4.1-20
:\
t I
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
In other respects, the project would conform with Handbook guidelines, including the recommendation that residential densities be maintained within a range between 4.0 to 6.0 units per acre. The proposed project would have a gross density of approximately 4.3 units per acre, using the project's total proposed acreage of 199.7 acres. (This value differs from the 5.6 units per acre discussed in Section 3.3, Project Characteristics, because that value is based solely on the acreage proposed for residential development.) The proposed project also designates more than 10 percent of developable land as a park, which is consistent with Handbook recommendations regarding open space. Additional open space, in the form of farmlands, extends to the east and south of the project site.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of the area; or convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land.
Impact 4.1.1: Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing on-site land uses. The project would convert 199.7 acres of prime agricultural land to urban residential use. This would be a significant impact.
Although the project site represents approximately 0.2 percent of the agricultural land (and
0.6 percent of the prime farmland) in the Greater Salinas Planning Area (as defined by Monterey County), the loss of agricultural land to urban use would be permanent.
Mitigation Measure
4.1.1 None available. The conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use is considered an unavoidable significant impact.
4.1-21
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Impact 4.1.2: Combined with the Williams Ranch project north of Williams Road and other projects in the Salinas vicinity, the cumulative impact on agricultural lands would be a reduction in farmland availability. This would be a significant impact.
The cumulative impact of land conversion in East Salinas from agricultural uses to urban uses would decrease farm land availability. The proposed project (about 200 acres), combined with the Williams Ranch Planned Community north of Williams Road ( 466 acres) would permanently remove from agricultural use 652 acres of prime agricultural land in Monterey County. The cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in East Salinas as a result of these two projects would be 1.9 percent of the prime farmland in the Greater Salinas Planning Area, and about 0.4 percent of the prime farmland in the county as a whole. Overall agricultural farmland in the Planning Area, including lower quality lands and grazing pastures, would be reduced by 0.8 percent; the loss of countywide agricultural land would be less than 0.1 percent.
Together, the two projects would continue an ongoing trend. Between 1992 and 1994, about 346 acres of agricultural land in Monterey County was converted to urban use, including 255 acres of Prime Farmland (California Department of Conservation, 1996). Another large pending development outside the immediate project area, the Salinas Auto Center project in northwest Salinas, would result in additional loss of 102 acres of prime agricultural land, and the Westridge development (under construction) eliminated about 85 acres of agricultural land, including about 15 acres of land designated prime agricultural or farmland of statewide importance, the second most important category in the state's soil classification system.
The project could create pressure to convert surrounding agricultural land to urban uses.
However, the potential for such development is limited by the fact that agricultural lands east and south of the project site are outside of the City's Sphere oflnfluence and are within County jurisdiction, designated as agricultural land without the Urban Reserve Overlay. Of this land, approximately 200 acres of the Sconberg Ranch east of the project site are designated for development in the Salinas General Plan. The General Plan further states that no development will occur beyond the southern boundary of the project site.
Mitigation Measure
4.1.2 None available. The conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use is considered an unavoidable significant impact.
4.1-22
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
Impact 4.1.3: The proposed project could be inconsistent with the surrounding agricultural land uses and could generate nuisance complaints by residents due to agricultural noise and dust. This would be a significant impact.
Noise, dust and odors from agricultural operations are sometimes considered a nuisance by nearby residents. The proposed Precise Plan requires that the project sponsor and/or subsequent developers ensure that ensure that all prospective home site purchasers are provided with a copy of an agricultural use disclosure notice prior to closing of the home purchase. Such a notice will inform prospective purchasers of the potential for noise, dust and odors that could occur as a result of normal agricultural operations. Trespassing onto agricultural fields, theft, vandalism, and damage by domestic animals may occur due to the proximity of adjacent agricultural lands causing a nuisance for farmers. It should be noted, however, that the proposed project would essentially extend to the south and east what is now an urban-agricultural boundary at the northern and western project boundaries and, as such, would essentially maintain existing conditions.
Mitigation Measure
4.1.3a The Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street rights-of-way (approximately 110 feet each) shall be removed from agricultural production by the project sponsor prior to initiation of grading or construction activities.
4.1.3b The proposed agricultural use disclosure notice shall be provided to prospective home site purchasers prior to closing of home purchase; and shall include buyer(s) signature. Form and content of said notice shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Department prior to approval of the first final subdivision map, and each said notice shall be recorded. In addition, a notice shall be recorded for the entire project site.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level.
Impact 4.1.4: The proposed project would expose residents and occupants of project facilities to a negligible level of risk associated with possible aircraft accidents at Salinas Municipal Airport. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The risk of an aircraft accident at the project site is extremely low. Accident rates for all types of aviation in the U.S. have declined in recent decades. Salinas Municipal Airport is a general aviation (GA) facility, used by piston-type single-engine and twin-engine aircraft, helicopters, and a growing number of turboprop and jet aircraft. The number of GA accidents nationally
4.1-23
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
decreased from 5,196 in 1965 to 1,989 in 1994 (U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1996). The GA accident rate in the same period has decreased from about 31 accidents per 100,000 aircraft hours flown to about nine accidents per 100,000 aircraft hours flown, and the GA fatal accident rate has decreased from about 3 per 100,000 aircraft hours flown to less than two per 100,000 aircraft hours flown.
The great majority of aircraft accidents occur during departure or arrival, and on or immediately adjacent to the runway (Caltrans, 1993). For this reason, onboard injuries and fatalities are far more common than fatalities or injuries to people on the ground. In a survey of 400 GA accidents involving 238 fatalities and 114 serious injuries, only four of the fatalities and five of the serious injuries were sustained by non-occupants of the aircraft on the ground (Caltrans, 1993). In another study of GA accidents involving objects on the ground (e.g., structures, trees), only about 18 accidents per year in the U.S. involved residences and other buildings, and of the accidents involving residences and other buildings, only about one per year in the U.S. resulted in death or serious injury (Caltrans, 1993). Thus, the risk to residents and occupants of the project over the life of the project is negligible. Given a national rate of about one fatality or serious injury to occupants of residences and other buildings per 38,000,000 GA operations annually, such accidents would occur about once every 200 years in the vicinity of Salinas Municipal Airport. 14 The probable frequency of such accidents at the project site itself would be even less.
In regard to the school site location, it is noted that the California Department of Transportation (Aeronautics Program) has analyzed the proposed site (on request by the school district and pursuant to State law). The Caltrans evaluation revealed that, although the site may be subject to some aircraft overflights, these would not present undue safety hazards or noise problems. The department thus had no objection to the school district's acquisition of the site (Gargas, 1997).
Mitigation Measure
4.1.4 None required.
14 The calculation assumes the highest activity level forecast in the 1993 Master Plan for the Airport (about 177,000 operations per year in 2010).
4.1-24
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
REFERENCES - Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation, 1996. 1992-1994 Fannland Conversion Report, June.
· Caltrans, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, December 1993, pp. 9-23, 9-27.
EMC Planning Group, 1998. Draft Precise Plan for Mountain Valley Project, February 1998.
Gargas, Daniel R., Aviation Consultant, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, letter to Alisal Union School District, October 20, 1997.
Hopkins, Bill, ALUC staff, letter, June 6, 1998, and telephone conversations, July 24 and August 15, 1997.
Lent, Randy, Appraiser, Monterey County Assessor's office, telephone conversation, May 27, 1993.
Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 1996, 1996 Crop Report.
Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), 1991. "Standards for the Evaluation of Proposals," revised December.
Monterey County Planning Department, 1986. Greater Salinas Area Plan, October.
Nutter, Richard W., Monterey County Agricultural Commission, telephone conversation, May 27, 1993.
Oliver, Brett, staff, Monterey County Agriculture Commission, telephone conversation, June 22, 1993.
Rochester, Don, Monterey County Assistant Agricultural Commissioner, letter, July 23, 1997.
City of Salinas, 1988a. Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), November 15.
City of Salinas, 1988b. Salinas General Plan. November 15 City of Salinas, 1993. Environmental Assessment for Mountain Valley, March.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1996 (in Aviation & Aerospace Almanac, 1997).
Wadell Engineering, Salinas Municipal Airport: Airport Layout Drawing, December 1996.
Wells, Arlene, Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, telephone communication, March 3, 1998.
4.1-25
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
SETTING
Regional Access
Regional access to the project area is provided via U.S. Highway 101, State Route (SR) 68 and SR 183 (Figure 11). U.S. 101 is a north-south four-lane freeway with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of between 43,000 vehicles (south of Sanborn Road) and 52,000 vehicles (north of North Main Street) in the project vicinity. The ADT reaches 63,000 vehicles between West Laurel Drive and Boronda Road, in North Salinas (Caltrans, 1997).
SR 68 (Salinas-Monterey Highway) is a four-lane roadway that connects Salinas to Monterey, looping south of Fort Ord and serving the Monterey Peninsula Airport. It has an ADT volume of about 33,000 vehicles at Blanco Road, near the southern Salinas city limit. North of Blanco Road, the ADT is 31,500 vehicles (Caltrans, 1997). SR 183 is a two-lane roadway that connects Salinas to Castroville. Through Salinas (Davis Road to U.S. 101), it is a four-lane facility. The ADT volume is 29,000 vehicles just west of the U.S. 101 interchange and 16,000 vehicles in the vicinity of the Salinas west city limit at Davis Road (Caltrans, 1997).
Local Access
Local access to the project area is provided via Williams Road, which borders the project site on the north. 1 Other nearby streets include East Alisal Street, Bardin Road, and Alisal Road, which serve the areas immediately west of the site. Three local streets - Del Monte A venue, Countryside Drive and Argentine Drive - dead-end near the project's western boundary. Each of these streets currently carries light traffic, defined as no higher than 2,000 vehicles per day and 200 vehicles in the peak hour. Williams Road is currently a four-lane arterial west of its intersection with Bardin Road, and effectively a two-lane collector east of Bardin Road in the vicinity of the project. (As part of the project, Williams Road would be widened to four lanes adjacent to the project site.) East Alisal Street is a four-lane arterial connecting downtown Salinas with eastern Salinas. Bardin Road is a four-lane minor arterial roadway from Alisal Street to Taro Avenue that primarily serves residential traffic and traffic associated with the Hartnell College East Campus. Alisal Road is a two-lane roadway that connects Salinas with 1 Because of the orientation of surrounding streets, the project site is rotated approximately 40 degrees from true north. For purposes of this report, Williams Road is considered an east-west street and Bardin Road, a north-south street. Williams Road thus forms the northern project boundary.
4.2-1
e Signalized
0 Unsignalized
S<so)luffiR:rc~E:ID:;)K~S~A~ss:oc:ia;:te-;-s ----------------------------Mountain Valley I 960352 • Figure 11
4.2-2
Study Area Intersections
and Existing Traffic Control
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
rural areas to the southeast; it turns northwest to become East Alisal Street at Bardin Elementary School.
Extension of Boronda Road and Freedom Parkway as far south as Williams Road is included in the City's General Plan and in the City of Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance (Salinas Department of Public Works, 1987). Boronda Road is ultimately planned to be extended as a six-lane arterial in the vicinity of the project in conjunction with other development projects. With the proposed project, Freedom Parkway would be extended southerly across Williams Road into the project site.
Transit Service
Transit service is currently provided by Monterey-Salinas Transit bus service. Bus 34 runs from the Salinas Transit Center in downtown Salinas to Alisal High School in East Salinas, via East Alisal Street. Bus 35 runs from the Salinas Transit Center to East Salinas, via East Market Street.
Existing Traffic Conditions
To help evaluate current traffic conditions, vehicle turning movement counts were conducted during the p.m. peak hour at nine signalized intersections and seven unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Figure 11 illustrates intersection locations and existing traffic control. The list of study intersections was developed in cooperation with the City of Salinas Public Works Department. Intersections studied were:
Si~nalized:
South Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 southbound ramps I Elvee Drive South Sanborn Road I John Street
North Sanborn Road I East Alisal Street
North Sanborn Road I East Market Street
North Sanborn Road I East Laurel Drive
East Alisal Street I Williams Road
East Market Street I Williams Road
Del Monte A venue I Williams Road
Bardin Road I Williams Road
4.2-3
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Unsignalized:
Nefth South Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 northbound ramps
East Laurel Drive I Williams Road
Garner A venue I Williams Road
Bardin Road I Countryside Drive
Bardin Road I Argentine Drive
Bardin Road I East Alisal Street
Airport Boulevard I Terven A venue
Level of service (LOS) is a common measure of traffic service to indicate the amount of congestion and delay. LOS A is free flow conditions. LOS B and C represent some intersection delay, while LOS D indicates substantial delay. LOS Dis typically considered acceptable for peak-hour periods in urban areas. LOSE is approaching or at capacity and LOS F represents conditions above capacity. For signalized intersections, level of service analysis is based on the volume of conflicting traffic movements versus the design capacity of the intersection. The resulting value is known as the volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio, and provides the LOS for the intersection as a whole. At unsignalized intersections, each traffic movement that must yield to another movement is evaluated separately and assigned a LOS. The LOS at unsignalized intersections is based on the relative ability of this yielding traffic to find adequate gaps in conflicting traffic flows. Definitions of traffic levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Appendix B, Tables B-1 and B-2, respectively. Table 4. p. 4.2-13, beffiw summarizes the intersection LOS analysis for the existing weekday p.m. peak hour condition.
In the City of Salinas, the following General Plan policies pertain to the proposed project and its traffic impacts:
5.l.A Strive to maintain traffic level of service (LOS) Cor better as the standard for all intersections and roadways in Conditional Growth Areas as mapped [in the General Plan].2
5.l.B Strive to maintain traffic level of service (LOS) D or better within the existing urban area. LOS D should be limited to one-hour peak periods (e.g., a.m., p.m., and noon peak hours), except where improvements to meet this standard would be prohibitively costly or disruptive. At such locations, accept LOS D during two-hour peak periods.2 2 The project site is within a Conditional Growth Area, as would be the future intersections of Williams Road I Freedom Parkway and Williams Road I Boulevard A and the intersections within the project site; Policy 5.l.A would apply. All other study intersections are within the Existing Urban Area; Policy 5.l.B would apply to those intersections.
4.2-4
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
For this EIR, the Circular 212 methodology was used to analyze signalized intersections operated by the City of Salinas (Transportation Research Board, 1980). For analysis of the US 101 /Sanborn Road intersections and all unsignalized "T" and 2-way stop-controlled intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual methodology was used (Transportation Research Board, 1994). These methodologies are consistent with other EIRs recently conducted for the City of Salinas, and provide reasonable estimates for evaluating existing and future traffic conditions.
Currently, each of the nine signalized intersections analyzed in this report operates at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS Cor better) during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Except for the Bardin Road intersections (at Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive and East Alisal Street), each of the seven unsignalized study intersections experiences long traffic delays (LOS F) for minor street traffic turning onto the major street during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This is not unusual for stop-controlled intersections with only a small percentage of traffic on the minor street approach.
Substantial queuing was observed during the p.m. peak hour at several locations in Salinas. Of the intersections analyzed in this report, vehicles were observed to experience long delays at the Nerlh South Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp while attempting left turns from the off-ramp onto Nerlh Sanborn Road. Due to the heavy through traffic movement on Sanborn Road, vehicles often wait several minutes before finding a suitable gap. Delays were also observed for motorists along Laurel Drive in both directions.
Il\1PACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
In general, based on the Salinas General Plan standards, the project would have a significant impact where project traffic would cause intersection LOS to deteriorate to a level worse than LOS D (i.e., LOSE or F) within the existing urban area, as shown in Figure 1 in the General Plan. Where a signalized intersection is already at LOSE or F, an increase of 0.01 or greater in volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio would be considered a significant effect. Within conditional growth areas, including the project site, the project would have a significant impact where project traffic would cause intersection LOS to deteriorate to a level worse than LOS C (i.e., LOS D, E, or F). (None of the existing study intersections are within conditional growth areas.
Two intersections to be constructed as part of the project would be within a conditional growth area.)
4.2-5
I '
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on local streets (other than intersections) if it would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Based on Salinas General Plan standards, the project would have a significant impact where project traffic would cause future local residential streets to exceed 500 to 800 vehicles per day, and future residential collector streets to exceed 3,000 vehicles per day. Del Monte Avenue, Countryside Drive and Argentine Drive would function as residential collector roadways after the project is built.
Bardin Road currently functions as a four-lane minor arterial and is not considered a residential street.
Internal Roadway Network
The project would have an internal roadway network that would connect with both existing and future roadways in East Salinas. Countryside Drive would be extended east to meet at a "T" intersection with the proposed Mountain Valley Boulevard. Argentine Drive would also be extended east to meet at a "T" intersection with Mountain Valley Boulevard. Del Monte A venue would be extended south to meet at a "T" intersection with Argentine Drive within the project site. Freedom Parkway would be extended south across Williams Road into the Mountain Valley project site, where it would intersect Mountain Valley Boulevard, Boulevard B, and also the East Alisal Street Extension. East Alisal Street would be constructed east from Alisal Road at Bardin Road to Freedom Parkway. Several local roadways also would be developed within the Mountain Valley project site (see Figure 2 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description).· Programmed Improvements
As part of the City's Traffic Fee Ordinance (Salinas Department of Public Works, 1987), several roadway and intersection improvements are planned in conjunction with development projects:
• Boronda Road, which currently extends east from U.S. 101 to Constitution Boulevard, is ultimately to be completed as a six-lane arterial from U.S. 101 to Williams Road. It will be constructed to Williams Road as a two-lane street by 2001. • Freedom Parkway, which was recently opened to public traffic between Constitution Boulevard and Williams Road.
• Williams Road will be upgraded from a two-lane arterial to a four-lane arterial east of Bardin Road, extending to Boronda Road.
• The intersections of Williams Road at Boronda Road and Williams Road at Freedom Parkway will be signalized.
4.2-6
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Several assumptions regarding the roadway network in East Salinas were made in order to perform the analysis in this report. Each of the following roadway improvements is included in the development agreement for the approved Williams Ranch project, located across Williams Road from the proposed Mountain Valley project site, and would be funded by developer fees from Williams Ranch and by funds collected as part of the City's Traffic Fee Ordinance. • The intersection of Williams Road at Boronda Road would be signalized by the time the proposed Mountain Valley development is fully occupied. • The intersection of Williams Road at Freedom Parkway would be signalized by the time the proposed Mountain Valley development is fully occupied.
As part of the proposed project, the following intersection improvement would be implemented:
• The intersection of Bardin Road at East Alisal Street would be reconfigured between East Alisal Street and Alisal Road in order to accommodate the East Alisal Street extension along the project's south boundary. As part of this improvement, the unrestricted righttum eastbound movement from East Alisal Street onto southbound Alisal Road would be modified so that vehicles would come to a stop (Higgins J\ssociates, 1997).
Trip Generation
Assumptions regarding cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed Mountain Valley project were obtained from the City of Salinas Community Development Department. 3 Table 2 lists the projects used in this analysis and Figure 12 illustrates their locations. The trip generation characteristics of the cumulative projects (i.e., approved and pending) and the proposed Mountain Valley project were determined by referencing Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and 1995) and the City's Traffic Fee Ordinance. The average weekday daily and p.m. peak-hour trip generation for each cumulative project is included in Table 3. Cumulative projects would generate a total of about 132,914 daily trips, including about 13,395 p.m. peak-hour trips.
The weekday daily and p.m. peak-hour trip generation for the proposed project is shown in Table 3, p. 4.2-10. The proposed project would generate a total of about 9,495 daily trips, including about 947 weekday p.m. peak hour trips.
3 Cumulative projects are defined as reasonably foreseeable developments that are currently under construction, approved but not under construction, or under environmental review.
4.2-7
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 2: TRIP GENERATION FOR CUMULATIVE PROJECTSa
Dailyb P.M. Peak Hourc
Size & Unit Rate No. Trips Rate Total In Out
Thrust IV
Residential - SFDU 1,600 du 10.00 16,000 1.02 1,632 1,056 576 Retail (Community) 176.0 ksf 64.00 11,264 5.34 940 470 470 Office 600.0 ksf 21.00 12,600 1.44 858 126 732
Arcadia
Residential- SFDU 120 du 10.00 1,200 1.02 122 79 43
Harden Ranch
Residential- SFDU 1,008 du 10.00 10,080 1.02 1,028 665 363 Residential- MFDU 719 due 6.00 4,314 0.69 497 288 209
Retail 53.6 ksf 41.00 2,198 5.38 288 144 144
Office 220.0 ksf 12.00 2,640 1.51 330 55 275
Schools 2,200 students 1.00 2,200 0.25 550 308 242
Parkd 20.9 acre 3.00 63 3.14 66 23 43
Williams Ranch
Residential - SFDU 1,251 du 10.00 12,510 1.02 1,276 826 450 Residential- MFDU 419 du 6.00 2,514 0.69 290 168 122
Office 55.5 ksf 12.00 666 2.17 120 20 100
Retail (Community) 255.0 ksf 64.00 16,320 4.67 1,194 597 597 Schools (2,400 students) 28.1 acre 60.00 1,686 0.25 600 336 264 Parkd 47.35 acre 3.00 142 3.14 149 52 97
Institution 3.0 ksf 5.00 15 1.08 3 0 3
Westridge
Regional Discount Retail 493.35 ksf 36.00 18,249 3.33 1,638 868 770 Hotel 250 rooms 8.60 2,143 0.76 190 107 83
Mini-Storage 40.0 ksf 2.40 94 0.28 II 6 5
Williams!Bardin Shopping
Center
Retail (Community) 103.4 ksf 64.00 6,618 6.48 670 335 335 Auto Center
Auto Center Phases 1 & 2 f ~ f _ill 434 509
TOTAL 132,914 13,395 6,963 6,432
a Approved and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects list provided by City of Salinas Department of Community Development. (Other approved projects, such as Rossi-Rico, Madison Lane Commercial and Steinbeck Sq'uare, are not included here as they b
would not affect the Mountain Valley Project study area intersection and roadways.) Daily trips rates based on City of Salinas, Traffic Fee Ordinance, 1987; Westridge daily trips based Westridge Center FEIR, City of Salinas, 1994. c PM Peak Hour trip rates based on ITE, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. d Trip rates for parks differ between City TFO and ITE. ITE numbers used in analysis of p.m. peak-hour traffic produces conservative analysis.
e EIR analysis assumed 719 multi-family dwelling units to provide a conservative analysis. The revised Harden Ranch development may have fewer units.
f Trip generation data for Auto Center from Salinas Auto Center FEIR, City of Salinas, June 1997. ksf = Thousand Square Feet
du = Dwelling Unit (mf =multi-family; sf= single family) SOURCES: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Ed., 1991; Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance; DKS Assoc.
4.2-8
1. Thrust IV
2. Salinas Auto
3. Arcadia
4. Harden Ranch
5. Williams Ranch
6. Westridge Project
7. Williams/Bardin Shopping Center
.s;;,o;;;UTIR~C;:E::-: -;D~K~S~A:ss:oc:ia:::te~s-----,---------------------------Mountain Valley /960352 • Figure 12.
4.2-9
Location of Approved
and Pending Projects
. I
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Project Daily Trips3
Component Land Use Size Unit Rate
Phase 1 Residential - SFDU 204 du 10.00
Phase 2 Residential- SFDU 153 du 10.00
Phase 3 Residential - SFDU 148 du 10.00
Phase 4 Residential - SFDU 88 du 10.00
Phase 5 Residential - SFDU 142 du 10.00
Phase 6 Residential - SFDU 118 du 10.00
Parks Community/ 21.5 acre 3.00
Neighborhood
School Elementary 900 students 1.00
Totals
a
b
ADT trip rates based on City of Salinas, Traffic Fee Ordinance, 1987.
PM Peak Hour trip based on ITE, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991.
SFDU =Single-Family Dwelling Unit
Trips
2,040
1,530
1,480
880
1,420
1,180
65 900
9,495
PM Peak Hourb
Total In Out
208 135 73
156 101 55
151 98 53
90 58 32
145 94 51
120 78 42
68 24 44
_2 _2 _A
947 593 354
SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Ed., 1991; Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance; DKS Associates
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution pattern assumptions for cumulative projects and the proposed project were based on the Williams Ranch Planned Community Precise Plan EIR (City of Salinas, 1991), and the Westridge Center EIR (City of Salinas, 1994). The patterns were reviewed with City staff and compared with other recent traffic studies for consistency, and incorporated in this analysis.
Figure 13 shows trip distribution patterns for the proposed Mountain Valley project. About 70 percent of project-generated trips (all residential) would begin and end in Salinas; others would have origins or destinations outside the City.
Trip Assignment
Trips generated by cumulative projects and the proposed Mountain Valley project were assigned to the street network along the most reasonable paths based on the distribution indicated in Figure 13. Traffic assignment was done with the assistance of the TRAFFIX traffic impact model, using logical paths and route choices. In cases where more than one reasonable route was
4.2-10
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS- PM PEAK~ ~,;)! ~· Existing+
Proposed
Project
(Mitigated)
Existing + Existing +
Existing+
Proposed
Project
Proposed Project +
Existing
Conditions
Project+ Cumulative
Cumulative wl Mitigation
Study Intersections v1ca LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS Signalized Intersections
S. S'nb'rn Rd/US 101 SB Rmpd
No. Sanborn Rd I John Street
No. Sanborn Rd I E. Alisal Str
No. Sanborn Rd I E. Market St
No. Sanborn Rd I E. Laurel Dr
Williams Rd!E. Alisal St/John St
Williams Rd I E. Market Street
Williams Rd I Del Monte Ave.
Williams Rd I Bardin Road
Williams Rd I Freedom Blvd
Unsignalized lntersectionsc
S,. S'nb'rn Rd/US 101 NB Rmpg
Williams Rd I E. Laurel Drive..,..
Williams Rd I Garner A venue
Bardin Rd I Countryside Drive
Bardin Rd I Argentine Drive
Bardin Rd I E. Alisal Street
Airport Blvd I Terven Avenuee
Williams Rd I Boulevard A
14.9 0.46
0.53 0.62
0.48 0.47
0.42 0.34
0.33 b
b
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
F
F
F
B
B
B
F
Bold-face text indicated unacceptable Level of Service.
15.8 0.53
0.58 0.65
0.54 0.53
0.48 0.35
0.53 0.19
0.76 c
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
F
F
F
c
B
c
c
F
10.0 0.32
0.30 0.76
0.42 B
A
A
c
A
21.5 0.79
0.92 0.85
0.76 0.87
0.60 0.56
0.61 0.57
0.81 c
A
B
A
0.65 F, 27.5
F 0.58
F 0.71
c
B
c
D 0.81
F 0.67
a
b
V/C =Volume-to-Capacity ratio (basis of LOS determination for signalized intersections), as measured by Circular 212 methodology (Transportation Research Board, 1980), except Sanborn/U.S. 101 Ramps; see note "d" below. See Appendix B for level of service definitions. c
d
e
Intersection does not exist in current conditions; proposed as part of Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance.
Unsignalized intersection level of service designation reflects conditions for the movement with the worst level of service (typically left-turns from the minor street onto the major street). LOS determination by use of Highway Capacity Manual methodology (Transportation Research Board, 1994).
Intersection calculated by 1994 Highway Capacity Manual operations methodology, using average delay per vehicle to determine level of service. This intersection is operated by Cal trans District 5 and was analyzed using an operations methodology that is consistent with Caltrans requirements. Numbers in "v/c" column represent average vehicle delay in seconds.
Signal installation to be complete in summer 1998.
SOURCE: DKS Associates
4.2-13
B
D
A
c
D
B
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
It should be noted that breaks in traffic resulting from operation of the traffic signal at the nearby intersection of Sanborn Road and the U.S. 101 southbound ramps could allow for left-turns from the northbound ramps with less delay than is calculated as part of this analysis. Therefore, conditions projected in this analysis may be conservative. The project is not projected to add traffic to the left-turn volumes, but would add to traffic volumes on Sanborn Road, thereby reducing gaps in cross traffic and substantially increasing calculated delays for left-turning vehicles. As a result, drivers could attempt unsafe turning movements without adequate clearance in cross-traffic, or choose another route. As previously noted, the calculated delay could be conservative due to the presence of a nearby signal. Further, these long delays would be experienced by less than 2 percent of the traffic at the intersection. The project contribution to this impact would be negligible. Cumulative plus project-generated traffic would further increase delays.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.1a No TFO project is planned for the intersection of North South Sanborn Road and U.S.lOl Northbound Ramps. With the addition of traffic from the proposed project, the intersection would satisfy a Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant. Other warrants and conditions, however, should be considered before a traffic signal is installed, such as pedestrian and vehicular safety, distance between adjacent intersections, and accident history (Caltrans, 1992). The project sponsor shall be required to fund a proportionate share of intersection improvements, based on the project's contribution to the impact.
Once the intersection is signalized, the intersection would operate at LOS B (average delay= 10.0 sec.) with the proposed project, and at LOS D (average delay= 27.5 sec.) with cumulative development plus the proposed project. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to aless-than-significant level.
Because there is no identified funding source that would completely fund this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. For reference, Table 5, p. 4.2-19, provides the project's contribution to traffic volumes at each study intersection. This information can be used as one measure in assessing the project's fair share contribution towards the cost of a new traffic signal. New traffic signals typically cost about $150,000. ·
4.2.1b: Williams Road I East Laurel Drive. The proposed project would cause the minor street turn movement at the unsignalized intersection of Williams Road and East Laurel Drive, currently operating at LOS F, to experience increased delays in the future,
4.2-14
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Existing southbound vehicles on Laurel Drive turning left onto Williams Road (about 70 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour, or about 4 percent of total intersection volume) experience an average of about 90 seconds delay per vehicle. With a projected increase of more than 100 additional left-turning vehicles due to project traffic and reduced gaps in cross traffic due to project-generated increased volumes on Williams Road, calculated average delays for this movement would increase substantially. As a result, drivers could attempt unsafe turning movements without adequate clearance in cross-traffic, or choose another route. It should be noted that breaks in traffic resulting from operation of the traffic signal at the nearby intersection of Williams Road and East Market Street could allow for left-turns from Laurel Drive with less delay than calculated for this analysis. Therefore, conditions projected in this analysis may be conservative. The lengthy delays would be experienced by about 8 percent of total intersection traffic under existing-plus-project conditions. Cumulative plus project-generated traffic would further increase delays. This would be a significant impact in that project traffic and traffic from cumulative development would contribute measurably to an existing unacceptable level of service.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.lb No TFO project is planned for the intersection of Williams Road and East Laurel Drive. With the addition of traffic from the proposed project, the intersection would satisfy a Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant. Other warrants and conditions, however, should be considered before a traffic signal is installed, such as pedestrian and vehicular safety, distance between adjacent intersections, and accident history (Caltrans, 1992), The project sponsor shall be required to fund a proportionate share of intersection improvements, based on the project's contribution to the impact.
Once the intersection is signalized, the intersection would operate at LOS A (v/c = 0.32) with the proposed project, and at LOS A (v/c = 0.58) with cumulative development plus the proposed project. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level.
Because there is no identified funding source that would completely fund this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. For reference, Table 5, p. 4.2-19, provides the project's contribution to traffic volumes at each study intersection.
Alternatives to traffic signalization also exist, but would require further study by the City before implementation, and are therefore not recommended at this time. These alternatives include reducing the number of streets with access to Williams Road, creating streets with right turn in -right turn out access only on Williams Road, including
4.2-15
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
a median on Williams Road to enforce the left turn restrictions. These measures may be somewhat more cost effective than new traffic signals, and would allow better progression between traffic signals that are in close proximity to one another.
4.2.1c: Williams Road I Garner A venue. The proposed project would cause the minor street turn movement at the unsignalized intersection of Williams Road and Garner A venue, currently operating at LOS F, to experience increased delays in the future, during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Existing southbound vehicles on Laurel Drive Garner A venue turning left onto Williams Road (about 70 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour, or about 5 percent of total intersection volume) experience LOS F conditions. The project is not projected to add traffic to the left-tum volumes, but would add to traffic volumes on Williams Road, thereby reducing gaps in cross traffic and substantially increasing calculated delays for left-turning vehicles. As a result, drivers could attempt unsafe turning movements without adequate clearance in cross-traffic, or choose another route.
It should be noted that breaks in traffic resulting from operation of the traffic signal at the nearby intersection of Williams Road and Bardin Road could allow for left-turns from Garner A venue with less delay than calculated in this analysis. Therefore, conditions projected in this analysis may be conservative. The lengthy delays would be experienced by about 3 percent of total intersection traffic under existing-plus-project conditions. Cumulative plus project-generated traffic would further increase delays.
This would be a significant impact in that project traffic and traffic from cumulative development would contribute measurably to an existing unacceptable level of service.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.1c No TFO project is planned for the intersection of Williams Road and Garner A venue. With the addition of traffic from the proposed project, the intersection would satisfy a Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant. Other warrants and conditions, however, should be considered before a traffic signal is installed, such as pedestrian and vehicular safety, distance between adjacent intersections, and accident history (Caltrans, 1992). The project sponsor shall be required to fund a proportionate share of intersection improvements, based on the project's contribution to the impact.
Once the intersection is signalized, the intersection would operate at LOS A (v/c = 0.30) with the proposed project, and at LOS C (v/c = 0.71) with cumulative development plus the proposed project. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level.
4.2-16
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Because there is no identified funding source that would completely fund this mitigation measure, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. For reference, Table 5, p. 4.2-19, provides the project's contribution to traffic volumes at each study intersection.
4.2.ld.: Airport Boulevard I Terven A venue. The proposed project would cause the minor street tum movement at the unsignalized intersection of Airport Boulevard and Terven A venue, currently operating at LOS F, to experience increased delays in the future, during the weekday p.m. peak hour. However, the City has secured funding for the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, and also at the Airport -De La Torre intersection. Those projects are designed and currently under construction. These signals are expected to be completed by summer of 1998, and are fully funded. Once the intersection is signalized, the intersection would operate at LOS C (v/c = 0.75) prior to other development, at LOS C (v/c = 0.76) with the proposed project, and at LOS D (v/c = 0.81) with cumulative plus the proposed project. This would be a less-thansignificant impact.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.ld None required.
Impact 4.2.2: Project-generated traffic would result in an unacceptable level of service for the minor street turn movement at the future unsignalized intersection of Williams Road and Boulevard A, constructed as part of the project. This would be a significant impact.
4.2.2: Williams Road I Boulevard A. Project-generated traffic would cause the minor street tum movement at Williams Road I Boulevard A to operate at LOS F during the weekday p.m. peak hour.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.2 No TFO project is planned for the intersection of Williams Road and Boulevard A.
The project sponsor shall install a traffic signal at the intersection prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
With the addition of traffic from the proposed project, the intersection would satisfy a Caltrans peak-hour signal warrant. With signalization, the intersection would operate at LOS A (v/c = 0.42) with the proposed project, and (LOS B (v/c = 0.67) with cumulative development plus the proposed project.
4.2-17
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
The project sponsor shall be responsible for the design of the intersection, including signal timing and locations, to the satisfaction of the Salinas Public Works Department.
Issues that will require consideration include school bus turning radii, pedestrian crosswalks, drop-off maneuvers at Alisal High School, and potential backups on Williams Road near the school driveways.
Implementation of the above measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 4.2.3: The project, along with cumulative development, would result in a deterioration in the level of service at the signalized intersection of Sanborn Road and Alisal Street. This would be a significant cumulative impact.
Sanborn Road I Alisal Street. The proposed project would cause the intersection of North Sanborn Road and East Alisal Street to degrade incrementally from LOS A (v/c =
0.53) at present to LOS A (v/c = 0.58) with traffic from the proposed project, during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Project-generated traffic would not cause any change in the level of service.
With traffic from cumulative development, the intersection would degrade to LOS E (v/c = 0.92).This would be a significant cumulative impact, resulting from additional traffic generated by approved and planned development.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.3 No mitigation is required for the project impact. Mitigation of the cumulative impact could be achieved by providing a second eastbound left turn lane from East Alisal Street onto northbound North Sanborn Road unless additional study does not confirm the need for the additional turn lane.
With the mitigation measure, the intersection would operate at LOS B (v/c = 0.65) with cumulative development, and with the proposed project. Implementation of this measure would reduce the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level.
Because there is no identified funding source that would completely fund this mitigation measure, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. For reference, Table 5, p. 4.2-19, provides the project's contribution to traffic volumes at each study intersection.
4.2-18
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 5: PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO STUDY INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Exist.+ Cumul. Total
Existing Exist. Project +Project Project Signif. Cumul. Total + Proj. Signif. Mitigation Mit. Mitigation Intersection Volume LOS Volume Volume LOS Impact? Volume Volume LOS Impact? Measure LOS Cost Signali?:,ed Intersections
Sanborn/US 101 SB 2,163 B 138 2,301 c No 1,108 3,409 c No nla nla nla SanborniJohn 2,413 A 309 2,722 A No 839 3,561 c No nla nla nla Sanbornl Ali sal 3,250 A 135 3,385 A No 1,128 4,513 E Cumul. Restripe B $50,000 SanborniMarket 2,993 B 44 3,037 B No 1,340 4,377 D No nla nla nla SanborniLaurel 3,066 A 164 3,230 A No 1,300 4,530 c No nla nla nla Williams/ Alisal/John 1,745 A 444 2,189 A No 837 3,026 D No nla nla nla Williams/Market 1,737 A 453 2,190 A No 946 3,136 A No nla nla nla Williams/Del Monte 1,233 A 184 1,417 A No 1,380 2,797 A No nla nla nla Williams/Bardin 1,674 A 599 2,273 A No 1,012 3,285 B No nla nla nla Williams/Freedom 597 nla 309 906 A No 1,212 2,118 A No nla nla nla Unsignalized Intersections
Sanborn/US 101 NB 2,776 F 175 2,951 F No 1,099 4,050 F Cumul. Signal D $150,000 Williams/Laurel 1,619 F 599 2,218 F Yes 1,013 3,231 F Cumul. Signal A $150,000 Williams/Gamer 1,482 F 599 2,081 F Yes 1,012 3,093 F Cumul. Signal c $150,000 BardiniCountryside 638 B 415 1,053 c No 0 1,053 c No nla nla nla Bardinl Argentine 575 B 109 684 B No 0 684 B No nla nla nla Bardinl Ali sal 773 B 48 821 c No 0 821 c No nla nla nla Airport/Terven fbi 1,910 F 14 1,924 D No 0 1,924 D No nla D nla Williams/Blvd A lei 1,808 nla 251 2,059 F Yes 1,380 3,439 F Yes Signal B $150,000 Ia! Project Mitigation Cost based on estimate of $150,000 for installation of traffic signaL fbi Signal to be installed by summer 1998.
lei Intersection would not exist until construction of project; therefore, project must bear full cost of mitigation.
SOURCE: DKS Associates
4.2-19
Project Project
Percent of Mitigation
Total Vol. Cost/a/
4.0% nla
8.7% nla
3.0% $1,496
1.0% nla
3.6% nla
14.7% nla
14.4% nla
6.6% nla
18.2% nla
14.6% nla
4.3% $6,481
18.5% $27,809
19.4~ $29,049
39.4% nla
15.9% nla
5.8% nla
0.7% nla
nla $150,000
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Trip Reduction Ordinance
Pursuant to Section 3 7-165.1 of the Salinas Municipal Code, the project sponsor has proposed several trip reduction measures designed to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles associated with the Mountain Valley development. The purpose and intent of the trip reduction program is to conform with air quality and congestion management mandates, implement General Plan policies, support transit regional goals, and achieve a 1.6 percent per year vehicle trip reduction and/or a 60 percent drive alone rate. A Facilities Trip Reduction Plan is required for all new residential developments of more than 25 units. (The traffic analysis in this EIR did not assume a reduction in vehicle trips attributable to a trip reduction plan, in order to provide a conservative analysis.)
Of the 14 measures that may be required by the City of Salinas in order to meet the trip reduction goals, the following 6 would have the most affect on reducing vehicle trips at a new residential development:
1. Provision of ridesharing/transit and child care information to buyers as part of move-in materials
2. Bicycle amenities, such as bicycle racks and bicycle lanes on roadways
3. Bus pull-outs, pedestrian access, transit stops, shelters and amenities as part of the site plan
4. Transportation information at kiosks
5. Pedestrian facilities linking transit stops and common areas
6. Transit and/or pedestrian oriented design
The project sponsor, as part of their Precise Plan, completed a Facilities Trip Reduction Plan Application. The Mountain Valley Trip Reduction Plan includes each of the first five elements listed above. Item 6 would require that a portion of the units be higher density housing. By taking the allowable reduction percentages, the Mountain Valley project may achieve a total of a
7.5 percent reduction in vehicle trips.
These measures could lead to a 1.6 percent per year trip reduction, which would level off at
7.5 percent. Implementation of these measures, collectively, would reduce vehicle trips, but would not change traffic congestion levels in the City of Salinas. Congestion relief would require many more people using transit (much higher transit mode share), less free parking at work sites anxd other locations, and provision of more services (shopping, medical, recreational,
4.2-20
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
school, etc.) within walking distance. While every measure listed above is an important contributing factor to reducing vehicle trips, overall traffic congestion relief is a regional issue as much as a citywide issue, and requires the efforts of many entities. The actual success of the project's Trip Reduction Plan would depend on a number of elements, including future increases in transit service, availability of employment opportunities accessible by transit and/or bicycle, provision of goods and services in proximity to residences, and other factors.
Freeway Impacts
Impact 4.2.4: Project-generated traffic would increase freeway volumes in the peak direction by less than one percent during the p.m. peak hour, and would not result in any change in level of service or substantial increases in delay or congestion. Cumulative development would cause the U.S. 101 freeway, in the segment north of N6rilt Sanborn Road, to degrade from LOS D to LOS E in the peak (northbound) direction during the p.m. peak hour. This would be a less-than-significant project impact, and a significant cumulative impact, to which the project would not make a substantial contribution.
The Transportation Agency of Monterey County, which also serves as the County's Congestion Management Agency (CMA), is responsible for monitoring service levels along the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway network. The CMP network includes all state highways (U.S. 101, SR 68 and SR 183 in Salinas), as well as North Main Street, Market Street ftftcl Davis Road, Blanco Road. South Sanborn Road. Boronda Road. Laurel Drive. Natividad Drive.
Sherwood Drive. and Alisal Street in Salinas. The intersection LOS analysis presented above can be used to assess service levels along Market Street between Williams Road and Nerth South Sanborn Road. The freeway LOS analysis presented in this section shows service levels along u.s: 101. As determined by the County CMA, LOS Dis the established minimum acceptable service level for U.S. 101 through Salinas.
Table 6 shows freeway mainline traffic volumes and levels of service along U.S. 101, using the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1994).
As shown in Table 6, cumulative development would increase existing peak-direction traffic volumes by about 28 percent in the freeway segment between Nerth South Sanborn Road and John Street, and the p.m. peak-hour level of service would drop from LOS D to LOS E. Projectgenerated traffic would add less than a one percent increase in existing freeway traffic volumes along this LOSE segment, and less than one percent of the existing freeway capacity (estimated at 4,000 vehicles per hour for two lanes).
4.2-21
)
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
TABLE 6: PM PEAK HOUR FREEWAY ANALYSIS
Existing+ Existing +
Proposed Proposed Project
Existing Project + Cumulative
Freeway Segment Vol. Los a Vol. LOS Vol. LOS
US 101 betw. N6rtfi South Sanborn Road NB 2,763 D 2,794 D 3,559 E and John Street SB 1,548 B 1,607 c 2,040 c
US 101 betw. Airport Boulevard NB 2,698 D 2,718 D 3,112 D and Nertn South Sanborn Road SB 1,900 c 1,920 c 2,282 c US 101 south of Airport Boulevard NB 1,625 B 1,643 c 2,034 c SB 875 A 885 B 1,246 B
Bold-face text indicated unacceptable Level of Service. a LOS= level of service, as defined in Chapter 3 of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, 1994.
Vol.= total volume in each direction
SOURCE: DKS Associates
Although not related to the Mountain Valley project, development on the Shipper's site and Ottone Business Park in central Salinas has been conditioned on construction of a four-lane street (Work Street) between John Street and Sanborn Road, parallel to U.S. 101. Approximately one-half of this street has been constructed and the other half is expected to be completed by late 1998. Completion of this roadway will provide a street connection (minimum two-lane width) from Alisal Street to Airport Boulevard, parallel to the freeway. This facility will include traffic signals at all major streets (Alisal Street, John Street, Sanborn Road and Airport Boulevard) and will provide improved access for local street without the need to use U.S. 101.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.4 No project mitigation measure would be required.
The mitigation measure for the cumulative impact would be the addition of a third freeway lane in each direction along U.S. 101 in Salinas, which would be consistent with the City's General Plan and reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.2-22
Neighborhood Impacts
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Impact 4.2.5a: Project-generated traffic would increase the daily weekday traffic volumes on Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive and Del Monte A venue as follows:
Countryside Drive, from about 1,000 to about 2,800 daily vehicle trips.
Argentine Drive, from about 1,000 to about 2,200 daily vehicle trips.
Del Monte A venue, from about 1,000 to about 2,200 daily vehicle trips.
This would be a less-than-significant project impact, as these residential collector street volumes would not exceed General Plan standards.
Because the proposed Mountain Valley project is adjacent to existing residential areas, the potential for cut-through traffic would be created. Motorists would use Del Monte A venue, Countryside Drive and Argentine Drive to access Bardin Road and Williams Road. Intersection capacity analysis indicated that traffic service levels would not create a significant impact along Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive or Del Monte Avenue.
Although traffic volumes would increase along these residential streets, overall traffic conditions would be considered light to moderate. Residents and visitors would be expected to be able to cross streets safely and maneuver in and out of driveways with little difficulty. The significance threshold for local residential collector streets is a daily volume of 3,000 vehicles. The project would not exceed this threshold. In addition. the project sponsor would include traffic calming features as part of the project's street design.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.5a None required. However, to reduce further local traffic impacts of the proposed project, the City eould require that the project sponsor would incorporate neighborhood traffic safety measures into the design of the proposed project.
Traffic calming measures could be incorporated into the site design and the interface between the project site and the adjacent existing neighborhood. Measures that should be considered include speed humps and speed tables, narrowing of streets (e.g., constrictors, curb extenders, etc.), partial street diverters, stop signs, and landscaping elements that are aimed at slowing down and/or diverting traffic to the outer arterial roadways (East Alisal and Freedom Parkway). The traffic calming measures, combined with enforcement of traffic laws, would be aimed at protecting the neighborhood along Argentine Drive, Countryside Drive and Del Monte A venue from additional vehicles generated by the Mountain Valley project.
4.2-23
I !
I
r
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
With the extension of Freedom Parkway along the eastern perimeter of the Mountain Valley site and East Alisal Street along the south, motorists would tend to use those collector roadways, rather than Del Monte A venue, Countryside Drive and Argentine Drive. Traffic cannot be entirely eliminated from the residential streets, but perimeter local arterial roadways would result in less traffic intrusion into the adjacent neighborhood than would otherwise occur.
Impact 4.2.5b: If Del Monte A venue were not used as an access route between Williams Road and the proposed project, project-generated traffic would increase the daily weekday traffic volumes on Countryside Drive, and possibly Argentine Drive, beyond the threshold for local residential collector streets of 3,000 vehicles per day. This would be a significant impact.
The project originally proposed the extension of Del Monte A venue into the project site, along with extensions of Countryside and Argentine Drives. During a neighborhood meeting on September 20, 1997, a group of neighbors indicated their support for extending both Countryside and Argentine, but wanted to "close" Del Monte in a cul-de-sac with only pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site. The Precise Plan was revised to reflect this change; however, the project description in the EIR continues to reflect Del Monte's extension into the project site (the staff-supported option).
If Del Monte were not available as a third access and egress route, most of the approximately 1,200 project-generated vehicles that would have used Del Monte would instead use Countryside Drive. Some vehicles might shift to Argentine Drive or to another route through the project site (e.g., Boulevard "A" or Freedom Parkway), but the proximity of Countryside Drive to Del Monte A venue and the fact that Countryside would provide the shortest route to Williams Road makes it likely that most Del Monte vehicles would shift to Countryside.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.5b Implementation of traffic calming measures such as those identified in Measure 4.2.5a ~ would reduce traffic volumes on Countryside Drive and, potentially, Argentine Drive. However, it is unlikely that volumes on Countryside Drive would be reduced below the 3,000-vehicles-per-day threshold, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
4.2-24
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Pedestrian, Transit. Bicycle, and Parking Impacts
No significant impacts to pedestrian safety are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways will be incorporated into the development. Pedestrian crossing buttons would be incorporated into all new traffic signal installations.
The incorporation of pedestrian paths between residential areas and school and park facilities would contribute to pedestrian safety, and would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan.
Such measures would also be consistent with the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance.
Impact 4.2.6: Project-generated transit ridership, along with project and cumulative traffic on Williams Road, could impede transit service on Williams Road.
The project would not be expected to result in transit ridership that could not be accommodated, as Monterey-Salinas Transit already provides service along Williams Road in the vicinity of the proposed site. However, with increased traffic on Williams Road and increased transit ridership to and from the site, buses could have difficulty maneuvering in and out of traffic.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.6 The project sponsor shall construct a bus turnout on the project's Williams Road frontage to meet the requirements of Monterey-Salinas Transit.
The Precise Plan indicates that the project's widening of the Williams Road right-of-way would include a 30-foot greenway that would be "wide enough to construct a bus turnout should Monterey-Salinas Transit determine that volume warrants its construction." The project sponsor shall consult with Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), and if MST determines that a bus turnout is required, the sponsor shall construct a turnout as part of the Phase 2 project construction. Additional bus turnouts shall be installed by the sponsor as deemed necessary by Monterey-Salinas Transit and the City of Salinas.
It is not anticipated that the project would result in significant bicycle use impacts. The proposed project would include Class II bicycle lanes on the Freedom Parkway Extension, East Alisal Street Extension, Mountain Valley Boulevard and Boulevard "A." To encourage increased bicycle use, the City could provide bicycle racks or lockers and shower facilities at the
4.2-25
1---
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
park facilities. Incorporation of the above measures would be consistent with the Salinas General Plan and the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance.
Because the proposed project would consist entirely of residences, a school, and a park, no significant parking impacts are anticipated. The project would comply with the Salinas Zoning Code requirement of two covered parking spaces per single-farnlly unit (City of Salinas, 1993).
It is expected that, with the addition of driveway parking and on-street parking, no parking overflow problems will occur.
Construction Impacts
Impact 4.2.7: Construction traffic could access the Mountain Valley site via Del Monte A venue, Argentine Drive and Countryside Drive. The additional trucks, delivery vehicles and other construction related trips will add vehicles to local residential collector roadways throughout the construction phases. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
4.2.7 No mitigation is required. However, to avoid disruption oflocal traffic during construction, the City could prohibit access via Del Monte, Argentine, and Countryside. Prior to the start of grading or construction, acceptable access (as determined by the City Public Works Department) could be required to be provided via Williams Road and/or Alisal Street extension. In addition, the project sponsor could be required to prepare, before the start of construction, a construction mitigation plan that, at a minimum, considers:
• The number of truck trips;
• Time of day and location of any street closures;
• Time of day arrival and departure of trucks;
• Lirnltations on the size and type of trucks;
• Provision of a truck staging area, with lirnltations on the number of trucks that can be waiting;
• Provision of a truck circulation pattern;
• Mobile office placement and associated parking;
• Manual traffic control when necessary;
• Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures and construction activity;
4.2-26
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
• Provisions for pedestrian safety;
• Relocation ofMST Transit Bus stops, if necessary.
Cumulative Impacts
This section provides a qualitative discussion of potential projects that may adversely affect traffic service levels through.out the City of Salinas. Cumulative traffic impacts are analyzed above for the intersections that would be affected by project traffic, and are included in Table 4.
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County is currently in the process of preparing a North Salinas Traffic Study. As part of that work effort, year 2015 traffic modeling is being conducted that includes segments of U.S. 101 north of Laurel Drive, as well as other roadways throughout North Salinas. Because the proposed Mountain Valley project is located in southeast Salinas, the project's anticipated impacts would be located mostly south of Constitution Boulevard and east of Natividad Road, and therefore would not correspond to the study area for the North Salinas Traffic Study. Only the project traffic that would use Boronda Road to travel to and from North Salinas would affect the North Salinas Traffic Study Area.
The Salinas Auto Center Draft EIR analyzed transportation impacts for the year 2015 cumulative condition. The analysis was based largely on General Plan buildout in Salinas. The analysis in this report, however, uses a detailed approved projects list, which in turn provides a more conservative analysis of transportation impacts, as more trips were added to the roadway system under this analysis. (Revisions, General Plan Amendments, and annexations have resulted in more traffic being forecast in Salinas than was assumed under the General Plan analysis.) REFERENCES - Traffic and Circulation
Caltrans, 1992. Traffic Manual, Chapter 9, Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant.
Caltrans, 1997. 1996 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways.
Higgins Associates (traffic consultant for Mountain Valley project applicant), 1997. correspondence with DKS Associates (traffic consultant for this EIR), July 10.
4.2-27
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.2 Traffic and Circulation
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. Trip Generation, 5th Edition; and February 1995 Update to the 5th Edition.
Salinas Department of Public Works, 1987. "Traffic Fees - Cost Estimates and Fee Schedule," revised October 26.
City of Salinas, 1991. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Williams Ranch Planned Community Precise Plan, prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates with DKS Associates, February ..
City of Salinas, 1993. Salinas Zoning Code (Chapter 37, Salinas Municipal Code) [includes Trip Reduction Ordinance]. Article IV, Division 18, Schedule A pertains to off-street parking and loading requirements.
City of Salinas, 1994. Draft EIR- Westridge Center, Prepared by EDAW. January.
City of Salinas, 1997. Draft EIR- Salinas Auto Center, Prepared by Nichols Berman.
Transportation Research Board, 1980. Transportation Research Circular 212.
Transportation Research Board, 1994. Special Report f-09- Highway Capacity Manual.
4.2-28
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
SETTING
Public Services
Schools
The City of Salinas is served by four school districts. The project site would be within the Alisal Union Elementary School District and the Salinas Union High School District, both currently operating near or beyond permanent capacity and using temporary facilities to accommodate the overflow.
The Alisal Union Elementary School District operates eight elementary schools (Grades K-6).
The enrollment of 6,466 elementary school students in the school district in 1996-1997 made up 97 percent of the district's permanent and temporary capacity of 6,560 students (Hausrath, 1998). Bardin Elementary School is located contiguous to the project site to the southwest, and Alisal Elementary is located northwest of the site on Williams Road.
The Salinas· Union High School District operates three middle schools. The 1996-1997 school year enrollment of 3,598 junior high students fills approximately 95 percent of combined permanent and temporary capacity of 3,780 junior high school students (Hausrath, 1998). The nearest existing middle school to the project site is El Sausal Middle School, located approximately one mile west of the site. A fourth site is planned in the Williams Ranch on Sanborn Road at Paseo Grande Way.
The Salinas Union High School District also operates four high schools. The 1996-1997 enrollment of7,310 high school students uses approximately 99 percent of the combined permanent and temporary capacity of7,370 high school students (Hausrath, 1998). Alisal High School is the nearest high school, across Williams Road and north of the project site.
Police
The Salinas Police Department maintains its headquarters in the Civic Center complex on Lincoln Avenue, approximately 3.25 miles west of the project site. The Police Department employs 150 sworn officers, including two positions paid for by a federal grant (Wilson, 1998).
The current level of service is 1.22 officers per 1,000 persons, based on a resident population of
4.3-1
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
123,.3_00; and 1.09 officers per 1,000 persons, based on a service population of 135,600,1 a ratio which is relatively low among California cities (Wilson, 1998).
The project site is within Beat 11 (of 12), an area that has seen considerable gang-related activity in recent years, particularly north of the site along Sanborn Road. The Williams Ranch project, now under construction across Williams Road from the project site, is also in Beat 11 (Wilson, 1998).
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service
The project site is within the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District service area, but would be served directly by the Salinas Fire Department after annexation to the City.
The Salinas Fire Department operates a total of five stations and has a total of 79 firefighters.
The department aims to maintain a 3-5 minute response time, although the General Plan specifies a targeted 6.5-7.5 minutes response time. The City has a service standard of approximately 9,200 housing units per station (Hausrath, 1998). Firefighters are trained to provide emergency medical assistance, and American Medical Response is under contract to provide emergency medical transport services.
Currently, the nearest fire station to the project site is Station No.4 at 308 Williams Road, about
1.0 mile from the project site. A new fire station, Station No. 5, is to be built within the Williams Ranch project about 0.75 miles northwest the project site. Station No. 5 is included in the City's current six-year Capital Improvement Program. However, funds have not been allocated for construction of the new fire station, and construction may not occur before 2000.
The existing Station No. 4 would provide secondary response to the project site.
Libraries
The City of Salinas maintains a library system comprising ef the Salinas Main (John Steinbeck) Library, El Gabilan Branch Library, and the Cesar Chavez (formerly Santa Lucia) Branch Library, the nearest branch, at the northeast comer of Bardin Way and Williams Road, approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the project site. Because the library administration is 1 The service population is based on the projected 1997 resident population of 123,300 plus one-fourth of the Salinas employment (Hausrath, 1997).
4.3-2
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
centralized and materials are transferred routinely among the three libraries, all library materials essentially are accessible to the public at all branches.
The library system currently has a total of 42,753 square feet of space. This represents
0.35 square feet per person. Planned expansion of the El Gabilan library would bring the space standard to 0.43 square feet per person (Hausrath, 1998).
Parks and Recreation
The existing developed park acreage in the City of Salinas consists of approximately 236 acres of community and neighborhood parks to serve the City's 1997 population of approximately 123,300 people (Hausrath, 1998). This represents a ratio of approximately 1.9 acres per 1,000 residents, less than the General Plan standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents (City of Salinas, 1988).
The seven.acre Closter Community Park, with facilities for basketball, tennis, baseball, soccer, football, and picnicking, is located approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the project site.
Smaller parks such as the 0.5-acre Gabilan Play Lot and the 0. 75-acre tot lot, each about 0.1 mile from the project site, are geared toward young children in the neighborhood. A 64-acre community I open space park (Natividad Creek Park) is being developed as part of the Williams Ranch development to the north (the first phase has been recently completed). Salinas also operates nine community centers for meetings, exhibits and other public gatherings and recreational activities. East Salinas is currently served by the Firehouse Recreation Center on Alisal Street and the Breadbox Recreation Center on Sanborn Road.
East Salinas is currently underserved by park facilities, and the existing Closter Park does not meet the community park acreage standard of a minimum of 20 acres (City of Salinas, 1988).
According to the General Plan, the high demand on schools makes joint use of schools as recreational facilities difficult; however, joint use is nonetheless encouraged.
Public Utilities
Water Service
Groundwater is the primary source of water for agricultural, industrial, commercial and residential uses in the Salinas Valley. Alco Water Service Company provides residential and
4.3-3
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
commercial water service to the southeastern portion of the City of Salinas in the project area.
The drinking water currently conforms to primary and secondary water quality standards without any form of treatment; however, water treatment facilities would be installed if changes in State Department of Health requirements or deteriorating groundwater quality necessitate treatment (Adcock, 1993; Fuog, 1998).
Adjacent to the project site are existing 12-inch water mains located in Williams Road, Del Monte A venue, Countryside Drive, and the Gabilan Village apartment complex east of Del Monte Avenue, and a six-inch water main in Argentine Drive (EMC, 1998). There is an existing pumping station at the western comer of Alisal High School on Burke Street which pumps 2,600 gpm (City of Salinas, 1991). The project site contains one of four wells that supply agricultural irrigation water to the Sconberg Ranch.
Sewer Service
Salinas' wastewater discharges to the Salinas Pump Station, and then is transported and treated at the regional wastewater treatment plant in Marina. The City of Salinas owns and operates the collection facilities within its urban boundaries, and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency provides sewage treatment service at the treatment plant. With a treatment capacity of 29.6 million gallons per day (mgd), the plant currently operates at an average flow of 20 mgd (Hausrath, 1998). Not all of the capacity of the plant is available. The plant's usable capacity is governed by the plant's operating permit issued by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. The Air District pennits the Water Pollution Control Agency to serve a population that is consistent with the District's Air Quality Management Plan. Each jurisdiction served by the Marina plant, including the City of Salinas, receives an allocation based on the projected growth within the jurisdiction, as determined by the Air Quality Management Plan. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) has found the project to be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (Papadakis, 1998). Sufficient capacity currently exists to accommodate regional growth including the proposed Mountain Valley project (Hausrath, 1998; Schaap, 1998). As a result of the consistency finding and the availability of capacity, the Air District finds that there is no obstacle to supplying sewer service to the project site (Brennan, 1998).
There are three existing sewer mains adjacent to the project area: a 15-inch main within the East Alisal Street right-of-way, and two 10-inch mains within the rights-of-way for Argentine Drive
4.3-4
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities ·
and Countryside Drive, which drain into the 15-inch main. The 15-inch main in East Alisal Street is currently operating over capacity during periods of wet-weather flow. The City's sewage and drainage master plan identified a need to expand capacity along East Alisal Street (Brown and Caldwell, 1992). No funding source has been identified for construction of a relief main to provide the needed capacity. The relief main is included in the City's current six-year Capital Improvement Program; however. no funds have yet been allocated. Other identified "downstream" improvements needed to accommodate new development in the eastern portion of Salinas include the addition of 24-inch collector pipes along South Wood Street and Los Palos Drive, as well as expansion of the Kipling Street collector pipe (currently under construction) (Hausrath, 1998).
There are existing deficiencies in the City's overall sanitary sewer facilities. The costs to make repairs required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board are estimated at $12 million to $14 million. On April 7, 1998, the City Council adopted an ordinance increasing the citywide sewer collector system fee (user fee) from 15 percent to 35 percent (percentage of total sewer bill). This increase is anticipated to fully fund the needed improvements implemented through the City's six-year Capital Improvement Program.
Storm Drainage
The Salinas Public Works Department is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the drainage network. The basin containing the project site and its vicinity is served by storm drain network 16, which is currently operating at capacity (Brown and Caldwell, 1992). However, the site currently generates limited runoff, as its present use as agricultural land allows rainfall to percolate into the soil with little runoff from the site. The City's Master Sewage and Drainage Plan indicates that there are several maintenance problems in the area of the project site.
Solid Waste
Salinas Disposal Service collects and disposes municipal refuse under contract with the City of Salinas, and also provides services to adjacent unincorporated areas. Solid waste is deposited in the Crazy Horse Landfill (owned by the Salinas Valley LMdfill Joint Powers Solid Waste Authority), located approximately 10 miles northeast of the city. Salinas Disposal also operates recycling programs, including residential curbside pickup at single-family dwellings and some multi-family buildings. The Crazy Horse Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate demand for solid waste disposal to approximately the year 2002 (City of Salinas, 1994). The City is currently seeking approval to increase the capacity of the landfill by increasing the allowable fill height.
4.3-5
I
Lc
I
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
As a member of the Salinas Valley Landfill Joint Powers Solid Waste Authority, the City could utilize another dump site if the landfill is not expanded (Hausrath, 1998).
Natural Gas, Electricity, and Telephone Service
Gas and electric services are provided in the project area by Pacific Gas & Electric, and telephone service is provided by Pacific Bell.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
Any increase in demand for public services or utilities created by the proposed project would be considered significant if the increase were to result in a substantial reduction in the level of service currently provided to the project site and the surrounding area. An impact would be considered significant if it exceeded a threshold, service ratio or minimum standard established in the Salinas General Plan that is currently met; or substantially affected an existing substandard condition; or interfered with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.
Financing for additional services and utility capacity is central in the determination of a service provider's ability to accommodate additional demand. The fiscal impacts and financing mechanisms associated with this project are analyzed in a separate document, the Draft Services and Facilities Plan for the Mountain Valley Residential Development, prepared concurrently by Hausrath Economics Group.
Public Services
Impact 4.3.1: The proposed project would generate an additional enrollment of about 512 new students in the Alisal Union Elementary School District and about 235 new students in the Salinas Union High School District. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
With a proposed 853 housing units, the project would result in about 512 elementary school students, about 107 middle school students, and about 128 high school students (Hausrath, 1998).
4.3-6
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
The Greater Salinas Area School Facilities Master Plan (School Facility Consultants, 1993) presents a strategy to accommodate projected student enrollment growth over the next twenty years. The Alisal Union Elementary School District plans to add six elementary schools, each with a capacity of 620 students, plus additional classroom space at existing schools. Funding for that expansion is not assured. Two of the new elementary schools will be in the Williams Ranch planned community, north of the project site, one of which has been constructed and is in operation. The Salinas General Plan also indicates a school site on the Sconberg Ranch property immediately east of the project site (and outside the current Salinas Sphere of Influence).
The Salinas Union High School District plans to accommodate projected enrollment growth of . about 2,100 additional junior high students in the next twenty years by building two new junior high schools, one of which is located in the adjacent Williams Ranch development, and a nine classroom addition to the existing Harden Middle School on McKinnon Drive in North Salinas.
The District also plans to add three high schools, each accommodating about 1,700 students.
Funding for those additions is not secured.
As part of a previous agreement between the project sponsor and the school districts (Alisal and Salinas Union), the project sponsor has agreed to donate fee title of nine acres of land for a new elementary school and offer two acres of land adjacent to the existing Bardin School for sale to the district. This donation would occur in conjunction with filing of the final subdivision map for Phase 1 of the project. The project sponsor would also pay the Alisal School District the required school impact fees of $1.84 per square foot of development, which is the maximum that school districts can levy under state law. However, this fee would not fully offset the impact of development on the school districts. Because the project would involve legislative action on the part of the City (annexation, General Plan Amendment, and rezoning), the City could legally impose a fee greater than the $1.84 state maximum. However, it is probably not feasible for the City to increase the development fee to cover the entire amount of per residential unit cost of school impacts (Hausrath, 1998). Pursuant to previous school agreements between the project sponsor and Alisal and Salinas Union School Districts, the project sponsor has agreed to pay $639,000 to the high school district as a supplement to the state maximum fee. The state's maximum fee would total approximately $2,111,032.2 Payment of statutory school impact fees would occur in conjunction with issuance of individual building permits. The project sponsor would also donate in fee title a 9-acre school site to the Alisal Union Elementary School District. 2 Assumes average livable building square footage of 1,333 and 1,500 for proposed 4,500 square foot lots and 6,500 square foot lots, respectively.
4.3-7
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
The actual cost to construct facilities to accommodate project-generated students would be approximately $6 million, while the incremental costs of accommodating middle school and high school students would total nearly $5 million (Hausrath, 1998). This would require a per-unit fee of nearly $13,000 to fully offset the cost to the Alisal Elementary School District, a figure that would not be feasible to implement because it would increase the cost of each dwelling unit by such an extent that units would be substantially less affordable.
Land donation would occur in conjunction with filing of the final subdivision map for Phase 1 of the project. Payment of statutory school impact fees would occur in conjunction with issuance of individual building permits.
Implementation of the above measures proposed as part of the project would reduce the project's impact on school facilities to a less-than-significant level since agreements have been accepted by both school districts. However, it should be noted that the project sponsor would not be funding the entire cost of school facilities impacts.
Elementary school students residing within the project site could attend the school proposed onsite, or may attend Bardin, Alisal Community, or Cesar Chavez School in the Williams Ranch development. Middle school students in the area could attend either the existing El Sausal Middle School or the proposed junior high school in Williams Ranch, and high school students would attend Alisal High School. The middle school and high school are currently at capacity and will require additional facilities and/or new school to accommodate students from the proposed project and other projected growth. The project sponsor has also agreed to pay the Salinas Union High School District an additional fee, as described above.
Should the project be completed prior to the needed expansion of the school facilities to accommodate the enrollment growth, the elementary and high school districts would rely on temporary facilities, busing and year-round schedules until such time as permanent facilities can be made available.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.1 None required (mitigation proposed as part of project, as described above).
4.3-8
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
Impact 4.3.2: The proposed project would increase the demand for police services. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The Salinas Police Department would provide services to the site. Because of the relatively large amount of activity in Beat 11, which includes the project site as well as the Williams Ranch site, the project could result in some lengthening of response times. To maintain the present level of service, the project would require about two additional police officers and one additional vehicle (Hausrath, 1998). (Please see the Draft Services and Facilities Plan for the Mountain Valley Residential Development, prepared concurrently by Hausrath Economics Group [Hausrath, 1998] for a discussion of the project's fiscal effects on the Police Department.) Mitigation Measure
4.3.2 No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.3.3: The proposed project would increase the demand for, and frequency of, fire protection services and emergency responses to the project site. This would be a significant impact.
Primary fire protection to the Mountain Valley project would be from Station No.5, a new station to be located within the nearby Williams Ranch project on Freedom Parkway. Secondary response would be from the existing Station No.4, located about 1.0 mile to west of the project site at 308 Williams Road. The staffing and vehicles for Station No. 5 would be redistributed from Station No. 4 and other existing stations.
As noted in the Setting, construction of Station No.5 is in the City's Capital Improvement Program, although the project is not yet funded, and construction may not occur before 2000.
The Precise Plan (Policy 27) includes a requirement that each residential developer on the Mountain Valley project site pay a fire protection services fee of $140 per unit (the fair share calculated by the City. based on the fire protection fee assessed to the adjacent Williams Ranch project) towards the cost of construction of Station No.5; this fee would be paid at the time of building permit issuance (EMC, 1998). However, this fee would raise approximately $120,000, which is slightly more than 10 percent of the estimated cost of constructing the new fire station.
Additional funds would be required, most likely from the City's General Fund.
If Mountain Valley development were to precede the construction of Station No. 5, it would be necessary to serve the project out of Station No. 4. In such an event, this would result in a
4.3-9
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
response time to Mountain Valley of approximately 5-7 minutes, longer than the current city standard of 3-5 minutes, and a dilution of the protection afforded the Station No. 4 service area.
In compliance with city ordinance, all residential units constructed in the project would be required to be equipped with sprinkler systems to minimize the risk of fire at the project site.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3 Construction of Fire Station No. 5 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit in Phase 4 or above.
Construction of Fire Station No. 5 shall be completed prior to occupancy of units in Mountain Valley Phases 4 through 6, which would be the most distant from the existing Station No.4 (more than 1.5 miles). This would ensure that adequate response times could be maintained to the project site, and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 4.3.4: The proposed project would result in additional demand for library services.
This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The City's Capital Improvement Program includes expansions to the El Gabilan Library, totaling about 10,054 square feet (Hausrath, 1998). Previous plans to expand the Steinbeck and Cesar Chavez libraries have been indefinitely delayed due to budgetary constraints. If the City only builds the El Gabilan expansion, the library space area per resident would equal 0.43 square feet.
The proposed project would reduce this rate to 0.42 square feet of library space per resident, which would not be a substantial change.3 The Precise Plan includes payment of a library fee (also applicable to the Williams Ranch project), and currently $353 per residential unit and indexed annually, at the time of building permit issuance (EMC, 1998). At the current fee, approximately $300,000. would be raised.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.4 None required.
3 Assumes a 1997 population of 123,}00, project generation of 2,730 persons, and 52,747 square feet of library space.
4.3-10
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
Impact 4.3.5: The proposed project would increase demand on the City's parks and recreation facilities. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The project would include a community park of about 21.5 acres (at full buildout) along the eastern border (EMC, 1998). The 21.5 acres ofpark would provide more than the General Plan standard of three developed acres per 1,000 residents. The project would thus meet the projectgenerated demand for park facilities and would offset a portion of the City's existing park deficiency. The developer would also fund, through a landscape maintenance district, annual maintenance of &9- tl acres of the community park.
The expansion of the Lincoln A venue recreation center as set forth in the General Plan, and the addition of 50,000 square feet of additional community facilities (including 30,000 square feet in a multi-use complex in Natividad Creek Park) as specified in the Salinas Park and Recreation Development reports, would offset the demand for other recreational facilities generated by new development (Hausrath, 1998).
Mitigation Measure
4.3.5 None required.
Public Utilities
Impact 4.3.6: The proposed project would create new water demand for Alco Water Service. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Demand for domestic water would increase with project development. (For water supply issues and hydrological impacts please refer to Section 4.4, Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality.) Alco customers in the vicinity have voiced concerns regarding water quality and inadequate water pressure. Available documentation, in the form of water sample testing results (including a random test performed by the City of Salinas in March 1998), shows no evidence that State or federal water quality standards have been violated.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the regulatory body for water pressure, and its standard is a pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi), with a minimum pressure
4.3-11
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
standard of 30 psi during hourly maximum demand. According to Alco, the company's standard operating pressure is 40 psi or higher, and usually within a range of 50-60 psi; however, water pressure did drop to 28 psi for approximately one hour in July 1997 when two pump motors burned out. Maintenance of water pressure is the responsibility and jurisdiction of the State, not the City.
The supply of water to the project site would not be expected to reduce water pressure for other Alco Water Service customers (Fuog, 1998).
Another issue related to Alco's provision of water to the project is the number of authorized connections within the Alco service area. Currently, the number of service connections required to accommodate planned and approved single-family projects in the service area (excluding Mountain Valley) is about 1,000 less than is currently authorized by the State Department of Health Services. Alco will thus need to receive authorization for additional connections in the near future. This matter is also within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the State, not the City.
The project proposal includes the eoH~tructioH provision of four new well sites on the project site and the construction of a water distribution system; Alco Water Service would construct the wells. and the sponsor would provide primary fundin~ for construction of three of the wells and limited fundin~ for the fourth. The sponsor would be ultimately responsible for construction of the wells to ensure adequate water service is available to the project site. The proposed well sites would be located on a site on the comer of proposed Boulevard "B" and Freedom Parkway, on a lot near the Bardin Elementary School expansion, on a site on Williams Road at the western comer of the property, and on a site near Surrey Way (see Figure 2 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description). These wells are required to provide water to the new development and to adequately guard against the threat of nitrate and salt water intrusion, currently being experienced at other well sites in the Salinas area (Fuog, 1997). Installation of four water well sites that meet Alco Water Service specifications will reduce the project's impact on water facilities to a less-than-significant level. Each well site must normally have a net usable area of
0.5 acre (Fuog, 1997); for this project. Alco would require a minimum of 20.000 square feet of net usable area (Adcock, 1998).
Each of the five existing mains in the vicinity of the project would be extended into the site, and 16-inch water mains would be located within rights-of-way for Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, and Alisal Road; these are illustrated as "future mains" in the General Plan Public Services and Utilities Element. Internal water mains would be constructed as part of the on-site infrastructure network.
4.3-12
Mitigation Measure
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
4.3.6 None required. However, as part of the Tentative Map process, the City would require that the project applicant provide the proposed four well sites of sufficient size to meet Alco Water Service specifications. The project sponsor would be ultimately responsible for construction of the wells to ensure adequate water service is available to the project site.
In order to provide for future water treatment, each well site must have a net usable area of 0.5 aeres 20.000 square feet, taking into account front yard landscape requirements, minimum distance to sanitary sewer lines, utility easements, access roads, and access to equipment (Adcock. 1998 Ftteg, 1997).
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would avoid water services impacts.
Impact 4.3.7: The proposed project would increase the flow of wastewater discharged into the sewage system. This would be a significant impact.
The project would generate about 215,000 gallons of wastewater per day4• Sufficient unused capacity exists at the regional wastewater plant in Marina to accommodate the proposed project.
The project site would be annexed to the Monterey Regional County Sanitation District - Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency as part of the project.
The terrain of the planning area requires two portions of the project area to discharge into existing mains to the west within the Argentine Drive and Countryside Drive Street right-of-way.
The remaining portion ~f the project would drain to the southeastern corner of the site through an on-site network of sewer mains and then to a 15-inch main to be constructed within the right-ofway of the proposed East Alisal Street extension. This main would connect with the existing 15- inch main on East Alisal Street (EMC, 1998). The 15-inch East Alisal Street main is currently operating over capacity during periods of wet-weather flow. Expansion of wastewater capacity along East Alisal Street is required (Brown and Caldwell, 1992; Hausrath, 1998).
Mitigation Measure
4.3.7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, construction of a relief main in East Alisal Street shall be completed.
4 Based on 90 percent of residential water use of 350 gallons water consu'med per dwelling per day, plus 16 acre-feet per year water consumed at elementary school.
4.3-13
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
Based on the City's formula for development fees, the project sponsor would contribute approximately $830,000 in Sanitary Sewer Development fees.s Construction of an Alisal Street bypass collector sewer line and other improvements on South Wood and Los Palos Drive are proposed in accordance with the Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan and the City's current six-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
However, no funds have been identified or allocated for construction of the bypass line, estimated at $2.6 million. The current CIP shows the bypass line not being funded until 2002-03. Therefore, because the existing Alisal Street sewer is at capacity, the project sponsor would be required to fund the entire cost of installing a relief main. The City and/or other developers would reimburse the project sponsor at a later date for costs in excess of the sponsor's required fee of approximately $830,000. Further study of the relief main may conclude that additional capacity exists. In this event, the Public Works Department may accordingly determine that some of the building permits could be issued prior to the completion of the relief main.
Implementation of the above Mitigation Measure would reduce sewage system impacts to a lessthan-significant level.
Impact 4.3.8: The proposed project would increase discharge to the City's storm drainage system. This would be a significant impact.
Development of the project would alter existing drainage patterns, resulting in storm water runoff from the site, where virtually none occurs now. The City's existing storm drainage system is currently operating at capacity, and cannot accept additional demands.
A temporary detention basin would be constructed as part of Phase 1 grading and site preparation, and shall detain storm water from the Phase 1 and 2 portions of the property and release it at a reduced rate prior to construction of the permanent detention basin .. The temporary basin would be located east of the intersection of Countryside Drive and the proposed Mountain Valley Boulevard. Maintenance of the temporary basin would be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Once the permanent basin were operational, the temporary basin would be filled in and the site developed as housing.
As required by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the City of Salinas, the project would include construction of a 1. 7 -acre siltation/detention basin as part of Phase 3 of the project, to coincide with drainage infrastructure installations. The proposed storm water siltation/detention basin would be a rectangular site with a capacity of 3.5 acre-feet, located 5 Based on a $278 per bedroom Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Fee, and assuming half of the project units will have three bedrooms and the other half, four bedrooms.
4.3-14
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
adjacent to the Bardin School property in the southwest corner of the project site. The siltation/ detention basin would be funded by the project sponsor.
The storm drain system would be designed to meet City and County standards, and engineering calculations prepared by a California licensed civil engineer that verify the design would be submitted and approved to the permitting agency(s) prior to final project approval. Both the temporary and permanent siltation/detention basins would be sized to conform to the County Water Resources Agency policy requiring on-site detention for the differential between runoff from pre-development 10-year storm and post-development 100-year intensity rainfall.
The project sponsor would also develop a siltation/detention basin management plan to maintain adequate storage volume over the life of the project. Periodic maintenance may be needed since accumulation of sediment and vegetative growth would reduce the basin storage capacity over time. The management plan would propose a schedule and designate responsibility for anticipated maintenance. Maintenance of the siltation/detention basin would be funded through a maintenance assessment district.
Mitigation Measures
4.3.8a Prior to the issuance of the first grading or building permits, the project sponsor shall install a temporary (interim) storm water siltation/detention basin.
Design shall be subject to approval by the City and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and shall permit discharge of a 10-year pre-development storm.
Discharge from the basin shall be at a rate that will preclude any increase in the existing rate of runoff from the site (20.38 cubic feet per second).
4.3.8b Prior to the issuance of building permits for dwelling construction for units in Phase 3 or beyond, the project sponsor shall install the permanent storm water siltation/detention basin (capacity of 3.5 acre-feet).
Design shall be subject to approval by the City and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Discharge from the basin shall be at a rate that will preclude any increase in the existing rate of runoff from the site (20.83 cubic feet per second). Storm water discharged from the detention basin shall be reduced to compensate for runoff from northern portions of the project site that would not be captured by the detention basin.
Implementation of the above measure would reduce the project's impact on storm drainage facilities to a less-than-significant level.
4.3-15
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
Impact 4.3.9: The proposed project would increase demand for solid waste disposal facilities. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The Crazy Horse landfill currently has capacity for solid waste disposal only until approximately the year 2002 (City of Salinas, 1994). The project would generate approximately 1,310 tons (about 2,730 cubic yards at 0.48 tons per cubic yard) of solid waste per year, or about 0.9 percent of the City's total.6 The City of Salinas and other local communities recently formed the Salinas Valley Lflfldfill Joint Po·wers Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA SVLJPA). The Crazy Horse Landfill was sold to the SVSW A SVLJPA. While the Crazy Horse Landfill is quickly approaching capacity, other landfills owned and operated by the SVSWA SVLJPA are expected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed project, as sufficient capacity is available well into the middle of the 21st century (Hausrath, 1998).
Mitigation Measures
4.3.9 None required.
Impact 4.3.10: The proposed project would increase demand for gas and electric and telephone facilities. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
New utility lines would be extended into the project site from facilities located along Williams Road (EMC, 1998). All utility lines would be placed underground, including primary and secondary electrical lines, natural gas, telephone, and cable television (EMC, 1998).
Mitigation Measure
4.3.10 None required.
6 Generation based on 2.49 pounds per person per day for residential service and total municipal solid waste tonnage of 142,433 tons (Appel, 1994).
4.3-16
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.3 Public Services and Utilities
REFERENCES - Public Services and Utilities
Adcock, Robert. General Manager, Alco Water Service. Telephone conversation, June 9, 1993.
Adcock. Thomas R .. Vice President. Alco Water Service. Telephone communication. July 28. 1998.
Appel, Cyril, Superintendent of Public Service, City of Salinas, telephone conversation, June 24, 1994.
Brennan, Janet, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, telephone communication, March 3, 1998.
Brown and Caldwell, 1992. City of Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan, December.
EMC Planning Group, 1998. Draft Precise Plan for Mountain Valley Project, February 1998.
Fuog, Rene M., Fuog Water Resources, Inc., letter to Jenny Mahoney, City of Salinas, June 2, 1997, and telephone conversation, March 3, 1998.
Hausrath Economics Group, 1998. Services and Facilities Plan for the Mountain Valley Residential Development, May 1998.
Papadakis, Nicolas, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), letter, February 26, 1998.
City of Salinas 1988. Salinas General Plan, November 15.
City of Salinas, 1991. Draft Supplemental Environmental Report for the Williams Ranch Planned Community Precise Plan. Prepared by Denise Duffy & Associates, February.
City of Salinas, 1994. Crazy Horse Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Schaap, Andrea, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (WPCA), telephone conversation, March 3, 1998.
School Facility Consultants, 1993. Greater Salinas Area School Facilities Master Plan.
Prepared in association with Rob Corley. April.
Wilson, Leonard, Officer, Salinas Police Department, telephone conversation, March 10, 1998.
4.3-17
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY
SETTING
Drainage Basin
The project site is located in the lower Salinas Valley, to the north of the Salinas River, in the general vicinity of the Santa Rita, Gabilan, Natividad, and Alisal Creeks. These creeks flow from the westerly slopes of Gabilan Mountains towards the City of Salinas, and empty into Reclamation Ditch No. 1665, which is operated by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. The Gabilan and Natividad creek channels pass through Carr Lake before reaching the Reclamation Ditch. Carr Lake is one of nine depressions along the Reclamation Ditch which were once lakes, but are now only flooded during the rainy season. Water flows from the Reclamation Ditch to Monterey Bay at Moss Landing. The surface hydrology of the project vicinity is illustrated in Figure 14.
The project site is located on a gently sloping alluvial fan at the base of the Gabilan Mountain range. Soil on the Sconberg· Ranch has been classified as predominantly Chualar loam, a soil with relatively slow permeability. The upper (eastern) edge of the site is at approximately elevation 130 feet. The land slopes at about a 1 percent grade (one foot vertical fall for each 100 feet horizontally) towards the west, where the property boundary is at roughly elevation 110 feet. In its existing state as agricultural land, very little storm water runs off the site.
Climate
The Salinas Valley is a prime agricultural area characterized by dry summers that range from moderately warm and somewhat foggy in the Salinas area to hot and dry in the southern portion of the valley, and a rainy season occurring predominantly in the months of December, January and February. The City of Salinas experiences an average annual rainfall of approximately 14 inches, and an annual potential evaporation of 48 inches (Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992).
Surface Hydrology
The Sconberg Ranch has been intensively farmed for many years, and little evidence of undisturbed surface hydrological features exists. The project site has been divided into several rectangular fields separated by dirt roads and drainage/percolation ditches. Each field has been graded nearly flat, and the ditches have been trenched between the fields to catch furrow runoff,
4.4-1
............
__ .......
Feet
RECLAMATION DITCH
ALISAL SLOUGH
INTERMITTENT LAKES
CREEKS
-------------------------------------Moullfai/1 Val/ey/960352 • SOURCE: Salinas General Plan
4.4-2
Figure 14
Salinas Area Surface Hydrology
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
and to convey runoff from higher areas through the project site. The unvegetated ditches are typically rectangular in cross-section, three feet wide and three to five feet deep. A larger drainage ditch, which is up to 15 feet in width, flows westerly along Williams Road and conveys run-off from tributary areas east of the project site as well as runoff from the Sconberg Ranch.
No natural seeps, springs, creeks, or ponds were observed on the project site. Along the westerly boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing development along Alisal Road, a one-foot-high berm prevents surface water from leaving the farmed area. Two man-made storage reservoirs are located east of the project site on Sconberg Ranch property.
Groundwater Hydrology
The project site is located in the East Side Area sub-basin of the Salinas Valley Aquifer (see Figure 15). Many years of groundwater withdrawal, primarily for agricultural irrigation, has resulted in salt water (seawater) intrusion and a lowered water table in the Salinas Valley Aquifer. In the Castroville area, west of Salinas, a shallow aquifer (about 180 feet deep) has long been abandoned due to salt water intrusion, and a deeper aquifer (about 400 feet deep), which supplies drinking and agricultural water to Salinas, has been substantially intruded by seawater. While there is no evidence of salt water intrusion into wells in Salinas, ongoing groundwater depletion raises the likelihood that, absent preventative measures to reduce groundwater pumping, subsurface water supplies in Salinas will eventually suffer salt water intrusion as well (City of Salinas, 1988). Previous studies indicate that saltwater within the Pressure Area's 180-foot aquifer extends to the east near San Jon Road, which is approximately two miles from the northeast Salinas city limits, and about six miles from the project site (Monterey County, 1996). If the saltwater intrusion continues to move in the direction of the East Side Area sub-basin, its progress may be impeded by reduced permeability at the boundary between the East Side and Pressure Area sub-basins. Additional testing is recommended to monitor salt water intrusion in the aquifer (Staal, Gardner and Dunne, 1993).
The East Side Area sub-basin, like the larger Salinas Valley Aquifer, is slowly replenished (recharged) by percolation of surface water. Replenishment occurs from the bed of the Salinas River and its tributaries, from rainfall, from deeply percolating irrigation water, and from underground flow originating in the foothills surrounding the valley. At the Sconberg Ranch, the depth to groundwater was between 160 and 198.5 feet as measured at four locations in December 1990. In the East Side Area, groundwater withdrawal by approximately 5,000 to
4.4-3
t
0 Mile
S ;;;o:UuiiR~C:;;E-:-: -;:;D;K~S --;As:so:c:;::ia:te-::- 5 -------------------------------Moulllai/1 Valley I 960352 • Figure 15
4.4-4
Salinas Area Groundwater
Sub-Basin Boundary
• jl
1_ ~
I'
I
I
I
I 'I
, I
I:
I
',I
I,
, I
. I
j,
! i
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
8,000 acre feet per year in excess of recharge (Stewart, 1994) has led to a situation in which the water table has been drawn down substantially below sea level.
Existing Water Use
The project sponsor retained an engineering firm to prepare an analysis (H.D. Peters, 1997) of water issues pertinent to the proposed development. The analysis examines existing and proposed water use on the project site. The methods and assumptions used in the plan have been reviewed by ESA and provide the primary basis for determining existing water use on the project site.
Virtually all the water used for irrigation, industry, and domestic consumption in the Salinas Valley is pumped from groundwater storage. Residents and businesses in the City of Salinas are supplied with groundwater by several private water companies. In the area of the proposed project, water is supplied by Alco Water Service (Alco). Alco is a privately owned water company with approximately 5,000 customers. The water company is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Health Services, and the Monterey County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health.
The operators of the greater Sconberg Ranch area pump groundwater from four wells for the irrigation of 460 acres of crops. Only one of the wells is located on the project site; however the four wells function in conjunction with storage and piping as a single system to distribute water throughout the ranch. The wells send water to two storage reservoirs on the ranch, which then serve water to the fields with furrow irrigation.
The project site has historically been used for strawberry production in alternate years, which is the most water intensive crop grown on the site. Gross agricultural water consumption on the project site, assuming strawberry crops every other year, equals approximately 732 acre feet per year (H.D. Peters, 1997). When a percolation return factor of 20% is taken into consideration the project site would have a net agricultural water use of approximately 586 acre feet per year (H.D.
Peters, 1997; Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992).
Water Quality
The main water quality issues in the project vicinity are salt water intrusion, discussed previously, and nitrate contamination.
4.4-5
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
For a conservative estimate of future water consumption, including potential increases in consumption such as could occur if a homeowner were to increase the planted area of turf or other water-intensive landscaping, or were to install new bathroom fixtures, this report uses the Alco "all units" demand of 350 gallons per day. (The newly constructed units could include some that either were not occupied throughout the year or were not fully landscaped, and thus used less water than would otherwise be the case.)
A breakdown of water usage by differing land uses (e.g., residential, school, park, and public landscaping) is shown in Table 7. As noted above, the existing gross water usage on the site for agricultural uses is 732 acre feet per year and net water use (considering percolation) equals approximately 586 acre feet per year. Considering the net water consumption figure, the proposed project would result in a reduction in water use on the 200-acre site of almost 200 acre feet per year, which would represent a reduction of about 34 percent.
TABLE 7: EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER USE
Existing Consumptiona
Estimated Use
Percolation return (20%)
NET CONSUMPTION
Projected Consumption
Residential domestic and landscapingb
Park irrigation
School
Detention Basin, Bardin School Addition,
and Greenway strips
TOTAL
Projected savings
Acre-feet per year
732
.(JAQl
586
334
29 16
_lQ
389
197
-34%
a Based on approximately 193.6-acres of irrigated lands and 6.9 acres of field roads. Alternate years of strawberry and other crop production are included in this calculation. b Projected residential consumption provided based on Alco Water Service records for 1997 consumption of 350 gallons per day for all single-family units in its service area (east Salinas, including the project site).
SOURCE: H.D. Peters, Co., Inc., 1997; Environmental Science Associates
4.4-10
i.
I
I
"' I
I
\ :'
I'
I'
I
1'-'
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
For the interim period between cessation of crop production on each development phase of the project site and occupation of the proposed dwellings in that phase, a substantially greater temporary reduction in groundwater use would occur. The lack of groundwater pumping during the construction and sales phases of the proposed project would temporarily contribute to the recovery of the groundwater table and incrementally help slow the intrusion of seawater.
Although the project would result in a substantial reduction in water demand on the 200-acre site, the extraction of water from the aquifer would contribute, albeit more slowly, to groundwater overdraft which is occurring throughout the Salinas Valley. The project would require an irretrievable commitment to continue groundwater extractions which would, in conjunction with other pumping, contribute to continued ground water overdrafting and seawater intrusion. Urban water demand is different from agricultural demand. Agricultural demand is seasonal and allows for some aquifer recovery or an increase in water levels during the rainy season and fallow periods, while urban demand occurs continuously throughout the year and does not allow for a period of aquifer or water level recovery. This phenomenon has been observed with existing groundwater pumping in the City of Salinas.
With water conservation features included in the project, the project would decrease water use on the site by approximately 34 percent, compared to existing agricultural use. As a result, it would be less likely that pumping from on-site wells would cause changes in the groundwater gradient.
Also, there is no reason to believe that domestic water pumping will affect water availability for neighboring agricultural pumping, or vice versa (Fuog, 1998).
As required by CEQA Section 21151.9 and Sections 10910- 10914 of the California Water Code, the City consulted with Alco Water Service to determine whether (a) the projected water demand of the proposed Mountain Valley project was included in Alco' s most recently adopted urban water management plan, and (b) whether Alco's projected water supplies over the 20-year period contained in the urban water management plan, including dry water years, would adequately meet the proposed demand. Alco stated that the project demand is included in the urban water management plan, which forecasts adequate water supply to serve the project and other existing and projected Alco users (Adcock, 1998g). Appendix A contains Alco's urban water management plan and the correspondence with the City relative to this project.
As noted, conversion of irrigated agricultural land to residential use generally reduces water demand at a given location. Cumulatively, continued residential development in the Salinas
4.4-11
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Valley and, in particular, in the East Side groundwater sub-basin, would be expected to result in an incremental decrease in groundwater overdrafting in the future.
Presently, virtually all of the project site is covered with relatively permeable soil, either in the form of cultivated fields or dirt roads. Under the existing agricultural land use, it has been estimated that only 10 percent of rainwater runs off the project site; the remainder percolates into the ground. Construction of the proposed Mountain Valley project, however, would increase runoff because permeable soil surfaces would be replaced with paved streets, sidewalks, driveways, houses, patios, and other impervious surfaces.
On an annual basis, about 27 acre-feet of rainwater is available for on-site groundwater recharge under existing land uses. After project development, increased runoff and evaporation due to increased impervious surfaces would substantially reduce rainfall percolation to groundwater. In addition to the loss of potential rainwater recharge, the potential for excess landscape irrigation water to percolate into the groundwater would also be substantially reduced after project development.
Mitigation Measures
Because the project would result in a decrease in water consumption on the project site, this impact was determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Because groundwater overdrafting will continue to be a concern in the Salinas Valley, particularly as more residential development increases the more "permanent" commitment of water to dwellings, the following measures are identified to further reduce the project's less-thansignificant impact on groundwater consumption.
4.4.1a Water conservation could occur at the project site through increased xeriscaping in landscaped areas in addition to that proposed in the Mountain Valley Precise Plan.
4.4.lb Water conservation could occur at the project site through retiring agricultural land from crop production on the entire project site prior to the. start of construction.
4.4.1c The City could encourage retrofitting plumbing fixtures such as toilets and shower heads in existing urban areas that draw water from the East Side Area sub-basin.
Installing xeriscaping instead of turf could save approximately one acre-foot of water per 43,000 square feet of residential xeriscaped area per year (Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992). Retiring
4.4-12
! !
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
agricultural land could save approximately 3.1 acre-feet per acre per year, based on existing consumption on the project site (H.D. Peters, 1997; Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992). 1 Retrofitting existing single-family residences with ultra-low-flow toilets could save about one acre-foot per year for each 33 to 43 homes, assuming 3.2 persons and one toilet per residence (California Urban Water Conservation Council, 1992; Monterey Peninsula Water Management District,2 1997). 3
Overdrafting in the Salinas Valley is being addressed through regional planning efforts that are beyond the scope of this report. A 34 percent reduction in water use resulting from the proposed project would substantially offset the site's contribution to the depletion of the basin, and would exceed the Monterey County Water Resource Agency's goal of 20 percent reduction for a change in land use.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would further reduce the proposed project's . less-than-significant impact on groundwater consumption.
Impact 4.4.2: Increased water runoff resulting from the proposed project would cause localized flooding in the project vicinity and/or flooding in downstream areas. This would be a significant impact.
With construction of the proposed project, the land surface at the project site would be largely changed from pervious, exposed soil to impervious asphalt roadways, driveways and parking areas, concrete patios, and areas covered by houses and buildings. Some areas would exist as lawns and landscaped common areas; however, even those areas would experience increased runoff potential. During high intensity storms, as much as 50 percent of the rainfall would run off the site compared to 10 percent with existing conditions (Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992).
Increased runoff would have several detrimental effects. The undersized storm drain network in the project area cannot accept additional flows during heavy rainfall without backing-up and causing localized flooding. Soil erosion in the drainage basin has caused siltation of the drainage system in the project vicinity that further reduces drainage capacity. Increased runoff may add to 1 Assumes strawberry crop water usage. 2 MPWMD assumes a savings of 0.023 acre-feet per year per toilet replaced. 3 Actual water savings could vary. The figures in this paragraph are intended to provide a range of magnitude estimate of possible savings.
4.4-13
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
the existing siltation problem. Finally, even if the storm drains in the project area could carry additional flows generated by the proposed project, flooding problems downstream would be exacerbated by the additional runoff.
As described in Section 4.3, Public Services and Utilities, the project would include a temporary siltation/detention basin built in Phase 1 to serve construction Phases 1 and 2, and a permanent
1.7-acre siltation/detention basin built in Phase 3 with 3.5 acre-feet of storage capacity, the capacity estimated to be adequate to contain additional runoff (H.D. Peters, 1997; EMC, 1998; Williams, 1998). Siltation/detention facilities would be constructed to meet City and County standards, and would be sized to conform to the County Water Resources Agency policy requiring on-site detention for the differential between runoff from pre-development 10-year storm and post-development 100-year intensity rainfall. (See the discussion and mitigation measures under Impact 4.3.8 for additional detail on flood control facilities.) Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.8a and 4.3.8b, along with construction of storm water detention facilities proposed as part of the project, would reduce the potential impacts from flooding to a level of less than significance.
Impact 4.4.3: Degradation of surface water and groundwater quality may be caused by storm water runoff from the proposed project during and after construction. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
4.4.3a The project sponsor shall obtain and comply with a NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Coast Region. (Required by law)
This permit is required by the RWQCB for construction projects with greater than five acres of land disturbance. In obtaining a storm water permit, the project sponsor would be required to develop Best Management Practices to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater. The Best Management Practices may include the following points:
Construction Scheduling - earthwork during the rainy season should be avoided.
Exposed soil shall be covered or vegetated as soon as practical.
4.4-14
I I
I
I I
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Erosion Control - silt fences, hay bales or gravel sediment traps, and temporary earth berms shall be used to control erosion.
Spill Prevention - A spill prevention plan shall be developed describing measures to ensure proper collection and disposal of all pollutants handled or produced on the site during construction. The plan shall cover fuels, solvents, chemicals, sanitary wastes, concrete rinse water, and all other potential sources of stormwater pollution.
4.4.3b The project sponsor shall comply with all NPDES requirements in effect at the time of project construction. (Required by law)
As required by Jaw, the project would be subject to all regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
4.4.3c The project sponsor shall ensure that the contractor installs storm drain sediment traps in the project vicinity as part of the installation of storm drainage facilities. (Required by law)
The traps shall be installed as recommended in the City of Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan, and as required by the County Water Resources Agency and the City of Salinas Public Works Department.
As noted above (Mitigation Measure 4.4.2), the project sponsor proposed to construct a storm water siltation/detention basin as part of the project. The siltation/detention basin, which is recommended in the City's Sewage and Drainage Master Plan, would serve to remove silt from storm water runoff before it enters the City storm drain system.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the stormwater related water quality impacts of the proposed project to a Jess-than-significant level.
Impact 4.4.4: The existing plume of nitrate contamination in the groundwater basin may be dispersed or otherwise impacted by the proposed project. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
4.4.4a New wells installed to serve the proposed project shall be constructed b) tht projeet sponsor to withdraw water from levels below existing nitrate contarninatio,n.
Alco proposes to install 800-foot deep wells with the top 300 feet of each well casing sealed. Groundwater therefore would be drawn only from the screened portions of the casing, at depths greater than 300 feet (Adcock, 1993). This would minimize or eliminate disturbance of the shallow nitrate plumes in the vicinity of the project. In
4.4-15
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
general, the conversion of fertilized agricultural land to residential development reduces the source of nitrate contamination, and has a beneficial impact on groundwater quality.
The project sponsor would provide primary fundin~ for construction of three of the wells and limited fundin~ for the fourth. and would have ultimate responsibility for construction of the wells to ensure that adequate water service is provided to the project.
4.4.4b New well sites installed t6 serye the pr6p6sed pr6jeet shall be e6nstrueted provided by the project sponsort6 shall meet the minimum lot size requirements set by Alco Water Service.
Alco normally requires that all new groundwater wells be built on lots with a minimum net size of 0.5 acres (Fuog, 1998); for this project. Aleo would require a minimum of
20.000 square feet of net usable area (Adcock. 1998b).4 This would allow room for future water treatment facilities should nitrate contamination become a problem at the project site. These water treatment facilities would reduce the impact of nitrate contamination to a less-than-significant level. The project sponsor would have ultimate responsibility for construction of the wells to ensure that adequate water service is provided to the project.
4.4.4c Prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor shall provide a monitoring well on the project site to the satisfaction of the County Water Resources Agency and the County Department of Health.
The monitoring well would be used by the County to gather data on basin-wide groundwater quality and quantity. The possible conversion of the existing agricultural well on the project site into a monitoring well should be considered by the parties involved. Alternatively, construction of a new monitoring well, which is often less costly than conversion of an existing well, could be undertaken in conjunction with construction of one of the project's water supply wells (Mulholland, 1994).
Implementation of the above mitigation measures and Mitigation Measure 4.4.5, below, would reduce the impact of nitrate contamination to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 4.4.5: Abandoned agricultural wells on the project site could serve as a conduit to introduce pollutants into the groundwater basin. Storm water or irrigation runoff could enter an improperly abandoned well and contaminate the aquifer. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
4.4.5 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for dwelling units on the project site, the project sponsor shall abandon unused agricultural well(s) in accordance with state and county standards, or convert the unused well(s) into monitoring wells, at the discretion of the County Water Resources Agency.
Proper abandonment would involve filling the well with concrete or another approved material, and removing the exposed well head. Proper abandonment shall be verified by the County Water Resources Agency and, if necessary, by the County Health Department.
Implementation of the above measure would reduce the potential impact of abandoned agricultural wells to a less-than-significant level.
4 One of the proposed well sites would be an addition to an existing well lot on Surrey Way; the total site would have to be 20.000 net sq. ft.
4.4-16
LAFCO Groundwater Standards
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
The Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which must approve a change in the Salinas Sphere of Influence and annexation of the project site (see Section 4.1, Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning), has adopted standards for the evaluation of annexations and other jurisdictional boundary changes. Included among those standards are the following policy statements regarding groundwater, presented in summary form. After each statement is a brief description of the project's consistency, based on the impacts analysis in this section.
• The Commission will encourage projects that use reclaimed wastewater, minimize nitrate concentration, and provide beneficial use of storm waters.
The project would not use reclaimed wastewater. The project would not increase nitrate concentrations (sometimes caused by percolation of nutrient-rich irrigation water or animal waste), and would provide for groundwater recharge from the proposed storm water basin.
• The Commission will encourage projects that incorporate water conservation measures.
The project proposes a number of water conservation measures, including limitations on turf planting, use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, provision of information on conservation, and provision of drip irrigation equipment. • The Commission will encourage projects that conform with adopted water allocation plans.
The City of Salinas is no longer required to have a water allocation plan. • The Commission will encourage projects in which the affected jurisdiction has achieved water savings or new water sources that would offset the project's increase in water use.
The project would result in a decrease in on-site water use through conversion of agricultural land to residential development.
• The Commission will discourage projects that contribute to cumulative effects on the groundwater basin unless those projects promote planned and orderly development.
The project, in conjunction with cumulative development, would contribute to ongoing groundwater overdrafting but to a much lesser degree than current conditions. As noted above, the project would result in a net decrease of water use on the project site, and would therefore incrementally reduce the rate of overdraft.
Regarding promotion of orderly development, the majority of the project is primarily within the City of Salinas sphere of influence, and thus planned for urban development. The project, after implementation of mitigation measures, would result in conversion of prime agricultural land to developed use. The project would not result in unmet demand for any other public services. LAFCO's overall
4.4-17
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
"Standards for the Evaluation of Proposals" state that the standards are not absolute and that all standards must be related to the facts of a particular case. • The Commission will discourage projects that result in a significant adverse impact on the groundwater basin even with mitigation.
As stated above, the project would result in a net decrease in water use on-site.
REFERENCES- Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Adcock, Robert, General Manager, Alco Water Service. Telephone conversation, June 9, 1993.
Adcock, Thomas R., Vice President, Alco Water Service. Letter to Jenny Mahoney, Salinas Community Development Department, April 17, 1998g.. ·
Adcock. Thomas R .. Vice President. Alco Water Service. Telephone communication. July 28. 1998b.
Brown and Caldwell Consultants, 1992, City of Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan, December.
California Urban Water Conservation Council, 1992. "Assumptions and Methodology for Determining Estimates of Reliable Water Savings from the Installation of ULF Toilets." July.
Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992, Sconberg Ranch Water Conservation and Storm Water Plan, March.
EMC Planning Group, 1998. Draft Precise Plan for Mountain Valley Project, February 1998.
Fuog, Rene, Fuog Water Resources, Inc., telephone conversation, September 29,1997, and March 3, 1998.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, 1997 .. Water Conservation Program Report, July 1997. (Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/ whatsnew/cons/consupdt.htm)
Lee, Gail, Alco Water Service, telephone conversation, April!, 1998.
Mulholland, AI. Hydrologist, Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Meeting, June 2, 1993, and telephone conversations, October 10, 1994.
H.D. Peters Co., Inc. and Associates, June 1997, Addendum to Sconberg Ranch Water Conservation Storm Water Plan, with Amendments dated July 23, 1997 and August 6, 1997.
City of Salinas, 1988, Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, November 15.
4.4-18
. I I •
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.4 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Smith, Jim, Salinas District Manager, California Water Service Company, telephone conversation, March 16, 1998.
Staal, Gardner and Dunne, July 1993. "Hydrogeologic Study, Salinas Valley Ground Water Basin Seawater Intrusion Delineation/Monitoring Well Construction Program." Stewart, Owen. Associate Water Resources Engineer, Monterey Water Resources Agency.
Letter, April 15, 1994.
Williams, Virgil L., H.D. Peters Co., Inc. and Associates, telephone conversation, March 5, 1998 .
4.4-19
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 AIR QUALITY
SETIING
Climate and Meteorology
The primary factors that determine air quality are the locations of air pollutant sources and the amounts of pollutants emitted. Meteorological and topographical conditions, however, are also important. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants.
The project site is located in Salinas Valley, which lies within the North Central Coast Air Basin.
Salinas Valley extends from Salinas at the northwest end to King City at the southeast end. The Gabilan Range is to the east of the Valley, while the SieiTa de Salinas and the coastal Santa Lucia Range are to the west of the Valley (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1995).
The predominant high pressure cell off the coast determines the climate of the region. Salinas Valley has a moderate year-round climate, because of the proximity of the ocean and the prevailing northwesterly winds. Summers are generally dry; over 90 percent of the annual rainfall occurs between November and April (City of Salinas, 1988). In summer, the high pressure cell causes a stable temperature inversion of hot air over a cool coastal layer of air.
This warmer air acts as a lid to prevent vertical dispersion of air pollutants.
The onshore air cuiTents passing over the cool ocean water bring fog and relatively cool air into the coastal valleys. The prevalence of morning fog with winds from the northwest contributes to the cool temperatures. Summer fogs generally dissipate by noon. In winter, there are some days of heavy fog, but they are infrequent and of short duration. The general absence of persistent inversions and occasional storm systems usually result in good air quality in the region during winter and early spring. In fall, the surface winds become weak, and at times winds from the north and the east bring pollutants from the San Francisco Bay Area or the Central Valley into the Air Basin.
In general, the prevailing winds during summer are predominantly from the northwest with maximum speeds of seven to eight miles per hour. During the winter months the prevailing
4.5-1
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
winds are from the southeast with slightly higher average speeds. Strong wind patterns are generally associated with winter storm systems (City of Salinas, 1988).
Air Quality Regulatory Context
Regulation of air quality is achieved through implementation of national and state ambient air quality (concentration) standards and enforcement of emissions limits for individual sources of air pollutants. The federal Clean Air Act required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (national standards) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM -1 0), and lead.
These pollutants are called "criteria" air pollutants because the corresponding ambient standards satisfy criteria specified under the Clean Air Act. The State of California has established its own ambient air quality standards (state standards) which are generally more stringent than their national counterparts.
The federal Clean Air Act required U.S. EPA to designate Air Basins, or portions thereof, as either "attainment" or "nonattainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards have been achieved. The California Clean Air Act, patterned after the federal Clean Air Act, also required that areas be designated as "attainment" or "nonattainment" but with respect to the state standards rather than the national standards. The project site is located within the North Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). This Air Basin is currently designated as "nonattainment" for state standards for ozone and fine particulate matter, known as PM-10 (California Air Resources Board, 1996). The Air Basin, although originally designated as "nonattainment" for the national ozone standard, is now designated as "attainment" for the national ozone standard based on recent monitoring data (Brennan, 1997). The Air Basin is "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other state and national ambient air quality standards.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, Air Basins designated as "nonattainment" were required to prepare air quality plans which set forth a strategy to attain the standards. The plans and programs developed for a given state are referred to as State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
California's SIP is comprised of plans developed at the regional or local level. Since the North Central Coast Air Basin had once been designated "nonattainment" for the national ozone standard, a regional air quality plan for the Air Basin was prepared. Under the federal Clean Air
4.5-2
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
Act Amendments of 1990, the regional air quality agencies (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, and San Benito County Council of Governments) prepared a "Maintenance Plan" in anticipation of U.S. EPA's recognition that the Air Basin has attained (and now must maintain) the national ozone standard.
Under the California Clean Air Act, Air Basins designated as "nonattainment" with respect to the state standards must prepare plans to achieve the standards or that, at a minimum, implements all feasible measures. Therefore, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) prepared and adopted the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region (1991 AQMP). The 1991 AQMP addressed planning requirements related to the state ozone standard and recommended adoption of 20 measures to control emissions of reactive organic gases (ROO) from stationary sources, 5 measures for stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 8 transportation control measures. In December 1994, the District adopted an update to this plan, the 1994 AQMP, which showed that the District could achieve the required reduction in ROO and NOx by 1997 without the control measures referenced in the 1991 AQMP.
Regulatory Agencies
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), California's state air quality management agency, regulates mobile emissions sources and oversees the activities of Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts. CARB indirectly regulates local air quality by having established state ambient air quality standards and vehicle emission standards, by conducting research activities, and by planning and coordinating activities.
The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) is the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollution emissions from stationary sources in the North Central Coast Air Basin. MBUAPCD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review activities. MBUAPCD operates air quality monitoring stations that provide information on ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants.
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) does not regulate emissions directly but develops transportation control measures and employment and population forecasts which are used in developing the AQMP. For projects that would lead to an increase in population in Monterey County, AMBAG determines whether the increase in population would be consistent with the population assumptions that were used to develop the AQMP. If consistent with those
4.5-3
I i
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
assumptions, a project is regarded as included in the AQMP; and as such, is consistent with the strategies included in the AQMP to improve regional ozone concentrations. If not consistent, then the project is deemed to contribute to a significant adverse cumulative effect on regional ozone concentrations (see page 4.5-15 for AMBAG's determination regarding the proposed Mountain Valley project).
Existing Air Quality
MBUAPCD's air quality monitoring stations provide information on ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants. Table 8 is a five year-summary of the highest annual criteria air pollutant concentrations. The ozone data shown in Table 8 are a compilation of data from all of the monitoring stations in the Air Basin since ozone is a regional pollution. Pollutant data for carbon monoxide and PM-10 were collected at the Salinas II air quality monitoring station, 1270 Natividad Road, about 2 miles northwest of the project site. Carbon monoxide and PM-10 are more local in character than ozone. In Table 8, air pollutant concentrations are compared with the state ambient air quality standards, which are generally more stringent than the corresponding national standards. The major criteria air pollutants are described below.
Ozone
Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a secondary air pollutant produced in th~ atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). ROG and NOx are referred to as precursors to ozone.
Significant ozone production generally requires about three hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Ozone is a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production, and high ozone concentrations can occur miles away from the source of the precursors. Motor vehicles are generally the major source of ozone precursors.
Short-term exposure to ozone can result in injury and damage to the lung, decreases in pulmonary function and impairment of immune mechanisms (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1995). These changes have been implicated in the development of chronic lung disease as the result of longer-term exposure. Symptoms of ozone irritation include shortness of breath, chest pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing, and coughing. In addition, effects on vegetation have been documented at concentrations below the standards. On-road motor vehicles contribute
4.5-4
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
TABLE 8: SALINAS AIR POLLUTANT SUMMARY, 1992-1996a
Pollutant StandarcfJ
Ozone
Highest one-hour average, ppmc 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.12 Number of standard violationsd 12 6 8 16
Carbon Monoxide
Highest one-hour average, ppm
Number of standard violations
Highest eight-hour average, ppm
Number of standard violations
20.0 9.0
4.0 4.0
0 0
2.9 2.7
0 0
5.0 3.0 6.0
0 0 0
2.2 1.7 2.9
0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM-10)
Highest 24-hour average, ~-tg/m3 c
Number of standard violationse
Annual Geometric Mean, ~-tg/m3
50 41 86 50 50 50
0 3 0 0 0
30.0 20.3 17.9 18.0 17.7 17.2
a Ozone data represent basin-wide values based on data from all of the monitoring stations. Pollutant data for carbon monoxide and PM-10 were collected at MBUAPCD's Salinas II monitoring station, 1270 Natividad Road. b State standard, not to be exceeded.
c ppm - parts per million; !lg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter. d Refers to the number of days (in a given year) during which violations of the applicable standard were measured. e Typically measured every sixth day.
Note: Values in bold type are in excess of applicable standard.
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data Summaries, 1992-1996. approximately 30 to 40 percent of the ROG and NOx emitted in the North Central Coast Air Basin (California Air Resources Board, 1995a). As shown in Table 8, the state standard for ozone is violated on an average of approximately six days per year within the region.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, invisible gas usually formed as the result of incomplete combustion of organic substances. Ambient carbon monoxide concentrations normally correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Carbon monoxide concentrations also are influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. Under
4.5-5
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
inversion conditions, carbon monoxide concentrations may be distributed more uniformly over an area out to some distance from vehicular sources.
When carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin in the blood, the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood is reduced and the release of oxygen is inhibited or slowed (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1995). This condition places angina patients, persons with other cardiovascular diseases or with chronic obstructive lung disease, asthma, persons with anemia, and fetuses at risk. Symptoms of exposure may include headaches, dizziness, sleepiness, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and disorientation. On-road motor vehicles are responsible for approximately 63% of the carbon monoxide emitted within the Air Basin (California Air Resources Board, 1995a). The state standards for carbon monoxide have not been violated at the monitoring station in Salinas over the past five years.
Particulate Matter (PM-10)
PM-10 consists of particulates 10 microns (a micron is one one-millionth of a meter) or less in diameter, which can be inhaled and cause adverse health effects. Particulates in the atmosphere result from many kinds of dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. In the NCCAB, the major sources of PM-10 emissions are paved and unpaved road dust (60%), windblown dust (14%), constru.ction (12% ), and farming operations (7% ). Particulate concentrations near residential sources generally are higher during the winter, when more fireplaces are in use and meteorological conditions prevent the dispersion of directly emitted contaminants. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain adsorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates also can damage materials and reduce visibility. The state 24-hour PM-10 standard has been violated on rare occasions over the past five years at the monitoring station in Salinas.
Existing Emissions Associated with the Project Site
The existing site is used for agricultural purposes. Existing emissions sources include tilling (fugitive dust), windblown dust (fugitive dust), pesticide application (fugitive ROG), and combustion of fuel by farm equipment (ROG, NOx, and PM-10). Emissions from these sources have been estimated and are shown, on an annual average basis, in Table 9.
4.5-6
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
TABLE 9: ESTIMATED EXISTING EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT SITE Annual Average (pounds per day)a
Windblown Pesticide Farm
Pollutant Tilling Dust Application Equipment Total
Carbon Monoxide 4 4
Reactive Organic Gases 5 6
Nitrogen Oxides 3 3
Sulfur Oxides 0
Particulate (PM-10) 22 48 70
a Emissions categories, formulas, assumptions, and references are contained in Appendix C. -- denotes negligible emissions.
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1997.
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because infants and children, the elderly, and people with health afflictions, especially respiratory ailments, are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present.
Industrial and commercial districts are less sensitive to poor air quality because exposure periods are shorter and workers in these districts are, in general, the healthier segment of the public.
Recreational land uses are moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short in such places, vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory functions, which air pollution can impair. Noticeable air pollution also detracts from the recreational experience.
For this project, the Bardin Elementary School, the Alisal Elementary and High School, and nearby residential land uses would be considered sensitive receptors.
4.5-7
I '
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Air quality impacts would result both from construction activities and from the operation of the project. Construction emissions would have a temporary effect, while operational emissions would continue to affect air quality throughout the lifetime of the project.
Construction emissions would consist mainly of dust generated during earthwork and other construction activities, exhaust emissions from construction-related equipment and vehicles, and relatively minor emissions of ROG from paints and other architectural coatings. Over the longterm, the primary source of criteria air pollutant emissions from a residential development would be vehicular emissions generated by project-related traffic. Natural gas used for space heating would also generate air pollutants, but to a much lesser extent.
Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally have a significant air quality impact if it would violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Dispersion modeling techniques provide estimates in terms of concentrations (e.g., parts per million) which can be directly compared to ambient air quality standards; however, since dispersion modeling is not feasible for a regional pollutant like ozone, MBUAPCD recommends the use of emissions-based criteria to evaluate the significance of increases in emissions of ozone precursor emissions (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1995). For ROG or NOx emissions, an increase of 150 pounds per day or more from direct and indirect sources would be considered significant. In this context, direct sources refer to those emissions sources that emit air pollutants at a given site, such as water heaters and space heaters at a residence, and indirect sources refer to those sources that emit air pollutants primarily away from the site and yet are connected with the use of the site, such as auto trips to and from work, shopping, or other destinations.
For PM-10, MBUAPCD recommends a threshold of 82 pounds per day from direct sources as the significance criterion. Carbon monoxide impacts are evaluated through dispersion modeling techniques so that a direct comparison with ambient air quality standards can be used to evaluate
4.5-8
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
the significance of carbon monoxide impacts. Cumulative impacts on regional ozone concentrations are based upon a consistency determination with the AQMP.
Methodology
Fugitive dust from project construction activities is quantified on the basis of emissions factors published by the U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). Operational-phase vehicular emissions from the proposed 853 single-family residences are estimated using the URBEMIS computer program developed by the California Air Resources Board (California Air Resources Board, 1995b). The vehicle fleet mix recommended by MBUAPCD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was modified slightly to more accurately reflect the fleet mix generated by a residential subdivision. Stationary source emissions from the residential units were estimated using factors developed by the California Air Resources Board (California Air Resources Board, 1995c). Stationary and mobile source emissions were added and total emissions were compared against the significance thresholds established by the MBUAPCD (e.g., 150 pounds per day for ROG orNOx).
Roadside carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled using the line dispersion model, CALINE4. This Gaussian dispersion model calculates one-hour concentrations on the basis of peak-hour traffic volumes, roadway configurations, and worst-case meteorological assumptions.
CALINE4-generated concentrations are added to projected background concentrations obtained from MBUAPCD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Eight-hour carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated from the one-hour concentrations by using a persistence factor of 0.7 and then adding in the appropriate eight-hour background concentration. The resulting ambient carbon monoxide concentrations were then compared to the one-hour and eight-hour state carbon monoxide standards to determine if there would be any air quality standard violations.
The cumulative impact on regional ozone concentration is evaluated based on a determination of the consistency of the project with the AQMP. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) makes this determination for projects in Monterey County.
Impact 4.5.1: Construction activities would temporarily generate criteria air pollutants, particularly PM-10, over the expected six-year construction period. This would be a shortterm significant effect.
Construction of the project would generate fugitive dust (including PM-10), and other criteria air pollutants from exhaust emissions. A large portion of the total construction dust emissions
4.5-9
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
would result from grading activities and heavy equipment travel over temporary roads at the construction site. Dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Equipment and vehicles used for the construction of the project would generate criteria air pollutants from engine exhausts.
Development of the proposed project would include six phases that would occur over approximately six years. Typically, with this size of development, three builders would proceed on development of 50 lots each during a given year. The sequence of construction for each of these 50-unit blocks of homes would begin with approximately four months of site preparation during which most of the grading would occur followed by four months of home construction.
Most of the first month would be devoted to rough grading of roadways and building pads. The next two months would be needed for installation of storm, sewer, and water infrastructure, and one month would be needed for utilities and streets. Actual building construction would then occur over the next four months. Most construction activities typically end by the end of· November for the winter and do not start again until the beginning of March. Since excavation and grading activities would occur intermittently, rather than continually, no PM-10 concentration modeling was performed for this assessment.
While most of the dust associated with project construction would occur during the first month of site preparation, dust would also be generated during installation of infrastructure and underground utilities primarily from trenching activities and heavy vehicle movement over unpaved surfaces. In addition, following installation of underground utilities, approximately one week of roadway regrading is required before paving. Relatively little dust would be generated during the four months when the homes would be built since the homes would be slab-on-grade construction (i.e. would not include excavated basements) and since the interior roads would be paved after site preparation and prior to building construction (paved interior roads would reduce the dust generated by vehicle movement over unpaved surfaces on the project site). During home construction,. however, dust would be generated during regrading of the lots prior to landscaping. This regrading would take approximately one day per unit.
As stated above, dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Over the course of the year, PM-10 emissions could vary from virtually zero on non-workdays and from December through February to approximately 280 to 350 pounds per day on days when rough grading would be taking place. This estimate for PM-10 from rough grading is based on a U.S. EPA emissions factor for heavy
4.5-10
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
construction activity of 0.77 tons per acre per month which was converted to 70 pounds per acre per day (assuming 22 work days per month and no dust abatement) and an estimate of a maximum of four to five acres of grading on any one given day of construction (assuming three builders). If only two of the builders were to conduct rough grading at the same time, PM-10 emissions would be approximately 190 to 235 pounds per day, and if only one builder were to be grading on a given day, PM-10 emissions would be approximately 95 to 115 pounds per day. Based on these estimates, there would be days when construction-related PM-10 emissions would exceed the MBUAPCDrecommended threshold of 82 pounds per day.
Since construction could generate substantial amounts of dust (i.e., greater than 82 pounds per day), construction could also elevate local PM-10 concentrations to the extent that state PM-10 standards would be violated. Additionally, land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site include sensitive land uses such as two elementary schools, one high school and residences. In later stages of project development, residents of the homes built earlier would also be exposed.
Therefore, project construction would have a significant, albeit temporary and intermittent, effect on air quality.
According to MBUAPCD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, calculating temporary ROO and NOx emissions from construction is not necessary because those emissions have been accounted for in state- and federally-required plans (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1995).
ROO emissions from paints and other architectural coatings, similarly, would be relatively minimal compared to regional emission totals.
Mitigation Measure
4.5.1a The project sponsor shall require site preparation and home building contractors to implement the following dust control program during construction to reduce the contribution of project construction to local PM-10 concentrations:
Water active sites at least twice daily. Increase the frequency of watering when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Effective watering generally reduces dust by as much as 50 percent over uncontrolled conditions.
Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high winds (instantaneous gusts over 15 miles per hour).
Pave interior roads as soon as practicable after the close of site preparation to reduce dust emissions from vehicle movement over unpaved roads on the project site.
4.5-11
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
Enforce a speed limit of 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces.
Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stock piles (e.g. sand, gravel, or dirt) and inactive construction areas.
Sweep streets at the end of each construction day if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site to adjacent thoroughfares.
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials or require that all haul trucks maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
Sweep up dirt or debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter through vehicle movement over these surfaces.
Install wheel washers at the entrance to the construction site(s) for all exiting trucks.
Post a publicly visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to all complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of MBUAPCD shall be visible on the sign to ensure compliance with Rule 402 of the MBUAPCD Rules and Regulations (Nuisance).
Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary.
Maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize particulates from exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and equipment should be running only when necessary. Equipment should be kept in good condition and well-tuned, to minimize exhaust emissions.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, an approximately 75 percent reduction in PM-10 emissions would be expected. This would reduce the chance that PM-10 standards would be violated in the vicinity of the project site or at occupied home sites within project site during the later stages of project build-out. Although violations could still occur, they would be intermittent over the total construction period.
A further reduction the amount of PM -10 generated daily could be achieved through limiting the amount of grading at any one time. Such a limitation, however, might not be feasible in that it would require that no more than five acres would be undergoing grading, assuming 70 pounds per acre per day of uncontrolled PM-10 emissions and 75 percent reduction through mitigation.
4.5-12
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact of constructiongenerated PM-10. However, it is not certain that construction-generated PM-10 emissions would be reduced to below the MBUAPCD's threshold of 82 pounds per day, and therefore this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. I
Impact 4.5.2: Criteria air pollutants generated by the proposed project would increase total air pollutant emissions in the region. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Long-term air quality would be adversely affected by air pollutant emissions from both mobile and stationary sources. Mobile emissions would consist of emissions from vehicle trips associated with the residential units. Stationary source emissions would consist mainly of emissions from natural gas used for space heating, fireplaces, architectural coatings, and use of aerosols and other volatile consumer products. Project emissions in Year 2005 (i.e. at assumed buildout) have been estimated and are shown in Table 10. Table 11 shows the net change in emissions due to the Project once existing emissions have been taken into account (see Table 9), As shown in Table 11, net project emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulates would be below MBUAPCD CEQA significance thresholds. However, net emissions of reactive organic gases, also knoVvn as hydrocarbons, would exceed the threshold of 150 potmcls per clay. (Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are evaluated differently from the other criteria pollutants. See Impact 4.5.3, below.)
As described in Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation, the project sponsor has developed a Facilities Trip Reduction Plan, as required by the Salinas Municipal Code. The trip reduction plan states that the project could achieve up to 7.5 percent reduction in vehicle trips, compared to conditions without such a plan, by implementation of features such as provision of ridesharing/ transit and child care information to buyers, inclusion of bicycle racks and bicycle lanes on roadways, provision of transit information, and creation of transit stops and shelters, and provision of pedestrian facilities. (The traffic analysis in this EIR did not assume a reduction in vehicle trips attributable to a trip reduction plan, in order to provide a conservative analysis.) Assuming the plan reduces vehicle trips (and associated VMT) by one-half of its 7.5 percent goal (a conservative assumption), net emissions of reactive organic gases would be reduced by about 4 pounds per day (from 147 +59 pounds per day to 143 +55- pounds per day). , which would exceed the MBUAPCD significance threshold by 5 potmcls per clay.
4.5-13
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
TABLE 10: ESTIMATED EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT, YEAR 2005 Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Reactive Organic Gases
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Particulate
Annual Average (pounds per day) a_
Traffic..b. Stationary Total
858l.l76 267 -l-;-B5 1.44 3
tee 88 65 +65153
-lB4 96 33 ffi 129
12 1 13
149 32 181
a
Q
Emissions categories, formulas, assumptions, and references are contained in Appendix C.
Emissions reflect wintertime conditions for carbon monoxide and summertime conditions for the other pollutants listed in the table.
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1998.
TABLE 11: ESTIMATED NET INCREASE IN EMISSIONS AS SOCIA TED WITH THE PROJECT, YEAR 2005
Annual Average (pounds per d!!y)l!
Applicable Project Applicable
Existing Project Significance Site-only Significance
Pollutant Emissions Emissions Difference Criterion Emissionsc Criterion Carbon Monoxide (CO) 4 ~ t;H+ b N/A
1.443 1.439
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 6 +65 153 +§9147 150 N/A
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 3 ffi 129 +34126 150 N/A
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 0 13 13 150 N/A
Particulate (PM -1 O)C 70 181 111 N/A 32
Derived from emissions estimates contained in Tables 9 and 10. a b Because carbon monoxide emissions from the project would be primarily emitted from indirect sources (i.e., motor vehicles), the significance of carbon monoxide impacts is evaluated by dispersion modeling rather than by using the 550 pounds per day emissions threshold. c MBUAPCD criterion for PM-10 is based on direct (on-site) emissions only.
N/A =Not Applicable
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1998.
4.5-14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
82 Mitigation Measures
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
4.5.2a: None required. However. the followin~: measures are recommended to minimize the lon~:-term increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from the project. The project sponsor shaH could ensure that all homes designed to accommodate wood burning include EPA-certified wood stoves and/or fireplace inserts.
EPA-certified stoves have been shown to have 70 to 90 percent less emissions than conventional stoves. Use of EPA-certified equipment would reduce annual average residential wood-burning emissions ofPM-10 from 30 pounds per day to 6 pounds per day, and would also reduce emissions of reactive organic gases.
4.5.2b: The following additional measures are identified to reduce the emissions associated with home energy use., sinee the tehiele trip reduetion plan would not be expeeted to reduee the net inerease in projeet•related IIC emissions to less than 150 pounds per day, the MBUAPCD signifieanee eriterion.
• The sponsor 8hftH could provide an information package on solar space heating, hot water systems, and pool heating to prospective home owners. • The sponsor 8hftH could require that home builders installlow-NOx space heaters and water heaters, which would reduce NOx emissions from that source by 25 to 60 percent. (Along with ROG, NOx is an ozone precursor.) • The sponsor 8hftH could require that home designs exploit solar energy to the extent feasible, including solar panels and passive solar features. • The sponsor 8hftH could require home builders to provide exterior electrical outlets to enable residents to use electrical garden equipment (lawnmowers, etc.) instead of gasoline-powered equipment, potentially reducing emissions from such equipment.
• The sponsor 8hftH could require home builders, to the extent feasible, to install the most energy-efficient appliances available on the market.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would be expected to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants due to project operation and, in particular, would be expected to achieve a reduction in emissions of reactive organic gases of at least 5 pounds per day. This wottld resttlt in net project emissions of reacthe organic gases that wottld not exceed the MBUAPCD thTeshold of 150 pounds per day. As noted in the above analysis, the ealettlations have been completed assttm:ing the project is completed by 2005. Becattse emission factors ttsed in the calettlations anticipate eontintted decrease in emissions from atttomobiles, the same ealettlations performed for the year 2007 wottld show enottgh of a decrease in emissions, compared to those in 2005, to avoid any exceedance of the MBUAPCD thTesholds. In view of the above, With or without the above mitigation measures, project emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less than significant. ~ ith mitigation.
4.5-15
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
Impact 4.5.3: Project-related traffic would raise ambient carbon monoxide concentrations along access roadways and intersections. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Carbon monoxide concentrations were modeled for evening peak-hour traffic conditions for the three intersections most affected by project traffic using CALINE4. The results of the modeling effort are shown in Table 12. As shown in the table, carbon monoxide concentrations would not violate the air quality standards under any of the analyzed scenarios. Carbon monoxide emission rates are projected to decrease into the future due to cleaner burning fuels and improved combustion technologies. Since the project would not cause any carbon monoxide standard violations, project-generated traffic would not have a significant effect on ambient carbon monoxide concentrations. Cumulative effects on local carbon monoxide concentrations would also be less-than-significant.
TABLE 12: PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED
INTERSECTIONS
Concentrations (ppm).ll..b ____ _
Existing+ Project Cumulative
Intersection
Averaging
Time .(hr}
Existing
1997 2005 2005
E. Laurel Dr./Sanborn St. 1
8 13.5
8.4 8.7
5.2 9.6
5.8 E. Alisal St./John St./Williams Rd. 1
8 11.8
7.2 8.2
4.8 9.2
5.5 Sanborn St./E. Market St. 1
8 14.5
9.1 9.6
5.8 10.7
6.6 a
b
Projected using CALINE4 dispersion model, worst-case meteorological assumptions, and evening peak-hour traffic estimates. Receptors were placed at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the intersection. Composite emissions factors from MBUAPCD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were used for this analysis. CALINE4 printouts showing input and results are provided in Appendix C.
One-hour average concentrations include a background concentration of 4.4 ppm in 1997 and 3.9 ppm in 2005.
Eight-hour average concentrations are assumed to be 70 percent of the local contribution to the one hour concentrations, plus a background concentration of 2.0 ppm in 1997 and 1.8 ppm in 2005.
Note: The state one-hour carbon monoxide standard is 20 ppm and the federal standard is 35 ppm. The state and federal eight-hour carbon monoxide standards are 9.0 ppm. Bold-face values indicate violation of standard.
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1998.
4.5-16
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.5 Air Quality
Mitigation Measure 4.5.3: None required.
Impact 4.5.4: The project, along with regional growth and development, would have a cumulative air quality impact. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
The project would incrementally add to regional emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), along with such emissions resulting from regional growth and development. AMBAG has determined that the project is consistent with the regional AQMP (Papadakis, 1998).1 Therefore, the project would not be considered to have a significant cumulative effect on regional air quality.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: No mitigation is required.
REFERENCES- Air Quality
Brennan, Janet, Senior Planner, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, telephone conversation, July 23, 1997.
California Air Resources Board, Emissions Inventory 1993, June 1995a.
California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS Computer Program, Version 5.0, User Guide, July 1995b.
California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Procedural Manual, Volume III: Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions, September 1995c.
California Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendments to the Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards, November 1996.
City of Salinas, Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, November 1988.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, October 1995.
Papadakis, Nicolas, Executive Director, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, letter February 26, 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 1995.
The consistency finding was based on a previously proposed, larger project, and would remain applicable to the project analyzed herein. A copy of the letter containing AMBAG's consistency determination is included in Appendix C.
4.5-17
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.6 SOILS CONTAMINATION
SETTING
Definitions
A substance may be considered hazardous due to a number of criteria, including toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. A hazardous material is defined as "a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed" (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Section 66084).
Once a hazardous material is ready for discard, it becomes a hazardous waste. A "hazardous waste", for the purpose of this report, is any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded, or (planned to be) recycled (California Health and Safety Code, Section 25124 ). In addition, hazardous wastes may occasionally be generated by actions that change the composition of previously non-hazardous materials. The same criteria that render a material hazardous make a waste hazardous: toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.
Toxic, ignitable, corrosive and reactive materials are all subsets of hazardous materials and wastes. For example, if a material is toxic, it is hazardous, but not all hazardous materials are toxic. Specific tests for toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity and reactivity are set forth in Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Sections 66693 - 66708. Each type of hazardous material is defined below.
Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability, or even death. For example, such substances can cause disorientation, acute allergic reactions, asphyxiation, skin irritation or other adverse health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels (the level depends on the substance involved).
Carcinogens (substances known to cause cancer) are a class of toxic substances. Examples of · toxic substances include benzene, which is a component of gasoline and a suspected carcinogen, and methylene chloride, a paint stripper.
4.6-1
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.6 Soils Contamination
Ignitable substances are hazardous because of their ability to bum. Gasoline, hexane and natural gas are examples of ignitable substances.
Corrosive materials can cause severe bums or damage materials; these include strong acids and bases, such as lye or sulfuric (battery) acid.
Reactive materials may cause explosions or generate toxic gases. Explosives, pure sodium or potassium metal (which react violently with water), and cyanides (which react with acids to produce toxic hydrogen cyanide) are examples ofreactive materials.
Contamination and contaminants are not necessarily hazardous materials or waste. Soil or water is considered to be contaminated if it contains elevated (above background) levels of a chemical substance, and if the resulting soil or water has the potential to cause human health effects or adversely affect the natural environment.
Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics of a hazardous material, remediation (clean-up) of the site may be required by the regulatory agencies. Several regulatory agencies usually become involved in overseeing site remediation activities. Clean-up requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis.
Government Regulations
The use of hazardous materials is subject to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government. Appendix D provides a brief overview of these laws and regulations.
Hazardous Materials Use at and Near the Project Site
The project site is the location of the Sconberg Ranch, which is and has been used for agricultural land uses. Because of the agricultural uses on the site, the potential exists for surface soils to be contaminated from pesticide application. Consequently, a soil survey was performed in April of 1997 to characterize the degree and extent of potential pesticide contamination on the project site (Lee & Pierce, 1997). Ten soil samples were collected from row ends identified in a review of historic aerial photographs of the project site. All ten samples were tested for the presence of pesticides in a California certified laboratory using EPA method 8080. All laboratory results indicated that detected residual pesticide contamination is below state hazardous waste thresholds. In addition, the ten samples were composited into two samples for
4.6-2
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.6 Soils Contamination
analysis of metals content. With consideration given to dilution processes required to composite the samples, detected metals concentrations were also below state hazardous waste thresholds.
The State of California Cortese hazardous waste and substance sites list was also consulted for contamination sites in the project area as required by CEQA. No hazardous waste sites or hazardous substances are identified on the project site.
IMP ACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project would be considered to pose a significant impact if it would:
• pose public health and safety hazards through release of emissions or risk of upset; • result in unsafe conditions for employees or surrounding neighborhoods; • not comply with all applicable laws regarding the handling of hazardous materials; or • involve the use, production, or disposal of materials in a manner that poses a hazard to people, or to animal or plant populations in the area affected.
As discussed above, there is no indication that the soils proposed to be disturbed for project development are contaminated with hazardous materials or wastes. There is no foreseeable risk to people, or to animal or plant populations, on the project site or in the vicinity. Consequently, this impact is considered to be less than significant.
REFERENCES - Soils Contamination
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 "Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Wastes," Chapter 11, Article 3 (Characteristics of Hazardous Waste), Sections 66261.20-24.
Lee & Pierce Inc., Residual Pesticide and Metals Investigations for Sconberg Ranch, Salinas, California, April 9, 1997.
4.6-3
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 NOISE
SETTING
Introduction to Noise Principles and Descriptors
Environmental noise is usually measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). 1 Environmental noise typically fluctuates over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors include the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), the daynight average noise level (Ldn), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).Z The Ldn and CNEL are commonly used in establishing noise exposure guidelines for specific land uses.
By virtue of the logarithmic nature of the decibel, a doubling of a noise source (e.g., 400 auto pass by events compared to 200 auto pass by events in an hour) results in an increase of three dB A. In general, an increase of two to three dB A is regarded as the threshold of "noticeable" change in a noise environment while an increase of ten dBA is perceived as a doubling of loudness.
The noise level experienced at a receptor depends on the type of noise source, the distance between the source and the receptor, presence or absence of noise barriers and other shielding features, and the amount of noise attenuation (lessening) provided by the intervening terrain. For line sources, such as vehicular traffic, noise decreases by approximately 3.0 to 4.5 dBA for every doubling of the distance from the source. For point or stationary noise sources, such as fans or generator, a noise reduction of 6.0 to 7.5 dB A is experienced for each doubling of the distance from the source.
Regulatory Setting
Noise is regulated in the City of Salinas through implementation of policies contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (Noise Element) and through enforcement of City 2 A decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves exert a sound pressure (commonly called "sound level"), measured in decibels. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly-encountered noise levels. The highest dBA recorded in a given period of time is known as the maximum noise level (Lmax). All of the noise levels reported herein are "A-weighted" unless stated otherwise.
Leq• the energy equivalent noise level (or "average" noise level), is the equivalent steady-state continuous noise level which, in a stated period of time, contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level actually measured during the same period. Ldn• the day-night average noise level, is a weighted 24-hour average noise level. With the Ldn descriptor, noise levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00a.m. are adjusted upward by ten dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noise as compared to daytime noise. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn• except that it includes an approximate five-dB A adjustment to evening noise (7:00p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) in addition to the ten-dBA adjustment for nighttime noise.
4.7-1
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
ordinances. The Noise Element identifies compatible noise environments for different types of land uses in the City (City of Salinas, 1988). Table 13 contains the noise/land use compatibility guidelines for the types of uses found in the project vicinity. For residential and school land uses, the City strives to achieve an exterior noise level of 60 Ldn·. Guiding policies of the Noise Element include the following:
• Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources, and noise emanating from temporary activities;
• Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment; • Through design review, require features to reduce the impact of noise on inhabitants of residential development; and
· • Locate urban development within the Salinas Municipal Airport ''area of influence" to be compatible with the Airport noise environment.
Implementing policies of the Noise Element include the following:
• Require noise-attenuation measures including measures to shield sensitive uses from noise sources for new developments exposed to noise levels above "normally acceptable" levels. • Mitigate interior noise to 45 Ldn in habitable rooms in new residential projects. • Ensure that new development or changes in use mitigate noise to acceptable levels at the property line.
• Minimize residential population increases within the 55 CNEL contour related to the Salinas Municipal Airport as projected to the year 2000 (Section 37-154(a) and Chapter 21A of the Salinas Municipal Code).
In addition to Noise Element policies, the City also has two Noise Ordinances, Chapter 21A and Chapter 37 of the Salinas Municipal Code. Chapter 21A limits construction noise to the hours of 7:00a.m. to 9:00p.m. Chapter 37, the Zoning Code, contains additional noise regulations.
Existing Noise Sources and Levels
Existing noise sources in the project area include vehicular traffic along Williams and Alisal Roads, and aircraft overflights associated with Salinas Municipal Airport (Airport), located approximately one-half mile southwest of the project site. The eastern portion of the project site lies beneath a flight track for incoming aircraft (City of Salinas, 1993). In general, aircraft overflights are characterized by brief intermittent noise events that intrude over background noise levels generated by such sources as traffic and wind.
4.7-2
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
ordinances. The Noise Element identifies compatible noise environments for different types of land uses in the City (City of Salinas, 1988). Table 13 contains the noise/land use compatibility guidelines for the types of uses found in the project vicinity. For residential and school land uses, the City strives to achieve an exterior noise level of 60 Ldn· Guiding policies of the Noise Element include the following:
• Minimize vehicular and stationary noise sources, and noise emanating from temporary activities;
• Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment; • Through design review, require features to reduce the impact of noise on inhabitants of residential development; and
• Locate urban development within the Salinas Municipal Airport ''area of influence" to be compatible with the Airport noise environment.
Implementing policies of the Noise Element include the following:
• Require noise-attenuation measures including measures to shield sensitive uses from noise sources for new developments exposed to noise levels above "normally acceptable" levels. • Mitigate interior noise to 45 Ldn in habitable rooms in new residential projects. • Ensure that new development or changes in use mitigate noise to acceptable levels at the property line.
• Minimize residential population increases within the 55 CNEL contour related to the Salinas Municipal Airport as projected to the year 2000 (Section 37-154(a) and Chapter 21A of the Salinas Municipal Code).
In addition to Noise Element policies, the City also has two Noise Ordinances, Chapter 21A and Chapter 37 of the Salinas Municipal Code. Chapter 21A limits construction noise to the hours of 7:00a.m. to 9:00p.m. Chapter 37. the Zoning Code, contains additional noise regulations.
Existing Noise Sources and Levels
Existing noise sources in the project area include vehicular traffic along Williams and Alisal Roads, and aircraft overflights associated with Salinas Municipal Airport (Airport), located approximately one-half mile southwest of the project site. The eastern portion of the project site lies beneath a flight track for incoming aircraft (City of Salinas, 1993). In general, aircraft overflights are characterized by brief intermittent noise events that intrude over background noise levels generated by such sources as traffic and wind.
4.7-2
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
TABLE 13: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY EXTERIOR
NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Land Use Category
Residential
Schools, Libraries,
Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks
a Normally Acceptable:
b Conditionally Acceptable:
c Normally Unacceptable:
d Clearly Unacceptable:
Normally
Acceptablea
up to 60
up to 60
up to 70
Community Noise Exposure. Ldn.-------
Conditionally Normally
Acceptableb Unacceptablec
60 to 70 70 to 75
60 to 70 70 to 80
N/A 70 to 72
Clearly
Unacceptabled
above 75
above 80
above 72
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise requirements.
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: City of Salinas, Noise Element of the General Plan, 1988.
Approximately 90 percent of all aircraft operations at the Airport are performed by pistonpowered aircraft, and among these operations, touch-and-go (training) operations represent a sizable portion (approximately 36 percent). Jet aircraft comprise approximately 1 percent of total annual aircraft operations at the Airport.
The Noise Element includes noise contours from vehicular traffic along major roadways in Salinas, and based on those contours, the project site experiences traffic noise levels that are less than 60 Ldn except for the strip of land immediately adjacent to Williams Road which experiences approximately 60 Ldn (see Figure 16). Existing aircraft noise at the project site is 55 Ldn based on noise contours developed for the Airport, as shown on Figure 16 (City of Salinas, 1993).
4.7-3
r
I
I
I
' ' - -+- Flight Tracks
- •--• Noise Contours
--70 (number= CNEL Noise Level)
PROJECT
SITE
I
I
I
I
I
------------------------Mountain Va//ey/960352 • SOURCE: Salinas General Plan Figure 16 Projected Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
4.7-4
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21096, the project site is within an area that warrants analysis under the Airport Land Use Handbook (hereafter referred to as "Handbook") published by Caltrans (Caltrans, 1993). The CEQA section states that the Handbook "shall be utilized as a technical resource to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to airport-related safety hazards and noise problems." The Handbook includes noise-related recommendations that suggest the airport's. 55 CNEL noise generation level is well below the 60 CNEL criteria, which is considered suitable for arrports in suburban settings. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the noise-related guidelines included within the Handbook. (See Section 4.1, Land Use, for a discussion of safety-related issues.) Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses.
Noise-sensitive land uses in the project area include an existing single-family residential neighborhood and an existing multi-family affordable housing development to the west and the Bardin Elementary School located at the southwest corner of the project site on Alisal Road.
Alisal High School and Community School and a single family residential neighborhood are to the northwest and north of the project site, respectively, across Williams Road. Agricultural land uses are predominant to the south and east of the project site, and are not considered noisesensitive. The project itself includes residential and school land uses, both of which are considered noise-sensitive.
IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Future noise sources associated with the proposed project would include noise from construction activities and operational noise from intensified land use on the project site. Construction noise would have a short-term effect, while operational noise, primarily from vehicle traffic, would continue throughout the lifetime of the project.
4.7-5
Approach to Analysis
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
Temporary, construction-related noise impacts are based on estimates of typical noise levels generated during different phases of construction. The impact of construction noise is determined by comparing construction noise to existing ambient levels at noise-sensitive uses taking into account the distance between construction activities and the duration of the construction period.
Long-term noise impacts associated with increased vehicular traffic are assessed by using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHW A) traffic noise prediction model (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1978). The model uses roadway traffic volumes, projected in the traffic analysis, to predict resultant noise levels with and without the project. Road segments where existing traffic volumes would increase by 10 percent or more as a result of the project were modeled.
Roadway segments not adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses were eliminated from this analysis.
Significance Criteria
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would normally have a significant adverse impact on the environment if it would increase substantially the ambient noise levels of adjoining areas.
Temporary impacts during construction are considered significant if they would be substantially greater than existing ambient noise levels, would substantially interfere with affected land uses, would continue for a substantial period, or would affect noise-sensitive uses during the nighttime. For assessment of temporary construction noise impacts, "substantially greater" means more than five dB A (hourly Leq or Ldn).
To assess long-term changes in the ambient noise environment, the following significance criteria take into account both the absolute change in noise levels due to a project and the relationship between the resultant noise level and the City's noise/land use compatibility standards (see Table 13). Where the resultant noise level would remain "normally acceptable" for the affected land use, a change of five Ldn or more is significant. Where the resultant noise level would be in range described as "conditionally acceptable," a change of three Ldn or more is significant, and where the resultant noise level would be "unacceptable," a change of 1.5 Ldn or more is significant. It should be noted that the noise standards in Table 13 apply to new construction, and do not specifically apply to existing uses. However, for purposes of a
4.7-6
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
conservative analysis, these standards are generally relied upon to assist in determining the significance of noise impacts.
Impact 4.7.1: Grading and construction activities in the project area would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above ambient background levels. This would be a significant impact.
Noise from construction activity would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and usage rates of various pieces of construction equipment. Table 14 shows typical construction noise levels generated during various phases of construction. While the project is expected to be under construction for six years, the impact of construction at any one location would be of considerably less duration as residences would be completed in a given area and construction would proceed to the next phase and location.
TABLE 14: TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS a
Construction Phase
Ground Clearing
Excavation
Foundations
Erection
Finishing
83 88
81 81
88 Noise levels corresponds to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971.
Based on the estimates shown in Table 14, excavation (grading) and finishing activities would be the noisiest phases of construction during which noise levels would reach approximately 88 Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a particular phase of construction and a distance of 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971).
4.7-7
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
Hours of construction would be limited to between 7:00a.m. and 9:00p.m., as required by the City of Salinas' Noise Ordinance.
Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Assuming an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, construction noise of 88 Leq at 50 feet would attenuate to a level of 82 dBA at 100 feet, and 76 dBA at 200 feet. Depending upon the phase and location of construction on any given working day, nearby residences and schools would experience noise levels that would be substantially higher than existing background levels, which are relatively low. Since construction activities would substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, albeit temporarily, construction noise would be a significant effect of the project.
Mitigation Measures
4.7.1a Construction equipment noise shall be minimized during project construction by muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on construction equipment (per the manufacturers' specifications) and by shrouding or shielding impact tools.
To minimize noise generated during project construction, the construction contractor shall be required to muffle and shield intakes and exhaust on construction equipment per the manufacturers' specifications and shroud or shield impact tools.
4.7.lb The project sponsor shall coordinate with administrators of the three nearby schools to develop a construction schedule that would minimize the potential for interference with school functions and activities.
In addition to the coordination requirement, the project sponsor shall provide school administrators with a phone number to call and report noise problems that arise over the course of project construction.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact of construction noise to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 4.7.2: Project-generated vehicular traffic would result in an increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways used to access the site. This would be a significant impact.
Based on the traffic analysis prepared for this report, the proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 9,495 additional daily vehicle trips. These trips would be distributed over the local street network and would affect roadside noise levels.
4.7-8
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
To assess the impact of project traffic on roadside noise levels, noise level projections were made using the FHW A noise prediction model (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1978) for those road segments that would experience an increase in traffic volume of greater than 10 percent and that would pass through areas where residential uses are located. The results of the modeling effort are shown in Table 15. For the modeling effort, p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes during weekdays were used. Estimated noise levels shown in Table 15 correspond to a distance of approximately 50 feet from the centerline of the applicable road segment.
In areas where noise is dominated by traffic, the p.m. peak-hour Leq is generally equivalent to the Ldn or CNEL at that location. Thus, the noise level estimates shown in Table 15 can be used to evaluate the 24-hour noise environment in terms of Ldn, the descriptor used to determine noise I land use compatibility.
Project-generated traffic would not significantly increase traffic noise levels. The increase along both segments of Williams Road, an area in which the resultant noise level would be "conditionally acceptable" for residential land use, would be less than 3 Ldn based on the peakhour traffic noise estimates. However, the cumulative impact, which is shown through a comparison of "existing" noise levels with those under "existing plus project plus cumulative," would be significant since the cumulative change would be greater than 3 Ldn east of Del Monte Avenue.
This impact could be reduced through construction of sound walls along Williams Road.
However, this approach is probably not feasible, given that existing homes along Williams Road are oriented to the street, with front yards along Williams Road. Cumulative development, including the project, would increase noise levels in the area to a level comparable to those in a moderately dense urban environment. As shown in Table 15, the project would make an incremental contribution to this impact.
The increase due to project traffic along Bardin Road and Argentine Drive would be 3 Ldn or less based on the peak-hour noise level estimates shown in Table 15. The resulting traffic noise levels along Bardin Road and Argentine Road would be "normally acceptable" for residential uses. Because the addition of project-related traffic would not substantially increase the noise environment for residents on modeled roadway segments, this impact would be less than significant. The cumulative impact along these roads would be minimal, and would be less than significant.
4.7-9
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
TABLE 15: EXISTING AND PROJECTED PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC-NOISE LEVELS Peak Hour Noise Level (Leq)a
Existing+ Existing + Project +
Roadway Segment Existing ( 1997) Project Cumulative
Williams Road - west of Del 66 67 69
Monte A venueb
Williams Road - east of Del 63 64 68
Monte A venuec
Bardin Road- north of 58 60 60
Countryside Drived
Bardin Road - south of 58 59 59
Countryside Drivee
Argentine Drive- east of Bardin 51 54 54
Roadf
a
b
c
Noise levels were calculated using the FHW A traffic noise prediction model for p.m. peak-hour conditions and the results of the traffic analysis conducted for this report. Noise levels were calculated at 50 feet from the centerline of the roadway. A vehicle mix of 98 percent autos (two-axle, four wheel vehicles up to 9,900 pounds) and 2 percent medium trucks (two-axle, six wheel vehicles up to 26,000 pounds) was used for Williams Road. A vehicle mix of 99 percent autos and 1 percent medium trucks was used for all other road segments. d
e
f
Williams Road between Bardin Road and Del Monte A venue. The average vehicle speed was assumed to be 35 mph.
Williams Road between Del Monte Avenue and proposed Freedom Parkway. The average vehicle speed was assumed to be 35 mph.
Bardin Road between Williams Road and Countryside Drive. The average vehicle speed was assumed to be 25 mph.
Bardin Road between Countryside Drive and Argentine Drive. The average vehicle speed was assumed to be 25 mph.
Argentine Drive east of Bardin Drive. The average vehicle speed was assumed to be 25 mph.
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1997.
Mitigation Measure
4.7.2 No mitigation is available for increased traffic noise levels along already developed portions of Williams Road.
This would be a significant, unavoidable cumulative effect; however, the project's contribution to this effect would be incremental (one decibel on Williams east and west of Del Monte), and would not likely be noticeable where the resulting noise level would be greatest (Williams west of Del Monte, where the total increase, including noise from cumulative traffic, would be three decibels, and Williams east of Del Monte, where the cumulative increase would be five decibels).
4.7-10
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
Impact 4.7.3: The project would introduce a noise-sensitive use to an area that would experience substantial traffic noise and that lies within the vicinity of an Airport. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Based on the traffic noise estimates described under Impact 4.7.2, future traffic noise along Williams Road (east of Del Monte Avenue) would exceed 60 Ldn within approximately 150 feet of the centerline of that road. Depending upon how close residential parcels would be located to Williams Road, the project may be introducing noise-sensitive uses to noise levels in excess of those considered "normally acceptable." However, the project sponsor has anticipated this impact and proposes sound walls along arterial routes surrounding the site's boundary, including Williams Road. The noise analysis concludes that such a wall would be required along Williams Road assuming that provision of a buffer alone (150 feet from the centerline) would not be possible on the Williams Road frontage. To be effective, sound walls must be solid, continuous, flush to the ground, and must break the line-of-site between receptors and the noise source. In this instance, the proposed 8-foot sound wall would be sufficient to reduce future traffic noise to 60 Ldn for ground-level receptors at the project site along Williams Road. A sound wall, along with double-paned windows, would also ensure that interior noise levels meet the General Plan interior noise standard of 45 dBA, Ldn.
Future residents of the project site would also experience intermittent aircraft noise since they would be located beneath an arrival flight track for Salinas Municipal Airport. Figure 16 shows the flight tracks and future (Year 201 0) noise contours from aircraft operations associated with Salinas Municipal Airport. As shown in Figure 16, the project site would continue to lie outside of the 55 CNEL contour of the Airport for the foreseeable future, and as such, would not be significantly affected by aircraft noise.
Implementation of the above measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure
4.7 .3 None required (mitigation proposed as part of project, as described above).
4.7-11
REFERENCES - Noise
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.7 Noise
Caltrans, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics; Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, December 1993, Table 7B, p. 7-15.
City of Salinas, Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report for Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan and First Stage Development, May 1993.
City of Salinas, Gen~ral Plan, Noise Element, 1988.
U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971, pp. 20, 56-61.
4.7-12
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.8 FLORAANDFAUNA
SEITING
Agriculture has been practiced for so long and so extensively on the project site and surrounding area that no known native plant communities remain.
Three major communities of native flora have been identified in the greater Salinas Area:
riparian woodland, grassland, and broadleaf evergreen. Wetlands occur to the west and south of the City along the Salinas River and chaparral occurs both above the river and in the hills to the east of the City.
Riparian woodland communities are found along permanently and seasonally flowing freshwater streams, creeks, and rivers. Flora in riparian woodland often includes such trees as black cottonwood, white alder, box elder, California bay laurel, and willows. Shrubs commonly found along the banks include wild rose, wild blackberry, and mugwort.
The largest and most representative communities of riparian woodland are found along the Salinas River, but some also exist along Natividad and Gabilan Creeks, about one and two miles, respectively, northwest of the project site. These two creeks and the associated habitat are the major environmentally sensitive areas in Salinas.
Grassland usually occurs in hills having too little moisture to support larger types of vegetation.
It occurs on marine terraces, ridge tops and in dry, hot valleys. Grassland species may also appear intermittently in closed-cone pine and cypress forest and in foothill woodland. The grassland community -- which itself was created, for the most part, by burning practices of the early American Indians, and agricultural practices of farmers-- has in tum been declining in the face of more intensive agricultural and urban development. Many of today's annual grasses, such as rye, wild oats, bromegrass, meadow fescue, needle grass, bluegrass, and blue bunch grass were introduced by settlers. Native grasses include lupine, clarkia, clover, storksbill, bird's foot trefoil, and owl's clover. Extensive grassland is located to the north and east of the project site, east of Old Stage Road, about two miles away.
4.8-1
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.8 Flora and Fauna
Broadleaf evergreen communities are characterized by madrone, tan oak, coast live oak, interior live oak, valley oak, and blue oak. Depending on local conditions, other trees may associate with the dominate oak species. Common underbrush includes poison oak, miner's lettuce, toy on, California buckeye, oak mistletoe, climbing bedstraw, mule ears, and fiesta flowers.
While broadleaf evergreen vegetation is found mainly in the Gabilan Mountains east of the project site, a fine stand of oak remains virtually unchanged from before the coming of the Spanish on the west comer of Williams Road and Old Stage Road about 1.5 miles east of the project site.
No riparian woodland, grassland, broadleaf evergreen, chaparral or wetlands have been identified in the project vicinity (City of Salinas, 1988).
Agricultural lands generally do not provide the same habitat values for mammals, reptiles, and amphibians as they do for birds. The requirements of large herbivorous mammals for food and cover from predators and the elements in their territory, as well as those for suitable courting and pairing habitats are generally not met by agricultural uses. Agricultural fields, which generally consist of monocrops of a uniform height, do not provide the diversity of structural components needed for large herbivores. Food diversity is also not available for larger mammals, such as deer, which eat bark, and a variety of foliage, and berries. To obtain this habitat diversity, the mammals would have to travel farther in large agricultural areas, which would decrease their energy efficiency. Herbivores are likely to use agricultural fields along their travel corridors from one natural community to another, although supportive studies are lacking.
Because the natural communities in the Salinas Area are so limited in extent, little wildlife remains. What animal species still exist are mainly those associated with urban, and to some degree, riparian environments. Gabilan and Natividad Creeks and the ponds between them are the most likely areas for a significant wildlife presence. Birds and mammals observed or tracked in these areas include great blue herons, snowy egrets, white tailed kites, tree swallows, bushtits, titmice, and chickadees, and raccoon, skunk, black tailed deer, grey and red fox, coyote, and a large variety of rodents (City of Salinas, 1988). There is potential for sensitive species that have adapted to moderate human disturbance, such as burrowing owl, to occur in the area.
4.8-2
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.8 Flora and Fauna
IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) specifies that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when the project has the potential to "substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number of a rare or endangered species." The Guidelines (Appendix G) provide examples of impacts that normally are considered significant, including those that would:
• substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species;
• interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or
• substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or plants.
Given these standards, a project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in substantial disruption to, or destruction of, any special status species, their habitat, or breeding grounds. Special status species include those plants and animals that are State and/or federally listed as endangered or threatened; Category 1 or 2 candidates for federal listing; and species of special concern as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game.
A project would also be considered to have a significant impact if it would result in a substantial loss of important plant or animal species; would cause a change in species composition, abundance or diversity beyond that of normal variability; or would indirectly result in the measurable degradation of sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands, riparian corridors, vernal pools, oak woodlands) through, for example, the introduction of erosion or runoff materials.
Impacts are generally considered not significant if the habitats and species affected are common and widespread in the region and the State. Examples include areas supporting landscaping and cultivated crops. These areas can readily be enhanced or rehabilitated.
Impact: None.
4.8-3
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.8 Flora and Fauna
Impact 4.8.1: Development of the proposed project could result in potentially adverse impacts on nesting and foraging habitat of the burrowing owl and, potentially, individuals of this species. This would be a significant impact.
Potential nesting and foraging habitat exists for the burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), a California species of concern, along the edges of the agricultural field that would be converted to residential use by the project. Individual owls could be affected directly by destruction of burrows.
Typically, the male burrowing owl builds a nest during late winter, prior to the mating season, which begins in February, and attracts a female burrowing owl to the nest. Pair bonding occurs in late February. Pair formation starts as early as December, but the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) considers February 1 as the cut-off date for relocation of one or more owls from a burrow location. In September the family and pairs break up.
Mitigation Measure
4.8.1 The project sponsor shall ensure that preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls are conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) survey protocol30 days prior to the start of each phase of project development. Survey results shall be submitted to the CDFG.
If no owls are present then no further mitigation is required. If owls are present, the CDFG should be notified. To mitigate the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the project site. the project sponsor may be required to acquire, if necessary. and permanently protect appropriately located foraging habitat. consistent with CDFG guidelines. Monitoring of said habitat, with reporting to the CDFG. to determine the success of the mitigation, may also be required. In addition: im:plem:eftt prcveHtiYe m:eastu es in aeeordaftcc with the proposed Bttrro·w"iHg Owl Sttr v C) Protocol Gt~ideliHcs created by CDFG based oft the work ofthe Bttrro wing 0 w 1 CoHsot tit1m:. These m:easttres iHelttde.
a) If owls are found within the development area outside the nesting season. the project sponsor shall use passive relocation or other techniques in consultation with the CDFG to encourage the owls to relocate prior to excavation or other activities that could affect burrows. The project spoHsor shall eftstlre that either sttfl!eys are coftdttcted to detemti:He which idcHtificd grottftd sqttirrel bttrrows are being ttsed by bttrrowiHg owls, or shall assttme that all grotlftd sqttirrel bttrrows are iHhabited by bt1rro wiHg o·wls aHd e det the owls with oHe Mt) trap doors prior to fiHfflg-;
4.8-4
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.8 Flora and Fauna
b) If owls are found within the development durin~ the nestin~ season (February 1 throu~h Au~ust 31), there shall be no disturbance within 75 meters (250 feet) of the nest burrow. Temporary fences shall be put in place to prevent accidental disturbance of the buffer area. After the youn~ have fled~ed, the owls may be evicted and the burrow destroyed. Sttrvey s for bttrrowing owls shall be eondue~ed by a qualified bttrrowing owl biologis~ dttring ~he winrer and during ~he spring nes~ing season ~o de~ermine ae~ive burrows and nes~ sites. If owls are fottnd 119 ithin ~he eons~rttetion area af~er February 1 (dttring ~he nes~ing season) no owl evie~ion shall oeettr, and eons~rue~ion in ~he area shall ei~her s~op or eon~intte only af~er ~he bttrrows are cordoned off with a bttffer zone 50 fee~ in diame~er. e) If owls are found during ~he w in~er sttr·vey 119 i~hin ~he de v elopmen~ area prior ~o February 1, ~he projee~ sponsor shall implemen~ an owl reloea~ion plan prior ~o exeava~ion or other ae~i v'i~ies ~ha~ could affee~ bttrrows. The plan shall eons is~ of se~ aside land a~ a 1. 1 ra~io (land lost: land set aside) or at a ratio de~efffiined by CDFG and plaeemen~ in all bttrrows of exclttsion de·tiees (with one way ~rap doors, allowing exi~ from ~he burrow only) eons~me~ed by a qttalified wildlife biologis~ ~o CDFG speeifiea~ions.
d) To assure no new nes~ing areas are dis~ttrbed wi~h eons~nw~ion, a sttrv·ey shall be ttnder~aken no more ~han 30 days prior ~o exeava~ion or o~her ae~ivi~ies ~ha~ eottld affect burrows.
e) Af~er the ehieks have fledged, ~he owls may be e vie~ed and ~he bttrro ~ s filled in.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts on burrowing owls to a less-than-significant level.
REFERENCE - Flora and Fauna
City of Salinas, 1988. Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), November 15.
4.8-5
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.9 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
SETTING
Human occupation of the Monterey Bay Area goes back at least 10,000 years. A distinct group of Indians, the Costanoans, is believed to have inhabited the entire northern range of Monterey County, including the Salinas Valley as far south as Soledad and east of the Gabilan Range.
Little of the area's prehistory is known because less than 5 percent of the county has been surveyed. Even so, nearly 1,100 archaeological sites have been discovered in the county in recent years. The mapping of these sites along with such topographic information as sources of water and shelter has allowed the County to delineate "archaeological sensitivity zones." Generally, a high-sensitivity zone contains a large number of recorded archaeological sites and one or more of the following topographic features: coastal bluffs, rivers, and streams; lakes, estuaries, or marshes; permanent springs; and rock shelters or exposed bedrock adjacent to oaks.
A moderate-sensitivity zone has large areas with scattered finds and one or more of the following features: alluvial fans; low or broken slopes; ridgecrests; mountainous areas; sand dunes; and open meadows and mountain passes. Low-sensitivity zones possess few finds, if any, and the topography is dominated by marshes, floodplains, and unsheltered rocky areas.
An Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the Greater Salinas Planning Area identifies the Carr Lake/Natividad Creek corridor and the land northwest of the city on either side of Highway 101 as areas of high sensitivity (City of Salinas, 1988). Actual finds in the Salinas area consist of a burial mound at Espinosa Lake north of the city, a habitat at Old Chinatown, and a burial site northeast of Soto Square; none of these sites is in the vicinity of the project site. No other finds have been reported in the Salinas area.
The Mission era, the subsequent rancho period, and the growth of the city in the late 19th century have provided Salinas with many buildings and sites of historic interest. Three sites have been listed in either the National Register of Historic Places or the State Historic Landmark Register, none of which are located in or near the project site.
4.9-1
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources
IMP ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.9.1: Construction of the project could disturb previously undiscovered subsurface prehistoric cultural resources. This would be a significant impact.
No sites containing subsurface cultural resources are recorded on or near the project site.
Therefore, it is unlikely that impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of project construction. However, the possibility exists of discovering unknown, unanticipated prehistoric cultural resources during construction. If found, buried archaeological sites can render important scientific information regarding prehistoric ways of life and address long-standing research considerations in prehistoric population antiquity, origins and migration, settlement patterns, religion, cultural exchange and trade, resource procurement strategies, technologies and social organization.
Mitigation Measure
4.9.1 The project sponsor shall ensure that in the event that unknown prehistoric cultural resources are discovered during subsurface construction, land alteration work in the general vicinity of the find is halted and a qualified archaeologist is consulted immediately.
Consultation with a qualified archaeologist would ensure that prompt evaluation could be made regarding the significance/importance of any cultural resources that may be found. The California Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento and local Native American organizations shall be consulted and involved in making resource management decisions. All applicable federal and state legal requirements concerning the treatment of cultural materials and Native American burials shall be enforced.
In the event that significant/important cultural deposits are identified, a mitigation program consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix K req'uirements would be developed and implemented. Under the circumstances, mitigation options would probably be limited and scientific data retrieval through excavation would likely be the recommended course of action. The program would likely consist of delaying project excavation at the site location for a period of time necessary to retrieve a representative sample of that portion of the resource that would be damaged or destroyed. Once a sufficient volume of archaeological material were removed for laboratory analysis and interpretation, construction could likely proceed throughout the site. Any such archaeological work shall be conducted within the context of a relevant research design and prevailing professional standards; all archaeological activities shall result in detailed technical reports. All applicable federal, state and local environmental guidelines and legal requirements shall be adhered to.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce the impact on prehistoric cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
4.9-2
I -·
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources
REFERENCE - Historic and Archaeological Resources
City of Salinas, 1988. Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), November 15.
4.9-3
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5.1 NO PROJECT
The No Project Alternative would involve no change in land use on the site. Existing agricultural uses would remain, and no residential uses would be constructed. The project site would not be annexed to the City of Salinas, nor would any of the other governmental reorganization take place (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a list of approvals required for the project). The site would remain as currently designated in both the Greater Salinas Area Plan (Monterey County) and the Salinas General Plan; Monterey County would retain jurisdiction over the site, and the County's F/40 and F/40-UR zoning would apply. This alternative would not rule out future development of the site (most likely as residential, given surrounding land uses).
Under this alternative, none of the project-generated impacts described in Chapter 4.0 would occur; cumulative effects related to other development in the project vicinity would occur as described in Chapter 4.0. Existing conditions on the site would remain much as described in the Setting portions of Chapter 4.0. Agricultural land would not be converted to urban use.
Groundwater pumping and water consumption would remain as at present (that is, overdrafting would be greater than with the proposed project), subject to any future changes that may be required by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. Because it would not remove agricultural land from production, would not generate increased traffic, would not result in construction-related particulate emissions or construction-related noise, and would not increase demand for services, particularly wastewater generation but also including increased school enrollment and increased demand for police and fire services, this alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative.
5.2 160-ACRE ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, only that portion of the site within the existing City of Salinas Sphere of Influence would be developed, limiting the size of the site to about 160 acres. The principal change in site configuration would be that the eastern project boundary would be moved westerly, compared to the project, to coincide with the Sphere of Influence boundary. The entire project would be located within the Sphere of Influence. 5-1
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Freedom Parkway would not be built as an extension of the existing intersection of Williams Road and Freedom Parkway; rather, there would be two "T" intersections in close proximity instead of a single point with four-way traffic through-movement. The curvilinear Mountain Valley Parkway could carry traffic through the project site tq indirectly and inefficiently connect Freedom Parkway with the East Alisal Street Extension (Figure 17). Alternatively, an "extension" of Freedom Parkway could be located along the 160-acre project's eastern boundary, but would still result in a sharp "jog" between the Freedom/Williams intersection and the easterly project intersection. In either case, a discontinuity in the circulation system would result. East Alisal Street would continue to be extended east of Bardin Road as far as the project's eastern boundary. The existing Sphere oflnfluence includes the proposed project's East Alisal Street public right-of-way (EMC, 1997). Other components, including the internal circulation network and infrastructure improvements, would be similar to those proposed under the project.
Public and semi-public land dedication would not change substantially under this alternative with the exception of an increase in the number of water wells. Four wells would be built to satisfy identified ALCO water service needs (one would be moved, compared to the location with the proposed project), each well would total 0.6 acres to accommodate any landscaping or other siting constraints (Fuog, 1997).1 A breakdown of land uses for the 160-Acre alternative is shown in Table 16 below. This alternative would result in approximately 691 housing units, which reflects the proposed project's average number of housing units (5.6 units per gross acreage) multiplied by the gross area of residential development (123.4 acres). This alternative would result in development of about 19 percent fewer units (691 vs. 853) than proposed under the project. Based on 3.2 persons per unit, population would be about 2,210 (compared to about 2,730 with the project). As this alternative would have a population about 19 percent less than that of the project. the sponsor would fund, through a landscape maintenance district. annual maintenance of 6.6 acres of the community park. compared to 8.1 acres with the project.
This alternative would not require adjustment of the Salinas Sphere of Influence by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). It would require other governmental reorganization, including annexation to the City of Salinas and annexation to and detachment from the same service districts and public services as the proposed project (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a list of approvals required for the project).
About 160 acres of agricultural land, mostly prime farmland, would be converted to urban use; this would be a significant, unavoidable effect (although lessened), as with the proposed project.
I According to Fuog Water Resources, Inc. (consultant to ALCO Water Services) each well site requires a total of
0.5 net acres, whlch excludes any landscaping or street right of way. 5-2
Pt.NN\5
5Y
0 PROPOSED
5HOPI'INC\
Cf.Nrf..R
600
Feet
COMMUNITY PARK :1
21.5 AC. GROSS ol
(20 ac. NET)
~I I .
••
~~
• • • • • • • • • • Salinas Sphere of lnflunce
(Urban Transition Area)
---- Project Boundary
----------------------------,-----------Mountain Va//ey/960352 • SOURCE: EMC Planning Group. H.D. Peters Figure 17 160-Acre Alternative
5-3
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
TABLE 16: 160-ACRE ALTERNATIVE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Land Use
Single-Family Residential
Community Park Site
New Elementary School
Expansion of Bardin School
Storm Water Detention Basin
Well Lots ( 4 total)
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 1997.
TOTAL
Gross Acreage
123.4
21.5 9.0
2.0 1.7
2.4 160.0
Number of
Units
691
691
Residential water consumption by residents and for on-site residential irrigation would be marginally less than with the proposed project, but within the 200-acre project site, overall water consumption would be incrementally greater than with the proposed project, since less agriculture would be removed from production.
The 160-Acre alternative would generate a total of about 7,885 daily trips, including about 793 weekday p.m. peak-hour trips (vs. about 9,495 daily trips and about 945 p.m. peak-hour trips with the project; see Table 17). Intersection levels of service resulting from traffic generated by this alternative would be the same as with the project (see Table 18), as would freeway levels of service (see Table 19). The intersection connecting Williams Road with Boulevard A would operate at LOS B with traffic from approved and reasonably foreseeable projects and this alternative, as with the project, with mitigation (also required with the project) in the form of signalization. Operational air quality effects due to this alternative would be less than significant without mitigation, in contrast to those of as with the project the project. Demand for public services would be comparable to that of the project. Due to fewer units, and subsequently fewer potential students, the effects on the school districts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project; however. the sponsor could seek to rene~otiate the a~reement with the Alisal Union Elementary School District and the Salinas Union High School District concernin~ donation of an elementary school site and payment of additional fees beyond the state's maximum fee. Cumulative traffic noise effects along Williams Road would be significant and unavoidable, as with the project.
5-4
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
TABLE 17: TRIP GENERATION- PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Land Use Size Unit
160-Acre Alternative
Neighborhoods Residential - SFDU 691 du
Parks Community 21.5 acre
Schools Elementary 900 students
Totals 691 du
Alternative Land Use Size Unit
General Plan Alternative
Neighborhoods Residential - SFDU 545 du
Medium Density Residential - MFDU 99 du
High Density A Residential- MFDU 225 du
Affordable Housing Residential - MFDU 118 du
Parks Community 21.5 acre
School Elementary 900 students
Totals 987 du
a ADT trip rates based on City of Salinas, Traffic Fee Ordinance, 1987. b PM Peak Hour trip based on ITE, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. du =Dwelling Unit (mf =multi-family; sf= single family) SOURCE: DKS Associates
Daily Tripsa
Rate Trips
10.00 6,910
3.00 75
1.00 900
7,885
Daily Tripsa
Rate Trips
10.00 5,450
6.00 594
6.00 1,350
6.00 708
3.00 75
1.00 900
9,077
PM Peak-Hourb
Total In Out -- -- --
705 455 250
79 28 51
_2 _2 _A
793 488 305
PM Peak-Hourb
Total In Out -- -- --
556 359 197
69 40 29
156 90 66
81 47 34
79 28 51
_2 _2 _A
950 569 381
Although water consumption would be somewhat greater since less land would be removed from agriculture, because of the reduced development density, this alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative among the three alternatives that would involve project construction.
5-5
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
TABLE 18: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS- PM PEAK HOUR Existing+ Existing+ Existing+
Existing+ Proposed Existing+ 160-Acre Existing+ General Plan Proposed Project+ 160-Acre Alternative+ General Plan Alternative+ Project Cumulative Alternative Cumulative Alternative Cumulative Study Intersections VIC LOS VIC LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS VIC LOS VIC LQS Signalized Intersections
S. Sanborn Rd/US 101 SB Rmpd 15.8 c 21.5 c 15.7 c 21.1 c 15.7 c 21.5 c No. Sanborn Rd I John Street 0.53 A 0.79 c 0.53 A 0.76 c 0.53 A 0.79 c No. Sanborn Rd I E. Alisal 0.58 A 0.92 E 0.58 A 0.95 E 0.58 A 0.95 E Street
No. Sanborn Rd I E. Market St 0.65 B 0.85 D 0.64 B 0.87 D 0.65 B 0.86 D No. Sanborn Rd I E. Laurel Dr 0.54 A 0.76 c 0.53 A 0.74 c 0.54 A 0.75 c Williams Rd!E. Alisal St/John St 0.53 A 0.87 D 0.51 A 0.66 B 0.52 A 0.67 B Williams Rd I E. Market Street 0.48 A 0.60 A 0.46 A 0.58 A 0.48 A 0.60 A Williams Rd I Del Monte Ave 0.35 A 0.56 A 0.35 A 0.56 A 0.35 A 0.56 A Williams Rd I Bardin Road 0.53 A 0.61 B 0.52 A 0.58 A 0.54 A 0.60 B Williams Rd I Freedom Blvd 0.19 A 0.57 A 0.14 A 0.55 A 0.19 A 0.56 A Unsignalized Intersectionsc
s_. Sanborn Rd/US 101 NB Rmp F F F F F F
Williams Rd I E. Laurel Drive F F F F F F
Williams Rd I Garner A venue F F F F F F
Bardin Rd I Countryside Drive c c c c c c
Bardin Rd I Argentine Drive B B c c B c
Bardin Rd I E. Alisal Street c c c c c B
Airport Blvd I Terven Avenue 0.76 c 0.81 D 0.76 c 0.81 D 0.76 c 0.81 D Williams Rd I Boulevard A F F F F F F
Bold-face text indicated unacceptable Level of Service. a V/C =Volume-to-Capacity ratio (basis of LOS determination for signalized intersections), as measured by Circular 212 methodology (Transportation Research Board, 1980), except So. Sanbom!U.S. 101 SB Ramps; see note "d" below. See Appendix B for level of service definitions.
b Intersection does not exist in current conditions; proposed as part of Salinas Traffic Fee Ordinance. c Unsignalized intersection level of service designation reflects conditions for the movement with the worst level of service (typically left-turns from the minor street onto the major street). LOS determination by use of Highway Capacity Manual methodology d
(Transportation Research Board, 1994).
Intersection calculated by 1994 Highway Capacity Manual operations methodology, using average delay per vehicle to determine level of service. This intersection is operated by Cal trans District 5 and was analyzed using an operations methodology that is consistent with Caltrans requirements. Numbers in "v/c" column represent average vehicle delay in seconds.
SOURCE: DKS Associates
5-6
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
TABLE 19: PMPEAKHOURFREEWAY ANALYSIS
Existing+ Existing+
Existing+ Existing+ Existing+ 160-Acre Existing+ General Plan Proposed Proposed Project 160-Acre Alternative+ General Plan Alternative+ Existing Project + Cumulative Alternative Cumulative Alternative Cumulative Freeway Segment Vol. Los a Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Vol. LOS US 101 betw. South Sanborn Rd. NB 2,763 D 2,794 D 3,559 E 2,787 D 3,552 E 2,794 D 3,559 E and John Street SB 1,548 B 1,607 B 2,040 c 1,596 B 2,029 c 1,607 B 2,040 c US 101 betw. Airport Boulevard NB 2,698 D 2,718 D 3,112 D 2,715 D 3,112 D 2,718 D 3,112 D and South Sanborn Road SB 1,900 c 1,920 c 2,282 c 1,919 c 2,281 c 1,920 c 2,282 c US 101 south of Airport Blvd. NB 1,625 B 1,643 B 2,038 c 1,639 B 2,034 c 1,643 B 2,038 c SB 875 A 888 A 1,248 B 883 A 1,246 B 888 A 1,248 B
-
Bold-face text indicated unacceptable Level of Service. a LOS= level of service, as defined in Chapter 3 of the Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, 1994.
Vol.= total volume in each direction
SOURCE: DKS Associates
5-7
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
5.3 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would retain the acreage of the proposed project (199.7) but the site would have a different mix of residential units based on the existing Salinas General Plan land use policies, designations, and densities. There would be a total of 987 units built with this alternative, about 16 percent more than under the proposed project (does not assume a density bonus). Those units would include 545 single-family, 99 medium-density, and 343 high-density multi-family units.
Of the high-density units, 118 units would be affordable multi-family units (pursuant to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance). Based on 3.2 persons per unit, population would be about 3,158 (compared to about 2,730 with the project). Park acreage would be the same as the project at 21.5 acres.
The school site and school expansion site essentially would be the same as with the project. This alternative is depicted in Figure 18.
The General Plan alternative would generate a total of about 9,077 daily trips, including about 950 weekday p.m. peak-hour trips (vs. about 9,495 daily about 945 p.m. peak-hour trips with the project; see Table 17). Intersection levels of service resulting from traffic generated by this alternative generally would be the same as with the project (see Table 18). Freeway levels of service would be the same as with the project (see Table 19). Traffic generated by this alternative would cause incremental increases in delay at other intersections, compared to the project. Cumulative traffic noise effects along Williams Road would be significant and unavoidable, as with the project.
This alternative would remove approximately 199.7 acres of agricultural land from production and convert it to urban use, as would the project. This would be a significant, unavoidable effect, as with the project. Impacts related to water consumption and groundwater pumping would be greater than with the project because of the greater population. Water consumption would be greater than with the proposed project, but still about 25 percent less than at present, and this impact would be less than significant, as with the project Air quality impacts would be somewhat more severe than with the project, due to the increase in vehicle trips, bttt and would sti:H likely be bclew above applicable significance thresholds of the Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District with mitigation, and would net therefore be significant. Demand for public servkes and utilities would be somewhat greater than under the project; effects on the school districts that would serve the site would be greater than the proposed project.
5-8
\)tNN\5
~y
0 PROP05t0
5HOPPIN4
CE.NH:.R
Ml<DIN f.II:I1~1{TAA\'
oCHOOL
600
Feel
I
I RLD
I p
I
I
I
I
p I
I
I
. . . . . . . .... .: .:. ·..:.:..:.:.: .:. . .: .:.:..:.:..;. ·.: .;. ·..:.:..:.:.: .:. . .: .:.:..:.:..;. . - - .---1 eAST AUSAL STRE.E.T E.XTE.NSION
AGRICULTURE
r
0 a
UJ
UJ
ft:
RLD Residential - Low Density
RMD Residential - Medium Density
RHO Residential - High Density
• • • • • • • • • • Salinas Sphere of lnflunce
(Urban Transition Area)
--- - Project Boundary
p Park Note: Site Plan is Schematic
E School
-------------------------------------Moumai/1 Va//ey/960352 • SOURCE: Salinas Zoning Code: lvlonterey County Planning Department: 1 EMC Planning Group Figure 8
General Plan Alternative
5-9
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The General Plan Alternative was chosen for analysis to show the potential impacts of a plan that is more consistent with existing City land use policies and designations. The net effects from buildout of the General Plan Alternative would be greater than with the proposed project.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE
Alternative locations were briefly explored, and it was determined that there is no feasible alternative location that would meet a majority of the basic objectives of the project and also lessen or avoid significant impacts. There are 200-acre developable sites located north of Boronda Road that are designated by the Salinas General Plan ,for residential, school, and park uses (these are not within LAFCO's Sphere of Influence). The project proponents, however, do not have the ability to acquire, control, or otherwise have access to these sites. Further, significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural land conversion and farmland availability would be the same for these sites as for the project.
Other possible alternative sites are either not contiguous with City boundaries and thus not designated for urban use (in the case of annexation), or are of insufficient size (in the case of "infill" sites within the city limits).
REFERENCES - Alternatives to the Proposed Project
EMC Planning Group, 1998. Draft Precise Plan for Mountain Valley Project, February 1998.
Fuog, Rene, Fuog Water Resources, Inc., Letter in Response to NOP dated June 2, 1997. 5-10
6.0 IMPACT OVERVIEW
6.1 UNA VOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The proposed Mountain Valley project, if implemented, would result in certain environmental effects, as described in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR. Mitigation Measures included in the project and identified in this report would, if implemented, reduce some impacts to a less-than-significant level. The following impacts would be unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
• As discussed in Section 4.1, the project would convert about 200 acres of Prime Farmlands to urban use.
• As discussed in Section 4.2, the project would result in increased delays for minor street turning movements at three unsignalized intersections that currently operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F): U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps I Nerth South Sanborn Road, Williams Road I East Laurel Drive, and Williams Road I Garner A venue. (Signalization would eliminate these impacts, but is not feasible because no funding source has been identified.)
• As discussed in Section 4.2, project-generated traffic would not cause any change in the level of service at the intersection of Sanborn Road I Alisal Street. However, with traffic from cumulative development, the intersection would degrade to an unacceptable level of service (LOS E). (Mitigation of the cumulative impact could be achieved by providing a second eastbound left turn lane from East Alisal Street onto northbound North Sanborn Road; however, mitigation is infeasible as no funding has been identified.) (Cumulative impact; Less-than-significant project impact)
• As discussed in Section 4.2, if Del Monte A venue were not used as an access route between Williams Road and the proposed project, project-generated traffic would increase the daily weekday traffic volumes on Countryside Drive, and possibly Argentine Drive, beyond the threshold for local residential collector streets of 3,000 vehicles per day. • As discussed in Section 4.5, the project could result in intermittent, temporary increases in particulate dust emissions resulting from construction. • As discussed in Section 4.7, the project would contribute incrementally to "conditionally acceptable" noise levels on Williams Road (east and west of Del Monte Avenue). 6-1
6.0 Impact Overview
6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Growth-inducing impacts are defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g) as those effects that "could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." The project could indirectly cause further growth in East Salinas through a combination of two primary factors. First, the project would extend the Salinas city limit and would include extension of public services and utilities, in particular, a 15-inch sewer main, to an approximately 199-acre site that is not currently provided with urban services. This expansion of services and utilities would make development of adjacent land to the east and south more feasible. Second, by expanding the area of urban development farther into agricultural land surrounding the City, the project could place increased pressure on owners of farmland to develop their land or to sell to prospective developers. Land to the east and south of the project site is also in agricultural use; land immediately east of the project site is under the same ownership.
The project also could indirectly generate commercial growth by attracting new residents to Salinas. The Salinas General Plan anticipates, encourages, and provides for additional retail and other business activity by designating certain areas for retail, office and business park, and industrial use. In particular, Policy 3.4.G calls for strengthening the East Alisal Street business district, in the project vicinity.
The growth-inducing effects of a given project, including the proposed Mountain Valley project, must be considered in the context of local planning. To a large extent, growth in North Salinas and East Salinas, where the project site is located, will be guided by the Salinas General Plan, which directs most future growth to the area in an arc that extends east from Russell Road at San Juan Grade Road to Old Stage Road, and south to Williams Road, and continuing south of Williams Road for about 0.6 mile between Boronda Road and the existing city limit. This latter area includes the project site. While much of this Conditional Growth Area is classified as prime farmland, it is generally less valuable than the agricultural land on the west side of the City (City of Salinas, 1988). The City has therefore determined that it is the most suitable area for urban expansion.
Existing local and regional policy constraints would relieve the project's growth-inducing effects to some extent. The Conditional Growth Area identified in the Salinas General Plan is 6-2
6.0 Impact Overview
contiguous to the existing developed urban area of the city. Portions are within the City Sphere of Influence as defined by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), including most of the project site. The area (approximately 40 acres) immediately east of the project site, south of Williams Road, is within the Conditional Growth Area but outside the Sphere of Influence.
In addition to the Salinas General Plan, Monterey County, through its Greater Salinas Area Plan, and the Monterey County LAFCO, through its approval authority over Spheres of Influence and annexations, have established policies to preserve prime agricultural land outside the City of Salinas Sphere of Influence; 160 acres of the project site is designated as "Urban Reserve" in the Greater Salinas Area Plan and is therefore intended for annexation to the City and urban development. Those policies are discussed in Section 4.1 ofthis EIR, Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning.
Should existing policy constraints to development be removed or modified, the project's potential to induce growth of surrounding areas could be increased.
6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a) states that, "Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant." The EIR discussion of cumulative impacts requires consideration of impacts that may be individually limited, but collectively or "cumulatively" considerable. Cumulative impacts describe the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with effects of planned or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity [CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)]. For the proposed Mountain Valley project, cumulative impacts could occur in connection with other development projects constructed within a similar time frame as the proposed project. Table 20 lists approved and pending projects in the vicinity that would contribute to either localized impacts or regional impacts (e.g., air quality).
Cumulative impacts that may be significant are discussed in Chapter 4.0 of this report for specific issue areas. In summary, significant cumulative effects to which the project would contribute include the conversion of prime agricultural land in the project vicinity to urban use, in combination with the Williams Ranch project; traffic impacts at various local intersections resulting in increased delays at three intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps I Nerth South Sanborn Road, Williams Road I East Laurel Drive, and Williams Road I Gamer Avenue), for which mitigation is infeasible; a degradation in level 6-3
6.0 Impact Overview
TABLE 20: APPROVED AND PLANNED MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS
Name
Thrust IV
Arcadia
Williams Ranch
Westridge Center
Salinas Auto
Harden Ranch
Williams/B ardin
Shopping Center
Land Use
Housing
Retail
Office
Housing
Housing
Housing
Office
Retail
School
Park
Institutional
Retail
Hotel Rooms
Mini-Storage
Auto Center
Housing
Housing
Retail
Office
School
Park
General Retail
Grocery
Drug Store (Rite Aid)
Medicai!Dental Office
Fast Food Restaurant
SOURCE: DKS Associates; City of Salinas
Number of Dwelling Units (du)
Square footage (sg. ft.)
1,600 du
176,000 sq. ft.
600,000 sq. ft.
120 du
1,251 du
419 du
55,500 sq. ft.
255,000 sq. ft.
2,400 students
47.35 acres
3,000 sq. ft.
493,350 sq. ft.
250 rooms
40,000 sq. ft.
1 Center
1,008 du
533 du
53,600 sq. ft.
220,000 sq. ft.
2,200 students
20.90 acres
46,625 sq. ft.
30,000 sq. ft.
16,300 sq. ft.
7,500 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
of service at one intersection (North Sanborn Road I East Alisal Street); for which mitigation is also infeasible; traffic impacts on transit service along Williams Road; and a traffic-related increase in noise on Williams Road.
6-4
6.0 Impact Overview
6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The project wouJd result in permanent conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses. Once removed from agricultural use and developed, agricultural land is seldom returned to production.
To the extent that the project would induce further urban growth (see 6.1, Growth Inducement, above), it could lead to permanent conversion of additional farmland.
The project would result in an irreversible commitment of potable water to serve the residences on the site. Other irreversible changes would include the commitment of natural resources during project construction, including the use of energy and of building materials.
6.5 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
In 1994, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published for a similar project on the 200- acre Mountain Valley site. The scope of the current EIR was determined through a process that involved review of the Initial Study prepared in 1993 (for the previously proposed project), including a review of related source documents (references); review of other documents and data related to the previously-proposed project; a staff-level scoping session for the current project conducted in July 1996; and responses to the Notice of Preparation for the current project, which was sent to governmental agencies and other parties with interest in or jurisdiction over the project. The following impacts were determined not to be significant: population and housing (displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing); geological problems (fault rupture; seismic ground shaking; seismic ground failure, including liquefaction; and expansive soils); air quality (creation of objectionable odors); transportation and circulation (insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site); energy and mineral resources (use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy; use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner); hazards (risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances; possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan); and aesthetics (effects on a scenic vista or scenic highway; demonstrable negative aesthetic effect; and creation of light or glare to the detriment of adjacent land uses).
REFERENCES - Impact Overview
City of Salinas, 1988. Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment. November 15. 6-5
7.0 EIR AUTHORS; PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSUL TED
CITY STAFF
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, California 93901
Jenny Mahoney, Senior Planner
EIR CONSULTANTS
Environmental Science Associates, Inc.
225 Bush Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, California 94104
Officer-in-Charge: Marty Abell, AICP
Project Manager: Karl F. Heisler
Deputy Project Manager: Reed Ofiate
Project Participants:
Ruben Arce Pilar Romero
Lisa Bautista
Erik Brown
Kathleen Hodge
Jack Hutchison
Perry Jung
Rowell Llanillo
Rich Masters
Chris Sanchez
Ron Teitel
Susan Torres
Jeff Wehling
LaChelle Wise
Dan Wormhoudt
SPONSOR'S REPRESENTATIVE
Shaw Development
326 East Alisal Street, Ste. A
Salinas, California 93901
William G. Shaw, Project Coordinator
PROJECT ATTORNEY
Finegan and Cling
60 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, California 93901
Brian Finegan
DKS .Associates (Traffic and Circulation)
333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 900
San Jose, California 94113
Project Manager: Mark Spencer
Hausrath Economics Group (Services Plan)
1212 Broadway, Suite 1500
Oakland, California 94612
Principal: Linda Hausrath
Project Manager: Sal Van Etten
SPECIFIC PLAN CONSULTANT
EMC Planning Group, Inc.
99 Pacific Street, Suite 155F
Monterey, California 93940
Michael J. Groves, AICP, Project Manager
Teri Wissler, Cara Galloway
PROJECT ENGINEER I SURVEYOR
H. D. Peters Co. & Associates
119 Central Avenue
Salinas, California 93902
Virgil L. Williams, L.S.
7-1
7.0 EIR Authors; Persons And Organizations Consulted
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSUL TED.
CITY OF SALINAS
Cyril Appel, Superintendent of Public Service
Rob Russell, Public Works Department
N orcliff Wiley, Fire Department
Leonard Wilson, Police Department
OTHERS
Robert Adcock, General Manager, Alco Water Service
Thomas R. Adcock, Vice President, Alco Water Service
Janet Brennan, Senior Planner, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Rene Fuog, Fuog Water Resources, Inc.
Daniel R. Gargas, Aviation Consultant, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Bill Hopkins, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission Al Mulholland, Hydrologist, Monterey County Water Resources Agency Gail Lee, Alco Water Service
Randy Lent, Appraiser, Monterey County Assessor's Office Richard W. Nutter, Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner Brett Oliver, Monterey County Agriculture Commission
Kaye Pagnillo, Customer Service Supervisor, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Nicolas Papadakis, Executive Director, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Don Rochester, Monterey County Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Andrea Schaap, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Jim Smith, Salinas District Manager, California Water Service Company Owen Stewart, Associate Water Resources Engineer, Monterey Water Resources Agency Arelen Wells, Senior Analyst, Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission
REFERENCES
Brown and Caldwell Consultants, 1992, City of Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan, December.
California Air Resources Board, Emission Inventory Procedural Manual, Volume III: Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions, September 1995.
California Air Resources Board, Emissions Inventory I993, June 1995.
California Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendments to the Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards, November 1996.
California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS Computer Program, Version 5.0, User Guide, July 1995.
7-2
7.0 EIR Authors; Persons And Organizations Consulted
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 "Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Wastes," Chapter 11, Article 3 (Characteristics of Hazardous Waste), Sections 66261.20-24.
California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation, 1996. 1992-1994 Famzland Conversion Report, June.
California Urban Water Conservation Council, 1992. "Assumptions and Methodology for Determining Estimates of Reliable Water Savings from the Installation of ULF Toilets." July.
Caltrans, 1992. Traffic Manual, Chapter 9, Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant.
Caltrans, 1997. 1996 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways.
Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, December 1993, pp. 9- 23, 9-27.
City of Salinas 1988. Salinas General Plan, November 15.
City of Salinas, 1988, Salinas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, November 15.
City of Salinas, 1991. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Williams Ranch Planned Community Precise Plan, prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates with DKS Associates, February.
City of Salinas, 1993. Environmental Assessment for Mountain Valley, March.
City of Salinas, 1993. Salinas Zoning Code (Chapter 37, Salinas Municipal Code) [includes Trip Reduction Ordinance]. Article IV, Division 18, Schedule A pertains to off-street parking and loading requirements.
City of Salinas, 1994. Crazy Horse Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report.
City of Salinas, 1994. Draft EIR- Westridge Center, Prepared by EDAW. January.
City of Salinas, 1997. Draft EIR- Salinas Auto Center, Prepared by Nichols Berman.
City of Salinas, Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report for Salinas Municipal Airport Master Plan and First Stage Development, May 1993.
Creegan+ D'Angelo, 1992, Sconberg Ranch Water Conservation and Storm Water Plan, March.
EMC Planning Group, 1998. Draft Precise Plan for Mountain Valley Project, February 1998.
H.D. Peters Co., Inc. and Associates, June 1997, Addendum to Sconberg Ranch Water Conservation Storm Water Plan, with Amendments dated July 23, 1997 and August 6, 1997.
Hausrath Economics Group, 1998. Services and Facilities Plan for the Mountain Valley Residential Development, May 1998.
Higgins Associates (traffic consultant for Mountain Valley project applicant), 1997. correspondence with DKS Associates (traffic consultant for this EIR), July 10.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. Trip Generation, 5th Edition; and February 1995 Update to the 5th Edition.
Lee & Pierce Inc., Residual Pesticide and Metals Investigations for Sconberg Ranch, Salinas, California, April 9, 1997.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, October 1995.
Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 1996, 1996 Crop Report.
7.0 EIR Authors; Persons And Organizations Consulted
Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), 1991. "Standards for the Evaluation of Proposals," revised December.
Monterey County Planning Department, 1986. Greater Salinas Area Plan, October.
Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department, Rancho San Juan Area of Development Concentration Feasibility Stud)'· Prepared by Jones & Stokes Inc., July 31. 1991.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, 1997. Water Conservation Program Report, July 1997. (Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/ whatsnew/cons/consupdt.htm)
Salinas Department of Public Works, 1987. "Traffic Fees -Cost Estimates and Fee Schedule," revised October 26.
School Facility Consultants, 1993. Greater Salinas Area School Facilities Master Plan.
Prepared in association with Rob Corley. April.
Staal, Gardner and Dunne, July 1993. "Hydrogeologic Study, Salinas Valley Ground Water Basin Seawater Intrusion Delineation/Monitoring Well Construction Program." Transportation Research Board, 1980. Transportation Research Circular 212.
Transportation Research Board, 1994. Special Report 209- Highway Capacity Manual.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1996 (in Aviation & Aerospace Almanac, 1997).
U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 31, 1971, pp. 20, 56-61.
Wadell Engineering, Salinas Municipal Airport: Airport Layout Drawing, December 1996. 7-4
8.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This chapter contains written comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR) received by the City during the public comment period (May 22, 1998, through July 6, 1998), and responses to those comments:
Each comment letter is reproduced, and the responses follow each letter. In certain cases, a response refers to a previous response. Each response is coded alphabetically (by comment letter) and numerically (by comment number within each letter). (Where a commenter has not numbered the comments in the comment letter, numbers are provided in the margin.) For reference purposes, the first comment in letter "C" is designated "Comment C-1," and so on.
LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING
A. Charles Larwood, District 5 Intergovernmental Review Coordinator, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), letter, July 13, 1998
B. Brian Hunter, Regional Manager, Region 3, California Department of Fish and Game, letter July 6, 1998
C. Janet Brennan, Supervising Planner, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, letter, June 2, 1998
D. Joe Lopez, Transportation Planning Supervisor, Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), letter, July 2, 1998
E. Bill Hopkins, Staff, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, letter, June 26, 1998 F. William L. Phillips, Director, Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection · Department, letter, July 6, 1998
G. Arlene H. Wells, Senior Analyst, Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), letter, June 22, 1998
H. Thomas R. Adcock, Vice President, Alisal Water Corporation (Alco Water Service), letter, July 6, 1998
I. Brian Finegan, Finegan and Cling (attorney for the project sponsor), letter, July 6, 1998 J. Cara Galloway, Planner, EMC Planning Group (planning consultant for the project sponsor), letter, July 6, 1998
K. Mark A. Blum, Horan, Lloyd, Karachale, Dyer, Schwartz, Law & Cook, Inc., letter, July 6, 1998
8-1
8.0 Comments and Responses
L. Robert C. Taylor Jr., Attorney at Law, letter, July 6, 1998 M. Gillian Taylor, Chair, Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club, letter, July 6, 1998 N. Mary Ann Matthews, Conservation Chair, Monterey Bay Chapter, California Native Plant Society, letter, July 6, 1998
0. Mike Weaver, letter, July 6, 1998
P. Johan Jongens, letter, July 2, 1998
Q. Annemarie Tresch, letter, July 4, 1998
R. Robert Kennedy, letter, undated
8-2
. STATE OF CAUFORNIA- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 9~114
TELEPHONE; (805) 549-3111
TOO (805) 549-3259
Jenny Mahoney
Senior Planner
'J\11.-
tom. oev. oep\.
ReceiVed
Community Development Department
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, California 93 901
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
July 13, 1998
5-MON-101-86.12
Mountain Valley DEIR
SCH# 93043036
Cal trans District 5 Staff has reviewed the above-referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Mountain Valley Project. This project includes the development of 853 single-family homes along with a 21-acre community park and a 9-acre school site. The following comments were generated as a result of the review:
1. Please include a discussion regarding John Street at the southbound and northbound ramp intersections. Staffbelieves that this project may cause significant impacts to these intersections.
2. Page 5-6. Please show the existing Level of Service in Table 18.
3. Page 6-1, Bullet 2. Caltrans strongly recommends that the DEIR identify potential funding sources that could implement the mitigation discussed in this document. It is paramount that some financial vehicle be explored to offset significant impacts caused by the project. Without proper mitigation, regional and local transportation mobility will continue to decline to unacceptable levels. Caltrans further recommends that this project be included in the City's Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance Program.
In essence, the DEIR suggests that no mitigation should be required for any impacts to the State Highway System. For example, there is no discussion of impacts to mainline SR 101 between south and north Salinas. Caltrans has great concerns over this or any other development that will generate additional traffic on this section of State Route (SR) 101 or the SR 68 Corridor. Furthermore, until improvements to SR 101 are built, the LOS in this area will continue to decline. 8-3
I' 1
I 2
3 Ms. Jenny Mahoney
July 13, 1998
Page2
One of the objectives of the recently enacted Senate Bill45 is to transfer transportation decisionmaking responsibility to those who are closest to the problems. Project selection for 75% of State and Federal Highway funding for transportation projects will now be decided at the regional level.
Consequently, local agencies should consider their land use approvals in concert with regional transportation decisions. This requires a strong commitment from the Cities to ensure that their 3 perspective with regard to congestion is represented at the Transportation Agency for Monterey Cont' d.
County (T AMC). Caltrans urges the City to work together with the T AMC to develop traffic mitigation in order to maintain an acceptable regional transportation network. It is for this reason we believe it would be a prudent land use decision to delay making a determination on this project until an implementation plan for proposed mitigation is complete Thank you for your consideration of our comments on this proposed project. We request that the city include Cal trans in the development of the FEIR. with respect to our concerns mentioned herein.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these issues.
Please send us a copy of the Final Environmental Impact report when it is available (Ref: California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 21092.2). Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (805) 549-3131.
CDL:cdV
cc: C Belsky, SCH
N. Papadakis, AMBAG
J. Lopez, TAMC
Sincerely,
Charles Larwood
District 5
Intergovernmental Review Coordinator
8-4
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER A- Charles Larwood, California Department of Transportation, July 13, 1998 A-1) The list of intersections analyzed in the EIR was developed in consultation with staff from the Salinas Department of Community Development and the Salinas Department of Public Works. It includes those intersections that would be most substantially affected by the proposed project. The two freeway ramp intersections analyzed were Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 southbound and Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 northbound. Because the Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 interchange is closer to the proposed project site than the John Street I U.S. 101 interchange, and because the Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 interchange could more easily accommodate all traffic movements on and off the freeway, it was considered to be the more likely choice for motorists traveling to and from the Mountain Valley project site. Traffic traveling between the project site and U.S. 101 at the south end of Salinas was distributed to the Sanborn Road I U.S. 101 interchange.
In addition, as noted on p. 4.2-22, construction is proceeding on an extension of Work Street between John Street and Sanborn Road, parallel to U.S. 101. Completion of this roadway in 1998, in conjunction with City-sponsored improvements at the Airport Boulevard I Terven Avenue intersection (near Airport Boulevard I U.S. 101) will provide a street connection from Alisal Street to Airport Boulevard, parallel to the freeway, improving local circulation without affecting freeway traffic.
A-2) The existing levels of service for all intersections included in Table 18, p. 5-6, are indicated both in Table 4, p. 4.2-13, and Table 5, p. 4.2-19.
A-3) As stated in Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation, the project sponsor will be required to fund a proportionate share of required mitigation at local intersections where intersection operations would be unacceptable. The sponsor's share of mitigation is based on the project contribution to traffic at the affected intersection, as shown in Table 5, p. 4.2-19.
In only one instance (Williams Road I Boulevard A) is the project identified as a major contributor to the impact, and at several intersections, operations are unacceptable under existing conditions. However, the City of Salinas is limited to imposing mitigation based on the project's contribution to the affected intersections.
Regarding the City's Traffic Fee Ordinance (TFO), the project sponsor will be assessed a TFO fee, as are all developers. The sponsor will also construct arterial roadways that are not included in the TFO. The City is currently revising the TFO, which is expected to include several large improvement projects that are regional in scope, such as construction and widening of arterial streets and interchange improvements on U.S. 101.
As stated in the EIR, several of the problematic intersections analyzed are not currently included in the TFO program, and no TFO funding is available for those intersections; these intersections not in the TFO are typically less regional-serving in nature. The City 8-5
8.0 Comments and Responses
could attempt to identify another funding source for improvements at these intersections.
However, in the absence of any certainty of feasible mitigation, the EIR identifies a significant, unavoidable impact at U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps I Sanborn Road, Williams Road I East Laurel Drive, Williams Road I Garner A venue, and Sanborn Road I Alisal Street, as recapitulated on p. 6-1.
Regarding effects on regional roadways, as stated on p. 4.2-21, the project would not result in a substantial effect on U.S. Highway 101. Based on trip distribution assumptions used in the EIR (see Figure 13, p. 4.2-11), effects on State Route 68 would be expected to be similar.
8-6
' State of California - The Resources
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http:/ /www.dfg.ca.gov
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599
(707) 944-5500
Ms. Jenny Mahoney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
July 6, 1998
Mountain Valley Residential Community
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
.scH# 93043036, Monterey County
®
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the DEIR for the Mountain Valley Residential Community project. The proposed project would construct 853 units and a park on 200 acres of farm land.
The mitigation for burrowing owls is not adequate and would not mitigate impacts to a level of insignificance. It also does not meet the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol Guidelines created by our Department as stated in the DEIR. The likelihood of owls being on the site while it is farmed is low, but there is. a possibility of them moving in once farming has stopped, particularly since development will be phased. The mitigation identified in the DEIR is to do a preconstruction survey prior to the start of the project and prevent the take of the birds. This would not mitigate the loss of habitat if birds are found there.
The DEIR does not accurately reflect our Guideli~es dated September 25, 1995. If owls are found and adequate la::d cannot 1 be maintained for them on-site, the Guidelines state 6.5 acres of habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird should be acquired and permanently protected.
We recommend the following mitigation be included in the DEIR and made a condition of project approval.
1. The project sponsor shall ensure, for each phase of project development, that preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls are conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with Department survey protocol no more than 30 days prior to excavation or other activities that could affect currows.
Survey reports shall be submitted to the Departme~t.
8-7
Ms. Jenny Mahoney
July 6, 1998
Page Two
2. If no owls are present, no further mitigation is required.
If owls are present, the Department should be notified. To mitigate the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the project site, the project sponsor shall acquire and
permanently protect a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging
habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird. The protected lands should be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to the Department. The project sponsor shall monitor those lands for five years, with
annual reports to the Department, to determine the success of the mitigation. In addition:
a. If owls are found within the development area outside the nesting season, the project sponsor shall use
passive relocation or other techniques in consultation
with the Department to encourage the owls to relocate
prior to excavation or other activities that could 1
affect burrows. Cont'd.
b. If owls are found within the development area during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31),
there shall be no disturbance within 75 meters (250
feet) of the nest burrow. Temporary fences shall be
put in place to prevent accidental disturbance of the
buffer area. After the young have fledged, the owls
may be evicted and the burrow destroyed.
We believe, if this mitigation is included in the DEIR, potential impacts to burrowing owls will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Department personnel are available to address our concerns in more detail. For further information, please contact Ms. Terry Palmisano, Associate Wildlife Biologist, at
(408) 484-2586; or Mr. Carl Wilcox, Environmental Services Supervisor, at (707) 944-5525.
Sincerely,
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
8-8
''I
1:
I
I
I
.. I
'I
, I
'i
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER B- Brian Hunter, California Department of Fish and Game, July 6, 1998 B-1) A review of the literature and electronic files of the California Natural Diversity Data Base reveals that burrowing owl were observed in Prunedale in 1983, in Natividad in 1994 and in Salinas in 1997. Therefore, the Salinas area is used by burrowing owl for either nesting or over-wintering habitat. As stated on p. 4.8-4, development of the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect burrowing owls and their habitat if the converted land during the different phases of development provides habitat for burrowing owl. However, use of a site is determined by several factors that make a site attractive to burrowing owls, including:
• Presence of ground squirrels, to provide refuge holes; • Debris, cement areas or railroad tracks under which the owls can create holes; • Berm areas that provide owls friable soils in which to dig holes; • Low cropped grass to aid in the detection of prey and predators; and • Fences or other elevated perches that can be used as look-outs.
Based on these habitat requirements a site will not provide habitat for burrowing owl if it contains tall grasses (greater than 12 inches in height) and other ruderal species, such as mustard. Tall vegetation will limit the presence of ground squirrels, and will limit the accessibility of prey items to burrowing owls and reduce the owls ability to detect predators. Active agricultural production similarly discourages use of the site by burrowing owl.
The proposed project is to be developed in several phases. To avoid affecting burrowing owl, the remaining areas not undergoing development could be maintained in active farm production, using similar methods currently in practice that make the site unattractive to burrowing owls, or these area could be hydroseeded to encourage the growth of tall grasses, including during 'the period after rough grading and road construction, when construction for a phase is to be inactive during the months of October through July.
Mitigation Measure 4.8.1 on p. 4.8-4 is revised to account for the Department of Fish and Game's most current burrowing owl guidelines.
8-9
TAMC Comments on Mountain Valley Project Draft EIR
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIR document and look forward to your response to our comments. We would like to request that a copy of the Final EIR be forwarded to us when it has been completed. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Mike Galizio of my staff at 755-4835.
Sincerely,
~4--- Joe Lopez
Transportation Planning Supervisor
cc: Nicolas Papadakis, AMBAG
Charles Lanvood, Caltrans District 5
Douglas Quetin, MBUAPCD
(T AMC File: 9806)
8-14
' I
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER D- Joe Lopez, Transportation Agency for Monterey County (T AMC), July 2, 1998 D-1) The future intersection of Williams Road I Boronda Road would operate as follows:
Project Existing plus Project Signif. Cumul. Cumulative + Project Signif. Mitigation Volume Volume VIC LOS Impact? Volume Volume VIC LOS Impact? Measure 138 735 0.18 A No 134 869 0.27 A No n/a
"Existing" = Future Base traffic attributed to redistribution, after intersection is in operation.
This intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service, and would not be ' I adversely affected by the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
D-2) The commenter has incorrectly interpreted the text under Impact 4.2.3 on p. 4.2-18: the EIR states that no project-specific mitigation is required at the Sanborn Road I Alisal Street intersection because project traffic would not result in any degradation in level of service (existing and existing-plus-project LOS A). The EIR identifies realignment of the intersection as mitigation for a cumulative impact (degradation to LOS E), but notes that funding for this mitigation measure is not identified. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
D-3) Please see the response to Comment A-3, p. 8-5.
D-4) The first paragraph on p. 4.2-20 is revised to reflect the suggested revisions.
D-5) The second full paragraph on p. 4.2-21 is amended to include Blanco Road, South Sanborn Road, Boronda Road, Laurel Drive, Natividad Drive, Sherwood Drive, and Alisal Street as part of the CMP network.
D-6) The description of the City of Salinas Trip Reduction Ordinance on page 4.2-20, as well as Mitigation Measure 4.2.6 on p. 4.2-25, specifically address bicycle impacts and mitigation measures. The text notes the inclusion of Class II bike lanes as part of the proposed project, and mentions the possibility of including bicycle racks, lockers and other amenities; the Mountain Valley Precise Plan (Appendix D, Attachment A) states that the project would include bicycle racks at the bus stop on Williams Road, the community park site, and the elementary school site. City staff recommends that bicycle racks also be installed at Bardin Elementary School and at the permanent siltation/ detention basin, which will be available for recreational purposes much of the time.
The proposed project would conform to the Salinas Bikeways Plan by providing bicycle lanes along Freedom Parkway extension, Alisal Street extension, and Williams Road.
The inclusion of bicycle paths through the project site and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly access to park and school sites would also be consistent with, and exceed the requirements of, the Bikeways Plan.
8-15
MONTEREY COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1208 SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93902 (408) 755-5025
June 26, 1998
Jenny Mahoney
Senior Planner, City of Salinas
Community Development Department
200 Lincoln Ave.
®
Salinas, CA 93901
SUBJECT: Mountain Valley Project
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
On June 22, 1998 the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) considered the above referenced project and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Commission offers the following comments:
Comments on Draft EIR
The Commission found that Draft EIR adequately discussed the potential aviation related noise and safety impacts associated with the project, however, the Commission wanted to be sure that the manager of the Salinas Municipal Airport be given the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR;
Comments on Project
The ALUC did not make a recommendation for either approval or denial of the project. The Commission did, however, want to make the City aware that the project is located in the Traffic Pattern Zone of the Salinas Municipal Airport as well as in the Airport Area of Influence. It should also be noted that the Cal Trans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommends against locating schools within the Traffic Pattern Zone.
If approved, the Commission recommends that an Avigation Easement be required on all the newly created lots as a condition of approval.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions please call me at (408) 755-5141.
se;:;;~t Bill Hopkins
Airport Land Use Commission Staff
cc: Jim Chappell, Salinas Airport Manager
8-16
1 2
' ;
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER E- Bill Hopkins, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, June 26, 1998 E-1) Comment noted. The airport manager was provided with a copy of the Draft EIR, and did not submit comments.
E-2) Comment noted. The EIR indicates, on p. 4.1-20, that "the entire project site thus is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone for Salinas Municipal Airport" and that the Caltrans Airport Land Use Handbook recommends "schools, hospitals and nursing homes should be avoided in traffic pattern zones unless no other feasible alternatives are available."
E-3) Comment noted. As stated on p. 4.1-8, Salinas General Plan Policy 5.7.F requires the dedication of an avigation easement for projects in the Airport Local Area of Influence, which includes a portion of the project site.
8-17
MONTEREY COUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
0 P.O. BOX 1208 SAUNAS, CAUFORNIA 93902 PLANNING: (408) 755-5025 BUILDING: (408) 755-5027 FAX (408) 755 5487 0 MONTEREY COURTHOUSE, 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD, MONTEREY. CAUFORNIA 93940 (408) 647-7620 FAX (408) 647·7877 WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR
Jenny Mahoney, Associate Urban Planner
City of Salinas Community Development Dept
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93 90 1
Subject: Schoenberg Ranch DEIR
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
July 6, 1998
This office has not received the above referenced document for review and comment.
However, we are particularly concerned that the cumulative impact analysis in the Final EIR include development potential from the Rancho San Juan Area of Development Concentration located in unincorporated Monterey County. The EIR should also assess and require as mitigation a fair share contribution to mitigate cumulative impacts on traffic.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Wes Arvig, Supervising Planner for the Inland Planning Team.
Sincerely,
~ fJ J..,l CfLl-._
William L. Phillips, Director
Planning and Building Inspection Department
BP:bf.
8-18
®
1 I ' I
i
I
I
I
MONTEREY COUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
0 P.O. BOX 1208 SAUNAS, CALIFORNIA 93902 PLANNING: (408) 755-5025 BUILDING: (408) 75>5027 FAA (<408) 755-&.487 0 MONTEREY COURTHOUSE, 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD, MONTEREY, CAUFORNIA ~ (408) 6<47-7620 FAA (<408\.6<47·7877 WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR
July 9, 1998
Jenny Mahoney
City of Salinas Community Development Dept.
200 Lincoln Ave.
Salinas, CA 93 90 1
SUBJECT: Mountain Valley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report I
1 Dear Jenny: I
The following comments should be included as an addendum to comments sent on behalf of the County Planning and Building Inspection Department:
It appears that ofthe 661 lo~s to be developed, 102 are proposed to be inclusionary (15%). This percentage represents the minimum requirement under the County's requirement for inclusionary housing. Since the significant unavoidable impacts for this project are considerable, it would seem appropriate that a benefit associated with the production of affordable units should also be considerable.
There are few opportunities for development of a large number of units in the unincorporated area; therefore development adjacent to cities should yield the highest number of affordable units possible. The final EIR should provide more detail on the types and amount of housing that will be targeted to various income levels (very low, low, median, moderate.) Due to the great need for affordable housing in Monterey County, it is strongly urged that the percentage of affordable units be increased.
Sincerely,
~illiam JJ~h~ L. Phillips
Director of Planning and Building Inspection
8-19
2 We look fof\vard to receiving your responses and the final EIR.
Sincerely,
~?jfr~ Arlene H. Wells
LAFCO Analyst
\\FS021GA \SYS'-DA T A \LAFC0\98\EIR Comments>LAFCO 698 Comments on Mountain Valley DElR.doc 8-22
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER G- Arlene H. Wells, Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, June 22, 1998
G-1) As noted in Table 6-4 in the EIR, the analysis of cumulative impacts includes nearly 5,000 dwelling units approved or planned in Salinas. Approximately 850 units were completed between February 1997 and July 1998.
As can be seen in Figure 12, p. 4.2-9, with the exception of Williams Ranch, the 5,000 units included in the cumulative analysis are all in North Salinas. The project sponsor believes that there is a need for single-family affordable housing units in the predominantly renter-occupied area of east Salinas.
G-2) Comment noted. The EIR states that the eastern portion of the project site is outside the existing Sphere of Influence and that the project would require that LAFCO change the Sphere of Influence.
G-3) Mitigation Measure 4.3. 7, p. 4.3-13, states that a relief wastewater main must be constructed in East Alisal Street prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project. As stated in the text accompanying Mitigation Measure 4.3.7 on p. 4.3-14, "The current [Capital Improvement Program] shows the bypass line not being funded until2002-03. Therefore, because the existing Alisal Street sewer is at capacity, the project sponsor would be required to fund the entire cost of installing a relief main.
The City and/or other developers would reimburse the project sponsor at a later date for costs in excess of the sponsor's required fee of approximately $830,000." (The City increased the sanitary sewer surcharge to 35 percent, effective June 1, 1998, to collect additional funds towards a variety of sewer improvements needed throughout the City.) The EIR also notes, "Further study of the relief main may conclude that additional capacity exists. In this event, the Public Works Department may accordingly determine that some of the building permits could be issued prior to the completion of the relief main." The City has entered into an agreement with Kennedy Jenks Consultants to review current discharge flows. Once this study is complete, the City will be able to determine whether the information in the 1992 Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plan is still valid.
Alternatively, the project sponsor may choose to wait to start construction until either the City constructs the relief main or the City determines, through the additional study noted, that additional capacity exists to accommodate some or all of the proposed units. 8-23
ALISAL WATER
dba ALCO
ACaliftnioC~
WATER
CORPORATION
SERVICE ®
Robert T. Adcock
President
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: Mountain Valley Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 93043036
Gentlemen:
July 6, 1998
249 Williams Road
Salinas, Ca. 93905
( 408) 424- 0441
,,,, , ... l' .·' '- ..
J:;:~ ·:.:: '<' -·
Alec Water Service has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mountain Valley Project and in particular those portions of the report dealing with water related issues.
After review of the report, Alec believes this report accurately reflects the information it provided on this project as well as the general overall water system information.
The quality of the water Alco currently provides to its customers meets all requirements for 1 potable water and is continually monitored to assure compliance with water quality standards. Water pressure throughout Alco's system also meets the pressure standards required by the California Public Utilities Commission and the State Department ofHealth Services.
Alco is prepared for the incorporation of the Mountain Valley Project into its water system and to provide water service to the project that meets all quality and quantity standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. cc: Rene Fuog
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Adcock
Vice President
8-24
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER H- Thomas R. Adcock, Alisal Water Corporation (Alco Water Service), July 6, 1998 H-1) Comment noted.
8-25
BRIAN FINEGAN
AND
MICHAEL D. CLING
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SIXTY WEsT .AusAL STREET, SmTE 1
PosT OFFICE Box 2058
SALINAS, CALlFO!U."l.A 93902
AREA CODE 408
SAUNAS TELEPHONE 757·3641
MOl'."TEREY TELEPHONE 375-9652
TELEFACSIMILE 757·9329
July 6, 1998 CD
City of Salinas
Community Development Department 2oo Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
Att: Ms. Jenny Mahoney
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Draft EIR for Mountain Valley Project
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mountain Valley Project.
On behalf of the Sconberg Family Partnership (the owners of the project) I have the following comments:
1. Page 1-1, Section 1.2. To the second sentence of the second paragraph add the following words:
"but without the Mountain Valley Project."
This addition makes clearer the meaning of the No Project Alternative.
2. Page 2-4, 160-Acre Alternative. The last sentence of the third paragraph is confusing. Revise the sentence to read as follows:
"Residential water consumption and groundwater
1 pumping for residential water consumption 2
would be marginally less than with the
proposed project, but within the 200-acre
project, overall water consumption would be
incrementally greater than with the proposed
project, since less agriculture would be
removed from production."
3. Page 2-s, 160-acre Alternative. The property owner
disagree that this would be the environmentally superior 3 alternative for the following reasons:
8-26