Salinas City Council
October 4, 2022

•
July 6, 1998
It would not avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project (farmland
conversion, impacts on unsignalized intersections,
cumulative traffic impacts, construction dust,
noise);
3 It would result in an unacceptable alignment of a Cont'd . major thoroughfare {Freedom Boulevard); •
• With the reduced residential unit yield (20%
reduction) the dedication of 21.5 acres of
parkland, the dedication of 9 acres of school site
and the payment of $639,000 of additional school
fees are not feasible.

4. Page 3-1, Section 3.1. The second paragraph of this
section should reflect that the inclusion within the project of the additional ±40 acres in order to create a four-way interesection 4 with Freedom Boulevard was done at the suggestion of the City of Salinas.

5. Page 3-8, First Full Paragraph. The statement that East Alisal Street would be constructed as part of Phases 2 and 6 is 5 incorrect. It will be constructed as part of Phases ~and 6.

6. Page 3-9, Figure 3.
a) It would be more appropriate to use Figure 31 from
the Precise Plan here, which shows the phasing of the residential development, rather than just the phasing of the streets. 6 b) Labels for Boulevard A, Boulevard c and Mountain
Valley Boulevard are missing form this figure. The streets should be labeled to aid reference from the text.

7. Page 4.1-7, General Plan Policies. The proposed General Plan amendment to allow exclusively single family residential development in the Mountain Valley Project is intended also to implement the explanatory text of General Plan Policy 3.3.N which provides as follows:
"The area between East Laurel Drive and the
1987 urban edge northwest of Del Monte Avenue
has more than a fair share of apartments, so
single family homes are desired wherever sites
large enough to create a satisfactory
~nvironment are available.:
8-27
7

8. Page 4.1-9, Williamson Act Lands. The text should make clear that no part of the Mountain Valley Project is under a Williamson Act contract.

9. Page 4.1-S, Footnote 4 . . Footnote 4 on this page concerns density bonuses. The Mountain Valley Project is not utilizing a density bonus. Either this footnote should be deleted, or text should be added making clear that the density bonus rules are not applicable to this project.

10. Page 4.1-7, Footnote s. See Comment #9 above.

11. Page 4.1-22, conversion of Agricultural Land. The
8 9
I 1o
Department of Conservation annual report not only reflects the number of acres of prime farmland converted; it also reports that 11 in Monterey County, significantly more land has been converted into productive agricultural use than has been taken out of production. 12 . Page 4. 2 -s, Third Paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph, referring to "the North Sanborn Road/U.s. 101 northbound off-ramp" is confusing (see also, Paragraph 4.2.1a on page 4.2-12).

Sanborn Road is generally aligned in a northjsouth direction; from Alisal Street north it is "North Sanborn Road;" and from Alisal Street south it is "South Sanborn Road." All off-ramps from 12 Highway 101 are to South sanborn Road. It is unclear whether the left-turn problem discussed in the text is a) for southbound Highway 101 traffic exiting at Sanborn Road and turning left to go north on Sanborn Road, or b) for northbound Highway 101 traffic exiting at Sanborn Road onto Fairview Avenue, and then turning left to go south on Sanborn Road.

13. Page 4.2-12, Impact 4.2.1a. See Comment #12 above. I 13

14. Page 4.2-16, Impact 4.2.1c. The reference in the fourth line of this paragraph to "Laurel Drive" would appear to apply to 14 Garner Avenue.

15. Page 4.2-20, Trip Reduction Ordinance. The discussion here of the Trip Reduction Ordinance should state (as is done in the air quality section, see page 4.5-13) that the.traffic analy~is 15 prepared for the EIR, in order to be conservative, did not assume any requction in vehicle trips attributable to the trip reduction plan.

16. Page 4.2-23, Mitigation Measure 4.2.Sa. Because the impact is less than significant, this mitigation cannot be imposed as a requirement. However, it should be noted that the project 16 owner is voluntarily proposing "traffic-calming" measures in its street design.
8-28

17. Page 4. 2-24, Impact 4. 2. Sb. The applicant agrees to revise the Precise Plan to use Del Monte Avenue as an access route between Williams Road and the project in order to reduce traffic on Countryside Drive and Argentina Drive. The applicant would also recommend that speed bumps be placed on Del Monte, countryside and Argentine at their entrance to the project.

18. Page 4.2-24, Mitigation Measure 4.2.5b. This measure refers to traffic-calming measures "identified in Measure 4.2.4a." There is no Measure 4.2.4a. This Measure )and Table S-1) should be corrected to refer to Measure 4.2.5a which does refer to trafficcalming measures.

19. Page 4.3-9, Impact 4.3.3. The second paragraph of this section refers to the $140 fire protection fee to be paid for this project. The text should reflect that this fee has been determined by the City to be a "fair share" contribution for this project, based upon the number of residences within the proposed service area of the fire station, and the contribution made by adjacent developments.

20. Page 4.3-10, Mitigation 4.3.3. This owner has no control over the funding of the city's share of the cost of the fire station, and this owner has no control over the construction of the fire station. This mitigation measure is therefore infeasible, and should not be adopted.

21. Page 4. 3-11, Impact 4. 3. 5. The text states that the developer will fund annual maintenance of 8.7 acres of the community park. The agreement with the City provides for the project to fund .iQl of the annual maintenance cost through a landscape maintenance district, which would amount to 8.6 acre~ of the total 21,5.

22. Page 4.3-12, New Well Sites.
17 18
19 20
21 a) The text intimates that the developer will construct four new wells. Actually, the developer will provide four well sites. Alec Water Company will provide the wells and pumping equipment on those sites, not the developer. 22
b) The text also indicates that all well sites must be

0.5 acres in size. Actually, one of the sites is ±10,00 square feet in size. This is confirmed by the letter from Also Water Company attached as an appendix to the EIR.

23. Page 4.3-13, Mitigation Measure 4.3.7. It appears that the relief sewer main required by this mitigation measure is not 23 required solely as an impact of the Mountain Valley Project, but is 8-29
·,.

required to adequately serve existing development. Thus the Mountain Valley Project can be required only to fund its fair share of the ~acility. This mitigation measure, which would require the developer to advance more than three times its fair share of the cost of this improvement, is not feasible and would kill the project. This is particularly true because there does not appear to be any additional development beyond the Sconberg Ranch to fund a reimbursement to this developer. The proposed relief main, however, is a project included in the City's adopted CIP. Although "no funds have been ... allocated for construction of the bypass line ... " (page 4.3-14), the facility is one of th~ projects to be funded by the recently-adopted city-wide sewer system improve.ment charge. It is more appropriate for the City to advance the cost of this facility, to be reimbursed by this developer for its $830,000 fair share contribution, with the balance to be reimbursed to the City form the increased city-wide sewer fees.

24. Page 4.4-8, Impact 4.4.1. The gross reduction of
groundwater pumping which will result from the Mountain Valley Project must be identified as a beneficial project impact, even though there remains a cumulative groundwater overdraft.

25. Page 4.4-12, Mitigation Measures 4.4.1a, 4.4.1b ana

4.4.1c. There is no rational basis for the imposition of these "extra" mitigation measures. The project is not required to mitigate cumulative impacts beyond its contribution to those impacts, and the project-level groundwater impacts of this project are positive and beneficial. Furthermore, as noted in the text, the effect of these three measures is insignificant.
23 Cont'd.
24 25

26. Page 4.4-15, Mitigation Measure 4.4.4a. See Comment #22a 26 above.

27. Page 4.4-16, Mitigation Measure 4.4.4b. See Comment #22b 27 above.

28. Page 4.5-9, Impact 4.5.1. It is the owners' belief that this impact is incorrectly analyzed as being significant after mitigation. Based upon the comments contained in the comment 28 letter from cara Galloway of EMC, it is their belief that the EIR should reflect that this potentially significant impact is reduced to a less than significant level by the recommended mitigations.

29. Page 5-1, Section 5.1. The No-Project Alternative would 29 not attain any of the basic objectives of the project.

30. Page 5-1 et seq., section 5.2. See Comment #2 above. 30 8-30

31. Page s-s, Section s. 3. Because it would involve a
component of high-density multi-family development, the General 31 Plan Alternative would be expected to have an adverse impact on police services significantly higher than the proposed project.

32. Page s-10, Section 5.4. The text should reflect that there is no evidence that any 200-acre site in or adjacent to the City of Salinas could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives 32 of the Mountain Valley Project, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the identified significant impacts.
overall, this EIR is very thorough and readable, and provides decisionmakers and the public with a clear description of the project and an objective analysis of its impacts. We look forward to seeing the Consultant's responses to the above comments.

BF:pml
cc: Sconberg Family Partnership
Bill Shaw
Karl f. Heisler, ESA
8-31

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER I- Brian Finegan, Finegan and Cling, July 6, 1998 I-1) The change recommended by the commenter is made in the second line on p. 1-1.

I-2) The change recommended by the commenter is made in the second line on p. 2-4. A similar change is made in the ftrst paragraph of p. 5-4.

I-3) Impacts of the 160-acre alternative would be somewhat less substantial than those of the proposed project, as stated on p. 5-4. Although, as stated on the same page, total water use for the entire 200-acre site analyzed in the EIR would be somewhat greater than with the project due to less agricultural land being removed from production, the 160-acre alternative would result in a permanent commitment of potable water to 19 percent fewer units than with the project (691 vs. 853). It would also result in the loss of 20 perc~nt less prime agricultural land. Regarding Freedom Boulevard; this alternative would result in a less convenient alignment, but would riot result in significant impacts, assuming both intersections at Williams Road were signalized.

The comment regarding the feasibility of the park and school site dedication is noted.

The description of the 160-acre alternative is modified to state that this alternative would result in the project sponsor being responsible for maintenance of less park acreage (see p. 5-3) and could affect the agreement concerning donation of a school site and payment of additional fees beyond the state maximum (seep. 5-4).

I-4) It is acknowledged that City staff supports adjustment of the Sphere of Influence as proposed to permit Freedom Boulevard to cross Williams Road; however, the Local Agency Formation Commission must still approve the change.

I-5) Comment noted. Page 3-8 is revised accordingly.

I-6) Figure 3, p. 3-9, is revised to include the information requested.

I-7) Comment noted. The noted text is added to footnote 6 on p. 4.1-7. Also, reference to Policy 3.3.N is added to the Project Sponsor's Objectives on p. 3-1.

I -8) The last paragraph on p. 4.1-9 is revised to reflect the comment.

I-9) A sentence has been added to footnote 4 stating that no density bonus is sought as part of the project.

I-10) A sentence has been added to footnote 5 stating that no density bonus is sought as part of the project.

I-ll) Comment noted. The report indicates that, while there was a net increase in total agricultural land of 130 acres between 1992 and 1994, there was a net loss of769 acres 8-32

8.0 Comments and Responses
of prime farmland, and a net increase of 665 acres of urban and built-up land. During that same period, 18 acres of urban land was converted to agricultural use, including 16 acres to prime farmland. The point being made on p. 4.1-22 is that land, once converted to urban use, is lost to agriculture, in most cases permanently. 1-12) References to Sanborn Road ramps at U.S. 101 have been revised to refer to South Sanborn Road. Substantial delays are currently experienced by motorists making both movements referred to by the commenter (see the discussion oflmpact 4.2.1a on p. 4.2-12; as noted there, a relatively small volume of traffic experiences these delays). (Sanborn Road is considered an east-west road in the EIR because it is parallel to Williams Road in the project vicinity and Williams is considered east-west.) 1-13) See the response to Comment 1-12.
1-14) The comment is correct, and the EIR text on p. 4.2-16 is revised to correct the reference to "Gamer Avenue."
1-15) The change recommended by the commenter is already included in the first paragraph on p. 4.2-20.
1-16) Comment noted. The City could require implementation of traffic safety measures as conditions of approval to protect public health and safety. The project sponsor's proposal to include traffic calming measures in the project street design is added to the EIR text on p. 4.2-23.

I-17) Comment noted. Use of Del Monte Avenue as a project access route would avoid Impact 4.2.5b.

I-18) The noted correction is made to the text of Mitigation Measure 4.2.5b on p. 4.2-24, and in the Summary Table (Table 1), on p. 2-9.
1-19) The recommended text is added top. 4.3-9.
1-20) Mitigation Measure 4.3.10 could require a joint agreement between the City and the project sponsor to ensure that Fire Station No. 5 were constructed prior to the buildout of project phase 4. Construction of this fire station would be required to ensure the safety of residents of the southeastern most portions of the project site.

I-21) The total park acreage that would be required for the project, based on project population, is 8.1 acres, as stated on p. 4.1-8. Therefore, the sponsor would be responsible for maintenance of 8.1 acres of the community park. The text in the first paragraph under Impact 4.3.5, p. 4.3-11, is revised to reflect this figure. 8-33

8.0 Comments and Responses
I-22) The text on p. 4.3-12 is revised to note that the project sponsor would provide four well sites and Alco Water Service would construct the wells. (The sponsor would be responsible for primary funding of construction for three of the wells, and limited funding for the fourth.) The project sponsor is ultimately responsible for construction of the wells to ensure adequate water service is available to the project site, and this is also included on the revised pp. 4.3-12 and 4.3-13.

Regarding the size of well sites, Alco Water Service has indicated that a minimum requirement for a well site is 20,000 square feet of net usable area, exclusive of setbacks, landscaping, fencing, and other City requirements that may reduce the available usable area for the well and associated equipment (Adcock, 1998). Twenty thousand square feet, or 0.46 acre, is slightly less than the half-acre site size requirement noted in the Draft EIR, and the EIR is revised accordingly on p. 4.3-12 and 4.3-13, as well as p. 4.4-16. The approximately 10,000-square-foot site would be an addition to an existing well lot on Surrey Way, between Countryside Drive and Argentine Drive. Alco would require that the total site be a minimum of 20,000 square feet of net usable area (Adcock, 1998).

The project sponsor has proposed well sites of 0.46 acres gross (about 20,040 square feet), which would not meet Alco' s needs for a minimum of 20,000 square feet of net usable area. Note that the letter from Alco Water Service that is included in an appendix in the EIR states that well sites of approximately 20,000 square feet of net usable space would be purchased by Alco from the project sponsor (emphasis added).

I-23) Please see the response to Comment G-3, p. 8-23.

I-24) Comment noted. The EIR distinguishes between "significant" and "less-thansignificant" effects; beneficial effect are, by definition, within the latter category.

I-25) As noted on p. 4.4-12, "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." Therefore, the City must actively seek means of reducing water consumption.

I-26) Mitigation Measures 4.4.4a is revised to acknowledge that the project sponsor would provide four well sites and Alco Water Service would construct the wells. (The sponsor would be responsible for funding construction of three of the wells.) As noted in the response to Comment I-22, the project sponsor is ultimately responsible for construction of the wells to ensure adequate water service is available to the project site.

I-27) Mitigation Measures 4.4.4b is revised to acknowledge that the project sponsor would provide four well sites and Alco Water Service would construct the wells. As noted in 8-34

8.0 Comments and Responses
the response to Comment I-22, the project sponsor is ultimately responsible for construction of the wells to ensure adequate water service is available to the project site.

I-28) Please see the response to Comment C-1, p. 8-11.

I-29) Comment noted. CEQA requires analysis of a No Project Alternative.

I-30) See the responses to Comments I-2 and I-3.

I-31) The EIR notes, on p. 5-8, that with the General Plan Alternative, "demand for public services and utilities would be somewhat greater than under the project." I-32) As stated on p. 5-10, "significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural land conversion and farmland availability would be the same for [alternative] sites as for the project" and "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- Letter I
Adcock, Thomas R., Vice President, Alco Water Service. Telephone communication, July 28, 1998.
8-35
CD
A Land Use Planning and Design Firm
July 6, 1998
Ms. Charmaine Geiger
Community Development Director
City of Salinas Community Development Department
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: Mountain Valley Project
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Geiger:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been prepared for the Mountain Valley project. The following letter addresses my comments on this document.
p. 3-7 The paragraph beginning on this page and continuing to page 3-8 describes the phasing of project development. However, the figure that is referenced in this paragraph (Figure 3) illustrates the street phasing plan, not the development phasing plan. The Mountain Valley Precise Plan provides a figure (Figure 31) that illustrates the development phasing plan. Figure 31 of the Precise Plan should be included as a figure in the EIR and referenced in this paragraph in order to more clearly describe the proposed project phasing. p. 3-8 The first complete paragraph on this page states that East Alisal Street would be constructed as part of Phases 2 and 6. This is incorrect. East Alisal Street will be constructed as part of Phases 3 and 6. The text should be revised to reflect this correction.
p. 3-9 Labels for Boulevard A, Boulevard C, and Mountain Valley Boulevard are missing from Figure 3. These streets should be labeled. p. 4.1-5 The footnote on this page (footnote 4) concerns density bonuses. This discussion is irrelevant, and the footnote should be omitted. p. 4.1-7 Footnote 5 concerns density bonuses. This discussion is irrelevant, and the footnote should be omitted.
p. 4.2-20 The discussion of the City's trip reduction ordinance and the proposed trip reduction plan included in the Mountain Valley project begins on this page. 99 Pacific St. • Suite 155 F • Monterey, CA 93940 • ( 408) 649·1799 8-36
1 2
3 4
5 6
Ms. Charmaine Geiger
City of Salinas Community Development Department
July 6, 1998, Page 2
The text in this section should stipulate that the traffic analysis prepared for the EIR did not assume a reduction in vehicle trips attributable to this trip reduction plan in order to provide a conservative analysis. p. 4.2-24 Mitigation Measure 4.2.5b references traffic calming measures identified in Mitigation Measure 4.2.4a. There is no Mitigation Measure 4.2.4a. Traffic calming measures are identified in Mitigation Measure 4.2.5a. Mitigation Measure 4.2.5b should be revised to reference 4.2.5a. This revision to Mitigation Measure 4.2.5b should also be made in Table S-1. p. 4.3-11 The first paragraph under Impact 4.3.5 states that the developer would fund the annual maintenance of 8.7 acres of the community park. This is incorrect.

As stated in the first (incomplete) paragraph on page 4.1-8, the project would require 8.1 acres of developed parks. The text should be revised to indicate that the developer would fund the annual maintenance of 8.1 acres of the community park.
p. 4.3-12 This comment relates to the third paragraph on this page, as well as page 4.3- 13 (discussion under Mitigation Measure 4.3.6), page 4.4-6 (first complete paragraph), page 4.4-16 (discussion under Mitigation Measure 4.4.4b), page 5- 2 (first complete paragraph), and page 5-2 (footnote 1). The text references Rene Fuog, of Fuog Water Resources, Inc., as stating that each well site must have a net usable area of 0.5 acre. The Mountain Valley project proposes to provide three 20,000 square foot well sites and one 10,000 square foot well site as part of the project. An April17, 1998 letter to Ms. Jenny Mahoney, City of Salinas Community Development Department, from Mr. Thomas R. Adcock, Vice President of Alisal Water Corporation, which is included as an attachment to the Draft Em, acknowledges the sizes of the well sites included in the proposed project. Since the Alisal Water Corporation will be responsible for the drilling of the well and any other related equipment on the proposed well sites, the Alisal Water Corporation should be the responsible party for determining the necessary size of each well site. All references to Mr. Fuog's requirement for 0.5-acre well sites should be omitted from the text.
p. 4.3-13 Mitigation Measure 4.3.7, which starts on this page and continues on page

4.3-14, requires that the project sponsor would be required to fund the entire cost of installing a relief main in Alisal Street, and that 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. Assuming that the Alisal Street relief main is included in the City's current six-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and assuming that the ordinance increasing the citywide sewer collector system fee from 15 percent to 35 8-37
6 Cont'd.
7 8
9 10
Ms. Channaine Geiger
City of Salinas Community Development Department
July 6, 1998, Page 3
percent will fully fund the needed improvements implemented through the City's CIT' (as stated on page 4.3-5), then this mitigation measure should be revised. The revised mitigation measure should state that the City, not the, project sponsor, should fund the cost that is in excess of the sponsor's required fee for installing a relief main in Alisal Street as part of the City's CIT'.
p. 4.5-9 Impact 4.5.1 begins on this page and continues to page 4.5-11, and Mitigation Measure 4.5.1a (which should be renumbered to "4.5.1" since this is the only mitigation measure identified for this impact) begins on page 4.5-11 and continues to page 4.5-13. This comment relates to this impact and mitigation measure. The first complete paragraph on page 4.5-12 states that, "with implementation of these mitigation measures, an approximately 75 percent reduction in PM-10 emissions would be expected." The first (incomplete) paragraph on p. 4.5-13 states that, "it is not certain that constructiongenerated 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." Assuming that the mitigation measure identified for this impact will reduce PM-10 emissions by 75 percent, PM-10 emissions exceeding 328 pounds per day would exceed the MBUAPCD threshold. The first (incomplete) paragraph on page 4.5-11 states that if one builder was conducting rough grading, PM-10 emissions would be 10 Cont'd.
approximately 95 to 115 pounds per day, and if two builders were conducting 11 rough grading, PM-10 emissions would be approximately 190-235 pounds per day. Since these PM-10 emissions are less that 328 pounds per day, the identified mitigation measure would reduce air quality impacts to below the MBUAPCD threshold, and the impact would be less-than-:-significant.

Further, air quality impacts associated with project development will be intermittent and temporary. In the discussion of noise impacts on page 4.7-7, the Draft EIR concludes that although grading and construction activities in the project area would intermittently and temporarily increase noise levels, 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. The Draft EIR provides mitigation measures for construction-related noise impacts and concludes that the impact of construction noise will be a less-than-significant impact.

The discussion of intermittent and temporary air quality impacts associated with construction should be addressed in the same manner.

The EIR's conclusion that intermittent, temporary construction-related air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable is inappropriate. The EIR should be revised to conclude that construction-related air quality impacts 8-38
Ms. Charmaine Geiger
City of Salinas Community Development Department
]Illy 6, 1998, Page 4
p. 5-1
can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. This revision should also be made in Table S-1. In addition, the fifth bullet item on page 6-1 (under "Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts") should be omitted.

The discussion of the 160-acre alternative begins on this page and continues to page 5-7. The EIR identifies this alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. However, there does not seem to be evidence in support of this conclusion. The 160-acre alternative results in the same significant, unavoidable impacts as the proposed project, including land useagricultural conversion, traffic- increased traffic at intersections, noiseincreased operational noise due to increased traffic, and air qualityintermittent, temporary increase in construction-related PM-10 emissions (although, as stated above, this should be considered a less-than-significant impact instead of a significant, unavoidable impact). In addition, this alternative would result in increased water consumption over the entire proposed project area since the area outside the City's sphere of influence would remain in agricultural production. Also, under this alternative, the Williams Road alignment would be atypical, inefficient and unsatisfactory.

This alternative would also provide fewer low-income houses than the proposed project, since fewer total houses would be constructed. For these reasons, the EIR should identify the proposed project as the environmentally superior alternative instead of the 160-acre alternative.

It should also be noted that the EIR's description of the 160-acre alternative as containing the same amount of parks and schools as the proposed project is erroneous. With a smaller project, the area devoted to parks and schools would be less since there would be fewer houses to serve and to provide funding for these improvements.

Thank you again for allowing me to comment on the Mountain Valley Project Draft EIR.

I look forward to receiving the Final EIR for this project. And please note that we will revise the Mountain Valley Precise Plan to correspond with the project EIR.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at (408) 649-1799.

Sincerely,
11· ·~ fl;// Cl'ttfLt~ u~ Cara
Planner
Gallo ' ay ~
c: Bill Shaw, Shaw Development
8-39
11 Cont'd.
12 8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER J- Cara Galloway, EMC Planning Group, July 6, 1998 Note to the reader: Many of the comments in this letter duplicate comments in Letter I. As a result, the reader is frequently referred to responses to Letter I.

J-1) Please see the response to Comment I-6.

J-2) Please see the response to Comment I-5.

J-3) Please see the response to Comment I-6.

J-4) Please see the response to Comment I-9.

J-5) · Please see the response to Comment I-10.

J-6) Please see the response to Comment I-15.

J-7) Please see the response to Comment I-18.

J-8) Please see the response to Comment I-21.

J-9) Please see the response to Comment I-22.

J-10) Please see the response to Comment G-3, p. 8-23.

J -11) The commenter objects to the conclusion made in the EIR concerning the impact of construction-related PM-10 after mitigation. This objection derives from emissions estimates that correspond to a maximum of two builders performing rough grading simultaneously at the project site. However, the EIR's conclusion of significance with respect to construction dust derives from an assumption of three builders, not two. The last paragraph on EIR p. 4.5-10 states that PM-10 emissions would be approximately 280 to 350 pounds per day on days when rough grading would be taking place. This paragraph from the EIR and the continuing discussion on the following page (i.e., p. 4.5- 11) provide the assumptions upon which this estimate is made. It is not known how many builders would be conducting rough grading simultaneously at the site, and thus, the EIR provides a conservative assessment by assuming three builders. The EIR's conclusion that this impact could be significant, even after mitigation, is appropriate.

In addition, the commenter asserts that construction PM-10 impacts should be treated the same as construction noise given that, in both instances, the impact is temporary and intermittent. However, construction-related PM-10 emissions pose health concerns, as well as nuisance concerns, whereas, construction noise is, in essence, only a nuisance issue. The EIR's separate treatment and conclusions regarding construction PM-10 and noise is appropriate.

Please see also the response to Comment C-1, p. 8-11.

Mitigation Measure 4.5.1a is renumbered 4.5.1; the "a" is deleted.

J-12) Please see the response to Comment I-3.
8-40

LAW OFFICES OF

HORAN, LLOYD, KARACHALE, DYER, SCHWARTZ,

LAW & COOK
!:'\CORPORA TED
P.O. BOX m:. ~10!\TIREY. C.\UFOR.\,1A 9!9<C·Jll~
LA L "RE:--:CE P. HORA!\
FRA:--:as P. LLOYD
A:-.IH0:-.1' T. K.~RACHALE
STEPHE:--: \X'. DYER
GARY D. SQ{'IX'ART2
MARK A. BLL').I
~.~K A. o·co:-.-:-;oR
S0?\1A S. SHARMA
ROBERT E. AR!\OLD ill
EUZABETH C. G~:\OL~

VIA FACSIMILE & MAIL
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
Attention: Jenny Mahoney
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, California 93901
July 6, 1998
Re: Mountain Valley Project DEIR SCH #93043036
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
®
)AMES). COOK
DEX;>,1S ~I. L~ \X'
TELEPHO!\"f., (<:S) J7J~Ill
FROM SAUX~s, (<:S) 7l7~ill
FACSIMILE• (<:S) l7J.alC2
OUR FILE ~0. ::::::26.04
The following comments are submitted on behalf of certain owners of property within the Rancho San Juan Area of Development Concentration (ADC).

1. 2.

3. The DEIR does not, but should, mention the Rancho San Juan ADC, which is the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding between the County of Monterey and the City of Salinas, in its evaluation of cumulative impacts;
Whether or not its individual impacts are considered significant, the Mountain Valley project and all projects should be treated similarly with respect to cumulative impacts. For example, there should be a mechanism for an overall fair share cumulative traffic impact fee on all projects, such as a fee levied on a "per-unit" basis; and
Figure 7, on page 4. 1-11, inaccurately shows some Rancho San Juan ADC parcels in Williamson Act contract which are either no longer subject to the Williamson Act or are scheduled to come out of contract this year or next.
<9'l VA:-: BL'RE:--: STREET
\10!\TIREY. CALIFOR7\1A 9)9<C
8-41
1 2
3 City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
July 6, 1998

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these matters.

MAB:mh
cc: Charmaine Geiger
Dave Mora
David Swanson
William Phillips
Wes Arvig
\HYH\LTRIMAHO:SEY .L-1
Yours very truly,

HORAN,LLOYD,KARACHALE,DYER,

SCHWARTZ, LAW & COOK IN CORPORA TED
By: Mark A. Blum
8-42

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER K- Mark A. Blum, Horan, Lloyd, Karachale, Dyer, Schwartz, Law & Cook, Inc., July 6, 1998
K-1) Please see the response to Comment F-1, p. 8-20.

K-2) Comment noted. The City of Salinas has a Traffic Fee Ordinance that requires collection of a fee from developers to fund identified projects. However, as described in Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation, certain improvements are required that are not included in the Ordinance at present, as there is a limited amount of funding available for traffic improvements. The project sponsor would be required to contribute to the Traffic Fee Ordinance fund.

K-3) Figure 7 has been revised to note the updated status of Williamson Act parcels in the Rancho San Juan Area of Development Concentration.
8-43
ROBERT C. TAYLOR, JR.

ATTORNEY AT LAW
966 BLANCO CIRCLE, SUITE :S
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901
(408) 422-2611
FAX: (408) 422-6986
July 6, 1998
Community Development Department
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, CA 93901
Attn: Jenny Mahoney
Re: Mountain Valley Residential Development
Dear Jenny,
I represent the Higashi Irrevocable Trust 1982 and Higashi Farms, Inc., which own land and conduct farming operations in Carr Lake. I wrote to the City on May 1, 1998 regarding my clients' concerns with drainage and flooding associated with the inadequacies of the reclamation ditch in the Carr Lake area. We have now reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), draft Precise Plan (DPP), and Services and Facilities Plan (SFP) for the Mountain Valley Residential Development proposed project. We believe this project, and others which may follow, will have a significant impact on the problems referenced in my letter ofMay 1, 1998.

My clients· experience with Carr Lake extends over sixty years. Historically, Carr Lake has flooded for brief periods of time with the water draining out of the lake through the reclamation ditch which was constructed in approximately 1918. More recently, and coincident with the development of the 1 Creekbridge and related housing projects upstream from Carr Lake, my clients have experienced a large increase in the accumulation of sand. We believe this accumulation is directly related to upstream development in two respects. First, the velocity of the water has increased, which exponentially increases the carrying capacity of the water entering Carr Lake; and second, changes to the creek bed, particularly in Gabilan Creek, prevent the sand from silting out in the areas above Carr Lake where siltation previously occurred.

The accumulaticm of sand, in turn, creates two problems in Carr Lake. First, the sand clogs the reclamation ditch, causing the water to back flow, increasing the areas and frequency of flooding.

Second, the sand effectively raises the height of the outfall at Sherwood Drive and Main Street, preventing my clients' farmland from draining, since water does not run uphill. 8-44

Jenny Mahoney
· Community Development Department
City of Salinas
Re: Mountain Valley Residential Development
July 6, 1998
Ifthe outfall is properly constructed and maintained, and the sand is captured upstream, the volume of water entering Carr Lake is not a significant problem, since the water remains on the farmland for only a limited period of time. This is not to say that there will not be cumulative damage to the farmland from pollutants and other materials in the water as a result of upstream development. The important point for understanding our concerns with the proposed developments is that we are not so concerned with the volume of water as we are concerned with the timing of inflows and outflows.

The DEIR recognizes that discharges to the City's storm drainage system and flooding potential are potential significant impacts. In addition, the DEIR. recognizes there are maintenance problems in the area of the project site (Page 4.3-5), that the existing storm drainage system is currently operating at capacity (Page 4.3-14 ), that flooding problems in the ditch will be exacerbated by additional runoff (Page 4.4-7), and that siltation exists as a problem and may be increased by this project (Page

4.4-13 and 14).

The proposed solution to all of these problems is the requirement of a detention basin.

Unless the sand situation is addressed, we believe the detention basin will increase the problems we have experienced. The detention basin will control the rate of flow, delay runoff, and may even include a pumping system to move water after the peak flows. (See SFP 3-8, 1-6 and DPP 60). This may alleviate the potential for peak water flooding, but it will extend the period of time during which the reclamation ditch is full, in tum delaying the drainage of my clients' agricultural fields. In very simple term~, until the ditch is dry, the accumulation of sand cannot be removed by the County Water Resources Agency. If the sand is not removed, the fields don't drain. Ifthe fields do not drain, my clients cannot farm the land and they have suffered significant injury as a result.

We believe the solution to this problem is to establish, through the Water Resources Agency, a regular maintenance plan, together with physical improvements to the outfall at Sherwood Drive and Main Streets. The ultimate solution is to detain the sand upstream.

From conversations with representatives of the Water Resources Agency, we understand that the agency is without sufficient funds to improve or maintain the ditch as is required to deal with the increases in sand. We also understand that the City of Salinas has experienced sand problems in Gabilan Creek, as well.

The SFP notes in several places that the costs for maintaining the drainage and reclamation system are unknown, but that the staffs experience is that the current fees are inadequate to maintain these facilities. While the SFP assumes an assessment district for maintaining the detention basin~ nothing is contained in the environmental documents to deal with funding either cumulative or downstream remedies.
8-45
1 Cont'd.

Jenny Mahoney
. Community Development Department
City of Salinas
Re: Mountain Valley Residential Development
July 6, 1998
With respect to the drainage issues as they present themselves in Carr Lake, there is no discussion in the environmental documents of the direct impacts on Carr Lake from this project or of any cumulative impacts. Even assuming that a detention basin is an appropriate mitigation, there is no discussion of the impacts of a series of detention basins in future developments. Since detention basins are designed to affect the timing of the water flow, and since the timing of the water flow is precisely the problem we have experienced in draining our fields, we believe there should be an analysis of the cumulative impact of development in this respect.

Finally, as we have indicated above, there is no discussion of any funding for the Water Resources Agency, which is charged with the maintenance of the reclamation ditch. The Water Resources Agency is currently unable to adequately maintain the ditch, much less make necessary improvements to the outfall. This project will simply add to the problem. The cumulative impacts 1 have not even been addressed. Cont'd.

In its simplest form, the detention basin may serve to alleviate flooding concerns by metering the flow of water into Carr Lake. However, the farming operations in Carr Lake have been uniquely and disproportionately impacted by developments of this type. It does not solve the problem to simply meter the flow of water into an area that does not drain because of the inadequacy of existing public facilities, particularly where there is no plan or funding for the work necessary to cure those in ad eq uaci es.

The net result is that a substantial portion cif my clients' land has been placed out of production, without consideration of this fact in the environmental documents or compensation to my clients.

We believe the impact of this project, particularly in the cumulative scenario, has neither been addressed in the environmental documents, nor adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance.

Very truly yours, ,....,_, .~-,
: . I ~ .-~\~
·)./e_v)c,....·~ L . __ :_tL .:~ -·- \v' L·· /' .{
ROBERT C. TAYLOR(JR.

RCT/kaf
8-46

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER L- Robert C. Taylor Jr., Attorney at Law, July 6, 1998 L-1) The siltation/detention basin proposed as part of the project would, as noted by the commenter, control the rate of storm water flow off the project site and, ultimately, into Carr Lake and the Salinas River. By detaining peak storm water flows, the siltation/detention basin would also capture silt and sand, allowing it to settle in the basin before water is discharged toward Carr Lake. Maintenance of the siltation/detention basin would be ensured through a management plan that must be developed by the sponsor. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3c would also require the installation of storm drain sediment traps. Thus, the project would be expected to result in little, if any, increase in downstream siltation, and could actually decrease downstream siltation by detaining silt from agricultural uses upstream of the project site. It is true that the project, by increasing the amount of impervious surface at the site, would increase total runoff. The siltation/detention basin would avoid any increase in flooding, but would incrementally extend the period during which water drains from the site.

With regard to other sources of siltation, the City is working with agricultural users upstream from Carr Lake, particularly north of Boronda Road, to try to reduce the volume of silt that is entering the storm drainage system.

Carr Lake was once a natural lake and is at a level that routinely floods in wet weather, serving as a temporary detention area but not endangering urbanized (populated) land uses. It is prudent for the City to require upstream development to avoid increasing peak storm water flows that could result in flooding beyond the boundaries of Carr Lake, potentially causing property damage and injury or loss of life. The result is the avoidance of adverse physical environmental effects, although there may be economic consequences.
8-47
P.O. Do:d667 Canm:l, Cnli£omin 93921 408 • 624 • 8032
'i' }.';\·.~~t-~1..~· ' ·. ·. .· July 6,1998
Ms. Chaririaine Geiger
City of s·aiinas -. -~~. : ~- < · .. · . D~paii ri1ent' of Cotii.inuuity Development S~~ina.s, C.A 9~ 901
Subject: DElR for Mountain Valley Project, SCH# 93043036 . ~; ¥i:~~l? :: .~ . . ' :· ~: . - ~-. -
:The Ycntana Chapter, Sierra Club has reviewed the DETR for the Mountain Valley Project which pl~s fox- 853 residential units. The project has many uwuitlgatible impacts :
that violate provisions of both the City and County General Plans, For these reasons the DnlR lli\s shown clearly that this is an in.appropdate project for tlus location . Some of those impact~ &:"~ !~sted as follows: · . .~; ·:·.
. Water .The entire area is overdrid1ed more than 200 %. When drought times occur, farm lands can be laid fallow. People need and use water during flood or drought.

A nioratoriurii.'iS·.~eeded on any ·new devtlopment until a solution to the water problem is iu .place. The residential use would prevent the partial ~charge of the aquifer that occurs with agricultural iraigation. How would you address this impact?· ·:-'·;· :-i ·:· ·
. . ~--,:)'·~~~I~e:~~2~~~sl~~ of mitigations, it is suggested the Alco Water Company is . capable of supplying this project with water. The company's recent history would contradict this statement. The inability or this company to maintain sufficient water pressure to safety'operate fire sprinklers illustrates the need for a new waier supplie(. How· will the City assure-that the needed water pre$sure is maintained ? How will the additional inspections th,at_ ~·needed be managed and funded ? · , . .• .. :)"'! .:: .:~.. . . . ~· Ifthis project is pennitted, water saving plumbing fixtures sbonld be required,' the use or lawns prohibited and drip irrigation rtquired for any llndsuping.

Drought tolerant non-invasive plants need to be specined for use in any landscaping:

The installation of cisterns to collect rooftop runoff for use in irrigation should abo :
be c_o~ideret.~. Who w~ pay for the monitoring l'tquired to ensure compliance with ~ thea~ n~sary mit~gations ?
- --- --·· -- ~PiliiieAgriculturnl Land Both general plans call for the preservation of prime 1 2
3 agrit:ulturallarids. This project calls for the conversion of 199.7 acres of prime 4 agricultural lands. The loss of part ofthe primary source of the Salinas VaUey economy, ; , • 7'o uplor11, m}t''J• and prllr~..:r th~ narlon's s..:tnl,• resour~~s . .. @
8-48
.. ;.J'CLni•.Fiw•n
. . - •.
,\''
... '. ,.., ' ..
. ' ·-···' : ~\. :· ! __ ..... ·- . .'
.rase 2 Sierra Club Comments on Mountain Proje<.-1 DEIR .:t' .. :.;;, ·- "'.,' ; ~ ~· ;'. . . '• : ""' -.
. . . . - .. ·. +:~~'t(·~~'-;_': ·;·:·-.... i.:c:;:..~ .<·----~ agdculturc, may c~use a loss of jobs and a loss of so'?~ of the. food w~~ ~:~Jili>P~, _· ~ ··-~ [~ • .· ~4 ··:~~:. :.> · ~hro~gho~t the natton and th~ wort?. How do you n11t1gate this loss ? ~~~_,~t~:~_ .. ~~-~ . ~;) ·: t~ne.d. _' •.

JUShficahon for not complyang w1tb the arta's General Plans ? . .::'·";,'-:':- ··. ;"~ •··. · , : • · • ··· · · · . · · , · -· ~ · -~ ~~~Ai~,.·:.~~-.~~- ~ ~·~·~:;.>:~- · ~- ~; :·: · - · · Traffic Impacts This project would require more mitigations thai1 can be' paid for:
by this project. The area is already suffering from projects that have beCri built v.1thout the infrastructure that is required to support the increased numbers or trip's. generated by I 5 the projects. No new projects should be permitted unless the devdoper f~~ •nd ! ':· .,.. ·'· builds infrastructure before the project b built. Can the City part~ipate'~~- C1l ::·, :-. ·.

Trans to facilitate and mouitor tbls ~spect ~!_the pro jed ? · '~~;f;M .;y-:-t ::>:~:~ ~·.,_.: · : :.· ·· ·~ ·- · - . " -·· .. -- -~,--~?:1,~:.~:;:·· .. ~~~;-.---------,-.\--. ·~·- -~--- Schools School facilities forth~ project's residents do not presently exist. The existing schools are already operating near capacity, Federal and State funding is not _ available and recent school bonds have failed to pass. Any proposed project' mull pay tb~ full cost or schools before they are permitted. The proposed mitigation is-not - 6 adequate and the conclusion is drawn that it is not feasible to pay the Rdditiooal $13,000 · per unit that full mitigation would require. Therefore, it is clear that thls. project itself ls uot feasible and should be denied a pmoU. How do you justify permitting development without ,Rt the very least, adequate school fadUties ·1 ~ ~~--:-5:.':=-.:.4. ·-- - . - . _ . _,_ ~ . . - -. ~- --~. -·~-~-. -~:~.:~(7-.:;t .. ~:::~~~~~:·.--·:::. < ·_.-- -·· ·-· Police The project DEIR correctly points out the need for additionftl police; At : j present some of the funding for police comes from a federal grant. Th,is fun~~g may soon. 7 have to be replaced . Who will provide funding for tbe nHded additionAl officers ? · . . · -'~}:~(-::.~-:~~:;~;~'\\ .. ' ~: .. ' . '
Ubraries The project needs to provide funding for eX-pansioriofE1 Oabilan -· -_ 1· 8 ... Library. Is this being required? -< ... ,: . , , Storm Drainage The DELR states that the storm drain system currently operates at capacity. A subdivision will increase the storm run-off substantially. The developer shout~ . 9 pay for the needed improvements to the storm drain system. Who will monitor arid maintain this system? · · · · ·
...

Alternatives There need to be additional alternatives considered to complete this · DEIR. Are there any locations where a project such as this could be fully mitigated ? ' Non-ownership by the project proponent doesn't relieve the cwthors of the DEIR from 10 the obligation to consider such alternatives. A lowet' density project_!l_e.e<J_s_~~ ~ considered. A smaller project could produce fewer impacts. · · - · - · · 8-49
,. ·, . ... -'
, ..
· .. ';?~~;~~~~t~~}~':f~{'~;;;.-;n':• F' ;'~ On·····-~:~'2~;:::'''400·3 '" •.• ••• . ~. -~~-~-;;~~,:~-~~~~- -~ ·~-·-... ~ ..

Pas~ 3 Sierr4 Club Comments on Mountain Valley Project DElR .• ·, . In coaclu!iM, wt consider the DEIR inadequate in considerations of alternative projects. We recommend that the DETR not be certified until this deficiency is cured. _ • • c Thank' }lou for th~ opportunity to oomment ou thl! DElR. Any questions or comments 11 ~·· . should be'directed to our AdmWStriitivc Chair, Janie Figen~ 1443 Deer Flat Road, ·. · · Mo.nterey, CA 93940, phone (831) 375 9667, fax 375 1666. · · . . _.;~. . ' . .. - :-··
· ·Sincerely,
···o(fa~~~ r ~i~ Taylor, Chair . .. ·r, ·., ...
. . -,·:. ...... -~ .. :.- :·:. _·: :: ·•
. · . .-~:'·: -;,:', JF/GT
. ·-·
c .
f-..· .. . '""
8-50
P.0:3

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER M- Gillian Taylor, Chair, Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club, July 6, 1998 M-1) On p. 4.4-12, the EIR acknowledges that "increased runoff and evaporation due to increased impervious surfaces would substantially reduce rainfall percolation to groundwater" following development of the project. However, water consumption at the site is expected to decrease with the project, even accounting for the loss of existing percolation; therefore, the impact is not significant.

M-2) The City is precluded from regulating water pressure; this is the province of the California Public Utilities Commission, as stated on p. 4.3-11.

M-3) As stated on p. 4.4-9, the project would include a water conservation plan that would include limitations on turf, installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures, and other features.

M-4) The EIR states on p. 4.1-21 that no mitigation is available for the loss of prime agricultural land. This would be a significant, unavoidable adverse effect of the project.

M-5) The traffic analysis in Section 4.2 notes that, while the project would pay its proportionate share towards traffic improvements at affected intersections, certain intersections are or would be operating at unacceptable levels of service due to existing or already approved projects. Under CEQA, the project sponsor cannot be required to pay more than a proportionate share towards mitigation of cumulative impacts. As stated on p. 4.2-21, the project would not result in a significant effect on U.S.

Highway 101; therefore, Caltrans facilities would not be adversely affected.

M-6) Although the project would not fully fund construction of school facilities to accommodate the number of students it would generate, the EIR authors deferred to the Alisal Union Elementary School District and the Salinas Union High School District in the assessment of impacts on the districts. As described on p. 4.3-7, the districts have negotiated an agreement with the project sponsor that the districts consider satisfactory.

Therefore, the EIR authors judged school impacts to be adequately mitigated.

M-7) The EIR concluded that impacts to police services would be relatively limited, and therefore less than significant.

M-8) As noted on p. 4.3-10, the project would pay a library fee totaling approximately $300,000. A decision on how to spend the monies collected would be made by the City Council.

M-9) As stated on pp. 4.3-14 - 4.3-15, the project would include construction of a siltation/ detention basin, funded by the project sponsor, and sized in conformance with 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 8-51

8.0 Comments and Responses
intensity rainfall. As stated on p. 4.3-15, maintenance of the siltation/detention basin would be funded through a maintenance assessment district.

M-10) The EIR found that it is unlikely that another site that would substantially reduce project impacts and that would be suitable for urbanization could be located in or adjacent to the City of Salinas (seep. 5-10).

The 160-acre alternative would result in some reduction in impacts, although as noted on p. 5-4, total water consumption on the 200-acre site would be greater than with the project, since there would be less reduction in agricultural water use.

M-11) As noted in the above responses, the EIR has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the commenter.
8-52
California Native Plant Societ;y7. @
Monterey Bay Chapter
P. 0. Bo:~t 381
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
July 6, 1998
Salinas Community Development Dept
City Hall
Salinas, CA
1-3 4567e9
/' A. 'o,, ~ '1' ~
IRE: "Mountain Valley" DEIR I? JUL 1998 ~
~ Received
N Com. Dev. Dept. Ladies and Gentlemen: t-,
The Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, whose ·~~ boundaries include Monterey and San Benito Counties, has just learned of a proposal to build a large housing development on prime agricultural land on 200 acres of the Sconberg Ranch within the jurisdiction of the city of Salinas.

Our organization strongly opposes the conversion of agricultural land. The County General Plan has forceful policies protecting such lands, and when the Supervisors failed to uphold these policies, as in the case of Chualar II, the lo· cal citizens rose up to overturn the decision. We would hope that the city of Salinas would be no less protective of the prime lands within its jurisdiction. 1 The preferred alternative is an example of the type of urban sprawl that has de· strayed the fertile and productive character of the Santa Clara Valley. When the best agricultural lands are taken for development purposes, the result i.s often that less productive lands are converted to crops, requiring more water and fertilizer for reduced results. Such policies are extremely shortsighted, espe· cially given the water issues in the Salinas Valley.

We urge you to require the environmental report to include an alternative that protects the best land for growing crops.

Sincerely yours, a..// ~~£au~~
Mary P6t Matthews
Conservation Chair
DeclicateJ to the preservatia11 of ca[ifornia native flora 8-53

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER N- Mary Ann Matthews, Conservation Chair, Monterey Bay Chapter, California Native Plant Society, July 6, 1998
N -1) Comment noted. The comment addresses the merits of the project and not the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is required.
8-54
FROM : PHONE NO. : + Jul. 06 1998 09:29PM P2
Director of Community Development
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, CA 93901
via fax: (408) 758·7215
(1)
July 6, 1998

COMMENTS ON THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT ON FARMLAND KNOWN

AS THE SCONBERG RANCH
D.EJ.R. SCH#93043036
Dear Ms.. Geiger,
I would like to address some of the problems associated with the above ref~nced D.E.LR.

2.:3 Alternatives to the proposed project, NO-PROJECT. This analysis states that no project would not rule out furure development. but then incorrectly states "most likely as reside~ given surroanding land uses". SURROUNDING land uses arc NOT residential. Some residential, mostly agricultw'al. I recommend a colored map showing exactly what the current surrOIJ.Ilding land uses are. This property is not an oasis in the middle of a city. Rather. it js farmland OD the outskirts of a city that has for too Jong been following the tired path of urban spmwl with its associated results.

Additionally, this same analysis incorrectly assumes "Groundwater pumping and water consumption would remain as present (that is ovei-draftiog would be greater than tbe ~project}, subject to a1l)' changes that may be requited by the Monterey County water Resources Agency. u This statement fails to take into account the following:
t) Different types of farming consume different amounts ofwa.tcr. it would not necessarily remain as present.
2) Developer's tendencies to grow high w~r intensive crops on fannla.nd for several yean prior to coming forward with their high dtnsity deveJopmeot proposal. Th~ then can conveniently say that they will be using less watt:r with the "~w'' use. 3) I.o the event of an extended drought farmland can b.! left fallow, no water use, housing in comparison, has a rather constant use of water. 4) Some of' the water used to water farmland perrola~ back. beneath the ground, housing on the other hand .sends its water into sewer matns.

S) Although .the Monterey County water Re$0W'ces A~ncy is mentioned, the Statt f>f Cali(omia Water Resources Control .BoaM that bas threatened adjudication of the Salinas Valley is rwt mentioned.
6) Fails to mention that prior to irrigation, dry fanning was the norm in the Sali~ Valley.
7) Pails to mentioo. the historic l.Z!I-es of the pcoperty. (grazing land?) 8-55
@
1 2
FROM PHONE NO. : + Jul. 06 1998 09:29PM P3
(?)
2-5 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
This analysis fails to mention that the Salinas General Plan was ammendecVchanged several years ago without an environmental impact report that addressed tbJ: impacts,. no environmental impact~ at all, even though vast new uses were to be allowed on properties thoughout the city. Minimal review, minimal consideration of cumulative impacts, no public bearings necessary in many cases. Thus it not too surprisins to read the £i.aal setttence oi this analy:N. ''The net eff=;ts from <3eneml Plan A.1.t.cmativc buildout would be greater than the proposed project." Taken in the ptoper context, it is truly a sad state of affairs. From the out-<lf"-town developer's perspectiYe, it's like finding 3 .free money • ..Bw1d like crazy. BujJd .bousing for pcopie tb.a! cur.rmtly live and wor.k in the next County. And the best part ~the 1ocal.s in control dQn 't pay much more 'than lip servi<:e to rising crime, overcrowded scboolsl congested dangerous highways, a ~rumbling infrastructure, poor water pressw-e. and increasingly poor \\'e!ef' quality and air quatity. Falling±ato line behind their theme~ ''You can't stop. progress". tbey':renot even willing ro &low it down enough to play ca~ up witt the increasing problems, The costs associated with tbtse pr~s are going to have to be addres~. but it won,t be ~·· these people appexently. Whose tum is it next montb. to sell ~i! farmland? 8-56
FROM : PHONE NO. : + Jul. 06 1998 0S:30PM P4
(_.~!/)
Significant Impacts, Traffic and Circulation
The D.E.I.R. consistently downplays or fails to mention the regional traffic impacts to surrounding State Highways and County Roads. The Congestion Management Program for Monterey County requires Level of Service "~. I.n no case is it supposed to drop below its current Level of Service, if below "C". The D.E.I.R. also fails to rnention the possible project ofRanebo San Juan (The City of Salinas has a c<~py of the Administrative Draft).

One recent newspaper article recently estimated that 40% of the ne-,s.~ housing being purchased in the North Salinas area is being purchased by people who work in San Jose.

These people then commute north on HighW&y 101, currently rated as Level of Service "F' by CaJ.Trans. Cal· Trans bas stated it cannot and should not handle one more car. 4 Although. the D.E.I.R does some analysis of surrounding city streets and intersections. it fails miserably at a regional ttnalysis. An E.I.R. must address impacts. Approximately 8,500 additional average daily trips generated by this proposed dev~1opmcnt will not all drive around the oity streets of Salinas. Impacts to State Highways ~, 1 56, 1 01, and Highway 6i as well as impactS to surrounding County Roads must be Addressed As most of these arc currently below Level of Service "c•• during peak hoW'S. Mitigation measures and associated costs must be ascribed. For example. State Highway 68's traffic is eurrently 70% throush traffic from the city of SaUnas and to a lesser· extent the City of Monterey. 'Where is the estimate as to how much additional traffic t!li.s project will add to this? More importantly, what traffic e.nalysis methodology was used by E.S.A in coming up With the L.O.S. fisures they have?
Significant Impacts, Schools
Although the d~velopment proposal projects setting aside some land for a school, it fails to address who or how the school Will be built. Current development school impact fees in the City of Salinas of S l. 86 per sq. fl do not even cover 25% of.tbe impact, nor tbe money needed This statiruc v.'Bs verified by ~inas Uruon High Sdiwol District 5 Superintendent Elizondo at a public hearing. The estimated additional enrollment figures of 5.12 new students at Alisal Union Elemental}' School and 235 new students in the Salinas Union High School District is unbelievably labeled "Lcss·tban-significant".

Who proc;luccd these numbers? ··
Significant Impact, Water

Alco water Service."
Mi.tiption Measures "Non.e l'equired ... shall provide well sites ... to meet Ako Water 6 Service spccifkations ...

Level ofServi~ after mitigation is labeled Less-than-Significant. 8-57
FROM : PHONE NO. + Jul. 06 1998 0S:31PM PS
(_!f)
'E'ortb.ose tbat have followed the repeated problems of bad tasting water, discolored water, water that has to be blended to stay below the nitrate threshold, and poor and imgular water pressure problems in the Alco Service Area. this must be some kind of joke .. Please reference the attached copy of a Jetter recently sent out regarding water 6 pressure problems in the ALCO Service area. The City of Salinas has not enacted an Cont' d. ordinance requiring a minimum 55 lb/per/sq'in. water pressw-e and thus the problem continues. Without such an ordinance in place the Public Utilities C9mmission has no teeth to enfaree better water press.ure.
. Thank you for tbe opportunity to comment on the D.EJR SCH#93043036. 8-58
Mike Weaver
Salinas, CA · ..{408)484-2243
I
!
FROM : PHONE NO. : + Jul. e5 1998 es:31PM P6
~)
Ke~ y.E. \. K:. ~'ri-#-'7-oo'-/~o-;::,~
WA"'ER PRESSURE!
The:e u .a ~ iUQe that has be=. bciAg ipred by the Salinas City ~.

WhHe they have approved literally hw1dreds &f hooses- So-be built m tlle Williamt R&llCh .area, .a bfind ~e- Ita been given .to tbeisst1tof~ ~: \Vhy··fs w:a=-~ im}:Nrtmtt? Il"s.b~.ii'UtL~ -s-5 poam:ls. per :square .inch:of~:tc:~tbem. &priJYder sy&fetM ·m these. houses workt ·
'Ihese .hotrSCS .are·.dense!y·.paclced .tog:thr-J" :on snwUots. ltt .tb:e·~.of .a·.tit:·.in·.one· housej it WtX!ld easqy. ~ t:O-Deijllbor:inj houses. Trouble .isj lheie is.Q'ften. insufficiem pessHre ·Hli>fle ·~louse fOr tile fue ~-system to W09c,.mwb ~if the·ent!fe btcok ~ inv.oi~ ·m flames. Thcre:is .a .. *k valv.c" .Dn.t:hcsc·lite ·.sprl~ .systems .that ~
~~:brth:.tmmedlate:pipes:.f.D~.trigher~ ~' iJr.1:he -emtt."of-a. fue, .once that' ·immodiate water -iaille pipes ·is ·g_one, -t.&e:5~ ·idie.soo -the ~avatiable-from. !he-water system· suppli~ the--water Com.paAy:
-Officia.ls.aumot ~· ~Y.-aJe .unawiU'e of 'this -P._robfem,.u U.e .have ;been .ma:y newspaper ~les-fur die .past several yem·aboot it. R.wdents-in ~fS.tinas-hfie tepOrterl'mthe.put.thatthcfr-watcr~stJre."Wa!:so fowthat.itto.okiO·~tQ.ffil·a . . wuhing.machme. !'hey.ha.w:a:pom:d:.wat~:r'J)ressure:sa"tow:tbat·.tbeir.lawn~ woWdn·'t OWR·turn~
A !romeo wear :in: the· Williams. Ranch-area reported t:o:rne. that this-last .Tbsn!c~~·day hehad.no.~.~.·No.Mter::~un! on'tbedayMum-ovensand.sto~.areall ·going.· aM' -m.any~t"amiJ'ies are ·pthePeEBogeffier! Since ·~en. :lie a nEt ;a -nciabaor ·bavc -Men 'ittdependcntfy ~ t:hiir water .pressure: ... prcssur.e:from: the. ~t.,Surprlse;· almost half~ ctays·ir s ·measw~ ·it ·falts-beiow the·s.s ·pst·thr"eshold, ·sometimesi'a:r'be'low • .. 'Th.C:City Of'Siliruis-~·commuruty· Dcveklpmenf~t to.l<f· me· '!llat fhe:Citj• is· notthe water purveyor, therefore they rely on the water punoeyor to provide them with a "can and 'Will'serve" letter; A'P.;?,&retrtiy, ~ey a.rc nonecro4.red· nor diret:ttd:to re\liew itbe.y()lld that A-r~presentative Ofthe'Salinas fire ~partmeBt· toUt-me that· ~-test· tlle' fiR hyd[ant(.i).at the mvitation orllie de\lel()per, on a day and tiine clios.en b)' the water purveyor. If there is sufficient flow ud. press.ure then the subdivision is allowea:WD .. FOGOed· 'Wf(b:bulldiqg 11ouscs.:whenl ~rted'-that· m!lny·hou.ses ·\Wrc e~perionoing tess· than adequate pressure, and'tnat ilicre was a safety issue involved 'liere with spriiik!Cr systems~ I was told that if I bad a ~m,. that J should call the Publi-c Utilities ·Commission:·w.etl, "I did.calJ:the 'P-ublic t.7tilities~Commission.l was-.tota:tha.t t.mle.s.nne..

City of salinas has an ordinance 'feqijiring.a minimum water pressure, l;asicall.Y •. tliere wasn't muCh they ooula do.

The doveJQpors-are ~gmor:t~Y sc11iQgbousos,. The water-.pW'\';eyor·is.mak.ingiUoney· wit.Ji every. DCW Jiook up, 'MW public buying tliese houses, W good' f~th, are Jiayihj tliefr families· -safety jt:opordized:
8-59
6 Cant' d.

FROM PHONE I-IJ. : + Jul. 06 1998 09:32PM P7
(_[q)
U doesn't~ a scien.ti!t, nor a water h.ydrologis~ to know that the more hook ups there are ~n a system. the more peopJe there aze using Welter, the lower the: pressure is going to be. I ask,. who is minding ilie store? Sadly •. oo one l'know. Because. tne pr®tem w been 6 there~ the problem ts stiiT there, and the City of Safinas is contemplating adding another Cont' d. 1300 houses to the problem AND another' 853 houses <It the' Sconber' Ranch.

Signed,
~~ Mike Wc:av=;
Salinas, CA .
(408) 484~2243
8-60
' ' I

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER 0- Mike Weaver, July 6, 1998
0-1) The statement concerning surrounding land uses on p. 5-1 is intended to indicate that, were the project site to undergo development in the future, residential use would be the most likely outcome. As is seen in Figure 4, p. 4.1-3, there are existing residential uses to the north and west of the site; agriculture is to the south and east. Continuation of existing agriculture would not constitute "development;" the most likely change in land use, were it to occur separate from the proposed project, would be to residential use. 0-2) While it is true that factors such as the type of crops grown can affect water consumption, agricultural water use is typically greater on a per-acre basis than is residential water use, assuming the use of low-flow fixtures that are currently required.

Percolation is taken into account in the EIR's water use calculations (see Table 7, p. 4.4-10). The EIR also notes, on p. 4.4-11, that conversion of agricultural land to urban uses "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." Concerning the State Water Resources Board, the land use is irrelevant to the decision of the Board as to whether or not to adjudicate.

That is, the Board will adjudicate or will not do so whether the site is in agricultural or urban use. Further, no litigation has been initiated. Historical land uses are not relevant in calculating the change in water use from existing conditions. 0-3) The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, and no response is required.

For information, it should be noted that the City completed an EIR for the General Plan on November 15, 1988.
0-4) Regional traffic impacts, specifically on U.S. Highway 101, are discussed on p. 4.2-21.

The distribution and assignment of vehicle trips generated by the proposed project considered employment locations as well as shopping areas, schools and recreational activity centers.

Using Table 3 on p. 4.2-10 (Trip Generation), and the distribution patterns noted on Figure 13 on page 4.2-11, the number of vehicle trips that would access local, regional and state facilities can be found. Because the exact path of travel becomes more subjective as vehicles move further from the proposed project site, only those intersections and roadways that would be most affected by the proposed project in an measurable way are addressed in the EIR.

The methodology used for the traffic analysis followed professionally accepted standards used for EIR traffic analysis in Monterey County and elsewhere. Information was gathered from the Monterey County Regional Travel Forecast Model, the City of Salinas Citywide Travel Forecast Model, recently conducted intersection turning movement 8-61

8.0 Comments and Responses
counts, and Caltrans' published freeway volumes. Level of service and traffic impact analysis methodologies published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Transportation Research Board, and the City of Salinas were used. A focused intersection traffic impact model was created for this project's analysis, using the TRAFFIX software program.

Concerning the Monterey County Congestion Management Program level of service (LOS) standard, as stated on EIR p. 4.2-21, LOS Dis the established minimum acceptable service level for U.S. 101 within Salinas. (LOS Cis the standard in the rural area south of Salinas, while north of Salinas, the standard is LOS E.) The LOS standard varies similarly between LOS C and LOS E on other state highways within the CMP network.

Concerning the Rancho San Juan Area of Development Concentration, please see the response to Comment F-1, p. 8-20.

Please also see the response to Comments A-3, p. 8-5, and 0-5) Please see the response to Comment M-6, p. 8-51.

The student generation factors used in the EIR were provided by the Alisal Union Elementary School District and the Salinas Union High School District, as described in the May 1998 Services and Facilities Plan for the Mountain Valley Residential Development, prepared by Hausrath Economics Group and cited in the EIR on p. 4.3-6. 0-6) As stated on p. 4.3-11, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the regulatory body for water pressure. The CPUC' s standard is a pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi), with a minimum pressure standard of 30 psi during hourly maximum demand. The City cannot require that a water purveyor provide a water pressure greater than the CPUC standard.

In regard to the operation of fire sprinklers, the City could require as a condition of approval that dwellings in the Mountain Valley project be equipped with fire sprinklers that will operate at 40 psi, rather than the 55 psi required for some older fire sprinkler systems. This would ensure added fire safety in the event that water pressure falls below 55 psi.
8-62 I
I
1--
JOHAN JONGENS ®
j .. /l · jJ; 11.-n
~t:L-v,. '2 /t I
15151! SAN FELIPE STREET
I "/ ivu4 <b<N~e. MY jlf:'6S/(/~
/v fk l(ot/N-/,q/,u ~!ley :Pr~.lth ce- T t-'V't // .£..//~AI-~ A-le ~ Cn-r? e r-z o e;; a_t::-/"Ls ~/7/('l~e Fl912hL~rv·D L.o 6 s ~/. a.../r,cc.c_ i?'-Lit<a/ ?l?oduc.rL_ 1 //cL it.- e._ tv, II be.. /7/V/? '"!'"'/-a. /rtlllt~
do,!/" CZ-'v<J /en- t/ .e..J:- It<_ 6 le s / ; j S -h t<-<AJ .6M i2 1 ~-.I r!' 'y e. 0crHJ 11/ 1 ~ 11.1, II 6 e. Q4 IJ, 9 h a.s It; 111 I- /1 ~ cfa !Ia ~-5' /yf?D])CJ e. s /// ~ !- '1-k {o L~ /ti'CI /1 ~ .ee. rh·Ad T4Y,cu.c.. cl N/VJ I'Ju; ;I.e ~e t-a.#~
(ar~tl.-a..ND. /f/'tusv'be s>"cy/.ed /l/t?tU./1,
8-63

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER P- Johan Jongens, July 2, 1998
P-1) The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, and no response is required.

The commenter's opposition to the project will be considered by the decision-makers (Planning Commission, City Council, and Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission) in their review of the project.
8-64

r~ ~ 3.~,~fJ?t.~i~.:a ~~
~~via~ ~ /)/~ ~ ~~
. ~ r dt:# ~~12. ( P..e- ~~ ~ ""V u.Jk.

M N./d~<li.t~ff~F~ a-d ~ .if ~· J) ? /{)k U..U ""f' ~ 7U S.;;>. f~~~?
(lJ ~ ~·- t/)dit ~ ~~ hly~~
~ t/P.ur d:t" ~ lrtJda/ ? - {?. ;> ~ ~ ~
Jus ·p-hd- ~ q~ ~ ~ 1 !U41'dt44~ ( /11:1tfe WlftU! &J~P(~,v' ~ ~tJlid/; (f.) ~ P1 . 3 '/ f~ c) - 7!. : ~ ..;_ . 1#.-R/PIH/f/ d ~ ~ (. #ttw- ~ 9/'lt?s- tf4dr ~ ~ ~
9¥! f"' . pdv ·~~ ail ~ AT #£ept;r;
~ ~ ~ , ~I.I:JJU-11/)ttl, ~ u;d,t ~ ~
~~tJ-1.(~~ /tnfl/faf' ~ ~~~
/Wf~ !f . ~ tUJ ~c
~~
. ./ /
.
(j) s~ tudl ~.~ 7!d'~ ~~~ ere .. , 1/J/I!t--. I!L/ ~~~ RA'; ff!tllt~IY/ .-:f~ fl:wj; t(A'I/,~ N/ ck ~ &'. t~~<t ;J.It'fl.l .f/.. :f ~ .;ad- .zh ~(R ~ /V<»~U/Urt Ill -1!!tfftt- ~ _ hm-WH#e'.<'! /Ju.ee {Jnpt-rC.{!dr •
~JWU -11M-rr1e !
Pd4<-- ;;. /) ./ !
8-66
1 Cont'd. 1
2 (j ~ ... kt ~ ~ /1111'~ /at< i!M.rtM dy
0ft IM'W ~~ J'~ ttd r!W ~w r/kjtt J'tkl
Sfttf f ¥at~ f ~?-;;
@ t/(} .jt~ : tf.S. IIJ/ AlB ~?HM,a.rj.JN&M ,€tJ _ (7d
!:!_S .f)- AI«~ h- 17- ~~ -110 ~ ~ ~ t ll .IU~ ( tVJ<;
;iLW ~ t!ll!lr~ ~ ~ t&~}
(§) ~.~ J/; 1/)t/t~ ld/ w ~ :lJtt. ( ~ u- ~J s)
~ ~4-«~~~~.1
@ 'I·~ . I 1!. t{/i!Uitrw<L ¥ ~ ~. (' ~ d k.Y,
~ ~ ~ /)BJ.A-Y'J /
(fj) '-1. ;;.. 3 J'~ &/~ 9: ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~J ~ lc ~s £ ! ,#, ~ ~,u
. r ~ ,.,dt';z;..; ~-
@ r.f,/,3 - p~ ~~ ~~~ 1/~ &~
(~ :- ~ ~ ,do rtarra. -uN'& Pei;t;,t
Wilt' ?.7
2 Cont'd.
---- .
@ '{!.3P_ ~~ ~~ ~ ~?<d. 3
LAt ~- rfWV~ ~ ~ ~~
lt)W i /ltf4~ ·~ ~ ~ 11£_,<). R4-t£>GV
a-~? th f1j:, ·~ >
P~ 3 61-Y
8-67
(9 tf,;;.), - ~R/j~.w/1 ~- ~
.~ ~ ~~~4btL~Jfd.M k!J ~S'T- 4
fu.lt- ~) T - C "'- 1''
@ ~0"~ au/ &ft~-
tf.:n -lh ~ ~~ .:T.Vt!..e6ff'~: ike
~ rl 44 f;ruayy, ~~ J'~~~~~w .. J1 k - (IX-- fl'h Uu:lulk ~ .,.; th ~ 5 J¥fj;t;. ~ ~ JU~ i ~.~;It:( {11·</fM _... ~- 1iU ~ #o ~ Ut ~ !if ?e4 ~ ...;:._ p~ t/ !)
@ '/3. t /1)~ ~"" 7eMn.MM' (~) ~
UAH7h tadr~1 dd~ ~ - wlt.y 747 r , ~­
~ ;zt ~ ~ ? 4 &...., UJAA lJ~ 6
fJ!d' Wtt &~ J~L.- (!. 70 ~ ~
--1/ut f ~ ~(~ .r~
{9/ZJ-W-n r"'-f 1 at_,)
([j) :!Y·c; ~ J/tUJ ttM /<1 ~1 ~!) ~
~ ~ ~ -' rn<;JJ I Sel/e!/2-t..'r" (}l/6;i?.P.eArr.
~ ((ew-~ M'/1 ~~~ ~~ 71-. 7
--tk tuiliA ~ t VUt t/);~ /!,u,~ (~ ~
/U?' bw ~ ~ ~ tU4I ;c'dltt) i~· t1Jd4c. A/ 1)..1 )'
8-68 '
\--.:__;
r:;;/itu_ ~ lio w~ ~til"# ( IJ~--!&/ ~
/IU!'t ~ (wr'/4 ~ ~ ~ I& !l/rt&ll«w-h..
~ ~ ~ ..,;.. ~ ~ IiwtN'tf-! ??
il/1/u/ tu;t/t '-111£ ov~ Ptt/Jtf?/1/cP- em~' ? ?
(/]) ttt -~ #ltije£1 ~ ~ ~~
7 Cont'd.
~~ tta<1 ~~ ~ * ~ ,4-tte.C&fFr
. 8
~IPE-A:/-rS' - ~ ~ CL l~r/~ ~~er) ~$ -(i~"J.,
~
~
~ ~Ut. Vcd:r ~~ :J au~ 1 bfttr( r - (!j) 'I~. -r~__) ~ ~ ~ . . '---f£1-- ---- -1-1/~E tl . .r. /tJ! ~ A) !ilk fkMu Rtl. -zi ~-I'£- ~ ~Ut .#Pm(),V,
!I~~ .j :tiu~? \J4&M ~~ 9
._u ~ ~ tH-1'~/ {.ild ~
~ dy~ ~)
@) {:l.S'_4 f ~·;).1 ~ .:THrf~ 4u ~/~
~ -th ~ r ~d~~ ~~ dMI
~ ~fldi21- ( P/tat </h ~ ~ o' J?:e
~ - ;/;~ /0/ tU<# ad ~ ~ 10
~ Vh ~ /uT ~...u:.. ~
------ftt4
{AtL! -lit
Ajtd
~
~ 4 .-w-
~11(
~ ~ ~ . ~a
. /)114- ~ o-1.- d
8-69
I I
'
@ ~ ~'fPM~ff~-uM
·~ ?rr,; ~ ~- fn'~
uudt ..Je ~ ~ ~ ~ {?.;.?) ~-fd.,
S ~ ~ 'P~IU , ~~ /t- ~tf/ ~ d"~ ~1/e:te- _
(/:),e,tffflN'~ ~ ~Jilt ~ a. fJJtM?~ WI'J.:r~·t.I.JtF 12, · · - -~(J ___ ,; Cont d. w~ -:F,4#H/~ /! ~; e.ut ~ ~ ~
.4 ttl~~ ~ "5 dw_ ~ a~.-
1/)_ ~ w ~ ~.u.. ~~ &_ta;
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ·' p~ L/. '/.I PtUp
tJ!:/._- J.IY: ~--£_ - ~ ~ ~ cf/"-1' -1 ~
-a !J.)r~ ~~ - h ~~~! dru ?
"
@ -uJW ~ ~ 4 t4 .:s fat ~-~ ~~ 13
. ~ ~ <-Wdt~ ~n)~ ~ lh ~
~ 1'7 A.t41~~?
@ </:£_! J </. ££/ fo/C ~U#/711 - ~ ~ f/ ~
weuw /:!:!1-Vt=- t( ~ i~L£1 th-1 ~ute ;;..,~:_; 14
(JJCI,ft,ttt( ~ ~ U~ 7() ~ /kJP~eF~p !
~ 7 ij I s-71
([{; --lh 4-i ~~ ~ ..j6 w ~~ ~~ ~
7Jf!!!t kf_n<N ~k..rj ~~ c/d, ~Ci ~ 1' ~ twjut (jfN- c/tie 11/;~~.llttac../ lfM~ 6 s-~ Aetu.r ~~ kg *' /!E.ttt?etvry,4 L.. ' - ~~ ~ !
11//14 tUI' 1 </k ~ ~ ~iJ ~J' ~ ~
~utr :r tJIJT'Eff ~ ~ ~t!Zi#t r ~
.lf Chu~ ~ r~~ ~) r ~~~/ 4M<I
di ~ ~ t-47 ;hnEif/piJ?M/( '* ILh ~
fJ/tUt ,~w.~ ~,, (( ~r~(/ ~
~ ~ A ibtt:t2?C:P ! :r ~ ~I!'W ao4.a
~ ~ ~ '*"~ ~~~{~,1,4,
d ~ vh Wo .4-i'IU,{I A-Tit/£ "- ~ :i' ~
8~ /f W-th jm,P#Uf tit</ ktt?.t1 ~.tj:(
..J/[0 ft<}ul ~ lldf f!!:'ii%E t:N'!W!U2 _ j ~
ttu-1/ . ~ Jdt .,It, ~ ~ ~ AArE/tZ#A-77tiE_
15 I ~
16 8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER Q- Annemarie Tresch, July 4, 1998
Q-1) As stated on p. 3-5, the figure of 3.2 persons per unit is based on 1990 census data. As stated on p. 4.4-9, water use is estimated based on consumption data provided by Alco Water Service for the company's East Salinas service area. As noted on p. 4.4-10, the figure of 350 gallons per unit for all single-family dwellings was used (rather than a lower figure for new units only).

Q-2) Several intersection impacts noted by the commenter are addressed in the EIR, which notes, in Section 4.2 and in Chapter 6, that 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 South Sanborn Road, Williams Road I East Laurel Drive, and Williams Road I Gamer A venue. These impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Signalization would eliminate these impacts, but is not feasible because no funding source has been identified.)
Of the three intersections on Williams Road that were listed in the comment, one (Williams Road/Freedom Parkway) was included in the EIR analysis, one is addressed in the response to Comment D-1, p. 8-15, and one would not be measurably affected by the project. The Williams Road/Freedom Parkway intersection is included in Tables 4 and 5 of Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation; it is listed last of the signalized intersections.

The Williams Road/Boronda Road intersection and Williams Road/Old Stage Road intersections were not included in the EIR analysis as they are not anticipated to be adversely affected by the proposed project. This was confirmed in the response to Comment D-1, which discussed the Williams Road/Boronda Road intersection. Because of the location of the proposed project with respect to employment, shopping and school . areas, it is anticipated that only a few, if any, weekday p.m. peak-hour project-generated vehicles would travel on the eastern segment of Williams Road between Boronda Road and Old Stage Road. Alisal Road intersections at Sanborn, at Williams/John and at Bardin Road are also analyzed in the EIR.

Concerning traffic safety impacts relative to Alisal Elementary School and Alisal High School, there is a pedestrian signal at Williams Road and Bardin Road and, as stated on p. 4.2-17, the project sponsor would install a traffic signal at the newly created intersection of Williams Road and Boulevard A. This signal, in combination with a sidewalk that would be installed by the sponsor as part of the improvements to the project site's Williams Road frontage, would allow for a safe crossing of Williams Road between the project site and both the elementary school and the high school across the street.
8-73

8.0 Comments and Responses
Regarding project contribution to cumulative unacceptable levels of service for which no mitigation is feasible, and regarding regional traffic impacts, please see also the response to Comment A-3, p. 8-5.

Q-3) As stated on p. 4.1-8, "The project would provide a buffer strip in the form of rights-ofway for Freedom Parkway and East Ali sal Street." The agricultural disclosure notice described on p. 4.1-23 is intended to inform home buyers of the potential for noise, dust and odors that could occur as a result of normal agricultural operations. As stated on that page, "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." Therefore, the project would not substantially alter existing land use patterns, and would not be expected to substantially alter the relationship between existing adjacent land uses.

Q-4) Installation of a traffic signal at the Williams Road/Boulevard A intersection is identified as mitigation on p. 4.2-17. With this signal, the intersection would operate an acceptable level of service, as stated on p. 4.2-18.

Q-5) Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 would insure that Fire Station No. 5 is constructed prior to occupancy of the most distant home sites from the existing Fire Station No. 4, thereby ensuring that emergency response times would be adequate.

Q-6) As stated in Mitigation Measures 4.3.8a and 4.3.8b, both the temporary detention basin, and the permanent basin to be constructed later, would ensure that runoff from the site would not increase over the existing rate of runoff. As stated on p. 4.3-15, "The project sponsor would also develop a siltation/detention basin management plan to maintain . adequate storage volume over the life of the project. . . . The management plan would propose a schedule and designate responsibility for anticipated maintenance." Further, the design of the detention basin shall be subject to approval by the City and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, as stated on the same page. The siltation/detention basin would be designed to complement the open space opportunity it is intended to provide, while also ensuring public safety.

Q-7) Please see the response to Comment Q-12, below.

Q-8) The EIR includes an extensive discussion of Salinas Municipal Airport (pp. 4.1-17 - 21, and Impact 4.1-4, pp. 4.1-23 - 24 ). The discussion under Impact 4.1-4 states, assuming the highest airport activity level forecast in the 1993 Airport Master Plan, "the risk to residents and occupants of the project over the life of the project is negligible. Given a 8-74

8.0 Comments and Responses
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. The probable frequency of such accidents at the project site itself would be even less." Q-9) Regarding regional traffic impacts, please see the response to Comment A-3, p. 8-5.

Q-10) Please see the response to Comment Q-2.

Q-11) Please see the response to Comment M-6, p. 8-51.

Q-12) Regarding the decrease in percolation to groundwater, the EIR states on p. 4.4-12 that "increased runoff and evaporation due to increased impervious surfaces would substantially reduce rainfall percolation to groundwater" following development of the project. However, the EIR found that, even accounting for the loss of existing percolation, water consumption at the site would be less than under existing conditions.

Regarding seawater intrusion into the Salinas Valley aquifer, the EIR states on p. 4.4-11, "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." The EIR continues, "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." Regarding Williams Ranch, Alco Water Service, which would provide water service to the project site, also serves Williams Ranch. The four wells that Alco would install at the Mountain Valley site would be interconnected with Alco' s existing distribution system. The new wells would draw water from the same aquifer that serves Williams Ranch and other areas of East Salinas.

Q-13) As stated on p. 4.4-7, the Salinas Zoning Code "requires that 'xeriscaping principles' be incorporated in all residential development. Those principles include use of native and low-water-use plants, low-flow sprinklers, timers on sprinkler systems, and a limit on turf (grass) area to no more than 20 percent of the total landscaped area." Such features result in the greatest potential to limit water consumption by future development.

Q-14) As stated in the EIR (as revised), the project would not result in a significant effect on air quality, with the exception of construction, which would result in a significant, if temporary, unavoidable effect due to the potential for generation of fine particulates 8-75

8.0 Comments and Responses
(dust) in excess of the standard set by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (see Impact 4.5.1, p. 4.5-9).

Q-15) The EIR identifies conversion of prime farmland to urban use as a significant, unavoidable impact (Impacts 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, pp. 4.1-21- 22).

Q-16) The commenter's opposition to the project is noted, and will be considered by the decision-makers (Planning Commission, City Council, and Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission) in their review of the project. 8-76
~45678
/'" .._ ~ .

The Mountain Valley EIR is a very professional looking document and professionally sounding ~ CDmJJ.D 181 . ex> • e.v. De~ Reading it from the standpoint of land use conversion, where does it talk about the "r' (impact) of ~ Recetved deltroying some of the richest dollar wise, and productive, food wise, land in the entire world? IS)~ .s'c- "
Especially
"either/or"
when
situation.
the same
Either
project
we have
could
housing
be placed
-or
on
-we
rolling
save
hills
our
two
green
or three
agriculture
miles away.
gold mine.

This is
We
not
c:m
~
have both! Housing & development goes on the surrounding hills and agriculture in the valley.

1. This project establishes a new trend. Official's 30 years ago said we couldn't leap frog to the hills.

We must have a corridor! The corridor to the hills was to be between the proposed 101 bypass and Main St A few years later they excused development southeast of that corridor by insisting the southeastern boundary of the corridor had to be Williams Road. This proposed development "Mountain Valley Project"; goes past that southern boundary of Williams Road heading straight do\'\'n the valley. This is the beginning of San Jose. For many of us approval of this project says San Jose has been appro\'ed b\' our Citv Fa then.

2. Another vantage point is the rate of growth. Graph the gro·wth over the past 40 years; extrapolate that curve into the future using the model say of the city ofMilpitas and Freemont This valley will be another San Jose in another 25 years.

3. Reading the EIR reminded me of going to the encyclopedia to get data about some country to write a social studies report: Population, land area, geography, climate, resources etc. Fine scholarly introductory remarks. They stated what is. This project proposes to mess with what is, and this report of that project is supposed to address the impa~ of messing with what it is. This land use part of the EIR report doesn't even dance around the impacts of destroying this unique land.

4. How about jobs? How about tlie impact on the Salinas economy? Today and especially in the future.

The report states the Land is Prime Class I and alludes to its value by stating its category as "Unique".

That's a nice introductory statement but they seem scared to death to mention the dollars of produce it generates each year compared to the productivity of land elsewhere. Obviously the developer paid for this report. This report is flawed!

5. It's aWeSOme! California produces 24% of the nations table food. A big part of that comes from these very Unique acres this project would destroy. Monterey Co. is 10% of the state ag receipts and we do it on a little sliver of land called the Salinas Valley. The whole Unites States Ag output was 168 Billion dollars including Alaska and Hawaii. And we produced 2.2 billion of that on a little sliver of land only five miles wide where it enters the ocean and feathers out to almost nothing 45 miles upstream.

We have 52 crops grossing over 3000 dollars per acre. Most of the rest of the nation is limited to growing 5 or 6 agronomy crops that gross Jess than 500 dollars per acre. There are few other places on the face of the earth where the !ili!:!Y!!£ is conducive to the commercial growing of cool season vegetable crops. 8-77
1 2
3 6. Most of us have traveled all over the state and have seen houses all over the hills.

The question is,
What would be lost if the developer moved his proiect to the hills? There should be a pretty detailed long list to justify changing the zoning from "agriculture only" and cementing over a portion ofthis rich gold mine. What would this list look like? I can't think of a single thing to go on this list. Can You? And when you get a list here, the next question to ask of items on that list is, "Couldn't these items be obtained without destroying our God given rich land?

1. 2.

3. 4

4. 5.

6. On the other hand if the development was directed to the hills:

Lumber yards would still sell lumber--And the some farm workers wouldn't lose their jobs.

Painters could still paint------- And lettuce trucks would still bring money to town.

Cable TV would still make hookups--- And farm workers children would still buy shirts.

Car dealers would still sell cars And packing sheds would still pack.

School teachers could still ply their skills- And ag production wouldn't suffer.

Newspaper boys would still deliver papers-And our great grandchildren would etc etc Statesmen take the long view. Politicians take the short view. 8-78
PRIME versus U N I Q U E (SUPER PRIME)
Economically
The USDA Land Capability Classification system was established before most of us were bom.

Originally it grouped lands, primarily on the basis of physical and chemical properties into one of eight classes. Class I land came to be associated with the word PRIME. Class I land had to have an unimpeded profile greater than 40 inches deep.

Certain crops, many of them very high value crops, could successfully be grown on relatively shallow soils. Lettuce as an example, even though it is a tap-rooted plant, is only in the ground for 60 to 90 days. This showed a weakness in the above early system of evaluating soils only on their physical and chemical characteristics. So, the Land Use Capability Classification has been fine tuned and amended many times over the years.

One of the major changes was to add additional categories. U -UNIQUE FARMLANDS was added to reflect the above-mentioned economic disparity.

Quoting from USDA NRCS CA506-18(2) (11-V (NCMP), SUPPLEMENT CA-4, February 1981) U - UNIQUE Farmlands
Unique Farmland is land other than 'Prime' and 'Additional Farmland of §.tatewide Importance', that is currently used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops.

These lands are currently producing the following crops of very high economic importance to California as identified in the annual report of the Department of Food and Agriculture.

Fruit Orchard Crops
Apples
Apricots
Avocados
Cherries
Citrus
Dates
Figs
Nectarines
Vegetable Crops
Artichokes
Asparagus
Beans
(Dry & Snap)
Broccoli
Brussels Spts
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Olives
Peaches
Pears
Persimmons
Plums
Pomegranates
Prunes
Cucumber
Garlic
Lettuce
Melons
Onions
Peas
Peppers
Potatoes
Spinach
Tomatoes
Tree Nuts
Almonds
Walnuts
Pistachio
Vinevard & Caneberries
Bushberries
Grapes
Kiwi Fruit
Irrigated Field Crops
Alfalfa Rice
Barley Safllower
Com Sorghum
Cotton Sugarbeets
Oats Wheat
Specialties (not elsewhere classified)
Cut Flowers Nursery Products
Hops Strawberries
Ladino Clover
Seed
8-79
Figure 1-3.

Cash Receipts from Farming In 1994 (1 ,000 Dollars)
(1994 U.S. Total Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings: $179,669 Million) Callfomla I 20,238,064
Texas ' 12,652,238 I.__ _ _,__ Iowa 10,084,316
Nebraska 8,561,321
Illinois 8.222.796 ......... Monterey Co. (2 Billion - 10% of State) Kansas 1,687,299
Minnesota 6,522,323
North Carolina 6,369,139
On a little sliver of river bottom land only 5 miles wide at the Ocean and featherine out to nothine 50 miles u
Florida 5,9n,970
Wisconsin 5,384,186
Arkansas 5,275,623
Indiana 4,837,694
'!'1f'shlngton 4,720,482
Gqorgl<t 4,715,685
~~~ssovrl 4,1524,209
Ohio 4,475,151
Colorado 4,028,834
.. .. .. .. .. The Salinas Valley -- Green Gold.
.. .. .. .. .. Richest Valley per capita in World.
.. .. .. .. .. Why is our land so productive when most of our soils aren't Prime Class I?
It's the Climate!
God ltas entrusted to our stewardship this awesome
Otda~oma 3,864,455 Natural Resource
;-.-·;:::.:'h'"i1ia ~ ·. 3,755,276
00 Michigan v 3,418,874
Its up to us to protect it (Or future generations.

I
00 0
r -
Sour~: USDA Economk Rt'se:ardt Suvlvt' Computrr Fl~. .......... California produces 24% ofthe North American Continent's table food on only 3% of the nations cultivated crop land.
.. .. .. .. .. Remember during Desert Storm, we heard frequently that AGRICULTURE is America's Oil.!
If a developer proposed cementing over one oflraq's oil wells to build a housing development. What do you suppose Sadaam's answer would be? The answer is so obvious and simple! He would say, "NO WAY!" And he would come right back with a better solution. Yes, "we need the housing, you can build it, but build it around the oil wells----we must not destroy our black gold mines, our nations lifeblood". --------------------------------------------------"We can have our cake and eat it too." ----------------------------------------------------------------- That's what our supervisors and council members should be saying: Keep off our green gold mines. Put your development a couple miles away We must not be destroyers of God's greatest asset to us. We are to be stewards and protectors. -------------------------------------------------"We can have our cake and eat it too." ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------Only 15% ofMonterey county is UNIQUE vegetable land. The rest can be used for other needs. ------------------------ Super Prime- (Economically)

8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER R - Robert Kennedy, undated
R-1) As stated on p. 4.1-22 and illustrated in Figure 5, p. 4.1-6, the Salinas General Plan states that no development will occur beyond the southern boundary of the project site (south of a line parallel to Williams Road).

R-2) These comment do not address the adequacy of the EIR.

R-3) CEQA does not require analysis of economic effects of a project, except to the extent that economic effects may be used to trace a chain of cause and effect leading to a physical impact. Such analysis is not necessary here, as the EIR concludes that conversion of prime farmland to urban use would be a significant, unavoidable impact (Impacts 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, pp. 4.1-21- 22)
R-4) Please see the response to Comment I-32, p. 8-35.
8-81

8.0 Comments and Responses

STAFF-INITIATED TEXT CHANGES AND ERRATA
The following changes are made to the DEIR text to make minor corrections to the text or to account for new information received since publication of the DEIR that does not result in any new or more substantial impacts (revised and new language underlined (except where the entire change involves new text); deleted language shown in strikethrough).

On p. 2-2, the eighth sentence of the first paragraph is revised as follows:

The remaining park improvements would be the responsibility of the City.

A similar change is made in the second sentence on p. 3-5.

On p. 2-7 and 2-8 (in Summary Table 1 ), the level of significance after mitigation for Impacts 4.2.1a, 4.2.1b, and 4.2.1c is restated at "Unavoidable significant cumulative impact" to clarify that there would not be a project-specific significant impact at the affected intersections.- On p. 3-2, the first full sentence of the first paragraph is revised as follows:

The site is largely within the City's Sphere oflnfluence and Urban Transition Area, meaning 160 acres of the site is designated by LAFCO for eventual urban development.

On p. 4.1-1 and 4.3-2, the text is revised to state that the population of the City of Salinas is 123,100 (instead of 123,000).

Mitigation Measure 4.1.3b, p. 4.1-23, is revised as follows (the same change is made in the summary table, Table 1):

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.

On p. 4.2-4, a page reference is added for Table 4 near the end of the large paragraph in the center of the page.

On p. 4.2-4, a reference to footnote 2 is added to the last paragraph, concerning General Plan Policy 5.1.B.

On p. 4.2-6, a new fourth sentence is added to the second paragraph, as follows:

Del Monte A venue would be extended south to meet at a "T" intersection with Argentine Drive within the project site.
8-82

8.0 Comments and Responses
On p. 4.3-2, the word "of' is deleted from the first line of the last paragraph.

On p. 4.3-5, the first paragraph is revised as follows to clarify the funding status of the East Ali sal Street relief main:
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 ft!HdiHg set1ree has beeH ideHtified for eoHstmetioH of a relief maiH te pre vide the Heeded eapaeity. The relief main is included in the City's current six-year Capital improvement Pro~ram; 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).

On pp. 4.3-5, 4.3-6, and 4.3-16, the name of the joint powers authority that operates the Crazy Horse Landfill is corrected to read "Salinas Valley btHdfill JeiHt Powers Solid Waste Authority."
On p. 4.3-10, the text following mitigation measure 4.3.3 is revised as follows:

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.

On p. 4.3-13, Mitigation Measure 4.3.6 is revised as follows (the same change is made in the summary table, Table 1):

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.

On p. 4.4-7, the fifth paragraph is revised to refer to Division 17 (instead of Division 14) of the Salinas Zoning Code.

On p. 4.7-2, the last paragraph prior to the heading "Existing Noise Sources and Levels" is revised as follows:

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 Zonin~ Code. contains additional noise re~ulations.
8-83

2.0 APPENDICES
A. WATER USE CONSULTATION
B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
C. AIR QUALITY DATA
D. HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS AND REGULATIONS
I !
2-1

.2..0 Appendices
APPENDIX A: WATER USE CONSULTATION
A-1
March 23, 1998
Tom Adcock
Alec Water Services
249 Williams Road
Salinas, Ca 93905
SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABILITY OF WATER; MOUNTAIN VALLEY (SCONBERG RANCH)
Dear Mr. Adcock:

As briefly discussed last week, I am forwarding this request for an assessment pursuant to California Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (code section attached).

In accordance with this section, the City of Salinas requests that Alec Water Services assess the following:
a. Whether the projected water demand associated with the proposed Mountain Valley residential project was included as part of your most recently adopted urban water management plan; and
b. Whether Alec's total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years included in the 20-year projection contained in the urban water management plan will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Mountain Valley project, in addition to Alec water system's existing and planned future uses.

If the assessment determines that supplies are, or will be, insufficient, additional information is required to be provided by Alec to the City pursuant to Section 10911 (a).

Please feel free to call with any questions. I have also enclosed the most recent version of the Mountain Valley Precise Plan for your reference.

Sincerely,
·~~

JENNY MAHONEY
Senior Planner
Enclosures
A-2

ALISAL WATER CORPORATION
Robert T. Adcock
President
Ms. Jenny Mahoney
Senior Planner
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, CA 93901
A Cali(oruia CC>I"pQnouoo
dba ALCO WATER SERV1CE
April 17, 1998
Re: ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABILITY OF WATER

MOUNTAIN VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
249 'Williams Road
Salinas, Ca. 93905
( 408) 424- 0441
... -... ~ . .... . -
A
-
R ~~~·.~ ~, .·~·~J
C~:-n. ~;·.:. ~~~ .. ~
, .. /
This letter is in response to your letter of March 23, 1998, requesting information from Alco on the availability ofwater to the proposed Mountain Valley development.

The two questions posed to Alco and our response is:

A. Whether the projected water demand associated with the proposed Mountain Valley residential project was included as part ofyour most recently adopted urban water management plan.

Response: Yes. The projected water demand for the Mountain Valley Project was included as part of our most recent urban water management plan. A copy is included for your files.

B. Whether Alco's total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years included in the 20 year projection contained in the urban water management plan will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Mountain Valley project, in addition to Alco water systems's existing and planned future uses.

Response: Yes. See section in urban water management plan discussing Alco's projections and incorporating into these projections, Alco's actual experience with its well production during the most recent multiple-dry years which occurred in the early 1990's. A-3
Alco' s most recent urban water management plan provides for the acquisition of four well sites in this project, as well as the completion of four production wells scheduled as follows:

I. Well # 1 should be on line prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in Phase 1.

2. Wells #2 and 3 should be on line prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in Phase 4.

3. Well #4 should be on line prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in Phase 5.

Alco's urban water management plan assessment demonstrates that its total projected water supply available during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. Incorporated in Alco's projections is the addition of the four pumping stations discussed above. The well sites, comprising approximately 20,000 square feet of net usable space, \\<ill be purchased from the developer pursuant to Main Extension Rule 15.

Wells 1, 2 and 3 will be drilled to the specification of Alco Water and shall be the financial responsibility of the developer, including all related facilities such as pump, motor, pressure tank, site improvements, i.e., sound wall, gated entrance, paved driveway approach, and electrical power.

Alco shall be responsible for the purchase of the sites from the developer, the diesel powered generator and the pumphouse at each site.

Alco shall be responsible for the drilling of the well and any other related equipment at the 4th well site, however, the developer shall be responsible to provide the electrical power to the site and the construction of the sound wall.

Alco estimates the total cost of each well and related facilities to be provided by the developer to be approximately $185,000 per site at sites 1, 2, and 3, and approximately $50,000 at site 4. All.ofthe costs associated with the Mountain Valley Project, including on-site, off-site and source facilities, will be detailed in the Main Extension contract executed by the parties.

An amended Water Supply Permit will be obtained from the Department of Health Services for the addition of these new water sources. All building permits required will be obtained from the City of Salinas. The well driller will be responsible for obtaining a well drilling permit for each well from the County of Monterey.

The estimated time schedule for the completion of each well, including the permitting process, drilling of the well, installation of the pump and motor, electric power at the site, and the construction of the pumphouse is 6-7 months, barring any unanticipated problems, such as weather, labor strikes, etc.

I have included all of the information outlined above, which answers the requirements of California Code Section 10911, even though Alco 's urban water management plan included the projected water demand associated with this project. The installation of the water facilities that are included in the Mountain Valley project are also a part of Alco's long range projections in its water management plan. A-4
In closing, I would like to bring to your attention that my review of the Draft Precise Plan for Mountain Valley revealed several inaccuracies in sections relating to water issues. I feel these should be corrected prior to the finalization of the Precise Plan. The inaccurate statements deal primarily v.ith the well lots that Alco will be purchasing from the developer. At the bottom of page 13 and continuing onto page 14, the plan makes reference to the reversion of the well sites to the property owners for residential use, in the event that the well sites have not been used for water facilities ·within five years after completion of the Mountain Valley project. Alco could not and would not agree to such a condition, because to do so would be in conflict with Public Utility Code Section 851.

Alco will be purchasing these well lots from the developer under the terms of a Main Extension agreement, and \Vill be acquiring fee title to the sites. Once they have been purchased by the utility, in fee title, the utility is prohibited, by statute, from selling, mortgaging, encumbering or disposing in any manner, of utility property, without the authorization of the California Public Utilities Commission. (PU Code 851)
This same language is also contained on page 56, Section 2.6. 1, Water System, and page 74, Table 5. I would appreciate your noting these corrections prior to the fmalization of the Precise Plan.

If you have any further questions about the water supply to this project, please contact me at 424-0441.
cc: Bill Shaw
enclosures
A-5
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Adcock
Vice-President

URBAN WATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
ALISAL WATER CORPORATION A CaillOI"IIia Corporatioo
db a ALCO WATER SERVICE
249 Williams Road
Salinas, CA 93905
( 408) 424- 0441
Robert T. Adcock President
Thomas R. Adcock Vice President
A-6

SECTION I
Plan Adoption and Planning Coordination
Plan Adoption
Alisal Water Corporation, dba Alco Water Service (Alco), prepared this plan in compliance with the requirements of California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6 (Urban Water Management Planning).

The plan was adopted by the Board members of Alco at a regularly scheduled Board meeting and was submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) within thirty (30) days of Board approval.

Planning Coordination
Alco has met with and coordinated the development of this plan with its consulting engineer and local offices including fire, health, public works, planning and water conservation agencies and other water utility companies.

SECTION II
Alco Water Service- History and Water Facilities
Alisal Water Corporation, dba Alco Water Service (Alco), is a privately owned public utility that began serving water in 1932 in an unincorporated area commonly referred to as the Alisal. This area was annexed to the City of Salinas in the early 1960's. With the incorporation of the Alisal area, all water served within the city boU!ldaries is provided by public utility water companies.

Alco is governed by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which regulates water rates and quality of service. Water quality is regulated by the California Department of Health Services, Public Water Branch and the Monterey County Department ofEnvironmental Health, Environmental Health Division.

Population and Service Area
Alco serves a population of approximately 27,000, which includes 5,463 metered connections and 184 unmetered connections\ within its service area, outlined in Map A, attached. The service area, approximately 6 square miles, encompasses the northeast area of Salinas in the County of Monterey.

A leo's service area comprises mainly residential and agricultural areas with a development expansion potential in the northeast portion. The western boundary adjoins the service area of California Water Service Company (Cal Water).

Geography and Climate
The geography and climate in Salinas is moderate and conducive to agriculture, primarily lettuce and A-7
strawberry crops and floriculture. Summer months are mild and fairly dry and winter months are mild and cool with an annual precipitation between the months ofNovember and March.

The groundwater in the Salinas area is obtained from the Salinas Groundwater Basin's two subareas, the Pressure Area and the East Side Area. The Pressure Area extends from Monterey Bay to Gonzales. The East Side Area lies between the Pressure Area and the Gabilan Range. These subareas contain aquifers of 180, 400 and 700 feet in depth. Alco Service area straddles these two subareas of the Salinas Groundwater Basin.

Water Sources and Facilities
All water supplied by Alco to its customers comes from groundwater sources. Alco currently has eight water wells in service. The locations of these eight wells are dispersed throughout Alco's service area, see locations indicated on the attached service area map, Map A. In addition to the eight sources, Alco has a total of 205,000 gallons of water storage capacity, comprised of three 50,000 gallon storage tanks and six hydropneumatic tanks located at various well sites.

In 1989, following the Lorna Prieta earthquake, Alco installed Onan automatic power transfer switch devices at its largest production well sites. In the event of a power failure, these automatic switch devices permit the automatic transfer of power from PG&E to Alco's diesel-powered standby generators. Alco personnel routinely inspect and operate the automatic sv.itch devices to assure proper functioning of the standby generator system in an emergency situation.

Alco's distribution system contains a total of approximately 400,000 feet of distribution pipeline ranging in size from 3 to 24-inch in diameter. The distribution mains are primarily Transite or C-900 PVC pipe. For purposes of mutual aid in the event of emergencies, it is possible to establish a crossconnection between the distribution systems of Cal Water and Alco. This type of cross-connection occurred in 1989 after the Lorna Prieta earthquake.

SECTION III
Past, Current and Projected Water Supply
All of the water supplied by Alco Water Service is drawn from the Salinas Groundwater Basin by its water supply sources. These sources have always been groundwater wells which have been supplemented, enhanced or replaced over the years.

The current eight wells are distributed throughout Alco' s service area and have a capacity range of 800 to 4,000 gallons per minute (GPM) with a total capacity of21,300 GPM, see TableS. The water produced by each source is monitored for quality on a regular basis and is within the California Department of Health Services acceptable drinking water standards. In 1997, Alco extracted approximately 1325.5 MG, or 4,067.8 acre-feet per year (AFY). Currently, there is a recycled water use program in effect on the Monterey Peninsula. This program reduces water used from the Salinas Groundwater Basin for agricultural purposes by approximately 30,000 AFY.

A-8
There are currently seven development projects which have been approved or are in the EIR process within the Alco service area boundaries. These projects are expected to be fully completed by the year 2002. Alco plans to drill seven additional water supply wells between now and the year 2002 to increase its total capacity.

Based on the capacity of the current eight water wells, which draw from the same aquifers the additional wells will draw from, the projected capacities for the new wells will be a minimum of 1,000 GPM, see Table C. In addition to the existing and projected water wells, Alco maintains approximately 10 well lots, dispersed throughout its service area, which do not currently have active wells. In the event an existing or proposed well proves insufficient, ie, the water did not meet California Health Standards, the well's production diminished or ceased, or the population growth pattern increased at a greater rate than projected, these 10 well lots would be available to drill additional sources.

Alco's groundwater wells have proven to be a reliable source of water for its service area. During the major droughts of 1978-1979 and the late 1980's/early 1990's, Alco's water capacity did not diminish and the water wells continued to constitute a reliable supply during single and multiple drought years. There was no significant impact on the supply of water contained in the aquifers of the Salinas Groundwater Basin. Alco's water supply and distribution system is not reliant upon any surface \Vater or storage water for water supply. It is projected that the groundwater supply will continue to be reliable in any drought situation in the future.

Financing of Water System Facilities
Alco Water Service is a public utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Alco' s rate and rate structure are reviewed and approved by the PUC, which also reviews and approves for reasonableness monies spent on capital improvements.

Facilities installed to provide service to new developments are covered by a Rule 15 Main Extension Agreement, a standard contract approved by the PUC. This contract allows the utility to obtain the financing from developers in order to provide service to their projects. The PUC is the final authority on all agreements made in the Main Extension contract.

Water system improvements and additional facilities that are added by the utility for purposes of existing water service are investments made by the puhlic utility. The PUC allows public utilities to invest funds in capital improvements and attain a rate of return on these investments through rates paid by the customers. The PUC recognizes that water utilities are required to maintain certain service standards, established by both the PUC and the DHS, in water production, system pressure and water quality. Through its approval process, the PUC allows the utility to obtain the funds to maintain these service standards.

SECTION IV
Past, Current and Projected Water Use
In the past. Alco has not differentiated water consumption by customer sector. Additionally, multifamily residential connections have been traditionally master-metered. In more recent years, in order A-9
to improve water conservation efforts as well as to better monitor individual water consumption for purposes of high demand audits and leak detection, multi-family residential connections have been individually metered. Individual metering also allows a more accurate demand projection for multifamily residential as demand can be calculated similarly to single-family residential connections.

See Table D for information on annual water demand.

Although it can be seen that existing water supplies have the ability to meet the existing demand as well as the projected future demand on an average annual basis, it must be noted that our system is a "pressure system" with a negligible amount of storage. Therefore, to accurately forecast the instantaneous water demand during peak use, we must calculate using peaking factors along with the average annual demand. These factors are peak month factor ( 1 .35), peak day factor (2.00), peak hour factor (1 .5). Table P shows the projected peak hourly water demand to the year 2020 versus projected peak production.

Since approximately 1990, all new connections are required to utilize water-use efficient plumbing fixtures. Additionally, all new developments in areas previously used for agricultural purposes are required by the City of Salinas to utilize a smaller percentage of water which was used on the same land by the agricultural user. The conversion of agricultural land to residential through new developments will therefore yield a net savings of water usage in new development areas.

From approximately 1998 to 2002, there will be seven development projects which will add 2,839 total service connections to Alco's existing service area. The projected use for these developments is illustrated in Table D.

SECTION V
Water Conservation Programs
Alco Water Service maintains a public education and a leak inspection program. A part of its public awareness program for water conservation is the use of printed materials used as inserts in Alco's monthly water billing to its customers. These types of conservation education materials are also distributed and available to customers at the Alco office.

Alco also participates in water education and conservation programs conducted through the local school district. Educational materials, including teacher aids, are provided for use in the classroom to increase student awareness regarding the importance of the wise use of water as a valuable natural resource. Alco personnel are also available to speak to students about water issues and have visited classrooms in the local high school and elementary school.

Alco 's leak inspection program is a direct response to customer inquiries regarding high usage in their homes. An Alco representative visits residences and conducts an extensive leak survey and discusses methods of improvement with the resident. This program has been quite effective and Alco will continue this form of public education in the future.

A-10
\
\
Po ronda Writ \
M.V. Wrt ll
AI.\', \\'riiiJ
\
\
"'·Illy .... \
0 \ .. ·
\
\
\
\
;·
M.\1, \\'ftt14
/
\
' \
TABLEC
I Alco Water Service I
Projected Annual Water Production Capacity 1998 to 2020 Wells 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020
MG/Yr GPM MG!Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM MG/Yr GPM Alisal High 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 Alma 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 210.3 400 Boronda 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 788.4 1500 County 1156.3 2200 1314 2500 1314 2500 1314 2500 1314 2500 1314 2500 1314 2500 1314 2500 1314 2500 Las Casitas 1093.2 2080 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 1156.3 2200 Laurel Heights 262.8 500 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 Nogal 956.6 1820 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 1051.2 2000 Santana 535 1018 .535 1018 535 1018 535 1018 535 1018 535 1018 535 1018 535 1018 535 1018 MV#l * - - 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 MV#2* - - - - 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 MV#3 * - - - - 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 MV#4* - - - - - - - - 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 WR#l * 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 WR#2* - - 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 WR#3 * - - - - - - 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 525.6 1000 Totals 6.684.5 12..718 8.313.9- 15.818 9.890.7 17.818 IQ.416.3 18.818 10.941.9 19.818 10.941.9 19.818 10.941.9 19.818 10.941.9 19.818 10.941.9 19.818 -•---
* These are the projected wells to meet growth demand.
;;t>
I
N
>-
'
w
TABLED
Alco Water Service
Annual Metered Water Demand 1993 to 2020
Customer Sectors in Mi1lion Ga11ons (MG)
Customer 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 Sectors
Single Family 789.7 834.3 9I9.8 973.9 1005.2 IOI6.4 1078.1 1 I 94.0 I 328.4 1481.9 Residential
Multi Family 369.9 369.9 412.6 424.5 436.4 436.4 443.5 455.4 467.3 479.2 Residential*
Commercial/ 82.5 90.6 95.5 104.4 108.4 108.4 112.4 120.5 128.6 136.7 Institutional
Irrigation 23.0 26.3 30.4 32.5 33.7 33.7 37.4 43.5 49.7 55.9 Totals 1 J 18.4 1032 1206.2 1210.1 1265.1 1321.1 1458.3 1535.3 1594.9 1594.9 1671.4 1813.4 1974.0 2153.7 Please note: Prior to 1997, there has been no separation of customer sectors. * Multi-family residential connections have historically been master-metered. All new connections in multi-family residential dwellings are now individua11y metered.

TABLEP
Alco Water Service
Projected Peak Hourly Water Demand and Projected Peak Hourly Production Year Demand (GPM) Supply (GPM)*
1993 8738 8,778
1994 8063 8,778
1995 9424 10,598
1996 9454 10,598
1997 9884 10,598
1998 10,321 12,830
1999 11,393 15,930
2000 11,996 17,930
2001 12,370 18,930
2002 12,460 19,930
2005 13,058 19,930
2010 14,167 19,930
2015 16,422 19,930
2020 16,826 19,930
* The figure for Supply includes 112 GPM obtained from storage facilities.

A-14
*
Existing Wells
Alisal High Well
Alma Well
Boronda Well
County Well
Las Casitas Well
Laurel Heights Well
Nogal Well
Santana Well
Totals
TABLES
Alco Water Service
Annual Water Supply
Existing Wells
Well Capacity Existing Pump
Capacity
GPM MGNr GPM MGNr
4,000 2,102.4 2,200 1,156.3
800 420.5 400 210.3
2,500 1,314 1,500 788.4
3,500 1,839.6 2,200 1,156.3
4,000 2,102.4 2,080 1,093.2
1,000 525.6 500 262.8
3,500 1,839.6 1,820 956.6
2,500 1,314 1,018 535
21,800 11,458 11,718 6,159.1
Additional Pump
Capacity*
GPM MGNr
1~800 946.1
400 210.2
1,000 525.6
1~300 683.3
1,920 1,009.2
500 262.8
1,680 883
1,482 779
10,082 5,298.9
Additional pump capacity can be achieved by replacing current pumps with higher production pumps.

A-15

2..0 Appendices
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Intersection capacity (level of service) calculation sheets are included in a separate technical appendix, available for review at the Salinas Community Development Department, 200 Lincoln Avenue.

B-1

2..0 Appendices
TABLE B-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Volume-to
Level of Capacity
Service Typical Operating Characteristics (v/c) Ratio
A Level of Service A describes a condition where the approach to an intersection appear 0.00-0.60 quite open and turning movements are made easily. Little or no delay is experienced.

No vehicles wait longer than one red traffic signal indication. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. The traffic operation can generally be described as excellent.

B Level of Service B describes a condition where the approach to an intersection is 0.61-0.70 occasionally fully utilized and some delays may be encountered, but delays are generally low. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.

The traffic operation can generally be described as very good.

C Level of Service C describes a condition where the approach to an intersection is often 0.71-0.80 fully utilized and back-ups may occur behind turning vehicles, with moderate delays.

These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths.

Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. The driver occasionally may have to wait more than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can generally be described as good.'
D Level of ServiceD describes a condition of increasing restriction causing substantial 0.81-0.90 delays and queues of vehicles on approaches to the intersection during short times within the peak period. Congestion is more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. However, there are enough signal cycles with lower demand such that queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing excessive back-ups.

The traffic operation can generally be described as fair.

E Capacity occurs at Level of Service E, when operations are measured using volume- 0.91-1.00 to-capacity ratios. LOS E represents the most vehicles an intersection can accommodate. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection and vehicles may be delayed up to several signal cycles. LOS E also indicates operations at the limit of acceptable delay, generally indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Vehicles may be delayed through several signal cycles. The traffic operation can generally be described as poor.

F Level of Service F represents a jammed condition, with delay unacceptable to most 1.00+ drivers. This condition often occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Back-ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration. Hence, volumes of vehicles passing through the intersection vary from signal cycle to signal cycle. Because of the jammed condition, this volume would be less than capacity.

Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such delay levels.

Average
Stopped
Delay

0.0- 5.0

5.1- 15.0

15.1-25.0

25.1-40.0

40.1-60.0

60.0+
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, Inc. from Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980; and Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, updated October 1994.

B-2
.2.0 Appendices
TABLE B-2:LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS,

WITH CONTROL ON MINOR STREET ONLY
Level
of
Service Typical Operating Characteristics
A Level of Service A describes a condition where the approach to an intersection appears quite open and turning movements are made easily.

Little or no delay is experienced. The traffic operation can generally be described as excellent.

B Level of Service B describes a condition where one or more critical movement approach to an intersection is occasionally fully used and short delays may be encountered. The traffic operation can generally be described as very good.
c
D
E
F
Level of Service C describes a condition where one or more critical movement approach to an intersection is often fully used and queuing may occur. The traffic operation can generally be described as good with average traffic delays.

Level of Service D describes a condition of increasing restriction and fewer gaps in the major street traffic flow, causing substantial delays and queues of vehicles on critical movement approaches to the intersection during short times within the peak period. The expected delay for minor street traffic is long; however, traffic operation can generally be described as fair.

Level of Service E describes the condition at which capacity of particular critical movement(s) is reached. It represents the most vehicles that any particular critical movement can accommodate; however, overall intersection operations may continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting up-stream of the critical movement, these vehicles may experience very long delays and potentially interfere with major street traffic flows. The traffic operation can generally be described as poor.

Level of Service F represerts a jammed condition. Insufficient gaps restrict the movement of vehicles out of one or more critical movement to the intersection. Extremely long delays occur, and drivers may select less than usual gaps, potentially affecting other traffic movements on the intersection.

In such cases, safety may be a problem. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection.

Average Stopped
Delay (Seconds
per Vehicle)
s5
> 5 and s 10
> 10 and s 20
> 20 and s 30
> 30 and s 45
> 45
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, Inc. from Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, updated October 1994.

B-3

2..0 Appendices
APPENDIX C: AIR QUALITY DATA
This appendix documents emissions and concentrations estimates provided in the air quality section of the EIR. In addition, a copy of the consistency determination from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), which forms the basis for the cumulative impact discussion, is included as an attachment at the back of this appendix.

Emissions Estimates
Table 1 documents emissions estimates from existing emissions sources associated with the project site, including tilling, windblown dust, pesticide application, and farm equipment. Table 2 documents emissions estimates from stationary sources associated with the operational-phase of the project. These sources would include gasoline refueling losses, natural gas combustion, power plant emissions associated with project electricity use, woodburning, consumer product use, and utility, lawn and garden equipment. Table 3 summarizes emissions estimates from mobile sources associated with the operational-phase of the project. Emissions estimates in Table 3 are based on the California Air Resources Board's URBEMIS5 model. URBEMIS5 input/output sheets (winter and summer seasons) that provided the information from which Table 3 was derived are provided immediately after Table 3.

Carbon Monoxide Concentration Estimates
Table 4 shows how the carbon monoxide concentration estimates were derived and introduces a list that matches CALINE4 file names with their associated scenarios. The CALINE4 files themselves follow Table 4 and provide additional details concerning the assumptions used for this portion of the analysis.

Cumulative Effect
The cumulative effect of the project is evaluated on the basis of its consistency with the regional air quality plan. At the back of this appendix, a copy of a letter containing a consistency determination from AMBAG is provided. This consistency determination relates to a earlier version of the project, which proposed development of 901 residential units. However, since the 901-unitproject was found to be consistent with the regional air quality plan, and since the current project would result in less population growth than the earlier proposal, the current project (853 units) would also be consistent with the regional air quality plan.

C-1
TABLE 1: EXISTING EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR PROJECT SITE
Existing Emissions I /rev 5/19/98
I I
Current Operations: 200Acresl I
Crops: strawberries In 1997 (per project description)
I I
Sources: Agricultural Tilling, Windblown Dust Pesticide Application, Farm Equipment Agricultural Tilling: PMlO Emission Factor: EF=(.33(4.8)(s)"0.6)*0.45 lbs/acre-pass Source: Slit content= 18%
ARB 9/95, Section 7.4 EF= I 4.04 lbs/acre-pass
Project site= 1 0 acre-pass/ acre = 2000 total acre-passes PM10 Emissions: 8,080 lbs/year
22 lbs/day
Windblown Dust: PMlO Emissions Factor: E=a*I*C*K*L*V tons/acre/year Source: a=Portion of total wind erosion losses as PM 10 (0.0125) ARB 9/95, Section 7.11 I=Soll erodibility, tons/acre/year (assume 86 for sandy loam) C=CIImatic factor (assume 0.15) I
K=Surface roughness (assume 0.6 for misc. vegetables)
L=Unsheltered field width factor (assume 0.57)
V=Vegetatlve cover factor (assume 0.80)
PMlO Emissions: 17,647 pounds/year
48 pounds/day
I
I
Pesticide Application: HC Emissions: 200 Acres/1,333,320 total acres Source: I 6.406 tons/HC emissions for 1987
ARB 9/95, Section 6.4
HC Emissions: 1,922 lbs/year
Sibs/day
Farm Equipment: Source: EPA Nonroad Emission Study, 11/91 gLhQ::br gLhQ::br gLhQ::br gLhQ::br
Emissions co Tractor 8.94 Sprayer 283.40 Tiller 817.00 Other 4.37 Factors: HC (diesel) 2.61 4-str gas 19.25 4-str gas 99.84 diesel 2.16 NOx 11.21 5.24 0.81 11.12
sox 0.87 0.28 0.37 0.92
PM 2.05 0.06 2.66 1.51
Rated HP 98 HP 24 HP 5.6 HP 57 HP
load facto 70% 50% 40% 51%
annual use 425 hours 75 hours po hours 345 hours
--·--·-·----- Emissions: IQ1QI; -~r-- -56-1-:8 ::--:------ ~-
co 574.1 lb/yr lb/yr 241.9 lb/yr 96.5 lb/yr -- 1,474
co 1.6 ~-lb/day 1.5 lb/day 0.7 lb/day 0.3 lb/day 4 -- HC 167.8 lb/yr 38.2 lb/yr 29.6 lb/yr 47.8 lb/yr -~ HC 0.5 lb/day 0.1 lb/day 0.1 lb/day 0.1 lb/day 1 NOx 719.9 lb/yr 10.4 lb/yr 0.2 lb/yr 245.6 lb/yr -m
NOx 2.0 lb/day 0.0 lb/day 0.0 lb/day 0.7 lb/day 3
sox 55.9 lb/yr 0.6 lb/yr 0.1 lb/yr 20.3 lb/yr n sox 0.2 lb/day 0.0 lb/day 0.0 lb/day 0.1 lb/day 0 PM 131.6 lb/yr 0.1 lb/yr 0.8 lb/yr 33.4 lb/yr -~ PM 0.4 lb/day 0.0 lb/day 0.0 lb/day 0.1 lb/day ----~-_()_ ~
Total Existing Emissions: co 4
annual average HC 6
lb/day NOx 3 --~~-
I SOx 0 --
I PM 70
Exist C-2
TABLE 2: STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT StaHonary Source Emissions EsHmates for Mountain Valley Project rev 5/20/98 I I I
Project Characteristics: Single Family Residences: 853 units I I Estimated Population: 2,810 people based on AMBAG letter, February 1998, T jadjusted to reflect 853 residences.

I I I
Stationary Emissions Sources: Gasoline distribution, natural gas consumption, electricity generation, woodbumlng, liawn and garden equipment, consumer products.

I l
Gasoline Dlstr1buHon Emission factors (ARB, 9/95, SecHon 4.1 0) Assuming 5% defect rate
Underground tank: llbLlOOOaal
- Working Loss 0.475
- Breathing Loss 0.5
Total gallons consumed: 4,125 gallons per day (based on URBEMISS) Vehicle Refueling - Vapor Displacement 0.1
-Spillage _L Q..Z
_l I Total: 1.775
I I
Note: 98.3% of fueling facilities In Monterey County
El:illu1ao1 IJlli!gy have Phase II controls (AQMP, 1994) Project emissions: ROG 7
Natural Gas Consumption: (Source: ARB, 9/95, Section 7.2) 1991 Residential Energy Sales for Monterey County: 69.780.406 therms 1991 Population for County 356,815 (Source: 1994 AQMP, extrapolating between years 1990 and 1995) Usage per resident In 1991: 196 therms/person/year or 18,625 cubic feet/person/year Total project usage: 52,334,638 cubic feet per year or 52 million cubic feet (MMcf) per year El:illu1ao1 lbLMMd (Source: ARB 9/95, Section 7.2)
Emission Factors: co 40
ROG 4.36
NOx 94
SOx 0.6
PM-10 11.18
El:illu1ao1 ~ IJlli!gy
Project emissions: co 2,093 6
ROG 228 1
NOx 4,919 13
sox 31 0
PM-10 585 2
Electricity Generation: El:illu1ao1 lblMMB!u (Source: CEC, Electricity Report, November 1992).

Emission Factors: co 0.038
ROG 0.001
NOx 0.11
SOx 0.001
PM-10 0.003
Annual Residential Use: 6.500 KWh/year /res. Source: PG&E 1991 Annual Report 66,547,000 Btu (Takes Into account losses from converting electrical power to heat) -- El:illu1ao1 lbL¥J: J.tllikl¥
Project Emissions: co 2,157 6 -- ROG 57 0
NOx 6,244 17
SOx 57 0
PM-10 170 0
Stationa C-3
TABLE 2: STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT (continued)

I I I I
ResldenHal Woodbumlng: I EQllillimJ: 1ool¥fliJ[l[flS Source: ARB 9/95, Section 7.1 I Emission Factors: co 0.04743 Based on 74,589 single family homes In Monterey County ROG 0.00296
NOx O.OOJ56
SOx O.OOOOB
PM-10 0.00648
EQllillimJ: 1ol:lsL.¥.flm ~
Project Emissions: co 40.46 222
ROG 2.53 14
NOx 0.48 3
sox O.D7 0
PM-10 5.53 30
Consumer Products • Non-aerosol Solvents (Source: ARB, 9/95, Section 6.1.) ROG 482 tons In 19871n Monterey County.

Population 336,093 est. for 1987 for Monterey County.

Emissions Factor: ROG 2.87 pounds per person per year.

ROG 0.008 pounds per person per day.

With ARB Regulation: ROG 0.006 pounds per person per day; reflects ARB consumer products rule. source: BAAQMD, Source Category Methodologies, 1993.

EQllillimJ: ~
Project Emissions: ROG 17
Aerosol Residential Pesticides (Source: ARB, 9/95, Section 6.2) ROG 63 tons In 19871n Monterey County.

Population 336,093 est. for 1987 for Monterey County.

Emissions Factor: ROG 0.377 pounds per person per year.

ROG 0.001 pounds per person per day.

EQllillimJ: ~
Project Emissions: ROG 3
Consumer Products: Aerosol Solvents (Source: ARB 9/91. Section 3-7, divided by 27,663,000 In Cal. In 1987) I I I
Emissions Factor: ROG 3.40 pounds per person per year. I I ROG 0.009 pounds per person per day. I I
With ARB Regulation: ROG 0.007 pounds per person per day; reflects ARB consumer products rule. source: BAAQMD, Source Category Methodologies, 1993.

EQllillimJ: ~ I I
Project Emissions: ROG 20 I
I
Utility, Lawn and Garden Equipment (Source: ARB 9/95, Section 7 .14, based on 74,589 single-family residences In Monterey County).

Emissions Factors: co 14.265 pounds per year per residence.

ROG 1.546 pounds per year per residence.

NOx 0.067 pounds per year per residence. ---------
-- SOx 0.003 pounds per year per residence. ---- PM-10 0.032 pounds per year per residence.

EQllillimJ: l.bL¥ool ~
Project Emissions: co 12,168 33
ROG 1,319 4
NOx 57 0
sox 2 0
PM-10 27 0
EQllillimJ: ~
TOTAL STATIONARY EMISSIONS: co 267
ROG 65
NOx 33
sox 1
PM-10 32
Stationa C-4
TABLE 3: MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT Mobile Emissions Associated with Mountain Valley Project rev 5/20/98 i

EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY ADJUSTMENTS
Convert Add in Total
Urbemis5 Urbemis5 Annual TOG to paved road Mobile
eQIIU1QD1 Wi.o15ll Summ~r W~iQbt~d RQG .dJ.ru Emi~siQn~ eQIIutQo1 .

Carbon Monoxide 1,176 699 858 NA NA 858 Carbon monoxide ' Total Organic Gases 138 97 111 100 NA 100 Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides 118 96 104 NA NA 104 Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Oxides 12 12 12 NA NA 12 Sulfur Oxides
Particulate Matter (PM-1 0) 17 17 17 NA 131 149 Particulate Matter (PM-1 0) Entrained road dust based on 0.69 grams per mile (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996).

URBEMIS5 input: 35 mph ave. speed; 50 degrees winter and 75 degrees summer; 9.1 miles per trip; Year 2005 emissions factors.

NOTE: URBEMIS5 Printouts are provided following this table. n
I
Ul
Mobile
PROJECT NAME: Mountain Valley / Date: 05-19-1998
Project Area: North Central Coast (Monterey Bay)
Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F) : 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: Emfac7f1.1(12/93)
Summary of Land Uses:

Unit Type
Single Family Housing
Elementary School
Community/Neighborhood
Vehicle Assumptions:

Fleet Mix:

Trip Rate

10.0/Unit

1.0/student

3.0/acre
Vehicle Type
Light Duty Autos
Percent Type

60.3 32.6

5.1 0.0

0.0 2.0
Non-Catalyst

1.0 Catalyst

98.7 99.7

99.9 85.7
::Light Duty Trucks
Medium Duty Trucks
Heavy Duty Trucks
Heavy Duty Trucks
. Motorcycles
Travel Conditions:

Residential

0.0 0.1

14.3 N/A
100.0
Home-Work Home-Shop
Trip Length
% Started Cold
Trip Speed
Percent Trip

9.1 9.1

88.7 40.5
35 35

27.3 21.2
Project Emissions Report in Lb/ri~y:

N/A
N/A
Home-Other

9.1 59.0
35 51.5
TOG
Size
853
900
22 Tot Trips
8530
900
65 Diesel

0.3 0.3

0.0 N/A
100.0
N/A
Commercial
Work Non-Work

9.1 9.1

78.0 27.8
35 35
Unit Type co NOx
Single Family Housing
Elementary School
Community/Neighborhood
127.42 1081.87 106.33

9.86 87.91 10.82

0.66 5.74 0 .. 77
TOTALS 137.94 1175.52 117.92
Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day (Continued)
Unit Type FUEL (Gal.) PM10 sox
Single Family Housing 3706.4 15.50 10.76
Elementary School 391.1 1.64 1.14
Community/Neighborhood 28.0 0.12 0.08
TOTALS 4125.4 17.25 11.98
C-6
PROJECT NAME: Mountain Valley / Date: 05-19-1998
Project Area: North Central Coast (Monterey Bay)
Analysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F) : 75 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: Emfac7f1.1(12/93)
Summary of Land Uses:

Unit Type
Single Family Housing
Elementary School
Community/Neighborhood
Vehicle Assumptions:

Fleet Mix:

Trip Rate

10.0/Unit

1.0/student

3.0/acre
Vehicle Type
Light Duty Autos
Light Duty Trucks
Percent Type

60.3 32.6

5.1 0.0

0.0 2.0
Non-Catalyst

1.0 Catalyst

98.7 99.7

99.9 85.7
-"Medium Duty Trucks
Heavy Duty Trucks
Heavy Duty Trucks
Motorcycles
Travel Conditions:

Residential

0.0 0.1

14.3 N/A
100.0
N/A
N/A
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other
Trip Length
% Started Cold
Trip Speed
Percent Trip

9.1 9.1

88.7 40.5
35 35

27.3 21.2
Project Emissions Report in Lb/:Oa~.: ...

9.1 59.0
35 51.5
TOG
Size
853
900
22 Tot Trips
8530
900
65 Diesel

0.3 0.3

0.0 N/A
100.0
N/A
Commercial
Work Non-Work

9.1 9.1

78.0 27.8
35 35
co NOx
Unit Type 89.24 637.45 86.97
Single Family Housing 7.18 57.82 8.78
Elementary School 0.50 3. 94 0.62
Community/Neighborhood

96.92 699.22 96.37
TOTALS
Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day (Continued)
FUEL (Gal.) PMlO sox
Unit Type 3706.4 15.50 10.76
Single Family Housing 391.1 1. 64 1.14
Elementary School 28.0 0.12 0.08
Community/Neighborhood
4125.4 17.25 11.98
TOTALS
C-7
TABLE 4: LOCAL CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Local Carbon Monoxide Analysis rev 5120198 I
Background Concentrations (12er MBUAPCD CEQA Guidelines) CO Emission Factor I Intersection Mode for CALINE4 grams per mile
Year 1-hour 8-hour Year at 16 m12h
1997 4.4 2.0 1997 19.3
2005 3.9 1.8 2005 9.9
source: MBUAPCD, CEQA Guidelines, Table 7·14.

Local Increment
YEAR 1997 YEAR 2005 YEAR 2005
Averaging Existing+
Intersection # Period Existing Project Cumulative
East Laurel Dr I Sanborn Street 6 1 hour 9.1 4.8 5.7
8 hour 6.4 3.4 4.0
E. Allsal St./ John St. I Williams Rd. 11 1 hour 7.4 4.3 5.3 8 hour 5.2 3.0 3.7
Sanborn St. I E. Market 5 1 hour 10.1 5.7 6.8
8 hour 7.1 4.0 4.8
Note: Eight-hour local increment is based on the one-hour concentration by applying a persistence factor of 0.7.

Local Increment Plus Background Concentration
YEAR 1997 YEAR 2005 YEAR 2005
Averaging Existing+
Intersection # Period Existing Project Cumulative
East Laurel Dr I Sanborn Street 6 1 hour 13.5 8.7 9.6
I 8 hour 8.4 5.2 5.8
E. Alisal St./ John St. I Williams Rd. 11 1 hour 11.8 8.2 9.2 8 hour 7.2 4.8 5.5
I
Sanborn St. I E. Market 5 1 hour 14.5 9.6 10.7
8 hour 9.1 5.8 6.6
r------ --- ------
CALINE4 Printouts are 12rovided In the following order:
-----
File Name Intersection Scenario
MVSLEX E. Laurel I Sanborn Existing Conditions
MVSLEP E. Laurel I Sanborn Existing Plus Project
MVSLC E. Laurel I Sanborn Cumulative
MVWJAEX Alisal I John I Williams Existing Conditions
MVWJAEP Alisal I John I Williams Existing Plus Project
MVWJAC Alisal I John I Williams Cumulative
MVSMEX Sanborn I Market Existing Conditions
MVSMEP Sanborn I Market Existing Plus Project
MVSMC Sanborn I Market Cumulative
Caline C-8

REPORT FOR FILE MVSLEX

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO=
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=
CLASS= G STABILITY VS=
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB=
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP=

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M)
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2
108.0 CM

0.0 CM/S

0.0 CM/S

0.0 PPM

16.0 DEGREE (C)
* EF H
* TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M)
w
(M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 454 19.3 0.5 12.6
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 734 19.3 0.5 9.3
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 1111 19.3 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 767 19.3 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*----------·--------~------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 11 6 801 5.5 50.0 0.0
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 10 5 350 5.5 50.0 0.0
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 15 8 1088 5.5 50.0 0.0
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 11 6 827 5.5 50.0 0.0

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVSLEX
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B c D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 8.3 * 285 * 2.3 0.3 4.9 0.8
RECPT 2 * 7.7 * 198 * 2.8 0.3 0.9 3.7
RECPT 3 * 9.0 * 105 * 0.7 3.5 0.9 3.9
RECPT 4 * 9.1 * 16 * 0.8 3.2 4.4 0.8
C-9

REPORT FOR FILE MVSLEP

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO=
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=
CLASS= G STABILITY VS=
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB=
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP=

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES {M)
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2
108.0 CM

0.0 CM/S

0.0 CM/S

0.0 PPM

16.0 DEGREE {C)
* EF H
* TYPE VPH {G/MI) {M)
w
{M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 511 9.9 0.5 12.6
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 829 9.9 0.5 9.3
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 1123 9.9 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 767 9.9 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) {M) {M) {SEc;) (SEC) {MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO {G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*----------~---------------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 12 6 852 3.0 50.0 0.0
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 13 6 457 3.0 50.0 0.0
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 15 8 1088 3.0 50.0 0.0
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 12 6 833 3.0 50.0 0.0

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVSLEP
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * {PPM)
RECEPTOR * {PPM) * (DEG) * A B c D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 4.4 * 284 * 1.3 0.2 2.6 0.4
RECPT 2 * 3.9 * 198 * 1.5 0.2 0.5 1.8
RECPT 3 * 4.5 * 105 * 0.4 1.7 0.5 1.9
RECPT 4 * 4.8 * 15 * 0.4 1.7 2.4 0.4
C-10

REPORT FOR FILE MVSLC

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO=
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=
CLASS= G STABILITY VS=
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB=
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP=

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M)
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2
108.0 CM

0.0 CM/S

0.0 CM/S

0.0 PPM

16.0 DEGREE (C)
* EF H
* TYPE VPH (G/MI) '(M)
w
(M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 545 9.9 0.5 12.6
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 942 9.9 0.5 9.3
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 1795 9.9 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 1273· 9.9 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*~---------~--------~------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 13 7 936 3.0 50.0 0.0
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 14 7 491 3.0 50.0 0.0
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 24 12 1736 3.0 50.0 0.0
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 19 10 1392 3.0 50.0 0.0

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVSLC
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (DEG) * A B c D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 5.3 * 284 * 1.3 0.2 3.3 0.5
RECPT 2 * 4.7 * 198 * 1.6 0.2 0.6 2.2
RECPT 3 * 5.6 * 104 * 0.4 1.9 0.5 2.8
RECPT 4 * 5.7 * 15 * 0.4 2.0 2.7 0.5
C-11

REPORT FOR FILE MVWJAEX

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO= 108.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= G STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 16.0 DEGREE (C)

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
-------~-------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 301 19.3 0.5 9.3
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 456 19.3 0.5 12.6
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 540 19.3 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 448 19.3 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*-------------------~----------------------------------------------~-- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 11 6 411 5.5 50.0 0.0
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 5 3 370 5.5 50.0 0.0
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 8 4 571 5.5 50.0 0.0
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 5 3 393 5.5 50.0 0.0

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVWJAEX
* FRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (DEG) * A B c D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 5.2 * 290 * 1.4 0.5 2.8 0.5
RECPT 2 * 6.3 * 195 * 1.7 0.4 0.5 3.6
RECPT 3 * 7.4 * 105 * 0.4 3.7 0.6 2.8
RECPT 4 * 6.8 * 16 * 0.4 2.8 3.1 0.5
C-12.

REPORT FOR FILE MVWJAEP

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO=
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=
CLASS= G STABILITY VS=
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB=
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP=

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M)
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2
108.0 CM

0.0 CM/S

0.0 CM/S

0.0 PPM

16.0 DEGREE (C)
* EF H
* TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M)
w
(M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 305 9.9 0.5 9.3
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 543 9.9 0.5 12.6
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 741 9.9 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 600 9.9 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*----------~--------~------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 13 6 458 3.0 50.0 0.0
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 5 3 383 3.0 50.0 0.0
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 12 6 846 3.0 50.0 0.0
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 7 3 502 3.0 50.0 0.0

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVWJAEP
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B c D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 3.0 * 288 * 0.7 0.2 1.9 0.3
RECPT 2 * 3.2 * 195 * 0.8 0.2 0.4 1.8
RECPT 3 * 4.3 * 105 * 0.2 2.3 0.4 1.4
RECPT 4 * 3.9 * 16 * 0.2 1.7 1.8 0.2
C-13

REPORT FOR FILE MVWJAC

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO= 108.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= G STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 16.0 DEGREE (C)

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 305 9.9 0.5 9.3
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 543 9.9 0.5 12.6
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 1201 9.9 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 977 9.9 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*-------------------·~------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 13
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 5
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 18
D. 0 0 4~0 8.8 15.9 35 12

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVWJAC
* FRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 3.9 * 284 * 0.7 0.2 2.6 0.4
RECPT 2 * 3.8 * 196 * 0.8 0.2 0.5 2.3
RECPT 3 * 5.3 * 104 * 0.2 2.3 0.5 2.3
RECPT 4 * 4.5 * 16 * 0.2 1.7 2.2 0.4
C-14
6 458 3.0 50.0 0.0
3 383 3.0 50.0 0.0
9 1306 3.0 50.0 0.0
6 879 3.0 50.0 0.0

REPORT FOR FILE MVSMEX

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO=
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=
CLASS= G STABILITY VS=
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB=
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP=

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M)
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2
108.0 CM

0.0 CM/S

0.0 CM/S

0.0 PPM

16.0 DEGREE (C)
* EF H
* TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M)
w
(M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 333 19.3 0.5 12.6
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 721 19.3 0.5 12.6
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 941 19.3 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 998 19.3 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
_______ LINK . * ___________________ (M) (M) (M) (SEC) ; _________________________________________________ (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 10 5 724 5.5 50.0 0.0
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 7 3 482 5.5 50.0 0.0
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 15 7 1048 5.5 50.0 0.0
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 10 5 739 5.5 50.0 0.0

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVSMEX
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * (DEG) * A B c D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 6.9 * 288 * 1.8 0.4 3.9 0.7
RECPT 2 * 8.3 * 195 * 2.1 0.4 0.8 5.0
RECPT 3 * 10.1 * 104 * 0.7 4.2 0.8 4.5
RECPT 4 * 8.0 * 18 * 0.8 3.0 3.5 0.7
C-15

REPORT FOR FILE MVSMEP

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO=
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=
CLASS= G STABILITY VS=
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB=
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP=

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M)
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2
108.0 CM

0.0 CM/S

0.0 CM/S

0.0 PPM

16.0 DEGREE (C)
* EF H
* TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M)
w
(M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 354 9.9 0.5 12.6
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 738 9.9 0.5 12.6
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 941 9.9 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 1004 9.9 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SE<;) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*----------~--------~------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 10
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 7
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 15
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 10

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVSMEP
* PRED *WIND *
* CONC * BRG *
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)*

COCN/LINK
(PPM)
A B C
5 4
7 5
D
-----------*-------*-----*------------------------
RECPT 1 * 3.7 * 288 * 1.0 0.3 2.1 0.4
RECPT 2 * 4.5 * 195 * 1.1 0.3 0.4 2.7
RECPT 3 * 5.7 * 104 * 0.3 2.6 0.4 2.4
RECPT .4 * 4.7 * 16 * 0.4 2.1 1.9 0.3
C-16
733 3.0 50.0 0.0
505 3.0 50.0 0.0
1060 3.0 50.0 0.0
739 3.0 50.0 0.0

REPORT FOR FILE MVSMC

1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S ZO= 108.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= G STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 16.0 DEGREE (C)

2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w
DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
---------------*-----------------------------*------------------------------ A. NORTHBOUND 5 -500 5 500 IN 403 9.9 0.5 12.6
B. SOUTHBOUND -5 500 -5 -500 IN 848 9.9 0.5 12.6
c. EASTBOUND -500 -5 500 -5 IN 1563 9.9 0.5 12.6
D. WESTBOUND 500 5 -500 5 IN 1563 9.9 0.5 12.6
* MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC,::) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC) -------*----------~--------·-------------------------------------------------- A. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 12 6
B. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 8 4
c. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 24 12
D. 0 0 490 8.8 15.9 35 17 9

3. Receptor Coordinates
X y z
RECEPTOR 1 15 -15 1.8
RECEPTOR 2 15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 3 -15 15 1.8
RECEPTOR 4 -15 -15 1.8

MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE MVSMC
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D -----------*-------*-----*-~---------------------- RECPT 1 * 4.7 * 284 * 1.0 0.3 3.0 0.5
RECPT 2 * 5.1 * 195 * 1.2 0.3 0.6 3.0
RECPT 3 * 6.8 * 103 * 0.4 2.6 0.5 3.3
RECPT 4 * 5.4 * 18 * 0.4 2.1 2.3 0.5
C-17
835 3.0 50.0 0.0
565 3.0 50.0 0.0
1732 3.0 50.0 0.0
1245 3.0 50.0 0.0
AMBAG
(408) 883-3750 FAX (408) 883-3755
February 26, 1998
Mr. Erik Brown
Environmental Science Associates
225 Bush Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94104
Dear Mr Brown:

ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Office Location: 445 Reservation Road, Suite G, Marina
P.O. Box 809, Marina, CA 93933-0809
This letter is in response to your July 17, 1997 request for a determination of consistency of the Mountain Valley project with the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region (AQMP). Our response.to your request was delayed pending receipt of additional project information requested from you, needed to complete the consistency determination.

Consistency of individual projects to the AQMP is determined by comparing population growth due to the proposed project to the applicable jurisdiction's growth forecasted in the AMBAG 1997 Regional Population and Employment Forecast. The AMBAG forecast is disaggregated from the county level to individual jurisdictions, areas within the sphere of influence of jurisdictions, and Census tracts. The Mountain Valley project encompasses one of Salinas' sphere of influence areas.

Project impacts. As described in your July 17, 1997 letter and our February 18, 1998 phone conversation, the project includes 901 total residential units, 150 units to be built by 2000 with the remaining units completed by 2005. To estimate population impacts, AMBAG assumes average household size in Salinas to be 3.414 persons per dwelling unit. (January 1, 1997, per State Department of Finance Official State Estimates of May 1997). However, actual resident population will be less due to vacancy. The latest applicable vacancy rate of3.52% for Salinas is used for this project, from the same source. Based on the above assumptions, AMBAG staff estimates that the project's 901 units could add 2,968 residents to Salinas (494 by 2000 and 2,474 by 2005). . .

Cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are determined by adding the 2,968 new residents expected from the proposed project to other growth approved in the jurisdiction during the 1990- 1996 period.

The cumulative population growth in the city of Salinas is estimated from data supplied by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County on permits issued between 1990 and 1996. The assumption is made that these approved units will be constructed and occupied by the year 2000.

Applying the same average household size and vacancy rate as was assumed for the project's dwelling units, 2,112 permitted new units could add 6,957 residents to Salinas.

Consistency finding. Consistency between the population growth impacts of the project and population growth forecasts used for the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey C-18
Bay Region is found by comparing the cumulative total for the jurisdiction to the amount of population increase show in the AMBAG 1997 Regional Population and Employment Forecast, the adopted forecast for the 1997 AQMP. Summary Table 2 of those forecasts show the population of Salinas growing by 10,553 persons between 1995 and 2000 and 13,606 person between 2000 and 2005.

Since the cumulative population growth added to that ofthe Mountain Valley project (7,451 by year 2000 and 2,474 by 2005) is less that the population growth for Salinas forecasted in the AMBAG 1997 Regional Population and Employment Forecast,(l0,553 growth between years 1995 and 2000 and 13,606 between 2000 and 2005) the project is consistent with the AQMP.

Please feel free to contact Todd Muck of our staff if you have any questions about this determination.
~~ Nicolas Papa
Executive Director
cc: Janet Brennan, :MBUAPCD
Jim Colangelo, LAFCO
c::Wisistylmtnvally.ltr
C-19
' i
' k ~

2.0 Appendices
APPENDIX D: HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Management of
Hazardous
Chemicals
Hazardous
Materials
Transportation
Hazardous
Chemical Waste
Handling
Soil and
Groundwater
Contamination
Emergency
Response
Table D-1
Health and Safety Laws and Regulations
State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous chemicals are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. These laws require hazardous chemical users to prepare written plans, such as Hazard Communication Plans, Hazardous Materials Business Plans, and Chemical Hygiene Plans. Laws and regulations require hazardous chemical users to store these materials appropriately and to train employees to manage them safely. A number of agencies participate in enforcing hazardous chemical management requirements. For the project area, the Monterey County Department of Health is the agency most involved.

The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation between states. Within California, the state agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal arid state regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation. Together, federal and state agencies determine driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications. Although special requirements apply to transporting hazardous materials, requirements for transporting hazardous waste are more stringent, and hazardous waste haulers must be licensed to transport hazardous waste on public roads.

The California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Toxic Substances Control regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous chemical waste. These laws impose "cradle-to-grave" regulatory systems that require generators of hazardous chemical waste to handle it in a manner that protects human health and the environment to the extent possible. Within the project area, the Monterey County Department of Health enforces on-site waste management requirements applicable to hazardous chemical waste generators, such as requirements for secondary containment around stored wastes to prevent environmental contamination in the event of a spill. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control permits and oversees hazardous chemical waste treatment, long-term storage, and disposal facilities.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and associated Superfund Amendments provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to identify hazardous sites, to require site remediation, and to recover the costs of site remediation from polluters. California has enacted similar laws intended to supplement the federal program. The California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Toxic Substances Control is primarily responsible for implementing California's Superfund law.

California has developed an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local government and private agencies.

Responding to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Fish and Game, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the local fire department. The fire department provides first response capabilities, if needed, for hazardous materials emergencies within the project area.

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates
D-1
1--
Mountain Valley A PLANNED COMMUNITY .

Sconberg Ranch
Precise Plan
City of Salinas
June 2000
?

Mountain Valley-A Planned Community
Precise Plan
Prepared for:

The City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
(831) 758-7206
June 2000
Prepared by:
99 Paci_ c Street, Suite 155F
Monterey, California 93940
Phone: (831) 649-1799
Fax: (831) 649-8399
E-Mail: [email protected]

Table of Contents

1.0 lntroduction ............. ~··································································-1

1.1 Authorization and Purpose ........................................................ 1

1.2 Plarlning Area Description ......................................................... 1

1.3 Precise Plan Objectives ..................... ~·······································S l 1.4 Salinas General Plan ................................................................. 5

1.5 City of Salinas Sphere of Influence ............................................. 9

1.6 Mountain Valley Services and Facilities Plan ............................. 11

1.7 Mountain Valley Precise Plan EIR ............................................. 11

1.8 · City of Salinas Zoning Code ..................................................... 11 J } 2.0 Precise Plan Elements .......................................... ~ ................... 13

2.1 Overview ................................. ~ ............................................. 13

2.2 Land Use Element ......................................... ,' ......... · ............... 17

2.3 Circulation Element ......................... ~································~····· 38

2.4 Open Spac~ Element ..... I •••••••••• I. I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I ••••••••••••••• 49

2.5 Conservation Element ............. I I •••••••••••••••••••••••••• I •••••••••••• I ••• ~·. 56

2.6 Public and Semipublic Element ......................................... 7 ...... 57

3.0 Implementation ......................................................................... 65

3.1 Lead and Responsible Agency Actions ..................................... 65

3.2 Entitlement Process ... I •••••••••••••••••••• ~·.~·. I ••• ~·.·~ •••••••••••••••••••••• I •• 66 I_J 3.3 Project Features That Lessen or Avoid Potential Environmental Impacts ..... I •••••••••••.•••••• I ••••••• I ••••••••• ·~ •••••••••• I ••••••• I •••••• I·~. Ill •••••• 70

3.4 Additional Conditions ofApproval to Avoid or Lessen Potential .

Environmental Impacts ...... I •••••••••••• I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 72 4 i 3~5 Financing ........ II I~·· ••• ·~ I •••••••• I •••• I.~· ••••••• I II ••• ~· ••••••••••••••• I. I •••••• I. 73

4.0 Glossary .................................................................................... 79

5.0 Literature Cited/Report Preparation •........................................ 81

5.1 Literature Cited ... ~·· ... ·~I I~· ••• , •••• I. I •••••• ~···. I ••• I •••• ~· I •••••••••• ~·~~· •• I I ••• 81 5~2 Report Preparation I •••••••• I ••• I •• I ••••••• I •••••• !' •• I ••. ~ I •• I ••••••••• I ••••••••••••• 81 Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
. Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Applicable City of Salinas General Plan Policies
Transportation Improvement Program
Affordable Housing Program
Facilities Trip Reduction Program
Mitigation Monitoring Program
List of Figures
Planning Area .................................................................................................. 2 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................. 4 Planning Boundaries .................................................................................... 10 Land Use Plan .............................................................................................. 14 Proposed Zoning ........................................................................................... 15 Airport Local Area of Influence ................................................................... 20 Garage Variation in Depth to Front Property Line
(4,500 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lots) ..................................................................... 23 Garage Variation in Depth to Front Property Line
(6,500 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lots) ..................................................................... 24 Lot Utilization for Usable Open Space ...................................................... 26 Alternative Lot Configuration - Zipper Lots ............................................... 27 Typical Neighborhoods ................................................................................ 28 Residential Frontage Away from Mountain Valley Blvd ......................... 29 Alternate for Residential Frontage Away from
Mountain Valley Blvd. and Blvd. 11A11
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30 Entry Locations ............................................................................................. 33 Typical En~rance ........................................................................................... 34 Existing Roadway Configuration - Ali sal Rd./Bardin Rd ........................ 40 Interim Roadway Configuration - Alisal Rd./Bardin Rd .......................... 41 Ultimate Roadway Configuration - Ali sal Rd./Bardin Rd ........................ 42 Freedom Parkway (Boulevard "A" to East Alisal) and
East Ali sal Street Extensions ...................................................................... 44 Freedom Parkway Extension (Williams Road to
Boulevard "A") ............................................................................................... 45 Williams Road Improvements ..................................................................... 46 l
J
! J
--j
I
I
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Secondary Collector Streets with Bicycle Lanes ................................... ~. 47 Secondary Collector Streets without Bicycle Lanes ............................... 48 Local Streets .................................................................................................. 50 Bicycle Lane Locations ................................................................................ 51 Traffic Calming Features ............................................................................. 52 Storm Water Detention Pond ...................................................................... 55 Major Water System lmprovements .......................................................... 58 Major Sanitary Sewer Improvements ........................................................ 60 Major Storm Drainage Improvements ....................................................... 62 Development Phasing Plan ........................................................................ 67 Street Phasing Plan - Major Streets and Secondary Collectors ........... 68 List of Tables
Land Use Overview ...................................................................................... 1 6 Housing Plan ................................................................................................... 18 Open Space Facilities ................................................................................... 53 Residential Development Phasing ............................................................. 69 Capital Improvements Program ................................................................. 75

-J
J
j
- '
I
I
!

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Authorization and Purpose
The Salinas General Plan (hereinafter "General Plan") requires a precise plan to be developed for the subject area because of its location within a Conditional Growth Area.

The purpose of the Mountain Valley Precise Plan (hereinafter "Precise Plan") is to provide for orderly residential development of this portion of the Sconberg Ranch property. The Precise Plan allows for development decisions to be made comprehensively, rather than by addressing development activities on a parcel-byparcel basis. This type of planning allows for systematic implementation of all development proposals within the Mountain Valley Planning Area (hereinafter "planning area").

According to the General Plan, a precise plan "must be consistent with the General Plan, but adds detail - notably a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures." Further, a precise plan is "a detailed plan that includes the text and maps or diagrams generally specifying the following for a portion of the area covered by the General Plan:

1. Land use;

2. Distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid-waste disposal, energy, and other public facilities and services;

3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed;

4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, publicworks projects, financing measures, and other implementing measures required to fully implement the precise plan; and ·

5. The relationship of the precise plan to the adopted General Plan." This Precise Plan was prepared for the City of Salinas, under contract to the Sconberg Ranch Partnership.

1.2 Planning Area Description
Location and Current Land Use
The planning area is located adjacent to and east of the city limits of Salinas, as illustrated in Figure 1. The planning area is approximately 199.7 acres in size and encompasses Assessor's Parcel Numbers 153-011-035, 153-041-027 and a portion of 153-011-021. The planning area includes designations for low, medium, and highdensity residential uses, as well as park uses, in the City's General Plan. The vast Mountain Valley Precise Plan 1
Scale FEET 0 400 800 1200 1&00 2000 ~0 FEET
MILES 0 Ot 02 03 .. 05 MILES
Source: California State Automobile Association/EMC Planning Group Inc. METERS lf"o ==;;; ... ~-'!:!!<oo;::==eoo~-~&00 METERS and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Planning Area
Figure
1 J
J
! ---,
majority of the planning area is designated low density residential. The planning area is bordered by Williams Road to the northwest, agricultural property to the south and east, and the Salinas city limits to the west. Existing apartments, single-family homes, and the Bardin School are located southwest of the planning area, between the planning· area and Bardin Road. ·
The property has been used for cattle ranching and/or farming for over 1 00 years.

Crops grown within the planning area boundaries include, but are not limited to, lettuce, broccoli, spinach, beans, radiccio, and strawberries. Water for agricultural operations is supplied via on-site wells and is conveyed to crops via both spray and furrow irrigation.

The existing storm drain system within the planning area generally handles storm water run-off without backing-up or causing flooded conditions. A drainage ditch is located alongside a berm adjacent to Williams Road. The drainage ditch is approximately ten feet in width and varies from three to four feet in depth. The ditch accepts run-off from lands east of the planning area and discharges into a 30-inch diameter storm drain at. the northern corner of the existing high density residential development adjacent to the western portion of the planning area. This inlet also accepts runoff from the · northwestern portion of U1e planning area. The major portion of the planning area drains to the southwest by way of the irrigation furrows to drainage swales protected by a two-foot high berm located along the southwestern boundaries. These swales discharge the run-off to two storm drains: one 42-inch diameter storm drain located just south of Countryside Drive and one 36-inch diameter storm drain located just south of Argentine Drive at the western property boundary. (Refer to Figure 30 for locations of the existing storm drains.)
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses are illustrated in Figure 2.

The Williams Ranch development (currently under construction) is located north of the planning area, northwest of Williams Road and bisected by Freedom Parkway.

Approved land uses include residential and commercial development, parks, schools, a fire station, and open space. Alisal High School is located northwest of the planning area across Williams Road.

Existing multi-family and single-family residential development borders the planning area to the west, between the planning area and Bardin Road. The existing Alisal Community School is located across Williams Road from the single-family residential development. An empty 1 0-acre lot, zoned for retail use, is located on the corner of Williams and Bardin Roads, adjacent to the existing single-family residential development. The Cesar Chavez Municipal Library is located across Williams Road at Bardin Road. Additionally, the Bardin Elementary School is located on Bardin Road, adjacent to the southwestern corner of the planning area.

The Hartnell College East Campus is located south and southwest of the planning area across Alisal Road. This campus is generally used for agricultural studies. A U.S.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 3
PROPOSE.O
5HOPPINCi
CE.NTE:R
• • AADIN SCHOO /
EXPANSION ·'

2.0 AC. •·••··
WE.LL LOT ........ o.Z3 AC.
•• • .•..• WE.LL LOT =

0.46 AC, q~OS5
f>LVO. "0''
·, STO~M WATeR DE.TE.NTION j
M5IN - 1. 70 AC~I:.S •••·
EAST AUSAL 5TRE.E.T E:.XTE.N5ION

AGRICULTURE
--------- Planning Area Boundary
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

E.Le.ME.NTA~Y
SCHOOL

9.0 AC. q.cw55
/
' • •
I
600 ft.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Surrounding Land U$e
Figure
2 FlCj~.DWCi
J
Agricultural Research Station, U.S. Border Patrol facility, and a U.S. Geological Survey facility are located within the campus. The Salinas Fairways Golf Course is located west of the campus. The Salinas Municipal Airport is also located west of the campus, to the south of the golf course.

Active agricultural fields are immediately adjacent to the planning area to the east and south. These fields are under the same ownership as the planning area.

1.3 Precise Plan Objectives
The objective of the Mountain Valley Precise Plan is to develop an area of single-family affordable housing in the predominantly renter-occupied area of east Salinas.

Specifically, the Precise Platl provides 853 single-family affordable housing units (including 102 inclusionary housing units), a 21.5 gross acre site (20 net acres) for a community park, and a 9 gross acre site for an elementary school for 900 students in the east Salinas area. The City of Salinas General Plan defines the 11 East Salinas Sectoru as being that portion of the City to the northeast of Highway 1 01 and to the southeast of Constitution Boulevard and Natividad Creek. Excluding references to the Salinas General Plan, the 11east Salinas area11 as used in this Precise Plan is that portion of the East Salinas Sector containing the planning area and is defined by a two-mile radius of the corner of Williams and Bardin Roads as studied in a 1995 population data report by National Decision Systems.

The majority of houses in the east Salinas area (as described above) are renteroccupied. The 1995 study by National Decision Systems (NOS) provided population data for the east Salinas area, including information on the number; size, income, and occupancy of households. The NOS study found that 59.35% of the existing 10,493 units are renter-occupied. A similar study by Thompson Associates ·in 1996 found that

58.8% of the homes in eastern Salinas are renter-occupied. The NOS study also found that 47.07% of the existing units are attached units (apartments, duplexes, triplexes, etc.). The low percentage of single-family units and the high percentage of multi-family residential units and apartments combine to create a higher population density in the east Salinas area than in other parts of the community. Development of the planning area exclusively with affordable single-family for sale homes will lower the overall population density in the east Salinas area.

1.4 Salinas General Plan
The following subsections outline major portions of the City of Salinas General Plan that are applicable to the ·precise Plan. A list of General Plan policies applicable to the Precise Plan, and how the Precise Plan implements those policies, is included as Appendix A.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 5
City Design Element
The General Plan City Design Element provides guiding direction and implementation, as well as specific policies, for the design of development projects within the City. The City Design Element states that the variety of housing types and architectural designs should be controlled in order to avoid both monotony and visual chaos. The City Design Element also provides measures to vary architectural design, including different floor plans and massing, architectural roofs and fa9ades, and varied siting, setbacks, and finished materials.

The Precise Plan Land Use Element includes design policies consistent with, and which implement, the policies of the City Design Element. These policies focus on the following features: providing community entry points (focal points that create a sense of neighborhood structure); providing a variety of housing types and designs; providing architectural variety, as well as varied front yard setbacks and siting of buildings; and providing sidewalks and bicycle lanes.

Land Use Element
The planning area is located within a Conditional Growth Area which is defined as "land designated for potential urban development outside the Existing Urban Area, but for which development has not been approved." Approval will be conditional on ability to meet the environmental standards of the plan."
Because Conditional Growth Areas currently lack detailed studies of environmental conditions, the General Plan cannot effectively guide future development within these areas. However, provisions are made within the General Plan for future development of Conditional Growth Areas by requiring precise plans within these areas as an intermediate step in project consideration. This Precise Plan represents a detailed development plan for the 199.7-acre planning area in accordance with policies of the General Plan.

The General Plan Land Use Element presently establishes a goal for precise plan areas to include a mix of housing types. This goal is established by General Plan Policy 3.3 K, as follows:
(Policy 3.3 K) In each precise plan area, the goal is to include a total number of units equal to a mix of 55 percent low-density (single-family detached), 10 percent medium-density, and 35 percent highdensity (apartments). The mix of housing types may vary slightly from this standard so long as the total number of units and project impacts remains the same.

The explanatory language for this policy states that this policy is intended to allow flexibility in the type of housing constructed while ~nsuring that the majority of new development will be detached single-family homes.

While a mix of housing types is the goal of Policy 3.3 K, the City has looked for ways to slow or stop the concentration of apartments in the East Salinas Sector, as is typified by General Plan Policy 3.3 N:
6 Section 1.0 Introduction
J
J
~
(Policy 3.3 N) Limit construction of additional apartments in developed portions of East Salinas to sites smaller than five acres that already are generally surrounded by apartments.

The General Plan goes on to explain that the area between East Laurel Drive and the 1987 urban edge northeast of Del Monte Avenue has more than a fair share of apartments, so single-family homes are desired wherever sites large enough to create a satisfaCtory environment are available. ·
Thus, although the goal of the 11 55-10-3511 housing mix is established, at the same time there exists in the East Salinas Sector an equally important objective-- that of reducing the concentration of apartments (i.e., reducing densities). The Mountain Valley project contributes toward the latter by providing exclusively single-family housing. Because Policy 3.3.K. is stated as a goal, the housing mix within the Mountain Valley project can be determined to be consistent with the General Plan without a General Plan amendment.

Circulation Element
The General Plan Circulation Element includes policies which identify needed improvements for serving the City at General Plan buildout and which set up a system for implementing transportation improvements. The Precise Plan includes policies which are consistent and which implement applicable Circulation Element policies, such as development of a secondary collector and local street system consistent with the General Plan. It also includes preparation of a Vehicle Trip Reduction Plan, which includes sufficient right-of-way dedication on Williams Road for a bus turn out (should a bus turn out be deemed necessary by Monterey-Salinas Transit), and placement of bicycle lanes along the Mountain Valley Boulevard, Boulevard A, Wi.lliams Road, Freedom Parkway, and East Alisal Street. 11Traffic-calming11 features, such as narrowing the streets at each intersection and increasing the landscaping in these areas, will be included on secondary collector and local streets. In addition, pedestrian circulation through the planning area will be encouraged through the installation of sidewalks and pedestrian-scale lighting on all streets, as well as through pedestrian-oriented walkways through cui-de-sacs to allow access to and between internal neighborhoods.

Transportation improvements or fees for transportation improvements that are required to be provided by the development of the planning area to mitigate off-site ' transportation impacts are part of a transportation monitoring program that includes trigger mechanisms for timing of the improvements or fees. Following General Plan Policy 5.1.J, until each phase of the project is completed, an annual report to the City will be produced that documents the project's trip generation and demonstrates compliance with conditions of approval related to traffic and transportation. This monitoring program is included in the Transportation Improvement Program as Appendix B of this plan. (Refer to in Section 3.0 of this plan and Figure 32 for the timing of on-site improvements.)
· Open Space Element
The General Plan Open Space Element contains policies for the protection of agricultural land by directing growth to the north and east of the City and minimizing Mountain Valley Precise Plan 7
conflicts between agricultural and developed land. The Precise Plan is consistent with these policies; development is proposed east of the City and. the extension of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street will separate existing adjacent agricultural land from the planning area.

The General Plan Open Space Element requires new development to contribute land or fees to provide developed public parklands for area residents. It identifies a community park in the general vicinity of the planning area, as well as the portion of Williams Road adjacent to the planning area as a greenway. General Plan Policy 4.3.2.A. requires that new residential development provide land or fees to achieve a minimum of three acres of developed parklands per "1 ,000 population for community or neighborhood parks.

The term "developed public parkland" refers to a fully improved park. If the Mountain Valley Project was located within the City limits and, as such, did not need to request annexation, 8.2 acres of developed parkland, or the equivalent in fees, would be required based on the "1990 U. S. Census data of 3.2"1 persons per household in the City of Salinas as a whole. The Mountain Valley Project provides 2"1.5 gross acres (20 net acres) for a community park and additionally provides greenways along the major roadways that surround the project, as described below.

An area of 2"1.5 gross acres (20 net acres) has been designated for a community park to be located in the northeastern portion of the planning area along the extension of Freedom Parkway. The property owners propose to donate the full 20+ acres to the City and to assist in the development of the park by completing a preliminary master plan and installing lawn and irrigation improvements in the park in exchange for the City waiving the.City park fees required for development of the property.

In addition to the community park, development of the Precise Plan area includes a 30- foot wide greenway, including an eight-foot wide sidewalk, to be constructed adjacent to Williams Road and a 20-foot wide greenway, including a six-foot wide sidewalk, to be constructed adjacent to the extension of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street within the planning area. The developer will install landscaping and irrigation in these greenways. A landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method will maintain the sidewalk/landscape area, and homeowners will be responsible for maintenance of street trees located within the public utilities easement. The developer will also install lawn and irrigation inthe storm water detention basin to allow for recreational use of the site when it is not being used for detention. Maintenance of the storm water detention basin will be provided by the homeowners through a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method. The open space facilities provided by the greenways and detention basin are not considered parks.

Landscaping and irrigation in open space and landscape areas other than those described above (i.e., well sites and schools) will be installed by the developer and maintained by a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method.

Conservation Element
The General Plan Conservation Element addresses both water quality and water conservation. The Precise Plan includes policies which are consistent with, and which implement the following two specific General Plan Conservation Element policies:
8 Section 1.0 Introduction
j
J J
promoting water conservation and investigating the potential for groundwater recharge through the designation of a 1.7 acre (gross) site for the ultimate construction of a storm water detention basin.

1.5 City of Salinas Sphere of Influence
The City of Salinas sphere of influence was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985.

The sphere of influence includes an urban service area (USA) and an urban transition area (UTA). The USA includes land that is projected to be available for development within five years of adoption of the sphere of influence. The planning area is outside of the existing USA, which borders the planning area on the north and west.

The UTA includes land that is projected to be available for development within five to twenty years of adoption of the sphere of influence. Approximately 164 acres of the 199.7-acre site are located within the existing UTA. Approximately 36 acres of the planning area are located outside of the existing UTA and consequently, outside the sphere of influence .. These 36 acres consist of:
• The proposed Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street extensions; • Single-family residential lots;
• A proposed well site;
• A portion of the community park; and
• A portion of the new elementary school.

Inclusion of the 36 acres located outside of the existing designated sphere of influence and UTA is a critical component of the Precise Plan as it allows the extension of Freedom Parkway from Williams Road southeast and creates a logical planning area J boundary. It also allows the connection of the Freedom Parkway Extension with the

1. East Alisal Street Extension in the southeast corner of the planning area. The inclusion of the 36 acres will also allow for the donation, master planning and partial improvement of a 20-acre community park, the donation of a 9-acre elementary school site and reservation of a 20,000 sq. ft. well site.

The sphere of influence will need to be amended to include the entire planning area within the USA prior to annexation of the planning area into the City. This reorganization will be accomplished prior to development of the planning area and requires action by the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission. The existing City limits, existing USA boundary and existing UTA boundary, as they relate to the planning area, are illustrated in Figure 3.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 9
So
P!WP05f.O
5HOPPINCi
CeNTeR
5TO~M WATER DE.Tf.NTION
8A5IN - 1.70 AC~E.5 .LEGEND
• 1 • • 1 • • Existing City Limits and Urban Service Area Boundary • 1111111111111 Exieltng Sphere :of Influence and Urban Transition Area Boundary Co.

Precise Plan Planning Area to be Included within the b,..-.__30,.1 --~sbo A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Planning Boundaries
Figure
3 FI(i3.DWCi
I - J
1 i
'

1.6 Mountain Valley Services and Facilities Plan
A services and facilities plan have been prepared for the Mountain Valley project. The plan evaluates the ability of the local and regional infrastructure to support the delivery of public services to the site and offers guidelines as to how financing of the public infrastructure might proceed.

1.7 Mountain Valley Precise Plan EIR
This Precise Plan is intended to be used as a "Community Plan" which is defined in Public Resources Code §21 083.3, as amended, for the purposes of subsequent environmental review. According to this definition, a Community Plan is described as follows:

1. The Plan conforms to a defined geographic portion of the adopted General Plan;

2. The Plan references each of the mandatory elements of a General Plan specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code; and

3. The Plan contains specific development policies and identifies measures to implement those policies, so that the policies which will apply to each parcel can be determined. ·
The Mountain Valley Precise Plan functions as a Community Plan for the purpose of environmental review. The Precise Plan and subsequent actions to implement the Precise Plan act as the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document is, therefore, the project description for the proposed project under CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, review of the Precise Plan should be limited to specific significant effects to the environment resulting from implementation of subsequent development in the planning area. The Precise Plan EIR should serve as the CEQA document for adoption of the Precise Plan, as well as the subsequent project approvals (pre-zoning, annexation and subdivision). Amendments to the Precise Plan may be subject to further environmental review.

1.8 City of Salinas Zoning Code
The Precise Plan includes the following zoning designations: RM-4.0 (Medium-Density Residential, with a minimum 4,000-square-foot lot size), RL-6.5 (Low-Density Residential, with a minimum 6,500-square-foot lot size), and PS (Public and Semipublic), with a precise plan overlay district. (Refer to Figure 5 for locations of the proposed zoning within the planning area.) The areas to be zoned Public and .

Semipublic include a community park, elementary school site, storm water detention basin, four well lots, and existing elementary school expansion area. Upon adoption of the Precise Plan, the City of Salinas will pre-zone the planning area "Agricultural" as an interim district. Appropriate rezoning will occur concurrent with the tentative map process.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 11
Deviations from zoning standards can generally only be accommodated through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or variance process. As an incentive to achieve the design objectives of this Precise Plan, provisions for exceptions to certain RM and RL development standards will be incorporated directly into the Precise Plan Overlay District. This will gain a higher quality of urban design, encourage variety and avoid monotony in developments by allowing greater freedom and flexibility with the use of alternative development standards. The Precise Plan includes the following deviations from the zoning standards and will be discussed later in the Plan: alternative lot configurations and reduced front and side yard setbacks. 12 Section 1.0 Introduction
l
l _J
J )
_j
I
J

2.0 Precise Plan Elements

2.1 Overview
Land Use Designations
The planning area consists of approximately 199.7 acres. Land use designations include residential and public and semipublic uses. Residentially designated land will be developed in a variety of ways, including residential lots, streets, and landscape buffers. Table 1 lists land uses, approximate acreage for each use, and the number of residential units anticipated. The Land Use Plan is illustrated in Figure 4, and the proposed zoning within the planning area is shown in Figure 5.

The public and semipublic uses include a 21.5 acre (gross) community park, which will be donated to the City and improved with lawn and irrigation by the property owners.

The community park will be maintained by the City of Salinas or its contract. Funding for maintenance of 8.2 acres of the park (that acreage required under General Plan Policy 4.3.2.A) will be paid back annually to the City of Salinas by the landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method. The City will provide funding for maintenance of the remainder of the park.

The public and semipublic uses also include a 9-acre (gross) elementary school and a two-acre site for expansion of the existing Bardin Elementary School. The property owners will donate the 9-acre school site for the Alisal Union School District. The property owners will reserve and sell one acre of the Bardin Elementary School expansion site to the Alisal Union School District at its then fair market value based upon State Office of Public School Co.nstruction requirements, and will sell the second acre at one-half of the same fair market value. Both sites will be developed by the Alisal Union School District. In the event that one or both of these elementary school sites are not used for a school within ten years after donation/dedication, the site(s) may be developed with recreation or residential uses (and an amendment to this Precise Plan will be required).

In addition, a 1.7-acre storm water detention basin will be donated to the City and improved with lawn and irrigation by the property owners and maintained through a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method. The storm water detention basin land donation, as well as lawn and irrigation improvements, will be provided at no cost to the City.

Four well sites totaling 1.61 acres (three 20,000 sq. ft. sites and one 10,000 sq. ft. site) have been reserved for purchase by the water company. These well sites are located adjacent to the Bardin Elementary School Expansion Site, at the corner of Boulevard 11B11 and Freedom Parkway, adjacent to the existing well on the western boundary of the planning area, and on Williams Road in the northwest corner of the planning area .. The well site at Boulevard 11B11 is considered a 11 floating location11 , with a size and Mountain Valley Precise Plan 13
Of.N 15
8AROIN
illMeNTAAY
SCHOOL - t
---'··
'•·-t..V. l PW.
•.

N:;t;;tl>!S
NE.IqHeo"HOOD #3 ~.4 acrea
...... ,.Wf.LL LOT

0.23 AC.
. NE.I4Hec>"HOOD #? ~.9 acrea
NE.IqHeORHOOD #-4- . 1'.Z acrea
--- ---
eLf.Mf.NTARY
SCHOOL

9.0 /C. ~055
COMMUN11Y
PARI:.
z 1., N;, <;IW55
(ZO.O N;. NI!T)
··, STORM WATeR DE.TE.NTION j
8A5IN - 1.70 ACRE.S •··•
tA5T AU5AL 5TRteT tXTtN5ION
--------5~l~T~e--J~N~F~O~R~M~A~T~J~O~N~:--------
LAND USe CiROSS AREA

1. RESIDeNTIAL HOUS!NCi 151.1 AC.

2. MAJOR 5TRU.TS (1/2, R.O.Y/. FRe.EDOM PAA~WAY. 12.6 AC. & AUSAL ROAD.. WILUAM5 ROAD WIDENINCi &
LANDSCAPe BUFFERS)

3. COMMUNITY PAA~ 2Vi AC.
+. f.LEMENTAAY SCHOOL 9.0 AC.

5. STORM WATER DE.TeNTlON 8A51N l. 7 AC.

6. WELL LOTS (4) 1.6 AC.

7. 8AADIN SCHOOL EXPANSION 2.0 AC.

Source: H.D. Peters Co. TOTAL 199.7 AC.

I
600 ft.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Land Use Plan
Figure
4 f145.0W4
J
I
I
OE.NN15
SY

PROPOSED
SHOP PINe;
CE.NTf.R
BMO!N
E.Lt.ME.NTAAY
SCHOOL t::=::::.:-__ _
·., --- STORM WATER DE:TENTION l
8A51N - 1. 70 ACRf5 ····'
EAST AUSAL STREE.T EXTENSION

PROPOSED ZONING
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
ZONE.

RM-4.0
4,000 S.F. MlN.

RL-6.5
6,500 S.F. MlN.

P5
MAJOR
5TRE:E.T5
TOTALS

AREA UNITS
106.4 661

44.7 A.C.
.35.B A.C.

12.B A.C.
199.7 A.C.
192
B5.3
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Proposed Zoning
• • •
Figure
5 Fll:<- NUt.OWC<
TABLE 1
Land Use Overview
Residential
Single-Family Residential
Major Streets
East Alisal Street, Freedom
Parkway, and Williams Road
Rights-of-way and landscape
buffers
Subtotal
Public and Semipublic
Community Park Site
New Elementary School
Expansion of Bardin School
Storm Water Detention Basin
Well Lots
- Bardin Elementary School
Expansion Site
- Boulevard "B" and Freedom
Parkway
- Adjacent to Existing Well on
Western Planning Area
Boundary
- On Williams Road in Northwest
Corner of Planning Area
Subtotal
TOTAL
Source: H.D. Peters
151.1

12.8 163.9

21.5 9.0

2.0 1.7

0.46 0.46

0.23 0.46

35.8 199.7
853
853
0 853
configuration adequate to suffice for a well site. The exact location, size and configuration of this site will be determined at tentative map stage. In the event that one or all of these well sites are not used for water facilities within ten years after donation/dedication, the site(s) may be developed with recreation or residential uses (and an amendment to this Precise Plan will be required). Therefore, at tentative map stage, the well lots will be designed to allow for subdivision and residential use.

The Land Use Element of this Precise Plan focuses on residential land uses, including residential and streetscape design, and public schools. Circulation is described in the Circulation Element. Parks and other open space areas are discussed in the Open 16 Section 2. 0 Precise Plan Elements
1 I
I , J
Space Element. Water conservation is discussed in the Conservation Element. Public and Semipublic uses, other than schools, are described in the Public and Semipublic Element.

2.2 Land Use Element
Land uses within the planning area include a mixture of residential and public and semipublic .uses.

2.2.1 Residential Land Use
The recent growth of the City has created a need for additional housing and a variety of housing types. Existing population densities in East Salinas Sector (that portion of the City to the northeast of Highway 1 01 and to the southeast of Constitution Boulevard and Natividad Creek as defined by the City of Salinas General Plan) tend to be higher than other areas of the City, largely based on the low percentage of single-family units and the high percentage of multi-family residential units and apartments. The General Plan favors a move away from an additional concentration of apartments, and toward singlefamily houses in cases where a site is large enough to create a satisfactory environment in the East Salinas Sector. The Mountain Valley project was developed to assist in creating affordable, single-family ownership housing in the East Salinas Sector . . Based on 1990 U.S. Census information, there is an average of 3.21 persons per household in the City of Salinas as-a whole .. However, there is a population of 44,582 and only 1 0,493 occupied units for an average of 4.18 persons per household within a two-mile radius of the Mountain Valley project site. At least 57 percent of those households exceed four or more persons per household, 39 percent exceed five or more persons per household, and 25 percent exceed six or more persons per household (Natiof1al Decisions Systems, 1995).

The General Plan encourages new development to be contiguous to existing urban development because it is expensive to provide service to "leap-frog" subdivisions which often disrupt agricultural production. Based on the location of the planning area, services can be appropriately and conveniently provided, and development is not expected to disrupt agricultural production outside the· planning area.

Residential Land Use
Residential Density
The Salinas Zoning Code establishes density primarily based on minimum lot size requirements. This typically results in a density of 5.7 units per acre (net, exclusive of density bonus) in the RL-6.5 zoning district (6,500 square foot minimum lot size) and 9.2 units per acre (net, exclusive of density bonus) in the RM-4.0 zoning district (4,000 square foot ·minimum lot size). Because a total of 853 units will be constructed on 151.1 acres, the average number of units will be 5.6 units per gross acre (or approximately 6.6 units per net acre).

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 17
Residential Lot Size
The housing plan is summarized in Table 2.

RM~4.0
RL-6.5
Source: H.D. Peters
TABLE 2
Housing Plan
4,000 sq. ft.
(incl. i 02
inclusionary units)
and
4,500 sq. ft.
6,500 sq. ft.
661
192
853 Total
Units
(Maximum)
Low- and medium-density single-family homes will be developed in the planning area.

As per the proposed zoning (Figure 5), the low-density residential area will be designated (zoned) RL-6.5 and contain lots with a minimum 6,500 square feet. The RL6.5 zoned area would contain approximately 192 lots for market rate homes at a density not exceeding that allowed by the Salinas Zoning Code.

As per the proposed zoning (Figure 5), the medium-density residential area will be designated (zoned) RM-4.0 and contain lots of 4,000 square feet (including the 102 lots for inclusionary housing units) and lots of 4,500 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. Density within the RM zones will not exceed that allowed by ·the Salinas Zoning Code. To avoid a concentration of inclusionary homes in one area of the development, required inclusionary housing units will be interspersed with market rate homes throughout the RM-4 zone. Small groupings (1 0 to 30 lots) of exclusively 4,000 square foot lots (containing both inclusionary and market rate homes) and small groupings of 4,500 square foot lots may be considered. However, within a given grouping of 4,000 square foot lots, no more than approximately half of the units will be designated as required inclusionary units, and these will be dispersed throughout the grouping. In addition, any proposed groupings of 4,000 square foot and 4,500 square foot lots will be evenly spread throughout the RM-4 zone. The specific lots intended for development of inclusionary units will need to be indicated as part of any tentative subdivision map application (exclusive of those subdivisions proposed to comprise only the RL portions of the development).
18 Section 2.0 Precise Plan Elements
l
l
l
J J
The Land Use Plan (Figure 4) describes the residentially designated areas by neighborhood and illustrates the gross acreage of each neighborhood. As discussed later in this document, the neighborhoods will be developed in phases. Each phase includes an allocation of dwelling units,·with a combined total of 853 units. This allocation represents the average number of dwelling units permitted per phase since the acreage within each neighborhood, as indicated in Figure 4, may change when subdivision maps are prepared. Therefore, the allocation of dwelling units for each phase does not represent a fixed maximum number of units allowed per phase.

However, the total lot count will not exceed 853 total units.

The Affordable Housing Component for the Mountain Valley Planning Area, including a discussion of income categories in the City of Salinas and the Affordable Housing Programs for the City of Salinas and the Mountain Valley Planning Area are included as Appendix C.

Airport Local Area of Influence
The southwest portion of the planning area is located within the Airport Local Area of Influence as illustrated in Figure 6. All residential development within this area of influence will require dedication of an avigation easement to protect the airport from future complaints and lawsuits about overflights.

Residential Land Use Policies
Based on the goals and objectives outlined in this Precise Plan, the following policies have been established to direct design of residential land use. In addition to the policies provided for within this section, all elements of the Salinas Zoning Code apply except as modified through this Precise Plan and the Precise Plan Overlay District.

Policy 1. Provide zoning designations consistent with the City of Salinas Zoning Code.

The following implementatio11 measure is provided:
• Residential properties in the planning area shall be zoned for residential use as generally illustrated in Figure 5 and described in Section 1.8, City of Salinas Zoning Code, unless otherwise modified herein.

Policy 2. Provide inclusionary housing, as described in the Mountain Valley Affordable Housing Program.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• The Mountain Valley Affordable Housing Program is contained in Appendix C. Of the 853 single-family residential lots, 1 02 lots shall be designated for construction of inclusionary housing units. Within each of the six neighborhoods in the planning area, inclusionary housing units will be interspersed among the 4,000-square-foot lots. Residential lots will generally be phased in accordance with the Phasing Plan in Section 3.0, Implementation.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 19
'··"'·
... ·
/
Sourc~: City of Salinas General Plan
l:t~(IJilij). A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Airport Local Area of
Influence
Planning
·Area
..... _ --· L . "l
i
(~·.

Figure
6 •,
J;
I
I
J
J
j
_J
Policy 3. Protect the Salinas Municipal Airpot1 from future complaints and lawsuits about overflights. ·
The following implementation measure is provided:
• All residential development within the Airport Local Area of Influence shall be required to dedicate an avigation easement.

Policy 4. Protect agricultural land adjacent to the project site from future complaints from adjacent home owners.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• All prospective home and site purchasers will be provided with a copy of an . agricultural use disclosure notice ("Agricultural Acknowledgment") to provide information on the potential for noise, dust, and odors that could occur as a result of normal agricultural operations adjacent to the project site.

Residential Design
Mountain Valley is proposed as a new residential development comprised of a series of neighborhoods. Traditional communities built prior to World War II and the extensive use of the automobile have demonstrated that neighbor interaction tends to build a greater sense of security. As neighborhood residents become familiar with each other, close associations can form which helps to establish a sense of community and neighborhood pride, which leads to better security as neighborhood residents begin to look out for one another. In an effort to facilitate neighbor interaction and to help instill a sense of community, several design measures are incorporated into the Precise Plan, as described below.

Architectural designs for residences in these neighborhoods should allow for a certain continuity throughout the planning area while allowing for a variety of residential character. Through such design techniques as articulated roof lines and fagades, varied building siting, setbacks, and finish materials, a certain signature style will be rendered which distinguishes this planning area from other, less differentiated subdivisions (Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-34, Low Density Residential Guidelines).

Another major site design consideration for the planning area is the encouragement of neighbor interaction through simple site design strategies and the application of certain architectural elements. Adequate walkways, landscape maintenance, front porches, and dominance of the residence rather than the garage will encourage interactions among residents and create a community feeling.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 21
Residential Design Policies
Residential design policies and guidelines are included herein to establish the overall character and visual quality of the residential areas within the planning area. The guidelines are general in nature to allow for design flexibility.

Policy 5. Achieve a high quality of urban design, encourage variety and avoid monotony in developments by allowing greater freedom and flexibility with the use of alternative development standards.

Alternative design standards that create uniqueness in design, encourage neighbor . interaction and reduce isolation shall be created to enhance the feeling of community within the planning area. This can be achieved by varying the architecture and plotting of house locations, including varied setbacks, garage placement and driveway locations, including porches to encourage neighbor interaction, maximizing private open space, and enhancing street character by increasing off-street parking· opportunities.

These alternative designs may require deviations from RL and RM zoning standards, as described below. ·
Tentative maps shall include a reference to this section of ~he Precise Plan. The reference shall state that streetscape appeal and variety is required; and alternative development standards related to lot configuration and required yards are strongly encouraged. It is noted that the nature and purpose of Tentative Maps will require that alternative lot configurations or side yard open space easements be part of the Tentative Map application.

The following implementation measures are provided with regard to required yards, garage and driveway placement, and lot configuration:

Yards
• A minimum front yard requirement of 15 feet may be allowed, as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8, provided the following findings can be established:
22 1. Driveway length is 23 feet minimum from sidewalk (20 feet if roll-up doors are provided);

2. Hequired front yards vary from lot to lot and a front yard of less than 20 feet is provided on no more than 40 percent of the lots;

3. Usable open space opportunities are enhanced;

4. A more interesting and articulated streetscape will result; and

5. Other Residential Design policies and implementation measures are achieved.

Section 2. 0 Precise Plan Elements
.~ ..
[_ __ _______
1~ L____ , __ ·~ -'--~
I
l ---------- j __ -------- I
GARAGE
51NGLE S"fORY

REAR YARD

SINGLE STORY

REAR YARD

REAR YARD
Source: H.D. Peters Co. 0 10 25
Mountain Valley Precise Plan (f1Me
A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Garage Variation in Depth to Front Property Line
(4,000 Sq ... Ft. Minimum Lots) .

Figure
7 j t:1r~n .. IC..
'I
..<-
ELEC., GAS, TEL. e. T.V;·---------------... USE PORCHES AND VARY VARIED GARAGE SETBACKS---------. .----------------FRONT YARD SET BACKS ·-...

WATER ': --~--------------------..\
.---..--] -~~---,
I I I I --,·-1
·· .. .._ \. SEWER I
\ \ ----------------------,
! : ~
~
I
I
I
I ___ _j
./ ! WATER
/- r·---------,-----------
0 10 20 30 40 50 ft.

Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Desfgb Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan

DESIGN GUIDELINES
(6,500 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lots)
Ol:
wz
zo Oli=
8~ 2 ~!:!:! <(Q{
20 Q!\-
~0 -1-l
<(
Figure
8 E:\J:JWG5\MTN\fi~.DWG
l
J
~
• Covered front porches of 80 square feet or larger shall be allowed to project a maximum of three feet into the required front yard but in no case shall be closer than 15 feet from the front property line. Covered porches shall be utilized throughout the planning area.
• Required front yards shall be staggered to create streetscape. variety throughout the planning area.
• Consideration shall be given to the occasional use of side yard open space easements on 4,000 square foot lots within the RM-4.0 zoning district to provide larger side yards and increase usable open space, as illustrated in Figure 9. • Side yards shall be varied throughout the neighborhoods to provide distinct types of yards and patio areas.

Garage and Driveway Placement
• To break up the monotony of all garage doors being parallel to the street, variation in garage placement and orientation shall be provided. Possible orientations include garages set back from the front of the residence (as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8), · . side-entry garages (as illustrated in Figure 1 0), garages that are detached from the residence, and garages that are otherwise oriented away from the front property line. • Residential building siting shall emphasize the residence and not the garage. For a minimum· of every three dwelling units, the garage shall be recessed a minimum of 10 feet behind the front of the residence (as illustrated in Figures 7 t?-nd 8), or be otherwise oriented away from the front property line.
• Driveway entrances to residential units shall be arranged in a fashion to allow adequate space for the planting of a street tree on each lot. Driveway entrances should not interfere with street trees.

Lot Configuration
• Variety in lot orientation and width shall be provided, including the use of zipper lots, as illustrated in Figure 1 0, and wide-shallow lots.
• Corner lots shall be generally ten percent larger in order to maximize usable open space. These lots may be non-rectangular and oriented in a different direction than those at mid-block, as illustrated in Figure 11. · ·
• Subdivision Map lot design shall provide for non-access along Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, East Alisal Street, Boulevard "A", and Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Williams Road to Boulevard "A"), with no driveways providing access from these streets.
• Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Boulevard "A" to the northern intersection with Boulevard "D") shall have restricted vehicular access, in that houses shall not be allowed individual driveway access or, at a minimum, shall not back into the street.

Subdivision map lot design shall provide side yards facing the· boulevard (as illustrated in Figure 12), alley access (as illustrated in Figure 13), and/or shared driveways or adequate driveway area to allow on-site vehicle turnaround (e.g., Mountain Valley Precise Plan 25
".··' //
SEWER---..,
'.I )
(j'
"[.

WATER....._ l
'~
_...--ELEC., GAS, TEL. t f.V. /. _.. I .

I
~· s; I s .:~ ~ -·-(·· .~;- 1,~ 5.F.
. r1-·::: 3 BR. 2 BA. j /, ,. _... .·· .. ( ...... ~;· :;··/ /·:.· ...... ~ ~ :·<.··L:~ . ···<< ~;,: <v & /,.. :; . . . ~vrfj.~ . . / / :~·;·:··i····=·····-~ ~345F ·~·:· .. ;; ~1 usABLE OPEN SPACE ··~:···;;"///-~//4ooo.sa. FT MIN :2 ii - : ' . . II : I 340 SF . II • • 0. · II • ' ' '·· =--=-·--·--·---.. -~t ~~ ... --~:9.<2· ·-=--·--·--·- ,..:i---~----~:9.<2· ::~.:l;. LOT UTILIZATION · FENCE · · -- -·--·---=-·--·- .......... = ( POSSIBLE AL lERNA fE ).

Source: H.D. Peters Co.
::~\
I
Mountain ValleyPrecise Plan .

Lot Utilization for Usable Open Space
Figure
9 ' t. ..... ~
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
B
~
b
q
~
t .. '
. 20.00' 20 .oo· 1 20 .oo·
2o.oo· 1 2o.oo·
MoUntain Valley Precise Plan
Alternative Lot Configuration
Zipper Lots

20.00'
Figure
10 Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
--=-L -=-----=0 C A L M I N 0 ~<~--
I
/(=- I I -1 I 1- I I~
I
__,, ::E I I I I I
I
) '1._ \ I ) I' I I )II ) \ ~ L 0 ~ A LC 0 L 1.:_ E C T 0 R - J---- ---L_
--- ------ 1
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Typical Neighborhoods
Figure
11 FIG-9.DWG
f~JJ ~::~:·
I ( --.......
;J '
.
'/1_,,_ >i{
, ~ ~.~~
.... ·,;_
I
f
f.
·~ f ~t\ •07///,'///,•.'0/'//]/_ ... _
~- / .. ~~---- ........ .. ,.Jc-/:RI
------ L. ~ ?' - ~ ----Mountain Valley Blvd.--
....

U. [:'" / ..
/
. ::: ::c , ,
....
' ~ ·--~ .Q"_JI; __ :Q~, ,cii:;;; .... Q '-~<-kd:.: .. ;;'"Q .;;-:Q,i;:fi Source: H.D. Peters Co.

I u[il•l
A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Residential Frontage A way from
Mountain Valley Blvd. and Blvd. u Au
0 ,------- 20 40ft.

Figure
12 FIG-7.DWG
···•~1l·"·;,,.,, BLVD. • A• - MOUNI AIN VALLEY BLVD.
!t~tLiilh~il:i~·····
----------------= ---------- ----
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
~c:Y. I t:·.::.::~~~-:~~-:-::~-:·.:.:·'

ALLEY ACCESS
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Alternative for Residential Frontage
from Mountain Valley Blvd. & Blvd. "A"
I
0 15 30ft..

Figure
13 circular driveway). This will achieve restricted access while still providing an attractive streetscape and allowing lots to face or capture views of the park. • Non-access and restricted-access streets shall provide bicycle and pedestrian access pathways off the ends ~f cyl·g~~~~ps 9nd petvy~er: ~!de yards, as shown in Figure 12.

Policy 6. Provide a variety of housing designs and features to enhance the development of livable communities within the planning area.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• A variety of housing types, including a mixture of 1- and 2-story and three and four bedrooms shall be encouraged throughout the individual neighborhoods and throughout the planning area.
• Garage doors shall be designed to set into the walls rather than to set flush with the exterior wall. A variety of garage door designs that relate to the particular architectural style selected shall be utilized throughout neighborhoods within the planning area. Garages on 2-story units shall be encouraged to have a single-story mass at the front of the structure to provide an architectural transition to the second story.
• Both vertical. and horizontal articulation in roof lines through the use of gables, hips and dormers shall be encouraged.
• Significant variety in the massing and composition of adjacent houses shall be encouraged to allow individual dwelling units to be unique and distinguishable from one another.
• Finish materials shall be consistently applied and shall complement adjacent materials.
• The basic color of the residential buildings shall be varied, although subdued, with brighter colors left to smaller accent areas. Roof colors should also be varied. • Energy-efficient design techniques within individual residential units shall be encouraged. Alternative methods in cooling and heating of homes also should be encouraged, such as planting deciduous trees for passive capture of solar heat in winter and shading for cooling in summer.
• Design innovations within individual residential units, such as clean, compact composters and recycling stations, shall be encouraged to assist in the reduction and recycling of solid waste.

Streetscape Design
The neighborhoods in the planning area are derived from the circulation pattern which is proposed essentially of local minor streets (typically cui-de-sacs and loop streets) that connect to local collector streets (typically feeders to secondary collector streets) that, in Mountain Valley Precise Plan 31
~;;!m~n~, W I L ~ I ~ M S j . . R 0 A D . :" ~~
------------: ~--~-------.. -----------~
~~t<~,~~Ul.>l>-- ¢:t"'
:et ;iiii ..

Source: H.D. Peters Co.
~ ~~lllllli'l) A Laud U•e Planolng
and Detlgn Firm
::,,
l
~ ..
.Ill
]1111 >-
:jtl w . I ..J
I ..J
I <I'> I > I..J
~Lo l:

I
I
~
It
I
14' IZ I
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
· Typical Entrance
.:1~-}~H:;·. ~
~;iii·-,
DRaJGHf fGt.EJ<ANf
SHRUBS t GRaJND
Figure
15 Policy 8.
area.

Dedicate and improve green ways along major streets within the planning A greenway is a linear open space in public ownership and permanently open to public use; a greenway is not classified as a park. However, In accordance with General Plan Policy 4.3.1.R, park credit may be allowed for some portions of the greenways if they are designed to contain some form of active and passive recreation facilities available for public use. Greenways along the south side of Williams Road, the west side of Freedom Parkway, and the north side of the East Alisal Extension shall be dedicated and improved with landscaping and irrigation by the developer. The following implementation measures are provided:
• Freedom Parkway (from Boulevard "A" to East Alisal Street) and East Alisal Street Extensions shall contain a 20-foot greenway. The greenway shall contain a six-foot sidewalk and a landscape strip for the planting of street trees to be installed by the developer. The landscape area shall separate the sidewalk from the street. (Refer to Figure 19 for an illustration of the greenway.)
• The Freedom Parkway Extension from Williams Road to Boulevard "A" shall contain a 20-foot greenway. The greenway shall contain a six-foot sidewalk and a landscape strip for the planting of street trees to be installed by the developer. The landscape area shall separate the sidewalk from the street. In addition, the developer will install landscaping in the 18-foot median. (Refer to Figure 20 for an illustration of the greenway.)
• Williams Road shall contain a 30-foot greenway, consisting of an eight-foot sidewalk and a landscape strip for the planting of street trees to be installed by the developer.

The landscape area shall separate the sidewalk from the street. (Refer to Figure 21 for an illustration of the greenway.)
• On Mountain Valley Boulevard, Countryside Drive, and Boulevards "A", "B", "C", and "D", a 1 0-foot sidewalk/landscape area shall be provided to allow a minimum fivefoot sidewalk and a minimum five-foot landscape strip for the planting of street trees to be installed by the developer. A base planting of drought tolerant ground cover shall be provided below the street trees. The landscape area shall separate the sidewalk from the street. (Refer to Figures 22 and 23 for an illustration of the landscape area.)
• Access pathways from the single-family residential neighborhoods within the planning area to these greenways shall be provided at the primary entries into the planning area (both ends of Mountain Valley Boulevard, the intersection of Boulevard "A" with Freedom Parkway, the intersection of Boulevard "B11 with Freedom Parkway, and the intersection of Boulevard "C" with East Alisal Street).

Additional pedestrian accessways to the greenways through the sound walls on Williams Road, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street may be provided, and will be determined at tentative map stage.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan . 35
• Installation of landscaping and irrigation systems along street rights-of way shall be provided by the developer consistent with the timing of street improvements (refer to Figure 32 for street phasing). For East Alisal Street, Freedom Parkway, and Williams Road, a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method shall maintain the greenway. For Mountain Valley Boulevard, Countryside Drive, and Boulevards 11N', 11 811
, ~~c~~, and 11 D11, a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method shall maintain the sidewalk/landscape area, and homeowners will be responsible for maintenance of street trees located within the public utilities easement. On local streets not having a separated sidewalk, homeowners will be responsible for maintenance of sidewalks, landscaping and street trees.

Policy 9. Provide street tree plantings in public utilities easements, and provide landscaping in residential front yards and median islands along major streets.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• Neighborhood identity shall be reinforced through the planting of a typical character of street tree to be installed by the developer. At least one street tree will be planted per single-family residential lot. The street tree shall be located in the public utilities easement on each residential lot. Therefore, depending on the orientation of the house in relation to the street, the street tree may occur in the front or side yard. No more than three species of street tree shall be planted within the individual neighborhoods to provide a cohesive character, while reducing the potential for mono-culture diseases. Maintenance of the street trees shall utilize City of Salinas maintenance specifications.
• All residential development shall have drought-tolerant landscaping installed by the developer in all front yards in accordance with City landscaping and irrigation requirements per the Zoning Code. This landscaping shall be maintained by individual homeowners.
• The developer will install landscaping in the median islands along the Williams Road, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street extensions. Development phasing will allow the developer to fund half the median island from initial investment and then from the sale of homes. Maintenance of the median islands will be provided by a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method. • All street tree planting and landscaping shall be in conformance with City of Salinas Guidelines and in accordance with landscape plans approved by the City of Salinas.

Policy 10. Provide pedestrian-scale lighting throughout the planning area.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• Pedestrian-scale l,ighting conforming to City of Salinas Design Standards and Standard Plans shall be installed by the developer on all streets. Alternatives to City standards, as approved by the Public Works Director, may also be considered. Light 36 Section 2.0 Precise Plan Elements
;.
:.;:
. J
fixtures shall be vandal proof and of consistent design character throughout.

Lighting type and standard shall conform with City standards and policies established at the time of construction.

2.2.2 Public Schools
The Land Use Plan (Figure 4) identifies the location designated for a new elementary school site in the planning area. The nine gross acres will be donated by the property owner during Phase 1 of the development project. The elementary school will be constructed by the Alisal Union School District. The new elementary school will utilize approximately two acres of the adjacent 21.5-gross-acre community park for recreational or parking facilities.

The property owner will also sell the District two acres of land adjacent to the existing Bardin Elementary School for additional recreation space. The developer will construct a storm water detention basin on a separate 1. 7 -acre lot adjoining the Bardin Elementary School Expansion Site in a way that it can also be used for additional recreational space.

Use of the land areas designated for school use for anything other than school or public open space shall require an amendment to this Precise Plan .

Public Schools Policies
Policy 11. Provide adequate space for new and expanded school sites, and make these sites available and affordable for use by the Alisal Union School District.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• The property owner shall donate to the Alisal Union School District fee title to the identified nine gross acres of land within the planning area for an elementary school site during Phase 1 of the development project. In the event that this land is not used for a school within ten years after donation/dedication, the site(s) may be developed with recreation or residential uses (and an amendment to this Precise Plan will be required).
• Following the adoption of the Precise Plan by the City and the completion of annexation to the City, the land owner will also sell to the Alisal Union School District two acres of additional recreation area adjacent to Bardin School. One acre will be sold at its then fair market value based upon State Office of Public School Construction requirements, and the second acre will be sold at one-half of the same fair market value.
• The Alisal Union School District shall share the use of two acres of the 21.5 gross acre (20 acres net) community park with the City of Salinas Parks Department for recreational/playground purposes. Sharing of the two acres of community park shall Mountain Valley Precise Plan 37
be governed by an agreement by and between the Alisal Union School District and the City of Salinas, the latter of whom will hold title to the community park. The land owner will also design and construct the detention pond area adjacent to the Bardin School in a way that would allow the area to be used by Bardin School for additional recreation space.

Policy 12. Provide the Alisal Union School District with appropriate statutory school impact fees.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• The developer will pay, for the benefit the Alisal Union School District, the statutory school impact fee that is in place at the time individual building permits are issued. (The fee is currently $1.93 per square foot of residential building.) Supplemental school impact fees of $639,000 shall be paid to the Salinas Union High School District. The latter fees are in addition to the statutory school impact fees.

2.3 Circulation Element
Circulation improvements include both internal and external improvements and are designed to be consistent with the policies, standards, and improvements identified in the General Plan Circulation Element. Both internal and external improvements are designed to accommodate the anticipated number of trips generated by development of the planning area. Figure 4, Land Use Plan, illustrates the planning area circulation pattern and the major streets (East Alisal Street, Freedom Parkway and Williams Road).

External improvements include right-of-way improvements to Williams Road and the extensions of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street. Internal improvements include new secondary collector streets (Boulevards 11A11
,
11B", 11C11
,
11 0 11
, and Mountain Valley
Boulevard) extending into the planning area from Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, and the East Alisal Street Extension.

Circulation Policies
Policy 13. Provide a safe and functional circulation system throughout the planning area that will minimize through traffic, and limit long, linear or high speed residential streets.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• The layout of the circulation system shall enhance a sense of orientation, and make it easy to get around by avoiding overly complex curves and an excessive number of 38 Section 2. 0 Precise Plan Elements
1 .i
cui-de-sacs. However, curvilinear streets and knuckles and cui-de-sacs on straight streets can be introduced as a way to limit the length of straight stretches, discourage short-cuts, and reduce through traffic on residential streets.

Policy 14. Prohibit the frontage of single-family houses along Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, East Alisal Street, Boulevard ~~ ", and Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Williams Road to Boulevard ~~ ').

The following implementation measure is provided:
• Subdivision Map lot design shall provide for single-family home frontage away from Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, East Alisal Street, Boulevard "A", and Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Williams Road to Boulevard "A"), with no driveways providing access from these streets.

Policy 15. Restrict vehicular access to single-family houses along Mountain Valley Boulevard from Boulevard 11A" to the north intersection of Mountain Valley Boulevard and Boulevard 110".

The following implementation measure is provided:
• Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Boulevard "A" to the northern intersection with Boulevard "D") shall have restricted access, in that houses shall not be allowed individual driveway access or, at a minimum, shall not back into the street.

Subdivision Map lot design shall provide side yards facing the boulevard (as illustrated in Figure 12), alley access (as illustrated in Figure 13), and/or shared driveways or adequate driveway area to allow on-site vehicle turnaround. This will be achieved while still providing an attractive streetscape and allowing lots to face or capture views of the park. In addition, although this portion of Mountain Valley Boulevard will not provide vehicle access, there will be access for bicycles and pedestrians (as shown in Figure 12).

Policy 16. Provide appropriate street expansions and improvements to allow efficient · · · vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the planning area.

I
'
·~
.~"·'·· . I
.. :.·.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• Land shall be dedicated for the extension of East Alisal Street on the southeastern border of the planning area, from Bardin Road to Freedom Parkway. The extension will include a reconfiguration of the Alisal Road/Bardin Road intersection. The existing intersection is illustrated in Figure 16, the recommended interim configuration of the intersection is illustrated in Figure 17 and the recommended ultimate configuration of the intersection is illustrated in Figure 18. The East Alisal Street Extension shall include a 20-foot greenway with a meandering six-foot sidewalk, street trees, drought-tolerant vegetation, and a six-foot sound wall. Onehalf the width of the street extension shall be constructed with development of the planning area. Parking shall be prohibited on the East Alisal Street Extension. A stormwater interceptor swale and landscaping shall be provided in the median.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 39
~ \: __
;'Y//
, ·/ I
I l(';t
l ~ I /_j_../
~~ •' !\
rIll
~i I' ("" DaSliNO FDIIE
Ill;/)
,;l~ ~D>STINO QUHH<J.J:£
' ' ., .,
.,
., ' ~I i ~I I J',',,' J: '-1../ /' '/
I ,' i
/ /, I o'
A.· / / / .., I ;.> : .
1 /1 ./ ~ / .~'
/ /,''/""-... J ;;' l/ .. ~'/ fif
Source: Higgins Associates
A Land Use Planning
and Design Finn
.,. .... PNtiGNC UJT
DaSliHO I'OWANDtl .........

HARTNELL

COLLEGE
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Existing Roadway Configuration
Alisal Rd. I Bardin Road
L
AUSAL RD.
(;)
No Scale
Figure
16 -:-x:·:: l. ·-··'·"' t .. ........i ............... L ....

Source: Higgins Associates
A Land Use Planning
and Design Finn
L .... ,

EXISTING BARDIN

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
~.w,o,...J W.i:<-.i!lii i!.~w,...
........ ··r 6
~~~ llllLII I --I
' ~t'! ••,'r· ~
-~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
~ - - - - - ---
... _,. 12' Nl 1NIIU
tJ' •• 1l«U
tr •t.DT •r • lHinl
a$' BA.l' ~"' TAP[JII 200' un lUII:N u.."'~£ 1~ OPEN
[I}-<Ym'NO _,.HOO!£
DOSltNO PDN.IHOIT .,_"'

HARTNELL

COLLEGE
\_DIS11NG f'U'C£
100' 111AHSmON (10 WPH OUICH sPttD)
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Interim Roadway Configuration
Alisal Rd. I Bardin Road
Q
No Scale
Figure17
Source: Higgins Associates
I
A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
llo' laAHSiliGN
EXISliNG BARDIN

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
lCIIf IURit
etr IA'f tN-Ol • L&H(

HARTNELL

COLLEGE
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Ultimate Roadway Configuration
Alisal Rd. I Bardin Road . . ..... -·- -····- . - ·--· •··· -· ·- - ·- -------
·-----~-r--0:-=----=
~
Q
No Scale
Figure
18 -· l
On the street, a five-foot Class II bike lane shall be provided alongside the curb . . Dedication and improvements to East Alisal Street Extension from Bardin Road to Mot:mtain Valley Boulevard shall be made during Phase 3, and from Mountain Valley Boulevard to Freedom Parkway during Phase 6 (refer to Figure 32 for street phasing).
• Land shall be dedicated for the extension of Freedom Parkway from Williams Road to the eastern corner of the project site. The Freedom Parkway Extension shall be one-half street width from Boulevard "A" to the eastern corner of the project site with appropriate tapers, as illustrated in Figure 19, and full street width from Williams Road to Boulevard "A", as illustrated in Figure 20. Parking shall be prohibited on the Freedom Parkway extension, except along the community park frontage where an additional parking lane shall be added. The remainder of the Freedom Parkway extension shall have a 20-foot greenway, which shall contain a six-foot wide meandering sidewalk, street trees, drought-tolerant vegetation, and a six-foot sound wall. A stormwater interceptor swale and landscaping shall be provided in the median. On the street, a six-foot Class II bike lane shall be provided alongside the curb from Williams Road to Boulevard "A", and a five-foot Class II bike lane shall be provided alongside the curb from Boulevard "A" to the eastern corner of the project site. Dedication and improvements to Freedom Parkway shall be made during Phase 2, 4, and 6 (refer to Figure 32 for street phasing). • Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated on the south side of Williams Road, within the planning area. Williams Road right-of-way improvements shall include a 30-foot greenway containing a meandering eight-foot sidewalk, street trees, drought-tolerant vegetation, and an eight-foot sound wall; an entrance to the planning area from Williams Road across from Alisal High School (to be coordinated with Alisal High School); and a median island with landscaping. The 30-foot greenway will be wide enough to construct a bus turn out should Monterey-Salinas Transit determine that volume warrants its construction. On the street, a six-foot Class II bike lane shall be provided alongside the curb. Improvements to Williams Road are illustrated in Figure 21. Dedication and improvements to Williams Road shall be made during Phase 1 and 2 (refer to Figure 32 for street phasing).
• Mountain Valley Boulevard and Boulevard "A" shall be the only two secondary streets with bicycle lanes. A five-foot Class II bike lane shall be provided between the curb parking area and the travel lane, as illustrated in Figure 22. A six-foot bike lane adjacent to the landscape area will be provided on Boulevard "A" and on Mountain Valley Boulevard before the curb parking area begins, as illustrated as "Condition B" on Figure 22.
• Emergency vehicle and pedestrian access will connect the existing Countryside Drive, Argentine Drive and Del Monte Avenue with the planning area; however, there will be no through traffic on these streets. Within the planning area, the Countryside Drive extension will match existing sections and widths, unless current street sections and widths in the City Subdivision Ordinance are more restrictive.

Countryside Drive, along with Boulevards "B", "C", and "D", shall be secondary collectors without bicycle lanes. These streets shall be signed only as "bicycle routes", which means that bicyclists will share the travel lane with motor vehicles.

Improvements to these streets are illustrated in Figure 23.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 43
fE Ck
61' RJTURE
32' CCNSTRUCila-.1
5' II' II'
TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL L.At-.E
6' SOt.NJWALl;---.,_ •.
·•• •• _1 5iORM WAiER
MEANDEI<ING----
51DEW~
-------· INTERCEPia<?
SW.N...E
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land U~e Planning
and Dealgn Firm
ILLUSIRA liVE SECTION
FREEDOM PAR~WAY AND
EAST ALISAL 51. EXTENSION
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Freedom Parkway (Boulevard·· A •• to East Alisal)
and East Alisal Street Extensions
r
0 5 10 ft.

Figure
19 2q80EXTNDWG
_;-r•
I~ •·····~ 'ut ttl'". ~'!Y'....J 'v.• ........... ., l, .. . ii •.•. _.,.~ ~:!lib! t.tl!~t4l<l~ ;;,.. ····• ·. ; 'i·!l.····,.. ,. ~ ~ ~
MEANCERING .-· SIDEW~ ----·
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
61' 51'
32' 32'
13' 13' 13' 13'
TRAva LANE I TRAva LANE TRAYa LHE
STORfvl WATER _: INTB<CEPTOI<----
SWALE

ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION
FULL lAJIDTH FREEDOM PAI<k(lAJAY
( WILLIAMS RD. TO BOULEVARD "A" )
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Freedom Parkway Extension
{Williams Road to Boulevard .. A .. )
r
0 5 10ft.

Figure
20 FIG-13.DWG
(k
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Uae Planning
and Dealgn Firm
75'
<E> R/W 30'
36'
15' 15' 6'
BIKE
LANE

MEANDERING
··siDEWALK
It
.. · · -e; .50l.J-.IDWALL .·

ILLUSIRAIIVE SECIION

WILLIAMS ROAD
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Williams Road Improvements
,------~
0 5 10 ft.

Figure·
21 FIG'3.DWG
'
;, ........... u ..,._ ... , .. /'f L.
ooueu: ROW
.5 T'REEi TREES
MEMVERING ./ SICB-I..AlK---.

Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
~> .. ,.; •.••• ~ ~~ l:;ln'·''"''"
lk
35'
5' I 12' 12' I 5'
BI).(E I TRAva LANE TRAVEL LMJE I Bf).(E
LMIE
., ••....... ----·DROUGHT ia..ERMii -·· GROUND COVER
6'
CONDITION "B"
ENTRANCE BLVD. "A" AND
MOUNTAIN VALLEY BLVD.

LMJE
35'
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Secondary Collectors Stre·et
With Bicycle Lanes
':-•···
.. ----DOUBLE ROW
5 T'REEi T'REE5
··-·-51DEW..AlK
-¥ EASEMENI FOR
PUBLIC UTILITIES t
SIREEI fREES
<FRONI OR SIDE
YARD 5-rREEI

FRONIAGE)

ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

ACCESS CORRIDORS
0 5 10 ft.

Figure
22 FIG-9.DI-lG
STREET-----•• TREE .

CONC. ___ ./

SIDEWALK
Source: H.D. Peters Co.
(I ~tlli•l A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
64' RIGHT-OF-WAY
44'
22' 22'
14' 14'

IRA VEL IRA VEL
COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE/ BLVD'S. "B'', ''C," AND "D"
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Secondary Collectors Street
Without Bicycle Lanes
:-.;.-··---STREET
TREE
·· .... __ CONC.

SIDEW.Al..K
0 5 10 ft.

Figure
23 FIG-9DHG
·. . .i
·~.
~:i
• For local streets within the planning area, a minimum six-foot monolithic sidewalk shall be provided adjacent to the curb for pedestrian access. This design is illustrated in Figure 24.

Policy 17. Incorporate the components of the Facilities Trip Reduction Plan in the development.

The Facilities Trip Reduction Plan is included as Appendix D.

Policy 18. Pedestrian and bicycle access to and between internal neighborhoods shall be provided.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• The location of Class II bicycle lanes within the planning area shall be included in subdivision improvement plans as generally illustrated in Figure 25. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the planning area will be facilitated by providing pathways off the ends of cui-de-sacs and between side yards. These pathways will provide pedestrians and bicycles more direct access to public areas, such as the park and school, as well as other neighborhoods within the planning area than would be achieved by driving. These pedestrian and bicycle accessways will essentially be short-cuts to public areas and other neighborhoods within the planning area and should reduce the need to drive more indirect routes to reach these areas.

J Policy 19. "Traffic-calming" features on secondary collector and local streets throughout the planning area. shall be provided.
}
i;
:·i
·:; ;
The following implementation measure is provided:
• Secondary collector and local streets shall utilize "traffic-calming" features such as narrowing the streets at selected intersections and increasing the landscaping in these areas. Narrowing the streets at selected intersections would eliminate parking on both sides of the street from 20 to 30 feet of the intersection. It would not affect the travel or bike lanes. Figure 26 illustrates this type of design at a typical intersection.

2.4 Open Space Element
The planning area contains an open space system of park, greenways and a detention basin. The open space system facility acreages are presented in Table 3. The acreages presented in Table 3 do not include the open space facilities proposed at the new elementary school site and at the expanded existing Bardin Elementary School.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 49
·, ,.,.,,_, ... • ·-><:·:~-·~;.:w~ij)o!.i:.!o~..:~""~l•t-h> .. ,....lt>:•l•t-<-:'•·&1"~'"''~' ·--·~• , t .••••• _, ..... ~··· •• ~ .............. ~~•:•·'·f'*~t;:w;~n,.;J~J;.a.l.•·,.>i,~ ... ..;~ .... :;~.1:·.,•t-.<.~~,.-~.,,1,11:•\.'l· ••. j .,,,· -~
60' RIGHI -OF-WA I
- ~, ~LY.~ 10' 40'
~r?i 6:{ F 4~z--;;:- -----;_;~----- --- ------20· .,. -- ~~ --'; r P.Ulr-r- ::~G- ~A~-· -rd:~ P,:_ING ,
CONC. ./
~rlL..L--rSIDEWALK __ . L 0 C A L C 0 L L E C I 0 R
51REEI----··-
TREE
CONC.

SIDEWALK
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land U•e Planning
and Design Firm
6' IB'
e·

PARKING
SIR EEl
56' RIGHI -OF-WAY
36'
10' 10'
TRAVEL IRAva

LOCAL MINOR
SIR EEl
IB' 6'
e·

PARKING
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Local Streets
10'
t:ONC.

SIDEWALK
.------STREEI
TREE

ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION
0 5 10 ft.

Figure
24 F'IG-9.DWG
·~·
PROP05E.O
5HOPPINQ
ce.NTE.R
ARDIN SCHOO •
1 EXPANSION .· 2.0 AC ...... .

I
•· • .e_v. & J>eD.

N::.Cr!t;5
WE.LL LOT
········0.2.3 AC.
·.,
BLVD. •rf'
E.Lf.ME.NTARY
5CHOOL

COMMUNITY
PARt

21.5 AC. 4ROS5
(:20.0 AC. Ne.n
BLVO, "B"
I
I
I
5TORM WATE.R DE.TE.NTION i
BASIN - 1.70 ACRE.5 _ _...

EAST AUSAL STRE.E.T EXTENSION
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Uae PlllJllling
and Design Firm
·Bicycle Lanes
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Bicycle Lanes Locations
I
1100 ft.

Figure
25 F1425.DWQ
i~
-~
=EAI . .

F<l ·1-•.(/
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land U•e Planning
and Design Firm
1 Mountain Vall.ey Precise Plan
Traffic Calming Features
.--
0 1s 30 n.

Figure
26 FJG-NU17.DWG
TABLE 3
Open Space Facilities
Acr'es (Gross)
Community Park 21.51
Greenways 4.02
Detention Basin 1.7
Total 27.2
Note 1 The community park is a net 20 acres.

Note 2 Includes Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, and East Alisal Extension.

Source: H.D. Peters
Park Policy
General Plan Policy 4.3.2.A. requires that new residential development provide land or fees to achieve a minimum of three acres of developed parklands per 1,000 population for community or neighborhood parks. The parkland required for the Mountain Valley Project, based on 3.21 persons per household in the City of Salinas (1990 U. S. Census data), is approximately 8.2 acres. The proposed project will provide 21.5 gross acres (20 net acres) for a community park to be donated to the City of Salinas. The landscape buffer and detention basin are not included in these figures. The General Plan provides direction for community parks to be a minimum of 20 acres.

Policy 20. Donate land for a community park, and provide for installation and maintenance of park improvements, as appropriate.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• The General Plan Open Space Element directs the City to acquire and develop a 20-acre community park and a 5-acre neighborhood park in the vicinity of the planning area. The property owner shall donate to the City of Salinas a 20-net-acre site for use as a community park by the City. The community park will be designed, developed, and maintained by the City (except as noted below) and may include such facilities as tennis courts; swimming pools, soccer fields, multi-purpose courts, and a community center. Two acres of the community park will be shared with the adjacent elementary school for recreational purposes. Due to the accessibility of the community park to the neighborhood residents, neighborhood park needs are met by the community park.
-· • The owner and/or project sponsor will provide funding to develop lawn and irrigation J improvements within the park. Development phasing will allow the developer to fund park improvements from initial investment and then from the sale of homes. Half of the park will be improved during Phase 2 and half will be improved during Phase 4 Mountain Valley Precise Plan 53
(refer to development phasing plan, Figure 31 ). A landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method will assume responsibility for funding maintenance costs of 8.2 acres of the park site. The balance of maintenance funding will be provided by the City.
• In exchange for the land donation, completion of a preliminary master plan by the project sponsor, and lawn and irrigation improvements within the park, the City will waive the park impact fees that would normally be imposed on the Mountain Valley project.

Detention Basin Policy
Policy 21. Donate land for a storm water detention basin and provide improvements to allow for recreational use of the site.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• A 1.7-acre area located in the southwestern corner of the planning area north of the East Alisal Street extension shall be donated to the City of Salinas as open space and improved by the developer for a storm water detention basin during Phase 3, as illustrated in Figure 27. The detention basin shall be constructed by the developer in Phase 3. (Until that time, storm water will be directed to an interim detention basin located west of the northerly intersection of Mountain Valley Boulevard and Boulevard "0". Refer to Figure 30.) The improvements will include a lawn and irrigation system to allow for recreational use of the site when it is not being used for detention. Maintenance of the storm water detention basin shall be by the homeowners through a landscape and lighting maintenance district or other appropriate financing method.
• The functions of the detention basin are described in Section 2.6, Public and Semipublic Element. This basin will receive most of the storm water run-off generated within the planning area. The General Plan states that floodways and storm water retention areas should be designated as open space to ensure public health and safety for residents of the City. The detention basin is not classifie·d as a park. ·
Other Open Space and Landscape Areas Policy
Policy 22. Unless otherwise noted, landscaping and irrigation in open space and landscape areas will be installed by the developer and maintained by a landscape and lighting district or other appropriate financing method. 54 Section 2.0 Precise Plan Elements
>-
Cl
<
.......
::z
w..J
Zo
wo
..J:t
wu
::z\1)
D
··Ql
<
!0
5AI2DIN
SCHOOL

EXPANSION
in\
-- -.;,......IL-- ------- --':-""--------'\<----
""""'
E. ALISAL ST.

USABLE POND Va..uME • .3.5 AF.

MAXIMUM ViA 1ER DEPTH • 4.0 FT.
a
> '.....!
tO
>-
w
::J
<(
>
:z
~ :z
:J"
0 5' '
,.
--~·:------~-,-S~.--:¢::~;;-;~-~---=~.==-r-:::o·::::®=----,:;1~~------ntzc===~ . 5' 5'
Source: H.D. Peters Co.
l:t~(IIM!iir!iff· Mountain Valley Precise Plan
ALandusePlanning Storm Water Detention Pond and Design Finn 0 30 60ft.

Figure
27 2.5 Conservation Element
The General Plan Conservation Element includes policies which direct efficient management of natural resources. This element of the Precise Plan includes conservation measures to encourage future residents of the planning area to use water wisely.

Water Conservation Policies
Policy 23. Require all development projects within the planning area to comply with City of Salinas Ordinance 2123 pertaining to water conservation measures.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• Non-potable water shall be used for compaction or dust control purposes during construction where feasible. All hoses used in connection with any construction activities shall be equipped with a shutoff nozzle.
• Each residential unit shall be equipped with the following household and landscaping water saving features:

Household water-saving fixtures shall include low-flow shower heads (maximum flow of 2.5 gallons per minute); reduced-flow toilets (minimum flow of 1.6 gallons); and hot water recirculating systems.

Turf sprinkler systems with low capacity heads and automatic control devices shall be installed in front yards.

Drip irrigation k.its shall be provided for the front, side, and rear yards. • Turl shall be limited to 20 percent of the total landscaping area for each single-family residential lot.
• At the time of sale, each homeowner shall be given a packet describing the water conservation features provided by the builder and detailed instructions for the use of these facilities. Included in the packet shall be instructions for water conservation such as using shutoff nozzles on hoses, repair: of plumbing and irrigation systems, washing of vehicles, cleaning of structures, water spillage, and emptying and filling spas and fountains. Packets will also include City water conservation requirements. • The developer shall provide to the initial buyer an up-to-date list of household and garden water saving equipment and devices, a list of drought resistant native plant materials, and a list of local retailers who regularly supply these recommended items.
56 Section 2. 0 Precise Plan Elements
-·~
• These restrictions shall be included in project CC&Rs. In all cases, building· components and landscaping shall incorporate those features required by the Salinas City Code and by water conservation ordinances in effect at the time the building permits are issued. Any other relevant requirements as specified in Salinas Ordinance No. 2134 (or as superseded) or Monterey County Water Resources Agency Ordinance No. 03744 (or as superseded) shall also be included.

2.6 Public and Semipublic Element
An infrastructure analysis for the planning area was prepared by Creegan + D'Angelo ( 1992). The infrastructure report addresses the water system, sanitary sewer system, storm drainage, and other utility services to be constructed within the planning area.

This infrastructure analysis will be updated by H. D. Peters Company in April 1997. The sanitary sewer and storm drain design will include calculations and analyses of existing maintenance problems within and/or adjacent to the planning area and measures to mitigate impacts to deficient mains, as identified in the City of Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan. These calculations and analyses will be included with tentative map applications.

2.6.1 Water System
Water service for the planning area will be provided by Alco Water Service Company; Alco is responsible for providing service to the southeastern portion of the City of Salinas. Four new well sites are necessary to provide service to the planning area. The well sites, totaling 1.61 acres in size (three 20,000 sq. ft. sites and one 10,000 sq. ft. site), will include land to accommodate storage and water treatment facilities should they be determined necessary. Locations for the well sites are illustrated in Figure 28.

However, these locations are generalized and will ultimately be determined in consultation with Alco prior to tentative map stage. In the event that one or all of these well sites are not used for water facilities within ten years after donation/dedication, the site(s) may be developed for recreation and/or residential uses (and an amendment to this Precise Plan will be required). Therefore, at tentative map stage, the well lots will be designed to allow for subdivision and residential use. The major water system improvements within the planning area are illustrated in Figure 28.

Water System Policy
Policy 24. Provide improvements to existing water system to serve the planning area.

The following implementation measure is provided:

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 57
SY

PROPOSED

SHOPPINQ
Ce.NTE..R
~ ·-1Z'
Wf.LL LOT ........ Q.2..3 AC.
'
\. Wf.LL LOT
··o.+6 AC.

AU SAL

12.'! ·• •.
~LVO. "1'\ 8'····· -- . ..__. .
f.Lf.Mf.NT ARY
SCHOOL

9.0 /IC,. ~ • • '--------J·

COMMUNITY
Proposed Water Lines - · -··-
Source: H.D. Peters Co. 600 I ll
A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Major Water System
Improvements
Figure
28 FTqte.owq
: . ,
{'
,.·
• Water service for the planning area shall be provided by the Alco Water Service Company. The following improvements shall be made to the existing water system:

2.6.2 Existing water mains on the perimeter of the planning area shall be extended into the planning area.

Water mains shall be installed as identified in Figure 28, or as required by the City of Salinas at the time of development.

Three 20,000 sq. ft. well sites and one i 0,000 sq. ft. well site shall be reserved, for purchase by Alco, for the development of wells, storage, and water treatment facilities. These well sites are located adjacent to the Bardin Elementary School Expansion Site, at the corner of Boulevard "B" and Freedom Parkway, adjacent to the existing well on the western boundary of the planning area, and on Williams Road in the northwest corner of the planning area. The well site at Boulevard "B" is considered a "floating location11, with the ultimate location to be determined in consultation with Alco.

A conditional Use Permit shall be required for development of the well sites.

Improvements required may include, but are not limited to, landscaping, screening, noise mitigation, and access.

Existing agricultural wells shall be abandoned in accordance with State and County standards, or shall be converted into monitoring wells, at the discretion of the County Water Resources Agency.

Sanitary Sewer System
Sanitary sewer service for the planning area will be provided through the City of Salinas.

Salinas wastewater discharges to the Salinas Pump Station and 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 i 8 mgd (Hausrath Economics Group i 993, revised i 997). Upon annexation of the planning area to the City of Salinas, the planning area will attach to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.

Figure 29 illustrates the major sanitary sewer system improvements within the planning area.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 59
P!<OP05C.O
5HOPPIN4
CENTt:l<
..

BLVD. HO" .
1 'f!f
\
E.LE.ME.NT AR.Y
5CHOOL

9.0 N:.. c:;ROS5
' .f!f!-.J~~·· : • cil ~· .. 8' d ~~
--- (Q ---
' • '
5TO~M WATf.R DE.TE.NTION ':

BASIN - 1. 70 AC~E.5 •.. :

EAST AU SAL 5Tf<E.E.T E.XTE.N510N
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning.
and Design Firm
·····ef
Proposed Sewer Lines .,.,."f.· .... -
- Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Major Sanitary Sewer
Improvements
Figure
29 FIG29.DWq
_l
i .·r.

Sanitary Sewer System Policy
Policy 25. Provide sanitary sewer service to the planning area consistent with City of Salinas standards.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• Sanitary sewer service shall be provided to the planning area by the City of Salinas.

Sanitary sewer mains shall be installed throughout the planning area as identified in Figure 29, or as required by the City of Salinas at the time of development. The existing sanitary sewer system terminating adjacent to the planning area shall be extended into the planning area. The on-site collection system shall discharge off site through a 15-inch sewer main to be located within the right-of-way for East Alisal Street. Calculations for sewer discharge will be provided at tentative map stage.

The calculations will verify that pipe sizes and slopes will meet City standards. • The developer shall be responsible for a proportionate share of mitigating impacts on off-site sewer mains caused by the addition of this project, as identified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project.

2.6.3 Storm Drainage
Development of the planning area will result in increased water run-off potentially causing flooding in the vicinity and/or flooding in downstream areas. Major storm drainage improvements within the planning area are illustrated in Figure 30.

Storm Drainage Policy
Policy 26. Provide for the effective containment and control of storm water and agricultural run off in the planning area.

The following implementation measures are provided:
• A; .7-acre storm water detention basin shall be located in the southern corner of the planning area. A pumping system may be required to discharge collected storm water run-off after peak flows have ended. The detention basin shall be constructed by the developer in Phase 3. Until that time, storm water will be directed to an interim detention basin located west of the northerly intersection of Mountain Valley Boulevard and Boulevard "D", as shown in Figure 30.
• Storm drainage mains and catch basins shall be installed throughout the planning area as identified in Figure 30, or as required by the City of Salinas at the time of development. Calculations for storm drainage will be provided at tentative map stage. The calculations will verify that pipe sizes and slopes will meet City standards.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 61
PROP05e.D
SHOPPIN(i
ceNTeR
<e.> 36'"'. I ""'·-.,
AlWIN SCHOO / ':

EXPANSION <f'>. 2.0 AC ........ NLf
Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
EAST AU SAL 5Tf<E.E.T···, .. f:.XTE.N510N . ·• ...... ·EARTH SWALE.·· • .• ····16'
Proposed Storm Drain Lines --=±~· :==~ .. _c:-
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Major Storm Drainage
Improvements
Figure
30 FJq3o.owc;
-~
• The developer shall be responsible for a proportionate share of mitigating impacts on off-site storm drainage mains caused by the addition of this project, as identified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. • The developer shall also construct an earth berm east of the Freedom Parkway extension and south of the East Alisal Street extension to control agricultural run-oft from entering the planning area from the east and south. Design and construction details shall be subject to City approval. This type of earth berm currently exists along the western edge of the project site, controlling agricultural run-oft from the project site to existing development to the west.
• In addition, the developer shall cooperate with the City of Salinas and Monterey County to provide a silt trap at the northeast corner of the intersection of Freedom Parkway and Williams Road as identified in Figure 30. This silt trap shall be used to mitigate existing conditions to the. east. The need for a silt trap is not the result of a project-related problem.
• Development shall proceed in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements in effect at the time of construction.

2.6.4 Other Public and Semipublic Uses
Development of the planning area will result in an increased demand on other public and semipublic services, such as existing libraries and fire protection services. Fees will be paid by the developer for expansion of existing libraries and fire protection services.

Other Public and Semipublic Policies
Policy 27. Assess each residential unit with a fire protection services fee to be paid by the developer at the time of building permit issuance.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• The 2, i 00-unit Williams Ranch project included the donation of a one-acre site for a new fire station. This one acre site was valued at $294,000. If the cost for this oneacre site had been assessed to each unit, the cost would have been $140.00 per unit (294,000 I 2, i 00 = i 40.00). Therefore, the fire protection services fee for each residential unit in the Mountain Valley planning area will be $140.00. This fee shall be indexed on an annual basis (base year January, i 998).

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 63
Policy 28. Assess each residential unit with a library fee to be paid by the developer at the time of building permit issuance.

The following implementation measure is provided:
• Currently, the library fee is $373 per unit. However, this fee is indexed annually and the actual fee imposed on individual units may differ.

Policy 29. Assess the need and possible locations for fiber optic utilities early in the development of working construction drawings.
64 Section 2. 0 Precise Plan Elements
. ,.
f
._.j

3.0 Implementation
This section includes lead and responsible agency actions, the entitlement process, and financing.

3.1 Lead and Responsible Agency Actions
Adoption of the Precise Plan
The Precise Plan shall be adopted by City Council resolution as an implementation measure of the General Plan. The Precise Plan will be adopted based on disclosure of environmental effects to the City in an EIR. The adopted mitigation monitoring program from the EIR is referenced herein as part of implementation, and included as Appendix E of this Precise Plan.

Pre-Zoning
Upon adoption of the Precise Plan, the City of Salinas will pre-zone the planning area "Agricultural" as an interim district. Appropriate rezoning will occur concurrent with the tentative map process.

Sphere of Influence Amendment and Reorganization Requests Upon adoption of the Precise Plan, as well as pre-zoning the planning area, the City will request the following reorganizations from the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo):
• Amendment to the City of Salinas Sphere of Influence; • Annexation to the City of Salinas;
• Detachment from the Monterey County Resource Conservation District; • Detachment from the Salinas Rural Fire Protection District; and • Attachment to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.

A plan for services has been prepared, along with an EIR for the Precise Plan, to facilitate actions by the City, as well as LAFCo. As part of the LAFCo actions, a property tax transfer agreement will be entered into between the City and the County .

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 65

3.2 Entitlement Process
This entitlement process applies to all development within the planning area and describes authorizations from the City only. Identifying or pursuing permits required from other agencies are not the responsibility of the City.

Development Agreement
Following Division 28 of the Salinas Zoning Code, the City and the property owner may choose to enter into a development agreement to provide assurances that, upon approval of the project, the property owner may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to the conditions of approv?l, and thus vesting certain development rights in the property. The development agreement application shall include all items required by the zoning code in addition to conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements regarding policies and direction of the Precise Plan.

Tentative and Final Maps
Before any property is subdivided, a tentative map of the proposed subdivision must be approved by the City in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance. As a result of lot configurations, the number of residential units may decrease as tentative and final maps are prepared.

Prior to the expiration (including any extensions) of a Tentative Map, a Final Map(s) shall be submitted to the City. Developers shall provide adequate security for construction of agreed upon public improvements prior to approval and recordation of the Final Map.

Phasing
Residential development and street development are anticipated to take place in six phases. The development phasing plan is illustrated in Figure 31, and the street phasing plan for major streets and secondary collector streets is illustrated in Figure 32.

The residential and street phasing plans are shown on different figures for clarity; the phasing for both residential and street development is consistent.

As shown on Figure 31 and in Table 4, each phase includes an allocation of dwelling units, with a combined total of 853 units. This allocation represents the average number of dwelling units permitted per phase since the acreage within each neighborhood, as indicated in Figure 4, may change when subdivision maps are prepared. Changes resulting in an increase or decrease in the number of dwelling units per neighborhood shall be allowed and approved provided that the maximum number of units per parcel is consistent with the density range established in the City of Salinas General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the residential type assigned to the neighborhood; the overall maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 853 units; and the final housing mix is consistent with the housing plan proposed in the Precise Plan, including 1 02 inclusionary units. Therefore, the allocation of dwelling units for each phase indicated on Figure 31 and Table 4 does not represent a fixed maximum number of units allowed per phase.
66 Section 3.0 Implementation
l
J
-~
'
.J
.. ,
~
PROPOStO

SHOPPING
CtNTER
I

ARDIN SCHOO /
EXPANSION •• 2.0 AC. ······
BARDIN
e.Lf.M e.NT ARY
SCHOOL
BLV . "0"
~
•
® ' ' ··-
.. --··-···.-··-··----•, :d '\------~~$) '----
--- --- --- '
•
• •
EAST AU SAL STRE.E.T E.XTE.NSION 5TORM WATeR DtTtNTION j ~PI..MI BASIN - 1.70 ACRES -··· """0;; :::..- 70:f' RL.-0.5 TOTAL Source: H.D. Peters Co .

A Land Use Planning
and Design Firm
PHA!lE At<!£A ~r ~y LtJlT!> WT!> liJ1l"> llf'll
Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Development Phasing Plan
I
300 I
600 ft.

Figure
31 Flt;Z 1. owe;
I<~
e.~
sri'[et:q
~ .. : ~) ··. : ',:

PI<OPOSE.O
SHOPPINCi
CE.l'!T~ .

Source: H.D. Peters Co.

A Land Uae Planning
and Destgri Firm
NEJ(iHBORHOOO #3
~M acre.

NEJ(iHeORHOOD #.o4- 1~.1 ilcra
NeJGHflORHOOD # 1
ZM acre.·

COMMUNITY
PARK.
2 t .5 N:.. CiiW55
(20.0 N:.. Na)
NEJ(iHflORHOOO
#6

23.11 acru ·
EAST AU5AL 5TI<E.E.T E.XTE:N5ION
PHASE ONE ~ PHASE FOUR ~

PHASE TWO WPM
PHASE IHREE f~§~:;~:f.tf:i:~~
PHASE FIVE f 'X 'X 'X' )1
PHASESIX ~
r
0 a
llJ
llJ
R:

I
1100 ft.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan
Street Phasing Plan
Major Street & Secondary Collectors
Figure
32 F1Ci22.DW4
. ,
TABLE 4
Residential Development Phasing
Phase Area RM- 4.0 Units RL-6.5
Market lnclusionary Units
Units %of 102
1 39.1 ac. 125 30 29% 0
2 * 33.5 ac. 124 30 29% 0
3 36.0 ac. 150 25 25% 0
4 39.4 ac. 0 0 0% 100
5 24.6 ac. 115 17 17% 22
6 27.1 ac. 45 0 6% 60
TOTALS 199.7 ac. 559 102 100% 192
* Completion of the master plan and lawn and irrigation improvements to the community park site will occur prior to completion of phase two .

Source: H.D. Peters Co.

Total
Units
155
154
175
110
154
105
853
The residential development of 751 market rate units and the 102 inclusionary units will also be split into six phases. According to the phasing plan, almost 60% of the inclusionary units will be completed at the end of phase two, and 80% of the inclusionary units will be completed by the end of phase three. The numbers presented in the plan are approximate and may shift from phase to phase when actual subdivision maps are prepared. A parcel map may be recorded to create parcels consistent with the phasing plan which may be separately sold, leased, or financed.

The street phasing plan is illustrated in Figure 32. Phase one includes construction of Boulevard "A", Countryside Drive, Williams Road improvements (one-half width) from Mountain Valley Boulevard to the western boundary of the planning area, and the northern portion of Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Williams Road to the northern intersection of Boulevard "D").

Phase two includes full width improvements to the extension of Freedom Parkway southeast to just beyond Boulevard "A" and Williams Road improvements (one-half width) from Freedom Parkway to Mountain Valley Boulevard. Phase three includes one-half width improvements to the East Alisal Street Extension from Bardin Road to Mountain Valley Boulevard, and the completion of Mountain Valley Boulevard from East Alisal Street to the northern intersection of Boulevard "D". Phase four includes a portion of Freedom Parkway, Boulevard "B", and a portion of Boulevard "D". Phase five includes the remainder of Boulevard "D". Phase six includes completion of one-half width improvements (two lanes) to the East Alisal Street Extension from Mountain Valley Boulevard to Freedom Parkway, completion of the one-half width improvements (two lanes) to Freedom Parkway from Boulevard "B" to the East Alisal Street Extension, and construction of Boulevard "C".

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 69
The public improvements required for each phase of the project, as generally described here and illustrated more precisely in Figure 32, will be included on improvement plans for the phased final maps and included in a subdivision agreement which specifies security for the said public improvements.

Building Permits
Proposed projects may apply for building permits following approval of the Final Map.

Conceptual site plans, floor plans, front yard landscaping, exterior building elevations, and model home complex plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for site plan review prior to the preparation of construction drawings.

3.3 Project Features That Avoid or Lessen Potential
Environmental Impacts
The Precise Plan includes components and designs that lessen or avoid potential environmental impacts. The following design features have been included and analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this Precise Plan.

Land Use, Plans and Policies, and Zoning
• The project sponsor and/or subsequent developers will 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.

Traffic and Circulation
70 • The intersection of Bardin Road at East Alisal Street will be reconfigured between East Alisal Street and Alisal Road in order to accommodate the East Alisal Street extension alon.g the south boundary of the project site. • The project sponsor has completed a Facilities Trip Reduction Plan application.

By taking the allowable reduction percentages, the Mountain Valley project may achieve a total of a 7.5 percent reduction· in vehicle trips. • Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways will be incorporated into the development.

Pedestrian crossing buttons will be incorporated into all new traffic signal installations. The incorporation of pedestrian paths between residential areas and school and park facilities will contribute to pedestrian safety. • Traffic-calming features, such as narrowed streets at intersections and increased landscaping in these areas, will be provided on secondary collector and local streets throughout the planning area.
• The widening of the Williams Road right-of-way includes a 30-foot greenway that would be wide enough to construct a bus turnout should Monterey-Salinas Transit determine that volume warrants its construction.

Section 3.0 Implementation
·.,·
!
._;.

Public Servicesand Utilities
• The project sponsor will 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 Alisal School District.
• The project sponsor will pay the Alisal School District the required school impact fees of $1.93 per square foot of development, which is the state maximum fee. • The project sponsor will pay $639,000 to the Salinas Union High School District as a supplement to the state maximum fee.
• The Precise Plan requires each residential developer on the Mountain Valley project site to pay a fire protection services fee of $140 per unit (indexed on an annual basis from the base year, January 1998) towards the cost of construction, maintenance and operations of Station No. 5.
• The Precise Plan requires payment of a library fee, which is currently $373 per residential unit and is indexed annually, at the time of building permit issuance. • The project includes a 21.5-acre community park, and the project developer will fund, through a landscape maintenance district, annual maintenance of 8.2 acres of the community park, which is the park area required by the City of Salinas General Plan.
• The project sponsor will provide four well lots on the project site for the . construction of four new wells that meet Alco Water Service specifications and will construct a water distribution system.
• The project sponsor will construct a temporary detention basin as part of Phase 1 grading and site preparation, which will detain storm water from Phase 1 and 2.

The project sponsor will construct a permanent detention basin as part of Phase

3. The temporary detention basin will be maintained by the project sponsor, and the permanent detention basin will be maintained by the project developer through a maintenance assessment district.
• The project sponsor will develop a siltation/detention basin management plan to maintain adequate storage volume over the life of the project.

Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
• Prior to the start of project construction, the project sponsor will develop a water conservation plan that meets the requirements of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the City of Salinas, which will include the following:
0 the limitation of turf to 20 percent of the landscaped area of each residential :::~ lot;
Mountain Valley Precise Plan 71
0 the use of low-water use plumbing fixtures and other water-saving devices in project units as specified in City of Salinas Ordinance No. 2123 (or as superceded) or as req~Jired by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Ordinance;
0 the use of hot water recirculating systems;
0 the use of low-capacity turf sprinkler heads;
0 the use of drip irrigation and the provision of drip irrigation equipment kits to residents;
0 the provision of information regarding water conservation, including home and landscaping conservation tips, to residents; and
0 the requirement that no potable water is employed in construction dust control and that hoses used in construction are equipped with shutoff valves. • The project sponsor will 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 Monterey County Water Resources Agency.

Noise
• The project sponsor will construct 6- to 8-foot sound walls along arterial routes surrounding the project's boundary to reduce future traffic noise for ground-level receptors at the project site.

3.4 Additional Conditions of Approval to Avoid or Lessen Potential Environmental Impacts
In addition to the components and designs that are included in the Precise Plan to avoid or lessen potential environmental impacts, as identified in Section 3.3, above, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this Precise Plan included recommended measures to further reduce or avoid environmental impacts. The following measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report will be required as conditions of approval of the Precise Plan:

Traffic and Circulation
72 • To avoid disruption of local traffic during construction, access shall be prohibited via Del Monte Avenue, Argentine Drive, and Countryside Drive. Prior to the start of grading or construction, acceptable access (as determined by the City Public Works Department) shall be provided via Williams Road and/or East Alisal Street extension. In addition, the project sponsor shall prepare, before the start of construction, a construction mitigation plan (subject to approval by the City Public Section 3.0 Implementation
Works Department) that, at a minimum, considers the number of truck trips; time of day and location of any street closures; time of day of arrival and departure of trucks; limitations on the size and type of trucks; provision of a truck staging area, with limitations 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 signing concerning street closures and construction activity; provisions for pedestrian safety; and relocation of Monterey Salinas Transit bus stops, if necessary. • Stop signs shall be installed on all four approaches to the Bardin Road/East Alisal Street Extension intersection, along with clearly marked crosswalks and the use of crossing guards during before- and after-school hours.

Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
• To further reduce water consumption, increased xeriscaping in landscaped areas shall be provided in addition to that proposed in the Precise Plan.

3.5 Financing
Infrastructure to serve the planning area includes parks, water, sanitary sewer, storm drains, and street improvements, including greenways and standard street landscaping.

This section includes various financing methods and a preliminary financing plan.

Gas, cable TV, and electric utilities will be provided through main extension agreements with the developer and the utility companies.

Financing Methods
The techniques relevant to a financing plan are those that permit financial responsibility for the improvements to be assigned to the development. In general, three financing approaches can be applied. These are:
• Developer Dedication or Financing
• Impact Fees
o Special District Financing
All three of these approaches are a means by which the private sector bears the costs of investment in public improvements. They differ in appropriateness for financing project infrastructure and public facilities, in level of public agency involvement, in the methods of securing the actual construction funds, and in implications for project timing.

A financing program for Mountain Valley may include a combination of the three approaches (Recht Hausrath & Associates 1993, revised 1997).

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 73
'
Financing Plan
At this stage of planning, financing strategies are conceptual; however, a preliminary capital improvements program is presented in Table 5. The capital improvements program implements the policies presented in Section 2.0 of the Precise Plan. 74 Section 3.0 Implementation
\,.• ···-·····; 1.. .. :. .. ~ ~.._.., l.,..,..~-~ tAc-'..-~"r; \cH~~ L.c.t.s.:ci~ . ' ~~r.~ ... ~d·~""f TABLE 5
Capital Improvements Program
Improvement Responsible Party Possible When Provided Maintenance Funding Sources Responsibility
Internal Circulation System Developer Assessment District; In conjunction with each City of Salinas (full right-of-way
improvements)
Developer Financing subdivision phase
Major and minor entry fea- Developer Assessment District; In conjunction with each Landscape & Lighting tures, including landscap- Developer Financing subdivision phase District or other appropriate ina financinq method
Williams Road widening Developer dedication of TFO (if improvement is In conjunction with first and Landscape & Lighting (including pavement, half 75' right-of-way, Included ln TFO); second subdivision phases District or other appropriate of the median island and construction of street Assessment district; financing method for 30' greenway) improvements, Developer financing greenway construction of 30'
greenway and one-half of
center median island, as
illustrated in Figure 21
Freedom Parkway Developer dedication of Assessment District; In conjunction with second, Landscape & Lighting I Extension (including pave- 61' right-of-way, Developer financing fourth and sixth subdivision District or other appropriate ment, half of median island construction of street phases financing method for and 20' greenway from improvements, landscape strip and center Williams Road to East Alisal construction of 20' median strip Street) greenway and one-half of
center median island, as
(Full width street construe- illustrated in Figures 19
tion from Williams Road to and 20
Boulevard "A"; half width
street construction from
Boulevard "A" to East Alisal
Street) -----
Table 5 Continued ...

Improvement Responsible Party Possible When Provided Maintenance Funding Sources Responsibility
East Alisal Street Developer dedication of Assessment District; In conjunction with third and Landscape & Lighting Extension (including 61' right-of-way, Developer financing sixth subdivision phases District or other appropriate pavement, half median is- construction of half street financing method for land and 20' greenway improvements, greenway and center from Bardin Road to construction of 20' median strip.

Freedom Parkway) greenway on north side
and one-half of center
median island, as illustrated
in Fiqure 19
Community Park (including Developer land donation of Developer land Land donation at final map City of Salinas responsible lawn and irrigation) 21 .5 gross acres (20 net donation, completion of stage and completion of for maintenance of park. acres); completion of a a preliminary master preliminary master plan and (Landscape and Lighting preliminary master plan and plan, lawn and irrigation lawn and irrigation District or other appropriate lawn and irrigation improvements; City is improvementsduring Phase 2 financing method to improvements; City is responsible for funding of the subdivision. Park shall reimburse City annually for responsible for other other improvements be completed prior to maintenance costs of 8. 7 ! improvements completion of the Phase 4 of acres (or 40%) of park.) the subdivision
Elementary School Developer land donation of Developer land donation Land donation at final map Alisal Union School District 9 acres for Alisal Union and statutory school stage during Phase 1 of the School District; Alisal Union impact fees (for subdivision; impact fees to be I
School District is improvements) to the paid in conjunction with each responsible for Alisal Union School subdivision phase
improvements District; excess school i
impact fees of $639,000
to the Salinas Union
Hioh School District
Additional Recreation Area Allsal Union School District Assessment District; Land sold following adoption Alisal Union School District purchase of 2 acres of Developer Financing of the Precise Plan by the responsible for two acres playground land adjacent City and completion of adjacent to Bardin to Bardin Elementary annexation to the City; Storm Elementary School; School (one acre sold at its Water Detention Basin Landscape and Lighting then fair market value; one improved in conjunction with District or other appropriate acre sold at one-half of the third subdivision phase financing method same fair market value); responsible for Storm
Developer land donation to Water Detention Basin
City and improvements of

1.7 -acre storm water
detention basin in a way
that it can be used as
additional recreation space
.... , t. .. ,.!;,;; \ooo • .-•-...,.$J \ .. ~: .. :,,1 ti!-f.~i#:~~~ i. ,~ ... ;:.;:;;. ( ..... 'i' •• " Table 5 Continued ...

Improvement Responsible Party Possible When Provided Maintenance Funding Sources Responsibility
Storm Water Detention Developer Assessment District; In conjunction with third Landscape & Lighting Basin (including lawn and Developer Financing subdivision phase. (Until that District or other appropriate irrigation) time, storm water will be financing method
directed to an interim
detention basin located at the
intersection of Williams Road
and Freedom Parkway)
Well Sites and Wells • Alco Water Co. Purchase Alco Water Co. In conjunction with Main Alco Water Co. and Construction Extension Agreement with
Alco Water Company:

Well 1: prior' to occupancy of
Phase 1; Wells 2 & 3: prior to
occupancy of Phase 4; Well
4: prior to occupancy of
Phase 5
Water Lines Developer t Assessment District; In conjunction with Main Alco Water Co.

Developer Financing Extension Agreement with
Alco Water Company
Sanitary sewer lines, on- Developer Construction; Assessment District; In conjunction with each City of Salinas site City to provide oversizing Developer Financing; subdivision phase and Sewer Fee credit for
oversizinq
Sanitary sewer lines, off- Developer responsible for Assessment District; In conjunction with each City of Salinas site proportionate share of Developer Financing subdivision phase deficiencies, based on City
nexus analysis
Storm sewer lines and Developer Construction; Assessment District; In conjunction with each City of Salinas catch basins, on-site City to reimburse Developer Financing; subdivision phase oversizing and Storm Sewer Fee
credit for oversizing
Storm sewer lines and Developer responsible for Assessment District; In conjunction with each City of Salinas catch basins, off-site proportionate share of Developer Financing subdivision phase deficiencies, based on City
nexus analysis
TFO: Traffic Fee Ordinance
Improvement of well sites shall be consistent with surrounding neighborhood. In the event that these well sites are not used for a well of cease to be used for that purpose beyond five years from completion of the Mountain Valley Project, they may be used for recreation or residential use, as discussed in Section

2.6.1. :t: Over-sizing of water lines are the responsibility of Alco Water Company Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. and City of Salinas
This side intentionally left blank.
78 Section 3.0 Implementation
·~

4.0 Glo.ssary
Affordable Housing. Dwelling units for which the housing payment is not more than 30 percent of household. gross income for a specified income group.

Conditional Growth Area. Land designated for potential urban development outside the Existing Urban Area, but for which development has not been approved. Approvai will be conditional on ability to meet the environmental standards of the plan.

Density Bonus. An increase in allowable density above base density granted in exchange for provision of affordable or senior housing.

Density. Gross. The number of dwelling units per acre of developable residential land designated on the General Plan map, including public and private streets, but excluding greenways and easements for drainage or power transmission lines.

Density. Net. The number of dwelling units per acre of developable residential land designated on the General Plan map, exclusive of public and private streets, greenways, drainage, power-transmission-line easements, or other public and semipublic uses.

East Salinas Area. That portion of the East Salinas Sector containing the planning area and is defined by a two-mile radius of the corner of Williams and Bardin Roads as studied in a 1995 population data report by National Decision Systems.

East Salinas Sector. That portion of the City to the northeast of Highway 101 and to the southeast of Constitution Boulevard and Natividad Creek as defined by the City of Salinas General Plan.

Greenway. A linear open space in public ownership or permanently open to public use.

G reenways illustrated on the General Plan map are to be landscaped and may include creeks, drainageways, bicycle paths and sidewalks, and recreation facilities.

Greenways are not classified as parks.

Households, Lower-Income. Households with an annual income 80 percent and below the area median family income.

Households, Very-Low-Income. Households with an annual income below 50 percent of the area median family income.
lnclusionary Housing Units. The City of Salinas defines inclusionary housing units as a dwelling unit required to be affordable to lower or very low income households. These units are restricted by covenants, conditions and restrictions, other written documents, or written policy to provide continuous occupancy by lower or very low income households.

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). A commission that acts on all proposals for incorporation of cities, annexation to cities or special districts, consolidation of districts, formation of special districts, and merger of districts with cities.

The Local Agency Formation Commission is composed of two members of the county Mountain Valley Precise Plan 79
Board of Supervisors, two members of dty councils of cities in the county, and one member who represents the general public.

Mono-Culture Disease. A plant disease which afflicts, and can destroy, one species of plant (e.g. Dutch Elm Disease or Spruce Bud-Worm Disease.) Overlay District. A set of zoning requirements that are described in the text of the Zoning Regulations and which are imposed in addition to those requirements of the base district.

Precise Plan. A detailed plan that includes the text and maps or diagrams generally specifying the following for a portion of the area covered by the General Plan:

1. Land use;

2. Distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid-waste disposal, energy, and other public facilities and services:

3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed;

4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public-works projects, financing measures, and other implementing measures required to fully implement the precise plan;

5. The relationship of the precise plan to the adopted General Plan." Sphere of Influence. The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a city and/or special district. Spheres of Influence are adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

Street. Local. A street that provides direct access to properties and designed to discourage through traffic. Referred to in this plan as either "local minor streets" or "local collector streets".
• local minor streets: typically cui-de-sacs and loop streets that connect to local collector streets
• local collector streets: typically feeders to secondary collector streets Street. Major. A street carrying the traffic of local and secondary collector streets to and from other major streets and expressways or freeways, with controlled intersections and direct access to some, but not all properties. Major streets in the planning area include East Alisal Street, Freedom Parkway and Williams Road.

Street. Secondary Collector. A street for traffic moving between major and local streets, generally providing direct access to properties. Secondary collectors within the planning area include Mountain Valley Boulevard, Countryside Drive, and Boulevards "A", "8", "C", and "0".

Xeriscape. A type of landscaping designed to significantly reduce water consumption of the use of minimum turf area, water-conserving plant materials, grouping of plants with similar water requirements, and use of an irrigation system designed to meet plant needs with a minimum use of water.
80 Section 4.0 Glossary
r.
.f '

5.0 Literature Cited/Report Preparation

5.1 Literature Cited
Brown and Caldwell. City of Salinas Sewage and Drainage Master Plan. Pleasant Hill, California. December 1992.

Creegan+ D1Angelo. Sconberg Ranch Water Conservation and Storm Water Plan.

Monterey, California, March 1992.

ESA, Inc. Mountain Valley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. San Francisco~ California. May 1998.

National Decisions Systems. Williams and Bardin Road Population Facts-- Full Data Report. August 11, 1995.

Hausrath Economics Group. Services and Facilities Plan for the Mountain Valley Residential Development. Oakland, California, August 31, 1993, revised September 1997.

Salinas~ City of. Salinas General Plan, Master Environmental Assessment. Salinas, California. November 15, 1988.

Salinas, City of. Salinas General Plan, Plan Policies. Salinas, California. Adopted November 15, 1988.

Salinas I City of. Salinas Zoning Code. Salinas, California. Adopted June 1, 1993.

Salinas, City of. Urban Water Allocation Plan. Salinas, California. February 2, 1994.

5.2 Report Preparation
EMC Planning Group Inc.

Michael J. Groves, AICP, Senior Principal
Project Manager
Teri Wissler, Planning Manager
Report Preparation
Elaine Hansen, Principal Planner
Report Preparation
Mountain Valley Precise Plan 81
Cara Galloway, Senior Planner
Report Preparation, Editing
H.D. Peters Co.

Engineering, Surveying, Land Planning
Virgil Williams
Land Use Plan and Illustrations
Finegan and Cling
Brian Finegan
Land Use Attorney
Shaw Development
William G. Shaw
Project Management
82 Section 5.0 Literature Cited/Report Preparation
'·~
{
·.:..

Appendix A
Applicable City of Salinas General Plan Policies

Appendix A
Appendix A lists City of Salinas General Plan policies that apply to the Mountain Valley Precise Plan and a discussion of how the policies are implemented by the Mountain Valley Precise Plan. The policies are taken from .the General Plan elements addressing city design, land use, open space, circulation, housing, conservation and noise.

Applicable City of Salinas General Plan Policies

2. 2.1.A.

2.1.8. 2.2.8.

City Design Element
Maintain Salinas as a freestanding city with sharply defined edges.

The planning area is located adjacent to and east of the city limits of Salinas. The northern and western boundaries of the planning area are bordered by existing developments or areas that are currently being developed. The eastern and southern boundaries of the planning area are bordered by agricultural fields. The project will allow the retention of the "green frame" provided by surrounding agricultural fields.

Maintain awareness of the open-space setting from within the city by using roadway segments to form the boundary between urban development and open space. Landscape those urban-edge
segments identified in Figure 2.

The extensions of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street will take traffic around, rather than through neighborhoods, and provide a buffer from agricultural operations to the south and east. Figure 2 identifies Williams Road as an arterial for landscape enhancement; therefore, the Precise Plan ensures this landscape treatment.

Establish high standards for pedestrian- and vehicle-circulation networks in Conditional Growth Areas.

Both external improvements, including improvements to Williams Road and extensions of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street, as well as internal improvements are designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic increase generated by development of the planning area. The circulation system of the planning area will be safe and functional, minimize through traffic, and limit long, linear or high speed residential streets.

In addition, Class II bicycle lanes on Mountain Valley Boulevard, Boulevard "A", Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, and East Alisal Street, and sidewalks on all streets shall be included in subdivision improvement plans to encourage non-vehicular modes of
·transportation within the planning area. Also, pedestrian and bicycle Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-1
access throughout the planning area will be facilitated by providing pathways off the ends of cui-de-sacs and between side yards.

2.2.1. Use trees and other street-design components to give each street a distinctive personality.

2.3.8. 2.3.C.

2.3.0. Neighborhoods will be established on the local streets within the planning area. Neighborhood identity shall be reinforced through the planting of no more than three species of street trees within a neighborhood in order to provide a cohesive neighborhood character.

Specific landscape designs and plans will be prepared by a landscape professional for inclusion with tentative map applications.

Entry features, such as special paving, signage, and native tree species, shall be located at the primary entries to the planning area, as described under Streetscape Design in Section 2.2. 1 of this Plan.

Control the amount of variety in housing types and designs to avoid both monotony and visual chaos.

Deviations from the RM and RL zoning standards are incorporated in the Precise Plan in order to gain a higher quality of urban design and to encourage variety and avoid monotony in developments by allowing greater freedom and flexibility with the use of alternative development standards. These may include alternative lot configurations, varied front yards, modified garage locations and orientations, articulated roof lines and facades, and varied finish materials.

Create and preserve identifiable neighborhoods and subneighborhoods.

See discussion for Policy 2.2.1.

Require residential projects to contribute to the quality of the city as seen from arterial, collector, and local streets.

The community park located on Freedom Parkway and bicycle and pedestrian access and green ways/landscape setback areas along Williams Road, Freedom Parkway and East Alisa/ Street will contribute to the appearance of the planning area from major streets outside of the planning area. Within the planning area, landscape treatments, such as street trees and various architectural design techniques, will contribute to the appearance of the development from streets within the planning area.

2.3.F. Encourage simultaneous development at different locations in Conditional Growth Areas with several builders active in each location.

A-2
Development is anticipated to take place in six phases. (The phasing plan is presented in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 31 of this . document.) A parcel map may be recorded to create parcels Appendix A
,\)
consistent with the phasing plan which may pe separately sold, ·teased or financed.

2.3.G. Require architectural variety; different floor plans and massing; -- articulated roofs and facades; and varied siting, setbacks, and finish materials.

See discussion for Policy 2.3.B.

2.3.H. Minimize the use and visual effect of sound-attenuation walls; avoid large parking areas and blank building walls facing streets or adjoining properties.

Sound walls constructed on Williams Road, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street will be softened with landscaping. No large parking areas or blank building walls are planned.

2.3.1. Provide neighborhood-entry points and focal points that create a sense of neighborhood structure.

See discussion for Policy 2.2.1.
-~ 2.3.J. Use distinctive street patterns to differentiate neighborhoods. .. :~
Mountain Valley is proposed as a residential development comprised ., ,.
-"'"
of a series of neighborhoods. The neighborhoods are established I around local minor streets (typically cui-de-sacs and loop streets) that J< connect to local streets (typically feeders to secondary collector streets) that, in turn, connect to secondary collector streets (Mountain 1 Valley Boulevard, and Boulevards "A", "B", "C", and "0"). -~ 2.3.K. Make the hierarchy of streets -- arterial, collector, subcollector, and local street or cul-de-sac -- logical and, therefore, understandable to drivers. Design the street system to minimize the traffic past each house.

The circulation system of the planning area shall be safe and functional, minimize through traffic, and limit long, linear or high speed residential streets. To meet these goals, Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, East Alisal Street, Boulevard'~", and Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Williams Road to Boulevard·~·; shall be non-access, and Mountain Valley Boulevard (from Boulevard·~" to the northern intersection with Boulevard "0') shall have restricted access, as ·. described under Streetscape Design in Section 2.2. 1 of this Plan. In addition, the layout of the circulation system shall enhance a sense of orientation, avoid overly complex curves and numerous cui-de-sacs, and allow for a local street to establish the framework for individual neighborhoods.
-~
~ 2.3.L. Provide a few pedestrian/bike shortcuts that offer a reason not to drive everywhere.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-3
Class II bicycle lanes and pedestrian access will be made available through bicycle/pedestrian corridors throughout the planning area.

Pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the planning area will be facilitated by providing pathways off the ends of cui-de-sacs and between side yards. These pathways will provide pedestrians and bicycles more direct access to public areas, such as the park and school, as well as other neighborhoods within the planning area than would be achieved by driving. These pedestrian and bicycle accessways will essentially be short-cuts to public areas and other neighborhoods within the planning area and should reduce the need to drive more indirect routes to reach these areas.

3. Land Use Element

3.1.A. Minimize disruption of agriculture by maintaining a compact city form and directing urban expansion away from the most productive land.

3.1.C.

3.1.H.

A-4
See discussion for Policies 2. 1.A and 2. 1.8. The planning area is identified as a Conditional Growth Area in the Citis General Plan, and the majority of the planning area is located in the City's Sphere of Influence. The planning area is contiguous with existing development or areas currently under construction to the north and west. In addition, according to the City of Salinas General Plan, the best agricultural/and is to the. south and west of the City. Therefore, development in the eastern portion of the City will avoid the best agricultural/and.

Maintenance of environmental quality, quality of life, and adequate levels and quality of urban services and facilities are goals that take precedence over growth.

The policies and guidelines outlined in this Precise Plan and in the Capita/Improvements Program (Table 5) assure that environmental quality and adequate levels of urban services and facilities will be provided in the planning area. The planning area includes neighborhoods with unique residential design, bike lanes and detached sidewalks on all major streets and secondary collectors, entry features, landscaping, a community park, a school site and additional/and for existing schools. All of these features. will help achieve a high quality of life within the planning area.

Annex Conditional Growth Areas consistent with the General Plan map only after notifying project proponents that satisfaction of General Plan environmental standards will be a condition of development approval.

Demonstrated ability to meet environmental standards will be cause to favor specific annexation proposals.

This Precise Plan represents a detailed development plan for the Mountain Valley planning area and is intended to be used for the purposes of subsequent environmental review. Environmental Appendix A

3.1 .I.
standards of traffic, air, noise, and the like have been identified and discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ways to· meet these standards have also been discussed in the EIR.

Encourage new development to be contiguous to existing urban development.

The planning area is contiguous with planned residential and commercial development, parks, schools, and open space uses to the north and west, as described under Surrounding Land Uses in Section

1.2 of this Plan.

3.1.J. Require all properties in Conditional Growth Areas and adjoining undeveloped land in Existing Urban Area to be included in precise plans (detailed development plans) prior to development or zoning approvals. General Plan proposals for these areas are conceptual.

Consequently, redesign that does not increase traffic generation, change the number or type of housing units, the intensity of nonresidential uses, or the impacts on adjoining areas may be found consistent with the General Plan.

3.3.A.

3.3.8. 3.3.C.

The preparation of this Precise Plan is consistent with the above policy.

Direct residential expansion to the North and East as indicated on the General Plan map.

The planning area proposes additional residential development adjacent to and east of the city limits of Salinas.

Maintain a mix of housing types, designs, and prices throughout the city.

Development of the planning area exclusively with single-family affordable-ownership homes, including 102 inclusionary units, will promote a mix of housing types in the east Salinas area where there is currently a high proportion of multi-family residences and apartments. · · A mix of housing designs will be achieved through alternative lot configurations, reduced front yard setbacks, modified garage locations and orientations, articulated roof lines and facades, and varied finish materials.

Maintain the single-family residential character of Salinas by limiting the share of multifamily units to be built in Conditional Growth Areas.

Development of the planning area exclusively with single-family affordable-ownership homes will increase the percentage of singlefamily for sale units in the east Salinas area and decrease the percentage of multi-family residential units and apartments in the east Salinas area.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-5

3.3.K.

3.9.1.A.

3.9.1.8. 3.9.1.C.

3.9.1.0. A-6
In each precise plan area, the goal is to include a total number of units equal to a mix of 55 percent low-density (single-family detached), 10 percent medium-density, and 35 percent high-density (apartments).

The mix of housing types may vary slightly from this standard so long as the total number of units and project impacts remains the same.

The General Plan states that this policy is intended to ensure that the majority of new development will be detached single-family homes.

This is particularly important in the east Salinas area, where the majority of housing units are renter-occupied and almost half of all households are attached units. This project does not include highdensity apartments, which would add to the already high number of these types of residences in the east Salinas area. However, the development of the planning area exclusively with single-family homes, at both low- and medium-density, achieves the intent of ensuring that the majority of new development is single-family homes.

Coordinate urban planning with all Salinas school districts.

The policies outlined in this Precise Plan reflect an agreement with the Salinas Union High School District and the Alisal Union School District.

The agreement includes land donation; statutory school impact fee payment by the developer; and additional fee payment.

Assist school districts in obtaining land needed for new school sites.

A nine-acre elementary school site will be donated by the propertY owner for the construction of an elementary school by the .Aiisal Union School District. The property owner will also sell the District two acres of land adjacent to the existing Bardin Elementary School for additional recreational space.

Consider impacts of proposed projects on school enrollment and facilities when acting on development applications.

Impacts on school enrollment and facilities have been considered and will be mitigated. by land donation for a new elementary school, additional/and for Bardin Elementary School, payment of statutory school impact fees, and payment of excess school impact fees.

Reduce minority isolation by mixing housing types and prices in new development areas and minimizing further enrollment increases in East Salinas schools by reducing residential densities.

The Precise Plan provides 853 single-family affordable housing units, including 102 lower-income housing units. Development of the planning area exclusively with affordable single-family for sale homes will increase the percentage of single-family for sale units in the east Salinas area and, therefore, lower the overall population density in the east Salinas area. Elementary school enrollment in existing schools Appendix A
.... ·;

3.9.1.E.
will not increase due to the provision for a new elementary school in the planning area that is capable of accommodating 900 students.

Cooperate with all school districts in planning for parks and recreation facilities to maximize community recreation opportunities (See Open Space Element policies 4.3.1.G. and 4.3.1.0).

See discussion for Policy 3.9.C.

4. 4.2.8
Open Space Element

4.2.C

4.2.0. 4.3.1.1.

Minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban uses.

The extensions of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street will provide a buffer from agricultural operations to the south and east. An earth berm will be constructed east of the Freedom Parkway extension and south of the East Alisal Street Extension to control agricultural run-off from entering Freedom Parkway and the planning area from the east and south. Also, the medians constructed on these two roads will contain a storm water interceptor swale to control agricultural run-off from entering the residential community and urban run-off from cOntaminating the agricultural operations.

In addition, all prospective home and site purchasers will be provided with a copy of an agricultural use disclosure notice ("Agricultural Acknowledgment") that will protect farmers from nuisance complaints.

Where feasible, bound the urban area with an arterial road.

The planning area will be bounded by major streets: East Alisal Street, Freedom Parkway and Williams Road. These roads wi/1 collect traffic from the local streets and secondary collector streets running through the planning area.

Provide a permanent agricultural buffer as part of residential developments intended by the General Plan to form a permanent urban edge. The purpose is to mitigate the adverse impacts of residential use on adjoining agricultural operations.

See discussion for Policy 4.2.8.

Locate neighborhood parks within 3/8 mile of all homes. The minimum size for new neighborhood parks is five acres unless adjoining a cooperatively planned elementary school, in which case thr.ee acres may be acceptable.

The Salinas General Plan calls for a Community Park in this area of the City. The Community Park provided in the planning area would be the main focus of park development, and, therefore, no neighborhood parks would be provided. Although no actual neighborhood parks are Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-7

4.3.1.J

4.3.1.0. 4.3.2.A.

4.4.A.

A-8
provided, the two acres set aside for Bardin Elementary School Expansion and the storm water detention basin will serve as additional recreation areas.

Establish 20 acres as a minimum size for community parks; locate community parks within 1.5 miles of all households.

An area of 20 net acres has been designated for a community park to be located within 1.5 miles of all households in the northeastern portion of the planning area along the extension of Freedom Parkway. The property owners propose to donate the full 20+ acres to the City and to assist in the development of the park by completing a preliminary master plan and installing lawn and irrigation improvements in the park in exchange for the City waiving the City park fees required for development of the property.

Explore use of school facilities, including sharing of costs of school site expansions, as an alternative to acquiring separate park sites.

The A/isal Union School District will be allowed joint use, for additional recreation/playground purposes, of two acres of the City~owned community park. The developer will also sell the Alisal Union School District two acres of additional playground space adjacent to the existing Bardin Elementary School. In addition, the developer will construct a storm water detention basin on a separate, but adjacent,

1. 7-acre site east of the Bardin Elementary School in a way that it can also be used for additional recreational space.

Require new residential development to provide land and or fees to achieve a minimum of three acres per 1 ,000 population for developed public parklands for community or neighborhood parks.

The parkland required for the planning area, based on 3.21 persons per household in the City of Salinas as a whole (1990 U. S. Census information) is approximately 8.2 acres or the equivalent in fees. The sponsors/ property owners have agreed to provide 21.5 gross acres (20 net acres) for a community park.

Maintain open areas needed to retain storm water and prevent flooding on urban or agricultural land.

A 1. 7-acre storm water detention basin shall be located in the southwestern corner of the planning area. This basin will receive most of the storm water run-off generated within the planning area. (The detention basin shall be constructed by the developer iri Phase 3. Until that time, storm water will be directed to an interim detention basin located at the intersection of Williams Road and Freedom Boulevard.) Storm drainage mains and catch basins shall be installed throughout the planning area. An earth berm shall be constructed east of the Freedom Parkway extension and south of the East Alisal Street Extension to control agricultural run-off from entering Freedom Appendix A
·~
.· .. ~

4.4.8. 4.4.F.

Parkway and the planning area from the east and south. In addition, the medians constructed on these two roads will contain a storm water interceptor swale.

Locate and design retention areas to contribute to the visual quality of the city's open space system.

The storm water detention basin described in the discussion for Policy

4.4.A will be designed to contribute to the visual quality of the city's open space system.

Require dedication, improvement and maintenance of storm water flow and retention areas as a condition of development approval.

See discussion for Policy 4.4.A and discussion of maintenance in the Capita/Improvements Program (Table 5).

5. Circulation Element

5.1.A.

5.1.0. Strive to maintain traffic LOS C or better as the standard for all intersections and roadways in Conditional Growth Areas as mapped in Figure 1.

Level of Service (LOS) issues have been addressed in the Environmental Impact Report.

Transportation improvements or fees for transportation improvements that are required to be provided by the development of the planning area to mitigate off-site transportation impacts are part of a transportation monitoring program that includes trigger mechanisms for timing of the improvements or fees. Until each phase of the project is completed, an annual report to the City will be produced that documents the project's trip generation and demonstrates compliance with conditions of approval related to traffic and transportation.

Estimate the cost of needed street improvements and determine the share to be financed by State/County/City funds and the share to be financed by private development projects. Establish a formal process for evaluating traffic impacts of development proposals and a method for determining each project's share of circulation system improvement costs. Treat landscaping as an integral part of these costs.

The Precise Plan Capita/Improvements Program (Table 5) and the Transportation Improvement Program (Appendix B) describe the funds required for installation and maintenance of transportation improvements. Cost estimates for the transportation improvements have been determined in the Plan for Services. These improvements include greenways, sound walls, sidewalks, medians, and temporary storm water retention swa/es.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-9

5.1.G. To the extent feasible, implement improvements prior to deterioration in levels of service below the LOS C standard of Policy 5.1.A and the one-hour LOS 0 standard described in Policy 5.1.8.

See discussion for Policy 5. 1.A.

5.1.1. Approve development projects following determination that traffic improvements serving the development and necessary to maintain LOS standards will be constructed in time to accommodate trips generated by the project.

See discussion for Policy 5. 1.A. In addition, this Precise Plan includes a Vehicle Trip Reduction Plan. Traffic standards, and ways to meet these standards, have been identified and discussed in the Environmental Impact Report.

5.1.J. Require all projects for which approval is granted by phase or for which construction and occupancy will extend over a period longer than two years to submit an annual report to the City documenting the project's trip generation and demonstrating compliance with conditions of approval related to traffic and transportation.

Until each phase of the project is completed, an annual trip generation and compliance report will be produced for the City. This monitoring program is included in the Transportation Improvement Program as Appendix 8 of this plan.

5.2.1. In Conditional Growth Areas, require driveway and intersections on arterial streets to serve 20 or more housing units.

The planning area will have a total of five intersections with major (arterial) streets, including two intersections with East Alisal Street, two intersections with Freedom Parkway and one intersection with Williams Road. Each of these intersections will serve more than 20 units.

5.2.J. Combine driveways serving small parcels and maintain adequate distances between driveways and intersections to permit safe merging.

5.3.A.

A-10
As discussed in Section 2.2. 1 of this Plan, subdivision map lot design shall provide shared driveways. Distances between driveways and intersections will be designed to permit safe merging.

Maintain neighborhood livability by designing future local residential streets for volumes of 500 to 800 vehicles or less per day and residential collector streets for volumes less than 3,000 vehicles per day.

The Environmental Impact Report verifies that the number of trips anticipated on the secondary collector streets will be less than 3, 000 vehicles per day. In addition, the Precise Plan encourages curvilinear streets and knuckles and cui-de-sacs on straight streets to be Appendix A
··i
r'i''
~
l.
ff
Ji:
i
~[
~-
~l
_j
..
~
~ ;-i
l
· .. ~ '

5.3.0. 5.4.A.

5.5.C.

5.5.0. 5.5.G.

5.7.F.
introduced as a way to limit the length. of straight stretches, discourage short-cuts, and reduce through traffic on residential streets.

Consider limiting driveway access to collector streets where traffic volumes will approach or exceed the standard.

Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, East Alisal Street, Boulevard ''A", and Mountain Valley Boulevard from Williams Road to Boulevard 'j4" shall be non-access, and Mountain Valley Boulevard from Boulevard "A" to the northern intersection with Boulevard D shall have restricted access, as described under Streetscape Design in Section 2.2. 1 of this Plan. It is anticipated that traffic volumes on these secondary collector streets will approach or exceed the standard.

Support Monterey-Salinas Transit's short-range goals and guidelines for service expansion.

The proposed project includes sufficient right-of-way dedication on Williams Road for a bus turn out (shquld a bus turn out be deemed necessary by Monterey-Salinas Transit).

Improve the biking and walking environment by providing safe and attractive walkways, bike lanes and bike paths.

The installation of Class II bicycle lanes along Mountain Valley Boulevard, Boulevard "A", Williams Road, Freedom Parkway, and East Alisal Street, and five- to eight-foot sidewalks on all streets are included. Sidewalks on Williams Road, Freedom Boulevard and East Alisal Street will be included in a greenway consisting of street trees and other landscaping.

Require sidewalks on both sides of all streets except where an adjoining greenway includes a pedestrian path.

Sidewalks will be included on both sides of all streets in the planning area. Sidewalks willbe ,included in green ways along Williams Road, Freedom Boulevard and East A/isal Street.

Provide sidewalks or pedestrian paths with a minimum width of four feet (exclusive of curb) where pedestrian traffic is light, and ten feet where pedestrian activity is more concentrated. Curb cuts should provide accessibility for people in wheelchairs.

Sidewalks will range from five feet to eight feet. The sidewalks will include curb cuts for wheelchair accessibility.

As a condition of subdivision approval of projects within the Airport Local Area of Influence (Figure 7), require dedication of an avigation easement.

Mountain V?,lleX Precise Plan ,/1 ,,/ ·//!
A-11

5.7 G.

The southern portion of the planning area is located within the Airport Local Area of Influence. All residential development within this area of influence will require dedication of an avigation easement to protect the airport from future complaints and lawsuits about overflights.

As a condition of residential subdivision approval in or adjoining the Airport Local Area of Influence, require dedication of a buffer and nonaccess strip as indicated on the General Plan map adjoining land designated for agricultural use.

The extensions of Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street will provide a buffer from agricultural operations to the south and east.

6. Housing Element

6.1 .A. Participate in programs assisting in the production and conservation of housing affordable by very-low-, low- and moderate-income households.

6.1.8. 6.1.C.

6.1.N.

A-12
The Precise Plan provides 853 single-family affordable housing units, including 102 inc/usionary housing units which will be deed-restricted to lower-income households. The 102 inclusionary housing units will be available in perpetuity only for lower-income households.

Ensure that units produced for very-low-, low- and moderate-income households are made available to those groups and maintained as affordable units.

See discussion for Policy 6. 1.A.

Provide for a geographic dispersal of units affordable by very-low-, lowand moderate-income households throughout the City of Salinas.

To avoid a concentration of inclusionary homes in one area of the development, required inclusionary housing units will be interspersed with market rate homes throughout the RM-4 zone. Small groupings (10 to 30 lots) of exclusively 4,000 square foot lots (containing both incfusionary and market rate homes) and small groupings of 4,500 square foot lots may be considered. However, within a given grouping of 4,000 square foot lots, no more than approximately half of the units will be designated as required inclusionary units, and these will be dispersed throughout the grouping. In addition, any proposed groupings of 4,000 square foot and 4,500 square foot lots will be evenly spread throughout the RM-4 zone.

All new residential developments of 1 0 or more units shall be required to provide a minimum of 12 percent of their units as housing affordable to households of low- or very-low-income. Projects of 10 to 19 units shall be required to provide one affordable housing unit.

Appendix A
·'
·~
..
~ .
_j_
I
J;fl
'"'.
'.\!
,,
~
'

6.2.A.

6.3.8. 6.3.C.

6.3.E.

6.5.C.

6.6.C.

The proposed project includes development of 853 affordable singlefamily homes. Of these homes, 102 units, or 12 percent, will be inclusionary housing units.

Encourage the development of affordable-housing units with three or more bedrooms.

All of the 102 inclusionary housing units will contain three or four bedrooms. There will be 31 three-bedroom units and 71 four-bedroom units.

Ensure that new residential development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

The planning area is contiguous with single- and multi-family residential housing to the north and west. The affordable single-family units within the planning area will be compatible with surrounding residential development.

Encourage a variety of housing types to be built on residential sites to increase choice for Salinas households.

There is a low percentage of single-family units and a high percentage of multi-family residential units and apartments in the East Salinas area. The planning area will be developed exclusively with one- and two-story, three- and four-bedroom homes. The project will assist in creating affordable, single-family ownership housing and will increase the choice in housing types in the East Salinas area.

Prepare and adopt Precise Plans for all Conditional Growth Areas prior to approval of any development.

The preparation of this Precise Plan is consistent with the above policy.

Provide public services and improvements that enhance and create neighborhood stability.

The new elementary school site, community park site, and addition to Bardin School are intended to enhance the sense of community and lead to longer-term residents within the planning area.

Ensure that adequate provisions are made in new development for families with children, including provisions for amenities such as tot lots and play yards.

Recreational areas for children will be available at the new elementary school, additional playground space adjacent to Bardin Elementary School, the storm water detention area, and the community park, as well as in the usable open space provided on each residential lot.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-13

6.7.A.

6.7.C.

Encourage development and construction stand!=irds that encourage energy conservation in residential uses.

The residential design guidelines outlined in this Precise Plan state that design techniques within individual residential units should be utilized to encourage energy efficiency. Alternative methods in cooling and heating of homes should also be utilized, such as planting deciduous trees for passive capture of solar heat in winter and shading for cooling in summer.

In new development areas, continue to encourage land-use arrangements and densities that facilitate energy-efficient public-transit systems.

The proposed project will provide public information of ride sharing and public transportation, printed transit schedules, bus pull-outs (as necessary on Williams Road), and transportation information centers.

7. Conservation Element

7.1.F. Investigate the potential for groundwater recharge through creek beds and catch basins in Conditional Growth Areas.

7.1.0. The storm water detention basin located in the southwestern corner of the planning area will receive most of the storm water run-off generated within the planning area. In addition, storm drainage and catch basins shall be installed throughout the planning area.

Encourage reduction in vehicle-trips through Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and the use of non-polluting forms of
transportation, including bicycles, and walking.

The vehicle trip reduction plan that is incorporated into this Precise Plan outlines a 7.5 percent reduction in the expected number of vehicle trips by providing public information of ride sharing and public transportation, printed transit schedules, bicycle amenities, bus pullouts, transportation information centers, and pedestrian facilities.

B. Safety Element

8.2.A. Provide storm-water retention capacity consistent with Reclamation Ditch capacity to avoid damage to urban development in a 1 00-year flood.

8.2.C. Design projects in new development areas so as to avoid increasing flood hazard elsewhere.

See discussion for Policy 4.4.A.

A-14 Appendix A
J

8.3.E.

9. 9.8.

9.C.

9.0. 9.G.

9.H.

Use subdivision and zoning regulations to require street widths and clearance areas sufficient to accommodate fire protection equipment and emergency vehicles.

Alternative development standards will not affect street widths or clearance areas required to accommodate fire protection equipment and emergency vehicles.

Noise Element
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.

Sound walls will be constructed on Williams Road, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street, as illustrated in Figures 19, 20 and 21. Street landscaping with trees and shrubs will help to obscure these sound walls from public view and will also decrease street noise along these roads, as well as noise levels along local streets and secondary collector streets within the planning area.

Locate urban development within the Salinas Municipal Airport 11 area of influence~~ to be compatible with the airport noise environment.

See discussion for Policy 5. 7.F.

Require noise-attenuation measures including measures to shield sensitive uses from noise sources for new developments exposed to noise levels above normally acceptable levels. Where practical, encourage noise-attenuating programs that avoid visible sound walls.

It is not antiCipated that residents will experience noise levels above the acceptable limits defined by the City of Salinas and State of California. Street landscaping and front yard setbacks should reduce the sound level along most local streets in the planning area. It is not practical to avoid sound walls along Williams Road, Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street. These walls will be obscured from public view by tree and shrub plantings.

Require construction of sound attenuation walls for new development where noise mitigation to acceptable levels by other means is not feasible. Require that the effects of the construction of sound walls on noise levels at other areas be considered and taken into account in the design and location of sound walls. Require landscaping adjacent to such walls to soften their visual impact.

See discussion for Policy 9.8.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan A-15

9.K. Ensure that new deve.lopment or changes in use mitigate noise to acceptable levels at the property line.

See discussion for Policy 9.8.

A-16 Appendix A
!
"""'
Appendix B
Transportation Improvement Program

•·
1 .~
j
i
l
' ·~
Appendix 8
In compliance with Salinas General Plan Policy 5.1.J., until each phase of the project is completed, an annual report to the City will be produced that documents the project's trip generation and demonstrates compliance with conditions of approval related to traffic and transportation.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 8-1
This side intentionally left blank.
8-2 Appendix 8
..:-.
·-~
Appendix C
Affordable Housing Program

Appendix C
This appendix constitutes the Affordable Housing Component for the Mountain Valley Planning Area. It includes a discussion of income categories in the City of Salinas and summarizes the Affordable Housing Programs for the City of Salinas and the Mountain Valley Planning Area. ·
Mountain Valley Affordable Housing Component
Affordable Housing in the City of Salinas
As with other communities in the State of California, the City of Salinas has had difficulties in assuring the provision of affordable housing for its residents. Many lowincome households pay more than 40 percent of their income for housing or are living in overcrowded conditions. About 40 percent of Salinas households are considered low- and very-low income hbuseholds; 23 percent of the City's households are moderate income households. Only 37 percent of Salinas households have above moderate incomes (Salinas General Plan, Housing Element 1991). The comparative income levels for these household groups are summarized in Table C-1.

Affordable housing is defined as dwelling units for which the housing payment is not more than 30 percent of household gross income for a specified income group (Salinas General Plan 1991 ). Of particular concern is the provision of housing that is affordable to very low- and low-income households. As presented in Table C-2, the City determines the affordability of housing based upon the number of people in the household.

TABLE C-1
Hous~hold Income Categories
Category Income Definition Per.cent of Salinas
Households in Category
Very Low Income Up to 50% of County Median 22%
Income
Low Income 51% to 80% of County 18%
Median Income
Moderate Income 81% to 120% of County 23%
Median Income
Above Moderate Income Above 120% of County 37%
Median Income
Source: Salinas General Plan, 1991 Housing Element
Mountain Valley Precise Plan C-1
TABLE C-2
Family Incomes for Low and Very-Low Income Households
Salinas Metropolitan Statistical Area
Family Size Low Income Family Very-Low Income
(Persons) (51 to 80% of Median) Household {50% of
Median and Below)
1 $25,350 $15,850
2 $29,000 $18,100
3 $32,600 $20,400
4 $36,250 $22,650
5 $39,150 $24,450
6 $42,050 $26,250
7 $44,950 $28,100
8 $47,850 $29,900
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Notice PDR-95-05 issued December i 4, 1995
Transmittal of Fiscal Year 1996 Public Housing/Income Limits City of Salinas Housing Element Affordable Housing Program Guiding Policies for Affordable Housing
The guiding policies of the City of Salinas' Affordable Housing Program are focused on encouraging the development of units that are affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households:
a. Participate in programs assisting in the production of housing affordable by very low-, low-, and moderate-income households;
b. Ensure that units produced for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households are made available to those groups and maintained as affordable units; and
c. Provide for a geographic dispersal of units affordable by very low-, low- and moderate-income households throughout the City of Salinas.

One program that Salinas is implementing to achieve its affordable housing objectives is the required preparation of an affordable housing plan for new housing C-2 Appendix C
•_-.:,
developments with ten or more units. The Mountain Valley Affordable Housing Program is described in the next section.

Affordable Housing Program
This program establishes guidance and incentives to developers of new housing to provide adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and very-low income households. Specifically, the affordable housing program includes the following component:
• A mandate of providing 12 percent of all new housing affordable to households of low- or very low- income, as per Ordinance No. 2178(NCS); and
This Affordable Housing Plan for Mountain Valley will be prepared in compliance with the City's Guiding Policies For Affordable Housing and Implementing Policy 6.1.N and Ordinance 2178.

Quantified Objectives for Housing Program
The City's guiding policies and regulations require a minimum of 12 percent of new units in development projects with more than 1 0 units to be housing affordable to households of low- or very-low-income. Mountain Valley will construct 12 percent (1 02 units) of the dwelling units as housing units affordable to low-income households. These 102 units are referred to as 11 inclusionary units11 as defined in Section 17-8.K. of the City lnclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Mountain Valley Affordable Housing Program
Affordable Housing Program Activities
Mountain Valley will have a minimum of 102 inclusionary housing units affordable to lower income households. This represents 12 percent of the total 853 units proposed. lnclusionary units shall be provided in compliance with the City of Salinas lnclusionary Housing Program Guidelines as adopted by City Council Resolution 14618, and as amended from time to time.

An Affordable Housing Plan will be prepared to specify the number, type, location, and all other elements required by Ordinance 2178. The Affordable Housing Plan will be considered by the City concurrent with consideration of the tentative map.

The Affordable Housing Plan will address the phasing plan and deed restrictions for the affordable housing units within that tentative map. The Affordable Housing Plan will require certificates of occupancy to be issued for required inclusionary units before issuance of city building permits for any more than 30 percent of the project's market rate units. lnclusionary units will be provided in an amount corresponding to the phasing so that no more than 30 percent of the building permits for each phase's market rate units will be issued prior to completion of inclusionary units required for that phase.

Mountain Valley Precise Plan C-3
Table C-3 identifies the size and number of inclusionary housing units to be developed within the planning area. The affordable housing units will be developed with a lot size of 4,000 square feet and will be interspersed amongst the neighborhoods (except neighborhood 6). In any grouping of 4,000 square foot lots, no more than approximately half of the units will be designated as required inclusionary units, and these will be dispersed throughout the grouping. The pace in which these units will be constructed relative to the market rate units and the method of compliance with affordability requirements (i.e., assurance of affordability, resale, etc.) will be based on the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (and subsequent amendments thereto) and by agreement between the City and project sponsor.

TABLE C-3
lnclusionary Housing Unit Mix
Unit Size Number of
Units
Three Bedrooms 31
Four Bedrooms 71
Total Units 102
Source: Shaw Development ...

Housing Subsidy Program
Financing program sources will be required to provide the necessary housing subsidies to finance the 102 housing units affordable to lower income households.

There are a number of ways to reduce the cost of home development in order to provide affordable units.

Both private and public subsidy programs will need to be considered in order to make affordable units financially feasible. Examples of private subsidies are: belowmarket financing provided by lenders (such as programs to meet Community Reinvestment Act obligations); support from foundations; and "internal project subsidies" such as lowered profit margins on affordable units and reduced land or infrastructure costs. These programs will provide subsidies to assist homeowners (i.e., first-time home buyer programs, etc.).

It will be necessary for developers of Mountain Valley to determine the utility and eligibility for each program discussed below, as well as for new programs as they become available.

C-4 Appendix C
• .a,
State Housing Subsidy Sources
ManY of the state sources are administered by either a non-profit organization, or a local public agency. In turn, some of the funding for the state programs are partially financed by federal funding. However, the proportion of federal funding of affordable housing programs have been declining in the past few years. As a result, state programs have taken on more responsibility in providing affordable housing subsidies.

Home Ownership Home Improvement Program
This program is administered by the California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA).

CHFA issues tax-exempt bonds to provide low interest financing for home purchase or rehabilitation by households in areas with a shortage of reasonably priced mortgage money. Private for-profit and non-profit sponsors of new construction are eligible to receive loan commitments through this program.

California Home Ownership Assistance Program (CHAP)
CHAP Funds are used to pay for up to 49 percent of a home in return for equity participation commitments for funds that can be made available to non-profit and forprofit developers of new construction. Local government agencies may apply for funds through this state program, and direct assistance to households with incomes of 80 percent of the area median income or less .

Mountain Valley Precise Plan C-5
This side intentionally left blank.

C-6 AppendixC
Appendix D
Facilities Trip Reduction Program
--~
J
:)

. ..,
..
'·
·-~
Appendix D
This appendix includes the project sponsor's Vehicle Trip Reduction Plan Application as submitted to the City of Salinas, as well as a description of bicycle rack locations to be provided at the project (Attachment A) .

Mountain Valley Precise Plan 0-1
This side intentionally left blank.
0-2 Appendix 0
FACILITIES TRIP REDUCTION PLAN APPLICATION . . City of Salinas • Department of Community Development • 200 Uncoln Avenue • Salinas, CA 93901. • (408) 758·7~06 To be completed by applicant:

Project/Business Name: Mo~nt~in Vall~~ ErecJse Plan
I Name & Location Address: ~"lilliams Road 2.nd Freedom Parl<VTa:;l Assessor Parcel Number(s): 153-011-035 a no 153-011-621 I Name: Sconeberg Ranch Partnership
Applicant Address: P.O. Box 5969
,.~ City: Salinas State: CA Zip Code: 939]5
Phone: ( ) FAX: ( )
~
I~ Name: Bill Shaw c(_o Shaw.Dev~lopment
-;;.' 0 Property Owner or Address: 325.East Alisal St, Suite A :'3 1" []I Authorized Agent City: State: CA Zip Code: 93901 lj Salinas
Phone: ( 4013 ) '??~-1911 FAX: (408 I
I 422-5533 !

11. To be completed by applicant:
:Jiinas Municipal Code Section 37-165.1, Vehicle trip reduction, requires a 7 percent reduction in the expected number ul vehicle trips. How this is achieved depends on which vehicle trip reduction measures are selected by the applicanr. From the following rabies, select those vehicle trip reduction measures which you intend to utilize. Select any combination of easures !hat will result in a total reduction of 7 percent or more. Each measure selected is subject to approval by the __ ommunity Development Director.

Vehicle Trip
[[ Reduction Measure Applicant Conditions Reduction Total(%) .. (Residential) (%) . •
11:

Provide ridesharing, public transportation and nearby
(within one mile) licensed child care facilities
·~ Public information information to tenants/buyers as a part of move-in 1.0% materials. An information packet must be provided 1. 0"/o 1r as part of the project's development approval
process.
lr
Print transit schedule information on all promotional
Printed transit materials for the project. Printed transit schedules .5% schedules shall be provided as part of the project's 0.5% II
development approval process.

I
Vehicle Trip
~eduction Measure
(Commercial, Applicant Conditions Reduction Total(%)
Industrial and (%)
Tourist Oriented
Development)
Child care facilities
Provide on-site child care facilities for children of 1.0% customers and/or employees.

Transit scheduling Provide transit scheduling information quarterly to 1.0% information employees. 1 . Proposed development/use adjacent to bicycle 1 . 2.0% lanes. 2. Proposed development/use adjacent to Bicycle amenities bicycle lanes, showers provided and site is located within 4 miles of one-half of the City's residential 2. 4.0% areas.

Bus pull-outs Provide bus pull-outs, pedestrian access and transit 2.0% stops.

Provide transit subsidy program for employees that
Bus subsidy reduces the cost of a monthly bus pass by 50% from 4.0% standard group rate.

Provide locked and secured transportation
Transportation information centers or kiosks with bus schedules and 1.0% information centers transit information if agreement is reached with transit agency for maintenance of information.

Provide Pedestrian facilities linking transit stops to
Pedestrian facilities employment site entrances provided such pedestrian 1.0% facilities do not exceed one-quarter mile.

Other pedestrian Pedestrian and bicycle system improvements beyond Varies facilities above related measures. (Note: Attach description).

Provide site amenities that reduce the need for
Other site amenities vehicle trips based on documentation of trip 1 .0 - 2.0% reduction. (Note: Attach description).

Park-and-ride Provide park-and-ride facilities if part of an employee 1.0% sponsored rideshare program.

Transportation system Provide a local transportation system management program to reduce on-site trips based on 5.0% management program documentation of expected trio reduction.

Provide mixed uses that reduce the length and
number of vehicle trips. Project must consist of
neighborhood serving retail commercial that has at

Mixed uses
least five acres of high density residential housing
within one-quarter mile of the perimeter of the 5.0%
commercial site. (Note: Similar trip reduction
measures listed elsewhere cannot be counted toward
the required vehicle trip reduction).
.J - Vehicle Trip
Reduction Measure Applicant Conditions Reduction Total (o/o) ~1 (Residential) (%)
l Bike lanes must be provided adjacent to the project
and must tie into a citvwide system and provide aicyc:le ~;~meni~ies bicycle access to schools, employment centers and 2.0% 2. 0'/o .J shopping within 2 miles .

Facilities or measures which go beyond those listed I
I Other bicycle amenities above and which facilitate increased non-vehicular 1.0% trips. (Note: Atrach descn'ptionJ 1.0%
Provide bus pull-outs, convenient pedestrian access
Bus pull-outs to bus stops and other related amenities to 2.0% encourage transit usage for those portions of the 2 .0'/o development within one-quarter mile of a bus stop.

Provide locked and secured transportation
Transportation into·rmation centers or kiosks with bus schedules and transit information as a part of the common area of .5% 0.5% ~ information centers the development if agreement is reached with transit agency for maintenance of ·information.
-....
. ~
p Provide pedestrian facilities linking transit stops to Pedestrian facilities .5% 0.5% common areas.

Park-and-ride Provide park-and-ride facilities if part of an on-site 1.0% >5o trip reduction program.

Provide on-site child care facilities based on the
~ Child care facilities capacity of the center and marketing data on 1.0% expected use.
. Telecommuting Provide facilities to encourage telecommuting such 1% ,• as a telecommuting center.

Provide mixed uses that reduce the length and
number of vehicle trips. Project must consist of at
least five acres of high density housing within one- ; 5.0% of quarter mile of neighborhood commercial Mixed uses development and have convenient pedestrian access. combined
(Note: Similar trip reduction measures listed trips
elsewhere cannot be counted toward the required
vehicle trip reduction).

Residential development with at least 35 percent of
the project in high density housing <1nd clustered 5.0% of Transit-oriented design within one-quarter mile of bus ';tops on a major high density ;. arterial with conven1em pedestrian access to transit housing and neighborhood shopping.

Other measures supported by documented data of
Other trip reductions in other developments. fNote: Attach Varies descn'ption). ·-- ··-------· ..

RESIDENTIAL TOTAL (Must total I percent or more) I 7.5% I - it ,, Vehicle Trip II ) Reduction Measure I
i (Commercial, Applicant Conditions R~duction Total (%) I Industrial and (%) I Tourist Oriented
I Development) I
I Educational and Provide educational and marketing strategies to I marketing customers and employees to reduce vehicle trips. 1.0% t p.,ferential parking for Provide preferential parking for employees who
carpool. Sites must be closest to building entrances, 3.0% carpools used only be carpoolers and represent at least 3 percent of the total parking spaces.

Provide facilities to encourage telecommuting if
I Telecommuting telecommute center could accommodate one percent 1.0% of employees at an off-site neighborhood location.

Provide on-site ATMs, restaurants, dry cleaners, 1.0% per grocery and other typically needed services to reduce service. If On-site services travel. linked to
transit,

1.0% for
development
Other Other measures supported by documented data of Varies trip reductions in other developments.

COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND TOURIST ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT TOTAL (Must total 7 percent or more) CJ
Ill. To be completed by applicant:
!/we declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Application, including any documents submitted herewith, are true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge. !/we further declare that !/we agree to the Standard Permit Conditions contained in Information Bulletin No. 9, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference, as published by the Department of Community Development.

Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Property Owner or Dine Authorized Agent
Bill Shaw
IV. To be completed by the Department of Community Development:

Approved by: ___________________ _ Fee paid: $
----- Date:-----
Comments:

November 1993 Ale: TRIP
Attachment A
Other Bicycle Amenities
(Facilities or measures which facilitate increased non-vehicular trips) Bicycle racks will be provided at the following project site locations:
• The bus stop on Williams Road
• The community park site
• New elementary school site

j
...!
Appendix E
Mitigation Monitoring Program

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM - MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT Approved by City Council February 2, 1999
(Note that this is only a summary of mitigation measures identified in the environmental impact report. Please refer to that document for a more complete description of mitigation measures.)
Mrnc;ATION MEASilltt:S
NUMDEit MEASURE
IMI'LEMt:NTATION

RESPONSIBILITY

SIGNIFICANTUNAVOIDABLE IMP ACTS

4.2 Transportation

4.2.1 a The project sponsor sha II be required to fund a Project Applicant proportionate share of intersection improvements,·
based on the project's contribution to the impact, at
the intersection of U.S. 101 NB Ramps I Sanborn
Road. The sponsor will also pay into the City's
Traffic FeeOrdinance Fund.

4.2.1 h The project sponsor shall be required to fund a Proje~t Applicant proportionate share of intersection improvements,
based on the project's contribution to the impact, at
the intersection of Williams Road I East Laurel
Drive. The~ponsor will also pay into the City's
Traffic Fee.Ordinance Fund.

4.2.1c The project sponsor shall be required to fund a Project Applicant proportionate share of intersection improvements,
based on the project's contribution to the impact, at
the intersection of Williams Road I Gamer A venue.

The sponsor wiU also pay into the City's Traffic
Fee Ordinance Fund.
;i·. ~ --··•:t~~i, ~i!~!-'li:i;~r,i
IMPU:MENT A TION SCIIEDtJLE
Prior to the issuance of first
certificate of occupancy or first
final building permit in
Mountain Valley project.

Prior to the issuance of first
certificate of occupancy or first
final building permit in
Mountain Valley project.

Prior to the issuance of first
certificate of occupancy or first
final building permit in
Mountain Valley project.
~,.,., ..•.. ·.:~

MONITORING
RESPONSIBII.ITY
Community Development
and Public Works
Departments
Community Development
and Public Works
Departments
Community Development
and Public Works
Departments
Vl~ltWIEil

OYIOATE
Preliminary- Subjea to Re~·ision- August 21, 1998
• ~ "'1 ~ .. ~~-·'-~
Appendix E
The Mitigation Monitoring Program lists the mitigations required to be implemented by the project. Also indicated is the party responsible for making sure the mitigation is implemented; and the trigger and timing for the mitigation to be implemented. This program is provided by the analysis conducted on the Mountain Valley Precise Plan ("project") by the Environmental Impact Report preparers.

Mountain Valley Pre,c;ise Plan E-1
~----···--' L...;....J ~-~ lv"""•'" L ...... ~ ~il~k.-,,i-~ ~.dl"<lli!ll .}i-!1~'--~~ ,: ...

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT- MITIGATION MONJTOIUNG PROGRAI\·1 MITIGATION MEASIJRF.S
NIIMIJEit MEASIIItE

4.5 Air Quality

4.5.la Implement a dust control program during
constmction including watering active sites;
prohibiting grading during high winds; paving
interior roads; limiting speeds on unpaved surfaces;
replacing -ground cover in disturbed areas; reducing
dust from exposed stock piles and inactive
construction areas; sweeping streets and spilled dirt;
covering haul trucks; installing truck wheel
washers; posting the MBUAPCD telephone
complaint number; designating person(s) to oversee
dust control; and operating construction equipment
to minimize emissions.

SIGNIFICANT OUT MITIGADLE IMPACTS

4.1 L:1nd Use

4.1.3a Reri1ove Freedom Parkway and East Alisal Street
rights-of-way (approx. 110 feet each) from
agricultural production prior to initiation of grading
or constmction activities.

4.1.3h Provide an agricultural use disclosure notice to prospective home site purchasers prior to closing of
home purchase. Each notice shall be recorded, and
a notice shall he recorded for the entire project site.

4.2 Transportation

IMJ'LEMENTATION

RESI'ONSIDIUTY
Project Applicant
and/or Grading and
Construction
Contractor(s)
Project Applicant
Project Applicant
and/or subsequent
home deyeloper(s)

4.2.2 fnslall a traffic signal at the inlersection of Williams Project Applicant Road and Mountain Valley Boulevard.

Refer to Mountain Valley ETR for complete text of mitigation measure.r. 2 IMI'J.F:I\IENTATION Scm:nuu:

Grading contractor's
specifications shall include dust
control program.

Implementation of program
throughout grading and
constmction of roads, dwellings
and the park.

Prior to issuance of first grading
or building permit.

Prior to the issuance of first
ccrt ificale of occupancy or· first
final building permit in
Mountain Valley project. (Form
and content of notice shall be
subject to City approval prior lo
approval of first final
subdivision map.)
Prior to the issuance of first
certificate of occupancy or first
final building permit in
Mountain Valley project.

MONITOitJNG
RESrONSfllii.ITY
Public Works Department to
review and approve
contractor's specificalions.

Community Development
Department and Monterey
Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control District to monitor
on basis of complaints.

Community Development
Department
Community Development
Department
Public Works Department
V.:nrnt:n
fiY/DATI·:
l'rdiminary- Subject to Re••isifm- August 21. /998

MOIINTAIN VALLEY PROJECT- MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITiGATION MEASIIItES
NIII\IUEit MEASIIUE

4.2.6 Constmct a bus turnout on the project's Williams
Road frontage to meet the requirements of
Monterey-Salinas Transit.

4.3 Public Services and Utilities
IMI'I.J<:I\1ENTATION
UESI'ONSIIIII.ITY
Project Applicant

4.3.3 Complete construction of Fire Station No.5. Project Applicant to determine financing.

4.3.7 Sanitary sewer monitoring program for East Project Applicant Alisal Street sanitary sewer mainline serving
Mountain Valley to be approved by City and
funded by developer. If monitoring program
indicates that sewer flows exG:eed capacity of
pipe, issuance of building permits will cease
until adequate capacity provided by developer
under terms contained in the Mountain Valley
EIR.

4.J.H:t Install temporary slonn water si.llation/detention Pr~jcct Applicanl basin, with design subject to City approval and
discharge at a rate that will preclude any increase in
the existing rate of runoff in I 0-year storm.

4.3.8h Install permanent storm water siltation/detention Project Applicant basin (capacity of3.5 acre-feet), with discharge at a
rate that will preclude any increase in the existing
rate of runoff from the site, accounting for nmolf
from northern portions of the project site not
captured.

4.4 Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality

4.4.2 See Mitigation Measures 4.3.8a and 4.3.8b
Refer 10 Mountain Valley ElR for complete text of mitigation measures. 3 11\lru~I\IENTATtoN Scmmuu:

Prior to the issuance of first
certificate of occupancy or first
final building permit in
Mountain Valley project.

Prior to issuance of first
certificate of occupancy or first
final building inspection for any
unit in Phase 4 or above.

Prior to the issuance of 451"
building permit.

Prior to the issuance of the first
grading or building permits
Prior to issuance of building
permits for any unit in Phase 3
or above.

MONJTOIUNG
nESrONSlllJLJTY
Public Works Department,
upon approval by
Monterey-Salinas Transit.

Community Development
Department, upon advice of
Fire Department
Public Works Department
Puhlic Works Department
Public Works Department
VEIUFIEil
ll\' I OATE
Preliminary - Subject to Revision - Augusr u. I~"'
l.· •. -..,.-~ t.w....J '-:h~·L'fk'!(!~ l. \ ~: .. "··<;..i ~-l·V.-<1!1 ~o.r: ...... ~,~ MOUNTAIN VALLEYPRO.JECf- MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

MITIGATION MEASURES
NIIMIIEit MEASIIIU~

4.4.3a Obtain and comply with a NPDES General
Construction Stormwater Permit issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCil),
Central Coast Region. (Required by law)

4.4.3b Comply with all NPDES requirements in effect at
the time of project construction. (Required by law)
4A.3c The project sponsor shall ensure that the contractor installs stonn drain sediment traps in the project
vicinity as part of the installation of stonn drainage
facilities. (Required by law)

4.4.4a New wells installed to serve the proposed project shall be constructed to withdraw water from levels
below existing nitrate contamination.

4.4.4h New wells sites provided by the sponsor shall meet the minimum lot size requirements set by Alco
Water Service.

IMI'I.EMENTATION
I~ ESI'ONSIIU LITY
Project Applicant
and/or Grading
Contractor( s)
Project Applicant
and/or Grading and
Construct ion
Contractor(s)
Project Applicant
A leo Water Service;
Project Applicant
Project Applicant
Refer to Mountain Valley E/Rfor complete text of mitigation measures.

IMI'I.EI\mNTATION SCIUmliLE
Contractors' specifications
including compliance to be
submilled to Public Works
Department prior to issuance of
grading permit
Compliance throughout grading
and construction of roads,
dwellings and the park.

Contractors' specifications
including compliance to be
submilted to Public Works
Department prior to issuance of
grading permit
Compliance throughout grading
and construction of roads,
dwellings and the park.

Prior to City approval of storm
drainage design.

Well specifications to be
submitted prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Prior to Tentative Map approval.
4 MONITOIUNG
ltESI'ONSIUII.ITY
Public Works Departmentlo
review specifications.

Public Works Department to
review specifications.

Public Works Departm:enl
Public Works Department,
upon advice of A leo Water
Service
Public Works Department,
upon advice of Alco Water
Service
VERIFIEil
llY/ llATE
Preliminary- Suhjecrto Re•·isimt- Augu.•t 21. /998
. : __ .._, .. •,•,•,i,>!-:.,\.\-
>. I • .. ,: .~:1,·,~· ,011 ,,,,,._.,_,. • ~ .. , ..... ~~~~ ............. ~f....-~···~ MOUNTAIN VALLEY J•no.JECT- MITIGATION MONITORING PnOGRAM MITIGATION MEAStlRES
Ntii\IIIEit MEAS!fltE
11\IPI.EMENTA TION
lh:SI'ONSIIULITY

4.4.4c Prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor Project Applicant shall provide a monitoring well on the project site
to the satisfaction of the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency and Monterey County
Department of Health.

4.4.5 Abandon unused agricultural well(s) in accordance Project Applicant with state and county standards, or convert the
unused well(s) into monitoring wells, at the
discretion of the County Water Resources Agency.

4.7 Noise

4.7.bi

4.7.1h
Minimize noise from constmction equipment by
muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on
constmction equipment and by shrouding or
shielding impact tools.

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.

4.8 Flora and Fauma

4.8.1 Conduct preconstmction surveys for burrowing
owls in accordance with CDFG survey protocol.

Project Applicant
and/or Grading and
Construction
Contractor(s)
Project Applicant
Project Applicant to
retain a qualified
biologist
Refer to Mountain Valley EIR for complete text of mitigation measures. 5 IMI'LEI\Il£NTATION Sctn:mJI.E
Prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits.

Prior to the issuance of lirst
certificate of occupancy or first
final building permit in '
Mountain Valley project.

Throughout grading and
construction of roads, dwellings
and the park.

Prior to the start of conslruction.

No more than 30 days prior to
the issuance of grading or
building permits

MONITOIUNG

HESJ'ONSIIIIUTY
Public Works Department,
upon advice of Monterey
County Water Resources
Agency and Monterey
County Department of
lleallh
Public Works Department,
upon advice of Monterey
County Water Resources
Agency
Community Development
· Department to monitor on
basis of plan check and
complaints.

Applicant to submit report
to Community Development
Department documenting
coordination.

Biologist to submit report to
Community Development
Department documenting
absence of burrowing owls
or, if owls are present,
identifying applicable
protective measures for
constmction period.

Vt:IUFIEil

BY I DATE
Prdinoinnry- SubjL!ct to Revision-:- August 21. 1998
······•·• ~ .......... . (.t .. :-:•:•:1'~4 f .... ~' .. ,oj..

MOUNTAIN VA LLI~Y )"lRO.JECT- MITIGATION MONITOR IN(; PIWGitAl\1 MITIGATION MEASIIIU:S
Nl!MIIEit MEAStiRE

4.9 Historic and Archaeological

4.9.1 In the event that unknown prehistoric cultural
resources are discovered during subsurface
construction, land a_lteration work in the general
vicinity of the find is halted and a qualified
archaeologist is consulted immediately.
11\fi•I.I~MENTATION

RESPONSIRIUTV
Project Applicant
and/or Grading and
Construction
Contractor(s)
Refer ro Mountain Valley EIR for complete text of mitigation measures. 6

IMPLEMENTATION SCIIEIHILE
During all ground-disturbing
activities

MONJTOIUNG
JtESPONSIBII.ITV
Applicant to submit written
report to Community
Development Department
documenting presence or
absence of resources
identified during
construction.

VEJUFIEil
Oy/ DATE
Prdiminary- Subject to Revisio11- August 21. /998

Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22400 (N.C.S.)
ACCEPTANCE OF MONTE BELLA SUBDIVISION PHASE 6 PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING STREETS INTO THE CITY’S STREET SYSTEM: PALERMO DRIVE, PAVIA CIRCLE, PAVIA WAY, PISA CIRCLE, VENICE

WAY, VENICE CIRCLE, ROSSANO WAY, ROSSANO CIRCLE, CAMPANIA CIRCLE,

FREEDOM PARKWAY AND SCONBERG PARKWAY
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2003, City Council adopted Resolution No. 18392 approving the Vesting Tentative Map for the Mountain Valley Precise Plan Area (RZ 03-03 and VTM 03- 02); and
WHEREAS, Mountain Valley was renamed to Monte Bella; and WHEREAS, Phases 1, 2, 2B, 3, 4, 5A and 5B have been constructed and accepted by the City Council by resolution; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 21721 approving the subdivision improvement agreement and the Final Map for Monte Bella Subdivision Phase 6; and
WHEREAS, the Monte Bella Subdivision, Phase 6 Final Map was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Monterey County in Volume 24 of Cities and Towns at Page 63 as Tract No. 1541; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2020, a Certificate of Correction was recorded with the County of Monterey Office of the Recorder (Document No. 2020040617) which corrected “Pavia Place” to “Pavia Circle” on the recorded tract map (Volume 24 of Cities and Towns at Page 63); and WHEREAS, the public improvements required by the improvement plans entitled “Improvement Plans Monte Bella Phase 6,” approved by the City Engineer on October 1, 2019 were completed by KB Homes in substantial conformance with the approved improvement plans; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Improvement Agreement states that a Guarantee and Warranty Period of one year will remain after acceptance of the improvements by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 1806 of the California Streets and Highways Code dictates that no public street shall become a City Street until it is accepted into the City’s street system by resolution of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, the majority of the maintenance costs will be incorporated into and paid by the Monte Bella Maintenance District; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF9B14CF-65FF-498E-8D82-023E943E7944 Page | 2
WHEREAS, the project did not qualify for any exemptions to the categorial exemptions found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. On February 9, 1999 the project was determined to have significant effect on the environment and the Environmental Impact Report was prepared.

Mitigation measures were prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The findings were made pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council accepts the streets, as shown on the Monte Bella Subdivision, Phase 6 Final Map and Certificate of Correction, and street improvements into the City’s street system.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of June 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: Cromeenes, González, McShane and Mayor Craig NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Barrera, Osornio and Rocha
APPROVED:

______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: CF9B14CF-65FF-498E-8D82-023E943E7944 Attachment 4: Site Photos

FREEDOM PKWY TUSCANY BLVD PADOVA DR PARKING NOANY TIME R26 (CA) 12" X 18" S A L I N A SC A L I F O R N I A N ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT OF MEASURE SHEET TOTAL MATCH LINE "A" LEGEND SIGN CHART IS MATCH LINE "B"
(SEE SHEET 8) MATCH LINE "A" SHEET NOTES DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CITY OF SALINAS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SUPERVISOR: S A L I N A SC A L I F O R N I A DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: I:\PWTra\Construction Projects\Freedom Pkwy and Sconberg Pkwy\Freedom Pkwy and Sconberg Pkwy_Rev 1r.dwg Plot By: ANDREW EASTERLING
Plot Date: 8/10/2022 2:55 PM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE T R A F F I C ANDREW EASTERLING STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERNO. 2824 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA C IV I L NO. 69142 ANDREW EASTERLING, P.E., T.E. TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADRIANA ROBLES ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E. CITY ENGINEER JONATHAN HERNANDEZ JONATHAN HERNANDEZ TBD ANDREW EASTERLING SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN FREEDOM PKWY/SCONBERG PKWY - TUSCANY BLVD TO MONTE BELLA BLVD - 1 - 2 BIKE LANE R81 (CA) 12" X 8" ISP S A L I N A SC A L I F O R N I A N SCALE: 1" = 40'

MONTE BELLA BLVD SCONBERG PKWY PAVIA WAYL A S
NI A
S
C
A

L I F O AI N R N I L A S N A SC A L I F R O I N A

N I L A S N A SC A L I F O AI N R
N PARKING NOANY TIME R26 (CA) 12" X 18" ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT OF MEASURE SIGN CHART SHEET TOTAL MATCH LINE "B" (SEE SHEET 7) MATCH LINE "C"
MATCH LINE "C"
MATCH LINE "D"
MATCH LINE "D" 1. ALL LINES AND MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS DESIGN STANDARDS AND STANDARD PLANS (2018 EDITION). 2. REMOVAL OF ALL CONFLICTING LINES AND MARKINGS SHALL BE BY GRINDING OR PRE-APPROVED EQUAL. 3. LANE WIDTHS ARE MEASURED BETWEEN THE CENTERLINES OF EACH ADJACENT SINGLE OR DOUBLE STRIPE OR THE TOP OF CURB AS APPROPRIATE. 4. ALL PAVEMENT DELINEATION IS THERMOPLASTIC UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 5. ALL CROSSWALKS AND LIMIT LINES SHALL BE 12" WHITE LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL REFLECTIVE MARKERS SHALL BE RAISED. 7. ALL LANE STRIPING AT INTERSECTIONS WITHOUT CROSSWALKS SHALL END 10' FROM THE EXTENSION OF THE INTERSECTION CURB LINE. SHEET NOTES DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CITY OF SALINAS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SUPERVISOR: S A L I N A SC A L I F O R N I A DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: I:\PWTra\Construction Projects\Freedom Pkwy and Sconberg Pkwy\Freedom Pkwy and Sconberg Pkwy_Rev 1r.dwg Plot By: ANDREW EASTERLING
Plot Date: 8/10/2022 2:57 PM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE T R A F F I C ANDREW EASTERLING STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERNO. 2824 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA C IV I L NO. 69142 ANDREW EASTERLING, P.E., T.E. TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADRIANA ROBLES ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E. CITY ENGINEER JONATHAN HERNANDEZ JONATHAN HERNANDEZ TBD ANDREW EASTERLING SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN FREEDOM PKWY/SCONBERG PKWY - TUSCANY BLVD TO MONTE BELLA BLVD ---- 2 #### 2 BIKE LANE R81 (CA) 12" X 8" SCALE: 1" = 40' LEGEND ISISP City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-520, Version: 1
S. Filice Street Job Order Contract (JOC) Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01 Job Order Completed Under the On-Call JOC for Sidewalk Improvements; CIP 9720 Approve a Resolution to accept the S. Filice Street JOC Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01 under CIP 9720, On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements, for maintenance and responsibility.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 04, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E, P.L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: ELISE RAMIREZ, P.E, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER

JONATHAN ESTEBAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
TITLE: ACCEPTANCE OF THE S FILICE ST JOC SIDEWALK REPAIRS; COS-2022-9720-01 JOB ORDER COMPLETED UNDER THE ONCALL JOB ORDER CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS; CIP 9720
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a Resolution to accept the S Filice St JOC Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022- 9720-01 under CIP 9720, On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements, for maintenance and responsibility.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council approve a resolution to accept the S Filice St JOC Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01 under CIP 9720, On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements, for maintenance and responsibility.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On November 5, 2019, City Council approved a resolution awarding three (3) On-Call Job Order Contracts (JOC) for Sidewalk Improvements to Hemi’s Landscaping and Concrete Inc., Golz Construction Inc., and C2 Builders Inc. Each on-call contractor was awarded for a not-to-exceed maximum contract amount of $2,000,000 and a minimum contract amount of $50,000, and more specifically, each contract was awarded at the unit prices set forth and contained in their respective proposals for the On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements (Contract) of said successful bidders. Under said Contract, Hemi’s Landscape and Concrete, Inc. completed the S Filice St JOC Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01. Staff recommends accepting the completed job order for maintenance and responsibility.

BACKGROUND:

On November 5, 2019, City Council approved Resolution No. 21732 awarding three (3) On-Call Job Order Contracts for Sidewalk Improvements to Hemi’s Landscaping and Concrete Inc., Golz Construction Inc., and C2 Builders Inc.; and authorizing the Public Works Director, in consultation Page | 2
with the City Attorney, to execute amendments to the Contract and to execute future contracts for individual job orders between the City of Salinas and respective contractors. Each Contract was awarded for a not-to-exceed amount of $2,000,000 and a minimum amount of $50,000, and more specifically, each Contract was awarded at the unit prices set forth and contained in their respective proposals for the On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements of said successful bidders.

The On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements, CIP 9720, is a continuation of the City’s effort to repair and/or rehabilitate street related infrastructure in areas that are deteriorated, damaged, in need of repair, and/or to make facility upgrades to meet current state or federal requirements, more specifically Title II (ADA). The Contract allows for job orders to be assigned to the awarded contractor using unit prices provided in their respective bids.

On May 16, 2022, the S Filice St JOC sidewalk improvement project was authorized for Hemi’s Landscape and Concrete Inc. in the amount of $450,027.50. The S Filice St JOC scope of work included removal and replacement of 4,088 square feet (SF) of sidewalk and removal and replacement of 1,137 lineal feet (LF) of curb and gutter along South Filice Street between East Alisal Street and John Street. Trees removed in the parkways were unable to be replanted as the parkway contains gas and water mainlines. The City of Salinas continues to document removed tree quantities to allow for a 1:1 mitigation effort by identifying alternative locations for replanting.

Additional improvement quantities authorized during construction included 87 LF of curb and gutter for adequate drainage and 180 SF of driveway approach concrete work to replace locations where tree roots had extended beyond the sidewalk limits within the City right-of-way. These additions increased the JOC by $13,063.50 for a total contract amount of $463,091.00.

The contractor completed the original contract work, scope additions, and punchlist items on August 3, 2022. The construction methods and materials met the Project Specifications as forth by the contract documents and the JOC has been deemed complete.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301(c), Class I) because most of the work is maintenance of sidewalks.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

This project addresses the City Council’s Goals of Public Safety and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

Public Works Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Division coordinated with Public Works Forestry and Streets Divisions for update of the sidewalk log and sidewalk request list. Public Works coordinates contract execution with the Finance and Legal Departments.

Page | 3
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The maximum contract value of each On-Call Job Order Contract is $2,000,000 with a minimum contract value of $50,000.

The current total contract amount for Hemi’s Landscape and Concrete Inc. is $721,869.00.

Contract amounts were paid using CIP 9720 annual funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Completion Photo Report
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE S FILICE ST JOC SIDEWALK REPAIRS; COS2022-9720-01 JOB ORDER COMPLETED UNDER CIP 9720, ON-CALL JOB ORDER

CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND

RESPONSIBILITY
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2019, City Council awarded three (3) On-Call Job Order Contracts (JOC) for Sidewalk Improvements to Hemi’s Landscape and Concrete Inc., Golz Construction Inc., and C2 Builders Inc. through Resolution No. 21732; and WHEREAS, each On-Call Contract was awarded for a not-to-exceed maximum contract amount of $2,000,000 and a minimum contract amount of $50,000, and more specifically, each contract was awarded at the unit prices set forth and contained in their respective proposals for the On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements of said successful bidders; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2022, the S Filice St JOC Sidewalk Repairs, COS-2022-9720- 01, was authorized in the amount of $450,027.50. Job order quantities were increased and authorized during construction for a total contract amount of $463,091.00; and WHEREAS, the S Filice St JOC Sidewalk Repairs project work, additional scope, and punchlist were completed on August 03, 2022;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council hereby accepts the S Filice St JOC Sidewalk Repairs; COS-2022-9720-01 completed under CIP 9720, On-Call Job Order Contract for Sidewalk Improvements for maintenance and responsibility.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4
th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
2 ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk

CITY OF SALINAS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT – ENGINEERING DIVISION
CIP NO. 9720 JOC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
DISTRICT 2: S FILICE ST – COMPLETION PHOTO REPORT
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-527, Version: 1
Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List Approve a Resolution establishing the Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List for a three-year period.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/28/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: MEGAN HUNTER, DIRECTOR
BY: JONATHAN MOORE, SENIOR PLANNER
THROUGH: LISA BRINTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TITLE: ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVANCED PLANNING AND CURRENT

PLANNING SERVICES ON CALL LIST
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution establishing an on-call list for Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution establishing the Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List for a three-year period.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City is currently undertaking a major General Plan update and related projects and is also seeing high demand for development services. The Community Development Department needs a flexible way to quickly procure outside services to increase capacity through project management, technical skills or analysis, or serving as an extension of staff. The City released a Request for Qualifications for an On-Call List for firms providing services in two Focus Areas: Long-Range and Current Planning. This On-Call List is a pre-qualification tool and does not guarantee work or commitment to an agreement with any firm. The recommended On-Call List is provided as Exhibit “A” to the resolution.

BACKGROUND:

The City is simultaneously undertaking several major long-range planning projects and experiencing significant current planning and development interest. The City is also in the process of a major General Plan Update which includes a comprehensive update to each element, statutory updates of the Housing Element, the creation of a new Environmental Justice Element, and the concurrent preparation of the City’s first Climate Action Plan. In 2021 the Permit Center issued more than 2,400 permits with a valuation of over $94.6 million. At the same time the Community Page | 2
Development Department (CDD), the primary department for these functions, continues to experience staff turnover and vacancies. Due to limited staffing resources additional professional planning services and expertise to augment or increase internal capacity is often needed. Types of services may include managing a large project, providing technical skills or analysis on a more limited basis, as an extension of city staff reviewing applications, or a variety of other needs.

In 2021 and 2022, the City issued multiple Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for specific projects that returned unexpectedly low response rates, sometimes leading to delays in work as staff had to extend response deadlines or seek alternate paths for the provision of services and project processing. CDD desires a more flexible means of procuring consultant services through the establishment of an “On-Call” List (List) that would identify qualified firms in areas of need and help streamline the procurement process.

DISCUSSION:

Request for Qualifications
The City released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in June 2022. The RFQ (Attachment 3) sought consultants with experience in two Focus Areas: long-range (advanced) planning and current planning. It specified several subareas of service under each Focus Area and encouraged firms with general and specialized skills to apply. The RFQ stated that the List would be valid for three (3) years from the date of establishment and that the City would use this List to procure Focus Area services in accordance with the Code of Ordinances and any funding (grant) requirements.

Selection for the List does not guarantee work or a commitment to enter an agreement.

As projects are scheduled or received that require outside services, the City may provide a project scope to the consultant(s) on the List with demonstrated expertise in the services requested. The City will review, identify the best scope and budget, and will negotiate a mutually acceptable professional services agreement with the selected consultant. Depending on the compensation amount, City Council approval may be required to execute a final agreement at that time.

Consultant Selection
The City received Statements of Qualifications (Statements) from 15 firms by the July 29 deadline.

Staff from the Advanced Planning & Project Implementation, Housing and Community Development, and Current Planning reviewed the Statements for firm and personnel relevant experience and demonstrated skills in identified Focus Areas. Staff determined that 14 of the 15 firms are qualified to provide at least one service under Focus Area 1 and 12 firms are qualified to provide at least one service under Focus Area 2 (see Attachment 2 for the full List). Firms that requested consideration for only one subarea specialty are also noted on the List.

DEPARTMENT COORDINATION:

This List is specific to CDD. Multiple divisions of CDD were involved in the creation of the RFQ and review of Statements.

Page | 3
CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

While the establishment of the List has no direct impact on the Strategic Plan, it would help CDD procure services related to multiple initiatives under the 2022-2025 City Council Goals and Strategies of Economic development and Housing/Affordable Housing including Alisal Vibrancy Plan Implementation, housing production and economic development support, and the General Plan Update.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from establishing this list. The funding source(s) for requested services for future individual projects and will be identified prior to entering into an Agreement for Professional Services.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Establishing an Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List

2. Exhibit A: Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On-Call List

3. Request for Qualifications for On-Call Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services (June 2022)
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ON-CALL LIST FOR

ADVANCED PLANNING AND CURRENT PLANNING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City is simultaneously undertaking several major long-range planning projects, including a comprehensive General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, and experiencing significant current planning and development interest; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department (CDD) is the primary department for these functions; and
WHEREAS, due to limited staffing resources, additional professional planning services and expertise to augment or increase internal capacity is often needed; and WHEREAS, in seeking a way to streamline procurement for outside services CDD released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in June 2022 to establish an On-Call List (List) for Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services in two Focus Areas: Long-Range Planning (advanced) and Current Planning; and
WHEREAS, the RFQ stated selection for the On-Call List would not be a guarantee of work from the City of Salinas nor a commitment to enter into an agreement; and WHEREAS, the City would use this List for a period of three (3) years to procure Focus Area services in accordance with the Code of Ordinances and any funding (grant) requirements; and WHEREAS, the City received fifteen (15) responses, and after review, staff deemed that fourteen (14) firms demonstrated qualifying experience in Focus Area 1 and that twelve (12) firms demonstrated qualifying experience in Focus Area 2; and WHEREAS, the action of establishing the On-Call List is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b) (3) as there is no possibility that the action may have a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council establishes the On-Call List for Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services shown on Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is valid for a period of three (3) years from the date of this Resolution.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4
th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
2 APPROVED:
________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services On Call List
Firms are listed in alphabetical order. List valid for three years from date of establishment (10/04/2022).

Focus Area 1 - Long Range
 EMC Planning Group Inc.
 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. *
 Harris & Associates, Inc.
 Houseal Lavigne
 Interwest Consulting Group, Inc
 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
 Kosmont Companies *
 Metta Urban Design
 MIG, Inc.
 PlaceWorks, Inc.
 Precision Civil Engineering, Inc
 Rincon Consultants, Inc.
 RRM Design Group
 Wood Rodgers, Inc.
*Firm indicated economic/financial analysis only in Focus Area 1 Focus Area 2 – Current Planning
 EMC Planning Group Inc.
 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. *
 Harris & Associates, Inc.
 Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.
 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
 MIG, Inc.
 Page & Turnbull, Inc.**
 PlaceWorks, Inc.
 Precision Civil Engineering, Inc
 Rincon Consultants, Inc.
 RRM Design Group
 Wood Rodgers, Inc.
*Firm indicated fee analysis only in Focus Area 2
**Firm indicated historic resources planning only in Focus Area 2

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Request for Qualifications for On-Call Advanced Planning and Current Planning Services
Important Dates
Questions due: Monday, July 11
Question responses posted (no later than): Monday, July 18 Statements of Qualifications deadline: Friday, July 29
Department of Community Development
City of Salinas
65 West Alisal Street, Suite 201, Salinas, CA 93901
Contact: Jonathan Moore, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]

SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The City of Salinas (the City) is seeking to establish a list of qualified consulting firms (Consultants) to perform long-range and current planning services on an “on-call” basis.

OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND
Salinas is the largest city in the County of Monterey and serves as the county seat. Known as the “salad bowl of the world”, the community is surrounded by agricultural lands which drive its economy and shape its heritage. The city lies about 100 miles south of San Francisco and approximately 10 miles inland of the Monterey Peninsula. Salinas has grown tremendously over the past sixty years, with a population of less than 30,000 in 1960, to over 160,000 residents today. Diversity is one of Salinas’ strengths, with 75 percent of residents identifying as Hispanic/Latino.

Like many cities in California, Salinas is searching for ways to support affordable housing and living-wage jobs for its residents while adapting to climate change and the long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis. The City is in the process of a major General Plan Update, also referred to as Visión Salinas 2040. This will be a comprehensive update for each General Plan element. Sustainability and adaptation will be a big part of the General Plan Update, especially with the recent legislative requirements for the Housing and Safety Elements and a new Environmental Justice Element. Salinas is also fortunate to have significant development and business interest. In 2021 its Permit Center issued 2,410 permits with a valuation of over $94.6 million.

The City sometimes requires additional professional planning services and expertise to augment/increase internal capacity. This may be as either a technical consultant managing a project or as an extension of City staff. The City will review qualifications and create a list of oncall consultants. The City does not expect team responses will necessarily include each focus area, or expertise in every aspect of each focus area. As appropriate, the City may conduct additional competitive processes prior to awarding contracts for more specific scopes of work.

Selection for an on-call list does not guarantee work or a commitment to enter into a contract with the consultant. Once approved by City Council, the list shall be valid for a three (3) year period.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services listed under each focus area represent the types of tasks most likely to be requested, Focus Area 1

1. Long-range planning
The City is seeking consultants with long-range planning expertise at a variety of plan scales.

This potentially includes experience with General Plans, processing General Plan amendments, neighborhood/sub-area planning efforts, and specific plans. Specific topic areas may include, but are not limited to:
a. Site/land use visualization and development suitability/feasibility assessment b. Housing Element inventory updates
c. Mapping/GIS support
d. Environmental Justice element development
e. General Plan adoption support
f. Urban design and public space planning
g. Neighborhood/sub-area/corridor planning
h. Economic/financial analysis (economic/retail/housing studies, housing/infrastructure financing)
i. Zoning codes (new codes and amendments)
j. Graphic design, data visualization, and document layout Focus Area 2

2. Current planning
The City is also seeking consultants to assist City staff as needed with current planning projects.

Areas of work may include, but are not limited to:
a. Development/planning application review and processing b. Cannabis program analysis and development review
c. Historic resources planning and municipal code amendments (creation of districts and programs, alignment with state/federal law and best practices, surveying/identification of historic buildings)
d. Preparation of environmental documents and peer review e. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)/Transportation impact analysis f. Support staff in the creation of reports, response letters, and other technical administrative work
g. Fee analysis, nexus studies, other reports related to Mitigation Fee Act

RESPONSE FORMAT
In order to expedite and maintain consistency in the evaluation process, each response to this RFQ shall be organized in accordance with this section. Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated based on the criteria listed below. Submissions shall contain thorough description and analysis of the following information in the order presented below:

1. Brief Cover Letter/Letter of Introduction and Executive Summary (three page maximum) o Introduction to the consultant.
o Identification of core services/areas of expertise.
o Identification of which focus areas (or both) for which the consultant wishes to be considered.
o Indication that the consultant has the availability and time to dedicate personnel and resources necessary to provide on-call services.
o The name, title and telephone number of the prospective consultant’s designated lead contact person for communications pertaining to this Request.

2. Firm Experience and Qualifications
o A general description of the services provided by the proposer’s firm and subconsultant; the qualifications of each team member providing the requested services and their experience working with municipal departments, commissions, elected officials, and the community.
o A list of representative projects completed by the firms and individuals proposed to work on this project that best exemplify the scope of services requested in this RFQ.
o For each project reference, include the project name, the client contact, the client’s phone number and email, the dates the work was accomplished, and a brief description of the work accomplished.
o Consultant document samples for similar projects.
o A brief biography or resume of each team member.

3. Fee Structure
o A comprehensive fee schedule, including hourly rates for all positions and classifications of individuals that may be involved.
o Include similar information for any potential sub-contractor(s) if applicable. o A sample billing invoice.

4. General Contract Requirements
o Proof of Insurability. A brief statement or certificate of insurance from an acceptable insurance company setting forth that insurance coverage as required in the attached sample contract, at a minimum, will be available at the time of commencement of the project. The City reserves the right to request additional insurance coverages and amounts through the final Agreement negotiated between the City and consultant selected.
o Concurrence with contract provisions. A brief statement that the proposer concurs with the provisions of the City’s standard contract as attached to the RFQ. Under certain circumstances, and subject to the discretion of the City, some provisions of the contract may be modified upon final contract negotiations with the selected consultant.

RESPONSE SUBMITTAL
Responses shall be submitted electronically, via email attachments or links, to:

Jonathan Moore, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
All submittals shall be received Department no later than Friday, July 29, by 5:30 PM.

In addition to name and address of Consultant, include name, title, e-mail address, and telephone number of individuals within the firm authorized to commit firm to a contract, and, if other than person named above, the same information for the individual the City should contact with questions regarding the response.

INQUIRIES
Any questions regarding this RFQ may be emailed to [email protected] by Monday, July 11. All submitted questions and responses will be posted on the City website as an addenda one week after the close of the question period. No questions regarding this RFQ will be answered over the phone. Proposers that contact City personnel or City Council members after the City releases the RFQ shall be disqualified. All addenda shall become part of this RFQ. A signed copy of any addendum shall be included in the proposal.

CITY PROCESS
Responses will be evaluated to determine qualifications by a panel of City staff with relevant experience. Consultants deemed qualified shall be placed on an on-call list subject to City Council approval. Once approved by City Council, the list shall be valid for three years. As projects are scheduled or received that require outside services, the City may provide a project scope to the consultants on the approved list with demonstrated expertise in the services requested. Each consultant would then provide a scope of work and not-to-exceed cost estimate based upon their fee schedule. The City will review, identify the best scope and budget, and will negotiate a mutually acceptable professional services agreement. Depending on budget, City Council approval may be required to execute a final agreement. If the City and selected consultant are not able to reach an agreement, the City will consider the next highest ranked consultant.

The City reserves the right to request additional information from any and all prospective firms as deemed necessary by the City in order to evaluate the responses.  This process may not be used, however, as an opportunity to submit missing documentation or to make substantive revisions to the original response. Each prospective firm submitting a proposal in response to this Request for Qualifications agrees that the preparation of all materials and presentation for submittal to the City is at the prospective firm’s sole cost and expense, and the City will not, under any circumstances, be responsible for any costs or expenses incurred by a prospective firm. Selected consultants that respond to related Requests for Proposals shall be expected to follow the below Conditions and Responsibilities.

CONDITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF REQUEST

1. General Conditions. The City of Salinas reserves the right to (1) reject any or all responses, (2) waive informalities in the responses, and (3) take whatever action or make whatever decision it determines to be in the best interest of the City. All responses will remain in effect for at least sixty (60) days from the date of submission. Any contract agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Selected Consultant.

The City reserves the right to request additional information from any and all prospective firms as deemed necessary by the City in order to evaluate the responses.  This process may not be used, however, as an opportunity to submit missing documentation or to make substantive revisions to the original response.

A prospective firm may withdraw their proposal at any time prior to the date and the time which is set forth herein as the deadline for submittal of proposals.

2. Liability of Costs and Responsibility. Each prospective firm submitting a proposal in response to future Requests for Proposals (RFP) agrees that the preparation of all materials and presentation for submittal to the City is at the prospective firm’s sole cost and expense, and the City will not, under any circumstances, be responsible for any costs or expenses incurred by a prospective firm.

Prospective firms are responsible for making necessary investigations and examination of records.  Failure to do so will not act to relieve any condition of the proposed agreement or the requirements set out in the RFP.  It is mutually understood and agreed that the submission of a proposal shall be considered conclusive evidence that the prospective firm has made such examinations and investigations.  No request for modification of a proposal shall be considered after its submission on the grounds that the prospective firm was not fully informed as to any fact or condition.

The selected Consultant shall be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they possess them within their organization. The selected consultant will be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract.

3. Standard Agreement. A sample professional services agreement is attached for the proponent’s reference. It is the responsibility of the prospective consultant to be familiar with and be prepared to accept the terms of this standard contract (if awarded future services). In some instances, contract provisions can be modified after review and approval of the City during final contract negotiations. Overall, however, the provisions in this contract are those preferred by the City for the engagement of consulting services relating to the RFP. If any of the terms and conditions contained in the standard agreement are not agreeable, these should be identified specifically, otherwise it will be assumed that the Consultant is willing to enter into the agreement as it is written. Failure to identify contractual issues can be a basis for City to disqualify a consultant.

4. Insurance. Consultant shall, throughout the duration of project, maintain comprehensive general liability and property insurance covering all operations of Consultant, its agents and employees, performed in connection with the project in the amounts and in the types of coverages shown in the sample professional services agreement.

5. Non-Discrimination/Non-Preferential Treatment. The successful Consultant shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race, sex, color, age, religion, sexual orientation, actual or perceived gender identity, disability, ethnicity, or national origin, in connection with or related to the performance of City contracts.

6. Rights to Submitted Materials. All responses and related correspondence, reports, charges, schedules, exhibits and other documentation submitted with the proposal (electronically or physically) will become the property of the City and a matter of public record. All documents submitted in response to the RFP will be subject to disclosure if requested by a member of the public. There are a very limited number of narrow exceptions to these disclosure requirements.

Any information that a prospective consultant considers confidential, the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, should be submitted in a sealed envelope marked "CONFIDENTIAL; NOT PUBLIC RECORDS." During the selection process, the City will keep such information confidential and will not disclose it except as may be required under applicable law, including the California Public Records Act. This means that, depending on the nature or timing of the request, or future court decisions, that information may not remain private and may be publicly disclosed. Once the selection process is completed, the City will return this information to the Consultant if not selected. Budgets and cost proposals submitted by proposers shall not be considered confidential or proprietary and may be subject to disclosure.

7. Prohibition of Gifts. City staff and officials are subject to several legal and policy limitations regarding receipt of gifts from persons, firms, or corporations either engaged in business with the Agency, or proposing to do business with the City. The offering of any illegal gift shall be grounds to disqualify a Consultant. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Proponents and Selected Consultant should not offer any gifts or souvenirs, even of minimal value, to City officers or employees.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Professional Services Agreement template

AGREEMENT

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND __

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND [EXACT LEGAL NAME]
This Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement” and/or “Contract”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ______, 202_, between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and [EXACT LEGAL NAME], a [California corporation/limited liability company/dba/etc.] (hereinafter “Consultant”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that he, she, or it is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions.

NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant agree as follows:

TERMS

1. Scope of Service. The project contemplated and the scope of Consultant’s services are described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Term; Completion Schedule. This Agreement shall commence on [XXX], and shall terminate on [XXX], unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice.

This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties, and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

3. Compensation. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation of [or as set forth in Exhibit B]. The total amount of compensation to be paid under this Agreement shall not exceed ___

4. Billing. Consultant shall submit to City an itemized invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to City, describing its services and costs for the period covered by the invoice.

Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain:

1. A brief description of services performed;

2. The date the services were performed;

3. The number of hours spent and by whom;

4. A brief description of any costs incurred; and

5. The Consultant’s signature.

Any such invoices shall be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement.

City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that if Consultant submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant. The City shall process undisputed portion immediately.

5. Meet & Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by the City to ensure timely and adequate performance of the Agreement.

6. Additional Copies. If City requires additional copies of reports, or any other material which Consultant is required to furnish as part of the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the actual costs related to the production of such copies by Consultant.

7. Responsibility of Consultant. By executing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that the services to be provided and work to be performed under this Agreement shall be performed in a fully competent manner. By executing this Agreement, Consultant further agrees and represents to City that the Consultant possesses, or shall arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources, and facilities necessary to provide the City the services contemplated under this Agreement and that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant’s work. Consultant further agrees and represents that Consultant shall follow the current, generally accepted practices in this area to the profession to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding the projects for which the services are rendered under this Agreement.

8. Responsibility of City. To the extent appropriate to the projects to be completed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, City shall:
(A) Assist Consultant by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the projects, including but not limited to, previous reports and any other data relative to the projects. Nothing contained herein shall obligate City to incur any expense in connection with completion of studies or acquisition of information not otherwise in the possession of City.
(B) Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by Consultant, and render verbally or in writing as may be appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of Consultant.
(C) Steve Carrigan, City Manager, or his designee, shall act as City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to Consultant’s services. City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to the Consultant.
(D) Give prompt written notice to Consultant whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in a project.

9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the work to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from professional responsibility for the work performed.

10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s performance of work hereunder, including the performance of work of any of Consultant’s subcontractors or agents, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Exhibit A hereto.

12. Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all preparatory books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials including but not limited to calculation and survey notes relating to work performed for the City under this Agreement on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying at reasonable times during Consultant’s usual and customary business hours.

Consultant shall provide proper facilities to City’s representative(s) for such access and inspection.

13. Non-Assignability. It is recognized by the parties hereto that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was, and is, the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. This Agreement is personal to Consultant and shall not be assigned by it without express written approval of the City.

14. Changes to Scope of Work. City may at any time, and upon a minimum of ten (10) days written notice, seek to modify the scope of services to be provided for any project to be completed under this Agreement. Consultant shall, upon receipt of said notice, determine the impact on both time and compensation of such change in scope and notify City in writing. Upon agreement between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes.

Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the changed scope.

15. Ownership of Documents. Title to all final documents, including drawings, specifications, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf), video and audio tapes, software output, and any other materials with respect to work performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Consultant, as provided herein, for the services rendered by Consultant in connection with which they were prepared. City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant against all damages, claims, lawsuits, and losses of any kind including defense costs arising out of any use of said documents, drawings, and/or specifications on any other project without written authorization of the Consultant.

16. Termination.

1. City shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement, upon ten days written notice to Consultant, as follows:

1. If in the City’s opinion the conduct of the Consultant is such that the interest of the City may be impaired or prejudiced, or

2. For any reason whatsoever.

2. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment of such amount as fairly compensates Consultant for all work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination based upon the Consultant’s rates shown in Exhibit B and/or Section 3 of this Agreement, except that:

1. In the event of termination by the City for Consultant’s default, City shall deduct from the amount due Consultant the total amount of additional expenses incurred by City as a result of such default. Such deduction from amounts due Consultant are made to compensate City for its actual additional costs incurred in securing satisfactory performance of the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, costs of engaging another consultant(s) for such purposes. In the event that such additional expenses shall exceed amounts otherwise due and payable to Consultant hereunder, Consultant shall pay City the full amount of such expense.

3. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, Consultant shall:

1. Upon receipt of written notice of such termination promptly cease all services on this project, unless otherwise directed by City; and

2. Deliver to City all documents, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software output, video and audio tapes, and any other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such material is to be delivered to City in completed form; however, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 herein, City may condition payment for services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such material.

4. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and complete them by any means, including but not limited to, an agreement with another party.

5. The rights and remedy of the City and Consultant provided under this Section are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or appearing in any other section of this Agreement.

17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.

18. Exhibits Incorporated. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and attached to it are hereby incorporated in it by this reference. In the event there is a conflict between any of the terms of this Agreement and any of the terms of any exhibit to the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall control the respective duties and liabilities of the parties.

19. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant, while engaged in carrying out and complying with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant expressly warrants not to represent, at any time or in any manner, that Consultant is an employee or servant of the City.

20. Integration and Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing signed by both parties.

21. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.

Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in the State of California, in the County of Monterey or in the appropriate federal court with jurisdiction over the matter.

22. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.

23. Notices.
(A) Written notices to the City hereunder shall, until further notice by City, be addressed to:

City Manager
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
With a copy to:

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
(B) Written notices to the Consultant shall, until further notice by the Consultant, be addressed to:
[Contact Information for Consultant including Title, Address, Email, and Phone #] (C) The execution of any such notices by the City Manager shall be effective as to Consultant as if it were by resolution or order of the City Council, and Consultant shall not question the authority of the City Manager to execute any such notice. (D) All such notices shall either be delivered personally to the other party’s designee named above, or shall be deposited in the United States Mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage fully prepaid, and shall be effective the day following such deposit in the mail.

24. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability.

25. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and declares that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, in any manner or degree which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable local, state or federal law. Consultant further declares that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) and Salinas City Code Chapter 2A that apply to Consultant as the result of Consultant’s performance of the work or services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

26. Headings. The section headings appearing herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement.

27. Attorneys’ Fees. In case suit shall be brought to interpret or to enforce this Agreement, or because of the breach of any other covenant or provision herein contained, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to such costs as may be allowed by the Court. City’s attorneys’ fees, if awarded, shall be calculated at the market rate.

28. Non-Exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and Consultant expressly reserves the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.

29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create any obligations express or implied other than those set out herein; further, this Agreement shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto.

30. Licenses. If a license of any kind, which term is intended to include evidence of registration, is required of Consultant, its representatives, agents or subcontractors by federal, state or local law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and that any applicable bond posted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.

32. Legal Representation. Each party affirms that it has been represented, if it so chose, by legal counsel of its own choosing regarding the preparation and the negotiation of this Agreement and the matters and claims set forth herein, and that each of them has read this Agreement and is fully aware of its contents and its legal effect. Neither party is relying on any statement of the other party outside the terms set forth in this Agreement as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.

33. Joint Representation. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. No presumptions or rules of interpretation based upon the identity of the party preparing or drafting the Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be applicable or invoked.

34. Warranty of Authority. Each party represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement. Each party further represents and warrants that it has given any and all notices, and obtained any and all consents, powers, and authorities, necessary to permit it, and the persons entering into this Agreement for it, to enter into this Agreement.

35. No Waiver of Rights. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. The failure to provide notice of any breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof.

Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or any other provision. A waiver by the City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the date first written above.

CITY OF SALINAS
____________________________
Steve Carrigan
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney

CONSULTANT
___________________________________
By (Printed Name): ___________________
Its (Title): -___________________________
Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements
Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. With respect to General Liability and Professional Liability, coverage should be maintained for a minimum of five (5) years after Agreement completion.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office Form (“ISO”) CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering any auto, or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired and non-owned, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Professional Liability (also known as Errors and Omissions) insurance appropriate to the work being performed, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year.

If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Salinas requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85, or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this Agreement or the project described within this Agreement, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary coverage at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Salinas for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared by Consultant to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, Consultant shall provide coverage to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the consultant shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administrations, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:

3. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of this Agreement or the beginning of Agreement work.

4. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement of work.

5. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Agreement effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of Agreement work.

6. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable insurance language effecting coverage required by this Agreement. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all sub-consultants and/or subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from such sub-consultants and/or subcontractors.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Consultant as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Consultant of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Consultant may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.

Exhibit B- Scope of Service
[Scope of Service; Compensation]

City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-528, Version: 1
FEMA FY 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Award Acceptance Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to accept the FY 2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) in the amount of $29,225.37, for the procurement of 5 QRAE3 gas exposure monitors, and to appropriate $2,922.54 (10%) of required matching funds and execute all required agreements and related documents necessary to receive the funds.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/29/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: SALINAS FIRE DEPARTMENT
FROM: SAMUEL KLEMEK, FIRE CHIEF
TITLE: FEMA FY 2021 ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT (AFG)

AWARD ACCEPTANCE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to accept the FY 2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) in the amount of $29,225.37, for the procurement of 5 QRAE3 gas exposure monitors, and to appropriate $2,922.54 (10%) of required matching funds and execute all required agreements and related documents necessary to receive the funds.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council accept this grant award in the amount of $29,225.37 and the appropriation of matching funds in an amount not to exceed $2,922.54.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Salinas Fire Department is an all-hazard fire department required to respond to all incidents involving carbon monoxide (CO), smoke, or other alarm activations. The Fire Department only has monitors on its two trucks, which can cause delayed response times as the trucks are in only two of the City's six stations. The Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program's objective is to provide funding directly to fire departments and other organizations for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public and first responder personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. The Fire Department applied for and was awarded a grant to procure 5 QRAE3 gas exposure monitors for all apparatuses that will allow the department to respond to carbon monoxide events in an expedient manner, with the least amount of apparatus needed.

BACKGROUND:

Page | 2
As an all-hazard fire department, the SFD is required to respond to all incidents involving carbon monoxide (CO), smoke, or other alarm activations. Currently, only the two truck companies Salinas Fire owns have gas detectors capable of determining CO levels. For any calls to service requiring atmospheric monitoring, a truck company must be on the scene. This includes routine CO detector activation calls which occur in all districts within SFDs response area. Until all apparatus are outfitted with gas detection equipment, the SFD will be forced to dispatch multiple units to routine calls to service. This reduces overall city coverage, increases response times, and affects operational efficacy. If a multi-unit response is required during an ongoing CO call, additional resources may have to come from mutual-aid partners. Without rapid identification of a hazard, a CO emergency can quickly escalate without warning, threatening the safety of our most vulnerable communities. The grant award and matching funds will allow for the purchase of additional gas detectors for all frontline apparatus. This allows each engine to identify and respond to a hazardous condition independently while reducing response time.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Approving the proposed resolution will support the City Council’s Strategic Plan Goal of Public Safety.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

The Salinas Fire Department will coordinate with the Finance Department through the management of the grant and the purchasing process.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The Fire Department is requesting an appropriation of required matching funds in the amount of $2,922.54 to the Assistance to Firefighters Fund (3115).

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Award Package
1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FY 2021 ASSISTANCE

TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT AWARD AND APPROPRIATING REQUIRED LOCAL MATCH FUNDS.

WHEREAS, the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program provides funding directly to fire departments and other organizations for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public and first responder personnel against fire and fire-related hazards; and, WHEREAS, the Salinas Fire Department applied for and was granted the FY 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant in the amount of $29,225.37, for the procurement of 5 QRAE3 gas exposure monitors; and
WHEREAS, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program requires a local match of 10%, totaling $2,922.54 to be appropriated to fund 3115; and, WHEREAS, the Salinas City Council authorizes the City Manager or his designee to accept funding in the amount of $29,225.37 as administered by the City, and further authorizes the signing of all grant acceptance documents; and, WHEREAS, this authorization shall include all aspects of program operation including any amendments, extensions, renewals, or further funding for this program provided funding is made available by FEMA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Salinas City Council authorizes the City Manager or designee to accept the FY 2021 Assistance to Firefighters grant award, appropriate the 10% local funds match required to the Assistance to Firefighters Fund, and execute all required agreements and related documents necessary to receive the funds.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of October 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:

Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Award Letter
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20472
Effective date: 09/02/2022
Estefania Vargas

SALINAS, CITY OF
200 LINCOLN AVE
SALINAS, CA 93901
EMW-2021-FG-05199
Dear Estefania Vargas,
Congratulations on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. Your application submitted for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Grant funding opportunity has been approved in the amount of $29,225.37 in Federal funding. As a condition of this grant, you are required to contribute non-Federal funds equal to or greater than 10.0% of the Federal funds awarded, or $2,922.54 for a total approved budget of $32,147.91. Please see the FY 2021 AFG Notice of Funding Opportunity for information on how to meet this cost share requirement.

Before you request and receive any of the Federal funds awarded to you, you must establish acceptance of the award through the FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) system. By accepting this award, you acknowledge that the terms of the following documents are incorporated into the terms of your award:

Summary Award Memo - included in this document
Agreement Articles - included in this document
Obligating Document - included in this document
2021 AFG Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) - incorporated by reference Please make sure you read, understand, and maintain a copy of these documents in your official file for this award.

Sincerely,

PAMELA WILLIAMS
Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs
Summary Award Memo
Program: Fiscal Year 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Recipient: SALINAS, CITY OF
UEI-EFT: CHDWBL29G9Z5
DUNS number: 010919447
Award number: EMW-2021-FG-05199
Summary description of award
The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. After careful consideration, FEMA has determined that the recipient's project or projects submitted as part of the recipient's application and detailed in the project narrative as well as the request details section of the application - including budget information - was consistent with the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program's purpose and was worthy of award.

Except as otherwise approved as noted in this award, the information you provided in your application for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grants funding is incorporated into the terms and conditions of this award. This includes any documents submitted as part of the application.

Amount awarded table
The amount of the award is detailed in the attached Obligating Document for Award.

The following are the budgeted estimates for object classes for this award (including Federal share plus your cost share, if applicable):

Approved scope of work
After review of your application, FEMA has approved the below scope of work. Justifications are provided for any differences between the scope of work in the original application and the approved scope of work under this award. You must submit scope or budget revision requests for FEMA's prior approval, via an amendment request, as appropriate per 2 C.F.R. § 200.308 and the FY2021 AFG NOFO.

Approved request details:

Equipment
Object Class Total
Personnel $0.00
Fringe benefits $0.00
Travel $0.00
Equipment $32,147.91
Supplies $0.00
Contractual $0.00
Construction $0.00
Other $0.00
Indirect charges $0.00
Federal $29,225.37
Non-federal $2,922.54
Total $32,147.91
Program Income $0.00
IDLH Monitoring Equipment

DESCRIPTION
Multi-Rae Pro-Pumped (includes tax)

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
Cost 1 3 $7,757.85 $23,273.55 Equipment
IDLH Monitoring Equipment

DESCRIPTION
5 QRAE3 (includes tax)

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
Cost 1 5 $1,265.12 $6,325.60 Equipment
IDLH Monitoring Equipment

DESCRIPTION
AutoRae (includes tax) Wireless license

QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET
CLASS
Cost 1 1 $2,548.76 $2,548.76 Equipment
Agreement Articles
Program: Fiscal Year 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Recipient: SALINAS, CITY OF
UEI-EFT: CHDWBL29G9Z5
DUNS number: 010919447
Award number: EMW-2021-FG-05199
Table of contents
Article
1 Assurances, Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, Representations and Certifications
Article
2 General Acknowledgements and Assurances
Article
3 Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS
Article
4 Activities Conducted Abroad
Article
5 Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Article
6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Article
7 Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information Article
8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title VI
Article
9 Civil Rights Act of 1968
Article
10 Copyright
Article
11 Debarment and Suspension
Article
12 Drug-Free Workplace Regulations
Article
13 Duplication of Benefits
Article
14 Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education Act) – Title IX Article
15 Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Article
16 False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Article
17 Federal Debt Status
Article
18 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving Article
19 Fly America Act of 1974
Article
20 Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990
Article
21 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019 Article
22 Limited English Proficiency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI) Article
23 Lobbying Prohibitions
Article
24 National Environmental Policy Act
Article
25 Nondiscrimination in Matters Pertaining to Faith-Based Organizations Article
26 Non-Supplanting Requirement
Article
27 Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements
Article
28 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights
Article
29 Procurement of Recovered Materials
Article
30 Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Article
31 Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance Article
32 Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation
Article
33 Required Use of American Iron, Steel, Manufactured Products, and Construction Materials
Article
34 SAFECOM
Article
35 Terrorist Financing
Article
36 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA)
Article
37 Universal Identifier and System of Award Management
Article
38 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Article
39 Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags
Article
40 Whistleblower Protection Act
Article
41 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review Article
42 Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribes Article
43 Acceptance of Post Award Changes
Article
44 Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award Article
45 Prior Approval for Modification of Approved Budget
Article
46 Indirect Cost Rate
Article
47 Award Performance Goals
Article 1 Assurances, Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, Representations and Certifications
I. DHS financial assistance recipients must complete either the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 424B Assurances – NonConstruction Programs, or OMB Standard Form 424D Assurances – Construction Programs, as applicable. Certain assurances in these documents may not be applicable to your program, and the DHS financial assistance office (DHS FAO) may require applicants to certify additional assurances. Applicants are required to fill out the assurances as instructed by the awarding agency. II. DHS financial assistance recipients are required to follow the applicable provisions of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards located at Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 200 and adopted by DHS at 2 C.F.R.Part 3002. III. By accepting this agreement, recipients, and their executives, as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 170.315, certify that their policies are in accordance with OMB’s guidance located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, all applicable federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance.

Article 2 General Acknowledgements and Assurances
All recipients, subrecipients, successors, transferees, and assignees must acknowledge and agree to comply with applicable provisions governing DHS access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. I.

Recipients must cooperate with any DHS compliance reviews or compliance investigations conducted by DHS. II. Recipients must give DHS access to examine and copy records, accounts, and other documents and sources of information related to the federal financial assistance award and permit access to facilities or personnel. III. Recipients must submit timely, complete, and accurate reports to the appropriate DHS officials and maintain appropriate backup documentation to support the reports. IV. Recipients must comply with all other special reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law, or detailed in program guidance. V.

Recipients (as defined in 2 C.F.R. Part 200 and including recipients acting as pass-through entities) of federal financial assistance from DHS or one of its awarding component agencies must complete the DHS Civil Rights Evaluation Tool within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Award for the first award under which this term applies. Recipients of multiple awards of DHS financial assistance should only submit one completed tool for their organization, not per award. After the initial submission, recipients are required to complete the tool once every two (2) years if they have an active award, not every time an award is made. Recipients should submit the completed tool, including supporting materials, to
[email protected]. This tool clarifies the civil rights obligations and related reporting requirements contained in the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions. Subrecipients are not required to complete and submit this tool to DHS. The evaluation tool can be found at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-civil-rights-evaluation-tool. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will consider, in its discretion, granting an extension if the recipient identifies steps and a timeline for completing the tool. Recipients should request extensions by emailing the request to [email protected] prior to expiration of the 30-day deadline.

Article 3 Acknowledgement of Federal Funding from DHS
Recipients must acknowledge their use of federal funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposal, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

Article 4 Activities Conducted Abroad
Recipients must ensure that project activities performed outside the United States are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained.

Article 5 Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Public Law 94-135 (1975) (codified as amended at Title 42, U.S.

Code, § 6101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Article 6 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Titles I, II, and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Pub. L. 101-336 (1990) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101– 12213), which prohibits recipients from discriminating on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities.

Article 7 Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information
Recipients who collect personally identifiable information (PII) are required to have a publicly available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of the PII they collect. DHS defines PII as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual.

Recipients may also find the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments: Privacy Guidance and Privacy Template as useful resources respectively.

Article 8 Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title VI
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.), which provides that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. DHS implementing regulations for the Act are found at 6 C.F.R. Part 21 and 44 C.F.R. Part 7.

Article 9 Civil Rights Act of 1968
Recipients must comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-284, as amended through Pub. L. 113-4, which prohibits recipients from discriminating in the sale, rental, financing, and advertising of dwellings, or in the provision of services in connection therewith, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, familial status, and sex (see 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground-floor units in buildings without elevators)—be designed and constructed with certain accessible features. (See 24 C.F.R. Part 100, Subpart D.) Article 10 Copyright
Recipients must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402 and an acknowledgement of U.S. Government sponsorship (including the award number) to any work first produced under federal financial assistance awards.

Article 11 Debarment and Suspension
Recipients are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders (E.O.) 12549 and 12689, which are at 2 C.F.R. Part 180 as adopted by DHS at 2 C.F.R. Part 3002. These regulations restrict federal financial assistance awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities.

Article 12 Drug-Free Workplace Regulations
Recipients must comply with drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B (or Subpart C, if the recipient is an individual) of 2 C.F.R. Part 3001, which adopts the Government-wide implementation (2 C.F.R. Part 182) of Sec. 5152-5158 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. §§ 8101- 8106).

Article 13 Duplication of Benefits
Any cost allocable to a particular federal financial assistance award provided for in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E may not be charged to other federal financial assistance awards to overcome fund deficiencies; to avoid restrictions imposed by federal statutes, regulations, or federal financial assistance award terms and conditions; or for other reasons. However, these prohibitions would not preclude recipients from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards in accordance with existing federal statutes, regulations, or the federal financial assistance award terms and conditions.

Article 14 Education Amendments of 1972 (Equal Opportunity in Education Act) – Title IX
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318 (1972) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), which provide that no person in the United States will, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. DHS implementing regulations are codified at 6 C.F.R. Part 17 and 44 C.F.R. Part 19.

Article 15 Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Recipients must comply with the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94- 163 (1975) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 6201 et seq.), which contain policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act.

Article 16 False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Recipients must comply with the requirements of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§3729- 3733, which prohibit the submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the Federal Government. (See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801- 3812, which details the administrative remedies for false claims and statements made.)
Article 17 Federal Debt Status
All recipients are required to be non-delinquent in their repayment of any federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and benefit overpayments. (See OMB Circular A129.) Article 18 Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving Recipients are encouraged to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving as described in E.O. 13513, including conducting initiatives described in Section 3(a) of the Order when on official government business or when performing any work for or on behalf of the Federal Government.

Article 19 Fly America Act of 1974
Recipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers (air carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C.) for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974, 49 U.S.C. § 40118, and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942.

Article 20 Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990
Recipients must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded in whole or in part with federal funds complies with the fire prevention and control guidelines of Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. § 2225a
Article 21 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2019
Recipients, subrecipients, and their contractors and subcontractors are subject to the prohibitions described in section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232 (2018) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.216, 200.327, 200.471, and Appendix II to 2 C.F.R. Part 200. Beginning August 13, 2020, the statute – as it applies to DHS recipients, subrecipients, and their contractors and subcontractors – prohibits obligating or expending federal award funds on certain telecommunications and video surveillance products and contracting with certain entities for national security reasons
Article 22 Limited English Proficiency (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI) Recipients must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, which requires that recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services. For additional assistance and information regarding language access obligations, please refer to the DHS Recipient Guidance: https://www.dhs.gov/guidancepublished-help-department- supported-organizations-provide-meaningfulaccess-people-limited and additional resources on http://www.lep.gov.

Article 23 Lobbying Prohibitions
Recipients must comply with 31 U.S.C. § 1352, which provides that none of the funds provided under a federal financial assistance award may be expended by the recipient to pay any person to influence, or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any federal action related to a federal award or contract, including any extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification.

Article 24 National Environmental Policy Act
Recipients must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (NEPA) Pub. L. 91-190 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, which require recipients to use all practicable means within their authority, and consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future generations of Americans
Article 25 Nondiscrimination in Matters Pertaining to Faith-Based Organizations
It is DHS policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith-based organizations in social service programs administered or supported by DHS or its component agencies, enabling those organizations to participate in providing important social services to beneficiaries. Recipients must comply with the equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R. Part 19 and other applicable statues, regulations, and guidance governing the participations of faith- based organizations in individual DHS programs.

Article 26 Non-Supplanting Requirement
Recipients receiving federal financial assistance awards made under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that federal funds do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through non-federal sources.

Article 27 Notice of Funding Opportunity Requirements
All the instructions, guidance, limitations, and other conditions set forth in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for this program are incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions. All recipients must comply with any such requirements set forth in the program NOFO.

Article 28 Patents and Intellectual Property Rights
Recipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq, unless otherwise provided by law. Recipients are subject to the specific requirements governing the development, reporting, and disposition of rights to inventions and patents resulting from federal financial assistance awards located at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and the standard patent rights clause located at 37 C.F.R. § 401.14.

Article 29 Procurement of Recovered Materials
States, political subdivisions of states, and their contractors must comply with Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Pub. L. 89-272 (1965), (codified as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6962.) The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 C.F.R. Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition.

Article 30 Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Recipients must comply with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112 (1973), (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794,) which provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individuals in the United States will, solely by reason of the handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Article 31 Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance General Reporting Requirements: If the total value of any currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this federal award, then the recipients must comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters located at 2 C.F.R.

Part 200, Appendix XII, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions.

Article 32 Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation Reporting of first tier subawards. Recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide award term on Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation located at 2 C.F.R. Part 170, Appendix A, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions.

Article 33 Required Use of American Iron, Steel, Manufactured Products, and Construction Materials
Recipients and subrecipients must comply with the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA), which was enacted as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act §§ 70901-70927, Pub. L. No. 117-58 (2021); and Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers. See also Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Memorandum M-22-11, Initial Implementation Guidance on Application of Buy America Preference in Federal Financial Assistance Programs for Infrastructure. Recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance programs for infrastructure are hereby notified that none of the funds provided under this award may be used for a project for infrastructure unless:
(1) all iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States-- this means all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States; (2) all manufactured products used in the project are produced in the United States —this means the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product, unless another standard for determining the minimum amount of domestic content of the manufactured product has been established under applicable law or regulation; and (3) all construction materials are manufactured in the United States—this means that all manufacturing processes for the construction material occurred in the United States. The Buy America preference only applies to articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or affixed to an infrastructure project. As such, it does not apply to tools, equipment, and supplies, such as temporary scaffolding, brought to the construction site and removed at or before the completion of the infrastructure project. Nor does a Buy America preference apply to equipment and furnishings, such as movable chairs, desks, and portable computer equipment, that are used at or within the finished infrastructure project, but are not an integral part of the structure or permanently affixed to the infrastructure project. When necessary, recipients may apply for, and the agency may grant, a waiver from these requirements. (a) When the federal agency has made a determination that one of the following exceptions applies, the awarding official may waive the application of the domestic content procurement preference in any case in which the agency determines that: (1) applying the domestic content procurement preference would be inconsistent with the public interest; (2) the types of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or of a satisfactory quality; or (3) the inclusion of iron, steel, manufactured products, or construction materials produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent. A request to waive the application of the domestic content procurement preference must be in writing. The agency will provide instructions on the format, contents, and supporting materials required for any waiver request. Waiver requests are subject to public comment periods of no less than 15 days and must be reviewed by the OMB Made in America Office. There may be instances where an award qualifies, in whole or in part, for an existing waiver described. For awards by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), existing waivers are available and the waiver process is described at 'Buy America' Preference in FEMA Financial Assistance Programs for Infrastructure | FEMA.gov. For awards by other DHS components, please contact the applicable DHS FAO. To see whether a particular DHS federal financial assistance program is considered an infrastructure program and thus required to include a Buy America preference, please either contact the applicable DHS FAO, or for FEMA awards, please see Programs and Definitions: Build America, Buy America Act | FEMA.gov.

Article 34 SAFECOM
Recipients receiving federal financial assistance awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications.

Article 35 Terrorist Financing
Recipients must comply with E.O. 13224 and U.S. laws that prohibit transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. Recipients are legally responsible to ensure compliance with the Order and laws.

Article 36 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) Trafficking in Persons. Recipients must comply with the requirements of the government-wide financial assistance award term which implements Section 106 (g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 7104. The award term is located at 2 C.F.R. § 175.15, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference.

Article 37 Universal Identifier and System of Award Management Requirements for System for Award Management and Unique Entity Identifier Recipients are required to comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide financial assistance award term regarding the System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements located at 2 C.F.R. Part 25, Appendix A, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference.

Article 38 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Recipients must comply with requirements of Section 817 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175–175c.

Article 39 Use of DHS Seal, Logo and Flags
Recipients must obtain permission from their DHS FAO prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials, including use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of Coast Guard officials.

Article 40 Whistleblower Protection Act
Recipients must comply with the statutory requirements for whistleblower protections (if applicable) at 10 U.S.C § 2409, 41 U.S.C. § 4712, and 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. §§ 4304 and 4310.

Article 41 Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) Review DHS/FEMA funded activities that may require an Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) review are subject to the FEMA EHP review process. This review does not address all federal, state, and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires the recipient to comply with all federal,state and local laws. DHS/FEMA is required to consider the potential impacts to natural and cultural resources of all projects funded by DHS/FEMA grant funds, through its EHP review process, as mandated by:
the National Environmental Policy Act; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; National Flood Insurance Program regulations; and any other applicable laws and executive orders. To access the FEMA EHP screening form and instructions, go to the DHS/FEMA website. In order to initiate EHP review of your project(s), you must complete all relevant sections of this form and submit it to the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) along with all other pertinent project information. The EHP review process must be completed before funds are released to carry out the proposed project; otherwise, DHS/FEMA may not be able to fund the project due to noncompliance with EHP laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance, and if any potential archeological resources are discovered the applicant will immediately cease work in that area and notify the pass-through entity, if applicable, and DHS/FEMA.

Article 42 Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribes The DHS Standard Terms and Conditions are a restatement of general requirements imposed upon recipients and flow down to subrecipients as a matter of law, regulation, or executive order. If the requirement does not apply to Indian tribes or there is a federal law or regulation exempting its application to Indian tribes, then the acceptance by Tribes of, or acquiescence to, DHS Standard Terms and Conditions does not change or alter its inapplicability to an Indian tribe. The execution of grant documents is not intended to change, alter, amend, or impose additional liability or responsibility upon the Tribe where it does not already exist.

Article 43 Acceptance of Post Award Changes
In the event FEMA determines that changes are necessary to the award document after an award has been made, including changes to period of performance or terms and conditions, recipients will be notified of the changes in writing. Once notification has been made, any subsequent request for funds will indicate recipient acceptance of the changes to the award. Please call the FEMA/GMD Call Center at (866) 927-5646 or via email to [email protected] if you have any questions.

Article 44 Disposition of Equipment Acquired Under the Federal Award For purposes of original or replacement equipment acquired under this award by a non-state recipient or non-state subrecipients, when that equipment is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a federal awarding agency, you must request instructions from FEMA to make proper disposition of the equipment pursuant to 2 C.F.R. section 200.313. State recipients and state subrecipients must follow the disposition requirements in accordance with state laws and procedures.

Article 45 Prior Approval for Modification of Approved Budget Before making any change to the FEMA approved budget for this award, you must request prior written approval from FEMA where required by 2 C.F.R. section 200.308. For purposes of non-construction projects, FEMA is utilizing its discretion to impose an additional restriction under 2 C.F.R. section 200.308(f) regarding the transfer of funds among direct cost categories, programs, functions, or activities. Threfore, for awards with an approved budget where the federal share is greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), you may not transfer funds among direct cost categories, programs, functions, or activities without prior written approval from FEMA where the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total budget FEMA last approved. For purposes of awards that support both construction and nonconstruction work, FEMA is utilizing its discretion under 2 C.F.R. section 200.308(h)(5) to require the recipient to obtain prior written approval from FEMA before making any fund or budget transfers between the two types of work. You must report any deviations from your FEMA approved budget in the first Federal Financial Report (SF-425) you submit following any budget deviation, regardless of whether the budget deviation requires prior written approval.

Article 46 Indirect Cost Rate
2 C.F.R. section 200.211(b)(15) requires the terms of the award to include the indirect cost rate for the federal award. If applicable, the indirect cost rate for this award is stated in the budget documents or other materials approved by FEMA and included in the award file.

Article 47 Award Performance Goals
FEMA will measure the recipient’s performance of the grant by comparing the number of items requested in its application, the numbers acquired (ordered, paid, and received) within the period of performance. In order to measure performance, FEMA may request information throughout the period of performance. In its final performance report submitted at closeout, the recipient is required to report on the recipients compliance with the applicable industry, local, state and national standards described in the NOFO.

Obligating document

1.Agreement
No.

EMW-2021-FG05199

2. Amendment
No.

N/A

3. Recipient
No.
946000412

4. Type of
Action
AWARD

5. Control No.

WX00671N2022T

6. Recipient Name and
Address

SALINAS, CITY OF
200 LINCOLN AVE
SALINAS, CA 93901

7. Issuing FEMA Office and
Address
Grant Programs Directorate
500 C Street, S.W.

Washington DC, 20528-7000
1-866-927-5646

8. Payment Office and
Address
FEMA, Financial Services
Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room
723
Washington DC, 20742

9. Name of Recipient
Project Officer
Estefania Vargas
9a. Phone
No.
831-
7587260

10. Name of FEMA Project
Coordinator
Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program
10a.

Phone No.
1-866-274-
0960

11. Effective Date of
This Action
09/02/2022

12. Method of
Payment

OTHER - FEMA
GO

13. Assistance
Arrangement

COST SHARING

14. Performance
Period
09/09/2022 to
09/08/2024
Budget Period
09/09/2022 to
09/08/2024

15. Description of Action a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes)
Program
Name
Abbreviation
Assistance
Listings
No.

Accounting
Data(ACCS
Code)
Prior
Total
Award
Amount
Awarded
This
Action +
or (-)
Current
Total
Award
Cumulative
Non-Federal
Commitment
AFG 97.044
2022-F1-
GB01 -
P410-xxxx4101-D
$0.00 $29,225.37 $29,225.37 $2,922.54
Totals $0.00 $29,225.37 $29,225.37 $2,922.54
b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here:

N/A

16.FOR NON-DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO FEMA (See Block 7 for address)
This field is not applicable for digitally signed grant agreements

17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
Estefania Vargas
DATE
09/15/2022

18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
PAMELA WILLIAMS, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs DATE
09/02/2022
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#22-532, Version: 1
Amended Professional Service Agreement with Wallace Group for Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update Approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to make amendments to and restatement of a professional service agreement with Wallace Group for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update.

City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 9/29/2022
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1

CITY OF SALINAS

COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, DIRECTOR
BY: BRIAN FRUS, SENIOR ENGINEER
TITLE: AMENDED AND RESTATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SALINAS AND

WALLACE GROUP FOR THE SANITARY SEWER MASTER

PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:

A motion to 1) approve a Resolution approving an Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $633,249 between the City of Salinas and Wallace Group for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan update; 2) authorize a transfer of $45,000 from the Sewer Fund balance to the Capital Projects Fund; and 3) authorize an increase of the CIP 9008, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan appropriation in the same amount.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council approve an Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $633,249 between the City of Salinas and Wallace Group for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan update; 2) authorize a transfer of $45,000 from the Sewer Fund balance to the Capital Projects Fund; and 3) authorize an increase of the CIP 9008, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan appropriation in the same amount.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Salinas owns and operates a municipal sanitary sewer collection system for the residents and businesses within its service area. The City periodically conducts studies to plan for current and future sanitary sewage collection needs.

On February 16, 2021, the City authorized an agreement with Wallace Group to perform he Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (SSMP) update (Resolution No. 22051). Wallace Group’s total compensation for the associated services in the agreement is $588,249.

Page | 2
Over the course of conducting the SSMP study, certain tasks have been required that were not in the original scope of work. These include additional analysis of three areas outside the current city limits which required expanding the coverage of the sewer model and an increased number of flow monitoring locations. Preparation of the operation and maintenance related mapping and capital improvements. In addition, an increased level of effort to evaluate the City’s eleven (11) lift stations, significantly more than anticipated during the scope development and budgeting process, was required. The additional scope represents a net increase of $45,000 to the original agreement.

In addition, the original agreement approved by Council has expired and requires revision to the terms to extend the completion date by an additional year.

CEQA CONSIDERATION:

Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

The proposed project and agreement meet the City Council’s Strategic Plan Initiatives of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government.

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:

This project has relied on coordination between the Wastewater, GIS, Development, and Water, Waste and Energy (WWE) divisions in Public Works. WWE has coordinated the overall execution of the SSMP, with GIS supporting database update and the Wastewater Division providing valuable input to the SSMP from an operations perspective and Development which will be involved the with the impact fee nexus study.

FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:

The total increased cost for the additional scope of work in the corresponding Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement is $45,000.

A total of $588,249 have been appropriated to CIP 9008, Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement will require a transfer of an additional $45,000 to CIP 9008 (5800.50.9008-63.5400, Engineering Services) from the 6400 Sewer Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement, City of Salinas and Wallace Group for the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan update