We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIR document and look forward to your response to our comments. We would like to request that a copy of the Final EIR be forwarded to us when it has been completed. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Mike Galizio of my staff at 755-4835.
Sincerely,
~4---
Joe Lopez
Transportation Planning Supervisor
cc: Nicolas Papadakis, AMBAG
Charles Lanvood, Caltrans District 5
Douglas Quetin, MBUAPCD
(T AMC File: 9806)
8-14
' I
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER D- Joe Lopez, Transportation Agency for Monterey County (T AMC), July 2, 1998 D-1) The future intersection of Williams Road I Boronda Road would operate as follows:
Project Existing plus Project Signif. Cumul. Cumulative + Project Signif. Mitigation Volume Volume VIC LOS Impact? Volume Volume VIC LOS Impact? Measure 138 735 0.18 A No 134 869 0.27 A No n/a
"Existing" = Future Base traffic attributed to redistribution, after intersection is in operation.
This intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service, and would not be ' I adversely affected by the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
D-2) The commenter has incorrectly interpreted the text under Impact 4.2.3 on p. 4.2-18: the EIR states that no project-specific mitigation is required at the Sanborn Road I Alisal Street intersection because project traffic would not result in any degradation in level of service (existing and existing-plus-project LOS A). The EIR identifies realignment of the intersection as mitigation for a cumulative impact (degradation to LOS E), but notes that funding for this mitigation measure is not identified. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
D-3) Please see the response to Comment A-3, p. 8-5.
D-4) The first paragraph on p. 4.2-20 is revised to reflect the suggested revisions.
D-5) The second full paragraph on p. 4.2-21 is amended to include Blanco Road, South Sanborn Road, Boronda Road, Laurel Drive, Natividad Drive, Sherwood Drive, and Alisal Street as part of the CMP network.
D-6) The description of the City of Salinas Trip Reduction Ordinance on page 4.2-20, as well as Mitigation Measure 4.2.6 on p. 4.2-25, specifically address bicycle impacts and mitigation measures. The text notes the inclusion of Class II bike lanes as part of the proposed project, and mentions the possibility of including bicycle racks, lockers and other amenities; the Mountain Valley Precise Plan (Appendix D, Attachment A) states that the project would include bicycle racks at the bus stop on Williams Road, the community park site, and the elementary school site. City staff recommends that bicycle racks also be installed at Bardin Elementary School and at the permanent siltation/ detention basin, which will be available for recreational purposes much of the time.
The proposed project would conform to the Salinas Bikeways Plan by providing bicycle lanes along Freedom Parkway extension, Alisal Street extension, and Williams Road.
The inclusion of bicycle paths through the project site and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly access to park and school sites would also be consistent with, and exceed the requirements of, the Bikeways Plan.
8-15
MONTEREY COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 1208 SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93902 (408) 755-5025
June 26, 1998
Jenny Mahoney
Senior Planner, City of Salinas
Community Development Department
200 Lincoln Ave.
®
Salinas, CA 93901
SUBJECT: Mountain Valley Project
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
On June 22, 1998 the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) considered the above referenced project and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Commission offers the following comments:
Comments on Draft EIR
The Commission found that Draft EIR adequately discussed the potential aviation related noise and safety impacts associated with the project, however, the Commission wanted to be sure that the manager of the Salinas Municipal Airport be given the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR;
Comments on Project
The ALUC did not make a recommendation for either approval or denial of the project. The Commission did, however, want to make the City aware that the project is located in the Traffic Pattern Zone of the Salinas Municipal Airport as well as in the Airport Area of Influence. It should also be noted that the Cal Trans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook recommends against locating schools within the Traffic Pattern Zone.
If approved, the Commission recommends that an Avigation Easement be required on all the newly created lots as a condition of approval.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions please call me at (408) 755-5141.
se;:;;~t
Bill Hopkins
Airport Land Use Commission Staff
cc: Jim Chappell, Salinas Airport Manager
8-16
1 2
' ;
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER E- Bill Hopkins, Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, June 26, 1998 E-1) Comment noted. The airport manager was provided with a copy of the Draft EIR, and did not submit comments.
E-2) Comment noted. The EIR indicates, on p. 4.1-20, that "the entire project site thus is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone for Salinas Municipal Airport" and that the Caltrans Airport Land Use Handbook recommends "schools, hospitals and nursing homes should be avoided in traffic pattern zones unless no other feasible alternatives are available."
E-3) Comment noted. As stated on p. 4.1-8, Salinas General Plan Policy 5.7.F requires the dedication of an avigation easement for projects in the Airport Local Area of Influence, which includes a portion of the project site.
8-17
MONTEREY COUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
0 P.O. BOX 1208 SAUNAS, CAUFORNIA 93902 PLANNING: (408) 755-5025 BUILDING: (408) 755-5027 FAX (408) 755 5487 0 MONTEREY COURTHOUSE, 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD, MONTEREY. CAUFORNIA 93940 (408) 647-7620 FAX (408) 647·7877 WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR
Jenny Mahoney, Associate Urban Planner
City of Salinas Community Development Dept
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93 90 1
Subject: Schoenberg Ranch DEIR
Dear Ms. Mahoney:
July 6, 1998
This office has not received the above referenced document for review and comment.
However, we are particularly concerned that the cumulative impact analysis in the Final EIR include development potential from the Rancho San Juan Area of Development Concentration located in unincorporated Monterey County. The EIR should also assess and require as mitigation a fair share contribution to mitigate cumulative impacts on traffic.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Wes Arvig, Supervising Planner for the Inland Planning Team.
Sincerely,
~ fJ J..,l CfLl-._
William L. Phillips, Director
Planning and Building Inspection Department
BP:bf.
8-18
®
1 I
' I
i
I
I
I
MONTEREY COUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
0 P.O. BOX 1208 SAUNAS, CALIFORNIA 93902 PLANNING: (408) 755-5025 BUILDING: (408) 75>5027 FAA (<408) 755-&.487 0 MONTEREY COURTHOUSE, 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD, MONTEREY, CAUFORNIA ~ (408) 6<47-7620 FAA (<408\.6<47·7877 WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR
July 9, 1998
Jenny Mahoney
City of Salinas Community Development Dept.
200 Lincoln Ave.
Salinas, CA 93 90 1
SUBJECT: Mountain Valley Project Draft Environmental Impact Report I
1 Dear Jenny:
I
The following comments should be included as an addendum to comments sent on behalf of the County Planning and Building Inspection Department:
It appears that ofthe 661 lo~s to be developed, 102 are proposed to be inclusionary (15%). This percentage represents the minimum requirement under the County's requirement for inclusionary housing. Since the significant unavoidable impacts for this project are considerable, it would seem appropriate that a benefit associated with the production of affordable units should also be considerable.
There are few opportunities for development of a large number of units in the unincorporated area; therefore development adjacent to cities should yield the highest number of affordable units possible. The final EIR should provide more detail on the types and amount of housing that will be targeted to various income levels (very low, low, median, moderate.) Due to the great need for affordable housing in Monterey County, it is strongly urged that the percentage of affordable units be increased.
Sincerely,
JJ~h~ ~illiam L. Phillips
Director of Planning and Building Inspection
8-19
2 We look fof\vard to receiving your responses and the final EIR.
Sincerely,
~?jfr~
Arlene H. Wells
LAFCO Analyst
\\FS021GA \SYS'-DA T A \LAFC0\98\EIR Comments>LAFCO 698 Comments on Mountain Valley DElR.doc 8-22
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER G- Arlene H. Wells, Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission, June 22, 1998
G-1) As noted in Table 6-4 in the EIR, the analysis of cumulative impacts includes nearly 5,000 dwelling units approved or planned in Salinas. Approximately 850 units were completed between February 1997 and July 1998.
As can be seen in Figure 12, p. 4.2-9, with the exception of Williams Ranch, the 5,000 units included in the cumulative analysis are all in North Salinas. The project sponsor believes that there is a need for single-family affordable housing units in the predominantly renter-occupied area of east Salinas.
G-2) Comment noted. The EIR states that the eastern portion of the project site is outside the existing Sphere of Influence and that the project would require that LAFCO change the Sphere of Influence.
G-3) Mitigation Measure 4.3. 7, p. 4.3-13, states that a relief wastewater main must be constructed in East Alisal Street prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project. As stated in the text accompanying Mitigation Measure 4.3.7 on p. 4.3-14, "The current [Capital Improvement Program] shows the bypass line not being funded until2002-03. Therefore, because the existing Alisal Street sewer is at capacity, the project sponsor would be required to fund the entire cost of installing a relief main.
The City and/or other developers would reimburse the project sponsor at a later date for costs in excess of the sponsor's required fee of approximately $830,000." (The City increased the sanitary sewer surcharge to 35 percent, effective June 1, 1998, to collect additional funds towards a variety of sewer improvements needed throughout the City.) The EIR also notes, "Further study of the relief main may conclude that additional capacity exists. In this event, the Public Works Department may accordingly determine that some of the building permits could be issued prior to the completion of the relief main." The City has entered into an agreement with Kennedy Jenks Consultants to review current discharge flows. Once this study is complete, the City will be able to determine whether the information in the 1992 Sewer and Storm Drainage Master Plan is still valid.
Alternatively, the project sponsor may choose to wait to start construction until either the City constructs the relief main or the City determines, through the additional study noted, that additional capacity exists to accommodate some or all of the proposed units. 8-23
ALISAL WATER CORPORATION
®
ACaliftnioC~
dba ALCO WATER SERVICE
Robert T. Adcock
President
City of Salinas
Department of Community Development
200 Lincoln A venue
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: Mountain Valley Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 93043036
Gentlemen:
July 6, 1998
249 Williams Road
Salinas, Ca. 93905
( 408) 424- 0441
,,,, , ...
l' .·' '- ..
J:;:~ ·:.:: '<' -·
Alec Water Service has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mountain Valley Project and in particular those portions of the report dealing with water related issues.
After review of the report, Alec believes this report accurately reflects the information it provided on this project as well as the general overall water system information.
The quality of the water Alco currently provides to its customers meets all requirements for 1 potable water and is continually monitored to assure compliance with water quality standards. Water pressure throughout Alco's system also meets the pressure standards required by the California Public Utilities Commission and the State Department ofHealth Services.
Alco is prepared for the incorporation of the Mountain Valley Project into its water system and to provide water service to the project that meets all quality and quantity standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. cc: Rene Fuog
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Adcock
Vice President
8-24
8.0 Comments and Responses
LETTER H- Thomas R. Adcock, Alisal Water Corporation (Alco Water Service), July 6, 1998 H-1) Comment noted.
8-25
BRIAN FINEGAN
AND
MICHAEL D. CLING
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SIXTY WEsT .AusAL STREET, SmTE 1
PosT OFFICE Box 2058
SALINAS, CALlFO!U."l.A 93902
AREA CODE 408
SAUNAS TELEPHONE 757·3641
MOl'."TEREY TELEPHONE 375-9652
TELEFACSIMILE 757·9329
July 6, 1998
CD
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
2oo Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
Att: Ms. Jenny Mahoney
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Draft EIR for Mountain Valley Project
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Mountain Valley Project.
On behalf of the Sconberg Family Partnership (the owners of the project) I have the following comments:
1. Page 1-1, Section 1.2. To the second sentence of the second paragraph add the following words:
"but without the Mountain Valley Project."
This addition makes clearer the meaning of the No Project Alternative.
2. Page 2-4, 160-Acre Alternative. The last sentence of the third paragraph is confusing. Revise the sentence to read as follows:
"Residential water consumption and groundwater
1 pumping for residential water consumption 2
would be marginally less than with the
proposed project, but within the 200-acre
project, overall water consumption would be
incrementally greater than with the proposed
project, since less agriculture would be
removed from production."
3. Page 2-s, 160-acre Alternative. The property owner
disagree that this would be the environmentally superior 3 alternative for the following reasons:
8-26
•
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 4 additional ±40 acres in order to create a four-way interesection 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 traffic calming 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-than significant" 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 construction generated PM-10 emissions would be reduced to below the MBUAPCD's threshold of 82 pounds per day, and therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable." 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 use agricultural conversion, traffic- increased traffic at intersections, noise increased operational noise due to increased traffic, and air quality intermittent, 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 Gallo ' ay ~
Planner
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 1 .:~ -·- \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 4567e 9
/' 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 Sa- linas 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 of- ten 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· not the 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~.l-
th 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.o6 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 Ajtd ~ .-w- ~ ~ ~a
{AtL! -lit ~ 4 ~11( ~ .
. /)114- ~ o-1.-d
8-69
I ' 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-of way 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 when the same project could be placed on rolling hills two or three miles away. This is not ~ "either/or" situation. Either we have housing -or -we save our green agriculture gold mine. We 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
Natural Resource Otda~oma 3,864,455
;-.-·;:::.:'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 hous ing, 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 cross connection 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, multi family 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 multi family 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
co NOx Unit Type
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--