W x 15D
Model # 0199B
Mediterra BB
2143bb
Core Drill Brick Star
(GU10)
Lighting Legend:
Light Post - Sternberg - Mediterra BB 2143BB on Stanton Pole - Compact Flourescent 32W
Wall Sconce - Illuminaries El Socarrar Noche Burning Night Model #01998 - 35W
Miniature Beacon Path Light - BK Teka - MBP - 2310 - 35W
Directional Light House - BK Teka - 7215 - 35W
Step Light - BK - Coredrill Brickstar - GU10
* Please note, the stone entrance way on Valley Way and other stone masonry walls, stairs, etc. have been identified as
part of the historical resource. Stone entrance features shall be retained per Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-8.
Stone from features to be removed as shown shall generally be salvaged and retained onsite.
Areas marked in red depict general locations of historic hardscape associated with the two historic buildings. Nota-
tions not to scale.
*
Figure
DENISE DUFFY &ASSOCIATES, INC.
TO BE SALVAGED AND REUSED. WALL TO BE REBUILT
REMOVE FOUNTAIN, REHABILITATE, AND REINSTALL
TO BE SALVAGED AND REUSED
N
Source: WWD, Inc., 2008
Revised Site Demolition Plan
4.5-5
TO BE SALVAGED AND REUSED
(IF STONE, SALVANGE AND REUSE)
D
E
N
I
S
E

D
U
F
F
Y

&

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,

I
N
C
.
Figure
Project Site Slopes
4.6-1A
N
June 2011
7.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARATION

7.1 REPORT PREPARATION

MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Lead Agency

Carl Holm, Assistant Director
Laura Lawrence, Planning Services Manager
Liz Gonzales, Associate Planner

Final EIR Preparers

Denise Duffy, President
Bryce Ternet, Environmental Planner
Jennifer Morrison, Planner
Michael Gonzales, Associate Planner
Jami Davis, Graphics
Alison Sprecher, Administration

7.2 PEER REVIEW CONSULTANTS

Robert Del Rio, Principal Associate, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., (Traffic)
Kenneth M. Whitson, P.E., Whitson Engineers, (Drainage)

7.3 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED

Gabriela Ayala, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Anthony Cattedra, WWD Engineering
Donna Galletti, Monterey County Sheriffs Office
Kevin Kennelly, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
David Lutes, Monterey County Parks Department
Raul Martinez, Monterey County Public Works Department
Tom Moss, Monterey County Water Resource Agency
Stephanie Pintar, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Roger Van Horn, Monterey County Environmental Health Department
Ken Dostalek, California Department of Transportation

7.4 EIR DOCUMENTS/LITERATURE CITED
1

EIR DOCUMENTS
- Archaeological Consulting (November 20, 2006) Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of
Assessors Parcels 009-061-002, -003, & -005 in Carmel, Monterey County, California.

1
References cited in Draft EIR and RDEIR are incorporated herein.

7.0 References and Report Preparation
-Brown & Buntin Associates, Inc (September 16, 2008) Revised Acoustical Analysis Villas de Carmelo,
Monterey County, California.
-CapRock Geology, Inc. (October 13, 2006) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Former Carmel
Convalescent Hospital 24945 Valley Way Carmel, CA APN 009061-02,-03,-05.
-City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (January 2007) Initial Study and Negative Declaration Leidig/Carmel
Convalescent Hospital Annexation Project.
- Denise Duffy & Associates (December 5, 2008) Urbemis 2007 v 9.2.4 model run, California Climate
Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, version 3, April 2008.
- Forest City Consulting (August 28, 2008) Forest Management Plan for Parcels APNs 009-061-002, 009-
061-003, 009-061-005.
- Forest City Consulting (September 15, 2008) Letter: Response to Coastal Commission Comment.
-Hatch Mott McDonald, (July 2010), Villas de Carmelo Monterey County, California, Traffic Impact
Analysis Addendum.
-Hatch Mott McDonald, (September 2008), Villas de Carmelo Monterey County, California, Traffic
Impact Analysis Addendum.
-Higgins Associates, (December 2007) Villas de Carmelo Monterey County, California, Traffic Impact
Analysis, Draft Report.
-Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc (January 29, 2009) Villas de Carmelo, Monterey County, CA, Environmental
Noise Assessment (Revised).
-JRP Historical Consulting, LLC (September 6, 2008) CEQA Impacts Analysis and Proposed Mitigation
Report for the former Peninsula Community Hospital, Monterey County, California.
-JRP Historical Consulting, LLC (November 19, 2008) Letter to Denise Duffy.
-OBrien & Gere (November 2007) Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Villas de Carmelo Valley Way
and Highway 1 Carmel, California.
-OBrien & Gere (August 29, 2008) Geologic Peer Review Response Supplemental Investigation Report.
-OBrien & Gere (December 2007) Geological Fault Investigation, Proposed Villas de Carmelo Valley
Way and Highway 1 Carmel, California.
-WWD Engineering (September 30, 2008) Preliminary Drainage Report for Villas de Carmelo, Carmel,
CA 93921, 4
th
Revision.
-WWD Engineering (August 18, 2008) Clarifications to Preliminary Drainage Report.
-Zander Associates (December 2007) Biological Resources Assessment Former Carmel Convalescent
Hospital Site, Carmel, California.
-Zander Associates (July 29, 2008) Additional Information Biological Resources Assessment Carmel
Convalescent Hospital Site, Carmel, California.
-Zander Associates (May 14, 2008) Spring Plant Survey Carmel Convalescent Hospital, Carmel,
California.
-Zander Associates (September 24, 2008) ESHA Evaluation at Villas de Carmelo.
All reports are appendices to the Draft EIR and are contained in Project File PLN070497.
LITERATURE CITED

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (January 2007) Initial Study and Negative Declaration Leidig/Carmel
Convalescent Hospital Annexation Project.
County of Monterey (1982) Monterey County General Plan, Available at
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/docs/plans/Monterey_County_GP_complete.PDF.
County of Monterey (1983) Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Available at
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/docs/plans/Carmel_Area_LUP_complete.PDF.
County of Monterey (1988) Coastal Implementation Plan Part 1 Coastal Zone Regulations, Regulations
for Coastal Development Permits, General Provisions and Exceptions in the Coastal Zone, Title
20. Available in hardcopy at Monterey County Planning Department Offices.
County of Monterey (1988) Coastal Implementation Plant Part 4 Regulations for Development in the
Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Available at
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/docs/plans/Carmel_CIP.pdf.
County of Monterey Staff Report, May 25, 2011 Planning Commission Workshop,
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/cca/pc/2011/052511/SRpc_PLN070497_EXHIBITS_052
511.pdf
County of Monterey (1995) Title 20 Zoning Ordinance, Available at
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/docs/ordinances/Title20/20_toc.htm.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, September 2010), Ordinance No. 145,
Ordinance Clarifying And Amending Regulations Pertaining To Permits, Conservation And
Enforcement
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2010/20100920/12/item12_exh12a.htm


FEIR APPENDICIES
FEIR APPENDIX A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM


DD&A Page 1 of 31 Villas de Carmelo
January 2011 Final EIR Draft Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
Villas De Carmelo Project
Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
4.1 Aesthetics
Development of the proposed
project would result in the
removal of existing trees and
alteration of the natural
landscaping of the project site
and the creation of new light
sources, resulting in a
potential impact to a scenic
vista. Significance After
Mitigation: Less than
Significant.
4.1-1 In order to minimize potential aesthetic-related impacts due to the removal of
existing trees and vegetation and the creation of light sources, the project proponent
shall contract a qualified landscape architect to prepare a detailed Replanting and
Landscaping Plan that provides adequate screening along the borders of the project
site prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The plan shall be
reviewed by a qualified arborist/registered professional forester. The project sites
historic landscaping shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible. The
Replanting and Landscaping Plan shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measures
4.4-1 and 4.4-2 as defined in Section 4.4 Biological Resources of this DEIR. All
replanting and landscaping shall be in conformance with the design and
implementation measures contained in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and the
Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan. The Replanting and Landscaping
plan shall include specific measures for the management and eradication of
invasive/non-native species, as recommended in the FMP, as well as specific planting
recommendations (species, size, placement, etc.), use of mature plantings, sources
and schedules for plantings, landscape water requirements, prescribe care and
maintenance for all plantings, success criteria, require periodic monitoring of the site
for a minimum of six years, require annual reporting during the six year period on
replanting success, and adaptive management techniques (i.e., additional replanting,
extension of monitoring) in the event that success is not achieved in the first
monitoring period for all proposed replanting and landscaping. The landscaping plan
shall utilize the native species palette presented in the FMP and/or other native
species with approval by Monterey County (i.e., other species may be preferred
within historic landscaping portions of the site). The approved plan shall also
specify the specific placement of replacement oaks and pines at the ratios prescribed
in Mitigation Measure 4.4-4, located in the Biological Section. Seeds, seedlings,
and/or relocated/transplanted Monterey pine and Coast live oak tree must be free of
disease (i.e., pitch canker) and derived from native genetic stock. The landscape
architect shall submit bi-annual monitoring reports to the Monterey County Planning
Department after each six months detailing the condition of the project sites
landscaping. Adaptive management techniques and/or an extension of the monitoring
period shall be required in the event that replanting is not successful during the initial
(six year) monitoring period. If during the course of monitoring it is determined that
re-planting has not been successful, where success shall be defined as a greater than
80% survival rate of all plantings as determined by an arborist or landscape architect,
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits and
ongoing.

Owner/
Applicant

Project
Landscape
Architect
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
the project applicant shall be required to provide replacement planting as deemed
necessary by the Monterey County Planning Department. The Replanting and
Landscaping Plan shall be subject to the approval of the Monterey County Planning
Department.
4.1-2 In order to minimize tree removal and associated visual impacts, final design-
level improvement plans shall retain existing trees to the greatest extent possible.
Final design-level plans shall be prepared in consultation with a registered
arborist/forester to minimize tree removal and ensure the health of remaining trees.
In addition, final design plans for the proposed development shall utilize natural
landforms and vegetation for screening structures, access roads, building foundations,
cut and fill slopes, and exterior lighting. Roads, parking, and utilities shall be
designed to minimize visual impacts. In order to further guarantee minimized
alteration of the existing character of the project site, the applicant shall submit
evidence (site plans, building elevations, landscape plans, etc.) demonstrating that
landscaped buffers, setbacks, and screening will be provided along public roadways
that border the project area.
Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits, final plans shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Monterey County Planning Department. If the
removal of existing trees is required, the applicant shall submit evidence
demonstrating that there are no feasible design alternatives to avoid tree removal. In
the event that tree removal is required, the project applicant/project arborist shall
prepare a tree removal and replacement plan for each phase of construction, subject
to the review and approval of the Monterey County Planning Department. Any tree
removal and/or tree replanting shall be in accordance with mitigation measures 4.4-1
and 4.4-2 as defined in Section 4.4 Biological Resources of the DEIR. The tree
removal and replacement plan shall identify specific grading limits and building
footprint siting that minimizes tree removal, as well as appropriate tree replacement
ratios (minimum of 1:1 for trees > 12 inches DBH; 3:1 replacement for trees 6-11
inches DBH) and replanting locations. Buildings, roadway, parking areas, and other
proposed structures shall be adjusted to the greatest extent possible to reduce tree
removal. All ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by the project
arborist/forester to ensure impacts to retained trees are minimized.
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits and
ongoing
during
construction.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Arborist/
Forester
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
The project would result in the
removal of existing mature
vegetation adjacent to
Highway 1 to accommodate
buildout of the project site into
a residential condominium
complex. Existing vegetation,
particularly mature pine and
oak trees, located west of
Highway 1 is considered a
scenic resource that is an
important component of the
visual integrity of the
Highway 1 corridor. Removal
of vegetation and construction
of two buildings of the overall
complex as close as 30 feet
from the highway would
impact views from Highway 1
looking west towards the
project site. Significance After
Mitigation: Significant and
Unavoidable
Implementation of mitigation measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 above. -- -- -- --
4.1-3 In order to assure that reduce impacts to a scenic resource, the Highway 1
corridor, are minimized, the two buildings housing Units 1-8 located adjacent to
Highway 1 on the proposed project site plan and the buildings housing Units 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 45 and 46 shall be constructed with a maximum elevation of 28 feet. This
maximum elevation shall be uniform for both all of the buildings and shall be
recorded on the projects final map, subject to approval by the County of Monterey.
The vertical, exterior face or the walls of all buildings facing Highway 1 shall provide
additional modulation (intervals of building width and depth), fenestration (
arrangement and design of windows and doors on the buildings faade), materials
and other design and planning details as a means of breaking up these structures
bulk and mass as seen from the Highway. The architectural details and building
design shall be reviewed and approved through the County design review process. No
building permits may be issued until such approvals are granted.
Note: Height of structure means the vertical distance from the average level of the
highest and lowest point of the natural grade of that portion of the building site
covered by the structure, to the topmost point of the structure, but excluding certain
features, as specified in Chapter 20.62 (Height and Setback Exceptions) and Title
20.06.630.
4.1-4 In order to assure that impacts to scenic resources as viewed from the
Highway 1 corridor are minimized, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that
at no time shall any development, including project signage, parking, or construction-
related activities, be permitted within the 10' property-line setback. All existing
mature trees within the 10' setback shall be retained to the extent possible consistent
with mitigation measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. No structures, besides those required by
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, will be allowed along the Highway 1 corridor except
those created by natural landscaping elements as proposed in Mitigation Measure 4.1-
1, 4.4-1, and 4.4-2. This measure shall be recorded on the projects final map, subject
to approval by the County of Monterey.
Prior to the
recordation of
the final map.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
project would result in the
rehabilitation and adaptive
reuse of the existing hospital
structure and garage/shop
building and construction of
10 additional detached
buildings on the project site, to
accommodate a total of 46
condominium units. The
proposed project would
include common space for
underground and surface
parking, a recreation room,
gym, and storage facilities.
Implementation of the
proposed project would have
an overall impact of improving
upon existing site conditions
and would include landscape
screening; the project would
thus alter the existing visual
character of the site through
the introduction of new urban
features. Significance After
Significant.
4.1-5 Prior to obtaining any building permit, the project applicant shall ensure
exterior appearance and architectural styles for the new structures in the final design
shall be differentiated from the historical resource, yet are in keeping with the nature
of the Spanish Eclectic style of the historical resource. In order to minimize the
contrast between built elements and the surrounding environment, all buildings shall
be designed with colors and materials that effectively reflect the architectural style of
the main hospital building, blending the structures with the on-site landscape.
Building applications for new structures shall include color and material sample
photo sheets and shall be approved by the Monterey County Planning Department
and Historic Review Board prior to the issuance of building permits. Reflective
building material shall not be allowed, unless otherwise approved by the County.
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.1-6 Prior to the issuance of any building permit for development within the project
site area, the project applicant shall submit detailed plans, including elevations, site
plans, and/or other documentation detailing compliance with applicable development
standards, subject to the review and approval of the Monterey County Planning
Department.
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

The project would create a
new source of light or glare
that would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the
area. Significance After
Significant.
4.1-7 In order to minimize glare and lighting, the project proponent shall submit a
detailed lighting plan subject to the review and approval of the Monterey County
Planning Department prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permit. The
lighting plan shall implement the following standards:
Maximum Height: Outdoor street/road/parking light fixtures shall not exceed 12
feet in height or the height of the nearest structure, whichever is less.
Energy-Efficiency: Outdoor lighting shall utilize energy-efficient (high pressure
sodium, low pressure sodium, hard-wired compact fluorescent, or lighting
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
technology that is of equal or greater efficiency) fixtures and lamps.
Exterior building lights shall be installed with timers and/or sensors.
Positioning: Fixtures shall be properly directed, recessed, and/or shielded (e.g.,
downward and away from adjoining properties) to reduce light bleed and glare
onto adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, by:
1. Ensuring that the light source (e.g., bulb, etc.) is not visible from off the
site; and
2. Confining glare and reflections within the boundaries of the subject site to
the maximum extent feasible.
Maximum Illumination: No lighting on private property shall produce an
illumination level greater than one footcandle on any property within a residential
zone except on the site of the light source. No flood lighting shall be allowed on
the project site.
No glare or lighting shall be directed towards Highway 1.
No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high
intensity or brightness.
Landscaping shall be designed to the maximum extent feasible in order to screen
project site lighting.
4.2 Agricultural Resources
No impacts requiring
mitigation.
-- -- -- -- --
4.3 Air Quality
Construction activities,
including clearing, excavation
and grading operations,
construction vehicle traffic on
unpaved ground, and wind
blowing over exposed ground
would generate dust and
particulate matter emissions
that may exceed MBUAPCD
thresholds. Significance After
4.3-1 In order to reduce particulate matter emissions during construction, the
project applicant or contractor shall submit a Construction Management Plan that
includes a dust control plan to the Monterey County Planning and Building
Inspection Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading
permits. The dust control plan shall: 1) specify the methods of dust control to be
utilized, 2) demonstrate the availability of needed equipment, materials, and
personnel, 3) require the use reclaimed water for dust control, and 4) identify a
responsible individual or individuals who can authorize and monitor implementation
of the measures and any additional measures as needed. The plan shall be
implemented by all relevant contractors at the site and shall be monitored daily by the
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department during demolition
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits and
during
construction.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
Significant. and grading activities at the site. The dust control plan shall, at a minimum, include
the following measures:
Water all active construction areas, including haul roads, at least twice daily and
more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to existing businesses
residences should be kept damp at all times. If necessary, during windy periods,
watering is to occur on all days of the week regardless of onsite activities (reduces
fugitive dust PM
10
from wind blown dust from active areas and unpaved road
sources by 55%).
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(reduces PM
10
from inactive areas of 84%).
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads and areas to 15 mph (reduces PM
10
from
travel on unpaved haul roads by 44%).
Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
construction sites.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Suspend excavation and grading activity when hourly-average winds exceed 15
mph and visible dust clouds cannot be contained within the site.
Residences within 300 feet of a construction area shall be notified of the
construction schedule in writing prior to commencement of construction. The
contractor and Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department
shall designate an air quality disturbance coordinator who would be responsible
for responding to complaints during construction. The coordinator shall
determine the cause of the complaint and ensure that reasonable measures are
implemented to correct the problem. A contact number for the air quality
disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously placed on the construction site and
written into the construction notification schedule sent to nearby residences.
Construction activities would Implementation of mitigation measures 4.3-1 above. -- -- -- --

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
involve use of the heavy-duty
off-road equipment and large
trucks that would generate
diesel exhaust, compounds of
which may would not result in
unacceptable health risks to
nearby sensitive receptors per
the diesel risk assessment.
This is a significant potential
impact that can be reduced to
a less-than-significant level
with implementation of the
following mitigation.
4.3-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a diesel risk reduction plan
(DRRP) shall be developed in consultation with the MBUAPCD submitted to the
Monterey County Planning Department (MCPD). The DRRP shall demonstrate that
adverse health effects are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., below MBUAPCD
thresholds) through the measures below or others to the satisfaction of the MCPD.
The DRRP shall be implemented at the site throughout the construction period,
during which diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment are utilized. MCPD shall monitor
the implementation of the DRRP by conducting site inspections on a weekly basis
throughout the construction period, during which diesel-fueled vehicles and
equipment are utilized. Contractors shall maintain all records of purchases and
maintenance of diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate matter filters, and any
other emission control measures implemented. MBUAPCD shall have the right to
inspect the records and the construction and demolition equipment and vehicles
throughout the construction period. The following guidelines shall be included in the
DRRP:
The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to
avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors).
Diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off.
This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other
bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were onsite and staged away from residential areas.
Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
Stage large diesel powered equipment at least 200 feet from any active land uses
(e.g., residences).
Limit the pieces of equipment used at any one time.
Minimize the use of diesel-powered equipment (i.e., wheeled tractor, wheeled
loader, roller) by using gasoline-powered equipment.
Limit the daily hours of operation for heavy-duty equipment.
Use designated truck-haul routes to avoid sensitive receptors.

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
4.3-3 All of the following specifications shall be included in the DRRP referenced
in mitigation measure 4.3-2 and implemented at the site subject to the inspection,
monitoring, and records requirements in mitigation measure 4.3-2:
No engines greater than 750 HP shall be used without control devices or additional
mitigation measures. The following equipment may be used without control devices
or additional mitigation measures:
Engines between 501 HP and 750 HP that are model years 2002 and newer;
Engines between 251 HP and 500 HP that are model years 1996 or newer; and
Engines between 175 HP and 250 HP that are model years 1985 or newer. The
following equipment may be used, if retrofitted with a catalyzed diesel
particulate filter:
Engines greater than 750 HP, if model year 2006 and newer; and
All engines less than 749 HP, regardless of model year. If construction
equipment uses B99 biodiesel, the following could be utilized without control
devices or additional mitigation measures:
Engines between 501 HP and 750 HP, if model years 2002 or newer;
Engines between 250 HP and 500 HP, if model years 1996 and newer; and
Any engine less than 250 HP.
Alternatively, the project shall implement a combination of other emission reduction
measures, if they can be demonstrated to reduce the acute and long-term cancer risk
to below relevant MBUAPCD thresholds.
4.4 Biological Resources
The proposed project would
represent temporary and
permanent impacts to on-site
vegetation, and will result in
the removal of 3 or more
Monterey pine and/or Coast
live oak trees. Temporary
impacts to vegetation include
grubbing and grading
associated with development
of the site; permanent impacts
4.4-1 A Forest Management Plan was prepared for the site according to County
standards contained in Title 20.146.00; all measures presented in the FMP for the
protection of on-site trees shall be implemented as conditions of the project (see
Sections 6.1 - 6.7 of FMP in Appendix D of DEIR).
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Arborist/
Forester
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.4-2 The project sites historic landscaping shall be retained to the maximum
extent feasible. In order to minimize potential biological-related impacts due to the
removal of existing trees and vegetation and the creation of light sources, Tthe
applicant shall contract a qualified landscape architect to prepare a Replanting and
Prior to
issuance of
permit or
prior to
Owner/
Applicant

Project
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
include the placement of
structures, roads, driveways,
etc. Significance After
Significant.
Landscaping Plan for the site to be approved by Monterey County prior to issuance of
a grading permit for the proposed project. The Replanting and Landscaping Plan
shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 defined in Section 4.1
Aesthetic Resources and 4.4-2 below in this DEIR. The plan shall be reviewed by a
qualified arborist/registered professional forester. All replanting and landscaping
shall be in conformance with the design and implementation measures contained in
the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and the Monterey County Coastal Implementation
Plan. The landscaping plan shall utilize the native species palette presented in the
FMP and/or other native species with approval by Monterey County (i.e., other
species may be preferred within historic landscaping portions of the site). The
approved plan shall also specify the specific placement of replacement oaks and pines
at the ratios prescribed in mitigation measure 4.4-4 below. Seeds, seedlings, and/or
relocated/transplanted Monterey pine and Coast live oak tree must be free of disease
(i.e., pitch canker) and derived from native genetic stock. The plan shall include
specific measures for the management and eradication of invasive/non-native species,
as recommended in the FMP, and shall include care/maintenance, monitoring,
duration, success criteria, and reporting requirements, and adaptive management
techniques (i.e., additional replanting, extension of monitoring) in the event that
success is not achieved in the first monitoring period for all proposed replanting and
landscaping.

recordation of
the final map
as applicable.

Ongoing as
required
during
monitoring
Landscape
Architect
4.4-3 Trees and vegetation not planned for removal shall be protected during
construction to the maximum extent feasible. This shall include the use of
exclusionary fencing of herbaceous and woody vegetation to prevent unauthorized
access by personnel and equipment.
During
construction.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Arborist/
Forester
RMA-
Planning
Department

The proposed construction of
46 new residences at the
Carmel Convalescent Home
site will contain 105 of 126
on-site trees >12 inches
diameter at DBH (21 coast
live oak, 76 Monterey pines,
4.4-4 Each of the twenty-one (21) coast live oaks greater than twelve inches DBH
proposed for removal will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Although most of the Monterey
pines slated for removal appear to have been planted and therefore do not require
mitigation, two (2) Monterey pines greater than twelve inches DBH scheduled for
removal appear to have seeded in from adjacent native trees and shall be replaced at a
1:1 ratio (see FMP). In addition, 11 multi-stemmed trees (generally oaks) that have
cumulative stem diameters equivalent to 12 inches DBH are proposed for removal;
During
construction.

Owner/
Applicant

Project
Arborist/
Forester
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
and eight miscellaneous
species). The removal of
native trees for development is
subject to the policies
contained within the Carmel
Area LUP and CIP.
Requirements for replacement
are 1:1 for each native tree 12
inches DBH or larger that is
removed.
This also includes removal of
52 of 87 on-site trees between
6-11 inches diameter at DBH
(33 Coast live oak, 5 Monterey
pine, and 14 others
(horticultural species including
olive, acacia, pittosporum,
cedar, etc.). Although the
Carmel Area LUP does not
require mitigation for native
tree removals less than 12
inches DBH, removal of these
trees will further degrade the
site from a wildlife habitat
perspective. Significance
After Mitigation: Less than
Significant.
these trees will likewise be replaced at a 1:1 ratio (see FMP). All replacement trees
shall be pitch canker free and derived from local genetic stock.

Each of the Coast live oak and Monterey pine trees at the site between 6-11 inches
DBH proposed for removal shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. All replacement trees
shall be pitch canker free and derived from local genetic stock.

Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits and
ongoing
The project would require
grading, excavation, tree
limbing and removal, and
other activities that may result
in the loss or abandonment of
on-site raptor nests and/or
other native/migratory bird
species nests. Significance
4.4-5 If project activities including grading, excavation, or tree-limbing/removal
will initiate during the typical avian nesting season (February 15 August 31), a
qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction nesting avian surveys no more than
14 days prior to initiation of construction activities; surveys should be conducted in
all areas that may provide suitable nesting habitat on-site or within 300 feet of
proposed construction activities. If active nests are found, a suitable no disturbance
buffers construction buffer shall be established around each nest by a qualified
biologist, and no work and/or disturbance shall occur within thisat buffer until August
31 when young are assumed fledged.
No more than
14 days prior
to initiation of
construction
activities if
they occur
during nesting
season.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Biologist
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
Significant.

Alternatively, a qualified biologist can conduct weekly nest checks to gauge
nestling/fledgling status, and construction may proceed once fledglings have
dispersed from the nest, provided written concurrence from CDFG. No active nest
shall be impacted or removed without a depredation permit from CDFG; a
depredation permit will not be issued for impacts to Fully Protected Species. No
active nest shall be impacted or removed.

For activities that occur outside of the nesting season (generally September 1 August
2-January 31 February 14), preconstruction surveys are not required. If construction
is initiated outside of the nesting season and continues into the nesting season,
preconstruction surveys are required if construction will occur in areas not previously
accessed and/or disturbed (>300 feet from previous construction activities).

Implementation of this mitigation measure would not result in any new significant
impact beyond those previously identified in this Draft EIR
The project would require tree
limbing and removal and
modification of on-site
buildings that may result in
direct take of special status
bats and/or bat roosting
habitat. Bats and their roosts
are protected under CDFG
code and provided planning
consideration under CEQA for
any special status species.
Significance After Mitigation:
Less than Significant.
4.4-6 A qualified bat specialist shall conduct site surveys to characterize bat
utilization of the site and potential species present (techniques utilized to be
determined by the biologist). Based on the results of these initial surveys, one or
more of the following shall occur.
If it is determined that bats are not present at the site, no additional mitigation is
required.
If it is determined that bats are utilizing the site and may be impacted by the
proposed project, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 30
days prior to modification, demolition, or removal of on-site buildings and/or
limbing and removal of on-site trees (or any other occupied habitat). If according
the to bat specialist no bats or bat sign are observed in the course of
preconstruction surveys, demolition/removal of buildings and trees may proceed.
If bats and/or bat sign are observed during the preconstruction surveys, the
biologists shall determine if disturbance will jeopardize a maternity roost, or
another type of roost (foraging, day, night).
If a single bat and/or only adult bats are roosting, demolition or removal of the
structure can proceed after the bats have been safely excluded from the roost.
Exclusion techniques shall be determined by the biologist and depend on the roost
type; the biologist shall prepare a mitigation plan for provision of alternative
No more than
30 days prior
to initiation of
construction
activities and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Biologist
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
habitat to be approved by CDFG.
If an active maternity roost is detected, avoidance is preferred. Work in the vicinity
of the roost (buffer to be determined by bat specialist) shall be postponed until the
qualified biologist monitoring the roost(s) determines that the young have fledged
and are no longer dependent on the roost. The monitor shall ensure that all bats have
left the building and or area of disturbance prior to initiation of construction and/or
demolition activities. If disruption of a maternity roost cannot be avoided, a
depredation permit would be required prior to take of the roost.
The project proposes
placement of new light sources
throughout the site (see
Conceptual Lighting Plan in
Aesthetics section). New light
sources may further reduce on-
site habitat quality for any
wildlife utilizing the site,
including special status bats
and raptors. Artificial light
disrupts the natural habits of
many indigenous wildlife
species. Significance After
Significance.
4.4-7 Minimize outdoor lighting features (i.e., streetlights, directed flood lights,
and/or decorative lights) which are directed away from on-site development.
Floodlights, in particular, should avoid on-site trees and/or mature vegetation (also
see lighting-related mitigation in the Aesthetics Section of the DEIR).
Prior to
issuance of a
permit or prior
to recordation
of the final
map as
applicable.

Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.5 Cultural Resources
Development of the project
and the resulting rehabilitation
and renovation of the two
historic resources on the
project site would have the
potential to cause a
substantial, adverse change to
a historical structure eligible
for listing in the California
Register on the site. This
represents a potentially
4.5-1 In order to ensure continuation of historical integrity of the resources on site,
rehabilitation activities shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations, including the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
published by Weeks and Grimmer in 1995 for the National Park Service. All
building modifications shall comply with these standards, and modifications shall be
constructed in a manner similar yet distinguishable from the original structure. All
activities regarding historical architectural resources and historic preservation carried
out as part of this project shall be carried out by, or under the direct supervision of,
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
significant impact that can be
reduced to a less-than-
significant level with
implementation of the
following mitigation measure.
persons meeting the Secretary of the Interiors professional qualifications standards
(48 FR 44738-9) in these disciplines. Evidence of compliance shall be provided to
Monterey County Planning Department upon completion of rehabilitation activities
by the project applicant/developer.
4.5-1A In order to protect the identified historical resource into perpetuity, the
applicant shall apply and obtain from Monterey County a Historical Resource
(Coastal Zone) zoning designation overlay for the portions of the project site that
contain the historical resource prior to recordation of the final project map. The
historical resource is defined as the original portions of the main hospital building,
the garage/shop building, and the historic landscaping around those two buildings,
which includes the stone entrance walls on Valley Way, the fountain, landmark oak
tree, stone patio to the south of the main hospital building, and the stone terracing and
landscaping immediately surrounding the two main hospital structures. The
application and overlay adoption process shall serve as evidence for compliance to
the Monterey County Planning Department and the Historic Resources Review
Board.
4.5-2 Prior to the issuance of any permits, the project applicant/developer shall
prepare a Preservation and Monitoring Plan (PMP) that will act as a work plan for the
restoration rehabilitation of the historical resources on the site. In general, the PMP
should will identify changes to the property that could reasonably be expected to
occur and detail protective actions that will be undertaken to retain the so that the
changes would not disrupt the historical integrity of the resource. The PMP would
will be prepared by a qualified professional, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.5-1,
above. The purpose of the PMP is to provide practical guidance to the construction
and restoration teams for the Villas de Carmelo project to ensure that the historical
resource is protected and its historic integrity is retained. The PMP shall contain the
following features: A detailed history of the Carmel Convalescent Hospital;
A discussion of the structures historical significance (i.e., why the building is
listed in the National Register);
A comprehensive list of both character-defining historic features and non-historic
elements of the two historic buildings and historic surrounding landscaping that
contribute to the structures historical significance, as well as materials to be
retained, preserved, salvaged, and/or reused;
A comprehensive list of both character-defining historic features and non-historic
elements of the two historic buildings and historic surrounding landscaping that
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
contribute to the structures historical significance, as well as materials to be
retained, preserved, salvaged, and/or reused;
A detailed description of the current condition of the buildings and their integrity
relative to the National Register criteria;
A discussion of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, including relevant standards as outlined by the Secretary of
Interior and the Secretarys guidelines in applying these standards;
Specific work to take place during the implementation of the project, based on
elevation-by-elevation architectural, demolition, and construction plans and to-
scale drawings, and detail how that work will be conducted in accordance with the
SOI Standards;
Specific preservation treatments, standards, and requirements for care during all
aspects of the project, including, but not limited to, treatments for the following:
historic windows and doors, fountain and landscaping features, modifications to
the rear wing addition, modification of the garage/shop building, and excavation
and modification activities for the underground parking garage addition; and
Specific use and applications of the extensive technical guidance available from
the NPS regarding the rehabilitation and adaptive re-use of historic buildings.
Preservation, repair, and appropriate replacement activities shall be consisted with
SOI Standards and other National Park Service Technical Preservation Services
guidance, including the following where appropriate:
Inappropriate Replacement Doors, ITS Bulletin No. 4, by Anne Grimmer (July
1999)
New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings, Preservation Concerns,
Preservation Brief No. 14, by Kay D. Weeks (1986)
The Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs, Preservation Brief No.
30, by Anne Grimmer and Paul Williams (1992)
The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco, Preservation Brief No. 22, by
Anne Grimmer (1990)
Protecting a Historic Structure during Adjacent Construction, Preservation
Technical Note No. 3, by Chad Randl (July 2001)
Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows, Preservation Brief
No. 13, by Sharon C. Park (1984)
Selecting New Windows to Replace Non-Historic Windows, ITS Bulletin No.

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
23, by Claire Kelly (October 2001)
The PMP shall be incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(MMRP) for the project. The Preservation Plan shall be subject to Monterey County
Historic Resources Review Board and Monterey County Planning Department review
and approval.
4.5-3 Prior to the start of any project work, the project applicant/developer shall
ensure that the main hospital building, its surrounding terraced the identified historic
landscaping, and the garage/shop building is recorded and documented in accordance
with the Level II recordation standards of the Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) program. This level
of recordation shall include:
archival reproduction of any existing historic images of the resources;
archival reproduction of any existing maps, sketches, or drawings of the
resources;
production of measured architectural plans and drawings of the resources;
production of large-format photographs of exterior and interior views of the
resources, and views of the setting of the resources, including relationship to
landscape features;
narrative history and description of the property based on the narrative included in
the evaluation of the property (Appendix F of DEIR), and the Monterey County
survey(s) of similar properties, if any.
The original archival set of recordation documents and photographic prints shall be
submitted to the Monterey County Historical Society (or its designee), and archival
quality photocopies of the documentation set shall be provided to the following
interested parties and local repositories: Monterey County Libraries (Carmel and
Monterey branches) and UC Santa Cruz Library Special Collections Department.
The project proponent shall ensure that this recordation documentation is prepared
prior to any construction activities or treatments and shall make the content of the
document available for other mitigation measures, such as the preparation of
interpretive material.
Prior to the
start of any
project work.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.5-4 At least 30 days prior to commencing any work on the property, the project
applicant/developer shall produce video documentation of the main hospital building,
the historic with its surrounding landscaping, and the garage/shop building. This
video documentation shall include footage of the exterior and interior of the building,
At least 30
days prior to
commencing
any work on
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
as well as the grounds of the property. The video documentation shall be submitted
to the Monterey County Historical Society (or its designee), and a copy of the video
documentation shall be provided to interested parties upon request. The project
applicant/developer shall make the videography available for other mitigation
measures described in this section.
the property.
4.5-5 The project applicant/developer shall develop and implement protective
measures to safeguard the character-defining features of the main hospital building,
its surrounding the historical landscaping, and the garage/shop building from damage
by the implementation of the project. The features include, but are not limited to tile
roofing, decorative chimney tops, tower, arched window and passageway openings,
the original footprint of the building, the fountain, the landmark oak tree, stone
stairways, terrace, and retaining walls. The original fenestration and doors shall be
retained, repaired, or replaced in kind. Preservation, repair, and appropriate
replacement activities shall be consisted consistent with SOI Standards and other
National Park Service Technical Preservation Services guidance, as mentioned in
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, above. Replacement of non-historic windows and doors
shall be sensitive to the appearance of the original fenestration design. Selection of
new windows and doors shall be conducted in accordance with NPS guidance, such
as ITS Bulletin No. 23, Selecting New Windows to Replace Non- Historic
Windows, by Claire Kelly (October 2001). Protective measures shall be conducted
in accordance with NPS Preservation Technical Note No. 3, Protecting a Historic
Structure during Adjacent Construction, by Chad Randl (July 2001).
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.5-6 The project applicant/developer shall ensure that any inadvertent damage to
the character-defining features of the main hospital building, garage/shop building,
and historic landscaping resulting from the rehabilitation project was repaired in
accordance with guidance listed above, as well as the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1992), California
Historical Building Code, and the MMRP for the project. The existing condition of
the building as documented by HABS recordation prior to the initiation of the
relocation scenario shall be the established the baseline condition for assessing and
repairing inadvertent damage. A record of all inadvertent damage and the completed
repairs shall be submitted to the Monterey County Historical Society (or its designee)
and included into the historic record of the resources on site.
During to
construction
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.5-7 The project applicant/developer shall coordinate with and inform interested Prior to Owner/ RMA-

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
parties, including, but not limited to the Monterey County Historical Society,
Monterey County Historical Advisory Commission, Monterey County Historic
Resources Review Board, and Monterey County Historical Society, regarding the
status of its compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP, as
necessary.
issuance of
building
permits.
Applicant Planning
Department
4.5-8 The project applicant/developer shall consult with interested parties
concerning funding and creation of permanent or temporary interpretive exhibits
describing the history of the metabolic clinic and the Peninsula Community Hospital.
Interested parties to be consulted include, but are not limited to, Monterey County
Historical Society, Monterey County Historical Advisory Commission, Monterey
County Historic Resources Review Board, and Monterey County Historical Society.
If consultation results in agreement between the project proponent and these parties
concerning the nature and extent of the exhibits, the project proponent shall produce
and install the exhibits. The interpretive exhibit shall utilize the images, narrative
history, drawings, video, or other material produced for the mitigation described
above. The interpretive exhibits may be in the form of, but are not necessarily
limited to the following: plaques or markers, interpretive display panels, and or
printed material for dissemination to the public. If consultation does not result in
agreement between the project proponent and the interested parties, the project
proponent could seek an alternative Monterey County location for the interpretive
exhibits. Appropriate alternative locations shall be determined at that time.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Construction of the project
may result in the discovery
and disturbance of unknown
archaeological resources
and/or human remains.
4.5-9 The project applicant/developer shall monitor the construction site. If,
during the course of construction, human remains or cultural, archaeological, historical,
or paleontological resources are uncovered at the site (surface or subsurface resources)
work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find until a qualified
professional archaeologist can evaluate it. The Monterey County Resource Management
Agency - Planning Department and a qualified archaeologist (i.e., an archaeologist
registered with the Society of Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately
contacted by the responsible individual present on-site. When contacted, the project
planner and the archaeologist shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of
the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures required for the discovery.
Prior to
issuance of
building
and/or grading
permits and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
The project would be exposed
to potential adverse effects
4.6-1 In order to minimize the potential effects from strong seismic ground
shaking on project components, all recommendations from the projects Geotechnical
Prior to
issuance of
building
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
from strong seismic ground
shaking that may result in
damage to proposed structures.
Assessment Report prepared by OBrien & Gere Engineers (November 2007), and
subsequent peer review (September 2008), shall be incorporated by the project
proponent into final design plans, subject to review by the Monterey County Planning
Department prior to construction activities.
and/or grading
permits.

Project
Engineer
Department
4.6-2 The project engineer shall ensure that all structures are designed to the most
current standards of the California Building Code, at a minimum. Adherence into
final design plans shall be reviewed by the Monterey County Planning Department
prior to construction activities.
Prior to
issuance of
building
and/or grading
permits and
during
construction.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Engineer
RMA-
Planning
Department

The historic hospital may be
adversely affected by the
grading on the project site.
4.6-3 In order to minimize the potential effects from grading on the project site,
all recommendations from the projects Geotechnical Assessment Report prepared by
OBrien & Gere Engineers (November 2007) shall be incorporated by the project
proponent into final grading and erosion control plans, subject to review by the
Monterey County Planning Department prior to construction activities.
Prior to
issuance of
building
and/or grading
permits and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Engineer
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.6-4 In order to reduce on-site erosion due to project construction and operation,
an Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared
for site preparation, construction, and post-construction periods by a registered civil
engineer or certified professional. The Erosion Control Plan shall incorporate best
management practices consistent with the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System. The erosion component of the plan must at least meet
the requirements of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required by the
California State Water Resources Control Board. In order to minimize the potential
effects from grading on the project site, all recommendations from the projects
Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented into construction activities on the project
site. This mitigation measure shall be placed as a note on the grading plans. Erosion
control measures may include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Sediment basins (e.g., debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall be
installed in conjunction with the initial grading operations and maintained through
the development process to remove sediment and run-off waters. All sediment
shall be retained onsite.
b. Native vegetation cover, temporary vegetation, seeding, mulching, or other
suitable stabilization methods shall be used to protect soils subject to erosion that
Prior to
issuance of
building
and/or grading
permits and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Engineer
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
have been disturbed during grading or development. All cut and fill slopes shall
be stabilized as soon as possible through planting of native annual grasses and
shrubs, appropriate non-native plants, or with approved landscaping practices.
c. Provisions shall be made to conduct surface water to storm drains or suitable
watercourses to prevent erosion. On-site drainage devices shall be designed to
accommodate increased run-off resulting from site modification. Where
appropriate, on-site retention of storm water shall be required.
4.6-5 In order to minimize the potential effects from grading on the project site,
all grading requiring a County permit, which would occur on slopes steeper than 15
percent, shall be restricted to the dry season of the year.
Prior to
issuance of
building
and/or grading
permits and
during
construction.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Engineer
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
project, including site grading,
excavation, demolition, and
other land-disturbing
activities, may result in the
exposure of construction
personnel and site occupants
to health and safety risks.
4.7-1 In order to reduce human health risks to construction personnel and future
site occupants, the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant to survey all
buildings for asbestos under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines enforced by the Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and Rule 439 prior to the issuance of any
demolition permit. The project applicant shall contact Mike Sheehan of the
MBUAPCDs Compliance Division to coordinate the work. If asbestos containing
material is documented within existing on-site structures, all potentially friable
asbestos shall be removed prior to building demolition in accordance with NESHAP
guidelines. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project applicant shall
submit written evidence to Monterey County Division of Environmental Health from
a qualified consultant demonstrating that all asbestos containing material has been
properly removed and demolition activities may proceed without exposing
construction personnel to asbestos-related hazards.
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits.
Owner/
Applicant

RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Division of
Enviro.
Health

4.7-2 In order to reduce human health risks to construction personnel and future
site occupants, the project proponent shall retain a qualified consultant to conduct a
lead-based paint and Title 22 metal surveys to evaluate the presence of lead-based
paint, silver, or other toxic metals prior to the issuance of any permit. If lead-based
paint is observed within existing buildings and the surrounding area, all peeling and
flaking lead-based paint shall be removed and properly disposed of separately from
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant

RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Division of

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
building debris, in accordance with current Department of Toxic Substances Control
policies and California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which provides
for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and mandates good
worker practices by workers exposed to lead. All site soils contaminated by lead-
based paint shall be removed and properly disposed of prior to any construction
activities. Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall provide evidence to
Monterey County Division of Environmental Health of certified training for lead-
related construction work. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the project
proponent shall submit written evidence to Monterey County Division of
Environmental Health from a qualified consultant demonstrating that all lead-based
paint has been properly removed and that no further health hazards related to lead-
based paint exist on site.
Enviro.
Health

4.7-3 An Operations, Maintenance, and Remediation Plan shall be prepared and
implemented for asbestos, lead, and any other toxic material, including unknown
medical waste, discovered on site to reduce contamination to acceptable levels,
maintain the safety of construction workers and future site users, and assure proper
management of contaminated materials in accordance with state and local regulatory
requirements. The project applicant shall coordinate with Mike Sheehan with the
MBUAPCDs Compliance Division during the preparation of the Operations,
Maintenance, and Remediation Plan to ensure that no toxic materials will become
airborne. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, a detailed accounting of
contaminated materials found on site, standards and requirements for construction
personnel for handling contaminated materials, and required procedures and industry
standards for removal and remediation of contaminated materials. This plan shall be
subject to review and approval by Monterey County Division of Environmental
Health. Evidence shall be provided to Monterey County, prior to the issuance of any
grading permit, demonstrating that all necessary remedial actions have been
completed pursuant to the approved Remediation Plan.

4.7-3A Upon demolition of existing facilities, analytical testing of soil shall be
conducted for hazardous substances (including lead, Title 22 metals, and medical
waste) Further, Geiger testing shall be conducted throughout the property to ensure
no harmful radiological materials are present. If results indicate the presence of such
materials in excess of applicable health standards, site remediation shall be completed
to reduce contamination to acceptable clean-up levels for residential uses, in
accordance with all state and local regulatory requirements. The results of this
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant

RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Division of
Enviro.
Health

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
testing and the resulting remediation requirements shall be incorporated into the
Operations, Maintenance, and Remediation Plan described in Mitigation Measure
4.7-3.
4.7-4 If hazardous chemicals, such as paints, photo-processing wastes, chemical
sterilants, disinfectants, paint-related chemicals, medical waste, x-ray waste, or
cleaning chemicals are discovered on the site during the demolition of the outlying
buildings, the restoration of the former hospital and garage, or construction of the
proposed residential structures, the applicant shall ensure that the chemicals shall be
disposed of at an appropriate permitted facility. Once removed, any and all exposed
surfaces shall be visually observed to confirm the presence/absence of staining.
Should staining be observed, the stained surface, including concrete or asphalt, shall
be removed and disposed of at an approved landfill and the underlying soils visually
observed to confirm the vertical extent of contamination. If staining is observed,
stained soils shall be tested to identify appropriate remedial activities.
During
demolition
and grading
and
construction.
Owner/
Applicant

RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Division of
Enviro.
Health

4.7-5 In order to ensure that future construction personnel are not exposed to
previously unknown environmental hazards or if suspected hazardous materials are
discovered prior to or during construction, the contractor shall complete the following
steps if a previously unknown hazard or evidence of a potential hazard is found on
the project site during construction, which includes evidence of medical waste or
areas of suspected contaminants:
1. Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing
workers and the public from the area;
2. Notify the Project Engineer of the implementing agency;
3. Secure the area as directed by the Project Engineer; and
4. Notify the implementing agencys Hazardous Waste/Materials Coordinator.
A qualified consultant shall then be retained to determine the nature of the potential
hazards. The consultant findings shall be subject to compliance with all applicable
state and federal statutes regarding hazardous wastes and review and approval by
Monterey County Division of Environmental Health. Evidence shall be provided to
Monterey County Division of Environmental Health, prior to continuation of
demolition in the specified area, demonstrating that all necessary remedial actions
have been completed pursuant to the approved recommendations of the qualified
consultant and applicable regulations.
Prior to
issuance of
demolition,
grading and/or
building
permits and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant

RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Division of
Enviro.
Health

4.7-6 In order to ensure that all existing boilers, generators, and fuel tanks are Prior to Owner/ RMA-

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
properly disposed of, the project proponent will administer a quality check for the
propane tank and diesel generator located on the west end of the property prior to use
or removal. If the proponent plans to retain any of the existing fuel tanks or
generators on site, the project applicant shall properly register these items with
Monterey County Division of Environmental Health. If the project proponent plans
to remove any of these items, then the proponent and/or contractor shall properly
dispose of any or all existing heating boilers, generators, and fuel tanks off site at an
appropriate permitted landfill facility. All materials shall be removed in accordance
with applicable local, state, and federal requirements and will be subject to review
and approval of Monterey County Division of Environmental Health. Once the
boilers and tanks are removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath and around the
removed boilers shall be performed by a qualified consultant. Any stained soils
observed underneath the boilers shall be sampled and removed in accordance with
industry standards. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the project proponent shall
submit evidence to Monterey County Division of Environmental Health
demonstrating that all boilers, generators, and fuel tanks have been properly removed
or recorded.
issuance of
demolition,
grading and/or
building
permits and
during
construction.
Applicant

Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Division of
Enviro.
Health

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project has the
potential to increase
stormwater run-off from the
Significant.
4.8-1 In order to ensure that increased levels of stormwater run-off are detained
onsite, the projects Geotechnical Engineer shall provide evidence to the Monterey
County Planning Department that recommendations contained within the projects
Preliminary Drainage Report have been adhered to regarding the projects proposed
on-site drainage storage facility prior to the issuance of building permits.
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Engineer
RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Water
Resources
Agency

Construction and operation of
the proposed project could
result in an impact to surface
water quality. Significance
Significant.
4.8-2 In order to avoid potential impacts to water quality during construction
activities, the applicant shall obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Program Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board and prepare an erosion control plan, prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. Specific requirements regarding erosion control are detailed in mitigations
4.6-3, 4, and 5 in Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources of the DEIR.
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permits.
Owner/
Applicant

Project
Engineer
RMA-
Planning
Department
Monterey
County
Water
Resources
Agency

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
4.9 Land Uses
mitigation.
-- -- -- -- --
4.10 Noise
Residential uses developed at
portions of the project site
would be exposed to exterior
noise levels exceeding the
normally acceptable noise
and land use compatibility
standards presented in the
Countys General Plan for
multiple-family residential
land uses. Interior noise levels
would exceed acceptable
levels at portions of the project
site without the incorporation
of noise insulation features
into the projects design.
4.10-1 In order to reduce exterior noise levels to the applicable standards set forth
by Monterey County, the project applicant/developer shall construct a minimum 10-
foot noise barrier (relative to the finished floor elevations of Units 4 and 5) between
Units 4 and 5 to maintain noise levels at private and common outdoor use areas to 60
dBA CNEL or less. The noise barrier shall be airtight over the surface and at the
base. The minimum surface weight of the proposed noise barrier materials shall be 3
lbs/ft
2
. Suitable construction materials include masonry block, concrete, and
minimum one-inch thick wood boards. Evidence to demonstrate provisions for this
measure shall be submitted by the project applicant/developer to the Monterey
County Planning Department prior to building permit issuance.
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

4.10-2 In order to reduce interior noise levels to applicable standards set forth by
Monterey County of 45 dBA CNEL or lower within each unit on the project site, the
project applicant/developer shall submit evidence to demonstrate provisions for
following measures prior to building permit issuance from the Monterey County
Planning Department:
a. Installation of forced-air mechanical ventilation, satisfactory to the local building
official, in each units exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL,
to be placed at locations the furthest from all outdoor activity areas as possible and
screened with noise barriers as necessary to ensure that the operation of the units
does not result in noise levels that would exceed ambient traffic noise levels at
adjacent sensitive receivers;
b. Exterior wall finish of stucco or an approved acoustical equivalent;
c. Exterior doors, excluding glass doors, shall be solid-core wood or insulated steel
with perimeter weather-stripping and threshold seals;
d. Acoustic baffles shall be installed on the interior side of roof vents that face (or
partially face) Highway 1 in the first row of buildings along the roadway; and
e. Project-specific acoustical analyses, as required by Chapter 12, Appendix Section
1207.11.2 of the California Building Code to determine each unit will meet
interior noise levels as set forth by Monterey County. Further treatments may be
needed to meet acceptable noise levels, treatments could include sound rated
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
windows and doors, sound rated wall constructions, acoustical caulking, protected
ventilation openings, etc.
Noise generated by
construction activities would
substantially increase noise
levels at adjacent residential
land uses. Significance After
Significant.
4-10.3 The project applicant/developer shall develop a construction noise reduction
plan with the following listed plan controls, standards and actions. The Plan shall be
developed in close coordination with adjacent noise-sensitive land uses so that
construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. The plan
shall be submitted to the Monterey County Planning Department for review and
approval prior to the initiation of construction activities. The construction noise
reduction plan shall incorporate the following controls with the goal of reducing
construction noise levels to less-than-significant:
Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the
construction site shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and holidays.
No individual device shall produce a noise level more than 85 dBA at a distance
of 50 feet.
Solid plywood fences (minimum 8 feet in height) shall be constructed around the
construction site to shield adjacent residences or other noise-sensitive land uses.
Quiet models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists shall be utilized.
All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers
that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
All stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable
power generators, shall be located to maximize distances to residences/noise
sensitive uses.
Staging areas and construction material shall be located to maximize distances to
residences or noise-sensitive land uses.
All construction traffic shall be routed to and from the project site via designated
truck routes where possible and prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in
residential areas where feasible.
Noise from construction workers radios shall be controlled to a point that they are
not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
All unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.
All adjacent noise-sensitive receptors shall be notified of the construction
Prior to
issuance of
grading and/or
building
permits and
during
construction.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
schedule in writing prior to the initiation of construction activities;
The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,
starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The disturbance coordinator
shall conspicuously post a sign that is publicly visible that specifies the project
construction noise mitigation measures, the telephone number of the onsite
contractor, and the telephone number of the person to contact (the disturbance
coordinator) regarding noise complaints. The disturbance coordinator shall
respond to complaints and take corrective action within 24 hours.
The plan shall be implemented by all relevant contractors at the site and shall be
monitored by the Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department
during demolition and grading activities at the site.
4.11 Population & Housing
mitigation.
-- -- -- -- --
4.12 Public Service and Recreation
The project would result in an
increased demand for
educational services. This
would represent a potentially
significant impact that can be
reduced to a less-than
significant level with
implementation of the
following suggested
condition/mitigation measure.
4-12.1 In order to minimize impacts to educational services, the
applicant/developer shall pay a school impact fee for multi-family residential
development pursuant to the criteria set forth within California Government Code
Section 65995, $1.93 per square foot assessable space. Assessable space shall be
considered the entire square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure,
not including carport, walkway, garage, overhand, patio, enclosed patio, detached
accessory structure, or similar area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall pay required school mitigation fees to the Carmel Unified School
District. As indicated above, the fees set forth in Government Code Section 65996
constitute the exclusive means of both considering and mitigating school
facilities impacts of projects [Government Code Section 65996(a)]. They are
deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation [Government
Code Section 65996(b)].
4.12-1A Due to the project sites location in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone, all new construction on the project site shall be consistent with Chapter 7A of
the California State Building Code. Abidance with this measure shall be subject to
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
the review of the Monterey County Planning Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits on the project site
4.13 Traffic
add an estimated 269 total
daily trips to the local street
system and Highway 1, which
have been identified as
deficient in LOS standards.
4.13-1 Prior to recordation of the proposed projects Final Map, the project
applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the appropriate responsible agency of
the future costs of the following improvements to the Monterey County Planning
Department:
Widening of the southbound shoulder at the Carpenter Street / Valley Way
intersection to allow vehicles to pass other vehicles waiting to turn left onto
Carpenter Street.

Provide intersection improvements at Highway 1 and Valley Way to include:
1

1. Provision of additional pavement widening to increase the southbound
right turn radius for better maneuverability;
2. Addition of a median and additional signage to reinforce the existing left
turn prohibition from Valley Way. Median design shall be painted or
raised depending on final design approval;
3. Removal and/or trimming of trees or shrubs on the triangular corner of
Highway 1/Valley Way that interfere with the sight distance from Valley
Way to Highway 1 to be subject to the approval of the Monterey County
Planning Department to ensure that existing landscaped screening is
maintained.
4. Provide an appropriate right-turn land for Highway 1 southbound approach
to Valley Way for safe deceleration for vehicles turning right from
Highway 1 to Valley Way.
Prior to the
recordation of
the Final Map.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Public
Works Dept.

1
Conceptual Plan is shown in Appendix Q of DEIR. Proposed improvements are conceptual and subject to the review and approval by the Monterey County Planning
Department and Monterey County Public Works Department. All improvements must be coordinated with Caltrans and required encroachment permits granted.

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
The project has the potential to
result in unsafe conditions for
immediate driveway access to
Highway 1. Significance After
Significant.
4.13-2 Prior to issuance of any project-related permits, the applicant/developer shall
submit to the Monterey County Planning Department evidence provided by the
California Department of Transportation that access to the existing driveway on
Highway 1 that serves the project site has been closed to vehicular traffic due to
significant sight distance and traffic operational deficiencies.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Public
Works Dept.

The project would result in
increased traffic loads in the
project vicinity due to
construction related traffic.
4.13-3 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the project contractor will
prepare a Construction Management Plan, which will include, but not be limited to, a
traffic construction management plan with the following conditions and shall be
subject to review and approval by Monterey County Public Works Department and
California Department of Transportation prior to issuance of any encroachment
permits. The traffic Construction Management Plan shall, at a minimum, include the
following measures:

In order to minimize impacts from construction-related traffic, the project
contractor shall ensure that the exportation of earth materials from the project site
only occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM.
The project contractor shall implement truck haul routes for construction trucks
deemed acceptable by the County, designed to help mitigate traffic congestion
during the peak traffic hours. The truck haul routes shall be limited to the
roadways and accesses to the project site, which will avoid commuter and special
event traffic to the maximum extent.
Additionally, signs shall be posted along roads identifying construction traffic
access or flow limitations on one-way road or single lane conditions during
periods of truck traffic during the peak hour. Signs shall be placed: (a) at the
intersection preceding the traffic access limitation; and (b) not more than 50 feet
before such traffic access limitation as necessary during the hauling of materials.
Construction equipment shall be stored on the project site and construction
vehicles shall not be allowed to park in front of residential homes within the
residential neighborhood during the construction phase of the project.
The Construction Management Plan shall be implemented by all relevant
contractors at the site and shall be monitored by the Monterey County Planning
Department and Building Services Department during demolition and grading
Prior to
issuance of
grading,
demolition,
and/or
building
permits and
during
construction.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Public
Works Dept.

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
activities at the site.
All of the study intersections
and road segments would
contribute an increase to The
total trips generated by all
cumulative projects will
result_ingin unacceptable LOS
ratings for one study
intersection and one road
segment under cumulative
plus project conditions. These
are significant impacts that
can reduced to less-than-
significant impacts with the
following mitigation measure.
4.13-4 The project applicant/developer shall pay the Transportation Agency of
Monterey County (TAMC) Regional Development Fee in order to mitigate the
proposed projects incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to the regional
highway system. Payment of the TAMC fee is not intended to fund specific
improvements but instead mitigates a proposed projects incremental contribution to
cumulative impacts on the regional highway system. Evidence of payment shall be
submitted to the Monterey County Planning Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Public
Works Dept.

4.14 Utilities and Service Systems
use approximately 6.154 AF/Y
of water from the existing
water supply system for indoor
fixtures without outdoor
landscaping use and 7.154
AF/Y to account for water for
irrigation needs. The
proposed project will be using
less water compared to defined
baseline conditions for this
project (8.226 AF/Y).
Therefore, there will be a
decrease in water demand in
comparison to baseline
conditions. The project would
not exceed available water
credits based upon previous
4.14-1 All residential units shall be equipped with High Efficiency Toilets and High
Efficiency appliances including. ultra-low flow washing machines, dishwashers and
toilets and recirculating hot water heaters. A final review of the demand projection
by the MPWMD shall be required prior to building permit approval. Each water
permit application shall be conditioned to comply with MPWMDs water
conservation requirements for new construction, the proposed low water consumption
features, and shall be subject to the rules in effect at the time a complete Water
Release and Water Permit application is received.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits and
ongoing.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Water
Resources
Agency

4.14-2 The project applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the Monterey
County Planning Department and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency that
the water credit to serve the proposed project is available for the site through the
MPWMD and that the available water credit under Rule 25.5 has been obtained for
the property. Documentation of the water use credits to be applied to the site will also
require verification by the MPWMD of permanent abandonment of use and final
determination of the water use credit for the site. Evidence shall include written
verification from the MPWMD that of 8.226 AFY of water use credit is available and
a letter from the MPWMD District Manager that the water credit is consistent with
previous use of the Carmel Convalescent Hospital as applied under Rule 25.5 and
that the application of the water credit would not impact the Monterey County Water

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
documented use of water on
the subject property, as there
has been historic use on the
project site and based upon
MPWMD rules and
regulations and the proposed
project would use less than the
historic allowed use for the
Significant.
Allocation. The District advises that documentation of the Water Credits will take
place upon verification of permanent abandonment of use or upon permitting a
change in use. At that time, the District will make a final determination of the Water
Credit available. No permanent abandonment of use has yet been confirmed.
Changes in the Water Use Factors between now and the time the project is permitted
4.14-3 The project applicant/developer shall confirm the evidence of the water
meter records provided evidence to the Monterey County Planning Department and
the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to ensure compliance with that water
use on the site is appropriate reduces the water demand on the site in comparison with
historic use of the Carmel Convalescent Hospital by 10% in accordance with
Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (Code 18.46) requirements. Evidence of
compliance shall be provided to the Monterey County Planning Director and
Monterey County Water Resources Agency Director for review and approval prior to
recordation of the proposed projects final map.
4.14-4 The Monterey County Planning Department and the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency shall confirm their independent review of the water meter records
provided by the applicant. This information may then be used to satisfy Mitigation
Measure 4.14-3, above.
The resumption of water use
would result in more water
drawn from the Carmel River
System since the convalescent
hospital closure. Significance
Significant.
4.14-5 The project site shall be restricted to water demand of 8.226 per MPWMD
requirements under Mitigation 4.14-2, above. based upon 6.154 AF/Y for market-rate
lots, inclusionary, and workforce units, as well as 1 AF/Y for landscaping and
irrigation requirements for a total of 7.154 AF/Y. Prior to filing the final map (or if
filed in phases, each final map), the applicant shall submit a Water Use Plan showing
the proposed total fixture unit count based upon the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District Residential and/or Commercial Water Release Form. The plan
shall be submitted to the Water Resources Agency and the Director of Planning for
review and approval. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall also submit a
complete Landscape Documentation Package to the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District for review and approval.
Prior to the
recordation of
the Final Map.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Water
Resources
Agency

4.14-6 An annual water use report shall be submitted to the Water Resources
Agency and Director of the Planning. If any report demonstrates that actual water
use for the entire subdivision is within 10% of the maximum allowance, the
applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the allowable water credits through
development of further conservation measures including, gray water reuse for
landscaping as needed.

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
4.14-7 The project site will maintain its water credits onsite and will not be allowed
to reuse any residual credit under MPWMD Rule 28.8. A deed restriction recorded
on the site shall be filed with the Monterey County recorders at the time of the
issuance of the water credit under Rule 25.5 and permanent abandonment of use of
the convalescent hospital on the site.
use approximately 6.154 AF/Y
of water from the existing
water supply system (not
including landscaping in this
overall demand number, which
is consistent with MPWMD
rules and regulations for
calculating on site water
demand under Rule 25.5).
Assuming however, that
additional water should be
allocated for outdoor
landscaping use, the 6.154
AF/Y demand for fixtures
would be increased by 1.0
AF/Y to account for
landscaping irrigation.
4.14-8 The project shall employ landscaping and water conservation measures,
including rainwater catchments, subject to the approval of the Monterey County
Water Resources Agency and in consultation with the MPWMD and Monterey
County Division of Environmental Health.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Water
Resources
Agency

5.0 CEQA Considerations
project would contribute to a
potentially significant
cumulative impact upon traffic
and circulation within the
vicinity of the project site.
4.13-4 See mitigation regarding potential cumulative traffic impact.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits.
Owner/
Applicant
RMA-
Planning
Department

Monterey
County
Public
Works Dept.

Impact Mitigation
Timing of
Implementation
Responsible Party
Done
(X)
Implementation
Compliance/
Verification
5.1 Cumulative Impacts
result in the establishment of a
new land use designation,
High-Density Residential
(HDR), within the Carmel
Area LUP that would allow a
maximum density of 12.5 20
units/acre. This would
represent the first instance of
HDR development within
planning area and may result
in future applicants applying
for HDR development. As a
result, the projects land use
elements have the potential to
indirectly induce growth by
amending a land use plan to
allow higher intensity uses
than proposed under the
project and than previously
planned for the area. In order
to minimize the extent of this
impact it is recommended that
the following mitigation
measure be adopted to ensure
that the relatively insignificant
growth-inducing impacts are
further minimized to an
acceptable level.
5.1-1 In order to ensure that future high-density residential development does not
exceed the density standards associated with the Villas de Carmelo project, the final
LUP/CIP amendment language shall be revised to limit maximum allowable density
to 12.5 units/acre. To ensure compliance with this mitigation, The following
limitations shall be included in the final amendment language prior to project
approval: Maximum allowable density in the HDR District shall be limited to 12.5
units/acre. High-density residential uses shall not be permitted where such uses
would increase water use beyond historical documented use levels, cause existing
services to exceed applicable level of service standards, cause service providers to
fail to meet existing peak demand, require the expansion of public facilities such that
significant growth-inducing impacts would occur, or in such instances where said
uses would significantly and permanently alter the existing character of an area due to
increase levels of noise, traffic, and air quality impacts that cannot reasonably be
mitigated through the environmental review process or standard conditions of
approval.

Prior to
Approval of a
Land Use Plan
Amendment
Monterey
County
Monterey
County
Planning
Department


FEIR APPENDIX B
AIR QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT


Health Risk Assessment
For Construction of Villas de Carmelo
Monterey County, California

Prepared for:

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
947 Cass St., Suite 5
Monterey, California, 93940

Prepared by:

William Popenuck
Air Quality Consultant
P.O. Box 134
Orick, California 95555

September 3, 2009
1
INTRODUCTION

This report provides an evaluation of potential health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter
(DPM) that would be emitted during construction of the proposed Villas de Carmelo project in
Monterey County, California. The particulate matter component of diesel exhaust has been
classified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air resources Board (CARB) based on its
potential to cause cancer and other adverse health effects. Construction of the proposed project
would occur over approximately 18 months and since relatively high levels of DPM are expected
from use of heavy-duty construction equipment there is the potential for nearby residents and
other sensitive receptors in the project area to be adversely affected by these emissions.

DPM emissions were estimated for construction activities associated with the project and these
emissions were used with an air quality dispersion model to calculate ambient DPM
concentrations at sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the project. Using the projected
DPM concentrations, potential increased cancer risks were calculated using health risk
assessment methods recommended by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHAA) and the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
(MBUAPCD).

The following sections describe the proposed project, DPM emission estimation methods,
dispersion modeling approach, and evaluation of health risks.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Villas de Carmelo project is located in the unincorporated Coastal Zone of
Monterey County, California, bordering on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The 3.68 acre project
site is the site of the former Carmel Hospital and is currently developed with three buildings,
parking lots, driveways, and paved pathways. Two of the buildings are considered historically
significant: the former hospital building and a garage/shop building. The project proposes infill
development as redevelopment and rehabilitation of existing structures as well as a new
residential development for a total of 46 condominium units. Figure 1 shows the general project
region and Figure 2 shows the project site and nearby surrounding area.

The sites topography consists of a raised northern area gently sloping southwards. Elevations
range from 445 feet above sea level at the southern border of the project site to 505 feet in the
northern extent of the site.

The project would be constructed in two phases over an approximately 18 month period. The
first phase would include demolition and grading of the project site, as well as construction of all
required utility access infrastructure extensions. This phase would also involve the construction
of 30 of the proposed 46 units. The second phase would involve construction of the remaining
16 units at the site. The project will require extensive grading of the site prior to building the
proposed units.

Figure 1 Project Region

Figure 2 Project Site and Local Area

REGULATORY SETTING

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)

The State of California developed a program under the Tanner Toxics Act (AB 1807) to identify,
characterize and control TACs. TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause
morbidity or mortality (cancer risk). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas,
and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry
cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel
particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects,
TACs are regulated at the state and regional level.

Particulate matter from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to
represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average).
According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles.
This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific
issue. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been
previously identified as TACs by CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under State
Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.

CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association that diesel exhaust and
other cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles are responsible for much of
the overall cancer risk from TACs in California. Particulate matter emitted from diesel-fueled
engines was found to comprise much of that risk. In August 1998, CARB formally identified
DPM as a TAC. Diesel particulate matter is of particular concern since it can be distributed over
large regions, thus leading to widespread public exposure. The particles emitted by diesel
engines are coated with chemicals, many of which have been identified by CARB as TACs.
Diesel engines emit particulate matter at a rate about 20 times greater than comparable gasoline
engines. The vast majority of diesel exhaust particles (over 90 percent) consist of PM
2.5
, which
are particles that can be inhaled deep into the lung. Like other particles of this size, a portion
will eventually become trapped within the lung possibly leading to adverse health effects. While
the gaseous portion of diesel exhaust also contains TACs, CARBs 1998 action was specific to
DPM, which accounts for much of the cancer-causing potential from diesel exhaust. California
has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program to reduce DPM emissions 85 percent
by 2020. The USEPA and CARB adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce
diesel particulate matter substantially.

On the local level the MBUAPCD regulates TACs through Rules developed under Regulation X
Toxic Air Contaminants. These Rules address TACs from new and existing stationary sources,
requirements for air toxics emission inventories and health risk assessments, as well as
incorporating CARBs Air Toxic Control Measures. For diesel exhaust, the MBUAPCD
assumes that DPM is the key component of diesel exhaust with respect to cancer risk.

1
During demolition, grading, and construction activities construction equipment and associated
heavy-duty trucks generate DPM emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to DPM. The
DPM emissions generated by construction related activities would be emitted throughout the
project site area during construction. The existing residences surrounding the project site may be
exposed to elevated levels of DPM over the length of the construction. The extent of this
exposure is assessed in the following Health Risk Assessment.

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Potential cancer risks from DPM emissions during construction of the proposed project were
calculated using health risk assessment methods recommended by the MBUAPCD and OEHHA
in their Risk Assessment Guidelines
1
. The risk assessment method involves estimation of DPM
emissions from construction activities and equipment, calculation of ambient DPM
concentrations at sensitive receptor locations (nearby residences and schools) and other locations
in the project vicinity where exposure may occur using an air quality dispersion model, then
calculating cancer risks using the modeled concentrations along with appropriate DPM-specific
risk factors.

Sensitive Receptors

There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others in the general population
and are considered to be sensitive receptors. These groups may include young children, the
elderly over 65, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that
may contain a high concentration of sensitive population groups include residential areas,
medical care facilities, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and schools.

For the proposed project, the nearest sensitive receptors are residences surrounding the project
site, varying in distance from ten feet to several hundred feet from the project boundaries. The
closest school is Carmel High School which is located about one-half mile south of the project
site.

Health Risk Based Thresholds of Significance

Projects that have the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial
levels of TACs can result in potentially significant health risks. A health risk is the probability
that exposure to a given TAC, or multiple TACs, under a given set of conditions will result in an
adverse health effect. Potential health effects from TAC exposure are usually categorized as
being carcinogenic (cancer causing) or non-carcinogenic (non-cancer health effects).

When evaluating health risks, the term cancer risk usually refers to the increased chance of
contracting cancer as a result of exposure to a carcinogenic compound. Cancer risks are
expressed as a probability of contracting cancer in terms of the number of incidents that could
occur for a given number of people exposed in a population. Typically risks are stated as the

1
OEHHA 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment.
August 2003
2
increased risk per million persons exposed. The values expressed for cancer risk do not predict
actual cancer cases that will result from exposure to TACs, rather they state a probability of
contracting cancer over and above the existing background levels of cancer in a population.

Non-cancer health effects are classified as being acute or chronic. Acute health effects occur due
to short term exposure (usually one hour) to TACs above acceptable levels, while chronic health
effects result from long-term exposure (annual average) to TACs above acceptable levels.
These acceptable levels of exposure are termed the reference exposure level (REL). A REL is a
concentration level or dose at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. RELs
are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population.

The MBUAPCD has defined criteria for significance for exposure to TACs during construction
in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
2
as:

For non-carcinogenic TACs, concentrations from construction activity and equipment
that would exceed the applicable chronic or acute RELs could result in a significant
impact.

Temporary emissions of a carcinogenic TAC that can result in a an increased cancer risk
greater than one incident per 100,000 population (or 10 in a million) are considered
significant.

In the case of this health risk assessment the TAC of concern is DPM. OEHHA has identified
DPM as a carcinogenic compound and as having chronic non-cancer health effects. The chronic
inhalation REL
3
for DPM is 5 g/m
3
. The incremental cancer risk threshold referred to above
represents the increase in the probability (in terms of risk per million persons) that a person will
contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs from a project. The calculation of cancer risks
for TACs are based on the exposure to TACs during an overall 70-year averaging period for
exposure.

DPM Emissions During Construction

Construction period DPM emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model (Version
9.2.4 released by Rimpo Associates). This model was developed with funding and oversight
from California air pollution control districts and uses the CARB EMFAC2007 emissions factor
model for on-road vehicles and the CARB OFFROAD2007 emission factor model for
construction equipment. MBUAPCD recommends use of this model for construction and
operational analysis of land use development projects. Using construction schedule information,
project size, and other construction specific information (cut and fill quantities, etc.) the model
predicts emissions of ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter (i.e., PM
10
and PM
2.5
). For particulate matter, emissions from equipment
exhaust and fugitive dust are calculate by the model. For this assessment it was assumed that all
PM
10
from equipment and vehicle exhaust during the construction phase was DPM.

2
MBUAPCD, 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District 2008. February
2008.
3
http://www.oehha.org/air/allrels.html (accessed August 31, 2009)
3

Annual construction emissions calculated using URBEMIS2007 for the proposed project were
provided by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. A copy of the URBEMIS2007 output is provided
in Attachment A. Since construction of the proposed project will occur over about an 18 month
period, assumed to begin in 2009 and conclude 2011, annual emissions for each of the three
years were calculated. The highest DPM emissions are projected to occur in 2010, with total
annual emissions being 0.11 tons per year (ton/year) or 220 pounds per year (lb/year). These
emissions were used for modeling the projects annual DPM concentrations during construction.
It should be noted that these DPM emissions do not reflect the use of any mitigation measures.

Dispersion Modeling

The EPAs Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST3) dispersion model, along with
screening meteorological data from the EPAs SCREEN3 model, was used to calculate
screening-level DPM concentrations at sensitive receptor locations in the project vicinity. The
ISCST3 model calculates pollutant concentrations at receptors located in areas of flat or complex
terrain from a variety of emission source types including point, area, volume and line sources.
The model was run using regulatory default dispersion options and urban dispersion coefficients
due to the urban nature of the project area. Since there is variation in the terrain elevations at the
project site and surrounding areas, terrain elevations were used with the model. Elevations for
project sources and sensitive receptor locations were obtained from USGS Digital Elevation
Model (DEM) data for the project area. The parameters and assumptions used for the dispersion
modeling are summarized in Table 1, and discussed further below.

Table 1 - Dispersion Modeling (ISCST3) Parameters

Parameter Description

Value/Method Used
Dispersion setting Urban
Coordinate system UTM NAD83
Terrain processing Elevated terrain included
Receptors
Receptor heights 1.5 meters
Receptor spacing
Sensitive receptors Variable (actual locations)
Grid receptors 25 meters
Meteorological data Screening meteorological data
Averaging period 1-hour*
Total DPM emissions 0.11 tons/year (220 lb/year)
Emission source configuration Area sources
Area source parameters
Number of area sources 5
Release height 5 meters
Total area of area sources 12,943 square meters
DPM emission rate per area 2.44E-7 grams/sec per square meter
* 1-hour concentrations based on screening meteorology are used calculate annual average concentrations.

4
Meteorological Data

For this analysis, screening meteorological data were used to provide a conservative initial
estimate of potential DPM concentrations. Typically, a screening procedure using screening
meteorology can be used to evaluate worst-case potential impacts. If the screening procedure
indicates the possibility of significant impacts, more refined modeling using representative
hourly meteorological data, if available, can be conducted to obtain concentrations more
representative of actual conditions. Use of hourly meteorological data representative of actual
site conditions will, in general, substantially reduce the annual average modeled concentrations,
often by a factor of from 2 to 10 or more. Based on discussion with the MBUAPCD, there are
no hourly meteorological data collected in the vicinity of the proposed project site that would be
representative of local site conditions. Thus, the dispersion modeling was conducted using
screening meteorological data.
The screening meteorological data used in the modeling are based on the meteorological
conditions used by the SCREEN3 model. These meteorological data are comprised of 54
combinations of wind speed and atmospheric stability that represent meteorological conditions
that may exist over a 24-hour period (daytime and nighttime conditions). Table 2 shows the
wind speed - stability class combinations used as input to the ISCST3 model. Each wind speed -
atmospheric stability class combination was used for 120 different wind directions (every 3).

Table 2 Screening Meteorology Used in the Dispersion Modeling
1,2

Wind Speed (m/s)
Stability Class
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 8.0 10.0 20.0
A * * * * *
B * * * * * * * * *
C * * * * * * * * * *
D * * * * * * * * * * * *
E * * * * * * * *
F * * * * * *
Source: U.S.EPA. 1995. Screen3 Model Users Guide. September.
1
A 300-meter mixing height was also used due to the low level emission source characteristics with
negligible plume rise.
2
An ambient temperature 293 K is assumed.

Using this meteorological data the ISCST3 model was used to compute 1-hour average
concentrations at each receptor location. The 1-hour concentrations were converted to annual
average concentrations, needed for evaluation of cancer risks, by applying the OEHHA
recommended conversion factor of 0.08 to the 1-hour concentrations.

5
Emission Source Characteristics

DPM emissions during construction of the proposed project will be from construction equipment
and associated heavy-duty truck exhaust. Construction activities will occur throughout the
project site area at different times and for varying durations depending on the specific activities
being conducted. As such, the DPM emissions will be spread out over almost the entire project
site, particularly where demolition and grading is occurring. In order to model these emissions,
five area sources were used with the ISCST3 model. Emission release heights for the area
sources were set at 5 meters since there will be an initial plume rise from the equipment due to
upward buoyancy and momentum. Studies have shown that release heights of these types of area
sources can be from 5 to 10 meters
4
. Figure 3 shows the area sources that were used for the
construction DPM dispersion modeling.

Emission rates used for the area sources, in grams per second per square meter (g/s-m
2
), were
calculated based on the annual DPM emissions of 220 lb/year and the areas encompassed by
each of the area sources. These emissions were assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout
the area sources.

Receptor Locations

DPM concentrations from construction activities were calculated by the ISCST3 model at
various receptor locations surrounding the project site. Two sets of receptors were used to
determine the DPM concentrations. The first set was comprised of the actual locations of the
residences closest to the project boundary. These residences are most likely to be affected by the
projects construction emissions. The second set of receptors was a grid of receptors spaced
every 25 meters extending from the project boundary out to between 100 and 150 meters,
depending on the direction. This grid of receptors was used to identify the distribution and extent
of DPM concentrations in the local project vicinity. The extent of these receptors was sufficient
to capture the locations of maximum DPM concentrations. In addition to these receptors an
individual receptor was placed at Carmel High School since it is considered a sensitive receptor,
but much farther away from the project site than the other receptors. Figure 4 shows the
locations of the nearby residential receptors, along with the grid of receptors surrounding the
project site. All receptor height were set at a height of 1.5 meters above ground level in order to
calculate DPM concentrations at a persons breathing height.

4
CARB, 2007. Technical Support Document: Proposed Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles, Appendix
D Health Risk Assessment Methodology. Mobile Source Control Division. April 2007.
6
Figure 3 Area Sources Used In Dispersion Modeling

Figure 4 Nearby Residential and Grid Modeling Receptors

7
Dispersion Model Results

The ISCST3 model calculates 1-hour DPM concentrations at each receptor for each of the
screening meteorological conditions then identifies the highest modeled concentration at each
receptor to represent the maximum 1-hour concentrations at each receptor. Maximum annual
DPM concentrations were then calculated from the maximum 1-hour concentrations using the
conversion factor discussed above. The annual DPM concentrations are then used for calculating
cancer risks and for comparison to the DPM REL for non-cancer health effects.

The maximum annual average DPM concentration was 0.217 g/m
3
, occurring at a residence on
Valley Way near the southeast corner of the property boundary. The maximum annual average
DPM concentration at Carmel High School was 0.024 g/m
3
.

DPM Health Risk Calculations

Non-Cancer Health Effects

As discussed above, the potential for non-cancer health effects to occur from exposure to DPM
during construction of the proposed project are evaluated by comparing the maximum modeled
annual average DPM concentration to the chronic REL for DPM of 5 g/m
3
. The maximum
modeled annual average concentrations for a residential receptor was 0.217 g/m
3
, and 0.024
g/m
3
at Carmel High School. Both of these concentrations are substantially lower than the REL
for DPM. Therefore, adverse non-cancer health effects from construction-related DPM
emissions are not expected, and according to the MBUAPCD significance criteria for non-cancer
health effects this impact would be less than significant.

Cancer Risks

Potential increased cancer risks at modeling receptor locations were calculated using standard
risk assessment methodology as recommended by the MBUAPCD and OEHHA in their Risk
Assessment Guidelines. Cancer risks from inhalation of DPM are calculated based on the annual
average DPM concentration, an inhalation dose, and the cancer potency of DPM. The inhalation
dose depends on a persons breathing rate, exposure time and frequency of exposure, and the
exposure duration over a 70-year time period. These parameters vary depending on whether the
exposure is considered to occur for a residential location, at a workplace, or at a school (school
teacher and children), as well as whether the exposure is long term or short term as in the case
for construction impacts.

Cancer risk from DPM is calculated by multiplying the annual average DPM concentration
calculated by the ISCST3 model and an inhalation exposure factor:

Cancer Risk = C
air
x Inhalation Exposure Factor x 10
6

Where:
Cancer Risk = increased cancer risk in terms of risk per million persons exposed
C
air
= Annual average DPM concentration in g/m
3

8
The inhalation exposure factor is calculated as:

Inhalation Exposure Factor = CPF x DBR x (EF x ED)/AT x 10
-6

Where:
CPF = Inhalation cancer potency factor for DPM (mg/kg-day)
-1

DBR = Daily breathing rate per kilogram of body weight (liter/kg-day)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in days
(25,550 days for a 70 year cancer risk)

The OEHHA recommended 80
th
percentile breathing rate for adults is 302 liters/kg-day, and the
recommended breathing rate for students is 581 liters/kg-day. Residential receptors are assumed
to be exposed for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year, and students are assumed to be exposed
for 10 hours per day for 180 days per year.

Construction of the proposed projected is expected to occur over an 18 month period, with the
majority of the DPM emissions occurring during the demolition and grading phases. However, in
order to provide a conservative estimate of potential health risks it was assumed that the
maximum annual emissions would occur for a 2-year period. That is, exposure to the maximum
airborne concentrations predicted by the dispersion modeling are assumed to be continuous over
2 years rather than the shorter period (less than 18 months) than would actually occur.

The values for the parameters used to calculate the Inhalation Exposure Factor for residential and
school child receptors are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Inhalation Exposure Factors for DPM Cancer Risk Calculations

Receptor Type
DPM CPF
(mg/kg-day)
-1

DBR
(liters/kg-day)
EF
(days/year)
ED
(years)
AT
(days)
Residential 1.1 302 350 2 25,550
Student 1.1 581 180 2 25,550

Using the exposure parameters in Table 3 and the maximum modeled annual average DPM
concentrations of 0.217 g/m
3
for a residential receptor and 0.024 ug/m3 at the Carmel High
School, the following increased cancer risks from construction-related DPM emissions for the
proposed project were calculated as:

Maximum Residential Increased Cancer Risk = 0.217 g/m
3
x 9.10 risk per million/g/m
3

= 1.97 cancer risk per million

Maximum Student Increased Cancer Risk = 0.024 g/m
3
x 9.00 risk per million/g/m
3

= 0.22 cancer risk per million

9
These increased cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors would be less than the MBUAPCD
significance criteria of an increased cancer risk of 10 in a million. Thus, potential increased
cancer risks for residents in the vicinity of the proposed project and other nearby sensitive
receptors due to construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.

As briefly discussed earlier, this health risk assessment was based on DPM emissions from
construction activities without additional mitigation measures applied to the construction
equipment to reduce DPM emissions. Since the non-cancer health effects and cancer risks from
construction DPM emissions would be less than significant, additional mitigation of DPM
emissions would not be needed. However, if as suggested in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the proposed project Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 are implemented, the
potential cancer risks presented above would be reduced by 50% to 85%.

ATTACHMENT A

SO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SO2
0.00
SO2
0.00
SO2
0.00
Page: 1
8/4/2009 04:48:02 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\aimamura\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Villas de Carmelo 12_4_08.urb924
Project Name: Villas De Carmelos
Project Location: Monterey County
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2
2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.13 1.26 0.61 2.52 0.06 2.58 0.53 0.05 0.58 127.93
2009 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.13 1.26 0.61 0.70 0.06 0.76 0.15 0.05 0.20 127.93
Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.08 0.00 70.43 72.08 0.00 65.33 0.00
Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
0.00
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.30 0.07 2.17 0.27 0.26 89.12
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.57 0.87 6.59 0.05 0.03 416.71
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
0.32 0.29 505.83
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.87 0.94 8.76
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated
Page: 1
8/4/2009 04:48:02 PM
Fugitive Dust
Demo Off Road Diesel
Demo On Road Diesel
Demo Worker Trips
Mass Grading Dust
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
Mass Grading Worker Trips
Trenching Off Road Diesel
Trenching Worker Trips
Building Off Road Diesel
Building Vendor Trips
Building Worker Trips
Architectural Coating
Coating Worker Trips
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
2009 0.13 1.26 0.61 0.00 2.52 0.06 2.58 0.53 0.05 0.58 127.93
Demolition 09/22/2009-10/05/2009 0.04 0.46 0.19 0.00 0.34 0.02 0.36 0.07 0.02 0.09 51.33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00
0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50
0.03 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.31
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53
Mass Grading 10/06/2009-
11/02/2009
0.04 0.38 0.19 0.00 2.18 0.02 2.20 0.46 0.02 0.47 36.11
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.18 0.00 2.18 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.00
0.03 0.26 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.47
0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.58
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06
Trenching 11/03/2009-01/13/2010 0.05 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 39.13
0.05 0.41 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 36.86
0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27
Building 12/30/2009-09/29/2010 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35
0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35
2010 0.90 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.11 227.42
Building 12/30/2009-09/29/2010 0.14 1.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 130.68
0.12 0.89 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 86.66
0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.13
0.02 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.89
Trenching 11/03/2009-01/13/2010 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.19
0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.72
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47
Coating 04/15/2010-06/16/2010 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
Building 08/19/2010-03/16/2011 0.07 0.50 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 65.34
0.06 0.44 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 43.33
0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.06
0.01 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.95
Coating 09/30/2010-12/01/2010 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
Page: 1
8/4/2009 04:48:02 PM
Paving Off-Gas
Paving Off Road Diesel
Paving On Road Diesel
Paving Worker Trips
Paving Off-Gas
Paving Worker Trips
0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
Asphalt 11/11/2010-01/12/2011 0.04 0.23 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 21.82
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.22 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.12
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28
0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42
2011 0.04 0.30 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 40.41
Asphalt 11/11/2010-01/12/2011 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74
Building 08/19/2010-03/16/2011 0.04 0.25 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.70
0.03 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.77
0.01 0.01 23.67
0.13 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 9.25
Phase Assumptions
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
Phase: Demolition 9/22/2009 - 10/5/2009 - Demo of non historic structures
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 160720
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 160720
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2232.22
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 10/6/2009 - 11/2/2009 - Mass grading and fine grading to occur simultaneously
Total Acres Disturbed: 3.68
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.92
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low
Onsite Cut/Fill: 662 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 297 cubic yards/day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 296.8
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
Page: 1
8/4/2009 04:48:02 PM
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 11/3/2009 - 1/13/2010 - utilities/trenching
Off-Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Paving 11/11/2010 - 1/12/2011 - paving to occur last
Acres to be Paved: 0.92
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 12/30/2009 - 9/29/2010 - Phase 1
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 8/19/2010 - 3/16/2011 - Phase 2
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 4/15/2010 - 6/16/2010 - Phase 1 coating - painting
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Page: 1
8/4/2009 04:48:02 PM
Fugitive Dust
Demo Off Road Diesel
Demo On Road Diesel
Demo Worker Trips
Mass Grading Dust
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
Mass Grading Worker Trips
Phase: Architectural Coating 9/30/2010 - 12/1/2010 - Phase 2 coating - painting
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
2009 0.13 1.26 0.61 0.00 0.70 0.06 0.76 0.15 0.05 0.20 127.93
Demolition 09/22/2009-10/05/2009 0.04 0.46 0.19 0.00 0.34 0.02 0.36 0.07 0.02 0.09 51.33
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00
0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50
0.03 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.31
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53
Mass Grading 10/06/2009-
11/02/2009
0.04 0.38 0.19 0.00 0.36 0.02 0.38 0.08 0.02 0.09 36.11
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00
0.03 0.26 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.47
0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.58
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06
Trenching 11/03/2009-01/13/2010 0.05 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 39.13
0.05 0.41 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 36.86
0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27
Building 12/30/2009-09/29/2010 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35
0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35
2010 0.90 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.11 227.42
Building 12/30/2009-09/29/2010 0.14 1.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06 130.68
0.12 0.89 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 86.66
0.01 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.13
0.02 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.89
Trenching 11/03/2009-01/13/2010 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.19
Page: 1
8/4/2009 04:48:02 PM
Paving Off-Gas
Paving Worker Trips
Paving Off-Gas
Paving Worker Trips
0.01 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.72
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47
Coating 04/15/2010-06/16/2010 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
Building 08/19/2010-03/16/2011 0.07 0.50 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 65.34
0.06 0.44 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 43.33
0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.06
0.01 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.95
Coating 09/30/2010-12/01/2010 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70
Asphalt 11/11/2010-01/12/2011 0.04 0.23 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 21.82
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.22 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 18.12
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28
0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42
2011 0.04 0.30 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 40.41
Asphalt 11/11/2010-01/12/2011 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74
Building 08/19/2010-03/16/2011 0.04 0.25 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.70
0.03 0.23 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.77
0.01 0.01 23.67
0.13 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 9.25
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
PM10: 61% PM25: 61%
For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 44% PM25: 44%
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Mass Grading 10/6/2009 - 11/2/2009 - Mass grading and fine grading to occur simultaneously
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10: 84% PM25: 84%
For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
William Popenuck

1
Mr. Popenuck has extensive experience in air
quality permitting, regulatory analysis,
compliance evaluations, dispersion modeling,
control technology assessments, emission
estimation methods, air toxics, and impact
assessment. In his 27 years of professional
experience he has participated in a wide variety
of air quality studies and meteorological analyses
for air quality permit applications, health risk
assessments, and in support of environmental
evaluations under CEQA and NEPA. He has an
in-depth knowledge of federal and state air
quality regulations.

Mr. Popenucks technical background includes use
and design of atmospheric dispersion models to
simulate the fate and transport of atmospheric
chemicals, preparation of emission inventories of
criteria and toxic air pollutants, evaluation of
regulatory applicability for a wide range of
projects, compliance audits, preparation of health
risk assessments, preparation of Operating Permits
(Title V) and related compliance monitoring plans,
New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting, as well
as minor source permitting. He has been involved
in numerous evaluations of air quality impacts
from construction and operation of commercial
and industrial developments, power generation
facilities, quarries, traffic-related CO hot-spots
analyses, health risk evaluations of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) for residential and
commercial developments, and federal conformity
evaluations for public works projects.
Professional Affiliations & Registrations
Air and Waste Management Association
Fields of Competence
Air permitting/compliance assessments
Air quality dispersion modeling
Human health risk assessment
Air pollution control technology
Air emissions estimation

Education
University of California, Davis, Masters
Program, Civil Engineering, 1983
University of California, Davis, Graduate
Course Work in Atmospheric Science, 1983
Humboldt State University, B.S.,
Environmental Resources Engineering, 1980
Professional History
Independent Consultant, 2000 present
EnviroNet AeroScience, LLC, Senior
Engineer/Principal, 1996-2000
Kleinfelder, Inc. - Atmospheric Science Center,
Senior Project Engineer, 1995-1996
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Project
Engineer, 1986-1995
Humboldt St. University, CA., Lecturer,
Environmental Resources Engineering Dept.,
1983-1985
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Staff Engineer,
1981-1982

Representative Key Projects
Evaluation of Potential Health Risks from
Diesel Vehicles, Various Locations, California:
Conducted over 35 health risk evaluations for
exposure to emissions of DPM at new residential
developments proposing to locate near highways
or major roadways and for new commercial
facilities. Emissions from diesel vehicles were
estimated and DPM concentrations calculated
using dispersion modeling. Potential health risks
were then calculated based on the modeled
concentrations. These studies were prepared for
use in EAs, EIRs, and in County General Plans.
The majority of these studies were for projects
located in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.

Health Risk Evaluations for Large Discount and
Discount Superstores, Contra Costa, Fresno, and
Butte Counties: Prepared diesel particulate
matter emissions inventories, dispersion
modeling, and conducted health risk evaluations
for large stand-alone discount stores and
William Popenuck

2
discount superstores located in Contra Costa,
Fresno, and Butte Counties. These studies were
used in preparation of EIRs for these projects.

Evaluation of Potential Health Risks from Port
Operations, Port of Stockton, California:
Updated a health risk evaluation for a Program
EIR of the Port of Stockton West Complex
Development Plan. The evaluation included
estimation of emissions, dispersion modeling,
and calculation of associated offsite health risks
from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions
generated by on-road, off-road, and marine-
diesel engines associated with build-out of the
Port of Stockton West Complex Development
Plan. Emission sources included truck
maneuvering and idling, heavy-duty yard
equipment, rail, harborcraft, and ocean-going
vessels. Also conducted project-level diesel and
toxic air contaminant (TAC) modeling and risk
analyses for Port of Stockton projects not
addressed in the Ports Program EIR.

Air Quality Permitting and Health Risk
Evaluations of Emergency Diesel Generators for
San Jose Fire Department Stations, City of San
Jose: Prepared air quality evaluations, health
risk assessments, and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Permit Applications for
installation of diesel-fired emergency generators
at seven fire stations in the City of San Jose.

Air Quality Study of Emergency Power Backup
Systems, Santa Clara: Prepared and air quality
study and health risk evaluation for emergency
power backup systems at a proposed data
storage facility in Santa Clara, California. The
power backup system included 69 diesel-fueled
emergency generators, ranging from 1.8 to 2.0
megawatts, and associated equipment. Emissions
of criteria pollutants and diesel particulate matter
from the proposed facility were estimated and a
health risk evaluation for diesel particulate
emissions was conducted. Air quality dispersion
modeling was used to evaluate potential health
risks from diesel particulate matter emissions
from the facility.

Organics Processing Development Project EIR -
Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments,
Alameda County Waste Management Authority:
Prepared the air quality section for an EIR of a
proposed 600 tons per day composting facility in
Sunol, CA. The air quality and health risk
assessments included detailed estimates of
criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant
emissions from facility operations (composting,
stationary and mobile equipment), dispersion
modeling of facility emissions, and evaluation of
potential health risks from compost emissions,
stationary and mobile onsite diesel fueled
equipment, and from offsite diesel-fueled haul
trucks accessing the compost facility.

Tri-Cities Recycling And Disposal Facility
Closure EIR Air Quality Assessment, Fremont:
Prepared an air quality assessment for the
closure of the Tri-Cities landfill in Fremont, CA.
The evaluaton included estimation of emissions
and potential impacts from construction related
activities associated with the landfill closure.

General Conformity Determination and Air
Quality Assessment For Upgrading a Wastewater
Pump Station, Union Sanitary District: Prepared
an air quality study and General Conformity
evaluation of an upgrade to a wastewater pump
station in Union City, CA. This work was
conducted in support of an initial study for the
project. The General Conformity evaluation was
required under the State Water Resources Control
Boards CEQA-Plus requirements for projects
that involve funding from the State Revolving
Fund loan program.

Air Quality Permitting for a 115 Million Gallon
per Year Ethanol Facility, E-85, Inc, Wallula,
Washington: Prepared a Notice of Construction
permit application for a new dry-mill ethanol
facility to be located near Wallula, Washington.
The facility will produce up to 115 million
William Popenuck

3
gallons per year of denatured alcohol using corn
as the feedstock. The air quality analyses for the
permit application included estimation of criteria
and toxic air pollutant emissions from facility
processes, evaluation of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for emission sources at the
facility, air quality dispersion modeling using the
EPAs AERMOD dispersion model, and
evaluation of potential impacts from the facilitys
toxic air pollutant emissions.

Air Quality Study of Proposed Data Center, San
Jose: Prepared an air quality study and health risk
evaluation for emergency power backup systems
at a proposed data storage facility in San Jose, CA.
The proposed power backup system includes
seven 3,000 megawatt diesel-fueled emergency
generators and associated equipment. Emissions of
criteria pollutants and diesel particulate matter
from the proposed facility were estimated and a
health risk evaluation for diesel particulate
emissions was conducted. Air quality dispersion
modeling was used to evaluate air quality impacts
and potential health risks from diesel particulate
matter emissions from the facility.

Honors And Awards
Outstanding Engineering Student of the Year,
1979, Humboldt State University, Department of
Environmental Resources Engineering.
Publications
Popenuck, W.W., Comparison of a Turbulent
Shear Flow Model with the Project Prairie Grass
Diffusion Data, presented at the 86th Annual
Meeting of the Air and Waste Management
Association, Denver, CO, June 1993.

Popenuck, W.W. and R.D. Bornstein, A Review
of the Development and Application of the
Meteorological Preprocessor Programs to the
U.S. EPA Air Quality Models, presented at The
Workshop for the Development and Application
of Air Quality Models, Taipei, Taiwan, May 1991.

Steiner, W.E., J.L.M. Koehler, and W.W.
Popenuck, Guadalupe Corridor Transportation
Project Asbestos Health Risk Assessment,
presented at the Third International Symposium
on Highway Pollution, Commission of the
European Community, Munich, West Germany,
September 1989.

Popenuck, W.W. and J.L.M. Koehler, Current
Practices in Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling in
the United States, presented at the conference on
The Application of U.S. Water and Air Pollution
Control Technology in Korea, Seoul, South
Korea, March 1989.

J.D. Dean, K.A. Voos, R.W. Schanz, and W.W.
Popenuck, Terrestrial Ecosystem Exposure
Assessment Model (TEEAM), U.S.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Athens, GA, 1988
(EPA/600/03-88/038).


FEIR APPENDIX C
STAFF RECOMMENDED MODIFIED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
DOCUMENTATION
FEIR APPENDIX C
EXCERPTS FROM MONTEREY COUNTY STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION, VILLAS DE CARMELO (PLN070497)
STAFF RECOMMENDED MODIFIED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
(REVISION TO EIR ALTERNATIVE 4)
May 25, 2011
Staff Recommended Modified Design Alternative
(Revision to EIR Alternative 4)
1

Staff Recommended Modified Design Alternative (Revision to EIR Alternative 4)

After the applicants re-staked the property to reflect the Modified Design Alternative in the EIR,
staff visited the site to review the staking and flagging and tree removal specifically within
Highway One viewshed and also to review the slope justification with regard to Units 32 & 33.
Based on the revised staking, staff recommends amending the Applicants Modified Design
Alternative for the Villas de Carmelo Project (Alternative 4, as analyzed in the EIR) as follows:
- Inclusionary housing requirement would be met through payment of in-lieu fee as
recommended by the HAC. See Inclusionary Housing discussion below.
- The total square footage of development of the site would be reduced from 77,200 sq ft
and 46 units to the same number of units and 76,600 square feet.
- Eliminate structures for Units 5-8 and 12-13 the southeast corner of the project site along
Highway 1 and relocate these units into the structure located in the northeast portion of
the site, along Highway 1 proposed under the original site plan for Units 1-4.
o The building with Units 1-4 would become a 2-story, 10-unit structure that would
be 28 feet high and approximately 130 feet in length.
o The building previously proposed in the location for Units 5-8 and 12-13 in the
proposed project would be replaced with a parking area and additional
landscaping in Alternative 4.
Comparison of Buildings:
Proposed Project with Alternative for buildings along Highway 1

Source Map

Units/Buildings

Unit Type

Building Size

Proposed Project
(VTM 2, dated
12/10/2007)
Two buildings housing 4 units
each

Two story with parking
underneath
Combination of
Inclusionary and Work
Force Housing Units
Each of the buildings are
105 by 50 ft each for a
total of 210 Linear ft
(LF) of building mass
along Highway 1.

Modified
Alternative Plan
(Plan C2, dated
10/9/08) as updated
One building of 10 units (two
floors five units each) with no
parking underneath.
Additional parking area to the
south of the building on site

Eliminates the building housing
units # 12 and 13 previously
located west of the new parking
area
All Market Rate units The two buildings are
reduced to one located in
the north-eastern portion
of the site. The remaining
building along Highway 1
is 125 feet by 50 ft.

- Retain the healthy, mature trees between the property line and Highway 1 which provide
substantial screening along Highway 1 and the parcel. Protecting the Highway 1 public
viewshed is one of the most significant issues concerning the future of this area, and this

1
From Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497) Staff Report, Planning Commission, 5/25/2011 Pages 7-10.
Exhibits are available at: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/

recommendation better meets the visual resources policies in the Carmel Area Land Use
Plan.
- Reconfigure, combine and/or reduce by one, Units #30 through #33 to better utilize the
existing road, thereby reducing grading amounts and reducing tree removal along the
property line and near the hospital. This would also reduce or eliminate the retaining
wall previously proposed along the new road.
- Adapt the storm water detention facility and provide additional piping to allow recycled
water use for irrigation purposes, thus decreasing the need for potable water for irrigation
on site by an estimated 0.173 acre-feet per year (AF/Y).
- Include the use of water cisterns to collect graywater for localized irrigation purposes.

I. PROJECT ANALYSIS

Land Use: The project site is currently designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and
zoned for Medium Density Residential, 2 units per acre in a design control overlay district in the
Coastal Zone (MDR/2-D (CZ)). A hospital was permitted through a Use Permit. At the time of
application, the County of Monterey established that this permit was still valid since the site had
not been fully abandoned where certain buildings on the site are currently used.

The Local Coastal Program (LCP) applicable to this project consists of the Carmel Area Land
Use Plan (LUP), Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (Part 4), and Part 1 of the Coastal
Implementation Plan (Title 20 Zoning Ordinance). Development of the proposed project
requires amendment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) to amend the:
1) Carmel Area Land Use Plan to include High Density Residential (HDR) designation.
The HDR designation is appropriate for a broad range of higher intensity residential uses
at a higher density (from 5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing types. Staff has
developed proposed language that limits the density to 12.5 units/acre and defines the
location of the HDR to be where urban services - i.e., public water, sewer, roads, public
transit, fire protection, etc. - are available.
2) Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) to add the zoning designation category
of High Density Residential District to the CIP.
3) Land Use Map from the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2
units per acre) to HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per acre).
The applicant provided proposed language to the County to designate the project site as a Special
Treatment Zone in the Carmel Area LUP. The County Resource Management Agency staff
determined that the HDR designation is appropriate to follow State Housing requirements to
allow affordable housing by design (density) in certain areas. Although the HDR designation
would be established, proposed amendments to the LUP and CIP have been designed to limit
application to this one project so that future projects requesting a HDR designation would need
their own LCP amendment (Exhibit C, Attachment 3). As such, staff finds that adding the
HDR designation would not be growth inducing.

During the course of the public review period of the EIR, comments were received by residents
that live within the surrounding residential area of the proposed project site. A majority of these
comments express concern that the proposed project conflicts with its neighboring land uses.

The LUP amendment is to rezone the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density
Residential/2 units per acre) to proposed HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per
acre) in the Coastal Zone, which would allow a maximum of 46 residential units on 3.68 acres.
This number of units would result in adding between 82 and 145 persons to this area. In
comparison:
- The minimum building site which may be created in the MDR zone is 6,000 square feet
unless otherwise approved as part of a condominium, planned unit development or
similar clustered residential subdivision. Apartments are located on neighboring property
to the west along Highway 1 where the property is designated as MDR/2. The design of
these apartments visually appears denser than the two units per acre zoning designation.
- MDR/2 zoning would allow for 7.36 units (13 to 23 persons) on the subject site.
- For other surrounding sites (north), the MDR designation has developed in a manner
consistent with detached, single family homes.
- Properties in the surrounding area within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are designated as
R-1. This allows parcels of 2,500 square feet or greater that equates to a density of
17.4 units per acre.
Therefore, staff finds that the proposed density of HDR/12.5 units per acre for the project site is
less intense than the Citys R-1 designation.

Aesthetically, 9 (22%) of the proposed units would be located within the existing historic
building and three units within an existing outbuilding on site so there would be no visual change
from those units. Based on an aerial photo outlining existing development patterns, staff finds
that the site design is consistent with the urbanized setting. In addition, having existing public
services and facilities makes this a suitable potential location for planning higher density
housing. As such, staff finds that the proposed density would be appropriate and would not
significantly conflict with neighboring land uses.

The staff recommended Modified Design includes the same number of residential units (46).
Therefore, the land use density under this alternative would be equal to the proposed project;
however, the site design provides greater open space in critical areas. Staff finds that the staff
recommended Modified Design Alternative is appropriate and will not significantly conflict with
neighboring land uses.


FEIR APPENDIX C
EXHIBIT B-DISCUSSION
May, 25 2011

EXHIBIT B - DISCUSSION
Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497)
I. PROCESS
The project application proposes a Local Coastal Plan Amendment that must be certified by the
Coastal Commission (CCe) before the County can take final action on the project. Staff is
processing the project concurrently with the EIR to the Board of Supervisors where the project
must wait action until the CCC has acted. These are the multiple actions required for approval:
I) Subdivision Committee. This project came before the Standard Subdivision
Committee on January 13, 2011 and February 24, 2011 to evaluate the proposed
project with the technical analysis provided in the EIR. At the February 24, 2011
hearing, staff recommended the applicants make certain design changes to the project
based on staff site visit to view revised staking and flagging and tree removal
specifically within Highway One viewshed and slope justification with regard to units
32 & 33. On February 24, 2011, Committee members individually stated that they
found no issues with the technical aspects of the project, i.e., water, wastewater,
traffic. Although the Minor Subdivision Committee expressed interest to see the
modified plans, the applicant would not agree to a continuance to revise plans.
Therefore, the Committee voted to move the project forward without a
recommendation (Exhibit K). Since that time, the applicants have submitted
revisions that address staff's recommendations.
2) Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is being presented the entire
project to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding:
1) the LCP Amendment, 2) the EIR, and 3) the project.
3) Board of Supervisors. The Board must first consider the LCP Amendment. If the
Board agrees with the proposed amendment, they can 1) approve the LCP
Amendment, or 2) adopt a Resolution of Intent to approve the amendment, and then
the County submits an application to the Coastal Commission (limit 3 applications
per year). If the Board does not agree with the proposed amendment, then the project
would also be denied and there is no action for the Coastal Commission to consider.
4) Coastal Commission. If the Board adopts a Resolution of Intent to approve the LCP
Amendment, the Coastal Commission considers if the amendment should be certified
as part of Monterey County's Local Coastal Plan. The Coastal Commission's action
to certify the LCP is referred back to the Board of Supervisors to consider accepting
the Commission's action and any amendment thereto.
5) Board of Supervisors. If the LCP Amendment is certified by the Coastal
Commission, the Board must accept the Commission's action before the amendment
is certified. At that point the Board may act on the proposed project.
II. INTRODUCTION
Villas de Carmelo project is made up of three legal lots ofrecord (Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
009-061-002,009-061-003, and 009-061-005) located at 24945 Valley Way in the
unincorporated Coastal Zone of Monterey County. The site was originally developed as a clinic,
later became a general hospital serving the Monterey Peninsula, and was most recently occupied
as a convalescent hospital (Use Permit #863).
The site is improved with pavement and buildings, including parking lots, driveways, and paved
pathways. There are three existing buildings: the hospital building, constructed between 1928
and 1930; a garage/shop building; and a separate one-story building known as the nurses'
quarters. The main hospital building, the garage/shop building and the landscaping immediately
surrounding these two structures, as well as the stone walls at the entrance on Valley Way, have
been identified as contributing features of the historical resource. The nurses' quarters is a
separate one-story building and is not considered to be historically significant. The existing
buildings are in decline and require extensive renovation. Therefore, use of the property since
2005 has been limited to use of the nurses' quarters.
Portions of the project site that are not paved have been landscaped with numerous ornamental
tree, shrub, vine, and herbaceous species. Site vegetation can be characterized primarily as areas
of mixed Monterey pine and coast live oak woodland with an understory of landscaped shrubs
and groundcover. The historic landscaping includes the stone patio, tiled fountain, and landmark
oak tree on the south side of the main hospital building, as well as the stone walls, stairways, and
terracing immediately surrounding the main hospital building and the garage/shop building.
The project parcel is located in the Hatton Fields area of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The
site's topography consists of a raised northern area gently sloping southwards. Elevation ranges
from 445 feet above sea level at its southern border to 505 feet in the northern extent of the
project site. This area has generally been developed to the extent that the natural environment
has been significantly altered and that residential use is perceived as the primary use of the land.
The site is bordered by:
West: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Single family homes.
South: Unincorporated Monterey County. Southwest; Valley Way, a County-maintained
road; single family homes. Southeast; Hatton Lane, a private drive, multi-family
apartments (14 units).
North: Unincorporated Monterey County. Single-family homes.
East: Unincorporated Monterey County. State Highway One.
The size, density, and character of this residential area vary, but in general, residential parcels in
this area average from 3,000 square feet to. approximately one-quarter of an acre. This is an
urbanized area located within the Sphere of Influence boundary for the City of Carmel-by-the-
Sea. Access is currently taken via Highway 1 and Valley Way about 400 feet from the
intersection of Highway 1. This area is served by public services and facilities and has access to
commercial services located in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or at the mouth of Carmel Valley.
Storm water flows from the site drains as overland flow to localized depressions and/or ditches
adjacent to Valley Way and Highway l.
Proposed Project (Applicant Submittal)
The proposed project includes entitlements for developing 46 condominium units that involves
adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the existing structures as follows (Exhibit E):
Villas de Cannelo (PLN070497)
Planning Commission, 5/25f20II
Page 5 Villas de Cannelo (pLN070497)
Planning Commission, 5/25/201 J
Page 6
Each of the buildings are
105 by 50 ft each for a
total of210 Linear ft
(LF) ofbuilding mass
along Highway I.
Two story with parking
underneath
Eliminate structures for Units 5-8 and 12-13 the southeast comer of the project site along
Highway 1 and relocate these units into the structure located in the northeast portion of
the site, along Highway I proposed under the original site plan for Units 1-4.
o The building with Units 1-4 would become a 2-story, 10-unit structure that would
be 28 feet high and approximately 130 feet in length.
o The building previously proposed in the location for Units 5-8 and 12-13 in the
proposed project would be replaced with a parking area and additional
landscaping in Alternative 4.
Comp.",?son ..
Pro osed Pro' ect with for buildings ,along. Highway I
Existing Hospital Building: Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of 90% of the existing
11,500 square-foot hospital structure. This would result in the renovation and conversion
of 10,350 square feet of the existing hospital structure into nine condominium units. The
renovated hospital building will also house a recreation room and gym located in the
building's basement.
Demolition: Demolition of the nurses' quarters building and demolition of a semi-
attached shed located on the northern extent of the hospital building. In addition, a small
semi-attached shed located on the northern extent of the hospital building will be
demolished.
Proposed New Construction: Construction of eight new buildings with a total of 34
newly constructed condominium units.
Garage/Shop Building: The original garage/shop building will be converted into three
residential units.
Applicant's Modified Design Alternative (EIR Alternative 4)
Alternative 4, the Applicant's Modified Design Alternative involves the consolidation of the two
structures that incorporated Units 1-8 and their associated lower level garage parking into a
single two-story to-unit building (Exhibit F). There are five units on the lower level and five
units on the upper level. The previous lower-level garage parking for these units has been
removed and is now included as surface parking to the south. The consolidation also includes the
relocation of the stand alone building containing Units 12 and 13 into the single 10-unit building.
Modified
Alternative Plan
(plan C2, dated
10/9/08) as updated
One building of 10 units (two
floors five units each) with no
parking underneath.
Additional parking area to the
south ofthe building on site
Eliminates the building housing
units # 12 and 13 previously
located west ofthe new parking
area
All Market Rate units The two bnildings are
reduced to one located in
the north-eastern portion
of the site. The remaining
building along Highway I
is 125 feet by 50 ft.
In their revised locations, the floor plan size of Units 12 and 13 has also been reduced from 1,350
square feet (SF) and 1,400 SF to 1,100 SF each resulting in a reduction oftotal square footage by
500 SF. The loss of the southern building structure and associated garage area also reduces the
square footage by 4,950 SF. Additionally, the water usage is reduced by the conversion of units
12 and 13 into smaller type units (similar to Units 1-8). The reduced impacts include a reduction
in Highway One viewshed, water usage and building square footage. The square footage and
water usage is reduced by the conversion of custom Units 12 and 13.
Staff Recommended Modified Design Alternative (Revision to EIR Alternative 4)
After the applicants re-staked the property to reflect the Modified Design Alternative in the EIR,
staff visited the site to review the staking and flagging and tree removal specifically within
Highway One viewshed and also to review the slope justification with regard to Units 32 & 33.
Based on the revised staking, staff recommends amending the "Applicant's" Modified Design
Alternative for the Villas de Carmelo Project (Alternative 4, as analyzed in the ErR) as follows:
Inclusionary housing requirement would be met through payment of in-lieu fee as
recommended by the HAC. See Indusionary Housing discussion below.
The total square footage of development of the site would be reduced from 77,200 sq ft
and 46 units to the same number of units and 76,600 square feet.
Retain the healthy, mature trees between the property line and Highway 1 which provide
substantial screening along Highway 1 and the parcel. Protecting the Highway 1 public
viewshed is one of the most significant issues concerning the future of this area, and this
recommendation better meets the visual resources policies in the Carmel Area Land Use
Plan.
Reconfigure, combine and/or reduce by one, Units #30 through #33 to better utilize the
existing road, thereby reducing grading amounts and reducing tree removal along the
property line and near the hospital. This would also reduce or eliminate the retaining
wall previously proposed along the new road.
Adapt the storm water detention facility and provide additional piping to allow recycled
water use for irrigation purposes, thus decreasing the need for potable water for irrigation
on site by an estimated 0.173 acre-feet per year (AFIY).
Include the use of water cisterns to collect graywater for localized irrigation purposes.
m. PROJECT ANALYSIS
Land Use: The project site is currently designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and
zoned for Medium Density Residential, 2 units per acre in a design control overlay district in the
Coastal Zone (MDRl2-D (CZ)). A hospital was permitted through a Use Permit. At the time of
Villas de eannelo (PLN070497)
Planning Commission, 5/25/20II
Planning Commission, 5125/2011
Page 8
application, the County of Monterey established that this permit was still valid since the site had
not been fully abandoned where certain buildings on the site are currently used.
The Local Coastal Program (LCP) applicable to this project consists of the Carmel Area Land
Use Plan (LUP), Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (part 4), and Part 1 of the Coastal
Implementation Plan (Title 20 Zoning Ordinance). Development of the proposed project
requires amendment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) to amend the:
I) Carmel Area Land Use Plan to include High Density Residential (HDR) designation.
The HDR designation is appropriate for a broad range of higher intensity residential uses
at a higher density (from 5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing types. Staff has
developed proposed language that limits the density to 12.5 units/acre and defines the
location of the HDR to be where urban services - i.e., public water, sewer, roads, public
transit, fire protection, etc. - are available.
2) Carmel Area Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP) to add the zoning designation category
of High Density Residential District to the CIP.
3) Land Use Map from the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density Residential/2
units per acre) to HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/l2.5 units per acre).
The applicant provided proposed language to the County to designate the project site as a Special
Treatment Zone in the Carmel Area LUP. The County Resource Management Agency staff
detennined that the HDR designation is appropriate to follow State Housing requirements to
allow affordable housing by design (density) in certain areas. Although the HDR designation
would be established, proposed amendments to the LUP and CIP have been designed to limit
application to this one project so that future projects requesting a HDR designation would need
their own LCP amendment (Exhibit C, Attachment 3). As such, staff finds that adding the
HDR designation would not be growth inducing.
During the course of the public review period of the EIR, comments were received by residents
that live within the surrounding residential area of the proposed project site. A majority of these
comments express concern that the proposed project conflicts with its neighboring land uses.
The LUP amendment is to rezone the existing designation of MDR/2 (Medium Density
Residential/2 units per acre) to proposed HDR/12.5 (High Density Residential/12.5 units per
acre) in the Coastal Zone, which would allow a maximum of 46 residential units on 3.68 acres.
This number of units would result in adding between 82 and 145 persons to this area. In
comparison:
The minimum building site which may be created in the MDR zone is 6,000 square feet
unless otherwise approved as part of a condominium, planned unit development or
similar clustered residential subdivision. Apartments are located on neighboring property
to the west along Highway 1 where the property is designated as MDR/2. The design of
these apartments visually appears denser than the two units per acre zoning designation.
MDR/2 zoning would allow for 7.36 units (13 to 23 persons) on the subject site.
For other surrounding sites (north), the MDR designation has developed in a manner
consistent with detached, single family homes.
Properties in the surrounding area within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are designated as
"R-l." This allows parcels of 2,500 square feet or greater that equates to a density of
17.4 units per acre.
Therefore, staff finds that the proposed density ofHDR/12.5 units per acre for the project site is
less intense than the City's R-I designation.
Aesthetically, 9 (22%) of the proposed units would be located within the existing historic
building and three units within an existing outbuilding on site so there would be no visual change
from those units. Based on an aerial photo outlining existing development patterns, staff finds
that the site design is consistent with the urbanized setting. In addition, having existing public
services and facilities makes this a suitable potential location for planning higher density
housing. As such, staff finds that the proposed density would be appropriate and would not
significantly conflict with neighboring land uses.
Therefore, the land use density under this alternative would be equal to the proposed project;
however, the site design provides greater open space in critical areas. Staff finds that the staff
recommended Modified Design Alternative is appropriate and will not significantly conflict with
neighboring land uses.
30% Slope Waiver: Zoning Ordinance Section 20.64.230.E.l states that in order to approve
development on slopes of 30% or more, the appropriate authority must find that:
1) There is no alternative which would allow development to occur on slopes ofless than
3D%, or
2) The proposed development better achieves the resource protection objectives and
policies ofthe Carmel Area Land Use Plan and development standards ofthis ordinance.
The applicant presented howthey feel this project meets these criteria (Exhibit J).
The project site consists of man-made slopes, fue majority of which will be re-graded to create
improvements needed to support the project. Small areas of the site to be developed consist of
slopes that are 30% or greater. These 30% or greater slopes will be graded to penuit
development to occur consistent wifu current standards for safety and access. The project site
would be graded to utilize the existing topography, including grading ofslopes for parking garages
to minimize the height and visibility ofthe proposed newbuildings.
On various occasions, staff visited the site to review the slope justification with regard to
development along the west edge of the site (Units #30 to #33). Staff detennined that the site
design could be improved, and identified the following criteria for how they could achieve this
goal:
Reconfigure and/or combine Units #30 through #33.
Utilize the existing road,
Increase side set backs,
Retain vegetation along the west property line,
Reduce and/or eliminate the II-foot tall retaining wall previously proposed along the
proposed new road located near the west property line
Reduce grading, and
Reduce tree removal in this area (primarily healthy oak trees).
Staff finds that a redesign of Units 30-33 incorporating these criteria would better meet fue
Carmel Area LUP policy objectives. We will present a concept plan that illustrates these changes
Villas de Cannelo (pLN070497)
Planning Commission, 5/25/2011
Page 9 Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497)
Planning Commission, 512512011
Page 10
for the Commission to consider. Staff finds that this alternative would be better than the
proposed project by reducing grading, retaining healthy oak trees, and providing greater open
space in critical areas.
Circulation: The project site is currently accessed via Highway 1 (a state-maintained highway)
and via Valley Way (a county-maintained road). Implementation of the proposed project would
result in closure of the existing Highway I access, and a new entrance would be created from
Valley Way located approximately 180 feet west of Highway 1. An existing entrance from
Valley Way would remain accessible for fire and/or emergency response.
The project proposes a Y-shaped road system to serve the project site. One individual unit, Unit
23, would have a direct access driveway off of Valley Way. Total parking provided on the
project site would be 108 spaces, with 90 covered spaces and 18 uncovered spaces.
A traffic impact analysis evaluated 13 intersections, and five road segments in the vicinity of the
project site, as listed below by jurisdiction, including:
1. Caltrans intersections at Highway I/Carpenter; Highway INalley Way; Highway
l!Flanders Drive; Highway 1I0cean Avenue and Highway IIThird Avenue;
2. Monterey County Intersections at Carpenter StreetNalley Way and Lower TrailNalley
Way;
3. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Intersections at Lobos StreetNalley Way; Monterey Street/1st
AvenueNalley Way; Monterey Street/2nd Avenue; Carpenter Street/1st Avenue;
Carpenter Street/2nd Avenue and Santa Fe Street/3rd Avenue; and
4. Highway I Road Segments under Caltrans jurisdiction between the following segments:
Highway 1 between Holman Highway and Carpenter Street; Highway I between
Carpenter Street and Valley Way; Highway 1 between Valley Way and Flanders Drive;
Highway 1 between Flanders Drive and Ocean Avenue and finally, Highway 1 between
Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road.
Most comments received on the EIR expressed concern regarding traffic on Highway I and
increased traffic on neighborhood streets, particularly on Valley Way and other neighboring
roadways. Letters identified impacts from increased traffic volumes, type, or makeup, of traffic
(i.e. trucks, construction vehicles), traffic speed, perception of through traffic, adequacy of
current streets/roads, accident experience, on-street parking, pedestrian traffic, and pedestrian
safety.
The RDEIR indicates that the addition of project traffic will contribute to eXlstmg
operational/safety deficiencies at the intersections of Carpenter Street and Highway I with
Valley Way. Therefore, mitigation includes safety improvements at each of the intersections.
Since the improvements would serve to improve existing operational problems, the project is
only required to pay a pro-rata share of the costs of the identified improvements. However, the
project applicant has voluntarily agreed to fund and construct the identified operational/safety
improvements as a condition of approval. Exhibit C, Attachment 1 contains a conceptual
drawing of the Valley WaylHighway I intersection improvements, prepared by the traffic
consultants in coordination with Monterey County staff.
Traffic generated under this alternative generally would be equal to the proposed project and
would result in the same traffic impacts.
Visual Resources: The project site is located on the west side of Highway One. The intent of
the Carmel Area Land Use Plan is to retain a rural character along the Highway I corridor, which
includes vegetation that visually buffer the built environment. There are some areas where
structures (fences and buildings) are directly visible from the Highway.
The site is less visible to traffic traveling southbound on Highway One due to topography and
existing vegetation located within the public right of way. Traveling northbound, there is a
visual opening where an existing access connects to Highway One immediately north of the
neighboring apartments. The right of way along the project frontage is wider to accommodate a
deep drainage swale. To the contrary, the apartments near Valley Way are highly visible.
One new building would be constructed on the east edge of the project site along Highway One.
The project site was staked and flagged to the approval of Monterey County in order to provide a
visual representation of the proposed development by outlining buildings and additions to
buildings on the project property. Photo vantage points for a visual analysis were selected based"
on consultations with County staff considering: field surveys, photos of the project site from
selected vantage points, key circulation routes, and aerial photographs. Areas of special interest
or potential scenic value were noted for assessment during the field survey.
New structures would be designed in a SpanishIMediterranean style that is complementary to the
existing hospital building. Roofing material would be clay tiles and the exterior skin of the
buildings would be stucco. Newly-built structures would be two to three stories, with an average
maximum building height between 25 and 35 feet above median grade. Common space would
include underground and surface parking, a recreation room, gym, and storage facilities.
Proposed grading would involve an estimated 13,500 cubic yards (CY) of cut/fill, including the
creation ofunderground parking through excavation activities.
County staff required preparation of visual simulations to be prepared by the project architect
with and without proposed landscaping as part of the analysis in the EIR. The Draft EIR states
that implementation of the proposed project would impact the visual integrity of the Highway I
corridor through buildout of the project site into a residential condominium complex, and that
removal of vegetation and the construction of the two buildings proposed directly along
Highway I would impact views from Highway I looking west towards the project site. The
DEIR concluded that development of the proposed project would result in significant and
unavoidable aesthetic-related impacts to the scenic highway.
In the RDEIR, an applicant proposed Modified Design Alternative was added which was
designed to avoid the project's significant impact upon a scenic resource by removing two
buildings:
1) Units 5-8; 28-foot high, approximately 45 x 100 foot building located on the southeast
border of the project and fronting on Highway I; and
Page 11 Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497)
Page 12
2) Units 12 and 13; 28-foot high, approximately 3,000 square foot building located
immediately west of Units 5-8.
These units would be housed in a building located to the north along Highway I. The area where
these units were removed was redesigned for open parking, which also included opportunity for
retaining and increasing landscaping along the Highway One edge. The RDEIR concludes that
the applicants' Modified Design Alternative would mitigate aesthetic project impacts to be less
than significant.
Staff recommends reducing visibility of the built environment from vehicles traveling on
Highway One. We determined that the view from Highway One would better reflect current
conditions, as noted above, by removing one of the two buildings on the east property line
(applicant's Modified Design Alternative) and retaining the healthy, mature trees between the
property line and Highway l. Staff finds that recommended changes to the applicant's Modified
Design Alternative would better meet the goals and policies of the Carmel Area Land Use Plan,
specifically 20.146.030 that requires protecting scenic resources ofthe Carmel Area.
Water Supply: The proposed project site is currently serviced by utilities with existing public
utility infrastructure. In order to obtain regulatory information regarding water service on the
property, Staff contacted service providers and relevant regulatory agencies, including the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or the District) and Monterey
County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). Water would be supplied by Cal-Am (the primary
water purveyor in the Carmel area). The sources of supply for the subject parcel are the Carmel
Valley Alluvial Aquifer (CVAA) and the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System,
components ofthe Cal-Am distribution system.
Regionally, available water supplies and meeting water demand are under close scrutiny.
Currently, the key constraints on available water supplies in the Monterey Peninsula are legal
and relate to SWRCB Order No. WR 95-10, which limits Cal-Am's production from the Carmel
River and underlying alluvial aquifer, and the decision in the Seaside Groundwater Basin
adjudication that limits Cal-Am's production from the coastal subareas of the Seaside Basin.
Recently, the Regional Desalination Project received approval at the Califomia Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). This project is designed to address the State Order and will limit
production from the Carmel River in accordance with SWRCB requirements.
The project proposes redevelopment of a former convalescent hospital site into 46 units, as well
as development of a 2,100 square foot gym. Although the project area is already developed, the
proposed project would increase the developed floor area and convert the use to residential.
Based on the proposed project and the applicable water demand factors for fixture counts per the
MPWMD Residential Water Release Form, the estimated water demand for the proposed
residential project is approximately 6.154 AFIY. (Stephanie Pintar, MPWMD dated August 10,
2009)'.
I Based upon the detailed breakdown ofthe number and type of water fIxtures for the proposed residential units,
along with the square-footage of the recreation room, District staff confumed the water demand estimates as
indicated in their letter: "District staff concurs with the water demand estimates of 6.164 FY in the attached
spreadsheet for eight one-bath residential units, eighteen two-baths residential units, and 20 two and one-half
bathroom residential units and 4A50 square feet of Group I uses."
All properties that modifY or add water fixtures on a property within the MPWMD must obtain
written authorization from the District prior to taking action. In accordance with the regulations
of the MPWMD, the applicants are proposing to use water credits under Rule 25.5 that allows
the property to use their property water credit for the existing buildings and former use on the
site. Therefore, the applicants propose to abandon use as a convalescent hospital under the
regulations set forth by MPWMD Rule 25.5 and use their property credits assigned under Rule
25.5. The water credit under Rule 25.5 and demand calculations were reviewed by Monterey
County Water Resource Agency, Monterey County Planning, and MPWMD. The District has
determined that upon application for water credits (based upon demolition of building use or
removal of the Property's water meters), the District rules allow for the issuance of 8.226 AFIY
of on-site water credits.
Obtaining a water credit from MPWMD requires formal application and processing by the
District. Upon application, the MPWMD Rules and Regulations, including the process for
calculating Water Use Credits (Rule 25.5), will be used to verify the fmal water use credit for the
site. The District will also require verification by the District of permanent abandonment of use
and final determination of the water use credit for the site. The project is considered consistent
with the applicable'regulations under MPWMD Rule 25.5 based on the proposed project's
application (MPWMD letter dated February 5, 2008); however, final consistency with Rule 25.5
must be verified by the MPWMD per the regulations of the District.
Monterey County Ordinance 3310 (County Code 18.46) requires new subdivisions to provide for
a 10% reduction in water demand from uses at the time the ordinance took effect. As the.
ordinance took effect during the time the hospital was in operation and the proposed project
constitutes an intensification of use, staff interprets that this reduction applies to this project
The applicant is required to demonstrate a reduction of historical water use by at least 10% in
accordance with Chapter 18.46 of Monterey County Code. In addition, the project must continue
to demonstrae that water conservation measures proposed on or off the affected building site
will, in combination with the project for which approval is sought, maintain the water cap with
the 10% reduction.
Concerns were raised during the public review period on the Draft EIR related to water service
delivery, lack of documentation of actual historic use, and potential impacts of water delivery in
light of a Cease and Desist Order issued per Order WR 95-10 by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). The Draft EIR identified the existence of a water credit of 8.226
AFIY based on an estimated use assuming the applicable MPWMD Rule 25.5, termed the "water
credit." Several comment letters cited the water credit as "hypothetical" water use on the site
and questioned the validity of the MPWMD water use credit to determine past water use on the
site (i.e., Rule 25.5 of the MPWMD which allows for water credits use on a site with an historic
record of use).
Following release of the Draft EIR, historic records for the site were obtained identifying actual
historic water use. The water records show that the water use varied during operation of the
hospital, and if all years were averaged from Water Years 2001 to 2007, the average water
demand during this period is 8.3 AF/Y. During a four year period of operations prior to the
hospital ceasing operation in 2005 (Water Year 2001 to WY 2004), the property's water use
Villas de Carmelo (pLN070497)
PageJ3 Villas de Carmelo (pLN070497)
Page 14
Note: This is considered "liveable" area and does not include ara s or exterior areas.
The proposed would result in the construction of 46 residential units, with a mix of unit sizes
from 1,100-1,450 square feet (Exhibit C2). Table I provides a breakdown for the type of units
in the original ro osed ro' ect:
addition, applying water "credit" to the required inclusionary housing units (as discussed below)
would affect this condition.
Housing: State law has been updated to require that local agencies encourage affordable
housing by design. Our Housing Element requires us to identify areas where there is an allowed
density of 30 units per acre to achieve this goal. There currently is no such density in the coastal
zone. As such, inclusionary housing is an inIportant tool to provide affordable housing in the
unincorporated coastal areas. Monterey County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires
subdivision projects to supply compliance equal to 20% of the total number of units proposed
and that the 20% consist of 6% very low, 6% low and 8% moderate income units.
5.842AFIY
I AFIY
7.154AFIY
0.3115 AFIY Gym
TOTAL DEMAND PROJECfED
Residential Units 46 Market Rate"
Irrigation demand is projected to be approximately
Since the MPWMD credit factor of 8.226 is less than the average historical use factor of 8.3,
staff applied the MPWMD credit factor. Table 1, below, illustrates how (using the credit factor)
the project water demand reduces the site's existing water use with consideration of Chapter
18.46 that re uires a 10% reduction.
averaged 13.68 AF/Y of consumption based upon available Cal-Am records. During the four
year period after the hospital ceased operations at the site (WY 2005 to WY 2008), only nominal
water use was recorded (ranging from a low of 0.18 AF/Y for WY 2008 to 2.90 AF/Y for WY
2005).
However, if the decision makers determine that the water demand should be based on the period
after the hospital ceased operations CWY 2005 to WY 2008), the project would increase water
use from 2.90 AF/Y, which would be considered a significant, unrnitigatable, impact. In
Source: (Fixtures and Water Demand Facto" are shown in Table 4.14.2, in the RDEIR..)
Source: Based upon applicant submittal of Non-Residential Water Release Form and Water Permit Application and
independent review as noted above. AU water demand factors and water credits will be subject to final approval by
MPWMD (Fixtures and Water Demand Factors are shown in Table 4.14.2, in the RDEIR.)
.uNole: Under the Rules of the MPWMD (Rule 25.5), in applying water credit for existing parcels, the District does
not require an additional increment of water for exterior water usage for existing parcels with existing uses; however
the District would require a separate water meter for landscaping irrigation purposes. The EIR estimates water demand
for irrigation. Adding the EIR estimate of outdoor water use with the interior water demand would be less than the
MPWMD assigned water credit of 8.226 AF for the site.
Based on this scenario, the project would be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.46.
In addition, the ElR concludes that proposed project would not exceed available water supplies
and resources; supplies and resources to serve the project are available to the site; it would not
result in construction of new water treatment facility (or facilities) or cause an expansion of
existing facilities or construction of facilities that may cause significant environmental effects.
The project will not result in a new or expanded entitlement for water; the project will use water
within available water use credit from the MPWMD and within historic water use. The project
will use water through the water use credit program (Rule 25.5) requiring that water use on the
site be within MPWMD demand factors. Implementation of the mitigation measures would
require monitoring to ensure project demand is not exceeded and to require conservation
measures for water fixtures on site.
NET -ll.2494AFIY
One of the reasons to provide high density zoning is to create affordable housing by design. The
applicants have proposed an alternative to provide their fair share of inclusionary housing
through payment of an in-lieu fee. However, compliance with the ordinance is subject to
recommendation of the HAC to the decision making qody. Final project approval would be
conditioned by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors upon recommendation by the
Planning Commission.
On July 14th, 2010, the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC) considered the applicant's
proposal and unanimously voted to recommend payment of an in-lieu fee. The HAC supported
this approach but did state that they were interested in seeing the fee used for new or rehabbed
housing in the Planning Area However, they acknowledged:
1) Constraints associated with providing water to new or expanded units.
2) The proposal did not address the need for housing for very low and low income
households in the Planning Area.
3) HOA fees would be too expensive for the Moderate Income Inclusionary Owners.
4) With the down tum of the economy there are non-restricted for sale units affordable to
the Moderate income level in the County so there may not be enough interested buyers.
5) A rental component could be considered for the lower income families, but would be
difficult to integrate into this high end project.
Monterey County's Redevelopment and Housing Office recommends the following Condition of
Approval:
"The project is subject to the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, #04185. Prior
to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay all Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee,
based on the In-Lieu Fee Schedule (dated December 2000) for the entire 9.2 unit
Page 15
Planning Commission, 5125120 II
Page 16
obligation. The Redevelopment and Housing Office shall prioritize use of the In-Lieu
Fee for the production of affordable housing benefiting the housing needs in the
Monterey Peninsula Planning Area, iffeasible."
Staff finds that water should be considered when evaluating off site inclusionary housing units
since it would included in the project water demand if the units were placed on site. This can be
in the form of water credit through the MPWMD or payment of a fee that would allow purchase
of adequate water for the required units. Alternatively, the Commission may wish to consider:
I) Allowing the in lieu fee, but require that additional fees/credits are collected to
account for water to provide the units in another location. Staff would suggest water
credit for units within the subject water planning area and additional fees for units
located outside of the water planning area.
2) Reducing the total number of units for the project by the number of inclusionary units
required since they were not being provided onsite (comment by one Subdivision
Committee member). This would require reducing the project by nine (9) units (total
37 units) plus payment of a fee for 0.2 units. This concept would result in additional
water savings that could be accounted for units located within the same water
planning area.
Biological Resources: The majority of the former convalescent hospital site has been developed
with paved pathways, parking lots, and structures. Open areas have been heavily landscaped and
consists of a fragmented mix of Monterey pines and coast live oaks with ornamental tree and
shrub species typical of most residential areas of Carmel. The proposed construction of 46 new
residences at the former Carmel Convalescent Home site will result in removal of 104 of 125 on-
site trees that are greater than 12-inches diameter at DBH (21 coast live oak, 75 Monterey pines,
and eight miscellaneous species). A Forest Management Plan submitted by the applicant for this
project indicates that most of the vegetation on site was introduced as part of the hospital
landscape; and therefore, is not considered native.
Removal of trees for development is subject to the policies contained within the Carmel Area
LUP and CIP, except non-native tree where removal is encouraged. While no specific
restrictions for selected tree species in the Carmel Area LUP, the policies support a diversity of
forest resources, including Coast redwood, Monterey pine, Douglas fir, and Coast live oak.
Policy 2.2.4.II.e Carmel LUP requires design to retain existing trees and other native vegetation
to the maximum extent possible both during the construction process and after the development
is completed. As noted in the visual resource discussion above, staff has proposed changes to the
applicant's Modified Design Alternative to reduce visibility of building along Highway 1 as well
as minimizing tree removal and grading in certain areas (Policies 2.2.3.5 and 2.2.3.7 Carmel
LUP).
Several comments on the Draft EIR expressed concerned with the scale of proposed tree removal
and that measures should be incorporated into the project to minimize tree removal. In addition,
the comments also suggest that adequate site design did not take into account tree removal.
The Draft EIR identified that the removal of existing mature vegetation, which includes mature
pines and oaks, would constitute significant and unavoidable impacts to a scenic vista, the visual
integrity of the Highway 1 Corridor, and the existing visual character of the site. To ensure that
the final design minimizes tree removal, Mitigation Measures 4.1-2 and 4.1-4 (require that all
final design-level plans are completed in accordance with the recommendations of a registered
arborist/forester, and mature trees within the 10-foot setback from the eastern property line are
preserved as much as possible to provide further screening.
Applicant's Modified Design would involve development on the majority of the site, comparable
to the proposed project. Although building structures are reduced, there would be parking areas
where the previous building area along Highway I was located. Staff finds that this would result
in similar impacts on trees and other biotic resources, thus the impacts to biological resources
resulting from implementation of the Modified Design would be the same. Therefore, staff
worked with the applicants to increase retention of existing trees and biological resources, as
well as preserving the historical landscape area.
Staff and the applicant walked the project site and reviewed property boundaries and proposed
improvements in detail with the goal of maximizing preservation of trees as much as would be
feasible. Landscape screening is allowed provided that it is compatible with the scenic character
of the area, and the Forest Management Plan prepared for the proposed development includes
appropriate recommendations. Although a large amount of tree removal is required to allow for
the proposed development, the impacts have been evaluated, mitigated for, and minimized where
feasible. Mitigation has been incorporated to ensure that there is adequate monitoring to ensure
the success of replacement trees.
Many of the Monterey pine trees proposed for removal are located around the perimeter of the
site. Staff finds that removal of most of these Monterey pines would not significantly impact the
visual resources from the critical areas (Highway I) because they have been significantly
trimmed up. To the contrary, retaining healthy oaks and appropriate understory would better
meet the policies of the LUP. In the Slope Wavier section above, staff discussed recommended
revisions along the east property line that would result in retaining a number of healthy oak trees
located on the project site. In addition, staff has identified at least on nice oak tree that would be
a candidate for relocation.
IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
On March 8, 20II, staff gave the Planning Commissioners electronic versions of the Draft EIR,
Recirculated DEIR and Comments on the DEIR and RDEIR. The Comments will be considered
and responded to in the Final EIR (FEIR) prior to recommendation to the Planning Commission.
A Notice of Preparation was circulated for comments between July 11 and August 11, 2008, with
a public scoping meeting held at Monterey County offices on July 23, 2008. A Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA and
circulated for public review between April 15 and June 5,2009. Potential Impacts to Aesthetics,
Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use Planning, Noise, Public Services,
Traffic and Circulation, and Utilities were identified in the DEIR. In response to comments
received on the DEIR during the public review period, a Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) was
prepared and circnlated (August 3 to September 24, 2010) for public review that included:
Page 18
New Introduction;
Section 2.0, Summary;
Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation
Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems
Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations; and
Section 6.0, Alternatives
Mitigations are included to minimize impacts where feasible and have been made conditions of
approval for the project. Unavoidable impacts to Aesthetic Resources were identified in the
DEIR for the original proposed project that would require a statement of overriding
considerations prior to approving the project.
A total of 10 alternatives were considered in the EIR (Tables 6.4-1 & 6.4-2 Exhibit L) resulting
in a range of options, and the EIR concludes that Alternative 3, Existing Zoning Alternative,
would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce environmental impacts to
the greatest degree in comparison due to its lowest number of new construction and development
(for more discussion see Section 6.0 of the RDEIR).
With the RDEIR, Applicant's Modified Design Alternative (Alternative 4) was introduced
with a primary focus to reduce aesthetic impacts along Highway 1. Staff is recommending this
alternative, with recommended changes, because it includes the avoidance of the scenic
resources significant impact by:
Removing two large buildings of the proposed project's design from public view off
Highway 1
Retaining the healthy, mature trees between the property line and Highway 1 which
provide substantial screening along Highway 1 and the parcel.
Revising the site design for Units #30 through #33 to utilize the existing road, thereby
reducing grading amounts and reducing tree removal along the property line and near
the hospital.
Reduce or e1iminate the retaining wall previously proposed along the road.
This alternative may also reduce impacts to hydrology/water quality, land use, and Public
Services & Utilities. The other environmental impacts are generally the same as the proposed
project. Table 2 presents a summary of Alternative 4 as compared to the proposed project:
Aesthetic Less
Air Quality Equal
Biological Resources Equal
Cultural Resources Equal
Geology/Soils EquaVSlightly less
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Equal
HydrologylWater Ouality Less/Slightly Less or Equal
Land Use Slightly Less
Noise Equal
Public Services & Utilities Equal/Slightly Less
Traffic Equal
The following provides a qualitative assessment of Applicant's Modified Design Alternative
(EIR Alternative 4) as compared to the proposed project for issues not addressed earlier in this
report:
Air Quality. Applicant's Modified Design assumes similar development levels as the proposed
project, thus will would result in similar impacts from the generation of regional emissions to the
proposed project since vehicle trips would be the same. The potential construction related
impacts would only be slightly reduced due to the reduction of the buildings; however, earth
movement and grading would still be required for the proposed parking in these areas. All other
air quality impacts would be comparable to the project.
Cultural Resources. Although the building mass would be slightly reduced, this design
alternative would involve development on the majority of the site, resulting in potential impacts
to undiscovered archaeological resources and the historic resource comparable to the proposed
project. The cultural impacts would be equal to those of the proposed project.
Geology/Soils. Although the building mass would be slightly reduced, the impacts related to
geology and soils would be similar to the proposed project in the areas of seismicity and
exposure to seismic hazards in comparison to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Although the building mass would be somewhat reduced,
the impacts related to hazardous materials and possible remediation efforts associated with the
construction and rehabilitation of the historic structure generally would be equal to those of the
proposed proj ect.
HydrologylWater Quality. Development under this alternative would be subject to Monterey
County drainage requirements. For both the proposed project and Applicant's Modified Design
Alternative, water quality impacts would be minimized through onsite drainage facilities and
implementation of required BMPs. Further, with the proposed alteration to the storm water
detention facilities to allow storm water to be used for irrigation purposes, impacts from runoff
would be less than the proposed project. The hydrology and water quality impacts of EIR
Alternative 4 generally would be less than or equal to those of the proposed project.
Page 19
Planning Commission, 5125120II
Page 20
Noise. Applicant's Modified Design would result in the similar construction and operational
noise sources associated with the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts generally would be
comparable to the project since traffic generated under this alternative would be the same as the
proposed project. The noise impacts generally would equal to those ofthe proposed project.
Public Services & Utilities. Applicant's Modified Design would result in the demand for
services and utilities that is consistent with the proposed project. With the implementation of the
proposed storm water/irrigation proposal, demand for potable water for irrigation purposes
would be less than the proposed project, depending on yearly rainfall. Based on preliminary
estimates the use of recycled water could account for a 0.173 AFY reduction in water use as
compared to the proposed project. Given this information estimated water use for this alternative
is projected to be 6.154 AFY. The public services and utilities impacts of this Modified Design
would be slightly less than or equal to those of the proposed project.
Page 21


FEIR APPENDIX C
EXHIBIT C- ATTACHMENT 3 - LCP AMENDMENT
May 25, 2011

EXHIBIT C ATTACHMENT 3
LCP AMENDMENTS
1

Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan are identified below with proposed new text presented as
underlines text and text to be deleted presented as strikeout text:
2.2.4 Specific Policies
6. The existing forested corridor along Highway 1 shall be maintained as a scenic
resource and natural screen for existing and new development. New development along
Highway 1 shall be sufficiently set back to preserve the forested corridor effect and
minimize visual impact. All new development on the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site
shall include a landscape berm landscaping to screen the development from Highway 1.
Policy 4.4.3.E.15
The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property may be developed for residential use. A
maximum of 46 units may be approved. The units shall be screened from Highway 1 through
implementation of a landscape plan which includes a landscape berm along the entire Highway 1
property frontage.
Policy 4.4.3.E.2
E. Residential
2. Medium-density residential development shall be directed to existing residential areas
where urban services water, sewers, roads, public transit fire protection, etc. are
available. The density for mew new subdivision is two units per acre except for the
Portola Corporation property in Carmel Meadows and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital
property adjacent to Highway 1. The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property is
the only property that is available to be may be developed for high density residential use
subject to Policy 4.4.3E.15. As a condition of development of the Portola property,
covenants must be recorded acknowledging agricultural use on the adjacent parcel and
holding the owner (State) harmless for any nuisance due to the agricultural use.
Policy 4.5.H
H. Medium/High Density Residential
Medium-density residential development is the primary use. The density for new
subdivision is 2 units per acre, except on the Mission Ranch property where a density of
4 units per acre may be allowed subject to section 4.4.3.F.1 and, Odello (162 units)
subject to section 14.4.3.F.4 and the Carmel Convalescent Hospital site where (a
maximum of 46) residential units are allowed subject to Policy 4.4.3.E.15*.
Minimal parcel size will be determined upon application review. The designation is
applied to the City of Carmel vicinity and the Carmel

4.6 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
Land Use Category Location
Approx.
Acreage
(Acres)
Density for
New
Subdivision
Est. Max
New Res.
Dev # of
Units
Watershed and Scenic
Conservation

High Density Residential Carmel Convalescent Hospital 3.68 12.5 units Per
acre
46 max

1
From Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497) Staff Report, Planning Commission, 5/25/2011 Exhibit C.
Exhibit is also available at: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/

ESTIMATED TOTAL NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 755 (units max)

CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL SITE
The 3.68 acre Carmel Convalescent Hospital property may be developed for residential use at the density to allow
reuse of vacated historic buildings and infill on a property next to and currently served by urban services. A
maximum of 46 units may be approved. The units shall be screened from Highway 1 through implementation of a
landscape plan which includes landscaping along the entire Highway 1 frontage.

VILLAS DE CARMELO PLN070497
2

DENSITY WORDING FOR COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 20.146.B.4.M
High Density Residential (HDR): High Density Residential areas are appropriate for a broad
range of higher intensity residential uses (5-20 units/acre) and a blend of housing types.
Recreational, public/quasi-public, and other uses are incidental and subordinate to the residential
use and character of the area. High density use is allowed in accordance with the site-specific
evaluation of resource and public facility constraints, and where urban services i.e. public
water, sewer, roads, public transit, fire protection, etc. are available. New development in
these areas is designated at densities to allow a mix of housing types, including moderate to low
income housing, in order to facilitate a comprehensively planned project. Direct access from
Highway One shall not be allowed, where alternative access is possible.
The Carmel Convalescent Hospital parcel is located in the Hatton Fields area of the Carmel Area
Land Use Plan. This area is more urbanized in character. The property is made up of three legal
lots of record and abuts the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea boundary to the north, west and south and
Highway One on the east. Within the city limits, single family dwellings surround the Hospital
parcel. An apartment complex, located within the unincorporated County area, is west of the
Hospital parcel. Parcels in this area average from 3,000 square feet to approximately a quarter
acre. The Hatton Fields area has generally been developed to the extent that the natural
environment has been significantly altered and that the residential use is perceived as the primary
use of the land. The size, density, and character of this residential area vary; capacity is available
to accommodate additional residential demand. Infilling of development is encouraged. In
general, this area had adequate public services and facilities and has ready access to important
commercial services located in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or at the mouth of Carmel Valley.

2
From Villas de Carmelo (PLN070497) Staff Report, Planning Commission, 5/25/2011 Exhibit C.
Exhibit is also available at: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/


FEIR APPENDIX D
ADDITIONAL WATER DOCUMENTATION

FEIR APPENDIX D
COUNTY COMMUNICATION REGARDING ORDINANCE 3310
May, 25 2011
FEIR APPENDIX D
EARTHFORM COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING WATER USAGE
DATED 5/25/2011, 6/1/2011 AND PLANT LIST DATED: 5/27/2011

FEIR APPENDIX E
BROWN-BUNTIN ASSOCIATES COMMUNICATION
REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 4 NOISE FINDINGS
May 19, 2009



FEIR Villas de Carmelo June 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEIR Villas de Carmelo June 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

You might also like